Judge denies Trump’s offer to give DNA in E. Jean Carroll case, calling it delay tactic

A federal judge on Wednesday denied former President Trump’s “quid pro quo” offer to provide his DNA in a case accusing him of sexual assault, slamming it as a delay tactic.

Trump previously repelled efforts by author E. Jean Carroll — who accused Trump of raping her in the mid-1990s — to secure a DNA sample from the former president. Trump vehemently denies the assault, and Carroll wanted to test it against samples from the dress she said she wore that day.

But Trump’s attorney, Joseph Tacopina, offered last week to provide the DNA sample if Carroll agreed to provide a missing appendix from the DNA report on the dress in exchange. Carroll’s attorneys rebuffed the offer.

“There is no justification for any such deal,” ruled Judge Lewis Kaplan. “Either Ms. Carroll is obliged to supply the omitted appendix or she is not. Either Mr. Trump is obliged to provide a DNA sample or he is not. Neither is a quid pro quo for the other.”

“And the short answer to Mr Trump’s request is clear,” Kaplan added. “Mr. Trump is not entitled to the undisclosed appendix. The time for pretrial discovery in both cases is over, and Mr. Trump never previously asked for it.”

Trump’s team had argued that producing the appendix was needed for due process reasons, suggesting he needed it to prepare for trial.

Tacopina declined to comment on the ruling.

Kaplan, who was nominated by former President Clinton to the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, went on to criticize how the former president’s request would only delay the trial, which is scheduled for April.

The judge noted Trump’s previous attempts to delay the litigation and wrote that he is only now bringing up the request after discovery closed, despite knowing about the missing appendix for months.

“It is entirely clear that granting Mr. Trump’s request would be only the first step in introducing a complicated new subject into this case that both sides elected not to pursue over a period of years,” Kaplan wrote.

Carroll, a longtime columnist for Elle magazine, first sued Trump for defamation for statements he made about the alleged incident, which Carroll’s attorneys argue cast doubt on her credibility and demeaned her appearance. The alleged defamation includes a 2019 interview with The Hill in which Trump said Carroll was “totally lying” and “not my type.”

That case will likely turn on whether Trump’s statements were made within the scope of his employment as president, which would effectively protect him from the lawsuit. 

The dispute remains unresolved in the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, but Kaplan has allowed the proceedings to move forward as the parties await the decision.

Carroll also filed a second lawsuit against Trump in November for the alleged assault itself once a New York law took effect that temporarily lifted the statute of limitations. Carroll also added a new allegation of defamation that occurred after Trump’s time in office.

Trump’s attorneys have attempted to throw out the second suit by arguing the law is invalid under the New York Constitution’s due process protections and that Carroll’s claim of defamation does not meet the legal standard for relief.

Kaplan denied Trump’s request to dismiss the suit last month, allowing the case to move forward.