Why the Jury Believed Rubin’s Accusers

When Howard Rubin’s defense team walked into federal court, they thought they had a clear path: show the jury that the plaintiffs’ stories didn’t line up. If the women contradicted themselves — on dates, on details, on whether they returned for more encounters — how could a jury possibly find them credible?

But on November 8, 2023, the jury did just that. They branded Rubin a trafficker and awarded his accusers millions. By March 2024, Judge Cogan’s post-trial order made it plain: contradictions weren’t enough.

The Defense Playbook

Rubin’s lawyers leaned hard on gaps and discrepancies:

Shifting timelines: One woman said October 2016, later November. Another mixed up which trip came first.
Different levels of violence: Some spoke of being gagged unconscious, others of ignored safe words, still others of brutal beatings.
Voluntary returns: A few plaintiffs admitted they went back to Rubin for additional paid encounters, a fact the defense trumpeted as proof of consent.

The strategy was simple: if the women couldn’t keep their own stories straight, how could they possibly be believed?

Why the Jury Looked Past Contradictions

“Minor inconsistencies in dates or sequencing are not unusual in testimony of events several years past, particularly where trauma is involved. What matters is that the core accounts remained consistent.”
— Judge Cogan, March 19, 2024 Order

1. The pattern was undeniable.
Across ten women, the same themes echoed: promises of “kinky play” that turned into shocking violence, safe words disregarded, NDAs shoved in front of them, and injuries far beyond what was agreed. The pattern mattered more than the particulars.

2. Corroboration anchored memory.

“Corroborating evidence — travel records, financial transactions, and medical treatment — supported the plaintiffs’ accounts and justified the jury’s verdict.”
— Judge Cogan, March 19, 2024 Order

Bank transfers matched the payments women described.
Airline tickets placed them in Rubin’s orbit.
Medical records documented injuries like ruptured implants and severe bruising.

These anchors gave jurors confidence that while details blurred, the substance was real.

3. Demeanor told its own story.
Jurors often decide credibility not on transcripts, but on how witnesses come across. Plaintiffs testified with visible emotion and steadiness. Rubin, shielded by his lawyers and unwilling to take the stand, became a cipher.

4. Trauma explains inconsistency.

“The jury was entitled to credit the plaintiffs’ testimony despite contradictions. Credibility does not require perfection.”
— Judge Cogan, March 19, 2024 Order

Judge Cogan underscored what plaintiffs’ lawyers know well: contradictions do not erase credibility when the core story holds steady.

The Limits of Nitpicking

The defense was betting that contradictions would collapse the case. Instead, jurors saw the nitpicking as tactical. They didn’t need the women to agree on whether it was October 22nd or November 1st. They needed to believe that Rubin used money and contracts to lure women into encounters where he exceeded their consent. And that, the evidence showed, was exactly what happened.

The Lesson Beyond Rubin

In cases of sexual assault and trafficking, contradictions are inevitable. Years pass. Trauma scrambles memory. What survives is the shape of the experience. Plaintiffs’ lawyers know this. So do judges. Juries forgive the fuzziness if the underlying truth holds.

Rubin’s defense underestimated that distinction. They went after details. The jury listened for credibility.

Bottom Line

The women’s stories weren’t perfect. They weren’t identical. But they were believable. In the contest between contradictions and credibility, the jury chose credibility — and left Rubin with a verdict that no NDA, and no nitpicking, could undo.

Follow Small Matter for sharp analysis of how courts weigh credibility, contradictions, and the balance of power in litigation.