Alexander Brothers Trial – Day 3

Cross-Examination, Credibility, and the Law’s Limits on “Expected” Behavior

January 29, 2026

U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York

Presiding Judge: Valerie E. Caproni

Overview of Day 3 Proceedings

Day 3 of the federal sex-trafficking trial against Tal, Oren, and Alon Alexander centered on the defense’s cross-examination of the government’s second witness, who testified under the pseudonym Maya Miller. Defense counsel sought to undermine Miller’s credibility by focusing on her actions during and after the alleged assault, her continued contact with the defendant, and the presence of a third party in the apartment at the time of the incident.

The day highlighted a recurring legal tension in sexual-violence prosecutions: whether post-incident behavior aligns with jurors’ expectations, and whether deviations from those expectations should be interpreted as evidence of fabrication or as manifestations of trauma.

Defense Cross-Examination of Maya Miller

Attorneys Marc Agnifilo and Matthew Williams conducted the bulk of the cross-examination, directing significant attention to Alicia, a former friend of Miller who accompanied her on the Hamptons trip and whom Miller previously described as her “safety net.” Alicia is expected to testify as a defense witness.

Miller testified that at the time of the alleged assault, Alicia was in the bathroom blow-drying her hair. According to Miller, when Tal Alexander entered the bedroom forcefully, she attempted to escape, running past Alicia and into the shower (that had a separate door from the sink and toilet that you could not see through) , which she described as the only space where she felt temporarily safe. Miller told the jury that she believed Alicia remained in the bathroom for at least part of the incident but that she did not call out for help or disclose the assault to her afterward.

Defense counsel questioned why Miller did not seek assistance from Alicia during the incident, particularly given her description of Alicia as a trusted protector. This line of questioning framed Miller’s silence as inconsistent with her account of fear and distress.

Post-Incident Conduct Under Scrutiny

The defense further challenged Miller’s credibility by highlighting her behavior after leaving the Hamptons. Jurors were shown text messages and photographs indicating that Miller:

• Continued to text and call Tal Alexander

• Commented on his Instagram posts

• Visited high-end restaurants and hotels, including the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan

Defense attorneys emphasized that Miller did not seek immediate medical attention, despite testifying that she experienced bleeding and pain for several days. Photographs taken after the alleged assault were displayed to the jury, with defense counsel suggesting that Miller appeared “happy,” including references to her eyes and facial expression.

This strategy aimed to portray Miller’s conduct as inconsistent with someone who had just experienced sexual violence, inviting jurors to question the reliability of her testimony and the accuracy of her timeline.

Prosecution Evidence and Corroboration

Later in the proceedings, prosecutors introduced an email allegedly sent by Tal Alexander to his brothers, forwarding information related to Miller’s trip and referring to Miller and her friend in derogatory terms. The government offered this communication as contextual evidence reflecting contemporaneous attitudes and internal communications among the defendants during the relevant period.

Before the lunch recess, the government also called an additional witness who testified that Miller disclosed the alleged assault years later, in 2020. This testimony was offered to corroborate delayed disclosure, a common issue in sexual-violence cases.

Miller testified that she ultimately reported the incident to the FBI in late 2024, after learning of the Alexander brothers’ arrests. She stated that she came forward seeking criminal accountability, not civil damages.

Legal Analysis: Credibility, Silence, and Delayed Reporting

From a legal standpoint, Day 3 reflected a classic defense approach in sexual-assault trials: emphasizing behavior that jurors may perceive as inconsistent with victimization. Courts, however, have long recognized that there is no legally required or psychologically “correct” response to trauma.

Federal courts permit cross-examination on post-incident conduct, but juries are instructed to assess credibility based on the totality of the evidence, not on preconceived notions of how a victim “should” behave. Continued contact with an alleged perpetrator, delayed reporting, or failure to seek immediate medical care are not legally dispositive of consent or fabrication.

Day 3 – What Was Left Unexplained

1. Failure to Seek Immediate Medical Care

Missing context: The absence of contemporaneous medical records was highlighted without broader explanation.

The court did not address why individuals may delay or avoid medical treatment after a traumatic event. Fear, shock, shame, lack of access, or uncertainty about what occurred can all contribute to delayed care, and the absence of records does not necessarily indicate the absence of injury.

2. Presence of a Third Party During the Alleged Assault

Missing context: Defense questioning emphasized that another person was nearby without addressing why that may not prevent harm.

The jury was not instructed on why the presence of another person in close proximity does not necessarily preclude an assault. Trauma responses may inhibit calling for help, particularly where escape or compliance is perceived as the safest option.

3. Appearance and Demeanor Evidence

Missing context:Photographs were used to suggest emotional state without legal framing.

Courts allow demeanor evidence, such as photographs, but legal standards caution against equating outward appearance with internal emotional experience, particularly following traumatic events.

Trauma-Informed Perspective: What the Law Often Asks Survivors to Explain

From a trauma-informed and criminological perspective, several themes emerged:

• Failure to call for help, even when another person is nearby, is consistent with acute trauma responses where escape, freezing, or compliance feels safer than confrontation.

• Continued communication with an alleged perpetrator can function as a survival strategy , an attempt to maintain control, reduce risk, or normalize the experience before it can be cognitively processed.

• Engagement in social activities or luxury settings after trauma may reflect psychological compartmentalization, not emotional well-being.

• Delayed disclosure is widely documented, particularly where power imbalances, fear of disbelief, or reputational harm are perceived.

Importantly, trauma does not unfold linearly, and the criminal legal system often places survivors in the position of having to justify their coping mechanisms rather than the alleged conduct itself.

Trial Context and What Comes Next

The trial, which is not televised, is expected to last approximately one month. The government continues presenting its case-in-chief, while the defense has signaled it will rely heavily on cross-examination, contemporaneous communications, and third-party testimony to challenge credibility.

As the case progresses, jurors will be asked to determine not whether a witness behaved “perfectly,” but whether the government has met its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, based on evidence rather than expectations.

Donate Here

Your support helps keep The Justice Portal independent, accessible, and grounded in facts.