Day 18 of the Alexander Brothers trial was defined by the defense’s closing arguments, as lawyers for all three brothers delivered a coordinated and forceful attack on the government’s case. Howard Srebnick continued his summation on behalf of Alon Alexander, followed by Deanna Paul representing Tal Alexander and Marc Agnifilo speaking for Oren Alexander. Each attorney focused on challenging the credibility of the accusers, pointing to what they described as significant inconsistencies in the testimony, and accusing prosecutors of misrepresenting evidence and stretching federal law beyond its intended limits.
The defense argued that encounters they described as consensual, even if at times unsavory, were being recast as part of a federal criminal conspiracy. According to the defense, the government had failed to prove its allegations through the evidence and was instead trying to turn a particular lifestyle into a crime while appealing to emotion and moral outrage. Each lawyer addressed the charges facing his or her client, from the broader conspiracy allegation to the individual counts of sex trafficking and exploitation, urging the jury to remember that the burden of proof rests entirely with the government and to serve as a safeguard against overreach.
The Closing Arguments
Howard Srebnick (For Alon Alexander - Conclusion): Picking up where he had left off, Srebnick continued challenging the credibility of the accusers, turning his focus to Rhonda Stone. He mocked her claim that she had been paralyzed by a drug on the cruise ship, pointing to photos that showed her dancing energetically just hours later. “No expert has said there’s a drug that takes you from paralysis to Broadway show dancer to ballerina,” he told the jury. Srebnick also emphasized that Stone’s first words to her sister after the alleged assault were not a call for help but what he described as a boast: “I fucked twins.”
He closed that portion of his argument by reminding jurors of their responsibility in evaluating the government’s case. Framing the jury as a safeguard against government overreach, he told them, “Each one of you holds the power… to require that your government prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
Deanna Paul (For Tal Alexander): Deanna Paul delivered a blistering closing argument on behalf of Tal Alexander, one that was frequently interrupted during a series of objections from the prosecution. Her summation unfolded amid a steady back and forth with AUSA Andrew Jones, who repeatedly objected when he believed Paul moved beyond the evidence or attempted to explain legal standards to the jury. Judge Caproni often sustained those objections. Paul opened by ridiculing the conspiracy charge, telling jurors, “These three brothers are not mobsters. They’re not the Gambinos,” and arguing that prosecutors were asking the jury to connect dots that simply did not exist. She also maintained there was “zero proof” that Tal had written for or even knew about the “Vent on Bitches” blog, which the prosecution had described as the defendants’ “manifesto.”
The central focus of Paul’s argument, and the point that triggered many of the objections, was her challenge to the government’s interpretation of what constitutes a “commercial sex act.” She argued that offering someone a trip or a place to stay does not legally amount to the “thing of value” required for a sex trafficking conviction. “The government wants you to believe that the thing of value… is the trip to the Hamptons,” she told the jury. “Members of the jury, that’s not sex trafficking, and that’s not commercial sex.” Several objections followed, and Judge Caproni reminded her, “I will tell you what’s required for a commercial sex act.” Prosecutors also objected when Paul characterized the government’s decision to call witness Julia Baldwin as a “last-minute scramble,” arguing that statement was not supported by evidence. Despite the interruptions, Paul walked through each count against Tal, arguing there was no proof he was even present for some of the alleged incidents and that the government’s theory relied on speculation rather than evidence.
Marc Agnifilo (For Oren Alexander): Marc Agnifilo’s summation centered on the most explosive piece of evidence: the video of Oren raping a 17-year-old Amelia Rosen. While conceding to the jury, “You’re not going to like the video,” he argued that Oren’s “dominant purpose” was not to create a visual depiction of the act, a key element of the sexual exploitation charge. “He was going to do it regardless,” Agnifilo claimed, pointing out that Oren had already had sex with Amelia once that night without filming it. He then pivoted to the distribution of the video, arguing that Oren never sent it to anyone. Instead, he claimed, the other man in the room, Ido Berniker, sent it to himself from Oren’s computer. “This video is made, it goes one place, and one place only. It goes to Ido Berniker’s email address,” Agnifilo stated. “Why does it go there? Because Ido sent it. And you know Ido sent it when you look at the end of the video and you see Ido’s face and you see that he’s manipulating the computer… What he’s doing is sending the video to himself.” Agnifilo further argued that Oren immediately deleted the video from his computer, a fact confirmed by an FBI forensic expert who testified he had to recover it from “deleted space” using a special carving technique. He concluded with a powerful plea to the jury to set aside their emotions. “The oath matters,” he declared. “It takes courage to acquit… And I want you guys to know that that’s what you should do here.”
10 Key Moments from Day 18
The “Broadway Show Dancer”: Howard Srebnick ridiculed Rhonda Stone’s claim of being drugged into paralysis by showing photos of her dancing energetically, comparing her to a “Fly Girl from In Living Color” or a “Broadway show dancer.”
“I Fucked Twins”: Srebnick repeatedly reminded the jury that Rhonda Stone’s first statement to her sister after the alleged group rape was not “I was assaulted,” but “I fucked twins.”
“Not the Gambinos”: Deanna Paul mocked the conspiracy charge, telling the jury, “These three brothers are not mobsters. They’re not the Gambinos.”
The Blog Disavowal: Paul argued there was “not one shred of evidence” that Tal Alexander knew the “Vent on Bitches” blog even existed, let alone wrote for it.
The “Absurd” Sex Trafficking Theory: Paul attacked the government’s core legal theory, arguing it was “absurd” to claim that providing a trip to the Hamptons constituted a “commercial sex act.”
The Missing Lease: Paul highlighted that for the one weekend Tal is accused of trafficking Lindsey Acree, the government produced no lease, no emails, and no photos proving he even had a house in the Hamptons.
“You’re Not Going to Like the Video”: Marc Agnifilo began his discussion of the Amelia Rosen rape video by acknowledging its disturbing nature but urging the jury to look past their emotions.
The “Dominant Purpose” Argument: Agnifilo argued Oren’s primary goal was the sexual act itself, not filming it, and therefore he did not meet the legal standard for the sexual exploitation charge.
The Other Man: Agnifilo suggested the other man in the video, Ido Berniker, was the one who actually sent the video from Oren’s computer, undermining the idea that Oren filmed it for distribution.
“It Takes Courage to Acquit”: Agnifilo concluded his summation with a dramatic appeal to the jury’s sense of duty, telling them that despite the unpleasant evidence, their oath required them to acquit if the government had not proven every element of the specific crimes charged.
