Summary
This Second Circuit order denies a petition for rehearing en banc in Carroll v. Trump, affirming a panel's decision to uphold a district court's evidentiary rulings in a civil defamation and sexual assault case. Concurring and dissenting opinions debate the proper application of Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 413-415 regarding propensity evidence, as well as the exclusion of evidence relevant to the defendant's actual malice defense. The majority emphasizes deference to the trial court's discretion and the high threshold for en banc review, while the dissent argues the panel's evidentiary holdings improperly lower standards for admitting character evidence and restrict the truth defense.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the petition for rehearing en banc satisfied Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40's requirements.
- Whether the panel's deferential review of the district court's evidentiary rulings warranted en banc reconsideration.
- Whether the panel's treatment of actual malice, character evidence under Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b), evidence under Rules 413-415, and Rule 403 presented a conflict with controlling precedent or an exceptionally important question.
Holdings
- Rehearing en banc is denied because no majority of the active judges favored rehearing and the petition did not establish a qualifying conflict with precedent or an exceptionally important question under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 40.
- Appellate courts must defer to a district court's evidentiary judgment so long as the ruling falls within the court's broad discretion and is not manifestly erroneous.
Key quotations
“a poll having been conducted and there being no majority favoring en banc review, the petition for rehearing en banc is hereby DENIED.” (141 F.4th at 366)
“Simply re-litigating a case is not an appropriate use of the en banc procedure.” (141 F.4th at 367)
Factual background
The underlying civil action concerned Carroll's allegations that Trump sexually assaulted her and later defamed her by characterizing her lawsuit as a hoax and con job. At trial, the district court admitted or excluded evidence involving the Access Hollywood recording and testimony by Jessica Leeds and Natasha Stoynoff. The panel affirmed the resulting judgment, concluding that the evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible abuse of discretion.
Procedural history
The district court for the Southern District of New York entered a civil judgment against Trump based on sexual assault and defamation claims and ruled on several evidentiary issues. The Second Circuit panel unanimously affirmed, finding no reversible abuse of discretion. After disposition of the appeal on December 30, 2024, an active judge requested a poll on rehearing en banc; the petition was denied on June 13, 2025.