Trump wants an appeals court to overturn E. Jean Carroll sexual abuse verdict against her, which was issued earlier.

Former President Trump appeared before a federal appeals court Friday with his attorney to argue for a new trial in writer E. Jean Carroll’s lawsuit accusing him of sexual abuse and defamation which resulted in a multimillion-dollar jury award against him.

Arguments in Trump’s trial judge’s hearing focused on whether she erred by permitting two other women who accused former President of sexual misconduct as witnesses before considering evidence from “Access Hollywood” tape in which Trump can be heard bragging about inappropriately touching women without their knowledge and permission.

“Overturning a jury verdict that’s been reached based on evidentiary rulings is exceedingly challenging,” noted Circuit Judge Denny Chin.

A three-judge panel at the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appointed by Democratic presidents heard arguments for less than 30 minutes on March 20, adhering strictly to their allocated argument timeframe.

Last year, Carroll brought charges of sexual assault by Trump against her during the mid 1990s in a department store dressing room and later defamed her publicly after coming forward during his presidency. A jury agreed with Carroll and ordered Trump to pay $5 Million as damages; yet Trump continues to deny ever assaulting Carroll and says she never assaulted him directly.

Donald Trump personally attended Friday’s proceeding after missing all or portions of his trial and later placing responsibility with his legal counsel for its outcome.

Carroll later won $83.3 million against Trump for additional defamation claims; though this verdict is under appeal by him as well, its issue did not arise at Friday’s 2nd Circuit hearing.

At the core of Trump’s argument is his contention that his trial judge committed an error by permitting two women to speak before jurors regarding allegations they leveled against him on two airplane flights and in 2005 magazine interviews – specifically accusation that Trump committed sexual assault upon them both.

Trump also denies their allegations, with his attorney contending that federal evidence rules do not permit their testimony in this “classic ‘he said-she said'” case,” according to D. John Sauer.

At one point, a judge told Sauer that his speech had become too rapid and asked him to slow it down.

“This case is so vitally important and I feel passionately about it,” Sauer responded.

Sauer has quickly emerged as one of Trump’s go-to appellate attorneys and successfully argued before the Supreme Court for former presidents to enjoy some protection from criminal prosecution.

Roberta Kaplan rose to prominence nearly 10 years ago for successfully arguing before the Supreme Court against any form of discrimination by federal entities against same-sex couples when awarding federal benefits. Since leaving her firm earlier this year due to internal turmoil, Kaplan has served as Carroll’s lead counsel despite reports of internal tension.

Kaplan maintained that Trump’s involvement and the sensationalist nature of this case should not detract from its core normative framework.

Kaplan noted that, “despite its prominence and parties involved, this case involves only routine application of Federal Rules of Evidence,” noting that its judge “has many years of experience trying cases”.

Kaplan further asserted that even if the trial judge made errors when permitting two accusers to testify, any errors were unintentional and should therefore allow for the verdict to stand.

Friday’s argument took place near where Donald Trump was found guilty in his separate criminal trial earlier this year, in Manhattan. A judge serving on the panel noted that the room where arguments took place was “very full”.