Skip to content
2025 Federal TrialtranscripttranscriptDawn Hughes — Direct/Cross (Part 1) - Day 12 - 2025 Federal TrialDr. Dawn Hughes gave general trauma testimony as a blind expert, followed by defense questioning about forensic evaluations and malingering.
Maurene R. ComeyMitzi SteinerJonathan BachAlexandra A.E. ShapiroArun SubramanianDawn HughesMS. STEINERDawn HughesMR. BACHTHE COURTMS. SHAPIROMS. COMEYdirectsidebarcross
7 pages·3 witnesses·2,732 lines
Gannon described search evidence and documentation limits; Hughes gave general trauma testimony; Kaplan testified after receiving immunity.
Dawn Hughes — Direct
DirectDirectDawn Hughes — Direct Dawn Hughes Mitzi Steiner

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. STEINER:

MS. STEINER: Good morning, Dr. Hughes.

DAWN HUGHES: Good morning.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, what is your profession?

DAWN HUGHES: I'm a clinical and forensic psychologist.

MS. STEINER: What is clinical psychology?

DAWN HUGHES: So clinical psychology is basically the study of human behavior of both normal and abnormal human behavior. Clinical psychologists assess and treat and evaluate individuals who are having difficulties in their life, from problems of living to major psychiatric and mental disorders. Psychologists can also teach and conduct research as well.

MS. STEINER: What is forensic psychology?

DAWN HUGHES: Forensic psychology is just the application of the science and principles of clinical psychology to a particular legal question.

MS. STEINER: Can you please describe your general educational background.

DAWN HUGHES: Yes. I received my bachelor's of arts degree in psychology at Hamilton College, which is upstate New York. I received my Master's of science and my doctorate degree in clinical psychology at Nova Southeastern University, which is in Florida. I had to do my full-year intensive internship to obtain the Ph.D. and that was at Yale University in their school of medicine in the department of psychiatry, and there I had two full-year rotations. Instead of breaking it up, I had a one full-year rotation at a substance abuse treatment unit run by Yale, and then the other one was at the West Haven Mental Health Clinic, where we treated individuals with more severe and persistent mental illness. After that, I came back to New York and had to complete my postdoctoral fellowship in order to amass a number of hours to get licensed in the State of New York, and that was at Weill Cornell Medical College on the east side, and there I worked in the department of psychiatry as well in the anxiety and traumatic stress program.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, can you please describe generally your training and experience in psychology and trauma.

DAWN HUGHES: Yes. My training in traumas is fairly unique because I've almost always had training in trauma. I started working in a domestic violence survivors program that was housed within a community mental health center during graduate school, and there we saw individuals who were coming in for treatment. We treated females, women who were victims of domestic violence. But we also had to assess and treat men who were court ordered for treatment for having battered or beaten their partners. So I was treating both for that full year. I also worked somewhat overlapped at the child sex abuse survivors program. I was the research coordinator for that program. And that was where individuals who had had childhood abuse were coming to the clinic to get help for the abuse to help heal from the traumatic effects of that victimization. And there I conducted a lot of research and data on those individuals so we could learn better about their experiences and how we could better help them.

After that, I worked at the Veterans Administration in the outpatient unit, again continuing that vain of trying to understand how trauma affects different people in different walks of life. And I'm dating myself, but back at that time I was able to treat individuals who were in World War II, which was such an honor, and also treat Vietnam era veterans and then veterans from the first Gulf War at that time. After that I was -- as I stated, I was at Yale University on an internship, and there I was in the substance abuse treatment unit. And because we know that there is a high degree of cooccurrence between substance-use disorders and trauma-based disorders, myself and my cointern, who also had had trauma training, we developed a group for female individuals who were heroin addicts. They were in recovery from heroin use, and they had some kind of abuse or trauma in childhood or adulthood, and we ran a group for them as well. And then also at Weill Cornell, at the anxiety and traumatic stress program, that's where I was seeing adolescents and ultimate adults who had experienced either a rape or sexual assault or physical assault or childhood neglect or abuse in that program.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, what do you do professionally?

DAWN HUGHES: So I'm currently in independent practice in New York City.

MS. STEINER: What does your independent practice entail?

DAWN HUGHES: So I look at it as three main areas. One area is the clinical area, where I treat individuals in therapy. I have an active clinical practice, two, two and a half days a week, where individuals are coming to me to deal with their problems that they have, struggling with the traumatic effects of the victimization or abuse or violence that they experienced. The other part I do is the forensic psychology part, so something that I'm doing here today. I also assess individuals who are involved in criminal or civil matters and write reports for the court and confer with attorneys on cases, and then sometimes I testify in court. And then the third part of what I do is, I'm on the faculty at Weill Cornell. I'm a clinical assistant professor in the department of psychiatry there and that means I'm supervising an extern, I'm participating in the teaching program, and I'm doing other type of academic things. This is called a voluntary position, which is what academic medical institutions do, which means you don't get paid for that, but you give your time back. So that's one of the things I do. And then the other part of that third bucket is, I'm engaged in our professional organizations, in the American Psychological Association and the trauma division specifically, and spend time because I'm on the board doing things with that organization as well, which also is not a paid position.

MS. STEINER: You have said a lot, Dr. Hughes. I am going to ask you to slow down a little bit. I want to make sure that the jury is able to take in everything you're saying. Asking a few follow-up questions, with respect to your clinical practice specifically, can you describe for the jury what that entails.

DAWN HUGHES: That entails people coming to my office for individual psychotherapy. Most of them, but not all, but a good majority of them have had some kind of violence or abuse in their lives, either having been sexually assaulted, having been a victim --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: That's overruled. But, Dr. Hughes, just make sure that you are listening to the questions asked and that you stay within those questions.

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, your Honor.

THE COURT: Ms. Steiner.

MS. STEINER: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: I believe you were saying that you primarily treat victims of trauma, is that correct, in your clinical practice?

DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.

MS. STEINER: In your forensic practice, just briefly, what does that entail?

DAWN HUGHES: That entails conducting sometimes comprehensive psychological assessments of individuals who are involved in criminal or civil matters.

MS. STEINER: And with respect to your teaching position at Weill Cornell, again, just briefly, what does that include?

DAWN HUGHES: So the teaching part is, I teach an ethics seminar for the incoming interns. I teach ad hoc seminars for the interns. I do supervision of an extern who is in the military families program who is treating some of our military members. I supervise him. And I field the ethics calls and trauma or violence calls from our faculty when they need consultation.

MS. STEINER: Earlier you mentioned a few professional organizations that you're a member of. Can you describe the organizations that you're a member of professionally and any leadership roles that you have in those organizations.

DAWN HUGHES: Yes. So, as I mentioned, I'm a member of the American Psychological Association, and that's the largest body of psychologists, and, because it's so big, it's broken down into different divisions. And one of the divisions is the division of trauma psychology, and that division was founded in 2007. I was one of the founding members advocating for APA to have this division. I served in many leadership roles, and I'm just rotating off as the past president of that organization. I also am part of trauma organizations, the International Society for Traumatic Stress Studies, the International Society for Trauma and Dissociation. I'm a member of a New York State Psychological Association, the Anxiety Disorders of America Association, and a local women's mental health consortium which is based here in New York City.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, what, if any, areas do you specialize in?

DAWN HUGHES: I specialize in interpersonal violence and traumatic stress.

MS. STEINER: What is interpersonal violence?

DAWN HUGHES: So interpersonal violence --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: May I have a moment, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may. Instead of that, let's have a very brief sidebar.

(Continued on next page)

sidebarsidebarExpert Qualification and Opinions

(At sidebar)

THE COURT: Mr. Bach, you have no objections to this witness' qualifications?

MR. BACH: I do not.

THE COURT: I think you can qualify the witness as an expert, and then let's get into the actual opinions.

MS. STEINER: Thank you.

(Continued on next page)

DirectDirectDawn Hughes — Direct Dawn Hughes Mitzi Steiner

(In open court)

MS. STEINER: Your Honor, just a couple more questions for the jury.

THE COURT: Of course.

MS. STEINER: Thank you.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, are you familiar with traumatic stress?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I am.

MS. STEINER: What generally does that include?

DAWN HUGHES: Traumatic stress is the psychological outcome, one psychological outcome that someone can have from sustaining a traumatic event, such as domestic violence, rape, sexual assault --

MR. BACH: Judge, objection.

THE COURT: That's overruled. Let keep it moving.

MS. STEINER: Do you have experience in that area, Dr. Hughes?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I do.

MS. STEINER: And in total approximately how many years have you practiced as a psychologist dealing with trauma and traumatic stress?

DAWN HUGHES: I think it's close to 30 years now.

MS. STEINER: During that time approximately how many trauma victims or victims of sexual abuse have you treated?

DAWN HUGHES: Probably thousands at this point.

MS. STEINER: And are you a board certified forensic psychologist?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I am.

MS. STEINER: At a very high level what does that mean?

DAWN HUGHES: That means that I have amassed the highest degree of board certification that psychologists can have, meaning that you have demonstrated a certain competency and excellence in the field of forensic psychology.

MS. STEINER: And are you licensed in various jurisdictions to practice psychology?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I am.

MS. STEINER: Can you just outline what those jurisdictions are.

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. I'm licensed in New York, in New Jersey, in Connecticut and in North Carolina.

MS. STEINER: Have you previously been qualified in the field of forensic psychology to give testimony as an expert witness?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I have.

MS. STEINER: Approximately how many times?

DAWN HUGHES: I think it's approximately 60, 65 times in court.

MS. STEINER: Again, what jurisdictions, if you could list them.

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. In New York, in New Jersey, in Pennsylvania, in Connecticut, in Virginia, and I think in the federal court in the Southern District here and the Eastern District and then the Northern District of New York.

MS. STEINER: Have you ever not been qualified as an expert?

MS. STEINER: Your Honor, at this time we offer Dr. Hughes as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology with specializations in trauma and traumatic stress.

MR. BACH: No objection.

THE COURT: The witness will be accepted on that basis. You may proceed.

MS. STEINER: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, are you aware of press and news reporting relating to the allegations in this case?

DAWN HUGHES: On a very brief level, yes.

MS. STEINER: Can you describe what you're aware of.

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: Do you have any personal knowledge of the facts of this case?

DAWN HUGHES: I do not.

MS. STEINER: Have you reviewed any evidence in this case?

DAWN HUGHES: I have not.

MS. STEINER: Have you interviewed the defendant?

DAWN HUGHES: I have not.

MS. STEINER: Have you interviewed any government victims or witnesses in this case?

DAWN HUGHES: I have not.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, why have you not assessed any victims or witnesses in this case?

DAWN HUGHES: Because it's my understanding that under the law I'm not permitted to do so.

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: Your Honor, can I have a brief sidebar on this issue?

MS. STEINER: Thank you.

(Continued on next page)

sidebarsidebarLimits on Hughes Testimony

(At sidebar)

MS. STEINER: Your Honor, the reason I elicited that question is because it is my understanding that we had discussed this in court previously, and given the expected testimony of someone like Dr. Bardey --

THE COURT: What was the question?

MS. STEINER: What's her understanding about why she can't interview any of the witnesses or victims in the case.

THE COURT: She cannot testify about that. I thought I was pretty clear when this issue came up that she can't testify about it, nor can Dr. Bardey address that issue.

MS. STEINER: I misunderstood, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

DirectDirectDawn Hughes — Direct Dawn Hughes Mitzi Steiner

(In open court)

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, a moment ago you said that you have seen press at a very high level in this case, is that right?

MS. STEINER: Without telling me any of the substance of what you reviewed, have you seen any details about what's been happening in court?

DAWN HUGHES: No, I haven't.

MS. STEINER: You testified a moment ago, Dr. Hughes, that you have not interviewed any witnesses or victims in the case, is that right?

DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.

MS. STEINER: And how, if at all, will that affect your ability to testify regarding any particular witness or victim?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: What is your understanding of what your role is here today for the jury?

DAWN HUGHES: So my role here today is to provide expert witness testimony as a blind expert. That means I don't know anything about the case or the players or the witnesses, and to provide the ladies and gentlemen of the jury of some things that we know in the field about domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, and traumatic stress.

MS. STEINER: On what topics is your testimony expected to be about today?

DAWN HUGHES: I'm really going to address four main topics. One of them is how do individuals, how do we understand why individuals stay in relationships mired with domestic violence. The second is how do individuals cope when they are in those relationships. The third is what are the -- the patterns of disclosure, how do victims finally tell about the abuse. And then the fourth category is what do we know about memory for traumatic events.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, you referenced earlier a term domestic violence. Can you very briefly define what you're referring to?

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. Domestic violence is commonly defined as a pattern of behavior that functions to instill fear and to control. It is using multiple abusive behaviors, such as --

MR. BACH: Objection to the subject.

THE COURT: Sustained. I think we can move on.

MS. STEINER: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, today when you testify using particular terms, will those terms be defined based on the psychological literature?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, that's correct.

MS. STEINER: Just to be clear, will those terms be based in any way on legal definitions of those concepts?

DAWN HUGHES: No, not at all.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, have you been retained by the government to testify here today?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I have.

MS. STEINER: And have you been retained in other cases by the government?

MS. STEINER: Have you been retained in some other cases by defense attorneys?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I have.

MS. STEINER: Are you being compensated for your work in this case?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I am.

MS. STEINER: And what is your hourly rate?

DAWN HUGHES: $600 an hour.

MS. STEINER: What is your rate for a court testimony?

DAWN HUGHES: I think it's $6,000 for the day.

MS. STEINER: Does that amount that you get paid depend in any way on the outcome of the trial?

DAWN HUGHES: No, not at all.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, turning to our first topic of why victims stay in relationships, based on your clinical experience and review of the academic literature, do victims at times remain in abusive relationships?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, they do. And it's important to understand that they don't remain in the relationships because they are unconcerned about the violence. They don't remain because they want to be abused. No victim wants to be abused, and anyone can be abused: Strong people, people who have vulnerabilities, smart people, people who have other difficulties and deficiencies, and we know that domestic violence crosses race, ethnicity, sex, gender.

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Just objection. Then I'll ask you if there are grounds for the objection. What are the grounds, briefly?

MR. BACH: Stay within the four corners of the question.

THE COURT: That's fair. Dr. Hughes, if you have a direct question, just give a direct answer and Ms. Steiner will follow up if she needs to. OK?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Based on, again, your clinical experience and your review of the literature, how common is it for a victim to remain in an abusive relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So it's very common.

MS. STEINER: Can you please describe what the academic literature states about why victims do stay in abusive relationships.

DAWN HUGHES: Yes. So there is three main categories that the research has looked at. This is a question that has been explored extensively over the last 40, 50 years. And the three main kind of areas are: One, they stay in the relationship because it's not just about hitting. It's about using a lot of different abusive behaviors that make a victim feel entrapped in the relationship and those abusive behaviors, it can be physical violence, but it's also psychological abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse, surveillance behaviors, and all of those behaviors conspire together to keep the victim trapped in the relationship and make it feel like they can't leave. Secondly, we know that in these types of relationships there is almost always love and attention and attraction and companionship, and it's those positive feelings that when they get paired with the violence and the abuse make it very difficult for the victim to see their way out. It creates an intense psychological bond, an attachment with their abuser that makes it difficult for them to leave. And the third bucket, the third reason we know why individuals have a hard time leaving the relationship is because of the psychological consequences from the abuse itself. We know in the psychiatric and psychological literature that exposure to repeated acts of violence and sexual assaults results in significant psychological disorders and symptoms, and that makes it difficult for individuals to have higher order planning to leave.

(Continued on next page)

MS. STEINER: And again, briefly, Dr. Hughes, when you say higher order of planning to leave, can you define what you mean by that?

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. In order to leave a very complex, difficult situation, it's hard for us to break up with someone under the best of circumstances, and then when you have all this violence and abuse, you're just trying to kind of live day-to-day in this micro way of trying to avoid being hit, avoid being yelled at, avoid being hurt, and that interferes with all these other resources. We need to think about how am I going to get out of this relationship.

MS. STEINER: And the first area of study, Dr. Hughes, that you just mentioned is you said there's a combination of types of abuse and it's not just about hitting. Can you briefly explain what you mean when you say it's not just about hitting.

DAWN HUGHES: Right. Because it's about the power and control that the abuser has over the victim, and the hitting is just one tool that the abuser used. The abuser uses other tools such as the psychological abuse --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Let's move on. Ms. Steiner, next question.

MS. STEINER: Yes, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Turning first to the physical abuse, the hitting, what effect does that have on a victim's ability to leave a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So when we are hit, harmed, beat up, the normal human emotion that gets arisen is fear, we feel scared, and it's very hard to take that fear away once you've been hit. So what happens is the victim, the brain organizes around that fear, and that fear is now organized around the relationship. So they're always sort of walking on eggshells trying not to do something to get hit. Once again, the resources are now being devoted to, how do I stay safe in this relationship and not over here, how do I do all these things I need to do to get out.

MS. STEINER: And specifically, what is it about this fear reaction that you're describing that makes it difficult for a victim to leave a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So fear is also a very debilitating emotion. When you feel anxiety, sort of butterflies in your stomach, that's the low-level fear. When you feel like oh, my gosh, I'm going to die on this roller coaster, that's the high-level fear. So if you're in high-level arousal and high-level fear, you're not really able to start thinking about these other big-deal things on your plate that you have to do, like leaving an abusive relationship.

MS. STEINER: How often does physical abuse need to happen in order to make it difficult for a victim to leave a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: It doesn't have to happen all the time. We know that once someone has shown us not only the ability, but the willingness to use violence against us, that link has been set, like our brains don't forget, we know that it can be forthcoming. And then with the other types of behaviors, the threats, the control, and the putdowns, that can solidify and reinforce that threat even without using more physical violence.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, you also mentioned earlier that psychological abuse can be a factor. How does psychological abuse cause a victim to remain in a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So psychological abuse is about threatening future violence and about controlling your victim. So when you are doing things that the abuser doesn't want you to do, there are negative consequences for that. That could be a physically violent act or that can be other acts. So the physical, psychological violence looks like intimidation, like threats, like throwing things, like telling you where you can go and what you can do.

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Hold on for just one moment, Dr. Hughes. Is it the same objection?

MR. BACH: Same objection and the Court's ruling.

THE COURT: I'm going to strike the witness's last answer. Ms. Steiner, can you re-ask the question that you did ask.

MS. STEINER: I will, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, very briefly and at a high level, can you describe how psychological abuse can cause a victim to remain in a relationship.

DAWN HUGHES: So because psychological abuse is so controlling, it makes the victim feel entrapped in that relationship. It makes her feel frayed because of the threats she can't get out, it makes her feel intimidated to make choices to get out because of that fear.

MS. STEINER: What effect does that have on the victim?

DAWN HUGHES: It has a tremendous amount of psychological distress when you're always trying to figure out what abusive behavior is coming at me and at which time, this proverbial feeling of walking on eggshells and not know what's coming next.

MS. STEINER: When you describe psychological distress, what does that look like?

DAWN HUGHES: So psychological distress is symptoms of depression, symptoms of anxiety, symptoms of PTSD where you're constantly being reminded of the acts that came before and you're really sort of on an equilibrium trying to keep yourself physically and psychologically safe, and not able to be thinking about how am I going to get out of this relationship.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, I want to make sure we all understand what you mean when you refer to psychological abuse. So very briefly and concisely, can you explain what that includes?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. Let's move on.

MS. STEINER: You testified that sexual abuse can also cause a victim to remain in a relationship. How does that work?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, because sexual abuse is so inherently damaging, it's a very private harm, and it very much debilitates a person's psychological functioning. Sexual abuse is one of the highest types of traumatic stressors that we know can result in PTSD and is often met with a high degree of psychological distress. So if you're in significant psychological distress in the relationship, you're walking around injured and harmed. It's important to understand that sexual abuse doesn't only mean --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: I think the witness answered the question that was asked. Ms. Steiner, do you have another question?

MS. STEINER: Why does that effect prevent a victim who's experienced sexual abuse from leaving the relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: Because they experience a tremendous amount of shame, humiliation, degradation, they don't want to talk about it, they don't even want to think about it in their own brain, they don't want to hear it come out of their own mouth, and they need significant help and resources in order to get out of that relationship. And if it's something you can't even talk about, these unspeakable acts, it prevents them from getting that help to get out of the relationship.

MS. STEINER: How, if at all, does emotional abuse cause a victim to remain in a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So, simply, emotional abuse is when we belittle, demean, and put down our partner. What that does, the result is that our partner begins to feel like a low sense of self, a low sense of esteem, not feeling like they're worthy, feeling like a piece of crap. When you feel so low about yourself, you're moving into depressive symptoms. When we have depressive symptoms, we really don't have the motivation to do other things that maybe could be helpful for us and we're still back to trying to prevent further physical violence or further psychological harm.

MS. STEINER: And again, can you bring us back to how that causes a victim to remain in a relationship.

DAWN HUGHES: Because if you can't talk about what's happening in the relationship, you can't get help, and who's going to talk about these very humiliating degrading sexual things your partner does to you when that's not supposed to happen in an intimate relationship.

MS. STEINER: How does a victim's financial dependence on an abuser affect their ability to leave?

DAWN HUGHES: So that's very important. We look, we say we need psychological resources to leave --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Grounds.

MR. BACH: Court's ruling.

THE COURT: It's overruled. A. So you need the psychological resources to leave, but you also need the tangible resources to leave. What we see in a lot of these situations of domestic violence, there's a lot of financial control. So if your abuser controls the money for, you know, housing, transportation, healthcare, childcare and just general sort of expenses of living, how are you to leave if you don't have access to those tangible resources? And sometimes that financial control is about sabotaging the victim's ability to have independence, taking away her laptop, taking away --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained. The jury should disregard the last sentence of the witness's answer. Ms. Steiner.

MS. STEINER: Same question, Dr. Hughes. How does this financial dependence, how can that prevent a victim from leaving a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So if you don't have access to tangible resources, money or an apartment, you are left with a feeling of where am I going to go, am I stuck here, and that makes it very difficult to leave.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, you've now testified about a few different types of abuse. How do these types of abuse interact to prevent a victim from leaving a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So they're all interacting, they're not all happening at once, they're not all happening simultaneously, sometimes they do, sometimes they don't, and that keeps the victim on a very unstable footing because they never know what's coming at them. So if you are unstable and you don't know how and when this person is going to abuse you, you're feeling more psychological consequences, you're feeling more trapped, and you're unable to extricate yourself from that dynamic.

MS. STEINER: Do all of these types of abuse have to be present to prevent a victim from leaving a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: No, they don't.

DAWN HUGHES: Because some -- we look at the magnitude of what the behaviors are. Some of the behaviors are quite severe. So if you have severe physical violence and severe sexual assault, that can be enough, even if we don't have emotional abuse or psychological abuse. But the more abusive behaviors we have, the greater the degree of likelihood that it's difficult for that individual to leave that relationship.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, how does the duration of these types of abuse affect a victim's ability to leave the relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So it's very important. We know that more trauma is never a good thing. So the more you're exposed to traumatic events and acts of violence and sexual violence, that deteriorates, again, the psychological functioning of the individual. So we look at those measures, we look at the severity of the acts, how severe is what's happening — in our field we say what's the magnitude of that stressor — we look at the frequency, how often is it happening, and then we look at the duration, over what period of time. When those things are high, we're seeing that, you know, a victim who was, you know, functioning to low capacity because they're so distressed and are feeling more and more entrapped and hopeless and helpless in this relationship.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, I want to turn to the second area of study that you mentioned. You testified that there can be periods of positivity and neutrality in a relationship in addition to the abuse. How can that affect a victim's ability to leave a relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. So because of -- as I said before, these relationships start with love and companionship and kindness, and the victim wants that, they want that back. So when that is shown to the victim, that becomes very reinforcing. And we see this often, it's called the honeymoon phase, that after that particular assaultive episode that the abuser becomes contrite, becomes apologetic, gives promises to change, maybe gives -- so now they're sort of showering their victim with all this love and care. That's what she or he only wanted. So now you have this very difficult situation where you're trying to live with the person who's abusing you, but I want that good person back, and that creates not only psychological confusion, but also a psychological attachment to the individual, which sometimes we call as a trauma bond.

MS. STEINER: What is a trauma bond, Dr. Hughes?

DAWN HUGHES: So A trauma bond is when somebody leads the partner or somebody is attached to the partner, and somebody loves the partner in spite of the violence and the abuse. We know when we pair violence and abuse with times of good, it creates that very strong bond. We know that from just general psychological principles of intermittent reinforcement. Things that are intermittently reinforced have greater stability and behavior, they have a better ability to change behavior. So when you're getting unpredictable abuse and unpredictable love, that creates this intermittent cycle. It's like a slot machine, you press the button, you press the button, you're going to lose most of the time, but when you hit it, that's the feeling that you want and you keep going back because you want that good feeling, they want that good partner that they got, fell in love with, and that becomes an immense trauma bond. The other important part of the trauma bond is, you know, usually because these acts are so private and they're so humiliating, the only person -- not the only, but the person who the victim often turns to is the abuser because that's the person who knows what's happened and who they can talk to about it. So if that's the person that you go to for that support, that's that need, that's that attachment, and that creates a very powerful bond, and it's very difficult with all the other abusive behaviors to extricate and leave an abusive relationship.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, what is the psychological effect of a trauma bond on a victim?

DAWN HUGHES: Well, first, it makes her unable to leave or makes them unable to leave, it makes them more attached to their partner, more willing to sort of go back and give it a try again, but it also has a sense of hopelessness and a sense of meaninglessness because you're feeling that sort of you, as your individual person, you know, does not have the same agency as your partner.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, are you familiar with a term referred to as love bombing?

MS. STEINER: What is that?

DAWN HUGHES: So love bombing is a term that's used now in the popular media. How we understand it in the literature is that honeymoon phase that I talked about, that when a victim is trying to extricate herself, extricate themselves from the relationship or leave the relationship, the perpetrator, the abuser, you know, showers them with love and affection and attention and, you know, presents and gifts, and this is really a tactic to bring that trust and dependence back and get that victim back in the relationship.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, when a victim does attempt to leave an abusive relationship, does that tend to happen immediately or over time?

DAWN HUGHES: No, it happens over time. We know from the research that it takes multiple attempts to leave an abusive relationship. There's reconciliation and then there's leaving again, and it can take multiple attempts.

MS. STEINER: And what obstacles are present for a victim at the time that they're attempting to leave the relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: So at the time that they're attempting to leave, that is usually met with intense fear on the victim. They are afraid of retaliation, they have been with a partner who has abused them, who has hurt them, who has shown them that they're willing to use serious forms of violence against them, and they're afraid of more retaliation and more danger. And that is not unwarranted. We know from our very robust --

MR. BACH: Objection. Objection.

THE COURT: Let's move on.

MS. STEINER: Do victims ever return to abusive relationships after leaving?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, they do. There's this pattern of returning and reconciliation and trying to leave again.

MS. STEINER: And why do they return?

DAWN HUGHES: So they return for the love, they return for the companionship, they return for the good version of their partner that they still do love, and sometimes they return because the abuse is continuing, and if the abuse is continuing when they left and they're still being harassed and followed and surveilled and controlled, I might as well be back in the relationship because it's not working here, I'm not free.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, I want to move on to a new topic now. You testified for a while now about why victims remain in a relationship. I want to discuss with you how victims cope when they do stay in those relationships. So first of all, can you describe generally what coping mechanisms are?

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. Coping mechanisms, that's just a psychological term of how we deal with stressors in our lives, and coping strategies that we have examined are specific to what do individuals do when they are in an abusive relationship. We know they do a lot of things, but we want to see what they do. When we look at that, we look at sort of formal coping mechanisms, informal, and then personal strategies that they use.

MS. STEINER: I want to take those one at a time. So you mentioned that there are formal coping strategies. What do you mean by that?

DAWN HUGHES: So formal strategies are using outside help. It may be going to the police, filing a protection order, getting medical help, going to a shelter, you know, it's going to somebody who has the kind of authority to take a report, it can be, you know, going to a Title IX officer in a university setting or going to an HR professional in a workplace setting. It's somebody who has the authority to take that report. The problem is it's the least likely used strategy --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Let's move on. Next question.

MS. STEINER: You referred to informal types of coping. Can you describe what that means?

DAWN HUGHES: So the informal strategies are the ones where we're trying to get the abuser to stop the abusive behavior by talking to family or friends, or talking to trying to get their friends to talk to him or their family to talk to him or trying to get them to go to church or go to counseling, and it's also talking to family and friends to try to get much needed support for the victim of how am I going to continue to deal with this mess.

MS. STEINER: Finally, what are types of personal coping mechanisms?

DAWN HUGHES: So the personal strategies are what the victim uses within the relationship. So it's not trying to get out of the relationship, but what do I do that I'm in it. These are trying to talk to your partner to try to stop the violence, talk about what's going on, trying to get counseling or help, trying to plead and negotiate for different kind of behaviors, trying to placate and give compliance to make your partner okay, sometimes it's physically fighting back. It's all of these different strategies that a victim is doing but within the relationship, within the confines of the relationship.

MS. STEINER: You've described now these different types of coping mechanisms, formal, informal, personal. Which of these is most common?

DAWN HUGHES: The personal strategies are the most common that they're trying to use within the relationship, trying to work it out with your partner.

MS. STEINER: Why is that the most common?

DAWN HUGHES: Because of the trauma bond, because of the feeling entrapped that you can't leave, because of the psychological consequences that you're being burdened with, and you still, you don't want to lose your partner, you still want to try to preserve the love of that partner and you have this hope for change, which comes from the honeymoon phase and that cycle. So you're trying to do everything you can with that partner within that relationship to make this violence stop.

MS. STEINER: Within the personal coping mechanisms you mentioned, you mentioned quite a few, does a victim use all of those personal coping mechanisms at the same time?

DAWN HUGHES: No, they don't. They have to be very attuned to their partner's moods and how they're feeling and what particular, you know, anger, eruption or abusive behavior they may use at a certain time. So they use a lot of different strategies depending on the demands of what their partner brings into the room. I mean, it's important to know that as the abuse gets more severe, so do the coping strategies. So they don't use less, they use more. So they're doing a lot of things, it's just not stopping the violence.

MS. STEINER: I want to discuss a few of the personal coping mechanism strategies that you mentioned. Looking specifically at appeasing or placating an abuser, how does that work?

DAWN HUGHES: When we placate and appease our abuser, what we're trying to do is soothe the abuser, we're trying to make an abusive episode not happen. We may be apologizing unnecessarily, we might be going along with things that we don't want to do, and that's back to what I talked to you about before, the contingency. Once someone has demonstrated that they can use serious forms of violence against you, you know, that contingency has set, that link is set. So the victim is really trying to do all of those things to not get hurt, to not get hit, and sometimes placating and complying strategies are a good strategy to use.

MS. STEINER: What is the purpose for the victim of that coping strategy?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: Does this placating cannot appear in a sexual relationship?

DAWN HUGHES: It usually appears in all facets of the relationship, and it's, you know, if you can't say no to little things --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: It's overruled. A. So if you can't say no to little things, it's hard to imagine when you're talking about something so sensitive and so personal that someone and a victim would actually have the agency to say no to something like that.

MS. STEINER: How, if at all, might that coping mechanism of placating and appeasing an abuser confuse a victim -- actually, taking a step back, how might it confuse others that are observing the relationship?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: If I could have a moment, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Are you familiar with the terms passive and active self-defense?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I am.

MS. STEINER: Are those coping mechanisms?

MS. STEINER: Can you describe what passive self-defense is?

DAWN HUGHES: So passive self-defense ways that a victim might try to protect themselves when they are being assaulted, it may be blocking punches, it may be throwing a pillow or throwing at someone to get them to stop, it may be curling up in a ball on the floor, and it may be trying to do something as the least provoking as possible to get the violent episode to stop.

MS. STEINER: By contrast, what is active self-defense?

DAWN HUGHES: So active self-defense are when victims are actively fighting back. They may hit back, they may punch back, they may push back, they may throw objects, they may yell back in a way to, you know, have some way of standing up for themselves, even though, in many cases, that usually results in more severe injury to themselves.

MS. STEINER: And you just said that it can result in more severe injury. What do you mean by that?

DAWN HUGHES: Because if we're talking about a generally -- a heterosexual relationship of a man and a woman, just the size and strength disparity between a man and a woman, a man can do more damage --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Sustained.

MS. STEINER: Can a victim use both of these strategies, Dr. Hughes, meaning both passive and active self-defense?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes. And like we said before, they're really trying to mirror the strategies to what their abuser is bringing into the room. Victims get very hypervigilant to their abuser's moods, they're really trying to scan and track how they are presenting and how they are a certain day, and that's how they decide what strategies to use. Remember, I said they're using a lot of strategies, they just don't work.

MS. STEINER: Are there other coping strategies that victims use personally to cope with the consequences of the abuse?

MS. STEINER: Can you describe what those might include.

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. So, in addition to the strategies to working within the relationship and toward the abuser, they have to do things to deal with all that psychological and traumatic stress that I talked about. When you're in the relationship, one of the things that they use is avoidance strategy. They try to not think about it, not feel it, not talk about it, they try to push it down and direct at forgetting, I'm going to push this in the back of my mind, I'm going to compartmentalize it somewhere. Sometimes there's the disassociation that happens in all these episodes. So it's all the way of sort of protecting themselves from the onslaught of the psychological consequences of the abuse while still being able to maintain the status quo and stay in the relationship.

MS. STEINER: I want to talk about a few of those strategies with you now, Dr. Hughes. You mentioned avoidance. What is avoidance?

DAWN HUGHES: Avoidance is not dealing with something, right, not trying to think, not trying to feel, not trying to talk about something. So it's about pushing under the rug and I'll deal with it later.

MS. STEINER: And what is minimization?

DAWN HUGHES: Minimization is a way of distancing yourself from the reality of what's going on. Sometimes victims do that to themselves by saying, you know, maybe they didn't mean it or maybe they were drunk or maybe they were angry, had a stressful day at work, it's a way of kind of lessening the responsibility of what happened to them. And again, that's a way that they can try to find some kind of semblance of normalcy and stay in the relationship. And sometimes when they minimize the problem, as we know, that that also increases the risk for more danger.

MS. STEINER: How does avoidance and minimization help a victim cope?

DAWN HUGHES: Well, it has short-term effectiveness, it's not a long-term strategy, but it helps them get through the day. It helps them get from one assaultive episode to the next.

MS. STEINER: And you also mentioned disassociation, Dr. Hughes, what is that?

DAWN HUGHES: So, unlike those other strategies, disassociation is more of an involuntary coping mechanism. Our brain does that for us automatically. What it is, it's a change in our conscious awareness, it's about zoning out, spacing out, looking at a spot on the ceiling, feeling that you're leaving your body, and it's a way really that your brain protects yourself from very serious psychological injury and physical injury. And with disassociation, because you're not attending and you're not focusing, that often leads to impairments in memory.

MS. STEINER: And why is that?

DAWN HUGHES: Because memory is dependent on our focusing and attention and applying significance to things, and when we're disassociating, we're having -- technically it's called an alteration in consciousness, we're having a change in our conscious awareness, we're not attending, so we're not encoding that information.

MS. STEINER: And we'll get back to memory in a few minutes, Dr. Hughes. Can substance abuse function as a coping mechanism?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, it's a very common coping mechanism. Like I said before, we see a high degree of co-occurrence between trauma-based disorders and substance use disorders. And substances allow us to numb our pain. Most people know that. The problem with trauma survivors is they do it to -- for a very trauma-specific function, to get rid of the memories and the thoughts about what has happened to them in the past and the fear of what's happening to them in the future, to get rid of all those anxiety and fear-based feelings that they're having because they're living in a state of fear. And then survivors and victims also use it as a preventive measure. We see a lot of survivors, if they've had a fight with their partner the day before, before they get home, I'm going to take drugs, I'm going to drink because I know what's going to happen when I get home. As I told you, they're very attuned to their partner's moods. They may take it sort of preventively to ward off other physical and psychological pain that's going to come. And sometimes they do it to not feel and to not remember. Sometimes they know that that may interfere with their memory and they don't want to remember these things. The problem is that substance use, the cycle --

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: Let's go, next question.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, can victims applying these various coping strategies that you've been testifying about still express love and loyalty to their abuser?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, and often they do. That's back to the trauma bond. Often, they still have positive and loving feelings toward their abuser, even after they've left for years, there's still a part of them that loves that initial person that they fell in love with.

MS. STEINER: Do these coping strategies, are they effective to stopping the abuse?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: That's sustained.

MS. STEINER: How does the use of these coping mechanisms consistently in a relationship impact the victim?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: It's sustained.

MS. STEINER: I want to turn to a new topic with you, Dr. Hughes, that of disclosure. How common is it for victims of abuse to disclose abuse at or near the time that it occurs?

DAWN HUGHES: So it's not common that victims do that. Many victims will wait months, even years before telling about what happened to them. And the term that we use in the literature is called delayed disclosure because of that.

MS. STEINER: What are some of the reasons for disclosing or not disclosing abuse?

DAWN HUGHES: Some of the top reasons are fear of not being believed, fear of the negative consequences that are going to come from the disclosure, fear that other people are going to look negatively on you, they're going to shame you, they're going to blame you, say those questions like, oh, well, why didn't you just leave. They fear -- they have sort of internal still that shame and that embarrassment, so they have to overcome that internalized shame and self-blame in order to tell. Sometimes they've had previous traumatic experiences, and if those, you know, didn't go well in a disclosure, they might not disclose again or they may feel that somehow, why does this keep happening to me, I can't tell anyone about it. They fear the change in probably their economic situation, if they have those financial controls, they fear being publicly identified, and they fear that the change in the network, the change in the relationship. But usually, even when we leave the relationship, we have friends and family, and all of those people then, you know, are going to go away, and they fear losing that, as well.

MS. STEINER: How does the relationship between the victim and the abuser affect the disclosure process?

DAWN HUGHES: So one of the robust findings is that the closer the relationship to the perpetrator, the less likely you're going to disclose. So that means if you've had a stranger rape or assault, you're more likely to disclose that as opposed to somebody who's an acquaintance or somebody who's a partner.

MS. STEINER: How, if at all, does an abuser's perceived authority or stature affect a victim's disclosure?

MR. BACH: Objection.

THE COURT: That's overruled.

DAWN HUGHES: So what it does is just amplify, amplify the power and control differential between the abuser and the victim. It's very difficult for a victim to disclose in the best of circumstances. And somebody can have celebria power because they're the principal of a school, and it can change many different things. So if you're going against someone who has wealth and access and privilege, you're beginning to think who is going to protect me, who is going to believe me, how am I going to come out of this. They don't feel very safe in that disclosure in those situations.

MS. STEINER: What factors contribute to when a victim does decide to disclose what they've experienced?

DAWN HUGHES: Usually it's when they're in a safe environment. Clearly, they're not being bombarded with abuse anymore, that can be a factor; they could have left the relationship, that could be a factor; they could have had some psychological help. Having a way to put words to what they went through and to understand their experience of, you know, how did I get here, how was I not able to say no, how was I abused for so long. And sometimes there are societal reasons, the way, you know, things change in the public or in society where you feel like you're not so alone and it's okay, it's okay for me to talk about this now.

MS. STEINER: When a victim does come forward to report abuse, who are they initially most likely to disclose to?

DAWN HUGHES: They're most likely going to talk to a trusted friend or confidant, it's usually a mother, a sister, a best friend, someone who they think really can support them through this process.

MS. STEINER: And when a victim does come forward initially with a report of abuse, what does that initial disclosure typically look like?

DAWN HUGHES: It's typically piecemeal, it's not a binary, I disclosed, I didn't disclose. Usually, it unfolds over time, especially if we have a long duration of a type of a domestic violence situation. And different bits come out with different people in different contexts. So we know that and even I know that of evaluating hundreds of thousands of individuals, I'm not going to get all the information in one sitting, that wouldn't be realistic and we may not need that. Also, what inhibits the disclosures is that when they're talking about it, all of those trauma feelings are being evoked, all of that is coming up. So they're sitting there really trying to manage that internal traumatic stress and psychological distress each time they're talking about it. So they may sort of approach, talk a little, and then have to back up because it's just too painful.

MS. STEINER: How can past threats affect disclosure?

DAWN HUGHES: I mean, it can affect disclosure in a very serious way. If you've been threatened, if you tell, something bad will happen to you, and this person has already demonstrated that they can use serious forms of physical violence or sexual assault against you, you believe them. So you may have to sort of wait to disclose to you have other safety measures in place you have for yourself, whatever those may be.

MS. STEINER: Can you describe the type of language that victims typically use when they initially disclose?

DAWN HUGHES: So we talk about they use minimizing language, they don't want to talk about the details of what happened, they talk around it. They don't want to label themselves as a victim, they don't want to label their abuser as abuser, and they don't want to talk about graphic details. So that's sort of the piecemeal process that happens for individuals where it's a little bit of a distancing of all of the psychological harm that they're feeling when they have to talk very detailed and specific about the abuse.

MS. STEINER: And Dr. Hughes, you just testified that victims, they don't want to label themselves as a victim, they don't want to label an abuser as an abuser, why is that?

DAWN HUGHES: Really, because it's just too painful, it's really too painful to admit that back to somebody who loved me did this to me, and they are still in self-blame. Self-blame takes a long time to go away and shame takes a long time to go away. Like, why did it take me so long to get out of here. They don't understand it, like the higher order of conceptualization I'm providing here today, that takes years of therapy for them to really understand the elements of control on entrapment that they were in.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, you said that victims can be reluctant to use more graphic descriptive language. What type of language do they tend to use instead?

DAWN HUGHES: They use hedging language. Sometimes they won't say the name of the perpetrator, sometimes they'll say -- even patients in my practice, they'll say, you know when that thing happened or the incident. They won't say the rape, the sexual assault. They'll use anything they can to sort of distance themselves from the reality of the horrors that they went through.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, I want to turn to our final topic now, that of memory and the impact of trauma on memory. What does the literature and your clinical experience say about how victims remember these traumatic events?

DAWN HUGHES: Sure. So we know that trauma impacts memory, we know that on one hand we can have a vivid bright memory sort of burned into our brain, but at the same time have lack of details and fragments for that same trauma. We know that trauma memories can be forgotten or not recalled and recalled at a later time. And we know that this cuts across trauma groups. This is not just domestic violence survivors, it's not just sexual assault survivors, we again see this in combat veterans, in child sex abuse victims, in our law enforcement. So whenever we have different trauma groups, we can see this type of interrupted memory.

MS. STEINER: And what is the impact of trauma on memory?

DAWN HUGHES: So, in general, it's because of the neurobiology of stress, right, that narrows attention and that narrows attention in trauma. What we know is what victims remember is the core gist of what happened — I was sexually assaulted, I was in a car accident, I was in the battle field. People don't forget that. Then we go to those central details. Those are also pretty robust, people don't usually forget them. The problem is it's whatever the person assigns significance to at the moment. So that's not up to us, that's up to their brain. It may be if they're being assaulted, the smell of alcohol on their perpetrator's breath, it may be focusing on the chipping paint on the ceiling, right, that's what they decided to assign significance for the real reason of keeping themselves safe. And those details also tend to be robust and tend to be remembered. It's the peripheral details which we say is everything else was not assigned significance, that doesn't get encoded because it doesn't have any value for the victim. It may have value, we might want to know those details, but it didn't get encoded because it didn't have significance for the victim.

MS. STEINER: I want to make sure we all understand these concepts. Can you describe what central details of a memory include?

DAWN HUGHES: So central details are usually sensory things, a sight, a smell, a feeling, an emotion, and those are the type of details that get remembered.

MS. STEINER: And the peripheral details that you said are less likely to be remembered, what do those include?

DAWN HUGHES: Those are things that are just surrounding the other things that don't get established significance. We sort of say they're in the bucket of everything else that's not significant.

MS. STEINER: And what determines whether something is significant, meaning whether something is a central detail or a peripheral detail?

DAWN HUGHES: That is absolutely unique to each individual and their unique brains. Your brain is trying to function to keep you safe. We say your brain's working, it's doing what it's supposed to do. So we can't, out here, determine what's significant for you or what's significant for the next person. That's a very unique thing for each person in each situation that they're in.

MS. STEINER: When you say it's a unique thing, is that a conscious or an unconscious process for people?

DAWN HUGHES: It's mostly unconscious. Certainly the central detail of a person can say, make a deliberate attempt, I'm going to look at those drapes, and sometimes they just find that's what they're doing. So there can be some voluntariness in the central details.

MS. STEINER: Is that always the case?

DAWN HUGHES: No, it's not always the case, and sometimes victims don't know why I was focusing on the drapes.

MS. STEINER: And you referred earlier to memories being fragmented. What does that mean?

DAWN HUGHES: So fragmented just means because the narrowing of the attention that not all memories are getting in about the event that happened to you. So that's why it's not complete. And there's no evidence to suggest that because it's not complete, what we do know isn't reliable. So the fragmented memories can be just as reliable, they're just not as expansive and they're just not as complete, they're missing details.

MS. STEINER: Dr. Hughes, earlier you testified about the various types of coping mechanisms, including avoidance, disassociation. How can those types of coping mechanisms affect the memory of the victim?

DAWN HUGHES: So these are the things that the victim is doing after these assaultive episodes, right, they're trying to push it down, not think about it, not talk about it, and pushing it further in the recesses of their brain. This is a common thing that we see with trauma survivors. It's recognized as part of the PTSD diagnosis. What they do is they're deliberately trying not to remember, and that can interfere with your recall of the information, not the storage which we did before, but that can interfere with the recall of the information.

MS. STEINER: And why are individuals who are employing or using disassociation or other coping mechanisms trying not to remember?

DAWN HUGHES: Right, they're trying not to remember because it's too painful to remember. The only difference -- you said disassociation, that's involuntary. So these other things I just talked to you about, the directed forgetting, the compartmentalization, that's voluntary, the disassociation is not voluntary. That's when your brain is sort of taking you someplace else to not feel and to not remember. So that's the difference between those.

MS. STEINER: And specifically then, for disassociation, how can that coping strategy affect memory?

DAWN HUGHES: Because if you're not attending and you're not focusing, it's not getting encoded.

MS. STEINER: You say encoded, are you referring to being remembered?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, a memory has to be encoded for us to remember it, yes.

MS. STEINER: How does the frequency of abuse affect a victim's ability to recall particular events of abuse?

DAWN HUGHES: So we know that when we have chronic situations, again, like domestic violence, like our combat veterans, not everything is going to get in, events are going to blend together. And that's because of, again, that high stress neurobiology of repeated traumatic events and also just the general principles of memory of repeated events. We know that, could you remember each time you had a slice of pizza at your favorite pizza place, I can't. You know, you can't remember every single time you've walked in this courtroom and the precise details of what happened at every time. The repeated events that we do commonly are not all going to get recalled. Unfortunately, in situations of domestic violence, there are these repeated events, there is this routine of all of this abuse happened. So these abusive episodes are blending together.

MS. STEINER: When you say that memories are blending together, what does that look like?

DAWN HUGHES: It looks like someone can say, I know I got punched a bunch of times, but I can't tell you when that was. I know I was kicked and I was in a ball in a closet, I know that happened a couple times, but I can't tell you when, I can't place it in a timeline. And sometimes it's those external markers where individuals are able to place it in a timeline of this happened on my birthday or this happened on the beach vacation where they have a marker and they can go, yeah, I remember that happened there. But all of the other similar type of behaviors that have been happening to them, they are not usually able to bring out each and every one.

MS. STEINER: And are memories of an abusive event that's connected to a marker, are they more likely to be remembered?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, they are.

MS. STEINER: And can you just describe what a marker might be.

DAWN HUGHES: That's, like I said, like a birthday or anniversary or it was a snowstorm, right, there's something that sort of connects the memory to something else, which makes it much more likely to be recalled.

MS. STEINER: You testified a moment ago, Dr. Hughes, that when abuse is very frequent, a victim tends not to recall each instance of abuse; is that correct?

DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.

MS. STEINER: Does that prevent a victim from knowing that they were abused or recalling that they were abused?

DAWN HUGHES: No, because like we just said, they don't lose the core gist of what happened to them, that they were being abused or they were being sexually assaulted. That is pretty solid, that does not go away.

MS. STEINER: Can trauma memories be recalled over time?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, they do. All memories can be recalled. That's sort of the hallmark of trauma memories in post traumatic stress disorder that the trauma doesn't stay in the background forever, eventually it comes up into the forefront and the person is left in having to deal with it. That's usually met with a tremendous amount of psychological distress and being sort of bombarded with images and thoughts of the traumatic experience and having a tremendous amount of anxiety and hypervigilance and sadness and all types of disequilibrium when that memory comes back.

MS. STEINER: You used a couple of words that I may not understand. So hypervigilance and disequilibrium can you just briefly explain what those terms mean?

DAWN HUGHES: Sometimes, when the memory comes back, we feel as though it's happening now. So that hypervigilance, which means you're scanning for danger, you're being on alert, even though you're out of the relationship, the brain is not so sure you are, so it's bringing those same characteristics back, and you're usually hypervigilant and afraid and watching things, even though you're not in that situation anymore.

MS. STEINER: When victims do recall these difficult events, how do they tend to describe them?

DAWN HUGHES: I mean, a lot of times they describe them, frankly, like I think I'm going crazy. That's a lot of times how people enter into ERs or enter into the VA or enter into my office. They don't really understand how they can't put these memories back in the box like they were, you know, a couple of days ago. Once you sort of open that crack, they're out there and individuals have to deal with them and use them. But it's very distressing for people and it's very upsetting and they have a lot of psychological difficulty with that process.

MS. STEINER: How can trauma memories be cued or triggered?

DAWN HUGHES: So that's our recall, our retrieval of memories and they're cued by context and cues. Sometimes the context elements are a place or a feeling, and sometimes the triggering cues are back to our senses, a smell, a sight, a sound, and sometimes it's a combination of those that bring a memory back up into the forefront. And that's also, you know, happens to trauma memories. But also general principles of memory, again, you go home for Thanksgiving and you're at your family table with your siblings and the same dynamics, someone laughs in a certain way or someone yells in a certain way, that likely is going to trigger a memory from before. That's just how memory retrieval and recall works. That's something that happens with trauma victims, as well. They may smell the smell of alcohol, they may see someone dressed in a certain way, someone walk in a certain way, and the brain will register that as something of danger and open up those memories.

MS. STEINER: And when in time after the instance of abuse can memories be triggered or cued in the way you're describing?

DAWN HUGHES: I mean, they can be triggered at any time. Sometimes they're triggered all the time since the episodes have happened and ended and sometimes we have what we call later recall. We know that that can happen, as well, that because of all of those defenses where someone's trying to put them in the back of their head, that they can later recall these memories. We know this, again, in the PTSD diagnostic criteria, we have it, it's called delayed expression of PTSD, and that is the manual that we've used in the psychological and psychiatric communities for decades now. There's no evidence either, especially we know this with our war veterans our combat veterans as well as our assault victims, that later retrieve memory is any less accurate than if someone had it -- they might not have all the details because it's a later retrieved, but there's no evidence that it's less accurate.

MS. STEINER: No further questions at this time, your Honor.

THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Steiner. Cross-examination.

MR. BACH: Very quick sidebar.

(Continued on next page)

sidebarsidebarMotion to Strike Hughes Testimony

(At the sidebar)

MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, the defense moves to strike the direct testimony as violative of both Rule 702 and 403 for many of the reasons in our motion in limine. In particular, the testimony on coping strategies and why people don't leave relationships essentially was a backdoor way of getting in much of the information in the coercive control discussion that your Honor included. We tried to object as best we could, but she used the word "control" multiple times. She referred to many of the supposed control strategies in the disclosure in the guise of the testimony about the coping strategies. In addition, even the testimony about delayed memory I think illustrates some of the points we made previously about how it's junk science. It was virtually any memory can be explained. Her testimony essentially was an effort to mirror some of and bolster the credibility of Ms. Ventura in an inappropriate way. So I just wanted to renew that motion before we moved to cross-examination.

THE COURT: Ms. Steiner.

MS. STEINER: Your Honor, I think the defense very robustly objected, your Honor was policing the issues very carefully. I think we're well within the scope of your Honor's order and the notice. Specifically, with respect to coping strategies, the notice was specifically very broad. It says that Dr. Hughes will speak about a broad range of defense mechanisms and coping strategies, and as she did, she explained there are a multitude of coping strategies that are necessary that can be utilized at different points in time depending on what the victim is encountering. Similarly with memory, I'm not quite sure what the objection is here. I think she hued very closely to the notice and talking about the effects of PTSD, how trauma affects memory, and how memory can subsequently be recalled through cues and triggers.

MS. SHAPIRO: With respect to memory, if I could just respond to that. My point is she strayed from the disclosure. It's that the substance of the testimony was so all over the map, as we had argued earlier that this sort of amounts to junk science because she's basically almost -- whatever the particular circumstances of an alleged victim's recall would be explained by the testimony. That was my point, just to be clear.

THE COURT: Understood. As to the first basis for the application involving the attempt to get in the backdoor on coercive control, I think that based on Mr. Bach's objections and the constant sustaining of objections and requesting Ms. Steiner to move forward, that we avoided all those issues to the extent that any issue arose. As to the issue concerning the basis under Rule 702 for testimony that was offered, I think I need to see the cross-examination because, as it was presented, there was an initial specification, witness's qualifications, and the indication that she was basing her opinions on both literature and then her clinical practice. When she was testifying, she offered testimony, sometimes she did indicate that she was basing her testimony on literature or her clinical practice. I agree that sometimes she just offered testimony without stating the basis. I think that, under the preponderance standard under Rule 702, you can infer that's based on her clinical experience or literature, but I think some of these issues are going to be teased out in the cross-examination. So I'll reserve on the application for now.

MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you, your Honor.

MS. STEINER: Thank you, your Honor.

(Continued on next page)

CrossCrossDawn Hughes — Cross Resumes Dawn Hughes Jonathan Bach

(In open court)

MR. BACH: May I proceed, your Honor?

THE COURT: You may proceed. And just so we have a sense of the schedule, let's go for about 15 minutes and then we'll take our break for lunch.

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY THE COURT:

MR. BACH: Dr. Hughes, you've been a psychologist for nearly 30 years, correct.

DAWN HUGHES: I believe so. I think I was licensed in 1997.

MR. BACH: And you have a private independent practice?

MR. BACH: So people come to you for counseling and therapy?

MR. BACH: And you see them at an office?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I do.

MR. BACH: You sit down with them face-to-face?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I do.

MR. BACH: And you talk with them, right?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, I do.

MR. BACH: And you talk with them at length, right?

MR. BACH: And when the people that come to you meet with you, you listen very carefully to what they have to say, right?

MR. BACH: And you pay attention to detail?

MR. BACH: And not just to what they're telling you about their lives, but you observe the manner in which they express themselves, correct?

MR. BACH: In other words, you're trained as a psychologist to look at someone's cognitive style?

DAWN HUGHES: Among other things, yes.

MR. BACH: The way their emotional affect registers, correct?

MR. BACH: They can be red sent and shy, right?

MR. BACH: They can be verbose and talk active, correct?

MR. BACH: And when you do your work, you pay attention to those types of details, correct?

MR. BACH: And you pay attention to the different things they tell you about their lives, correct?

MR. BACH: And you are trained to do that because any detail they convey to you can be important, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: I don't know if I would say any detail can be important. You're trying to ascertain which facts are and which aren't.

MR. BACH: Well, not every detail is important, but you're listening carefully because a detail could be important, correct?

MR. BACH: And people are complicated?

DAWN HUGHES: Yes, we are.

MR. BACH: You laugh, but people don't fit into boxes; is that fair?

DAWN HUGHES: Well, we have general categories of how we understand people, general categories of psychiatric disorders that we do know, you know, present in a certain way.

MR. BACH: Understood. But even with those categories, when someone comes to you for analysis or diagnosis, you have those categories in mind, but you listen to that particular individual and to what that particular individual has to say, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: Yeah, I'm certainly not divorced from my education, training, and experience about certain other areas of study when I'm doing that, of course.

(Continued on next page)

MR. BACH: Your education and experience taught you how to listen carefully to individuals, correct?

MR. BACH: And you can't diagnose somebody without hearing what they have to say, correct?

MR. BACH: In your practice you typically wouldn't treat somebody without sitting down with them, spending time with them, and listening very, very carefully to what they are telling you and the manner in which they are conveying it, correct?

MR. BACH: When someone comes to you, you have your education, you have your background, you have your categories. But when someone comes to you, you do, I think you said on direct, a comprehensive evaluation to understand what you're being presented with, correct?

MR. BACH: Comprehensive evaluation means it's comprehensive, you look at a lot of things, correct?

MR. BACH: And each person presents in his or her own way when they come to you, right?

MR. BACH: And you have to hear what each person has to say, correct?

MR. BACH: And right now we are just talking about your private practice, right?

MR. BACH: And I think you used the words before, you used the words clinical practice, right?

MR. BACH: In other words, your office is kind of like a clinic in which you see and treat people, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: It's not a clinic. It's a private office where I treat people in psychotherapy.

MR. BACH: You said. But you referred to that as your clinical practice, right?

DAWN HUGHES: Because I'm conducting clinical work.

MR. BACH: I got it. And that's one kind of work that you conduct.

MR. BACH: We just talked about that. There is another kind of work that you said you conducted and that's called forensic work, correct?

MR. BACH: And that's something that you do as well, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.

MR. BACH: And that's different from your clinical practice?

DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.

MR. BACH: Forensic work is when you're evaluating somebody in the context of a legal proceeding, correct?

MR. BACH: That's where you're evaluating someone and you're listening to them carefully, not just because you want to treat them, you're listening to them carefully because courts and judges and lawyers might be reviewing what you have to say about that person, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: That's not why I'm listening intently. I'm listening intently to really understand the person in front of me and what ails them and what the difficulties are.

MR. BACH: But you know that whatever conclusions you may or may not draw, whatever analysis you may conclude, that may be reviewed by courts and lawyers?

DAWN HUGHES: Of course.

MR. BACH: In the forensic context, correct?

MR. BACH: So there you pay attention to detail, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: I pay attention to detail because I want to do a comprehensive evaluation, and I know that that work is going to be looked at other people.

MR. BACH: When you do forensic work, as opposed to seeing a patient say once or twice a week in your clinical practice, you take your investigation of the facts to the next level, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: You have to explain what you mean.

MR. BACH: Sure. When you do forensic work, you don't just talk to someone who comes to see you for therapy, correct?

MR. BACH: You go to other sources for information, correct?

MR. BACH: You want as many sources of information, as many data points as you can reasonably get a hold of, right?

DAWN HUGHES: Depending on the relevance of that data, sure.

MR. BACH: Of course. If something is irrelevant, you don't care about it, right?

MR. BACH: But if something is relevant, you care about it, right?

MR. BACH: And even if it contradicts what the person is telling you, you really want to know about that, right?

MR. BACH: And so what you do in a forensic setting -- and a bunch of your work is forensic, correct?

MR. BACH: What you do in forensic work, you listen to what the person has to say, and then you go look at other things to see how that pans out, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: I think you're making it a little more simplistic. I just don't listen. I'm conducting a clinical interview, a semistructured clinical interview and administrating psychological tests, so it's not like I'm listening like I would be listening with a psychotherapy patient. It's a different methodology.

MR. BACH: I don't disagree with what you said. I want to explore that a little more so everyone understands where we are. You understand that when you're in a forensic setting, the person that you're evaluating may have certain motivations because of the legal proceeding that you wouldn't necessarily find in your ordinary clinical practice?

MR. BACH: And you approach forensic evaluation with that possibility that someone might have certain motivations in mind, correct?

MR. BACH: And so when someone tells you something and offers it for a fact, in forensic work you approach that with some degree of healthy skepticism, correct?

MR. BACH: And you do some cross checking, correct?

MR. BACH: You do a deeper dive than you do in your ordinary clinical practice, correct?

MR. BACH: And you look at all kinds of sources of information when you do forensic work for courts and lawyers, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: Correct. As we said, determined on their relevance.

MR. BACH: The ones that are irrelevant you ignore, OK, and the ones that are relevant you try to look at, correct?

MR. BACH: Sometimes you don't know if they are relevant until you look at them, right?

MR. BACH: Among the things that you tend to look at when you do legal related work, you look at witness reports, correct?

MR. BACH: Police reports, correct?

MR. BACH: If someone has medical records or prior psychiatric or therapy records, you hope you could see those as well, right?

MR. BACH: You would look at their educational background, correct?

MR. BACH: You mentioned veterans. If you were treating someone in the military you would look at their military background?

MR. BACH: So you would do what you called your structured interview of the person, but then you would also look at documents and records and all this other information, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: That's correct.

MR. BACH: Again, that's because you've been trained to pay attention to detail, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: Trained to do a comprehensive forensic assessment, yes.

MR. BACH: And that means looking at a lot of pieces of information, correct?

MR. BACH: It means looking at a lot of pieces of evidence, correct?

MR. BACH: And you mentioned a moment ago, and I want to come back to this, something that you referred to as psychological testing, correct?

MR. BACH: When we are talking about psychological testing, let's be clear. There are certain standardized tests that the discipline of psychology has developed over time, correct?

MR. BACH: And these tests are developed by experts in the field, correct?

MR. BACH: And they go through a validation process to make sure that they have decent diagnostic value, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: To make sure they have reliability and validity, yes.

MR. BACH: Perfect. And those tests give you an opportunity to look at something that's reliable, kind of an objective measure, instead of just relying on what you're hearing from the person that you're sitting across from when you do your semistructured interview, correct?

MR. BACH: Those tests can be a very important data point in your comprehensive evaluation, correct?

MR. BACH: And, again, you've had years of training to enable you to do the kind of complex analytical work that this kind of psychological investigation typically requires, right?

MR. BACH: You've administered tests such as the -- you've administered something called a personality assessment inventory, correct?

MR. BACH: You've administered a TSI test. What does that stand for?

DAWN HUGHES: The trauma symptom inventory.

MR. BACH: And these are -- in your forensic practice these are tests that you're quite familiar with, right?

MR. BACH: And these are tests that you rely on, correct?

MR. BACH: And you rely on them because you're not relying just solely on your own interaction with the individual, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: Correct. But it's a way of analyzing and looking at a whole host of symptoms that individuals may have.

MR. BACH: Even with all of your training, and it's impressive training and background, even with all that training, you rely on these tests developed by other people to help guide your analysis, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: I rely on multiple methods. What we say, a forensic evaluation is a multi-method, multi-hypothesis driven model. So I'm relying on all of these methods to arrive at my conclusion.

MR. BACH: Because these things are complicated, right?

MR. BACH: You can't find a sentence in the literature that says this is how somebody is. You have to do all these multi data point evaluations to get a sense of that, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: To get a sense of that individual, yes.

MR. BACH: And when you do the testing and when you talk to the individual, you're familiar with a concept, I don't think this was mentioned by the prosecutor, but you're familiar with a concept called malingering, right?

MR. BACH: And malingering is a fancy way of saying that someone might be exaggerating or distorting the facts because of the circumstances of which they find themselves, right?

DAWN HUGHES: That's not a correct definition.

MR. BACH: Why don't you give us a correct definition.

DAWN HUGHES: Malingering is just the fabricating of emotional or psychological symptoms. It's not related to the facts of their case.

MR. BACH: You talked about different emotional responses that people have to trauma or you talked about a trauma bond. You talked about a number of things. But people can fabricate emotional responses, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: They can.

MR. BACH: And notwithstanding the patterns that you talked about in the literature, these tests help you determine what's going on with a particular individual that you are looking at at any given time, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: You wouldn't take the test alone. You're looking for the confluence of the data points, the clinical interview, the testing, the external data, and you're looking how it all holds together to render an opinion.

MR. BACH: And you have to look at everything, right? You have to look at all those different sources, the ones that are relevant, you have to look at them, and you have to see how they all hold together, correct?

MR. BACH: And that's part of doing a detailed fact-intensive analysis, correct?

MR. BACH: You're familiar with something called -- let me withdraw that and say, a number of the tests that you use have something called a built-in validity index, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: Validity scales, yes.

MR. BACH: Validity scales. And the validity scale is because there is some people, even on a forensic setting, even when someone like you is administrating the test, there are some people who try to fool the tests, right?

MR. BACH: And the validity, what did you say it was?

DAWN HUGHES: Validity scale.

MR. BACH: Validity scale is there to help you, Dr. Hughes, decide whether the person you're evaluating is trying to fool the test or not, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: The validity scales are really to look at the response style of the individual. The two tests that you mentioned also are used clinically, and we use them in a clinical practice as well. So it does look at things like exaggeration, but it also looks at things, minimization and defensiveness and not wanting to report symptoms. So we see that as well.

MR. BACH: Minimization is sometimes understated, something that you may have done or that you're ashamed of, correct?

DAWN HUGHES: Not that necessarily you're ashamed of but that you don't want to address, like I talked about before. So sometimes we see individuals who are minimizing their distress.

THE COURT: Dr. Hughes, if you're asked a yes-or-no question, give a yes-or-no answer, and then we will have redirect after cross.

THE COURT: A couple more questions, and then we are going to take our lunch break.

THE COURT: Or you can stop now.

MR. BACH: Why don't we stop now because I don't have a good cliffhanger, and we will take it up after lunch.

THE COURT: Fair enough. Thank you, members of the jury. Enjoy your lunch. Please do not speak with each other about the case during lunch. We will be back at 12:45. All rise.

(Jury not present)

THE COURT: Dr. Hughes, we will see you back here at 12:45. You are not to have any discussions with the government during the break.

DAWN HUGHES: Thank you.

THE COURT: Thank you very much. Everyone else, please be seated. Anything from the government before we take our lunch break?

MS. COMEY: Just to inquire when your Honor would like to have Mr. Kaplan come in to invoke.

THE COURT: Let's do that right now.

MS. COMEY: I will ask the agent to bring Mr. Kaplan in then. Your Honor, do you need a hard copy of the order, or do you have it?

THE COURT: Do you have an extra hard copy?

MS. COMEY: I do, your Honor. I'll bring it up.

THE COURT: I'll ask the courtroom deputy to swear the witness in. GEORGE KAPLAN, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:

Continue to next page4.George Kaplan — Direct