Courtroom transcript excerpt discussing victim‑blaming arguments and reference to Ms. Giuffre’s husband in a domestic‑violence case

10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 31 H3VOGIU1 attitude that has to be confronted in various cases. Frequently, if there's domestic violence that's at issue, an expert witness comes in to explain to the jury, oh, why didn't she leave? Why did she stay with this fellow who was beating her up? She was free to walk out of the relationship. Why didn't she do so? And there is a whole literature that I know your Honor is familiar with and that we cited in our brief, as well. We don't want to get into that in front of the jury in this particular case. This is a blame the victim tactic that shouldn't be allowed. This has very marginal, if any, probative value and a very significant prejudicial effect because the jury will potentially blame the victim for staying with her abusive spouse. Now, in addition, you'll notice from the pleading that the defendants aren't intent just on asking questions about this, but they also want to go into the whole criminal case against Ms. Giuffre's husband, you know, whether he appeared or what the felony charges are and a variety of things. That, obviously, has even less probative value than the information I was discussing a moment ago and should be independently excluded. The next issue up is item 15. And here, we ask to have excluded any suggestions that sex with a 17-year-old is permissible. You will recall that there's debate about exactly SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_011334