Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Exclude Testimony From Prosecution Expert Dr. Dawn Hughes (Parts 1-2) (3/20/26)

Craving the coffee flavor you love, but without the caffeine?

Kachava's got you covered with their newest coffee flavor.

This all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor, crafted from premium,

decaffeinated Brazilian beans with 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber,

greens, and so much more.

Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves.

Go to kachava.com and use code news.

New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's k-a-c-h-a-v-a.com code news.

Craving the coffee flavor you love, but without the caffeine?

Kachava's got you covered with their newest coffee flavor.

This all-in-one nutrition shake delivers bold, authentic flavor,

crafted from premium, decaffeinated Brazilian beans.

Quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated.

Just two scoops of Kachava's all-in-one nutrition shake

and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber,

greens, and so much more.

Whether you're craving that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual

or as a nutrient-packed reward to round out your afternoon,

Kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you.

Plus, it actually tastes delicious.

No fillers, no nonsense.

Just the good stuff your body craves.

And for the times you feel like switching it up,

you've got seven flavors to choose from,

all with the highest quality ingredients.

Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body craves.

Go to Kachava.com and use code news.

New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's KAC, H-A-V-A.com code news.

What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries.

In this episode, we're going to get right back to those core documents.

And we're going to take a look at the latest motion to hit the docket,

filed by Diddy.

Case number 124-CR-00542-AS.

United States of America versus Sean Combs.

Defendant Sean Combs motion in Lemonae to preclude testimony of Dr. Don Hughes.

The prosecution seeks to call Dr. Don Hughes as an expert witness to offer opinions

about typical behaviors among perpetrators and victims of abuse and sexual violence.

Hughes has not reviewed or evaluated any of the evidence in this case,

while reporting to offer only background information.

Her opinions are skewed to advance the government's themes

and her testimony will mirror that of the government's fact witnesses.

Her testimonies only real purpose is to support an inference

that because the accusers, in this case, behaved in typical ways, they must be telling the truth.

Hughes testimony should not be admitted.

It addresses no technical matters requiring a lucidation by an expert.

Most of her opinions relate mere lead to matters of common sense and everyday knowledge.

For example, that victims of domestic violence often stay with their abusers,

or that abusers exploit power, differentials.

As such, they are well within the Ken of the jury. Her testimony will intrude on the province

of the jury in deciding credibility, and on that of the court in instructing on the law.

The heart of her testimony is a broad definition of coercion, but her definition

conflicts with the legal definition of coercion that the jury will have to apply in this case.

In several respects, her opinions are contradicted by the literature she cites as support,

and she makes no claim to be applying a scientific methodology to the facts of this case.

Hughes testimony is advocacy masquerading as expertise.

The government wants an expert so that it can waive her a testimony in summation,

like a magic wand to cure the glaring defects in its fact witnesses credibility.

This will be a continuing refrain. As Dr. Hughes told you,

as Dr. Hughes explained, and it will be highly effective.

But this is not a proper use of expert testimony, and it will not help the jury discover the truth.

Hughes testimony should be excluded in its entirety.

The background. Hughes is a clinical psychologist and a board certified forensic psychologist,

and claims to be a leading expert on sexual abuse,

interpersonal violence, victimization, and traumatic stress.

The government is offering Hughes as a blind expert.

i.e. she has not evaluated any specific victim or evidence in the case,

and will not opine regarding any specific victim. Instead, Hughes will offer opinions,

regarding such broad topic areas as sexual abuse and victim response to sexual abuse,

coercive control, coping strategies, jarring, and in relation to sexual abuse,

delayed disclosure, and memory of sexual abuse.

In each of these topic areas, Hughes will opine on how victims of sexual abuse typically

or commonly react to and recall the alleged abuse.

For example, she will explain that victims often fall back on ingrained responses to power

in order to stay safe, such as attempting to please or placate the abuser

that commonly victims experience a sense of mental defeat.

That disclosure of abuse is a process that occurs over time and delayed disclosure is common,

and that gendered norms, tradition, and culture can also influence a victim's response to sexual

abuse. She will opine that the victim may engage in avoidance, compartmentalization, minimization,

directed forgetting, making excuses for others, self-blame, and denial, and may also seek to numb

and minimize painful sexual and abusive experiences through the use of substances,

such as drugs and alcohol, she will inform the jury that victims of domestic violence may stay

with or return to rather than leave their abusers. Hughes will use similar generalized language

to describe the actions of alleged perpetrators. She will explain that perpetrators often exploit

pre-existing power differentials for the purpose of perpetuating sexual abuse.

She will opine that course of control often includes a variety of physical, sexual, and or

emotional tactics that together function to control the victim, including actual or threatened

violence, sexual degradation, financial and economic control, exploitation of pre-existing psychological,

traumatic, or financial vulnerability, gaslighting, and so on. She will explain that perpetrators of

domestic violence do not use randomly selected means of control, but often use particular

coercive control tactics that are targeted to exploit the vulnerabilities of their specific victim.

Idea 3. She will explain that a perpetrator's course of tactics and abuse are often

interspersed with rewards, positivity, affection, and normalcy, which can create emotional

attachments and psychological dependency. She will opine that abusers may escalate course of

control tactics if they feel they are going to lose the victim or if the victim is trying to leave.

Hughes will also delve into the motivations of alleged perpetrators. She will explain the perpetrator

engages in self-centered behavior to satisfy his own goals and desires regardless of the needs,

wants, and well-being of the victims. Idea 2. She will explain that perpetrators use course of

control to gain dominance across the spectrum of relationships, including with intimate partners,

and also in employment relationships. Remarkably, Hughes will also endeavor to define legal terms for

the jury. She will propose definitions that are both contrary to standard legal definitions and

common English usage. She will tell the jury that interpersonal violence refers to dynamics related

to coercion and emotional abuse that may not necessarily involve physical violence as commonly

understood. She will tell the jury that sexual assault refers to contact and non-contact sexual

violations. She will tell the jury that voyeurism, even without any physical contact may constitute a

sexual assault. Most damaging to the defense and most confusing to the jury, Hughes will supply

her own extended definition of coercion that focuses not on serious harm and physical restraint,

i.e. the legal definition that will be given in the jury instructions, but on subtle tactics such as

micro-regulation and isolation from pre-existing support networks and external influence.

That functioned to suppress an individual's freedom and autonomy. As explained in greater detail

on point 2, infra, Hughes, use of a broad generalization about typical behaviors,

divorce from any examination of the alleged victims in this case is contrary to guidelines regulating

Hughes' profession. Moreover, Dr. Alexander Sasha Barty, if called by the defense to testify,

would explain that generalizations and vague psychological profiles are of little to no value

in evaluating the facts and circumstances of any given case because there is no

typical response to trauma and no typical response to rape and domestic abuse.

Example 2 out 1. Different people respond differently in different circumstances depending

on different life experiences, different psychological histories, and different educational

and cultural backgrounds. For this reason, Dr. Barty would explain the professions of psychiatry

and psychology recognize that broad generalities tend to be of limited value in explaining the

actual psychology or mental state of any particular individual. Dr. Barty would also

opine that Hughes' concept of course of control is so broad as to be meaningless and because

offering opinions without having evaluated the relevant empirical context or any of the

persons involved or opinions at virtually no value. Argument District Courts must carefully

exercise a gatekeeping role to guard against the significant risk posed by expert testimony,

Dobbert vs. Merrill Dahl Pharmacy Incorporated 509 US 1993 District Courts must exclude

junk science by undertaking a rigorous examination of the expert's opinion to ensure they are

both helpful and reliable at every step. Amorgiano's vs. National Passinger Corporation 303F.3D

2nd Circuit 2002 Courts have not always applied these standards with sufficient

care in the past, perhaps especially when it comes to social science experts whose testimony is

mixed with advocacy. Rule 702 was less amended in 2023 in response to court decisions that

admitted expert testimony to liberally. In terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, at 3SGNY

December 11th, 2024, and to mandate that courts take seriously their roles as gatekeepers of expert

evidence, United States vs. Diaz, 2024, WL, DNM, February 23rd, 2024. The Advisory Committee

explained that too many courts had held that critical questions going to the bases for,

and application of, and experts methodology were questions of weight and not admissibility

that are evidence 702. Advisory Committee's note to 2023 amendment. These rulings are in correct

application of Rule 702 and 104A. Craving the coffee flavor you love, but without the caffeine,

Kachava's got you covered with their newest coffee flavor. This all-in-one nutrition shake

delivers bold, authentic flavor, crafted from premium decaffeinated Brazilian beans.

Quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Kachava's all-in-one nutrition shake,

and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, and so much more. Whether you're craving

that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual, or as a nutrient-packed reward to round out

your afternoon, Kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you. Plus,

it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense. Just the good stuff your body craves,

and for the times you feel like switching it up, you've got seven flavors to choose from,

all with the highest quality ingredients. Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your

body craves. Go to kachava.com and use code news. New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's KACHAVA.com code news. Craving the coffee flavor you love, but without the caffeine,

Kachava's got you covered with their newest coffee flavor. This all-in-one nutrition shake

delivers bold, authentic flavor, crafted from premium decaffeinated Brazilian beans.

Quality nutrition shouldn't be complicated. Just two scoops of Kachava's all-in-one nutrition shake,

and you've got 25 grams of protein, 6 grams of fiber, greens, and so much more. Whether you're craving

that coffee taste to kickstart your morning ritual, or as a nutrient-packed reward to round out

your afternoon, Kachava keeps you fueled and satisfied wherever your day takes you. Plus,

it actually tastes delicious. No fillers, no nonsense. Just the good stuff your body craves,

and for the times you feel like switching it up, you've got seven flavors to choose from,

all with the highest quality ingredients. Treat yourself to the flavor and nutrition your body

craves. Go to kachava.com and use code news. New customers get 15% off their first order.

That's K-A-C-H-A-V-A.com code news.

Finding great candidates to hire can be like, well, trying to find a needle in a haystack. Sure,

you can post your job to some job board, but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along,

which is why you should try Zippercrooter for free. At zippercrooter.com slash zip. Zippercrooter doesn't

depend on candidates finding you. It finds them for you. It's powerful technology identifies people

with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job. You get qualified candidates

fast. So, while other companies might deliver a lot of, hey, Zippercrooter finds you what you're looking

for. The needle in the haystack. See why four out of five employers who post a job on Zippercrooter

get a quality candidate within the first day. Zippercrooter, the smartest way to hire,

and right now you can try Zippercrooter for free. That's right, free at zippercrooter.com slash zip.

That zippercrooter.com slash zip. Zippercrooter.com slash zip.

Before admitting any expert, the proponent must establish by a preponderance that A,

the expert scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge will help the trial

effect to understand the evidence or to determine a fact and issue. B, the testimony is based on

sufficient facts or data. C, the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods,

and D, the expert's opinion, reflects a reliable application of the principles and methods to the

facts of the case. That are evidence 702. In reviewing proposed expert testimony, the court

must look to see if it will usurp either the role of the trial judge and instructing the jury

as to the applicable law or the role of the jury in applying that law to the facts before it.

United States vs. Lumpkin, 192F.3D, 280, second circuit, 1999. Moreover,

Rule 403 plays a uniquely important role in a district court scrutiny of expert testimony,

given the unique weights such evidence may have and a jury's deliberations.

Nymely vs. City of New York, 414, second circuit, 2005.

Hughes' broad testimony on matters already familiar to jurors will not help the jury understand

the evidence, rather it will usurp the court's role in giving the jury the law and the jury's role

in deciding credibility. Hughes' opinions are not reliable both because they lack an adequate

basis and because they're estated at such a high level of generality that they can hardly be

tested and will serve merely as rhetorical handlebars for the prosecution and its summation.

Hughes' testimony should be excluded. All right, we're going to wrap up right here,

and in the next episode we're going to pick up with one. Hughes' opinions will not help the

jury understand the evidence as required by Rule 702A. All of the information that goes with this

episode can be found in the description box. What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of

the Diddy Diaries. In this episode we're going to pick up where we left off with Diddy's motion

in Lemony to preclude the testimony of Dr. Don Hughes.

1. Hughes' opinions will not help the jury understand the evidence as requested by Rule 702A.

A. Hughes will opine on topics well within the jury's everyday knowledge. Hughes proposed

testimony as full of broad generalities based on common sense and general life experience,

not expertise. Expert testimony is only admissible if it's directed to the matters within the witness,

scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge, and not to lay matters which the jury is capable

of understanding and deciding without expert help. Andrews vs. Metro commuter 882F.2D 705

second circuit 1989. Jerry needed no expert assistance to understand that bright lights of an

oncoming train may cause disorientation, where expert testimony merely tells the jury which

inferences to draw and matters of common sense. He usurps the fact finder's role, see Nymly 414F.3D

397. Therefore, a district court may commit manifest error by admitting expert testimony where

the subject matter of the expert's testimony is not beyond the can of the average jury.

United States vs. Zong 26. F-4-536-555 second circuit 2022. See also United States vs. Mayha 545F.3D

179.191 second circuit 2008. Here use seeks to educate the jurors on concepts like gas

lighting and love-warming examples at 2 and 3. These are not scientific or technical concepts,

they are rather concepts of pop psychology and pop culture. Any juror who reads the newspaper

uses social media or watches television knows what gas lighting is, there is no need for an expert

to take the stand and explain it. The same goes for such extraordinary banalities as huge assertion

that perpetrators often exploit pre-existing power differentials between themselves and the victims

for the purpose of perpetuating the sexual abuse and preventing disclosure, and that perpetrators

of domestic violence often use particular coercive control tactics that are targeted to exploit

the vulnerabilities of their specific victim. A good baseline test for a weather expert testimony is

on the subject beyond the can of the average layperson is to ask whether the prosecutor could make

substantially the same argument and summation without relying on the expert's opinion. The answer

here is obvious. Any prosecutor worth a result would be arguing about power differentials

and the targeting of specific vulnerabilities and she would not need an expert to provide a basis

for that argument. Hughes' proposed testimony is also replete with assertions that maybe true

in some instances and untrue in others, and in all instances all are within juror's knowledge

of the world. She states that victims of abuse may seek to numb and minimize painful sexual

and abusive experiences through the use of substances such as drugs and alcohol, example 1 and 4.

That's no doubt true, and it's also entirely obvious to any human on the planet

who has reached the age of adulthood. Similarly, Hughes would opine that a perpetrator is coercive

tactics, and abuse are often interspersed with rewards, positivity, affection, and normalcy which

can create emotional attachment and psychological dependency. Such obvious propositions about human

relationships are not beyond the can of the average juror, Zong 26th, 4th at 55. Most of whom it goes

without saying will have experienced a relationship good and bad. Much of Hughes' proposed testimony

rests on the condescending and elitist assumptions about what jurors don't understand. She seeks to

offer, didactic, testimony that sexual assault is common, and most sexual assault is committed by

a salience known to the victim, and that some sexual assault victims do not report the assault.

All of this is predicated on the notion that jurors harbor rape myths,

but there is no empirical evidence demonstrating that such myths are widely prevalent in society today.

The very prevalence of sexual assault suggests the jury itself contains several victims,

and likely every juror will know someone who has been a victim of sexual assault. It will come

as a surprise to no one that sexual violence is often perpetrated within relationships,

and by persons known to the victim. And it will not surprise anyone from any walk of life

that victims of domestic violence may stay with or return to rather than leave their abusers.

B. Hughes will unproperly and misleadingly instruct the jury on the law.

The second circuit has consistently held that expert testimony that usurps the role of the trial

judge instructing the jury as to the applicable law by definition does not aid the jury in making

a decision. United States vs. Grote 961 F.3 D 105 121 Second Circuit 2020.

Court should exclude expert opinions that instruct the jury as to applicable principles of law

United States vs. SCOP 846 F.2 D 135 140 Second Circuit 1988.

And those that embody legal conclusions that encroach upon the court's duty to instruct on the law

United States vs. Blazerian 926 F.2 D Second Circuit 1991

See also US vs. Stewart Second Circuit 2006

Clearly an opinion that purports to explain the law to the jury trespasses on the trial judges

exclusive territory. Hughes proposed testimony begins with the series of legal definitions

and the court doesn't have to ask whether they may confuse the jury they will.

For example, Hughes offers to define sexual assault sexual assault refers to contact and

non-contact sexual violations including voyeurism example at one at one and two but sexual assault

is a term with illegal meaning jurors already know as a general matter what sexual assault means

and if they need to apply legal definition that definition must be given through jury instructions

not expert testimony far more serious however is the government's effort to use used testimony

to define and expand the legal definition of coercion. The S2 indictment alleges numerous acts

of coercion and the charges use that phrase several times more specifically the indictment alleges

as acts of racketeering numerous acts of sex trafficking under US code 18 section 1591

the sex trafficking statute defines various acts that are illegal if they are accomplished by

means of force threats of force fraud or coercion or any combination of such means

and the statute explicitly defines coercion as a threats of serious harm to or physical restraint

against any person be any scheme plan or pattern intended to cause a person to believe that

failure to perform an act would result in serious harm to or physical restraint against any

person or see the abuse or threatened abuse of law or the legal process. US code 18 section 1591

AE2 that's the definition of coercion that the jury will have to apply in this case see sand at

all modern federal jury instructions criminal 47a-21 2025 defining coercion the state law

racketeering predicates contain similar definitions and the jury will have to be instructed on those

definitions as well but use also proposes to testify about what coercion means in the context of

our discussion of the concept of course of control. Finding great candidates to hire can be like

trying to find a needle in a haystack sure you can post your job to some job board but then

all you can do is hope the right person comes along which is why you should try zippercrooter for

free at zippercrooter.com slash zip zippercrooter doesn't depend on candidates finding you

it finds them for you it's powerful technology identifies people with the right experience

and actively invites them to apply to your job you get qualified candidates fast so while other

companies might deliver a lot of hey zippercrooter finds you what you're looking for the needle in the

haystack see why four out of five employers who post a job on zippercrooter get a quality candidate

within the first day zippercrooter the smartest way to hire and right now you can try zippercrooter

for free that's right free at zippercrooter.com slash zip that zippercrooter.com slash zip zippercrooter.com

slash zip finding great candidates to hire can be like well trying to find a needle in a haystack

sure you can post your job to some job board but then all you can do is hope the right person comes

along which is why you should try zippercrooter for free at zippercrooter.com slash zip

zippercrooter doesn't depend on candidates finding you it finds them for you it's powerful technology

identifies people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job you get

qualified candidates fast so while other companies might deliver a lot of hey zippercrooter finds you

what you're looking for the needle in the haystack see why four out of five employers who post a job

on zippercrooter get a quality candidate within the first day zippercrooter the smartest way to hire

and right now you can try zippercrooter for free that's right free at zippercrooter.com slash zip

that zippercrooter.com slash zip zippercrooter.com slash zip warning the following zippercrooter

radio spot you are about to hear is going to be filled with f words when you're hiring

we at zippercrooter know you can feel frustrated for learn even like your efforts are futile

and you can spend a fortune trying to find fabulous people only to get flooded with candidates

who are just fine fortunately zippercrooter figured out how to fix all that and right now you can

try zippercrooter for free at zippercrooter.com slash zip with zippercrooter you can forget your

frustrations because we find the right people for your roles fast which is our absolute favorite f word

in fact four out of five employers who post on zippercrooter get a quality candidate within the

first day fantastic so whether you need to hire four 40 or 400 people get ready to meet first

straight talent just go to zippercrooter.com slash zip to try zippercrooter for free don't forget

that zippercrooter.com slash zip finally that zippercrooter.com slash zip and her definition is

different she says coercion means any tactic designed to attain and maintain control in a

relationship whereby a man seeks to satisfy his own goals and desires according to use coercive

tactics can include not just violence and threats but a variety of other subtle tactics including

ostensibly positive behavior such as rewards positivity affection and normalcy which can create

emotional attachment and psychological dependency as dr. Barty would explain if called to testify

Hughes discussion of coercive control is so broad as to exclude nothing indeed Hughes definition

by insisting there is no one-size-fits-all example two at three according to her anything counts

evidence in this case will show for example that Holmes financially supported his girlfriends

that does not count as coercion under the legal definition but it would count under Hughes

definition suppose the evidence shows that after a fight Holmes apologized express love and

bought his girlfriend a gift that would not count as coercion under the legal definition but it

would count under Hughes definition the second circuit is squarely held that expert opinions are

inadmissible where they offer definitions of concepts that are different from the legal definitions

that must be applied by the jury an expert cannot compete with the judge in the function of

instructing the jury on legal definitions Jacobs 961 f.2d359 364 second circuit 1992

while Hughes may have experience in the area of sexual assault experience is hardly a qualification

for giving a legal definition when there is a knowledgeable gentleman and a robe whose exclusive

province is to instruct the jury on the law and the problem is particularly acute where the

difference between the expert and statutory formulations is substantial that is precisely the

situation here the difference between the statutory definition of coercion and Hughes definition

is not just substantial it's vast the statutory formulation is limited to threats of serious harm

and physical restraint Hughes formulation includes any reward or punishment offered in a

relationship all right folks we're gonna wrap up right here and in the next episode we're gonna

pick up with part C all of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description

box finding great candidates to hire can be like well trying to find a needle in a haystack sure

you can post your job to some job board but then all you can do is hope the right person comes along

which is why you should try zippercrooter for free at zippercrooter.com slash zip

zippercrooter doesn't depend on candidates finding you it finds them for you it's powerful technology

identifies people with the right experience and actively invites them to apply to your job

you get qualified candidates fast so while other companies might deliver a lot of hey zippercrooter

finds you what you're looking for the needle in the haystack see why four out of five employers

who post a job on zippercrooter get a quality candidate within the first day zippercrooter the

smartest way to hire and right now you can try zippercrooter for free that's right free at zippercrooter.com

slash zip that zippercrooter.com slash zip zippercrooter.com slash zip hey i'm Josh Spiegel host of the

podcast lunatic in the newsroom if you enjoy journalism that drifts into mild panic wild overthinking

and a guaranteed nervous breakdown lunatic in the newsroom is for you it's news like you've never

heard before the only newsroom with a panic button you'll laugh you'll cry and gasp and horror

as the show spirals completely out of control it's not just news it's emotionally unstable lunatic

in the newsroom listen today