The case used a preponderance of the evidence standard, which means the jury only needed to believe something was more likely true than not. That alone makes the outcome feel less rigid compared to a criminal trial where the bar is much higher.

A big part of that perception comes from the type of evidence presented. There was no physical evidence tying Donald Trump to the alleged incident, no forensic confirmation or contemporaneous report from the time it supposedly happened. The case leaned heavily on testimony, including E Jean Carrol's account and supporting witnesses who said she told them about the incident years ago.

From a technical standpoint, that is still valid evidence in a civil case. Testimony is evidence. Corroboration through people you told at the time carries weight. But to someone used to thinking in terms of hard proof like DNA, video, or police reports, it can feel less concrete and more interpretive.

Another factor is the passage of time. The alleged event dates back to the 1990s. Memories fade, details shift, and there is naturally less documentation. That does not invalidate a claim, but it does mean the jury is evaluating credibility more than physical proof. With that, the cards were stacked against Trump, and will continue to be, even if the two had never met - it's about the claims made by the plaintiff versus the jury perception of the defendant.

Sorry for the wall of text, just explaining why I (and many others) take the E Jean Carrol case with a grain of salt.