DOJ-OGR-00005403.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 380 _ Filed 10/29/21 Page10of54 names were already public and that some victims had come forward by choice, Judge Garaufis found those facts “irrelevant”: “just because some victims’ names are publicly available does not mean that the details of their experiences are already available,” and “the choice of a victim to publicly discuss a crime is not analogous to being put on the stand about it, as, in court, the victim will not be able to choose how and to what level of detail she discusses the crime.” Jd. at 34 n.17. Judge Donnelly reached a similar result in United States v. Robert Kelly, 19 Cr. 286 (AMD). In that case, the Government also moved in /imine to permit certain victims to testify using pseudonyms or their first names and prevent public disclosure of their addresses, names of family members, or exact places of employment. Mot. at 1, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y. July 10, 2021), Dkt. No. 121. As the Government explained, the victims were “expected to testify in explicit detail and/or be the subject of highly sensitive and personal testimony conceming their . . . illegal sexual abuse by the defendant, some of which occurred while most of the Victim-Witnesses were under the age of 18.” Jd. at 9-10. The Government also explained that two of the victims had “not spoken publicly about their experiences,” and while a third had done so, “her anticipated testimony at trial will be more fulsome than her prior public disclosures and will include sensitive information that has not been previously publicly revealed.” Jd. at 11. The Court granted the motion. Aug. 3, 2021 Tr. at 53:13-55:2, Kelly, No. 19 Cr. 286 (E.D.N.Y.). DOJ-OGR-00005403