The jury verdict form in E. Jean Carroll’s federal lawsuits against Donald Trump was a special verdict document that broke each case into a sequence of yes-or-no questions, with dollar amounts entered only after the jury found liability. In the May 2023 trial (Carroll II), the form ran ten questions covering both battery and defamation, and the nine-person jury answered its way to a $5 million award. A separate form used in the January 2024 defamation-only trial (Carroll I) produced an $83.3 million verdict.
The Two Cases Behind Two Verdict Forms
Carroll filed two separate federal lawsuits in the Southern District of New York, and each produced its own verdict form. Carroll I, filed in 2019, alleged defamation based on statements Trump made that June. It did not include a battery claim because the statute of limitations on the underlying assault had expired.
Carroll II became possible after New York enacted the Adult Survivors Act in May 2022, which opened a one-year window for adults to file civil claims for past sexual abuse regardless of when it occurred. Carroll filed on November 24, 2022, the day the window opened, adding a battery claim for the alleged mid-1990s assault along with a defamation claim tied to a new Trump statement issued on October 12, 2022.
Carroll II went to trial first and produced the more detailed verdict form, because that jury had to evaluate both the sexual misconduct and the defamation. When Carroll I reached trial in January 2024, the earlier jury had already established that the assault occurred, so the second form dealt only with defamation damages.
Why a Special Verdict Form
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 49 lets a trial judge choose between a general verdict, where the jury simply announces who wins and how much, and a special verdict, where the jury answers specific written questions and the judge builds the judgment from those answers. The Carroll II form used the special verdict approach.
Its questions were numbered and sequential, with skip instructions attached. A “No” answer to a threshold liability question sent the jury past the related damages questions entirely. This structure prevented any award of money without a prior unanimous finding that the underlying conduct happened and caused harm. It also forced the jury to work through the alleged conduct in graduated steps rather than treat the case as all-or-nothing.
Questions 1 Through 5: The Battery Claim
The first five questions addressed the battery claim under the preponderance of the evidence standard. They asked, in descending order of severity, whether Trump had committed three categories of sexual misconduct defined by New York law.
Question 1 asked whether Trump raped Carroll. The jury answered “No.” Under New York’s Penal Law at the time of the alleged events, “rape” applied specifically to forced vaginal penetration by a penis, and the jury found that narrow definition was not met.
Question 2 asked whether Trump sexually abused Carroll. The jury answered “Yes.” The trial judge later noted that this finding implicitly meant the jury concluded Trump deliberately and forcibly penetrated Carroll’s vagina with his fingers, conduct that New York law classifies as sexual abuse rather than rape.
Question 3 asked about forcible touching. It was skipped because the jury had already found liability on the more serious sexual abuse charge.
Question 4 asked whether Carroll was injured as a result. The jury answered “Yes” and entered $2,000,000 in compensatory damages. Question 5 asked whether Trump’s conduct was willful, wanton, or showed a conscious disregard of Carroll’s rights. The jury answered “Yes” and added $20,000 in punitive damages.
The cascading design here matters. A “No” on rape did not end the battery inquiry; it moved the jury down to the next category. Only a “No” on all three categories would have skipped the damages questions.
Questions 6 Through 10: The Defamation Claim
Questions 6 through 10 addressed Trump’s October 12, 2022 statement, in which he denied Carroll’s allegations and called them a “hoax.” This portion of the form applied two different burdens of proof, which made its structure more complex than the battery section.
Question 6 used the standard civil burden and asked whether Carroll proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Trump’s statement was defamatory. The jury answered “Yes.”
Questions 7 and 8 shifted to the clear and convincing evidence standard, a higher bar demanding substantially more certainty though less than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard used in criminal trials. Because Carroll was suing a public figure, she had to prove not just that the statement was false but that Trump made it with actual malice, meaning he knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard for its truth. That heightened standard traces to the constitutional protections in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan. The jury answered “Yes” to both questions.
Question 9 asked whether Carroll was injured by the statement. The jury answered “Yes” and the form split compensatory damages into two categories: $1,000,000 for general damages such as emotional distress, and $1,700,000 specifically designated for a reputation repair program.
Question 10 asked whether Trump acted with malice, hatred, ill will, or wanton disregard for Carroll’s rights. The jury answered “Yes” and entered $280,000 in punitive damages.
The Full $5 Million Breakdown
Adding the jury’s answers together produced a $5 million award:
- Battery compensatory damages: $2,000,000
- Battery punitive damages: $20,000
- Defamation compensatory damages: $2,700,000, consisting of $1,000,000 in general damages and $1,700,000 for reputation repair
- Defamation punitive damages: $280,000
How the Carroll I Form Differed
The January 2024 Carroll I trial addressed only defamation, based on Trump’s 2019 statements. That jury awarded $83.3 million: $7.3 million for reputational harm, $11 million for emotional distress, and $65 million in punitive damages. The punitive-to-compensatory ratio was roughly 3.5 to 1, within the single-digit range the Supreme Court has treated as presumptively acceptable in due process review of large punitive awards. Juries setting punitive amounts are instructed to weigh the severity of the conduct and the defendant’s financial resources.
Unanimity and How the Form Was Certified
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 48 requires a unanimous verdict from at least six jurors in a civil case. Both Carroll trials used nine-person juries, and every answer on each form required all nine to agree.
The skip-logic instructions reinforced that requirement in a practical way: the jury could not reach a damages question without first unanimously answering the preceding liability question “Yes.” No field could be left blank except where skip instructions applied, and no dollar amount could be entered without consensus. Once every question was answered, the foreperson signed and dated the document. The completed form was handed to the court clerk and read aloud by the judge.
Either party may request that the court poll each juror individually after the verdict is announced but before the jury is discharged. If polling reveals that a juror does not actually agree with the recorded verdict, the court can send the jury back to deliberate further or order a new trial.