Judge Rules: No Anonymous Witnesses in One Taste Case; Cites ‘It’s Easier to Lie Anonymously’

U.S. District Judge Diane Gujarati made a significant decision in the “OneTaste” case when she ruled that witnesses must use their real names when testifying. She made this ruling on January 7.

Forced Labor Conspiracy Allegations

The U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of New York indicted Rachel Cherwitz and Nicole Daedone, both associated with the sexual wellness education company OneTaste Inc., for conspiring to commit forced labor from 2006 to May 2018.

The government did not charge the defendants with the actual crime of forced labor.

Although she deemed the case “unique,” Judge Gujarati ruled that the defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights take precedence over witnesses’ desire to testify anonymously.

Government Pushes for Witness Anonymity

In a pretrial motion, the government requested ten witnesses be allowed to testify anonymously, using only first names or pseudonyms. Prosecutors argued witnesses’ testimonies may relate highly personal and sensitive information, including sexual encounters. Revealing this information while using their true names could lead to consequences that “harass, embarrass, humiliate, or annoy” the witnesses.

Defense Argues for Transparency

Defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean opposed the motion, arguing that OneTaste taught thousands of adult women and men various avenues to explore their sexuality.

“That some individuals may feel differently in hindsight about their experiences does not make those experiences… so sensitive as to allow a witness to testify anonymously,” Bonjean told the court.

Bonjean stated, “It is far easier to come to court and lie anonymously than it is to stand on testimony with one’s true name.”

Government Invokes Frank Report

The government contended that harm could arise from a website called the Frank Report, which had already published critical articles about its only publicly known witness, Ayries Blanck.

Blanck created a fictional journal for a Netflix documentary about OneTaste, for which the producers paid $25,000.

The government wants to use the fictional journal as evidence in the case which requires prosecutors to backdate the journal by seven years.

However, even if the court prevented the defense from cross-examining witnesses about their name, work, where they live, and other personal identifying information in court, the ruling would not prevent the Frank Report or any other media outlet from identifying the witnesses based on First Amendment guarantees.

Anonymity to Prevent Civil Litigation

In a novel argument, the government cited threats of “civil litigation” from OneTaste as another reason for permitting witnesses to testify anonymously.

Currently, OneTaste is engaged in civil litigation against Blanck, which began before the indictment in state court in California.

Bonjean contended that allowing witnesses to remain anonymous in the criminal case would not stop the defendants or OneTaste from exercising their right to use the civil courts to redress civil wrongs.

Bonjean told the court: “The government has failed to explain how a threat of potential litigation… has any correlation to whether those witnesses should be permitted to testify anonymously. These potential witnesses certainly will not remain a secret to the Defendants.”

Judge Cites Sixth Amendment Fairness

Judge Gujarati ultimately denied the government’s motion, ruling that the prosecution failed to justify the need for blanket anonymity. She acknowledged the sensitivity of the case but prioritized Sixth Amendment protections and fairness in her decision.

Judge Gujarati said:

“The government has not demonstrated that the relief requested is warranted under the circumstances here.

“Although the court recognizes that certain testimony is likely to involve highly personal matters, indeed matters that are often kept as private matters, and that there may be some negative consequences of the public airing of those matters, the court is not convinced on the particular circumstances of this case that those factors outweigh the relevant Sixth Amendment considerations here and general considerations of fairness.

“Under the particular circumstances of this case, defendants’ argument that it is ‘far easier to come to court and lie anonymously than it is to stand on testimony with one’s true name’ has some force.”

Sixth Amendment Considerations Take Precedence

Judge Gujarati’s decision pushes back against an increasing trend of granting witness anonymity in federal trials, which often favors the prosecution.

When a witness testifies anonymously, the defense is limited in its ability to challenge the witness’s background, potential biases, or motives for testifying, which can affect how the jury perceives the reliability of the testimony.

The use of anonymous witnesses suggest to the jury that the defendants are dangerous or have engaged in intimidation, which could unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendants.

Historical Context of the Sixth Amendment

The Sixth Amendment, part of the Bill of Rights drafted by James Madison, was ratified in 1791. It ensures the right to a fair trial, an impartial jury, and the ability to confront accusers—protections that were central to this ruling.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

Frank Parlato

Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.

See Full Bio