Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo makes closing arguments for his client Oren Alexander during the federal sex trafficking trial of high profile real estate agent brothers Alon Alexander, Oren Alexander and Tal Alexander, before Judge Valerie E. Caproni in New York City, U.S. March 4, 2026 in a courtroom sketch. REUTERS/Jane Rosenberg
Brothers and luxury real estate brokers Alon, Oren and Tal Alexander may have “behaved badly” or made “poor choices,” but that doesn’t mean they’re guilty of federal sex trafficking, their attorneys told the jury in closing arguments Wednesday.
What’s more likely, their attorneys argued, is that the Alexanders’ accusers simply regret having drug-or alcohol-addled one-night stands with them, highlighting parts of their stories they say don’t line up.
“Just because someone cries from a witness stand doesn’t make it true,” Howard Srebnick, an attorney for Alon Alexander, told the jury. “Rather than bring you evidence, [the government] brings you a lack of evidence.”
Their combined seven hours of closing statements capped off a month-long trial where 11 women told the jury they were drugged, raped, sexually assaulted or sex trafficked by one of more of the Alexander brothers. The trio is charged with 10 counts of sex trafficking and sexual exploitation based on allegations spanning over a decade and involving dozens of women.
Attorneys went count by count in their final plea to the jury, tailoring their defense to the facts of each alleged instance. In some events, attorneys described the brothers’ actions as “problematic,” even occasionally relenting that a rape may have occurred, but that the behavior didn’t qualify as sex trafficking.
Sex trafficking, Deanna Paul, an attorney for Tal Alexander, said, requires premeditated action — in other words, a person must intend to force someone to have sex with them when offering something of value to entice them into doing so. She argued there was nothing to prove the Alexanders intended to rape women before they arrived in their Hamptons home or met them in a bar.
“Tal invited her for consensual sex,” Paul said of one woman who testified Tal flew her out to the Hamptons, then raped her when she tried to leave. “When he was rejected, he made a bad decision … That doesn’t show criminal intent,” she argued, it shows the opposite.
Attorneys also argued the Alexanders didn’t truly promise something of value in exchange for sex, which is required to find them guilty of federal sex-trafficking statutes.
“Just because someone has a house and a sex act happens in that house, doesn’t make it sex trafficking,” Paul said. “Just because two things exist or occur, it doesn’t mean they’re connected.”
The government has argued that lavish parties and trips to the Hamptons could be considered things of value to the women and intended to force women to have sex with them before meeting them.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Andrew Jones emphasized in the government’s closing arguments yesterday that the brothers frequently sent texts and emails to each other about drugging women or being on the hunt for sex.
Defense attorneys accused the government of trying to scandalize the jury with women saying they were brutally raped in hopes that would make them deliver a guilty verdict on principle. They also argued that the accusers are seeking to shake down the brothers for money and gifts — or that they just regretted their “choice” to have sex with the brothers after experimenting with drugs and alcohol.
“The government wants you to feel so horrified by the testimony you forget what they have to prove,” Paul said. “The brothers are charged with federal sex trafficking, not rape.”
In the government’s closing arguments yesterday, Jones told the jury the women who testified were not the least bit ashamed or regretful of their actions, calling that defense argument a mischaracterization.
“They told you [the women] were motivated by shame and money. Now that you have seen this testimony … you know they’re not,” Jones said. “There has not been an ounce of shame in this courtroom. Shame is what defendants tried to make these women feel … What walked into this courtroom was not shame. It was courage and resolve. It was the truth.”
Only two women said they had filed civil suits against the brothers, both of whom denied being motivated by or needing the brothers’ money, with one adding her father was a billionaire. Nearly all said they were motivated to take the stand because they wanted to hold the Alexanders accountable for their actions, many telling the jury testifying was one the hardest things they’d ever done.
Marc Agnifilo, an attorney for Oren Alexander, took a more technical approach than his colleagues to refute prosecutors’ accusations, suggesting the women may not have necessarily been lying on the stand, but their stories didn’t match up with certain forensic evidence. He cited metadata in photos he said proved it would be impossible for the women to have been raped at the exact time they said they were, or proved that their version of events was generally off.
“There’s somewhat of a disconnect between what folks said on the stand and what you see in photographs,” Agnifilo said. “I’m not telling you I think they’re all lying. I think some of them lied about some things.”
Jurors are expected to begin deliberations later this week.
→ Continue reading at amNY
