Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Victim Testimony topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Victim testifies that doctor swiped fingers between her labia; DNA and SANE evidence submitted
Summary
Taylor Dempsey testified that Dr. Nir Venier inserted fingers between her labia during a post-op appointment. Her mother corroborated that Dempsey was upset. Police executed a search warrant for the doctor's DNA and the court admitted the SAFE kit and buccal swab into evidence; a police interview video of the complainant was excluded as hearsay.
Taylor Dempsey testified under oath that, during a follow-up appointment in April 2022 at a Port Arthur cosmetic surgery center, Dr. Nir Venier pulled down her clothing and "slid his fingers between my labia." She testified the doctor was not wearing gloves during the suture removal and that the conduct happened on more than one occasion during the visit.
Dempsey told jurors she left the clinic with her mother, Carolyn Dempsey, who described her daughter as "hysterical" and said the pair immediately went to the Port Arthur Police Department to report the incident. The same-day visit included a forensic, acute SANE (sexual-assault forensic) exam and collection of swabs, the prosecutor said.
Prosecutor Michael Coleman told jurors that an initial DNA test was inconclusive but that a "subsequent, more thorough" analysis showed DNA on the outside of the complainant's genital area that matched the defendant. The state obtained a search warrant for the defendant's buccal (cheek) swab and delivered both the SAFE kit and the defendant's buccal sample to the lab. The court admitted both items into evidence as State's Exhibits 4 and 5.
The defendant, identified in court as Dr. Nir Venier, denied penetrating the complainant's vaginal canal and in recorded questioning told detectives he sometimes does not wear gloves when changing dressings because gloves may stick to sutures. Detectives testified the doctor consented to a recorded interview at his office and later consented to a DNA swab.
Defense counsel highlighted statements Dempsey made in earlier interviews in which she twice used the phrase "he did not penetrate me." The defense argued those prior remarks undermined the state's theory that insertion occurred; prosecutors countered that the complainant and a SANE examiner later described the contact as entering beyond the outer labial folds. On the stand, Dempsey said her earlier understanding of "penetration" meant entering the vaginal canal and that she later understood the legal distinction between outer contact and penetration.
Separately, the court reviewed and excluded a video of the complainant's recorded interview with Officer Jesse Alvarado after sustaining the defense's hearsay objection to the state's proffer that the video qualified as an "excited utterance." The judge found the brief, post-appointment recording did not meet the immediate-impact threshold for that hearsay exception.
What happens next: The SANE examiner's testimony, and the judge's pre-testimony ruling on scope, remained pending. The jury trial was scheduled to continue the next morning at 9 a.m.
