Justice Department Rejects E. Jean Carroll Perjury Probe, Saying New Evidence Does Not Support Additional Charges

The Justice Department has denied an investigation into whether former advice columnist E. Jean Carroll committed perjury in connection with legal proceedings stemming from her allegations that she was sexually abused by former President Donald Trump. The decision effectively ends a separate line of scrutiny focused not on the underlying allegations themselves, but on whether Carroll misstated facts under oath.

Carroll, who has accused Trump of sexual assault, has been at the center of multiple court battles. In earlier litigation, a jury found that Trump sexually abused Carroll and also determined that he defamed her. Those findings led to a damages award and further legal consequences. As that broader legal conflict continued, Carroll’s courtroom testimony became a focal point for additional investigations, including claims that she may have lied while testifying.

According to the report, the Justice Department reviewed the perjury-related matter and concluded that the evidence did not meet the threshold needed to support further action. In other words, prosecutors determined there was not a sufficient basis to pursue charges that Carroll knowingly provided false testimony under oath. The denial indicates that investigators either did not find persuasive proof of deliberate falsehood or determined that inconsistencies—if any were present—were not strong enough to satisfy the legal standard for perjury.

The Justice Department’s stance is significant because perjury investigations can be consequential even after major verdicts. A perjury case could potentially undermine aspects of a civil judgment by challenging credibility or by claiming that key sworn testimony was inaccurate. In high-profile cases involving public figures, such challenges can also fuel political controversy and legal maneuvering.

While the core issue in Carroll’s civil cases has involved the question of whether Trump abused or defamed her, the perjury inquiry represented an additional attempt to attack the reliability of Carroll’s testimony. Such efforts often claim that a witness’s statements changed over time or that details did not match other evidence. However, the Justice Department’s denial suggests that, after reviewing the record and considering the claims raised, prosecutors were not convinced that the facts demonstrated the intentional deception required for a criminal perjury charge.

The decision also reflects how prosecutorial discretion works in practice. Even when a party argues that inconsistencies exist, prosecutors must still evaluate whether those discrepancies are material and whether they were made knowingly and willfully. The Justice Department determined that the applicable standard was not met in this instance.

Carroll’s legal situation has already been under intense public attention. The civil verdicts and related proceedings have been closely watched by media, political leaders, and legal observers. Carroll’s allegations have involved detailed testimony, and the litigation has featured arguments over evidence, timelines, and the credibility of witnesses. With the Justice Department declining to pursue a perjury investigation, the legal system appears to be moving away from that particular line of potential criminal exposure.

The denial may also impact how future filings and appeals are framed. Parties can raise many issues on appeal or in other motions, but criminal perjury would have been a distinct step involving a higher burden of proof and a separate enforcement process. Without that criminal investigation, the courts will likely continue to focus primarily on civil findings and any remaining appeals or enforcement mechanisms.

In addition to the legal implications, the outcome carries broader messaging value. For Carroll, a rejection of the perjury probe suggests that federal prosecutors did not see sufficient evidence to claim she committed criminal falsehoods. For Trump and his allies, it means that one potential pathway for discrediting Carroll’s testimony through criminal scrutiny will not proceed at this time.

The reported decision underscores the challenge of transforming disputed testimony into criminal charges. Even when statements are contested in court, prosecutors must establish that the witness intended to lie, that the statements were false as a matter of fact, and that the alleged false statements were material to the proceedings. The Justice Department concluded that the facts available did not support those elements.

As a result, the case will not see a perjury investigation launched or pursued through the justice system. The ruling therefore closes out a chapter of attempts to criminally pursue Carroll over her sworn statements, at least for now. With high-stakes legal disputes and intense public scrutiny, the Department’s decision is a reminder that not every controversy about testimony becomes a criminal case.

Source: According to information attributed to the reporting outlet cited in the original article, which states that the Justice Department denied the perjury investigation into E. Jean Carroll.