Trump’s lawyers say an accuser’s sexual assault testimony should have been tossed because the incident was aboard an airplane

Carroll brought her sexual abuse lawsuit against Trump using the Adult Survivor’s Act, a New York law passed in the wake of the #MeToo movement that opened a window allowing for civil sexual misconduct claims that would otherwise be barred by the statute of limitations.

Carroll alleged that, in the mid-1990s, Trump cornered her in a dressing room of the Bergdorf Goodman’s dressing room in Manhattan, a short walk from Trump Tower. In harrowing testimony for both trials, she described how his “curved finger” penetrated her without her consent. Two of Carroll’s friends testified she told her about the incident shortly after it took place.

Trump’s lawyers have argued the verdict in the first trial should be tossed. In an appeal brief, lawyers Blanche and Bove — who also represent Trump in a slew of other cases — borrowed arguments from Harvey Weinstein’s successful appeal in his New York criminal case, who also argued accusers not part of the case shouldn’t have been allowed to testify.

Sauer argued Trump’s case was “a textbook example” of a case wrongly propped up by propensity evidence rather than Trump’s actual conduct.

“It’s a quintessential he-said-she-said case,” he said.

The judges didn’t appear to be convinced. US Circuit Court Judge Susan Carney mused about whether the verdict could stand when considering the “outcry witnesses” to who Carroll disclosed her story.

Legal experts — including Weinstein’s own lawyers — previously told BI the argument has a slim chance of success. Federal courtroom rules are more lenient when it comes to the testimony of “propensity witnesses” who help establish a pattern of behavior, particularly when it comes to civil cases.

“In these civil cases, you can certainly show a pattern, and that’s basically what’s happening, especially when you have a perpetrator with multiple alleged victims,” Marci Hamilton, a University of Pennsylvania professor who helped write the Adult Survivors Act, told BI before Friday’s arguments.

On Friday, Kaplan emphasized that the ordinary rules were followed during the trial

“Despite the prominence of this case, and the personalities involved, this is really about a routine application of federal rules of evidence,” she said.

She also jabbed at Habba’s earlier claims that she may have some kind of conflict of interest with the trial judge, US District Judge Lewis Kaplan.

“Just for the record, we are not related and he is not my mentor,” she said.

Trump is racing to clear away many of his legal problems ahead of the November presidential election, where is is facing off against Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris.

Earlier this year, Sauer won a resounding victory before the US Supreme Court in one of Trump’s criminal cases. The court recognized far-reaching presidential immunity that delivered a siginificant setback to the Washington, DC-based criminal case aginst Trump over his efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election.

Trump didn’t show up to those oral arguments, either, in part because he was in another Manhattan courtroom during a trial for a different criminal case, where a jury found him guilty of falsifying business documents as part of a different election interference scheme in 2016.

Blanche and Bove, who represent part of his team in the Manhattan criminal case, have cited the US Supreme Court ruling to fight the verdict in that case as well. New York Supreme Court Justice Juan Merchan, who presided over the trial, is expected to decide Friday whether he will once again delay Trump’s sentencing, which is scheduled for September 18.

Presidential immunity played a role in earlier court fights in the Carroll case. A Second Circuit panel previously ruled that Trump waived any presidential immunity protections and could not argue that they applied as he disparaged Carroll from the White House.

In an interview with BI after the verdict in her first trial last year, Carroll said she heard from hundreds of readers that her court verdicts gave them home that they could hold their own abusers accountable.

“They think, ‘Well, if the former President of the United States can be held liable for sexual abuse, well then maybe my stepfather, maybe my old boss, maybe my ex-boyfriend, maybe that man who lived down the street — maybe I can hold them accountable for ruining my life,'” Carroll told BI.