Did Trump Defame ‘Central Park Five’ During Presidential Debate?

HARLEM, NY – The Central Park Five, who today prefer to be known as the Exonerated Five, are still guilty of a crime they did not commit – at least according to former President Donald Trump.

At Tuesday night’s debate with Vice President Kamala Harris, Trump said the following, according to a transcript released by ABC News, which moderated the event:

This is the most divisive presidency in the history of our country. There's never been anything like it. They're destroying our country. And they come up with things like what she just said going back many, many years when a lot of people including Mayor Bloomberg agreed with me on the Central Park Five. They admitted -- they said, they pled guilty. And I said, well, if they pled guilty they badly hurt a person, killed a person ultimately. And if they pled guilty -- then they pled we're not guilty.

Beyond ‘Not Guilty’

The Central Park Five is a phrase that refers to five black and brown teenagers – Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Korey Wise, and Yusef Salaam – who were convicted in the brutal assault and rape of a white female jogger in Central Park in 1989.

At the time, each of the young men – except for Salaam – reportedly “made statements or open confessions about Meili’s attack, implicating themselves or each other,” according to ABC News.

The victim, Trisha Meili – who has been publicly identified for many years – survived, despite grievous injuries, and testified in court at the time. Although she had no memory of the incident, she described what she wore that night, as well as her normal running routine.

The Central Park Five pleaded not guilty and were convicted, and each spent years behind bars. One of them, Korey Wise, was incarcerated for more than 13 years.

In 2002, Matias Reyes, a convicted serial rapist and murderer, confessed that he – alone – had committed the crime for which the Central Park Five had been convicted. DNA evidence additionally linked Reyes to the crime, and the Central Park Five were exonerated.

"Exonerated" typically means that a person has been officially cleared of blame, suggesting that they did not commit the crime. In a legal sense, it's more than just being found "not guilty": while a "not guilty" verdict means there wasn't enough evidence to convict, exoneration usually comes later – often following the emergence of new evidence – and indicates legal innocence.

The city settled with the Central Park Five for $41 million in 2014, in an agreement that included unusual language asserting that “police and prosecutors did nothing wrong at the time,” according to the New York Times.

'I So Wish The Case Hadn't Been Settled'

In a major interview with ABC News in 2019, Meili, who at the time reportedly worked with survivors of sexual assault, brain injuries, and other trauma, expressed reservations.

"I so wish the case hadn't been settled," Meili told 20/20, referring to the 2014 settlement.

"I wish that it had gone to court because there's a lot of information that's now being released that I'm seeing for the first time.”

Some officials – including police and prosecutors – agreed, and a few experts involved with the case reportedly said there was medical evidence that supports the theory that individuals aside from Reyes were involved in the incident.

Furthermore, each member of the Central Park Five – Salaam excepted – did reportedly confess or implicate themselves or others in the attack, statements which they have said were extracted under duress.

‘Let’s Remember’

At Tuesday’s debate, it was Vice President Harris who first mentioned the Central Park Five:

I mean honestly, I think it's a tragedy that we have someone who wants to be president who has consistently over the course of his career attempted to use race to divide the American people…Let's remember, this is the same individual who took out a full-page ad in The New York Times calling for the execution of five young Black and Latino boys who were innocent, the Central Park Five. Took out a full-page ad calling for their execution.

While Trump did not directly call for the execution of the Central Park Five, he did take out full-page ads in the city’s major newspapers after the incident, one of which began “BRING BACK THE DEATH PENALTY.”

Defamation?

In 2019, writer E. Jean Carroll sued Trump for sexually abusing her in a department store changing room in 1996. Although Trump maintains his innocence, a jury found in 2023 that Trump did sexually abuse Carroll, and awarded her $5 million in damages.

More recently, Carroll sued Trump for defamation, after he called her a liar for accusing him of sexually assaulting her. She prevailed in court – and won $83 million in damages.

What about the Central Park Five?

Patch spoke with a legal expert, who asked to remain anonymous given the sensitivity of the subject.

“[Trump’s comments] are clearly defamatory in their content, as a general matter,” they said.

But whether or not Trump could be on the hook for defamation is a separate question.

“If Salaam did not in fact confess, he might have a strong case,” the expert said. “The other four, they could probably even go to trial. It [hinges] on whether they could actually prove that there’s clear and convincing evidence that Trump was reckless.”

Legally speaking, recklessness is a more extreme standard than its synonym, negligence. To illustrate the concept, the expert offered the following analogy.

“If a guy is arrested for smuggling drugs across the border because his car is full of drugs, and his argument is, ‘I didn’t know that there were any drugs in the trunk,’ well, part of why [this guy] got paid $1,500 for driving this car across the border is that he was not to ask any questions and he was to give people the keys upon arrival. In criminal law, that would be called conscious avoidance,” the expert explained, which is legally akin to the recklessness standard.

“If Trump was reckless, then it’s defamation, and the more you think about it, the more you think a jury could find that it was reckless,” the expert concluded.

Meaning, Trump’s statements at the debate may have amounted to defamation.

On the other hand, the "pervasiveness of the material" suggesting Salaam did confess at the time, as well as Meili's reported concerns, are points that Trump's defense attorney "would certainly pick up on," the expert added.

Patch has reached out to a number of other legal experts – including those who have represented plaintiffs in high profile defamation cases – and will update this piece when we hear back.

Will Salaam Sue?

A message sent to a representative for now Council Member Salaam, who represents Harlem on New York's City Council, has not yet been returned.

Following Tuesday’s debate, Salaam and Trump had a brief encounter.

When asked by press if he would apologize, the former president reportedly did not recognize Salaam, who was nearby.

According to reports, Trump "grinned and pointed at [Salaam], quipping: 'That’s good, you’re on my side!'"

Salaam, who was in the room in support of Harris, appeared taken aback, saying, "'No, no, I’m not on your side!'" as Trump walked away.