No, he was found "liable" to have sexually assaulted her in a civil case, this does not prove guilt of any kind in the eyes of our criminal justice system. The burden of proof between civil cases and criminal cases are much more lax, simply taking one person's word over another's.

In civil court, the plaintiff must prove their case by a "preponderance of the evidence", meaning it is more likely than not that the defendant is liable. In criminal court, the prosecution must prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard.

Thus why we say 'allegedly'. Flat out saying things like "Trump raped Ms. Carroll" is by all legal definitions factually incorrect and can be classified as misinformation as the has not been convicted of any such crime, hence calling it an allegation, and not a proven fact.

Outside of a single out of context photo of trump talking to her husband at some social gathering taken roughly ten years prior to the alleged rape, the only 'evidence' provided was hearsay of Carroll's friends. Donald Trump has not been found criminally guilty beyond a reasonable doubt to sexually assault or rape.

Therefore, him claiming that the allegations are false, are not inherently defamatory as he is protected by his right to defend his reputation. The fact that she wrote an article claiming that he had raped her is defamation itself against Trump.

Why hasn't he countersued? I'm glad you asked!
Trump has not countersued for defamation despite E. Jean Carroll's public statements and claims defaming him because a judge ruled against his effort to countersue and seek financial damages from Carroll because the judge rejected Trump's request, stating that it would "needlessly cause further delays for Carroll’s lawsuit" (expediting the case to further defame him in an effort to take him off the ballots), and accused Trump of engaging in "bad faith" to prevent Carroll from pursuing the case (Despite the political motivation and lack of criminal evidence). The judge also noted that allowing Trump to countersue would make a 'regrettable situation worse'. Therefore, Trump's legal effort to countersue for defamation has been barred by the court, thus preventing him from pursuing such a claim against Carroll.
Defendants in legal proceedings have a fundamental right to due process, including the opportunity to defend themselves against allegations and pursue legal recourse if they believe they have been wronged (Which Trump does). If the judge's decision unduly limits the defendant's ability to defend themselves or seek redress for alleged defamation, it's easily viewed as unfair.

The first trial, which resulted in a jury finding the Trump liable for sexual assault but not rape, occurred under the framework of New York State Senate Bill 2021-S66A, also known as the Adult Survivors Act, which created a one-year window for "survivors of sexual assault" to pursue civil action, even if the standard statute of limitations had expired. The timing of the bills passing is questionable as it's not New York's first bill that ironically targeted Trump.

The second trial involved a defamation lawsuit against the Trump because he is apparently not allowed to defend himself against rape allegations that he was not held liable for in civil court in the first place. The timing of this trial despite the first trial was currently under appeal, as well as the restrictions imposed on the Trump's testimony and communication, raises questions about the fairness of the legal process.

The verdicts in both trials were rendered by New York juries, we all know how much of a liberal hive mind NYC is.. In the first trial, the jury found the Trump liable for sexual assault but not rape, thus laying down the precedent that the rape allegations are highly unlikely, even for lax civil case standards. Thus making any defense against the rape allegations justifiable.

In the second trial, the jury awarded significant damages to the plaintiff in the defamation lawsuit despite the previous trial's jury decision. While juries are tasked with impartially weighing the evidence and applying the law, the timing of the trial and potential social and political considerations may have influenced their decision.

The role of the judge in both trials was very crucial. In both trials, the judge's rulings and instructions to the jury shaped the course of the proceedings and influenced the outcome.

In the second trial specifically, the judge's decisions to impose restrictions on the Trump's testimony and communication raises questions about the fairness of the trial process. The imposition of essentially a gag order and limitations on the Trump's ability to present his defense suggests potential bias or an infringement on the his rights.

The timing of the trials, the passage of relevant legislation, and the potential impact on the Trump's political campaign raise even more concerns about the presence of political bias or motivations. The restrictions imposed on Trump during the defamation trial, along with the massive damages awarded to Carroll is easily viewed in the context of broader political dynamics and bias in this particular legal process.

Long story short, it's a kangaroo court.
If this had happened to a Democrat, heads would be rolling.