to find how much. >> that is one of the points that they have to decide here. so as we have said multiple times that the verdict going to be read multiple times, and a jury in new york is going to be read here in the civil battery and defamation trial of the former president here. we are told that a short time ago, e. jean carroll has entered courtroom where she and others present and there she is arriving at the courthouse in manhattan where she and others present will hear the verdict read. that is to begin in a few seconds is here at top of the hour. of course, we will bring it to you live. let me toss to my colleagues brianna and boris here as we wait for -- well, quite a momentous decision here from the manhattan jury.

>> yes, and at any moment, we are awaiting this verdict, and obviously a huge case, and one of the many legal challenges that the former president is facing, and perhaps on the most personal of the many women that have accused him of sexual assault, and this going to court, and not a criminal case, but nonetheless, potentially accountability of the many accusations he has had against him. >> certainly will be, and what we find out, it could be critical. >> yes. >> and i want to bring in jean casarez to join us. jean, as we are awaiting what the jury is going to determine here if the former president is liable or not in this civil case. what are you looking for, and are you surprised how quickly this jury has come to a verdict? >> it has come back very quickly, and i have covered sod many sexual assault cases for cnn from harvey weinstein to bill cosby and two cases, and also in that exact courtroom

several cases including kevin spacey and when i saw the prior bad act witnesses coming in, and the other women who were not part of the actual charges, but showed that pattern of conduct and the absence of mistake, it creates a very strong case for the plaintiff as in this case or the prosecution. i mean, really an overwhelmingly strong case, and it also gives the other side which is trump's side, the avenue for appeal. when i was in the kevin spacey courtroom, and same judge, it is under the victim survivors' act, and i saw firsthand the challenges when a case is so old, because memories can be tainted, witnesses are gone, and you can't remember things, and now in this case, there was a lot of consistency though. there were not the memory lapses that there was in the kevin spacey. and kevin spacey was not found

liable for the sexual assault of a teenager back in the 1970s. but in the case, there was a lot of consistency with the witnesses. and so it is coming down to whether it comes down to whether the witnesses believe e. jean carroll, and spoke his mind, and this is what it is, but when it comes to e. jean carroll, and more likely than not this happened. >> and to your point, donald trump did not put on a defense in this trial, and of course, he did not take the opportunity to -- >> but the jury knew that from the very beginning, tacopina told the defense that our defense is in the cross-examination, and many times that is the case, and with a civil case, it is important that the defendant does not have to be in the courtroom, and there should have been a jury instruction telling the jury that in a civil case that the defendant does not have to and when someone is not in the courtroom, it makes it appear

that they don't care. >> and so much of the cross-examination was poking holes in e. jean carroll's story and what she said and even such of the description of how everything had gone down and she was in heels, and it is going to be interesting to see if the jury bought any of that. it sounds like it is entirely possible that they could have. >> and impugning her credibility throughout and implying a look for attention as often happens in the cases like this. >> and questioning her emotional state, and the date where it happened, and she did not have a precise date, and the attorneys went after her for that. we want to wring in the cnn legal analyst and former prosecutor jennifer rogers into the conversation and behind the doors here, both sides are anticipating the verdict from the jury, and both trump's attorneys are there as well as e. jean carroll we saw walk in a moment ago. jennifer, it is standing out to me that the jury got 90 minutes

instructions and deliberated for 2 1/2 hours only. what does it say to you? >> well, we will find out soon enough, but usually, if it is an uneven case if one side has much more evidence than the other side, then a quick verdict is favoring the side with the evidence. so they would find for e. jean carroll here, because that is the weight of the evidence, and maybe a juror or two stretching out the deliberation, but if nobody did that, they are going with the weight of the evidence, and that is a finding for e. jean carroll. >> and jennifer in the span of weeks then, we would have a former president indicted by manhattan district attorney of course, and the former president, and again, we don't know the outcome of this. >> we will shortly. >> but we will know, because it is being read in the courtroom, and this is remarkable context here. >> and yes, the verdict is being read right now, and the jury is in the courtroom right now, jennifer, so we should be

finding out very soon, but as jim said, potentially very remarkable here. >> well, it is takes a long time for things to make their way through the justice system civil and criminal. a lot of the investigations of course they have been under way for years now. it is kind of surprising i guess or coincidentally that they are coming to a head this summer, but we have this civil case, and another by letitia james slated for october, and one charged criminal case, and likely at least two others or maybe three coming down the pike in the next couple of months, so all of the legal troubles while taking a long time to go through the paces to get to this stage do seem to be converging on him in relatively short order here. >> and the former president has not been shy about discussing these cases on social media. in fact, a short while ago, there was a conversation about the jury potentially having

additional instructions from the judge about something that trump recently posted on social media on this case. >> he is not shy about making comments on ongoing cases in multiple instances as we have seen. >> and the verdict is being read and the jury is in the room right now. jennifer -- i just wonder what you think about -- looking at the cross-examination -- this is my question, and looking forward and obviously trump was not there, and that strategy of trying to poke holes in alleged rape victim's claims and this is something that would have been very effective even a decade ago, and maybe two decades ago. i wonder now as juries and americans are more informed about these kinds of things if

that is something that does become potentially less effective. >> i think that's true, brianna, and you are right. as the psychologist in this case testified is that as people are learning more about how victims actually react to trauma, and why it takes so long for them to come knock war and how hard it is for victims not to blame themselves and why they do, and as we learn more about that, i do think that the juries are more likely to say, it makes sense that she would behave that way, and it is not going to -- >> we have to interrupt you, jennifer, because we have to go to paula read, because the verdict has been read and she going to tell us what happened. plau? paula? >> so this jury has found that former president sexually abused e. jean carroll and they have found him liable of battery which is a form of sexual

assault and he did not rape her, but it is a form of battery and sexual assault and so this is a win for e. jean carroll, and we are hearing the individual questions and findings from this jury, but this is just in, this jury has found that former president trump did sexually abuse e. jean carroll and he is liable for battery. >> we also have the news that the jury has awarded and this is one of the several questions that they had to award is the damages and this is not criminal but civil and the punishment is financial, $2 million damages. and jennifer rogers is with us, and that i had to answer this jury and one of which is whether his conduct constituted rape, sexual abuse or forceable touching, and they came into the middle ground there sexual abuse, and what is the significance of that and how you come to that given the standard of the civil trial which is the preponderance of the evidence beyond the reasonable doubt as

you would have in a criminal case? >> well, the verdict form gave them these three choices, and it was either rape, sexual assault or unwanted touching, and any of them creates liability, but it is which one chose gave us more information of what they believed. she gave evidence of all of them. she said that he had raped her. she described what happened and said that he had actually, you know, penetrated her. but, you know, the jury may have found that was not certain enough for them. they may have found it unlikely that he would have managed physically to do that. we are not sure of course what the jury found, but the fact that they found that she was sexually abused by him, sexually assaulted by her, they believe her account, and they award damages and we will see how much, and also the possibility of punitive damages. >> jennifer standby, and we want

to go to paula reid, because the jury has made a decision on the defamation, and the second big part of this. paula? >> yes. >> the jury has found that trump's statements about her calling this a hoax has been guilty of defamation. and so, she has sued for battery and defamation and prevailed on both claims. this is not a criminal trial as you have said. this is a civil case, and the standards are lower and not beyond a reasonable doubt, it is a preponderance of the evidence on battery and this is truly a victory for e. jean carroll, and we are getting the total on damages right now. >> our understanding is $2 million in damages for the sexual abuse, and close to $3 million for defamation. we should take a moment here as we cover this, because as we

referenced a few minutes ago in the span of weeks, the former president indicted on 34 felony counts by a manhattan d.a. for hush money to stormy daniels and now found liable of a civil case for one sexual abuse of e. jean carroll and now to the tune of approaching $5 million, and this is remarkable moment of political history and we should lay it out quite clearly. >> and perhaps not the last moment in next few moments or weeks of this president facing potentially more charges in fulton county, georgia. and the council investigating his involvement in january 6th, and the classified documents case as well. so let's pivot to david aronberg who is standing by. dave, your reaction to this decision apparently more than $5

million for defamation and battery. >> yeah, i'm not surprised. now once they found that trump did it, then they are going to find that he committed defamation. because afterwards he said that she didn't do it, and she is a liar and one went with the other, but as far as the verdict, when you saw this quick verdict, it looked like a quick compromise, they said, all right, resolve it by, yeah, by splitting the baby and do the second count which is not rape, but it is something serious, and it requires the touching of a sexual or intimate part of another without that person's consent. so that is something worn as an albatross around the president's neck around the campaign. he can say that the judge was biased or the jury is biased, but at some point they will say, this is your candidate for president, because he is liable

for touching and sexual assault and defamation in new york. >> so this is not criminal, but it is civil, and so this is how much of a belief this jury has even though there are differing views in the severity of what they could have chosen. >> agreed, and getting a lot of questions from people of whether he has to register as a sex offe offender, and no. this is not a criminal matter. the statue of limitations passed several years ago for this to be a crime. the state of new york passed a special law to say we will extend the statute of limitations for a special one-year period and this is when e.g. carroll got in that window, and she did not have to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, but

by a preponderance of the evidence that more than likely trump did it, but it had to be before a unanimous jury and this is still a important verdict. >> and jean casarez, there were varying degrees to what the jury could have decided about his conduct, rape, sexual misconduct or forceable touching, what are you seeing? >> this is a victory for the defendant, but e.g. carroll described in great detail how he raped her, and she called two friends and said, he did this to me, and this is rape the friends told her, and a lot of testimony in that, and this jury did not

believe more likely than not that the rape happened. and now the prior bad act witnesses, two women who testified, they testified to sexual abuse, and this is what they testified to. and the strength of the prior bad act witnesses now, i think that is really front and center, because that is the point to show a pattern of conduct. and so those two prior bad act witnesses is what the jury went with in relation to the charge that e. jean carroll and what her charge was in sexual abuse, and it is interest, because there is a small quote, unquote win for donald trump that the jury did not believe that there was ak chaul rape and more likely than not they did not believe that occurred. >> jennifer rogers, how often do you see cases like this, allegations of sexual abuse tried in civil, in a civil court as opposed to criminally?

>> very rarely. very rarely. i mean, most people if they are going to pursue this they would go to the police and then if you were accusing someone of means perhaps after a criminal case, maybe bring a civil case, but this is highly unusual and as dave was saying earlier, it has to do with the long passage of time, and criminal charges were not available to her, and criminal charges involve a whole other entity, and the prosecutors and first, you have to convince the prosecutors to do it, and the standards are much more challenging, so this is certainly the unusual way to go about trying to vindicate a sexual assault victim. but it worked for e. jean carroll and she said all along what she wanted was the day in court, and she got it, and not only that, but she won. >> potentially she is going to leave the courthouse, and we may hear her speaking to the cameras, and so, i want to hear

something that jean casarez brought up, and that is the testimony of the two accusers who have previously accused trump of sexual assault, and they are among of cnn's accounts, some 15 accusers who said that donald trump sexually harassed them. can you talk about some of the context of these women coming forward and accusing donald trump of this over decades now of what does this victory in court in court mean for them? well, it sort of feels like the metoo movement with harvey weinstein where the first accuser is never believed and as more and more people come forward there is a snowball effect of wow, if all of these people are coming forward, then there must be something to it, and so i think that pit did help her to have the testimony of these two women, and there is a

special provision in the federal rules of evidence that allows these types of testimony in these case, so no question that it is appropriately allowed in. it is really, really crucial. the other crucial part frankly is the testimony of the two friends whom she told immediately about this, because it completely cut the legs out from under, and out of the argument that she had just made it up recently, because she didn't like his politics, and so i thought that they were very compelling witnesses, and that helped to tip the scales as well. >> to the earlier question, again, she filed the claim under the new york adult survivors' act to give a short window to allow adult survivors to bring suit against perpetrators. >> while some people would go to the police, and in the rare instances where they do, and in the particular case, you did have that act funneling some people into the civil process, and that is what we saw here in this case with e. jean carroll,

right? >> it is important, and i know that paula reid has been covering this for us, and she has some color and details from inside of the courtroom as the verdict is read. what do we know? >> so, we have learned that the jury has just been dismiss and the judge has stepped down off of the bench. it is unclear if e. jean carroll or attorneys for former president trump will speak to the press outside of the courthouse. i would not be surprised if they did so. look, i was in court earlier listening to judge instruct this jury giving them explicit instructions of the task in front of them, and it took 90 minutes describe this and they dlibed less than two hours. in and out of the court, and watching jury, it is a diverse group of people on the panel, and they were extremely attentive to all of the witnesses as was e. jean carroll's attorneys trying to establish that her account was

not only credible, but supported by the pattern of accounts of women who alleged similar accounts from president trump and also from his own words where he talked about grabbing people from "access hollywood" and also, people went through this efficiently, and also, the un unanimous consensus here, and it is going to be interesting if she addresses people and what that is, because so often trump's lawyers would press her on why she didn't scream, fight, bring it forward and she talked about the shame that she felt at the time, and how much things have changed post metoo and the reason that she is able to bring this case nearly 30 years after the fact is because new york opened a little window for people to bring these little claims even if the statute of

limitations has passed, but it is difficult to successfully bring these claims in court, because of course here, you don't have eyewitness testimony, and if you did, it would be decades' old, and so, we will see if she wants to talk about it when she comes out of court any minute. >> and expert testimony, right, that people do not often scream in situations like this, and clearly the jury took that to heart, and they believe e. jean carroll, and to catch people up on this, and we understand that the jury has decided here that in the battery and the defamation trial brought that in this court where they found trump liable for abusing carroll and defamation and damages totaling almost $5 million. it was $2 million for battery and $3 million for defamation.

>> one of the questions here was to determine whether his conduct constituted rape, sexual abuse or forceable touching, and they presented with the evidence of the preponderance of the civil and criminal trial. >> and we can't ignore the backdrop here that he is a former president running for re-election facing a slew of indic indictments and what could come forward with fulton county, georgia, and others. and from donald trump, was the strategy to have him not present counter testimony, but to use the counter examination as a defense, and i am wondering if you are thinking that donald trump may be second-guessing his attorney's strategy? >> i think that they have the right strategy there. is not much he could have done in terms of other witnesses on

his behalf, and he would have testified by himself, and donald trump would make a horrible witness. we saw from the deposition that his demeanor is all wrong on this, and he doubled down on things that he should have disavowed and that is not only the things that would be admissible for truthfulness and opening the door for other evidence that would be assaults that he could have engaged n and so it was wise to just continue on without cross-examination, and that is not to say that she won and should have won given the way that the case played out, but they had no other play, because to put him on the stand would have been disastrous. >> and to your point, there is a moment that trump was asked to look at a photograph of him near e. jean carroll who someone he said in his defense was not his type, and he identified the

person not as e. jean carroll, but as his former wife marla maples, and so to jennifer's point, you don't know what would have happened on the stand. >> and he was also asked about the former "access hollywood" tape that stars would act a certain way, and asked if he was a star. >> he said as well that men in power behaved for a million years, as i ebbremember. >> following that tape and some accusations, and you have heard the defenders of the former president say, yes, but he has never been found guilty in a court of law. and to be clear, this is a civil case and not a criminal case, but to be the point of $5 million damages and serious liabilities that the president is facing. >> and to you, attorney

aronberg, the jury was asked about compensatory damages to each claim, and how do we know what is compensatory and punitive and does that distinction matter in a case like this? >> well, it is going to be challenged on appeal, and especially with the punitive damages. i have not seen a report to break it down, but we are told $5 million combining the defamation with the sexual abuse, and not sure if there are punitive damages on that yet. and also, punitive damages can be limited in certain states unlike compensatory and we don't know that yet. back to the previous question, i agree with jennifer not much he could have done, but he could have put on an expert witness to challenge the expert witnesses that were put on from carroll, because he put on nothing, not a single bit of evidence and that is what led to his demise.

>> we have recalling part of this case is defamation, and part of the important part and arguably the most important is the jury finding liable for sexual abuse, and the second part is that he defamed e. jean carroll, and we want to play a part of the trial where he said it was a hoax. have a listen. >> now, in your true social statement on october 12, you used the word hoax. specifically, you say it is a hoax and a lie just like all of the other hoaxes that have been played on me for the past seven years. do you see that? >> yeah. >> do you recall making that statement. so i take it that what you are saying there is ms. carroll

fabricated the claim that you sexually assaulted her? >> yes, totally, 100%. one of the questions that i have to you, jennifer rogers, will she see this money or is this going to be tied nup appap -- up in appeal because it is almost $5 million, and to your point, jim, defamation because of some things like we saw in the deposition tape. >> yeah, she won't see it for a while, because it will be appealed, and he is famous for not paying his bills, and we will see if she can collect. but she has great lawyers, too, so we will see at some point she

will get her money. >> and what do you think that the appeal would look like from trump's lawyers? >> well, they have to scrub the trial record, and the appeal basis is going to be any errors that the judge made on any rulings of the evidentiary matters and the instructions to the jury and that sort of thing, so they have to pore over the record and see what they say are errors of law by the judge, and that is the main basis, and also, the appeal of saying that no reasonable jury would have found this way, and would have issued this verdict and against the weight of the evidence, and that is a long shot especially in the case where all of the evidence is on one side, and it would be hard to say that no reasonable jury would have been found this way, and so they will be looking for those errors burk nothing is standing out to me as far as the review of the trial. >> and our kara scannell came out of the court, and the primary player is e. jean

carroll, and she alleged the abuse, and so she was in the courtroom and listening. kara scannell, can you describe, and we may be hearing from her if she chooses to speak to the reporters when she leaves, but did you see a reaction from her when the verdict was read. >> the judge said that he wanted everybody to have decorum and no jumping up and down or any really verbal reaction, and everyone abided by that, and so the judge's law clerk was reading verdict and in that first count finding in carroll's favor, she had a sense of relief, and she was holding one of her attorney's hands as the verdict was being read, and you could see moments of relief, a smile come across her face. nothing was audible from her table or from trump's attorneys' table, and once the verdict was completed and the jury was escorted out, carroll had a side

hug, and trump's attorney joe tacopina walked over and shook her hand and each of the attorneys, and we are waiting for them to exit the courthouse and see if they have a statement, and she has spoke epp before about this case, and they are taking time to leave this courthouse with the ninth day of the opening arguments -- >> sorry to interrupt, but here she is exiting courtroom right now, and we will see if she has a comment. >> it does not appear she going to be speaking to the cameras, but the broad, broad smile says

it all. she is holding her attorney's hands. >> it is going to be interesting if there is a statement following this, but she did come out and so easily, she could have answered any questions that she wanted. you heard the reporters shouting questions at her as we replay the video of e. jean carroll coming out and there is no other way to put it but former president donald trump found guilty of liable of battery and defamation and $5 million in damages, but this is a victory for her today. >> this is a woman according to her sworn testimony in the

court, she has carried the burden of this for some three decades. >> and discussing the possibility of her speaking about this, in the closing moments of the trial, the judge said that he told them they could identify themselves publicly, but he said they shouldn't now or for a long time. and now, going to kara scannell, and talk to us about that moment, and what you saw. >> yeah, so as the judge came out and said that they had reached a verdict, and the clerk was reading it out and a number of questions they were asked to check a box on. as the clerk read it, and the first count went in e. jean carroll's favorite and holding her attorney's hand, and looking forward and a sense of relief on her face, and leaning forward and nodding forward as he continued to read the counts going in her favor.

he asked for no audible reaction, and so we did not hear or see anything exclamatory. and then once the judge left and the jury left, joe tacopina came over and shook her hand and the attorney's, and it was cordial, and very respectful, and so trump's attorney shaking e. jean carroll's hand. and the judge said that they could talk to the press if they wanted to, but he said that if they chose to, which he advised them not to, to not give the identity of any other jurors, and he made the jury anonymous, because he was concerned about the public statements that the

former president has said and he took a precaution in the case, and so it is up to the jurors to see if they wanted to discuss how they came to this cop collusion, jim. >> i wanted to point out that donald trump has apparently sent out a message on truth social. it is in all caps claiming not to know who e. jean carroll s and he calls verdict a disgrace and he says a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time, and the former president is clearly not thrilled of this verdict, and found him liable for roughly $5 million of damages. >> witch hunt is the phrase he has used of wrongdoing, and the not knowing someone whether it is an aide or member of the administration is also a frequent offense. jean casarez, you are with us? you have been covering this for some time. i wonder in context with jean carroll's team throughout, can you give us a sense of the

relief to this, and how she approached this coming in? >> aim sure relief and just verification that she had the courage to bring this, and that a jury believed her. it is very simple to have that emotion inside of you are right now is i am sure stunning and i am sure that she is in stock, and i'm sure that she is relishing in the moment right now, because you are right, it has been 27 years. and that is a long time. finally, because of the adult survivors' act, that is why she was even able to bring the cases, and these cases are difficult to prove as you have spoken about, but it was consistent with what she said prior bad act witnesses, her friend, and of course, they did not find him liable for the most heinous of all, the rape. but she needs to be prepared also for the appeal that is going to come, because i am sure it is going to be stringent and

what i saw by listening to this trial and reading transcripts, the defense team felt that the judge was biased in the rulings, and numerous pretrial rulings that could form the basis for appeal and one of the theories of the case was that this case continued to go forward because of financing, financing from someone in the democrat party that wanted this case to go forward because of their hatred for donald trump. the defense was allowed to depose e. jean carroll before trial to specifically ask her about that, but the judge ruled that it would not come into this trial, and there was some testimony that danced around that, but i think that will be a major issue on appeal and whether the appeal will go anywhere, we don't know, but the appeals will take a while, and harvey weinstein's conviction was appeal and it is still alive and it is going to the higher

court, because of the prior bad act witnesses who testifies and you have to be careful, because his verdict in new york could be overturned, that criminal verdict, and this is going to be coming up later this year. >> good point. i want to ask dave aronberg, and we noted that the judge was telling jurors before he dismissed them, judge lewis caplan and for his advice to them, not to identify themselves not now and not for a long time, and not identify others on the jury, because you owe that to yourselves and the other, and we explain a little bit of why, but why do you think that he said that to the jury? >> well, you know, brianna, this judge, jun dge kaplan is very careful about the no publicity, no cameras in the court, and that the names of the jurors are

concealed and that something that you will get in mob cases and mafia trials and not in a civil trial especially one involving someone who is supposed to be of, you know, high character because he is a presidential candidate, but you are seeing it here. so this judge, judge kaplan was so worried that trump supporters would attack the jury or try to tamper with the jurors that he isolated them, and he made them private just like you would do in a mob trial. now that the case is over, he is still worried about their safety which is telling you a lot about the political environment that we are in. >> great point. it is a worrisome point. he protected them, and he stepped in to protect them, because he felt a need to protect them. >> as we have seen so often with anyone who has publicly opposed to former president or even taken steps to go after him legally as we have seen with the officials in georgia and officials with the former special council or the special

council and former president at least online or playing out in real life, they are very aggressive in the defense of him. >> look, they are picked apart publicly and reputation ally, and they lives are a living hell often, and the next step is that they worry for good reason about their personal safety, and this is what the judge is saying when he says this. >> and one point that the jury had to determine, and going back to the lawyers, but they had to determine because it is a civil case and not criminal and it is preponderance of the evidence, but they did have to meet several standards and for instance on the defamation, they had to determine not just one of these things, but all of the things that the statement denying it was defamatory, and that the statement would be understood about carroll and that trump published statement itself, but the other elements that it was false and done with ma malice, right? in other words, could you speak

to more of this, jennifer rogers, while it is a civil case with a lower standard, the test to reach a liable bel verdict, a heightened standard. >> yes, jim, you are right, because e. jean carroll was a public character and so to defame a public figure is harder to do, because you have to prove if you are a public figure, and you say that someone has defamed you, you have to meet a heightened standard, because we can say things about a public figure, right. so it is a preponderance for the most part, but with a heightened state of defamation, and those statements were made when they found him liable on that defamation claim. >> this is, i think, also very unusual we should say having pass sod many years since this allegedly happened, but not allegedly, but the jury has determined that it did happen in

1996, because even though reopening the chance for people like e. jean carroll to take the case to civil court, but the fact is that it is a difficult case to prove and yet she was still able to do it, and that is significant in this case, and after so many years, she was able to make this case about a decades' old sexual assault, and that is something that you rarely see. >> especially in the face of that cross-examination from trump's attorneys, and legal experts on the air say it is a very kind of old school way to question an accuser's credibility and go after her like the emotional state for the date that it happened, and it is unusual, but at the end of the day, it is a victory for e. jean carroll. >> and if you just joining us now, you can see it in the banner, that a jury has awarded e. jean carroll near $5 million

in the case against donald trump in a battery and defamation case. we will take a short break and we will be right back.

the real secret to success? better sleep. purple is different. soft and firm, in all your right places. the gelflex grid keeps you cool, while sleep does it's scientifically proven thing. rise sharper, happier, an overnight success. wait. you're a night manager and mom and birthday cake baker? so adding “and” student might feel daunting. national university is here to support all your “ands.” national university. supporting the whole you. - [female narrator] five billion people lack access to safe surgery. thousands of children are suffering and dying from treatable causes. for 40 years, mercy ships has deployed floating hospitals to provide the free surgeries these children need.

join us. together, we can give children the hope and healing they never thought possible. it's a mission powered by love, made possible by you. give today. staaaaacccceeeyyy! i'm the sizzle in this promposal. and tonight, sparks are gonna fly. kyle? and while romeo over here is trying to look cool, things are about to heat up. uh-oh. darn it, kyle!

and if you don't have the right home insurance coverage, you could end up paying for this yourself. sorry mr. sanchez! get allstate, and be better protected from mayhem, like me. that's a hard no.

and we are following breaking news this afternoon. a verdict has just come in, in the battery and defamation trial against former president donald trump. he has been found liable with e. jean carroll al lleged he had raped her in a department store. these are pictures of her leaving a courtroom clearly happy moments ago and happy with a verdict for her. this is how it broke down. the former president being found liable for battery, for sexually

abusing e. jean carroll, and there is a measure that could have gone higher on rape, and the jury determined not to do that. they could have gone lesser, and they did not do that either. $2 million damages for that, and nearly $3 million in damages found for liable for defamation, and nearly $5 million in damages overall here. i do want to listen to some sound of her lawyers talking about what this means. >> how do you feel? >> we are very happy. >> how do you feel? how do you feel? >> jean, jean. >> you are so brave and beautiful. thank you. >> so that is a reaction and we did not hear -- that was live on the air and hard to hear initially, and that is what she said, i am very happy and smiled and walked into the car waiting to take her away. >> meantime, the former president has responded in all

caps on social media saying i have absolutely no idea who this woman is, and he calls the verdict a disgrace and calling it a continuation of the greatest witch hunt of all time. >> as brianna was noting there, it is both the liable findings, and remember it is a civil and not criminal case, and the compensatory and punitive damages amounting to close the $5 million. kara scannell has been covering trial since the beginning, and k kara, it seems that not long ago, we were talking about the jury going into deliberations, and here we are under three hours of deliberations they came to the verdict. you were in the courtroom as the verdict was read. >> sorry, i am joining you. >> we have both kara scannell and paula reid covering trial. so, give us a view from the courtroom as the viewers would benefit from that.

>> so, jim, after the judge informed parties that the jury had reached a verdict, they read through each of the charges and the jury found them, and where they found the first one in favor of e. jean carroll and the jury found that they had sexually abused carroll, she was looking straight forward holding hands of one of her attorneys and appeared to have a sense of relief. she did not have an audible reaction, because the judge asked for decorum. as the clerk continued to read through the rest of the counts which all went in her favor, including $5 million in total damages that the jury awarded her, you know, she was holding her lawyer's hands and smiling and >> just taking it all in. after the judge had dismissed the jury, said that they had their duties. we saw trump's lawyer, joe, walk over to e. jean carroll and shake her hand. he also shook the hand of her

attorneys. you know, this was a very cordial trial, despite what is at stake here, and despite the allegations. we saw that through to the finish. there was, as you know, at least amount of respect there about how this was, you know, frankly a hard-fought victory. 27 years, but also in court over these nine days of testimony and deliberations. it was a quick deliberation, just a little more than two and a half hours of the jury had this case after hearing closing arguments yesterday. a pretty quick verdict on this case. as you left, i'm told she'll have a statement coming soon. you know, certainly a big moment for her. there wasn't a ton of emotion displayed. she did show a smiling. she was happy, she did exchange aside hug with another one of your attorneys before she left the, court jim. >> paula, you have been covering not only this case but so many of the other legal challenges that the former president is facing. just a few weeks ago that he was presented with 34

indictments and manhattan, not far from the courthouse where you are right now. put this decision into the context of all the other legal cases that former president donald trump is facing. >> well, karen and i have both been covering former president trump's various legal issues for several years now. to put this in context. i mean, his private attorneys are far more concerned about the criminal case, just a few walks from here, he was charged just a few weeks ago for the first time in a criminal court. they are most concerned about what could potentially happen down in georgia with the investigation into his alleged efforts to interfere with that election. also watching very closely any potential criminal charges that could be brought by special counsel jack smith. either related to january 6th or related to the possible handling of classified documents, or efforts to obstruct that probe. again, this is a civil case. of course, they absolutely would have liked to win this

case. as kara has reported, as i reported, they did not even put on a defense here. i can tell you the lawyers in the criminal cases, the former president is facing, maybe facing, they were very concerned about him getting on the stand in this case. if you saw portions of the deposition in this case, you can see why. again, this is a civil case. ultimately, it's about liability. that comes down not to jail time, but to money. they were concerned, if he is to take the stand here, what other questions, what other issues could come up that could potentially expose him to criminal liability? in the broader scheme of all the legal threats he's facing, they were certainly worried about this. they're far more concerned about the other more imminent threats, particularly georgia, and then also the special counsel. >> let's go ahead and bring in joey jackson to join the conversation here. joey, when you look at the findings today, how significant is this? >> yeah, it's a very significant, right? i mean, courts are places where

you go to vindicate victims rights. and this was the right that miss carroll really wanted to indicate. brought the claim, of course, because of the statute of limitation that allowed her to bring forward at least the battery claim as it related to the rape because of the new york survivors, act of which i speak, a loud and permitted something that would've otherwise not been permitted to come forward in court. in addition to that, we know about the defamation claim, when you're a person who has had, you know, something stolen from you, as we heard the psychologist testify and the intrusive memories she gets. you, know what her relationships look, like what compassion looks like for her, everything else, to now go into a court of law and be savaged under cross examination, why didn't you? scream who did you tell? why didn't you write a police report? don't you hate donald trump? are you conspiring against him? after waiting all this time, and now bringing your claim in front of a nine person jury and having that jury evaluate every witness, all 11 witnesses, and

to have that jury in accord with you with respect to what happened, it has got to be a very big deal for her. remember, although we can speak about the monetary damage amount, the 5 million that -- this is what it's all about for her, as they noted in closing arguments, it is about just, that vindication and getting justice for what she felt was a significant injustice. yes? what the jury felt likewise. they said that in their civil verdict of liable of battery, as to the rate, out of the defamation, calling her a liar and a hoax. >> joey jackson, are understanding here, and you can speak better to this being a lawyer, a person is liable for sexual -- learning subjects another person to sexual contact without consent. the person would be guilty, sorry, i should say liable for rape when a person for horses sexual intercourse with another person without their consent. based on the evidence as presented, can you understand how the jury believes the evidence, met liability for

sexual abuse as opposed to rape under these circumstances? >> yeah, you could. i mean, they have to assess a lot. remember that. remember that this was many years ago in the 90s. as a result of that, miss carroll, there is no specific police report. there were two recent outcry witnesses, what are? they friends of hers who she confided in and said, hey, this happened to me. she did it contemporaneous to one it occurred. giving them the indication of when it happened, where it happened and how she felt about it happening. in addition to that, of course, and i'm speaking of the evidence, the jury weighed the access hollywood video tape as it relates to what mr. trump said he did to other women. there were two other women who came forward and said he grabbed her, engaged in inappropriate comments. i cannot parse out and precisely what the actual jury, as you know, decided ultimately. i can tell you they decided on the civil issue of liability, which is a battery, the

unwanted touching without consent, absolutely responsible for that. as a result of that, and a quick verdict, held him accountable. that's what justice and what courtrooms are for. for evidence to be aired, for accountability ultimately to take place, for everyone to have their day in court. she did, this is the result. liable of battery, liable of defamation. >> joey, as someone who covered so many of these cases, as we take a look at the breakdown of the jury, i believe this six men and three women, all nine of them had to unanimously agree on this verdict. of the moments that we learned about in testimony, which do you think, perhaps, swayed the jury the most? and obviously, we would have to wait for the actual jury to speak, out something that the judge instructed them or advise, them rather, not to do for fear of some kind of retribution. in your mind, given so much compelling testimony and cross-examination, what do you think most ways on jurors and

cases like this? >> so, it's an excellent question. i would have to say the collective way to the evidence, certainly we know miss carroll took the stand. who's on the stand for three days. subjected herself to a brutal cross-examination in which her memory was challenged, motivations were challenged, humanity was challenged, et cetera. and addition to that, you have the recent outcry witnesses who she confided in, of which i spoke. in addition to that, you have the access hollywood video, which goes to show up motivation. this is your -- you have the two additional women who said, hey, this happened today. you have this psychologist, which really gave context with respect to, hey, women don't scream. and then the event that, you know, if they do, you know, you can't evaluate or base someone's credibility upon the facts they're not shouting and screaming, addressing the police report, addressing her memory, addressing a number of things. of course, the marketing expert spoke to the actual dollar amount and how many times, how many people, up to 18 million

would've seen this. about 5 million potentially believing, right, donald trump's claims that this was a hoax, she's a liar. in answer to your question, well it's tough to pinpoint anyone thing, i think the collective way to the evidence in this case really establish her claims. she was indeed violated, violated by mr. trump. indeed, he defamed her in doing so. so, i just think the jury heard all the evidence, evaluated what they had to say before them, and rendered a conclusion, which they thought was just fair and appropriate under the circumstances. >> they listen to a lot of evidence, they listen to a lot of testimony, two accounts, those friends of hers who said she told them about this. and a lot of experts explaining why victims may behave the way they do. they appeared to have believed those witnesses that they heard from. this, is you know, very significant, here almost $5 million in damages as this jury

finds donald trump liable for sexually abusing and defaming e. jean carroll. >> the jury had to meet a lot of standards and answer a lot of questions in effect to reach that determination of liability on both the defamation and the sexual abuse here. as the graphic noted a moment ago, it had to be anonymous. the jury of nine people had to be anonymous in those decisions. >> we also have to wonder how the former president is going to approach this, what an appeal might look, like and this is just one of so many legal cases he's waging or where he's fighting as he's trying to run for president. so, a lot going on in the former presidents -- now. >> thanks to our panel and our reporters for spending your time with us this afternoon. jake tapper picks up our coverage right now. >> this is cnn breaking news. >> welcome to the lead, i'm jake