2026年3月20日 / 美国东部时间下午1:53 / CBS新闻加州
在”美国噩梦”事件幸存者丹尼斯·哈斯金斯(Denise Huskins)的绑架和性侵犯案件中，未能妥善保护明确证据正推动加利福尼亚州议会的改革。她案件中的新进展揭示了州法律中一个鲜为人知的漏洞，可能导致性侵犯受害者的视频被曝光。
哈斯金斯和她的丈夫艾伦·奎恩(Aaron Quinn)正在准备为一项受害者隐私法案作证，此前他们发现她的绑架者和其妻子在审判期间被提供了明确的案件证据副本。在他被定罪十年后，他现在的前妻仍然在家里保留着这些证据。
哈斯金斯的绑架案是Netflix最受关注的真实犯罪纪录片《美国噩梦》的主题之一。2015年3月，马修·穆勒(Matthew Muller)侵入奎恩位于瓦列霍(Vallejo)的家，给这对夫妇蒙上眼罩并下药。他绑架了哈斯金斯，在南太浩湖(South Lake Tahoe)将她劫持并实施强奸，关押了两天后才将其释放。
随后，执法官员错误地指控哈斯金斯策划了自己的绑架，这一指控被广泛比作电影《消失的爱人》(Gone Girl)的情节。数月后，当局因另一宗未遂绑架案逮捕穆勒，他对绑架和性侵犯哈斯金斯认罪。
揭露法律漏洞
哈斯金斯和奎恩在过去一年中与执法部门合作，帮助重审并解决与袭击者有关的悬案。
正是在这些调查以及随后穆勒的供词中，他们发现了案件中明确证据保护的缺失，这种情况可能在其他案件中也存在。
据调查人员称，在穆勒被定罪十年后，他现在的前妻证实，他们作为法律程序的一部分，被提供了性侵犯的明确证据——调查人员称这是穆勒犯罪时录制的袭击视频。穆勒曾有一段时间自行辩护，他的前妻说她当时是他的法律助理。
CBS新闻加州分部已联系地方检察官办公室、公设辩护人和法院，以了解穆勒为何会获得这些明确证据，以及为何他的前妻在十多年内没有被要求归还这些证据。
索拉诺县地方检察官办公室指出，有一份保护令管辖这些视频，由起诉此案的副地方检察官和穆勒的辩护律师、现任索拉诺县法官的副公设辩护人斯蒂芬妮·格罗根-琼斯(Stephanie Grogan-Jones)签署。
该命令规定：”尽管被告可以在律师在场的情况下查阅这些材料，但在任何情况下都不得向被告提供任何部分材料的副本供其保留，也不得让被告单独接触这些材料。”
保护令还要求，这些材料和任何副本”在本案结案后三十(30)天内必须返还法院销毁”。
调查人员现在表示，这一要求并未得到执行。
“录制这些视频的部分原因是，每次他观看时，都能继续利用并再次伤害我，”哈斯金斯解释道。
这一发现令哈斯金斯深感不安，不仅因为她的案件中证据保护的失败，还因为它暴露了州法律和法院命令的保障措施执行中的漏洞。
“这是不必要的，坦率地说，感觉很残忍，”哈斯金斯说。
CBS新闻加州分部仍在等待地方检察官、处理此案的公设辩护人（现已成为索拉诺县法官）以及索拉诺县法院就谁负责保护证据、如何执行保护令以及是否最终执行等问题做出回应。
加州法律中的缺口
加州法律已经要求法院封存涉及儿童的性明确证据，但对成年受害者的保护远不明确。
“没有相关法律，”萨克拉门托县副地方检察官索尼娅·萨特切尔(Sonja Satchell)说，她有长期起诉性犯罪的经验。”我们遵循最佳实践…而这些实践因县而异。没有统一标准。”
即使在发布保护令的情况下，案件结束后也没有一致的系统来跟踪或核实遵守情况。
这意味着涉及成年受害者的明确证据处理决策往往由个别检察官或法院决定，而没有全州统一的标准。
“了解到这里没有更多的谨慎、更多的指导方针和限制，只是又一次的伤害，”哈斯金斯说。”在这个数字时代，确保任何包含性侵犯敏感材料的视频片段或任何调查材料都有更严格的协议和指南，似乎是常识。”
推动改革：SB 1056法案
哈斯金斯和奎恩现在正与立法者合作制定这些指南。
他们支持由蒂姆·格雷森(Tim Grayson)参议员提出的参议院法案1056(SB 1056)，该法案要求法院发布保护令，规范涉及任何年龄受害者的性明确证据，并限制此类材料的复制、共享或访问方式。
格雷森的法案将责任从检察官转移到法院，在加州建立统一标准。它还将禁止律师在没有法院批准和正当理由的情况下直接向被告或其他人提供此类材料的副本，同时仍允许在严格的法院命令条件下为法律准备工作提供访问权限。
“如果幸存者不觉得自己会得到安全和保护，他们就不会站出来，”哈斯金斯说。
该法案提出之际，不仅全州缺乏统一标准受到新的审视，而且现有法院命令是否得到遵守和执行也面临质疑。
从幸存者到倡导者
这一努力代表了哈斯金斯和奎恩人生旅程的新篇章，他们的旅程始于创伤，现在正发展为倡导工作。
当立法者在3月24日考虑该法案时，他们预计将在加利福尼亚州参议院公共安全委员会面前作证。
CBS新闻加州分部陪同他们前往州议会大厦，他们有机会参观将在那里作证的听证室。哈斯金斯形容这一刻既超现实又有意义。
“知道我们有声音…并且可以使用它，这是一种治愈，”她说。
更广泛的影响
这对夫妇表示，他们的目标很简单：确保没有其他幸存者需要担心他们的袭击证据会在多年后不受控制地重新出现，像哈斯金斯一样再次受到伤害。
“我们遇到了很多正在做杰出工作的人，”哈斯金斯说。”所以如果我们能以任何方式提供帮助，这是一种巨大的荣誉，值得我们付出每一秒。”
他们的案件曾经被斥为骗局，现在却揭示了法律和执行法律的系统中的漏洞——并推动了未来可能更好地保护受害者的变革。
“American Nightmare” survivor Denise Huskins’ shocking new discovery exposes victim privacy loophole in California law
March 20, 2026 / 1:53 PM EDT / CBS News California
The failure to protect explicit case evidence in “American Nightmare” survivor Denise Huskins’ kidnapping and sexual assault case is driving reform at the California State Capitol. New developments in her case exposed a little-known gap in state law that could expose videos of sexual assault victims.
Huskins and her husband, Aaron Quinn, are preparing to testify on behalf of a victims’ privacy bill after discovering her kidnapper and his wife had been given copies of explicit case evidence during his trial. A decade after his conviction, his now ex-wife still had the evidence in her home.
Huskins’ kidnapping was the subject of one of Netflix’s most-watched true-crime docuseries, “American Nightmare.” In March 2015, Matthew Muller invaded Quinn’s Vallejo home, blindfolding and drugging the couple. He kidnapped, raped, and held Huskins for ransom in South Lake Tahoe for two days before releasing her.
Law enforcement officials then falsely accused Huskins of orchestrating her own kidnapping, a claim widely compared to the plot of the movie “Gone Girl.” Months later, after authorities arrested Muller for a separate attempted kidnapping, he pleaded guilty to kidnapping and sexually assaulting Huskins.
Exposing a legal loophole
Huskins and Quinn worked with law enforcement over the past year to help reopen and solve cold case crimes tied to her attacker.
It was during those investigations and subsequent confessions from Muller that they discovered a failure to protect explicit evidence in her case and potentially others.
According to investigators, and a decade after Muller’s conviction, his now ex-wife confirmed that they had been given explicit evidence of the sexual assaults as part of the legal discovery process — videotaped recordings of the assaults investigators say Muller made as he committed the crimes. Muller represented himself for a period, and his ex-wife said she was working as his legal assistant.
CBS News California has reached out to the district attorney, the public defender, and the court to understand how Muller ended up with the explicit evidence and why his ex-wife wasn’t asked to return it for more than a decade.
The Solano County District Attorney’s Office pointed to a protective order governing the videos, signed by the Deputy District Attorney who prosecuted the case and Muller’s defense attorney, Deputy Public Defender Stephanie Grogan-Jones, who is now a Solano County judge.
The order specified, “While the defendant may review the materials in the presence of counsel, under no circumstances shall the defendant be given copies of any part of these materials to keep, nor shall the defendant be left alone with these materials.”
The protective order also required that the materials, and any copies, “be returned to the Court for destruction within thirty (30) days of the conclusion of this case.”
Investigators now say that did not happen.
“Part of videoing it is his ability to continue to exploit and re-victimize me over and over again every time he viewed it,” Huskins explained.
The discovery was deeply disturbing for Huskins, not just because of the failure to protect the evidence in her case, but because it exposed a breakdown in state law and in how court-ordered safeguards were carried out.
“It’s unnecessary and, quite frankly, it feels cruel,” Huskins said.
CBS News California is still awaiting responses from prosecutors, the public defender who handled the case — now a Solano County judge — and the Solano County court about who was responsible for safeguarding the evidence, how the protective order was implemented, and whether it was ultimately enforced.
A gap in California law
California law already requires courts to seal sexually explicit evidence involving children, but protections are far less clear for adult victims.
“There isn’t a law,” said Sacramento County Deputy District Attorney Sonja Satchell, who has a long career prosecuting sex crimes. “We are governed by best practices… and those practices can vary from county to county. There is no uniformity.”
Even in cases where protective orders are issued, there is no consistent system to track or verify compliance once a case ends.
That means decisions about how to handle explicit evidence involving adult victims are often left to individual prosecutors or the courts without consistent statewide standards.
To learn that there wasn’t more care, more guidelines and restrictions, was just another insult to injury,” Huskins said. “In this digital age, it just seems like common sense to make sure that any kind of video footage or any kind discovery that included sensitive material around sexual assault, that there would be stricter protocols and guidelines around it.”
The push for reform: SB 1056
Huskins and Quinn are now working with lawmakers to set those guidelines.
They are backing Senate Bill 1056, authored by Senator Tim Grayson, which would require courts to issue protective orders governing sexually explicit evidence involving victims of any age, and limit how that material can be copied, shared, or accessed.
Grayson’s bill would shift responsibility from prosecutors to the courts, creating a uniform standard across California. It would also prohibit attorneys from providing copies of that material directly to defendants or others without court approval and a showing of good cause, while still allowing access for legal preparation under strict court-ordered conditions.
“If survivors don’t feel like they’re going to be safe and protected, they are not going to come forward,” Huskins said.
The bill comes as new scrutiny is placed not just on the lack of statewide standards, but on whether existing court orders are being followed and enforced.
From survivor to advocate
The effort represents the next chapter in Huskins and Quinn’s journey, which began with trauma and is evolving into advocacy.
They are expected to testify before the California State Senate Public Safety Committee as lawmakers consider the bill on March 24.
CBS News California accompanied them to the State Capitol, where they had the chance to visit the hearing room that they’ll be testifying in. Huskins described the moment as both surreal and meaningful.
“It’s healing to know that we have a voice… and we can use it,” she said.
A broader impact
The couple says the goal is simple: ensure no other survivor has to worry that evidence of their assault could resurface years later, outside their control, re-victimizing them as it did Huskins.
“We’ve met so many people who are already doing amazing work,” Huskins said.” “So if we could just help in any way, it’s a huge honor and it’s worth every second .”
Their case, once dismissed as a hoax, is now exposing gaps in both the law and the system meant to enforce it — and driving changes that could better protect victims moving forward.