Judge Rules: Rhiannon Won’t Testify  

Judge Nicholas Garaufis has ruled that Rhiannon [AKA Jane Doe X] won’t be permitted to testify in the trial of Keith Alan Raniere.

Readers of Frank Report know Rhiannon was the 12-year-old girl who claimed she was raped by Raniere some 60 times in 1992 when he was operating his earlier enterprise, Consumer’s Buyline, Inc. [CBI].

The Albany Times Union first broke the story of the rape of Rhiannon in their “Secrets of Nxivm” series in February 2012.

A court document unsealed late last week in the case of USA v Raniere, dating back to May 4, three days before commencement of the trial, settled the issue of Rhiannon’s not testifying.

The judge ruled Rhiannon’s testimony may “unfairly influence” the jury in his current trial.  Her alleged rapes occurred 27 years ago and, thus, are well beyond the applicable statute of limitations.

Evidence of Sham Marriages to Get Raniere More Sex 

The judge did approve, however, the prosecution submitting evidence that Raniere’s co-conspirators assisted in procuring sexual partners for him, many of whom did not have legal status, in entering or remaining in the United States.  Included in this is evidence that Raniere and his co-conspirators arranged “sham” marriages for Raniere’s sex partners so they could remain in the United States.

The prosecution intends to prove that the co-conspirators committed “immigration fraud, in order to obtain [cheap] workers or sex partners for Raniere.”

Raniere Punished Women Who Did Not Recruit Sex Partners

The judge also approved the prosecution submitting evidence that Raniere’ s former co-defendants [Allison Mack, Kathy Russell, Clare Bronfman, Nancy Salzman, and Lauren Salzman] and other co-conspirators [not indicted] “recruited and groomed sexual partners for Raniere, including one or more underage girls, and, at Raniere’s direction, actively engaged in efforts to punish others if their efforts [to get him sex partners] failed to satisfy Raniere.”

The prosecution wanted, in support of this, to offer evidence that, while Raniere was running CBI in the 1990s, he engaged in a sexual relationship with Rhiannon, beginning when she was 12 years old and was aided and abetted by at least one of his Nxivm co-conspirators.

Karen Unterreiner Knew About Rhiannon

The prosecution alleged that a certain member of CBI, who is an unindicted co-conspirator in the Nxivm criminal enterprise, knew Rhiannon was underage and that Raniere was having sex with her, and helped Raniere have sex with the child “in order to please Raniere.”

The prosecution has not named this member of CBI, but Frank Report has identified Karen Unterreiner as the likely co-conspirator [and likely witness]. She was with Raniere at CBI and remained with him in Nxivm.  Sources tell Frank Report that Karen [along with the late Pam Cafritz] were known to recruit teens and pre-teens for Raniere to rape.

Sex with Cami Is Admissible

The prosecution has introduced evidence at trial regarding a sexual relationship between Raniere and Cami, a then fifteen-year-old Mexican girl who eventually became a DOS slave.

Raniere allegedly committed crimes of sexual misconduct  with her – sexual exploitation of a child [Cami], and possession of child pornography. This evidence, the judge ruled, will not be “overly inflammatory” to the jury.

Raniere argued that evidence of his getting help from Nxivm women is “unfairly prejudicial.” Raniere also challenged the admission of evidence regarding his sexual contact with Cami and Rhiannon.

He seems to have won with Rhiannon.

On the other hand, the judge ruled that evidence regarding his sexual relationship with Cami, which occurred in 2005 [possibly even earlier] is relevant since the prosecution charges that Raniere took and possessed nude photographs of Cami when she was 15.

Part of the evidence against Raniere which the prosecution is using is a “journal entry” that reveals Cami was having sex with Raniere when she was under the age of consent [The age of consent in NY is 17].

In addition, the prosecution has time-dated, nude pictures of 15-year-old Cami – whichconstitutes child pornography, and evidence that the pictures were taken by Raniere. They also have electronic communications between Cami and Raniere which indicates the sexual nature of their relationship and that it occurred when she was under the age of consent.

What About Rhiannon?

The judge ruled that Raniere’s alleged sexual relationship with the then-12-year-old Rhiannon is “much less relevant to the [racketeering] enterprise as a whole, given that it appears to have occurred in the early 1990s.… years before the alleged enterprise was formed (and years before any of the charged crimes or predicate acts allegedly occurred).”

Quoting the Federal Rules of Evidence, he wrote, that Rhiannon’s testimony is “inadmissible because its ‘probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, . . . or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.’”

The prosecution argued that Rhiannon’s testimony concerning her rape is relevant to its charges that Raniere took and possessed nude photographs of Cami because it is evidence of “other child molestation”.

The prosecution said Rhiannon’s evidence shows Raniere had “a propensity” to commit the charged crimes against Cami by showing he did similar things to Rhiannon.

The Judge’s Five Tests 

Judge Nicholas Garaufis considered five tests in deciding whether to exclude Rhiannon from testifying.

(1) the similarity of what Raniere purportedly did to Rhiannon [for which he is not charged] to what he allegedly did to Cami [for which he is charged];

(2) the closeness in time of the prior acts to the acts charged;

(3) the frequency of the prior acts;

(4) the presence or lack of intervening circumstances; and

(5) the necessity of the evidence beyond the testimonies already offered at trial.

The judge also considered “the potential for unfair prejudice, including the possibility that prior act evidence will lead the jury to convict out of passion or bias or because they believe the defendant is a bad person deserving of punishment – a particular risk with this sort of evidence.”

How The Judge Decided on Each of the Five Tests:

The similarity of Crimes – Rhiannon and Cami:
The judge determined that the prior [Rhiannon] and charged [Cami] acts are “somewhat similar”. The prior acts show Raniere’s “attraction to children, thus providing evidence of his motive to make pornography.”
However, the charged acts regarding Cami do not actually involve allegations of physical sexual contact with an underage person, the judge wrote.

[There is little doubt that Raniere had sex with underage Cami, but he is not being charged for that. Cami is in Guadalajara, Mexico and a follower of Raniere. She works for Raniere’s childhood experiment Rainbow Cultural Gardens and is not likely to testify at his trial.]

Closeness in Time
The prior and charged acts appear to have taken place more than 10 years apart, the judge observed.

Frequency of Prior Acts
The prior acts involve sexual intercourse with only one victim [Rhiannon] – and the judge ruled that the prosecution has provided no indication of the ‘frequency of the prior acts or how that should factor into the court’s analysis.”
Intervening Circumstances

The judge wrote that he was not aware of any relevant “intervening circumstances” between the prior and charged acts.

Necessity of Evidence
The judge decided that “perhaps most significantly,” Rhiannon’s testimony about her rape in the early 1990s is “not necessary to prove that Raniere took and possessed nude photographs of [Cami] in 2005.”

He noted that the prosecution has the nude photographs of Cami and claims to have evidence that they were taken and possessed by Raniere.

{The prosecution also plans to introduce evidence that Raniere had sexual intercourse with Cami before she was eighteen.

Unfair Prejudice to Raniere
The judge wrote of Rhiannon’s proposed testimony, that it would be “cumulative…. has little probative value as to the charged acts…. would likely cause unfair prejudice to Raniere… [and] could ‘confus[e] the issues’ or ‘mislead[] the jury…”

The judge further ruled, “As the prior acts took place 27 years ago and Raniere was never charged in relation with them, allowing Jane Doe X [Rhiannon] to testify would risk creating a trial within a trial regarding [Raniere’ s] prior bad conduct.”

Adult DOS Women
The judge made one further point: that “there is a risk that jurors would consider Raniere’s alleged sexual abuse of Jane Doe X when evaluating Raniere’s guilt as to the sex trafficking counts, which involve adult woman legally capable of consent.”

Conclusion of Judge Garaufis
“In conclusion,’ the judge ruled that he would exclude Jane Doe X’s testimony under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 because Rhiannon’s testimony’s “probative value is substantially outweighed by a danger of … unfair prejudice, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, … or needlessly presenting cumulative evidence.”