On Day One of witness testimony in United States v. Cherwitz and Daedone, Eastern District of New York prosecutor Kaitlin Farrell opened with a stunt straight out of a Netflix docudrama — slicing a twelve-year-old lecture video by Nicole Daedone into sensational, context-free bites meant to dazzle the jury and smear the defendant.
The footage, stolen from an advanced OneTaste coaching course, was presented as if it were a manifesto for rape, not the nuanced, resilience training it actually was. Farrell led with a clip of Daedone saying, “The problem with the victim story, [is] it takes away your power. If you want to know the real way to deflect rape, it’s to turn on 100%. Because then there’s nothing to rape.”
Predictably, the jury was given no context — not that this was a months-deep exploration into the psychology of victim-perpetrator dynamics, or that it came from a personal training environment designed to challenge assumptions. Instead, they got theatrics.
The government’s star witness, Rebecca Halpern, broke into tears while watching the edited segment. She claimed it triggered memories — although she had only ever seen the government’s version of the footage, not the complete 80-minute talk.
The actual content of that lecture — when viewed in full — paints a different picture. The course in question was part of a nine-month certification program training roughly 100 people to become life coaches. That weekend’s curriculum specifically addressed how coaches might work with clients on issues surrounding victimhood and trauma — including, but not limited to, rape. Daedone was not promoting sexual violence; she was urging her students to see beyond disempowering victim identities and trust their inner guidance and strength.
Defense attorney Jennifer Bonjean made sure the jury got to see that. During cross-examination, she pressed Halpern on whether she’d watched the entire video lecture.
Halpern admitted she had not — only the cherry-picked clips provided by the government.
So Bonjean played more of the tape in court.
After seeing more context, Halpern’s story began to shift. “I took the meaning that she was using that story of something that she had personally gone through as something to illustrate to others what is possible. Not that we would go through that exact same thing, of course, but that we could attempt to kind of gain that same power in an unsafe situation,” she said.
Bonjean wasn’t done. She zeroed in on Halpern’s claims of psychological harm.
Bonjean: You testified that her words caused you harm, right? Do you remember you testifying to that?
Halpern: That’s my belief.
Bonjean: You’re saying — she forced you by ideas? Is that your testimony?
Halpern: It’s an interesting way to put it. That’s how brainwashing works, to me.
Bonjean: Okay. You went to a course that you signed up for, right?
Halpern: Freely. Yes.
Bonjean: A course you desperately wanted to participate in, right?
Halpern: Absolutely.
Bonjean: You sat there and listened to someone tell you about the way she processes her own, quote-unquote, trauma, right?
Halpern: Which are beautiful ideas.
Bonjean: Right. They are beautiful ideas. And you decided to interpret it the way you wanted to, correct?
Halpern: Correct.
Bonjean: And that’s your idea of force?
Halpern agreed to all of it. She admitted she took the course freely and wanted to be there. She conceded that Daedone’s ideas were “beautiful.” Yet somehow, these same ideas were now being offered in federal court as proof of abuse.
Bonjean reminded the jury of the very waiver Halpern signed before taking the course — a document spelling out, in plain language, that she was choosing to hear challenging content and was solely responsible for how she applied any of it.
Bonjean had Halpern read aloud specific sections including:
- That I may not agree with all the content of the course and accept that possibility
- That the participants in the course may come from diverse backgrounds and hold belief and opinions different than mine.
- That certain participants may make statements or take actions that I disagree with or find offensive.
Bonjean: You signed this document, which acknowledged that during the coaching program you might hear ideas that challenged your belief systems, right?
Halpern: Yes.
Bonjean: That’s kind of one of the things that you signed up for when you got involved in OneTaste, right?
Halpern: Certainly.
Contradictions Abound
Halpern’s testimony reveals glaring contradictions that cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s case. She first claimed to be harmed by Daedone’s teachings — yet later admitted they were “beautiful ideas” and that she voluntarily sought them out. She asserted psychological manipulation, only to agree that she interpreted the material through her own lens and at her own will. She described herself as a victim of coercion — but signed documents that warned her, in no uncertain terms, that challenging, offensive ideas might be part of the process. The prosecution’s reliance on selectively edited video and a witness who contradicts herself under oath raises a troubling question: If the government’s case is so strong, why the need for theatrical editing and inconsistent witnesses?
