5.Dawn Hughes — Direct/Cross (Part 2)
545 linesMR. LESKO: So, Dr. Hughes, when we left off, I believe you were discussing this coercive dynamic involving perpetrators and victims. And in these relationships, are the abusive acts that you have discussed often interspersed with times of normalcy or positive moment?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes. Absolutely. What we know is nothing happens 100 percent of the time, but you see overarching dynamic of the coercive control and the sexual violence that typifies any relationship, and what we do see is times where there isn't abuse, where there are times when the individual is kind, when there's time when the individual is giving some loving and caring sort of behaviors and emotions to that individual. So that is very common. And what that does is it makes the victim sort of yearn for and want that piece of that individual, right. That's why they got into this situation in the first place, for the love, the kindness, the teaching, the camaraderie, the family.
Those are the reasons that they get into the relationships. So when those resurface, it creates a very sort of conditioned response, almost like a slot machine, that, you know, I want to keep going because maybe I'm going to get more of this and maybe it really wasn't so bad and maybe he didn't really mean to do the things he did. But then the abuse starts again. So it's a sort of cyclical pattern that happens. But normalcy is why individuals want to remain in the relationship and the abuse is why they want to leave.
(Continued on following page.)
EXAMINATION CONTINUES BY MR. LESKO:
MR. LESKO: Is that confusing to victims?
DAWN HUGHES: It's confusing for us to talk about, just imagine how confusing it is for someone who has to live it. It's incredibly psychologically confusing because you're trying to really assimilate two diametrically opposed parts of an individual. Someone who is going to hurt you, abuse you, micromanage you and, you know, demand obedience over you is someone who is now, you know, loving and fine and listening to what you have to say and telling you you're beautiful, and how do you reconcile two really irreconcilable differences?
MR. LESKO: So, in your experience, does the victim's inability to leave this sort of coercive relationship indicate that she actually wants to be abused?
DAWN HUGHES: Absolutely not. Some of those theories came out with Freud back in the 18th Century, the beginning of the 19th Century, that individuals who are victimized or abused are masochistic, meaning that they wanted it to come upon themselves. Those theories have been steadfastedly [sic] debunked. As I said before, I've never met one woman who wanted that.
So, the fact that they are in the relationship and having a hard time to get out is just really emblemic [sic] of the strategies that the perpetrator is using to keep them in the relationship, to keep that dominance, to prevent her from leaving, imposing those threats, and then her own sort of psychological confusion and difficulty trying to problem solve and actualize a way out.
MR. LESKO: So, Dr. Hughes, when this coercive dynamic is in full effect, when sex happens is it consensual?
DAWN HUGHES: I mean, sometimes it can --
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Objection. That's leading.
THE COURT: You may answer.
DAWN HUGHES: So, it's complicated and you have to really look at the unique factors of each situation.
Sometimes it is consensual because the person is looking for that love and that care and that sort of positive regard that they really wanted, but other times it's not. And when I speak to individuals who I'm treating or I'm evaluating, and I say, you know, Well, why didn't you just say no? And they look at me like I have five heads. Like, that is not even a possibility, I can't say no.
So if no is taken off the table, then consent is not freely and knowingly given. If you feel that because there will be negative consequences for you saying no, or refusing, then that's not consent.
MR. LESKO: Now we talked about the coping strategies of compliance and submission and I think peace-making, you may have mentioned, that all -- that sort of group of strategies.
Can those strategies, those coping strategies, result in behavior that appears to be consensual?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure, absolutely.
As I said before, if you see somebody who is acting in a kind way toward their partner and being -- trying to be loving and trying to engage them, and trying to sort of pull out and pull for that emotional attachment which they are sort of desperately wanting after being so abused and berated, you know, it may seem that it's consensual. So we need to sort of step back and make sure we're evaluating, you know, all of the circumstances to really determine sort of where does the consent lie here and where is her power and her autonomy to say no.
MR. LESKO: So how are you able to determine whether that relationship was actually consensual or not?
DAWN HUGHES: So, what I do is I am able to sort of sit and I go through all of these type of behaviors. I look at the isolation. I look at the shaming and the humiliation. I look at the control and the micromanaging. I look at the degrading behaviors. I look at, you know, the surveillance and stalking behaviors. And then I say, If all of this wasn't here, would you have had sex with him? And I get almost a resounding, Nope.
MR. LESKO: In your experience after extricating themselves from a coercive relationship of the type you've described, how do victims feel about having remained in that relationship?
DAWN HUGHES: It's a really, really tough time. They often feel a tremendous amount of shame, a tremendous amount of self-blame and self-loathing. They often say to me, I was so stupid. How could I have been so stupid? How did I not see it? How did I not know all of this was going on?
So there's really a lot of that sort of unpacking of understanding the full breadth of what the person experienced and then sort of helping them to work through those initial responses of just that, you know, utter shame and sort of self-blame about the abuse that was perpetrated on her.
MR. LESKO: No further questions, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Cross-examination.
CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. Der OHANNESIAN:
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Good afternoon -- good morning.
DAWN HUGHES: I think it's afternoon. Good afternoon.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Good afternoon, Dr. Hughes. My name is Paul der Ohannesian and I represent Keith Raniere in this matter.
I will give you a chance to answer my questions, but if you don't understand them, please tell me. And if I haven't given you a chance to answer, please tell me also.
DAWN HUGHES: Okay.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I want to understand a little bit about what you do now.
I think you said you see clients in a private practice; is that correct?
DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You also do consulting work, such as you're doing in this case, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Then you have a third thing that you do at Weill; is that correct?
DAWN HUGHES: At Weill Cornell Medical Center, yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In terms of the income that you make, what percentage would you say derives from your clinical work seeing patients?
DAWN HUGHES: Of my total?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Yes.
DAWN HUGHES: Probably have to ask my accountant. Probably around 35, 40 percent.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And what percentage of your income derives from doing consulting work as you're doing in this case?
DAWN HUGHES: That would be the remainder. So...
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So about 35 percent from seeing clients and about 65 percent from seeing -- or doing forensic and consulting work, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: And sometimes 60/40. I mean it varies and fluctuates, although the clinical tends to stay more steady and the forensic stuff comes and goes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Now, at Weill Medical College here in New York City, in your position, do you have a research requirement to fulfill?
DAWN HUGHES: I do not.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In your position as this -- in some type of assistant professor, you said?
DAWN HUGHES: Clinical assistant professor of psychology in the Department of Psychiatry.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay. And is there any type of writing requirement, in terms of having to submit articles to professional jurors to maintain that position?
DAWN HUGHES: You mean professional journals?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Yes.
DAWN HUGHES: Okay. There is no requirement for that. We are required to submit what our professional activities are over the course of the year and in those questions are, have you presented at a conference? Have you done a journal?
So they do tally that information, but it's not a requirement of -- of the position.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And, again, the requirement I'm discussing is having to publish peer-reviewed articles; that is not part of your requirement at Weill?
DAWN HUGHES: That is not.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: There are individuals who are on the faculty who must do that, that is submit professional articles, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Individuals who have full-time faculty positions; typically, in those positions you are required to publish papers in your field of specialization. My position is what we saw as a voluntary faculty position, so we do not get paid actually for the work that we do, but we are not required to publish and conduct research.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And so your title is voluntary clinical assistant professor?
DAWN HUGHES: I think my title is clinical assistant professor of psychology in the Department of Psychiatry. I'm just elucidating for the jury that that's a voluntary position, meaning I'm not receiving an income from that position.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: But Weill specifically has the title "voluntary" next to your name on the website, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I haven't gone on the website, but perhaps.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And the faculty handbook specifically states that voluntary is a specific title at the medical college, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Right, we're part of the voluntary faculty, we're part of the voluntary faculty Listserv.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So just so we're clear here in the courtroom, you don't get any money for doing anything at Weill Medical College?
DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And, right now, about how many clients would you say that you are actively treating?
DAWN HUGHES: About 20 to 25 clinical hours per week.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Hours or patients?
DAWN HUGHES: Hours. Some people I see twice a week.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So about how many clients are you currently attending to in your practice?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, I have some people who come once a month. Some people who come, you know, once every other week. So, again, it's about 25 people who I would say are on my active roster, and then I see about 25 clinical -- between 20 and 25 clinical hours a week.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So those 25 folks you're saying may not be there each month?
DAWN HUGHES: I mean it's hard to assess. I mean some might be traveling and not be there a perfect month, but they're still on my -- under my clinical care and on my caseload. I have not closed them out.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay. How many folks would you say you've seen in the last 30 days in your practice, different individuals?
DAWN HUGHES: Again, I see about 20 to 25 clinical hours per week.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Those are hours. How many --
DAWN HUGHES: Patients, right.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Patients?
DAWN HUGHES: I have one patient per patient hour, yes. But some patients may come twice, so there may be some duplicates.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And for how many years have you been doing what might be concerned courtroom or forensic work?
DAWN HUGHES: Since the very beginning, since I was licensed. So since 1998, at the same time I had opened my private practice.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And have you ever testified on behalf of an individual who has been accused or alleged to have engaged in an act of sexual assault?
DAWN HUGHES: I have not.
As part of the defense?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I didn't ask -- I said, have you ever testified on behalf of an individual who's been accused of a criminal act of sexual assault?
DAWN HUGHES: As part of the defense, no. I've testified as part of the prosecution in those matters, but not the defense.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In other proceedings?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Not on behalf of someone who's ever been accused of a sexual assault, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In your practice, do you currently treat or see anyone who has been accused of sexual assault?
DAWN HUGHES: I do not. I do not treat offenders.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And would it be fair to say that, in your entire practice, you have never treated or met an offender in the course of your professional work?
DAWN HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In the course of your treating individuals in your office, have you ever treated an individual accused of sexual assault?
DAWN HUGHES: So I have treated, as I stated earlier, in the family violence program, male batterers who were court ordered for treatment. I've also consulted and treated individuals, men, who have been in violent relationships and doing protocolized [sic] treatment with them to help them to stop their violent behavior.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Was your statement a few minutes ago that you do not treat offenders?
DAWN HUGHES: Sex offenders.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Correct. And I believe you indicated that, in this matter, you told Mr. Lesko you're getting $500 an hour; is that correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you keep track of your hours in this case?
DAWN HUGHES: I do.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And how many hours have you spent to date on this case?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, I haven't tallied it up to this point, but probably around 20, not including today.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Is there any --
DAWN HUGHES: More or less. I haven't tallied up the hours, so I am sort of making a best estimate.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So is that a guess or is that an estimate?
DAWN HUGHES: I guess it's a guesstimate.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay.
And is there any agreement in terms of an amount that you could be compensated in this case?
DAWN HUGHES: I think there was -- in the contract that was sent to me, there was -- which is what often happens with agencies, what the -- the most that was allowed or was admitted and I don't actually recall what that was, though.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You don't recall what that was?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't recall what that was.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Could I show the witness a document?
THE COURT: Okay.
BY MR. Der OHANNESIAN:
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: First of all, do you recognize what this is?
DAWN HUGHES: I think I have seen it before. It's part of the contract that was e-mailed to me from the U.S. Attorney's office.
THE COURT: DX-815.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Is this the contract that you were referring to?
DAWN HUGHES: It's one piece of the contract. It's not the entire contract.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Does this refresh your recollection as to what that amount was in your contract with the Government?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay. And what is that amount?
DAWN HUGHES: The total amount allowed is $19,000.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Thank you.
And when were you first contacted in this case?
DAWN HUGHES: In the beginning of March.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Of this year, 2019?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And I think you said you received some information on this case from -- you didn't receive any information from the Government, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you received information from outside sources?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, I didn't receive information. I do read The New York Times daily and I had seen some of the headlines. So I'm quite busy, I didn't have time to read all the articles, but I saw, you know, a couple of the snippets and the opening paragraphs of some Times articles.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Other sources also besides The New York Times?
DAWN HUGHES: Maybe the New York Post.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Do you believe everything you read in the newspaper?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, that's why I qualified it.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In fact, I think you said one thing you knew about this case was that Mr. Raniere was from an isolated community in New York State. Do you recall making that phrase?
DAWN HUGHES: I do.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay. And when you say isolated community, what do you mean by that phrase?
DAWN HUGHES: I think I was referring to the self-help community, sort of in that -- encapsulation of that group, not necessarily that Albany is an isolated town in New York State.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Well, do you know whether it was in Albany or someplace else?
DAWN HUGHES: I believe it was outside of Albany, but again I'm not well-versed in sort of the intricacies of all of that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Do you have any reason to doubt that Clifton Park, New York, is a very suburban, middle class community?
DAWN HUGHES: If that's true, I have no reason to doubt that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Have you ever been there?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't believe I have.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You've been to Albany?
DAWN HUGHES: I have been to Albany.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: To testify?
DAWN HUGHES: I have.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Any other professional associations with upstate New York?
DAWN HUGHES: I've testified in various counties in upstate New York.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Most recently what county?
DAWN HUGHES: In upstate New York?
DAWN HUGHES: I guess Erie County. I've been in Oneida County. I've been in Dutchess County.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And Dutchess is where Poughkeepsie is?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That's where you testified most recently?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Just to verify, in this case you've received -- excuse me, you've met no individual who has been identified as a witness in this case; is that fair to say?
DAWN HUGHES: That's correct. I've met no one, I've seen nothing.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And I think you said you've reviewed no testimony in this case, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you've reviewed no statements from any individual, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that's true with respect to your online work that you may have come in contact with; is that fair to say?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In your practice you do rely on what you see and hear from individuals face-to-face, right?
DAWN HUGHES: In my clinical practice?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you use the face-to-face direct contact to form impressions and opinions, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct. I mean certainly that can be buttressed by other information; I mean, sometimes we talk to family members. Sometimes I'll review their medical records or prior treatment records. So, if I need more information, I will get those third-party information.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And in fact, it is helpful to you to have third-party information in evaluating individuals and what happened to them, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Right. So when I do a forensic evaluation, it's much different than what a clinical evaluation is. So the forensic evaluation is much more comprehensive, much more complex, in that I am looking at a variety of sources and witness reports and police reports and medical records and witness statements, and doing psychological testing and talking to people. So it's a much more comprehensive evaluation than in a clinical practice.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In this case, are you making a forensic evaluation?
DAWN HUGHES: I am not.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And in this case, you are not testifying to an opinion on the psychological characteristics of any particular individual, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you agree that a psychologist, such as yourself, cannot give an opinion on psychological characteristics of an individual when he or she has not assessed that person?
DAWN HUGHES: That's a generally fair statement.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Is that a state -- or is that a principal required by your Code of Ethics of the American Psychological Association?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, you can't diagnose an individual. I mean, certainly some psychologists or psychiatrists can talk about characteristics they see in a person on TV, that does happen. I, you know, try not to do that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You would agree that the American Psychological Association, which you are a part of, states that a psychologist should only render an opinion of an individual after an examination of the individual adequate to support the statement or conclusion?
MR. LESKO: Objection.
THE COURT: You may answer.
DAWN HUGHES: Correct. I agree with that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I think this morning we've heard the phrase "in your experience." Right? You were -- you were asked many questions about your experience, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't know if it was many, but I'm sure I used the phrase.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You heard -- I think Mr. Lesko used the phrase in asking you the questions. And you are coming here today giving us an opinion based on your experience, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Based on my experience, but also my read and my knowledge of the empirical literature in the field I've been part of for over twenty years.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Let's talk about your experience.
So you said twenty years you have been in clinical practice, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Twenty-plus, so twenty-one.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay. And among the individuals that you see in your practice, do each of them present with a history of sexual or intimate violence?
DAWN HUGHES: Not each one of them.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Do you treat people with anxiety disorders?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay. And the people that you're treating with anxiety orders do not necessarily have anything to do with the dynamics of sexual assault complaining?
DAWN HUGHES: Right, I have some people in my practice who do not have a trauma history.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And when individuals come to you in a clinical setting -- can we call that a clinical setting?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Is that fair?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And a clinical setting could be in the psychologist's office, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: It can also be in a clinic setting in a hospital, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct, or a community-based program. There is a variety of, you know, venues where we can do clinical practice.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: It's fair to say a clinical setting is a term of art that psychologists use?
DAWN HUGHES: I guess so, yeah. I -- using clinical work being a clinical psychologist.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I mean you could talk to people who say they've been traumatized outside of a clinical setting, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: In what capacity? As a layperson?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Yes. Just talk to them and hear what they've got to say.
DAWN HUGHES: For the purpose of what?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Let me put it --
DAWN HUGHES: Okay.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Let me try to narrow it. I think it's simpler than you and I are making it.
In your office, that's what's called a clinical setting, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I differentiate the clinical setting as opposed to, perhaps, the example you're giving me as talking to someone in the grocery line about a trauma or rape.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that does happen, because of your job, people come to you and ask you a question about a psychological matter?
DAWN HUGHES: It does.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That happens to professionals?
DAWN HUGHES: It does.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Now, when you speak to an individual in your practice, these are individuals who claim they were sexually abused, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Again, some percentage of my patients, yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Right, and that's important, not a hundred percent of your clients are claiming to be sexually abused. There can be other forms of trauma that you deal with, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And I think that's what you told us, that you're dealing in your experience with different forms of trauma?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct. But mostly interpersonal violence trauma. I mean, the other forms of trauma are -- like I did a lot of the work on the 9/11 terrorist attacks and that -- that has sort of died down. People who have been in a motor vehicle accident would be a traumatic event. Someone who lost someone suddenly to suicide or a traumatic event.
But that's not the bulk of -- my practice is really more the interpersonal violence type of events.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Interpersonal violence could be domestic violence, for example?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Without any sexual assault involved?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes, but the data shows there's a tremendous amount of sexual assault in these domestic violence situations.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: May or may not, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Right, I'm just saying that's what the data shows. So it has to be assessed and it has to be examined.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And when you speak to individuals in your practice, you assume that they have been sexually assaulted when they report that to you?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't assume. I -- I do a comprehensive evaluation to understand the facts that they're bringing to the treatment.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And do you go to third parties to verify the information they give you about their alleged victimization?
DAWN HUGHES: No, not in a clinical setting.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Exactly, because in a clinical setting, it would not be expected that you would go out to verify the claim, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you have used your interactions with individuals presenting to you with their stories of interpersonal issues to give opinions today, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: To sort of elucidate some of the facts and to talk more sort of real about some of the things that we see in our clinical practices, yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And when individuals come to you -- and again you take their word for it, as a clinical setting, and you deal with what their complaint is to you, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, I certainly make an assessment as to what they're telling me; does it make sense? Does it sort of fall in, you know, what I have listened to and learned over the course of all of my training.
If it doesn't, then I might be askance and do something else, but I don't just sit blindly back and say okay. I mean, I certainly do a comprehensive assessment of the individual.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And do you engage in psychological testing of those individuals?
DAWN HUGHES: Sometimes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And sometimes not?
DAWN HUGHES: And sometimes not.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And the psychological testing may or may not be helpful to you in assessing what happened to them, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct. It's more to assessing their current symptomatology as they're coming in the door.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And if someone came to you with a complaint of interpersonal violence, as a therapist, you have to deal with what they are telling you, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: It's not your job to interrogate them or challenge them, is that fair to say?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, certainly not interrogate them. I mean, if -- we -- we challenge the cognitive distortions. We challenge the denial. We challenge the avoidance. So there is gentle challenging in moving through --
DAWN HUGHES: -- their understanding and unpacking the trauma that they experienced.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: But it would be fair to say you don't challenge the underlying facts of what the individual has reported to you?
DAWN HUGHES: I mean, in general, no. I mean there could be a situation where it doesn't make sense and I try to sort of understand it better.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Would you agree that when you assess a clinical population, that -- excuse me, would you agree that assessing a clinical population is different from assessing a nonclinical population?
DAWN HUGHES: And by nonclinical, you mean?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Outside those who present in a clinical setting.
DAWN HUGHES: Again, you'd have to be more specific. I don't know why I would assess someone outside of a clinical setting, other than a forensic setting.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Well, you would agree that when evaluating individuals who present with a history of abuse, that findings in a clinical setting may be dramatically different from a nonclinical setting?
DAWN HUGHES: Again, I really don't know what you're trying to say.
(Continued on the following page.)
BY MR. DER OHANNESIAN (Continuing):
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Would you agree that the extent of abuse experienced in a nonclinical setting may be different from what you observe in a clinical setting?
DAWN HUGHES: I'm not trying to be difficult, but I don't know what you mean by "nonclinical setting" and what would be different.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Would you agree that interviewing individuals in a clinical setting cannot be generalized to nonclinical populations?
DAWN HUGHES: So, what do you mean by a "nonclinical population"?
Do you mean, like, research?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: People --
DAWN HUGHES: I don't really know what you mean.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: When we discussed people who may have some history of some sort involving whatever issues of violence or trauma, then what you see in a clinical setting, they will be different from what happens in a nonclinical setting.
DAWN HUGHES: Again, I don't know what you mean by a "nonclinical setting."
Do you mean on the street?
You have to be a little more clear.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You have written about the differences between clinical and nonclinical settings, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: About clinical and forensic.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: How about nonclinical?
DAWN HUGHES: In what context?
You have to give me more information so I can properly help you out.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: This is for the witness, DX800.
Can you see this?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Do you recognize what this is?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes, this is an article that was published from my master's thesis in 1996.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That's when you were attending what school?
DAWN HUGHES: NOVA Southeastern University.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Inn where is that?
DAWN HUGHES: In South Florida.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: This is an article that was submitted under your name, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: As one of three authors, yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And usually the first author is the lead author; is that the way it works --
DAWN HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: -- in your field?
But it's certainly an article that you list on your resume when you go to court, right?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And if you look at Page 333, can you read that okay or should I make it a little larger?
DAWN HUGHES: Where are you wanting me to read, the last paragraph?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Yes.
And if you read the last paragraph, the first sentence?
DAWN HUGHES: Would you like me to read it out loud.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: No --
THE COURT: No.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: -- read it to yourself.
DAWN HUGHES: Okay. So, I know what I'm seeing, and now I perhaps can help you out.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You've used the word "nonclinical settings," correct?
DAWN HUGHES: So, what this is referencing is referencing nonclinical groups in large epidemiological studies. So, when we're looking at nonclinical groups, that means we're calling someone from random digit dialing on a phone or we're doing a mail survey and asking what are the symptoms of abuse or symptomatology.
What I'm saying here is that we know when we look at that and compare them to clinical groups, people in treatment, they have higher degrees of symptomatology. That's all that's saying.
So, when they say "nonclinical groups," that's a research population.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So, there are differences in data received in a clinical context versus a nonclinical context.
DAWN HUGHES: Again, based on some of the studies, there certainly can be.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You've used the phrase "nonclinical settings" in evaluating information about individuals and their psychological backgrounds, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't know. Maybe I have.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: What about in this article; did you use it in this article?
DAWN HUGHES: But you're not using it the way I'm using it.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Okay.
DAWN HUGHES: You're using it incorrectly.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You said epidemiological studies --
DAWN HUGHES: What this is saying, when you're looking at nonclinical groups, you're looking at information derived from individuals who have had abuse experiences who are not in treatment. That's all that's saying.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And you also wrote another article called: Degrees of memory of child sex abuse among women survivors in therapy.
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You weren't the lead author on that.
DAWN HUGHES: Right. That was my dissertation.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: But there was an article published with that title, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And would you agree that you indicated that when talking about child sexual abuse, that interviewing individuals in a clinical setting cannot be generalized to nonclinical population?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And I think you also told Mr. Lesko that you don't know when someone doesn't present.
DAWN HUGHES: For treatment, yeah.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That's because people who you're not seeing in your practice may be undergoing different experiences than what you exhibit, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Than what I exhibit?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: What you experience. Let me rephrase that.
DAWN HUGHES: Yeah.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You agree that when you use the phrase you don't know when the person doesn't present means you don't know if the experiences of those individuals who you're not seeing is consistent with what you're seeing in your clinical setting.
Is that a fair statement?
DAWN HUGHES: It could be fair, yeah.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Would you agree that an empirical study is one where the information can be replicated?
DAWN HUGHES: Certain studies can be replicated, not all studies, but sure.
An empirical study is one that rests on sort of solid scientific methodology and principles and statistical analysis.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: How about in your 20 years of clinical practice, have you ever collected any data on your clients and submitted it for review in a professional journal?
DAWN HUGHES: I have not.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: As a psychologist, do you use a phrase or are you familiar with a phrase called "secondary gain"?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Is that a term of art for psychologists?
DAWN HUGHES: It's a term used more in the forensic realm than in the clinical realm, but it has been used in both, sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In the "forensic realm," you mean in a courtroom setting?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Because the courtroom setting may add a different dimension to someone who presents to you; is that fair to say?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure.
It may be different motivating factors of why someone may present in some kind of symptomatology or narrative to you if they are trying to get off of criminal charges, if they are in a civil case trying to get monetary remuneration for something that happened to them.
So, that maybe there. We have to assess for it and look at it and rule it out, but it's a possibility and we need to look at it and assess for it.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Let me go back to what you just said because that was a long answer --
DAWN HUGHES: Right.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: -- with some important points.
In other words, a person can be motivated in a forensic setting by a desire to avoid responsibility.
DAWN HUGHES: As a criminal defendant, sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Or any individual may want to avoid responsibility for their conduct, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: In general, that can be true.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That's part of what secondary gain seeks to address, right?
DAWN HUGHES: Secondary gain in the forensic context really is talking more about the litigant and what they have to do, not the other individuals. But there's secondary gain for people wanting to get emotional attachment or wanting to get feelings of adulation, and that can be, in general, a psychological principle as well.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I think you indicated money can also be what's called secondary gain.
DAWN HUGHES: Uh-huh.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Right?
DAWN HUGHES: Or motivating factor, sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Another way of saying motivating factor for why the person is presenting, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that is something you would want to try to assess if you can.
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You may or may not be able to assess that, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And secondary gain can be reason to, in short, fabricate an allegation, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: It could.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Secondary gain can also involve revenge, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't know if I'd call it secondary gain, but revenge could be a motive that an individual has, of course.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: As well as retaliation, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And as a forensic psychologist, your concern in a forensic setting is if an individual you're working with in a forensic setting may be feigning psychological difficulties.
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
And we have methods and methodology to assess for that, and that is a very integral part of a forensic mental health or psychological evaluation.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I'll ask you about that in a second.
So, there's a word that is used by psychologists called "malingering"?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that's a way of saying someone is intentionally producing symptoms or a complaint.
DAWN HUGHES: Well, malingering is the false production of psychological symptoms.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And avoiding military duty could be a reason to malinger, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I think you're equating malingering with lying and they are not the same thing.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Malingering is focusing on the false psychological symptoms, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You are concerned, though, that in a forensic context a motivation may exist to falsely report or distort symptomology.
DAWN HUGHES: Sure, that's one factor that I want to make sure I'm looking at and I'm assessing.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that's why psychologists do have techniques, you said, to assess that, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And those techniques involve certain psychological tests, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
And, also, the examination of third-party information and medical records and psych records and health records and military records. So, you're looking for consistency across data points.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And there are several psychological tests that you have used to assess clients that you've worked with who do bring lawsuits, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Forensic clients.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: "Forensic" because they're involved in a courtroom setting?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And certainly in this case, you haven't done any of that testing that may seek to determine whether people are faking good or faking bad, for example.
DAWN HUGHES: Right. This was, as I stated, an opportunity to provide general testimony in the field of sexual assault and coercive control.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: When I say "faking good" and "faking bad," does that have a specific meaning to you?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That's something -- it's one of the scales on one of the psychological tests --
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: -- that you use?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And there are different ways that people are assessed in terms of not telling the truth about their experiences or conditions; fair to say?
DAWN HUGHES: There's sort of a variety of things that a person can do; a person can exaggerate, a person can minimize, a person can confabulate. And it doesn't necessarily mean that they are not telling the truth, so you really have to examine all the external data.
And, certainly, we know that individuals who also malinger usually do have bona fide mental illnesses as well. So, it's really important to sort of tease out what's going on, and the psychological testing gives us one tool to help do that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And in addition to the tests that you use to evaluate the reliability of information by clients, in your clinical setting you would want to have a full psychiatric history.
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, I'll object.
May we have a sidebar, please?
THE COURT: All right.
(Continued on the following page.)
(The following occurred at sidebar.)
MR. LESKO: Your Honor, I have not objected for about 20 minutes, but this area of cross-examination is extremely misleading and beyond the scope of direct.
Dr. Hughes has testified repeatedly she conducted no evaluations, no examinations, she did not do any assessments, and I think this cross-examination is confusing the jury because it's detailed questions about all sort of aspects of evaluations and assessments. It has nothing to do with the general testimony that the expert has offered. So, we're going to object to continuing this line of cross-examination.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I don't have much more, but I think it goes to her experience and how to evaluate individuals who presented to her as opposed to individuals who present in a forensic setting. But I am actually almost done with this point.
THE COURT: What other questions do you have?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: There was maybe one other question along the same lines, about what a complete psychiatric history would be.
THE COURT: That is outside the scope of the direct, so it's out. Okay, that's it.
Do you have anything else for her?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I do.
(Continued on the following page.)
(Sidebar ends; in open court.)
BY MR. DER OHANNESIAN:
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Have you discussed this case with any attorneys other than the prosecutors in this case?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't believe so. I mean, people knew I was testifying in the case.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Specifically, any attorneys?
DAWN HUGHES: An attorney on the defense team knew that I was testifying in this case.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: What attorney is that?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't remember the name, not -- one of the other defendants. And then an e-mail was sent to me that I was testifying. The letter that was presented.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Are you saying an attorney for Keith Raniere or someone else?
DAWN HUGHES: I believe it was for someone else.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Another defendant?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And did you discuss the case with that attorney?
DAWN HUGHES: No.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That attorney contacted you?
DAWN HUGHES: Forwarded the letter that someone forwarded him, yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Do you know the name of that attorney?
DAWN HUGHES: Who forwarded the letter?
MR. LESKO: Objection.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Mr. Lesko questioned you and asked you about the incidence of unwanted sexual contact; do you recall that?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure, we talked a lot about that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: An unwanted sexual contact is not a legal term, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't believe so. I'm not qualified to tell you that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: "Unwanted sexual contact" could include sexual harassment, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: It can include a variety of contact which is not criminal in nature; do you agree?
DAWN HUGHES: If somebody is grabbing -- do you mean unwanted noncontact forms of abuse or do you mean contact forms of abuse?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: The phrase "unwanted sexual contact" includes many actions which are not necessarily criminal, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: My belief is that some probably could rise to the level of a criminal offense.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And some don't.
DAWN HUGHES: Agreed.
MR. LESKO: Objection.
THE COURT: I'm sorry, this is beyond the scope. She's not a legal expert.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: When you use the phrase "unwanted sexual contact," do you have a specific definition for that?
DAWN HUGHES: So, unwanted sexual contact could be voyeurism, making the individual stand nude, making her wear lingerie, making her have sex with other people, it could include forcing her to have sex, forcing her to engage in certain positions.
It's unwanted. So, by virtue of me saying unwanted sexual activity, it's coercive.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: It could be someone saying something of a sexual nature that you don't want to hear?
DAWN HUGHES: It would depend on the degree of that, but yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: There's no recognized psychological definition of unwanted sexual contact; would you agree?
DAWN HUGHES: Probably.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: You probably would agree?
DAWN HUGHES: I would think so. It's been defined in a variety of studies. Certainly in the large-scale National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey they talk about other forms of sexual contact. So, that definition has been used in a variety of contexts.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And there's many different definitions of "unwanted sexual contact," correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I would agree with that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I think you said that many perpetrators know their victims, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Some don't?
DAWN HUGHES: Small percentage, correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And I think you said that there's many reasons that individuals may not report, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And there's many reasons that individuals may report, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Some individuals do report right away, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Some do.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Some do and some don't, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: We're looking at the percentage. What is clear is that the overwhelming majority of victims do not report.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And how victims disclose, you said, based on your clinical experience, can vary tremendously.
DAWN HUGHES: And, also, based on the research in the area of disclosure, yes, it can.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: There's a wide variety of possibilities, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: There are many different ways that are unique to that individual.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Some individuals disclose their traumatic event at one time, correct?
DAWN HUGHES: At one time, like, in their life span?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: When they report it.
DAWN HUGHES: At the time of the event?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Soon after the event or when they do report it, they report it in its completeness.
DAWN HUGHES: Again, in my experience, in my review of the literature, the completeness, I would not agree with.
(Continued on the following page.)
CROSS-EXAMINATION (Continuing) BY MR. der OHANNESIAN:
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Do some people report their traumatic experience at one time?
DAWN HUGHES: Is that possible?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And in terms of the impact, I think you were asked questions about the impact of alleged sexual assault; is that correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, it would be the impact of the sexual assault if there is an impact. It wouldn't be an alleged. But, yes, the impact.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that some people are more resilient than others; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: That's true.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: One again, individuals vary in how they respond to various traumas in their life; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Individuals vary in how they respond to an interpersonal situation; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: You mean in a violent or abusive situation?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Or even non-violent situations.
DAWN HUGHES: Sure. We're very unique individuals and our responses are going to be based on a variety of factors.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And how someone responds to someone approaching them in a social setting can vary from individual to individual; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And when someone is interested in someone sexually, how that response is reciprocated can vary from individual to individual; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct. If it's wanted and consensual, sure.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And individuals, even when there is a coercive dynamic are still capable of consenting to a sexual act?
DAWN HUGHES: Again, that's where you go it depends. It depends on the contingency. It depends on the threat. It depends on the sort of the severity of that coercive control. So if the individual feels that they don't have the capacity to say no, then that's not concept.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: So it does happen; correct? Even in the presence of a coercive dynamic, there can be a consensual relationship?
DAWN HUGHES: What's the "it does"? What's the "it"?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Even in the context of some type of what you have defined as a coercive dynamic, there can still be a consensual, mutual relationship?
DAWN HUGHES: There can be, as I stated, times of normalcy that are interspersed in that overarching coercive environment.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And that's something you need to evaluate on an individual basis to make an assessment; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Yes. We'd want to know the unique factors of that particular situation to better understand that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Some people in what you call a traumatic relationship maintain the relationship; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: In an abusive relationship, yes.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And some don't know; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Again, there's a lot of variables that go into that; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: I think you said that individuals can report because of a secondary gain; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Well, I think you said that.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Would you agree with that?
DAWN HUGHES: Reporting an actual assault?
DAWN HUGHES: I mean, I don't know if I agree as a flat reason of secondary gain.
I think, as we've just identified, there are multiple reasons that people report their abuse.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: But there can be secondary gain; correct?
MR. LESKO: Objection.
THE COURT: You may answer.
DAWN HUGHES: There can.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And someone can fail to report abuse because there is no abuse; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I mean, it's a negative. You can't fail to report something that didn't happen.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That's right. So if something didn't happen, it's not going to be reported; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: People can fail to report because the allegation is false; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Fail to report to law enforcement?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: To anyone.
DAWN HUGHES: If something didn't happen, then there's no reason for someone to report it, and there's no reason for them to fail to report it or to have an obstacle to report it if it didn't happen.
THE COURT: Could we identify what the source of an allegation that didn't happen and the failure to report? It sounds like semantics to the Court. Could you explain your question in a way that I understand it?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Did you say fail to report? What was the other phrase? I didn't hear.
THE COURT: Read back what I said, please.
(Record read.)
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Let me back up. Are you familiar with a study in the archives of sexual behavior concerning 57 documented false allegations of abuse?
DAWN HUGHES: Do you recall the author?
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: Yes. Andre De Zutter.
DAWN HUGHES: De Zutter?
DAWN HUGHES: I'm familiar with some of those articles.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: It's a Dutch study?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct. I believe so.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: That involved confirmed reports of false allegations; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: I don't have the study in front of me, but I know that there was a study by him that confirmed -- or that reported false reports.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And there were multiple motivations for false reporting; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And the number one reason was emotional regret?
DAWN HUGHES: For having had sex.
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: In addition, to coverup other behavior was another reason for those falls reports; correct?
DAWN HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DEROHANNESIAN: And if there is no assault, there is no reason for a person to make a report of assault, would you agree?
MR. LESKO: Objection.
THE COURT: You may answer.
DAWN HUGHES: Of course.