Day five of the US v. Cherwitz and Daedone trial featured a striking conclusion to the government’s first witness testimony, with Rebecca Halpern admitting under cross-examination that she “actually [doesn’t] regret” her time at OneTaste – an admission that stands in stark contrast to the prosecution’s portrayal of her as a victim of “forced labor conspiracy.”
Throughout three days of testimony, Halpern presented a series of contradictions that defense attorneys skillfully exposed. She repeatedly described how much she “wanted to take the courses,” “wanted to be part of the community,” how she “loved the practice of Orgasmic Meditation,” and how she committed to her now husband because of course insights. The courtroom even erupted in laughter while watching heartfelt videos of Halpern during her time at OneTaste, where she enthusiastically promoted the organization she now claims victimized her.
One of the most revealing exchanges came when defense counsel Jennifer Bonjean addressed a text exchange the prosecution had previously presented in a sinister light. The prior day, during her testimony, Halpern referenced parting words over text with OneTaste founder Nicole Daedone when she left her employment, saying that Nicole told her, “I release you.” The government’s framing suggested something ominous – as if Daedone had been holding Halpern captive and was finally letting her go.
However, when Bonjean queried Halpern on the full text exchange, a completely different picture emerged. The exchange revealed mutual warmth, with Daedone showing support and encouragement, thanking Halpern for her work, acknowledging her love and talent for music. And Halpern explicitly telling Daedone that she loved her.
When pressed about this contradiction during government redirect, Halpern became visibly upset, almost crying as she attempted to reconcile the inconsistency: “The reason I’m getting upset is because I did love these people very deeply…and there’s darkness and abuse. Those things can exist concurrently. She said nice things to me. It was a lovely exchange. There was also hatred and abuse underneath. They’re both there.”
Defense attorneys Celia Cohen and Jennifer Bonjean seized upon Halpern’s reference to “brainwashing” in re-cross:
Cohen: And you didn’t use the term ‘brainwashing’ while you were meeting with the Government, correct?
Halpern: I don’t know if I used it or didn’t.
Cohen’s questioning strongly implied the term may have been introduced by prosecutors during trial prep rather than originating from Halpern herself in FBI interviews. Halpern acknowledged eleven or more government interviews between 2018 and December 2024.
Jennifer Bonjean followed Cohen’s re-cross and continued to press Halpern on “brainwashing,” repeatedly seeking a definition. Halpern, a licensed mental health professional who should know that ‘brainwashing’ is not a recognized clinical or diagnostic term in psychology, was unable to provide a coherent explanation, much less a definition. Despite her professional training, she merely stated she was ‘not an expert’ and could not supply an ‘established definition’ for the very concept she was using to explain her contradictory experience.”
The government’s lead witness’s testimony culminated in a devastating exchange that undercut the entire premise of the prosecution’s case:
“Bonjean: And you now look back and you regret your time, at least in part, at OneTaste, right?
Halpern: That is a big oversimplification.
Bonjean: Is that a yes?
Halpern: No.
Bonjean: So you don’t regret it?
Halpern: No, I actually don’t regret it.
Bonjean: I have no further questions.
Bonjean’s abrupt conclusion and rapid departure from the podium communicated she’d heard enough. Halpern left the witness stand in tears, exiting the courtroom accompanied by her handler FBI Special Agent Tricia Quintero – a visual that seemed to underscore the government’s investment in a witness whose testimony ultimately contradicted their core narrative.
The government now faces the daunting task of explaining to jurors how someone can be a victim of forced labor conspiracy and brainwashing while simultaneously loving the experience, maintaining affection for the defendants, and explicitly not regretting her participation – all while unable to define the very “brainwashing” she claims to have experienced.
