Home to the Spectator's best podcasts on everything from politics to religion, literature to food and drink, and more. A new podcast every day from writers worth listening to. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
…
continue reading
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Diddy Trial: The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion To Strike The Testimony Of Dawn Hughes (Part 1) (6/2/25)
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 486432389 series 2987886
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
In this filing, the government strongly opposes Sean Combs’s motion to strike the expert testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist who previously took the stand. The government argues that the defense’s request is both untimely and baseless, noting it was filed three days after Dr. Hughes had already testified. The prosecution contends that Dr. Hughes's testimony was properly admitted after thorough litigation and judicial review, and that the court had already placed clear boundaries on what her expert analysis could include.
The government further asserts that Combs’s arguments lack legal merit and ignore prior court rulings that carefully delineated the scope of Dr. Hughes’s expert contributions. They describe the defense’s motion as an effort to relitigate settled matters without presenting new or compelling justification. As such, the government urges the court to reject the motion to strike and allow Dr. Hughes’s testimony to remain part of the trial record, emphasizing its relevance and the court’s prior validation of its admissibility.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.372.0.pdf
…
continue reading
The government further asserts that Combs’s arguments lack legal merit and ignore prior court rulings that carefully delineated the scope of Dr. Hughes’s expert contributions. They describe the defense’s motion as an effort to relitigate settled matters without presenting new or compelling justification. As such, the government urges the court to reject the motion to strike and allow Dr. Hughes’s testimony to remain part of the trial record, emphasizing its relevance and the court’s prior validation of its admissibility.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.372.0.pdf
1101 episodes
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 486432389 series 2987886
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
In this filing, the government strongly opposes Sean Combs’s motion to strike the expert testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a clinical and forensic psychologist who previously took the stand. The government argues that the defense’s request is both untimely and baseless, noting it was filed three days after Dr. Hughes had already testified. The prosecution contends that Dr. Hughes's testimony was properly admitted after thorough litigation and judicial review, and that the court had already placed clear boundaries on what her expert analysis could include.
The government further asserts that Combs’s arguments lack legal merit and ignore prior court rulings that carefully delineated the scope of Dr. Hughes’s expert contributions. They describe the defense’s motion as an effort to relitigate settled matters without presenting new or compelling justification. As such, the government urges the court to reject the motion to strike and allow Dr. Hughes’s testimony to remain part of the trial record, emphasizing its relevance and the court’s prior validation of its admissibility.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.372.0.pdf
…
continue reading
The government further asserts that Combs’s arguments lack legal merit and ignore prior court rulings that carefully delineated the scope of Dr. Hughes’s expert contributions. They describe the defense’s motion as an effort to relitigate settled matters without presenting new or compelling justification. As such, the government urges the court to reject the motion to strike and allow Dr. Hughes’s testimony to remain part of the trial record, emphasizing its relevance and the court’s prior validation of its admissibility.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.372.0.pdf
1101 episodes
All episodes
×Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.