DOJ-OGR-00006375.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 438 Filed 11/12/21 Page15of54 their testimony. Publicizing their names will subject them to unwanted attention at the time they are testifying in a criminal sex abuse trial.‘ Taken together, requiring the Minor Victims to testify under their true and full names imposes serious costs on them. It is inconsistent with the Crime Victims’ Rights Act’s exhortation that victims are to be treated with respect for their “dignity and privacy.” 18 U.S.C. § 3771(a)(8). And requiring victims of sex crimes to provide their names in public could chill their willingness to testify, for fear of having their personal histories publicized as they rebuild their lives. See Order at 2, Martinez, No. 17 Cr. 281 (ERK) (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 18, 2017), Dkt. No. 34. It could also cause other victims—including minors—to avoid seeking help from law enforcement because of fear that coming forward could subject them to further harassment and embarrassment. Cf Fed. R. Evid. 412 Advisory Committee Note (explaining that, by protecting the victim “against the invasion of privacy, potential embarrassment and sexual stereotyping that is associated with public disclosure of intimate sexual details,” the rule “encourages victims of sexual misconduct to . . . participate in legal proceedings against alleged offenders”). 4 The Government would consent to an appropriate jury instruction explaining that the reason for the precautions is “regard for the witnesses’ and non-witness victims’ privacy,” and that no inference should be drawn against the defendant because of those precautions. Order at 33-34, United States v. Raniere (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622 (“[T]he court is confident that any prejudice can be cured with a jury instruction explaining that the reason for the anonymity is regard for the witnesses’ and non-witness victims’ privacy.”); Apr. 5, 2016 Tr. at 9-10, United States v. Quraishi (E.D.N.Y. Apr. 5, 2016), Dkt. No. 46. As the district court in the Raniere case explained, “[g]iven the potentially embarrassing nature of the allegations, and the media attention thus far, such an explanation will certainly seem plausible to the jury.” Order at 34, United States v. Raniere (E.D.N.Y. May 6, 2019), Dkt. No. 622 (footnote omitted). 14 DOJ-OGR-00006375