On Friday, Donald Trump attended a federal appeals court session in New York, where three judges questioned the lawyers representing both him and writer E. Jean Carroll. The judges wanted to know if the jury that awarded Carroll $5 million for sexual abuse and defamation should have been privy to a separate claim of assault against Trump.

During the hearing, Carroll’s attorney claimed Trump’s behavior followed a pattern where he would initially engage women in friendly conversation before “pouncing” on them. In contrast, Trump’s lawyer contended that this testimony was inappropriate.

While Trump is preparing for an important debate with Vice President Kamala Harris next Tuesday, he continued to criticize Carroll during a press conference after the court arguments.

He stated, “She fabricated a story entirely. I had no interest in meeting her whatsoever.”

Trump is disputing a 2023 jury decision that found he sexually abused Carroll decades ago in a department store and subsequently defamed her in 2022 by labeling her claims a “con job.” In another case, a jury awarded Carroll $83.3 million in January for defamatory remarks made by Trump in 2019. Trump is also appealing this decision.

In comments to the media, Trump asserted he has never met Carroll, questioning the relevance of a 1987 photo that shows him interacting with her and her then-husband, John Johnson.

During a deposition in 2022, Trump was shown the same photo and mistakenly identified Carroll as his ex-wife, Marla Maples, even though he had previously claimed that Carroll was not his “type.”

In court, Trump’s legal team criticized Judge Lewis Kaplan’s choice to allow testimony from two other women who also accuse Trump of assault.

One woman detailed an incident where Trump allegedly pushed her against a wall and kissed her aggressively during a magazine interview in the mid-2000s. Another woman recounted a situation in the late 1970s where Trump suddenly groped her, attempted to kiss her, and became physically aggressive with her while they sat next to each other on a plane.

Carroll’s legal team defended the significance of this testimony, arguing it illustrated a consistent pattern of Trump’s behavior in which he would suddenly approach women in public settings, apply unwanted physical contact, and then deny the accusations entirely afterward.

Was the jury justified in hearing the airplane incident?

The discussions in the Manhattan federal appeals court on Friday especially focused on the airplane incident. John Sauer, who previously served as Missouri’s solicitor general, represented Trump. He claimed that no law existed against such actions on an airplane at the time, and thus the jury should not have considered that account to support Carroll’s claims.

Judge Susan L. Carney, appointed by Obama, seemed skeptical of this argument. She noted that Congress had passed laws aiming to allow evidence concerning serious offenses.

She commented, “I’m uncertain how the specific jurisdictional issue—whether it’s an airplane or any other maritime jurisdiction—affects the conduct that Congress intended for juries to consider in these types of cases.”

Sauer replied by stating that Congress’ statutory wording only permitted testimony about “prohibited” actions, which he argued did not include sexual violence occurring in airspace.

On the other hand, Roberta Kaplan, who is not related to Judge Lewis Kaplan, represented Carroll.

There exists a distinct law addressing assaults that occur on airplanes. Lawyers representing Carroll have pointed out that the narrative, along with the allegations made during a magazine interview, bears resemblance to the claims Carroll made against Trump.

Judge Denny Chin, who was appointed by Obama, raised concerns about whether the alleged airplane incident, assuming it was a crime, closely matched Carroll’s allegations to hold relevance in her case. “The circumstances are different from previous incidents, which took place in much more private settings,” he remarked.

Kaplan acknowledged that the woman did not mention Trump taking her to a secluded area of the aircraft, but argued that the rest of the pattern “is identical.”

“He had a tendency to engage in light conversation with a woman,” Kaplan stated. “Then, unexpectedly, he would, for lack of a better term, your honors, spring into action.”

In challenging the $5 million verdict, Trump’s legal team has argued that he should have had the opportunity to inform the jury that the case was influenced by “politically motivated bias.” They further contend that the jury should not have been privy to his notorious “Access Hollywood” remarks where he discusses kissing women without their consent and how stars can grab women’s private parts.

Judge Myrna Pérez, appointed by Biden, was part of the three-judge panel that listened to the arguments presented on Friday.