Frank Parlato
The Prosecutor in a Robe
Judge Blocks Texts Showing Affection in Federal Trial Against OneTaste Leaders
On Day Five of USA v. Cherwitz and Daedone, Judge Diane Gujarati again sided with the government, blocking the defense’s request to admit a text exchange between Rebecca Halpern and Nicole Daedone.
The defense wanted the actual text messages admitted into evidence instead of relying, as the prosecution did, on Halpern’s hazy memory and their selective, out-of-context questioning.
The text exchange shown in context revealed a different narrative than the one the prosecutors misled the jury with.
But Judge Gujarati declined the defense request, continuing a pattern of rulings that appear more aligned with the prosecution than a neutral bench.
The actual text messages were not incriminating as the prosecution had implied. They were a goodbye between two people who had once believed in each other. They were warm, and warm words were a risk to the prosecution’s cold script. The text humanized the accused.
Naturally, Judge Gujarati didn’t want the jury to see kindness. It ruins the government’s narrative.
So the judge let Halpern read the text messages to herself, quietly, like a ghost reading a love letter at its funeral, remembering something she wasn’t supposed to feel anymore.
You have to understand the judge’s predicament.
The prosecutors have a case built on pain, and the defense finds text messages that say, “Thanks. I love you.”
The judge can’t have the jury thinking people liked each other. That would contradict the prosecutor’s narrative.
The prosecution said Daedone abused Halpern. And here were text messages, warm and intact, expressing gratitude and affection. What’s a dishonest judge to do?
When the government builds a case on trauma, the judge blocks the proof that maybe it wasn’t all trauma.
The judge banned it because it was inconvenient to the prosecution. This is how you rig a trial. Let the witness recall whatever fits the prosecution’s theme. The prosecution cannot have jurors thinking the defendant loved this woman.
The judge and the prosecution did not want the jury to see the part where people cared for each other. It didn’t belong in their story. Because it makes the defendant look like a person.
Robes for Show at a Show Trial
Judge Diane Gujarati wore the robe, yes. But the robe was truly incidental. The allegiance is clear.
She was ostensibly the judge. But she ruled like someone who already knew the ending and didn’t want the story to get in the way. She wore the robe to make it look legal.
She ruled. Not from law. From loyalty. She wasn’t really a judge—only someone who already knows who must burn. She was taking orders. But from whom?
Yes, the state was the accuser. The judge was the state.
Her robe covered not justice, but participation.
The OneTaste Trial #2: Prosecution’s Secret Weapon: Presiding Judge Diane Gujarati
Frank Parlato is an investigative journalist, media strategist, publisher, and legal consultant.
Please leave a comment: Your opinion is important to us!
The concern isn’t that this information is untrue or even irrelevant, but that it might:
This is often referred to as “unfair prejudice”—not just any prejudice, but one that improperly affects the jury’s decision-making.
Tyranny. Don’t Americans have an amendment about this?
I wonder which A-list actress will play Judge Gujarati when Aaron Sorkin directs the must-see Hollywood film on this EPIC Modern, Legal Witchunt. Molly’s Game was fire, this will be too….at least, that’s the direction this is heading for now….
Great article! I’m floored that our justice system acts like this. Its heartbreaking.
It is clearly an in justice to not allow the jury to hear the other side. I’m shocked a judge would make that decision. It shows she is not unbiased. I feel completely let down as an American.
And completely un fathomable that there’s not more interest in this story. When the govt act like thugs they should be held accountable What an embarrassment this is to every citizen of this country
It is strange that in a case involving a supposed “sex cult” that in fact the judge is the most interesting piece to watch, but from my legal eyes, I do believe the Frank Report is correct. This is certainly Hon. Gujarati’s highest profile case since being appointed in 2018 and it will be telling to see how she plays it out.
Though she was officially nominated by Trump, she’s a Schumer pick, part of a deal struck between the two politicians during Trump’s first term. I’ve heard mixed reviews of her time as a prosecutor at SDNY—serviceable, but not genius; mean and domineering, but sometimes that’s what’s needed to get the job done. At no disparagement of her achievement, I expect her cultural identity played a role in her nomination as well. “First Indian American to serve as an Article III federal judge in New York” was an identity token too irresistible for the Democrats to resist. That said, I am certain her parents hold her accomplishment as a jewel of the Gujarati clan, both in America and abroad.
And now, in the past two years of the OneTaste case, we’ve gotten to see her fledgling steps as a judge. So far, they have been occasionally decisive, but many other times curiously open-ended. Her repeated transcript-closing admonishment of the parties to work with each other often reads as if she is unprepared to confront the issues being brought before her.
This is playing out in realtime as the parties waged war over FRE 412 evidence in court before a lunch break Thursday, hopefully out of earshot of any juror. Apparently, Gujarati attempted to brush off the issue entirely, arguing the deadline to raise it had long passed and pointed to the conference she had held regarding the parties in limine motions last fall. But comparing these transcripts over a coffee this morning, that is not my interpretation of the honorable judge’s own words.
Throughout the transcript from last fall Gujarati repeatedly punts, refusing to rule on approximately 2/3’s of the proposals, reasoning that she lacks the necessary detail to render a decision and proposes that if necessary, she will make rulings from the bench during trial. By my read, the expired deadline she referred to on Thursday was made for additional arguments in favor of a blanket ruling one way or the other in advance of the then-January trial (the date was later pushed back when prosecutors raised concerns of conflict for defense attorney Arthur Aidala amid rumors that he would be nominated to lead their office).
Blanket rulings are indeed helpful (especially when they are decided in your favor!) and allow both sides to construct their case with a clear sense of what they will have at their disposal to argue with. And on the other hand, of course neither side entirely wants to reveal their hand early. For whichever reasons, neither side chose to submit additional arguments on the topic which appears consequential to the case.
FRE 412 is most often invoked as the “rape shield rule” and is most often invoked to prevent arguments by the defense in a case of sexual misdeed that the victim was a slut and so the jury should doubt her accusations related to this particular instance. It is a noble rule in place to maintain the privacy of citizen’s lives and the dignity of our courts.
But in a conspiracy case without any official allegations of “victims” and involving a company whose stated purpose is to remove the stigma of shame from sexuality and whose proponents apparently engaged sexual acts as simply as you or I may sit down for tea, the typical supports to assert 412 hold less ground. The government’s lead witness herself concluded her testimony saying she doesn’t regret her time with OneTaste after repeatedly crying when confronted by the defense with evidence of her own contemporaneous words declaring her love of the defendants. We are wading into the murky waters of personal relationships. In a community where people were actively engaged in pushing their personal boundaries in the sexual domain, the typical indicators used to distinguish between “consensual” and “non-consensual” fly out the window.
In the transcript, the defense repeatedly states they are offering this evidence on other grounds while Gujarati sides with the prosecution’s characterization of the material as 412, taking an understandably conservative approach. I will agree with Hon. Gujarati, these are not the kind of knots I would prefer to untangle with 18 irritated jurors sitting outside the door and I expect this weekend has been a flurry of belated motion writing for both parties hoping to address the issue. And I do suspect that the prosecution will have difficult argument if they are attempting to control the entirety of what sexual conduct is admissible, though it is quite the strategic ploy to force the defense to reveal it’s impeachment material in advance of direct examinations.
I, along with many others, will sit eagerly by my PACER account for a preview of this week’s proceedings. In addition to the 412 arguments, there is also an open argument regarding the authentication of text messages that the company OneTaste is asserting privilege over. I would expect any filings in regards to that issue be made under seal, so I may need to wait for the Monday transcript to make the rounds to get the full details. It will be interesting if Gujarati takes the approach to “let it all in and let the jury sort it out” or whether she’ll opt to keep to her more reserved approach, preferring to keep the boat steady on it’s first voyage into choppy waters.
Oh dear, a second cup and I’ve written an entire post without my own blog to post it to. Frank, I’m grateful for your continued coverage and your comment section, you have clearer eyes than most on the actual inner workings of these proceedings—the OneTaste case, Raniere, and Sandusky, too. Hopefully we’ll cross paths again in these hallways of justice (for the most part).
It’s as if the judge and the prosecution are claiming to the jury that people caring for each other is simply coercive control: it’s not factual evidence, it’s trickery by the defense. This is a tough spot for the defense. Once labeled as a cult, then even evidence of their humanity gets twisted around and is characterized as an attempt at coercion. You’re right, like most cases, acknowledging the defendant’s humanity threatens the prosecution’s, and societies, narrative about the accused.
She also called Becky Halpern a “victim” on the record (it’s a conspiracy case, the best the indictment rises to is “intended victim”) and when confronted, brushed it off with the excuse “the jury’s not in the room.” It really shows who she’s putting on her performance for.