On Friday, Donald Trump listened as three judges from a New York federal appeals court questioned lawyers representing him and writer E. Jean Carroll. They were evaluating whether the jury that awarded Carroll $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation should have known about another accusation against Trump.

Carroll’s attorney indicated that this behavior demonstrated a recurring pattern where Trump would engage in friendly conversation with a woman before “pouncing” on them.

Trump is contesting a civil jury’s 2023 decision that found he had sexually abused Carroll decades ago in a department store and subsequently defamed her in 2022 by labeling her allegations a “con job.” Additionally, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in January for defamatory remarks made by Trump in 2019, a verdict Trump is also appealing.

During the appeal, Trump’s legal team criticized Judge Lewis Kaplan’s choice to let two other women testify about their own alleged assaults by Trump. One woman recounted an incident during a magazine interview in the mid-2000s where Trump allegedly pushed her against a wall and kissed her without consent. Another woman described a 1970s airplane encounter where Trump reportedly grabbed her breasts and attempted to kiss her during a playful tussle.

Carroll’s legal team argued that these testimonies were relevant, revealing a pattern of Trump making sudden advances toward women in semi-public settings, often followed by intense denial of any wrongdoing.

The discussions on Friday were particularly focused on the airplane incident. John Sauer, representing Trump, contended that there was no existing law prohibiting such conduct on an airplane during that period, implying it should not have been presented to the jury as support for Carroll’s claims.

Judge Susan L. Carney seemed skeptical of this argument, implying that Congress had enacted laws allowing juries to consider evidence of serious misconduct.

“I’m not convinced how the jurisdictional aspect—whether in an aircraft or under specific legal frameworks—affects what Congress intended for juries to evaluate in these cases,” Carney commented.

Sauer countered, stating that congressional statutes only permitted testimony about expressly “prohibited” behaviors, which he argued did not include sexual assault in flight.

Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to Judge Lewis Kaplan, represented Carroll and mentioned that the airplane allegation would classify as a crime under separate laws prohibiting assaults on flights. She asserted that both incidents highlighted a consistent pattern in Trump’s behavior, aligning with Carroll’s own experiences.

“He often shifted from friendly banter to suddenly ‘pouncing’ on women,” Kaplan stated. “It followed a distinct pattern of aggressive advances.”

In his appeal against the $5 million judgment, Trump’s lawyers claimed he should have been able to inform the jury about “politically motivated bias.” They argued that the jury also should not have been privy to his controversial “Access Hollywood” remarks regarding women and consent.