Law&Crime Sidebar - Disturbing Alexander Brother Bombshells Exposed in Sex Trafficking Trial

Episode Date: January 30, 2026

The federal sex crimes trial of Alon, Oren, and Tal Alexander is underway in New York City. Prosecutors accuse the real estate and security moguls of sex trafficking, drugging, and raping multiple women and girls. The defense has countered that the brothers are just womanizers, not criminals, and that all sex was consensual. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber sat down with former Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aronberg to break down the stunning allegations, the explosive opening statements, and the key witness testimony in this high-stakes case.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Check out Particle’s Face Cream here: https://particleformen.co/sidebar and use my code SIDEBAR20 for a 20% discount sitewide.HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

The Alexander Brothers federal sex crimes trial has officially begun, and the details, the allegations surrounding these men, are stunning. Prosecutors claim the three engaged in a sex trafficking conspiracy of drugging and raping women. But the defense countered. They have said that they may be womanizers, but they're not criminals. We're going through some of the shocking moments so far in this trial. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

All right, I know this is a little bit of a 180, but I have to tell you, This is an important sponsor. This is very important product for all you guys out there. If you care of your skin, Particle Face Cream. This makes your routine so simple because who has the time for a full routine? This is a six-and-one anti-aging cream that's designed to work on men's thicker, more rugged skin for just one step. Tackles, eyebags, dark spots, wrinkles. You know that post-shape irritation that's the worst?

It also moisturizes and nourishes with high-grade science-backed ingredients. I'm talking, pyloronic acid, vitamin E, johobah, oil. So join over a million men worldwide and looking confident with very minimal effort. Check out Particle at the link below and use my code, Sidebar 20 for 20% offsite wide. All right. So the Alexander Brothers New York federal criminal trial has begun. Now we've talked about them before here on Sidebar, but these are the brothers in the real estate and security markets who, according to prosecutors, use their wealth, their status, their resources to essentially induce women to go on trips with them,

them out, promise them luxury items or luxury experiences, and then proceed to drug and sexually assault and rape them. We're talking about Alon, Orrin, and Tal Alexander. Now, they have been described by prosecutors as, quote, partners in crime. They are accused of being part of a sex trafficking conspiracy that ran from 2008 to 2021. They have pleaded not guilty to multiple federal charges. Actually, let me read you from the latest indictment, because there's always been changes. We have conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. They're facing 12 charges, by the way. Conspiracy to commit sex trafficking. Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. That's with respect to one victim. Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. This is a victim two.

Inducement to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Sex trafficking of a minor. This is a minor victim three. Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion. Victim four. count seven, sex trafficking by force fraud or coercion, victim five. Count eight, sex trafficking by force fraud or coercion, victim six. Count nine, inducement to travel to engage in unlawful sexual activity. Victim six. Aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat or intoxicant, victim seven. Count 11, sexual abuse by physical incapacitation, that's victim seven. And then count 12, sexual exploitation of a minor, minor victim. Again, they've pleaded not guilty to the charges, and I will tell you, they could face life

in prison if they're convicted, okay? This is on top of, by the way, state charges in Florida that apparently Orrin and Ilan also faced with respect to allegedly sexually assaulting women. There are also dozens of civil lawsuits that are mounted against them. So I want to go over what has happened so far in this trial, because I will tell you right now, the allegations against them are incredibly high. heinous. And these guys, I can't emphasize this enough, there were fixtures in the New York and Florida nightlife and societal scene. I remember about like 10 years ago, 15 years ago, I knew their

names, like people would talk about them. I never met them, but I heard about them. I mean, they were staples. And so the idea of what they were accused of doing behind the scenes is pretty remarkable. So right now, I want to talk about what we're seeing in this federal trial. And for that, let me bring on my special guest. I'm joined right now by former Palm Beach County State Attorney, Dave Arrenberg, who is in studio with me. Good to see you, sir. Thank you so much. Great to be back up here. It's cold up here. It is cold, so I appreciate you making the trek. I actually saw you outside. You're not wearing a warm enough jacket. I hope the audience knows. I'm from Florida. We don't even own jackets. This is true. By the way, before we get started, if people want to follow your content, where can they follow you? Yes, on Substack at Dave Arrenberg. I also go by Florida Lawman. Yep. But I'm also on all social media's, but Substack, subscribe.

Talk to me about these charges that they're facing. So 12 different charges. Some people would say, well, what is sex trafficking? What is sex trafficking conspiracy? What is this, you know, the sexual exploitation of a minor? They might have a familiarity with respect to Diddy, but what exactly are we talking about here? And the Alexander brothers have the same lawyers as Diddy. Teni Gargos, Mark Agnifalo.

They were very successful with Diddy, and also they're employing the same defense as Diddy employed, so we'll see how that goes. For sex trafficking, that's the most serious allegation because that could get you life in prison. That is commercial sex. That is paying someone, not necessarily in dollars. It could be drinks and anything in exchange for sex. Now, if it's adult sex trafficking, you need force, fraud, or coercion. If it's a minor, you don't need any of that. So they're saying they were using the promise of luxury, luxury experiences, travel, accommodations,

to Lauren and entice women to these places where they were forcibly raced. or sexually assaulted. So in other words, where there might have been difficulty in the Diddy case to say that, I remember he was found not guilty of sex trafficking, would you say this is a more straightforward definition? Like if it was a law exam, a more straightforward illegal definition of sex trafficking, it hits the elements here if the allegations are true? I think it's pretty similar to Diddy.

I mean, the fact that we look back and see how Diddy was acquitted of the most serious charges doesn't take away that the allegations were just as serious as the ones against the Alexander brothers. I think the difference for me is that the Alexander brothers have so many victims who are ready to go and testify at trial under pseudonyms, but testify. And you have their own words. They have their own text messages where they gloat. And that's something you didn't see as much with Diddy where his own words came back to haunt him. He was very careful.

The Alexander Brothers, less so. Okay. So I want to give two competing narratives here that were laid out by the prosecution and the defense in the opening statements in this case. And to be clear, there are no cameras in federal court. so this is just based on the reporting, but here you get a sense of what's happening. Two different versions. You had prosecutor Madison Smeiser

who told the jury of six men and six women. By the way, split down the middle. Does that matter to you? No, just interesting, though. Rarely do you see a jury six and six. You know, as a prosecutor, you would naturally think, well, women would be more sympathetic

to female victims. Not necessarily. Women can be very tough on other women in domestic violence, in sex assault cases, and sometimes you want a jury of mostly men. Okay, that's interesting. That is interesting. All right. So this is what the prosecutor said. Quote, these three brothers masqueraded as party boys when really they were predators.

The brothers used whatever means necessary, sometimes drugs, sometimes alcohol, sometimes brute force to carry out their rapes. They physically held victims down that they would spike drinks with GHB and Xanax. You'll hear from a woman who Tal held down while Alon and two others raped that woman. And I think that's in reference to somebody who was 16 years old at the time. They also described how the jury is actually going to see a recording of Oran's alleged rape of a 17-year-old identified as Amelia, who was almost incoherent, had no memory of what happened. Jurors were told that they're going to read the brothers' text messages after some of these incidents, quote, they celebrated raping women and girls. This is what Smizer said. And the text messages between the brothers will allegedly show that.

And she added basically how these messages showed what we talk about all the time, consciousness of guilt. Quote, the defendants knew they had to stay out of a courtroom like this one. And then one message in particular that has been highlighted is how they basically said how the only thing that could hurt them is, and this is according to an alleged text messages, quote, some ho complaining. And it was highlighted how they came from a wealthy family. They lived this luxurious lifestyle, but that their luxurious lifestyle had a dark side, according to Smizer. That's the prosecution's narrative. Let's start there. They've outlined what they can attempt to prove.

What stands out to you? We were bringing up the ditty case earlier. One thing in the ditty case that I think convinced jurors with that you have people in their minds who voluntarily went to freakoffs, knowing this would be a sex party. That's not the allegations here, right? Here, it's that people went just to a regular party.

And then they were allegedly raped by these brothers who then documented it, have their own words afterwards where they're gloating about it, and recorded some of it. So that's where the evidence here, I think, is stronger, even though in both cases, whether it's Diddy or Alexander, the allegations are both equally terrible. And when you look at charges that weren't in the Diddy case but are here, like obviously the sex trafficking is theirs, but inducement to travel to engage on lawful sexual activity, or like you said, sex trafficking in a minor, or aggravated sexual abuse by force or threat

or intoxicant, are these, again, more straightforward charges to prove than, let's say, a conspiracy charge? You know, there was an agreement? Yes, yes, because here, look at those words. Those are broad words. When you're talking about sex trafficking, inducement, enabling, transporting, harboring, all that stuff can get you under sex trafficking. But here, you're talking about straight sex, too. I mean, you don't have to say, well, he agreed and then someone else did it as part of the conspiracy. Here, you're talking about the brothers allegedly engaging in the Sex Act themselves. Right. So they can't pawn it off on other people saying they didn't know about it. So that was the prosecution's narrative. Here's what the defense says, because you have attorney

Teni Garagos, who, by the way, as we talked about, represented Diddy at his federal criminal trial to, Mark Ignifalo, by the way, is also a defense attorney here. But Garagos, who's representing Oran, she basically characterized the brothers as successful but arrogant. that yes, they like women. Yes, they wanted to have sex, but highlighted what this case is not. Quote, it's not sex trafficking. That's dating. That's hooking up. And she says the accusers, they are incredible because they may be motivated by payouts and civil suits. Maybe they have a regret over having these sexual encounters with the brothers or maybe regrets over doing drugs. Defense attorney Deanna Paul, who's representing another one of the brothers, said,

it was crude, it was arrogant, it will make you cringe, but we're not here for the Ashole Awards. Now, she's representing Tal Alexander, and she said, look, the boys were womanizers. They slept with many, many women, but again, highlighting that they're not criminals. Your thoughts on this? The problem they have is that you can't blame the victims when the victim is under 18. It's that one victim who's alleged to be a minor, if that person was having sex with one of the Alexander brothers and there was money exchange or something of value exchange, that is human trafficking. You don't need force, fraud, or coercion, and consent is not a defense. Now, you can say consent for the adults, and that is going to be the challenge for

defense attorneys to try to make a believe that these people who went to a party, not a sex party, and then went home with these folks who apparently were drugged, wanted that, and that is going to be tough because they're going to testify those victims in person. Just on note about that, before jurors had come into the courtroom, one of the things that a defense counsel for Tal Alexander had challenged was the authenticity of a foreign birth certificate that was belonging to a 17-year-old victim. Again, this is somebody who was allegedly filmed by Oren during a sexual episode. The defense had made the argument that this document, which was apparently issued months after this girl was born in Europe, it hadn't been properly authenticated, so it raised

questions about whether her age at the time could have been established, whether it was known. and the judge here said that she would consider the arguments and the case law before issuing a ruling. And I wonder there how that would complicate the analysis. Very interesting. Well, it's not what he thinks. It's whether she was 18 or not. Under federal law, unless you had, there's a very narrow exception. You didn't have an opportunity to observe the person.

But that's not true here. He spent time with this person enough to see what she looked like. So that's not a defense. So now the question is whether or not she was eight. 18 or up. Now, if there is proof that she was 18, then that takes it out of the juvenile sex trafficking. And then you'd have to prove force-far to coercion. But if she was not 18, then that's game over for these guys. I think that alone can get your life in prison. I want to go to the testimony now. Okay, so we've already heard about testimony in this courtroom. An accuser who has used the pseudonym Katie Moore

testified, and she testified that she was drugged and sexually assaulted by Alon Alexander in 2012 at his home. And this was after meeting him at actor Zach Ephron's party in New York City. Now, to be clear, Zach Ephron has no affiliation with this, has not been accused of any wrongdoing. It was just that apparently this whole meeting happened at a party at his house. Okay. Now, she claims that that night, she took Molly, but at a nightclub later on after she was handed a drink, the next thing she knows is she wakes up naked in a bed with a lawn allegedly standing over her naked as well. She claims he kept pushing her down. She said, quote, I don't. want to have sex with you, and he allegedly replied, ha ha, you already did. And then he laughed

in my face. That's what she claims happened. And then she says, not only was she raped, but Tal walks into the room and does nothing. Now, defense attorney for Alon Alexander, Howard Strebnik, and Alex Khan, a defense attorney for Tal Alexander, they cross-examined more. Apparently, she was cross-examined for hours. And they focused on the details of the timeline of events, how much she had to drink, her taking Molly, her conversations with civil lawyers, although I don't believe she actually filed the civil lawsuit as of yet. You know, the idea here that she voluntarily took drugs, that everything was consensual. Dave, is this a complicated case? This is a complicated testimony? Well, they're going to put her through the ringer. And by the way, Howard Shrebnik, excellent lawyer,

his younger brother, Scott, who's his law partner, was my camp counselor many years ago. I didn't like that. Wow, small legal world. Well, South Florida. Yeah. Yes, it's not that big of a legal community. But when it comes to these allegations, there are serious allegations and the one defense would be consent. So you'd have to show that not only did she agree to have sex with the brothers, but also that the drugging of her did not happen, that she voluntarily took, whether it's MDMA, Molly, or whatever came afterwards. And that's where toxicology is important, but unless you report it right away, that stuff can get through your system. And then you can't prove which is a substance you're on that day. Let me be clear. I, I, I,

I covered the Harvey Weinstein trial. I was in that courtroom. You can have a conviction purely based on the testimony of an accuser alone. You don't necessarily need forensics. You don't need DNA. You don't need surveillance footage. You don't need text messages. But obviously all that helps. And those were cases, by the way, where he was accused of sex crimes from years in the past. Here, if you're talking about alleged crimes from so many years ago, and you have potentially a question of why did they only come forward in the last several years to speak with authorities. Did they not tell people immediately? There's two ways to look at that, right? One could say there's very complicated factors about why alleged sexual assault

victims don't come forward, why they don't speak about it. But also if you're dealing with somebody who's high status and high power, and I think there was even testimony from one of the accusers that she may have read that the brothers had faced allegations in the past but beat them. So she might have felt like, how am I going to come forward? But at the same time, the defense is saying, isn't it interesting, you're only coming forward now, do you have an incentive? How does the jury weigh that? The jury has to just weigh that and have difficulty

because you have the question of whether delayed reporting is something that shows that it didn't happen or delayed reporting could be because of the things you said. Intimidation. It could be that they had repressed trauma, memories, but just because they didn't report, it didn't mean it didn't happen. And just because they may have gone to another party with them

or remained friends with the brothers, doesn't mean it didn't happen. You can still be prosecuted and convicted, as Harvey Weinstein was, for a sex act that was non-consensual, even if there were later acts that were consensual. Now, every defendant has a right to, you know, a thorough defense. They're innocent until proven guilty. Having said that, cross-examining these alleged victims is tricky, right? It's a sensitive game to be playing here, and I'm not in that courtroom.

I don't know what the tone of it was. But does it matter how long defense attorneys cross-examine these alleged victims, these accusers? Well, it's the substance, not the quantity. Okay. Not the length of the cross-examination. In fact, if you go on too long, the jury may think you're badgering this victim. But they could also say you're falsely accusing an innocent man. Well, yes, but is everyone falsely accusing them? That's the thing. Strengthen numbers. And that's where the strength number matters. They're going to have multiple people on the sand. Did he benefited by the fact that there was one witness who refused to show up, one victim, alleged victim. And then you had the people who did show up, except for Cassie, were not as

strong on the stand. And you didn't have as many people as you have here. That's why I think the weight of this evidence is stronger than the ditty case. And you believe maybe that video of an alleged assault or the text messages, if the jury believes what they're seeing there, that may corroborate the testimony of every single accuser. The jurors are going to hate these brothers. These are obnoxious, wealthy brothers who were big-time players. And that's what where the lawyer tried to get out in front of it. The defense lawyer said, it's not an a-hole party or a... Right?

And that's why she used that word, actually, because it's one thing to say, you know, you're not determining whether they're jerks. No, it's nothing when you curse because it lets the jurors know, hey, these guys are not good guys, but that is not a crime to be bad guys. What's a crime is rape, is drugging people, is underage rape, especially. You don't need force-fraud or coercion there. So the lawyers are great lawyers, are doing their jobs, but the facts are what they are.

We also heard the testimony of a second woman using the pseudonym Maya Miller. So she claims she was raped by Tal during a 2014 trip to the Hamptons. She claims she started to think that something was off with him. So she actually, this is what she testified to, used suitcases to block the door so Tal couldn't come in. But then she claims, despite that,

that she was assaulted by him in a bathroom, I believe in the shower. And maybe in a way to get in front of it, it was presented that after this alleged assault, She, I guess this is what the prosecutor is saying. She tried to downplay what happened in a way by liking an Instagram post of Tolls, congratulating him about something. She only came forward to the FBI in 2024. She didn't file a civil lawsuit as of yet, though.

But the cross, by the defense, they focused on the fact that her friend who was with her, apparently is going to be called as a defense witness, was maybe in the bathroom during the assault, but was blow drying her hair so didn't really know what was going on. And also, the defense focused on the fact that this alleged victim apparently didn't tell her friend what happened. And she was questioned about why she allegedly called and texted Tal afterwards and that she went out on the town and didn't seem to be too upset about what happened. Although, again, this can be very, very complicated. And they also presented photographs and messages to challenge her credibility, to question the timeline. They even said they look at her eyes in one of the pictures that she took at the Plaza Hotel in New York after this alleged assault. They said she looked happy. What do you thoughts on that?

It's all relevant evidence. These are good defense lawyers, and this is what happens when you're prosecuting these types of cases. You're going to see your victims run through the ringer. It's why a lot of victims don't speak up. It's why a lot of them they say, you know, it's not worth it, because then you question their attitudes, whether they're lying, their sexual past, even though you're not supposed to. There's rape shield laws, which you can't go into someone's clothing at the time, and it's very restricted about going into someone's past.

but this type of stuff can creep in. And it makes the victim very uncomfortable to go through it and to be put on the stand for many hours. And so that's why you see these are underreported crimes. Also, if there is seen to be a profit motive, like if they're filing civil lawsuits, that is a problem too. Prosecutors hate when civil lawyers get involved.

They say, wait until after the case is over because that could be used to impeach your credibility. And the government also called a separate witness. You testified that Maya Miller disclosed disclosed this alleged assault years back in 2020. So not 2024-2020. That could be relevant. Absolutely.

What she said at the time is more important than what she said years later. Even though years later can come in, too, you just want any form of corroboration more than just that he said she said. How much do you think the text messages are going to tell the story? Because there was apparently a message that was displayed where it said, these cheap hookers coming to the Hamptons that weekend that Tal allegedly wrote and forwarded Miller's flight confirmation details. This is, again, according to an email that was seen by the jurors. So emails text messages. How much is that going to help the case? This is why I say the jurors

are going to hate these defendants because these text messages at the very least show them to be jerks, CADs, you know, people who just talk smack after being with women and the women on the jury, that's, they're going to hate these guys. And I think that that could poison the jurors' minds. Even if they have some doubts in their mind about whether rape occurred, I think they may not give them to benefit of doubt because they're going to hate them for the fact that they bragged about these sexual conquest. They really don't seem like people you'd want to invite over for Thanksgiving. How problematic is it for the brothers that they're all tried together? Now, some charges, right, apply to some, some apply to others, some to all. How does it affect it

that they're all tried together? You know, I think it's better for the defense if they could split them up. Really? If they could have split them up. Oh, if they split them up. Because then they can point the finger at each other, but now they're all going to be tarred by themselves. They're three brothers, and one brother's conduct is going to be imputed to the others. And it's much harder to say, no, is my brother who did that? They mistook because a couple of them are twins. They mistook me from my brother, but now they're all being tried together. That's a win for the prosecution.

You think the brothers should take the stand? No, I think there's so much dirt on them that if they did, I think they'd be eviscerated. I've seen folks like this take the stand where they think they're smarter than everyone else. They're arrogant, and these guys are clearly arrogant. and they think they can put one over on the jurist. Charlie Adelson, for example. These guys are like Charlie Adelson. How well did he do on the stand?

Jurists can see right through it, and a good prosecutor can just light them on fire. All right. Well, I think this trial is expected to last about a month, so we'll keep a very careful line. We've been following it for quite some time. Dave Arrenberg, thanks for coming on. Really appreciate it.

Thank you, Jesse. And that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. We're also up on NBC's Peak. We have sidebar episodes there as well.

If you want to follow me, you can check me out on Instagram or X. Also, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live, Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll catch you next time, everybody. Thanks so much.