The Trial Rubin Couldn’t Win
Howard Rubin walked into federal court in 2023 with everything in his favor: elite lawyers, deep pockets, and years to prepare. But on November 8, the jury still branded him a trafficker and ordered him to pay millions.
The verdict raises a natural question: could Rubin have done anything differently to avoid this outcome? The answer is simple — yes, he had options. But none of them were likely to save him.
Option 1: Take the Stand
Rubin chose silence. Testifying might have allowed him to look jurors in the eye and deny the allegations. But the risk was catastrophic: brutal cross-examination on NDAs, bank wires, and medical evidence. Jurors often punish evasive or combative testimony.
Why it wouldn’t have worked: His words couldn’t have outweighed the paper trail.
Option 2: Bring in BDSM Experts
An expert might have framed Rubin’s conduct as misunderstood “edge play.” But every plaintiff who testified said Rubin ignored safe words and went beyond negotiated limits.
Why it wouldn’t have worked: Experts can explain norms. They can’t erase testimony that shows those norms were violated.
Option 3: Exploit Contradictions
The defense highlighted shifting timelines, inconsistent details, and the fact that some plaintiffs returned for additional encounters. In theory, this should have fractured credibility.
Why it wouldn’t have worked: Jurors cared about the pattern: money, NDAs, ignored consent, injuries. The details didn’t have to align perfectly for the story to ring true.
Option 4: Settle Early
The one real escape hatch. Before trial, Rubin could have written a large check, negotiated confidentiality, and avoided a public branding as a trafficker. Courts enforce post-dispute settlements, unlike the NDAs he relied on.
Why it might have worked: It would have minimized exposure and controlled the narrative (update: and maybe even blunted prosecutorial interest).
Why it didn’t happen: Arrogance. Rubin bet that money and NDAs made him untouchable. He lost.
Why No Strategy Could Save Him
The problem wasn’t tactics. It was facts.
- Ten women told strikingly similar stories.
- Bank records, airline tickets, and medical evidence backed them up.
- Rubin’s demeanor and secrecy made him look like a man with something to hide.
Even the most polished defense strategy collapses under the weight of that kind of evidence.
The Lesson
Rubin’s trial wasn’t lost because of poor lawyering. It was lost because the facts were overwhelming. The only way out would have been to settle before jurors ever heard a word.
Bottom Line
Could Rubin have done things differently? Yes. Would it have mattered? Almost certainly not. In November 2023, jurors had already chosen credibility over contradiction, truth over tactics.
Howard Rubin thought he was fighting a trial. In reality, he was fighting gravity.
Follow Small Matter for sharp, timely analysis at the intersection of law, power, and accountability — where strategy meets reality, and justice takes its true shape.