Podcasts about federal rules

Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.  ★ Support this podcast on Patreon ★

This lecture provides an overview of criminal procedure law, with a significant focus on the constitutional foundations and the specifics of the Fourth Amendment. It explores the sources of this law, including the Constitution, statutes, federal rules, and state law. The text then examines the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, discussing its purpose, the concept of a reasonable expectation of privacy, the definitions of search and seizure, and the warrant requirement with its core components like probable cause and particularity. Finally, it details numerous exceptions to the warrant requirement and the impact of the exclusionary rule and related doctrines.Key TakeawaysThe primary sources include the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes enacted by Congress, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, state constitutions, state legislative enactments, and judicial decisions interpreting these provisions.The fundamental purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to protect individual privacy and dignity against arbitrary government intrusion and to channel law enforcement activity through neutral decision making.The two-part test asks whether the individual demonstrated an actual, subjective expectation of privacy, and whether that expectation is one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable.A seizure of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interest in property, considering factors like the officers' intention, the manner of taking custody, and the control exerted over the property.A valid search warrant requires a neutral and detached magistrate to find probable cause to believe that evidence or contraband will be found at a specified location and that the warrant particularly describes the place to be searched and items to be seized.The totality of the circumstances approach involves a practical, common-sense evaluation of all the information available to the magistrate, including the informant's reliability, the detail of the information, and any corroborating evidence, rather than a rigid formula.The plain view doctrine allows evidence in plain sight to be seized without a warrant if the officer is lawfully present where the evidence is located and its incriminating nature is immediately apparent.Voluntary consent by an individual with authority over the premises can justify a warrantless search, provided the consent is given freely and voluntarily without coercion.The exclusionary rule is a judicially created remedy that makes evidence obtained through unconstitutional searches or seizures inadmissible at trial, serving to deter police misconduct and preserve judicial integrity.Standing means that only individuals whose own Fourth Amendment rights have been violated can challenge a search or seizure, requiring them to demonstrate a legitimate expectation of privacy in the area searched or property seized.

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdf

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdf

Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Dr. Elie Aoun, a forensic psychiatrist and assistant professor at Columbia University, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. The defense aims to have Dr. Aoun testify regarding Combs' mental state during the period of the alleged offenses, suggesting that Combs may have had diminished mental capacity. However, the government argues that Dr. Aoun's proposed testimony is inadmissible under the Insanity Defense Reform Act of 1984 and Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12.2, which govern the introduction of expert testimony related to a defendant's mental condition. Prosecutors contend that Dr. Aoun's opinions lack a reliable scientific basis and appear to be speculative, rendering them unsuitable for presentation to the jury.Additionally, the government asserts that allowing Dr. Aoun's testimony would effectively permit the defense to introduce a mental health defense without adhering to the procedural requirements mandated by law. They argue that the defense has not provided sufficient notice or evidence to support such a defense, and that Dr. Aoun's testimony would serve as a substitute for calling actual witnesses, thereby circumventing the rules of evidence. The prosecution maintains that admitting this testimony could mislead the jury and prejudice the government's case, and therefore, they urge the court to preclude Dr. Aoun from testifying at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Sean “Diddy” Combs' case is unfolding within the strict architecture of the federal criminal justice system, meaning every stage—from indictment through sentencing—is governed by the same procedural and constitutional rules described above. His arrest followed a lengthy investigation, likely involving sealed warrants, grand jury subpoenas, and cooperation from multiple agencies. Once federal authorities gathered enough evidence to establish probable cause, a grand jury returned an indictment, triggering his initial appearance in federal court. There, issues like bail, representation, and pretrial release were addressed under the Bail Reform Act. With a trial date now scheduled, the case has moved past the early procedural phases and is entering the critical stages of pretrial motions and evidentiary challenges, including potential Rule 12 motions by the defense to suppress evidence or challenge the sufficiency of the indictment.As Diddy's federal trial begins today, he now faces the full weight of the government's case under the high-stakes adversarial structure of federal criminal procedure. With plea negotiations reportedly rejected, the prosecution must now prove its allegations beyond a reasonable doubt before a jury. The courtroom will become a battleground for evidentiary rulings, cross-examinations, and strategic maneuvering, all governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence and Criminal Procedure. Defense counsel will work to undermine the government's witnesses, challenge the admissibility of key materials, and inject doubt into the narrative being presented. If convicted, Diddy would then move into the sentencing phase, where the U.S. Probation Office will prepare a Presentence Investigation Report factoring in conduct enhancements and criminal history to produce an advisory Guidelines range. His sentence would ultimately be shaped by both the Guidelines and the judge's application of the § 3553(a) factors—bringing the full machinery of federal prosecution to bear.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

A case in which the Court will decide whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdf

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdf

Each month, a panel of constitutional experts convenes to discuss the Court’s upcoming docket sitting by sitting. The cases covered in this preview are listed below.Kennedy v. Braidwood Management (April 21) - Appointments Clause; Issue(s): Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit erred in holding that the structure of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force violates the Constitution's appointments clause and in declining to sever the statutory provision that it found to unduly insulate the task force from the Health & Human Services secretary’s supervision.Parrish v. United States (April 21) - Federal Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a litigant who files a notice of appeal after the ordinary appeal period under 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a)-(b) expires must file a second, duplicative notice after the appeal period is reopened under subsection (c) of the statute and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4.Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Zuch (April 22) - Taxes; Issue(s): Whether a proceeding under 26 U.S.C. § 6330 for a pre-deprivation determination about a levy proposed by the Internal Revenue Service to collect unpaid taxes becomes moot when there is no longer a live dispute over the proposed levy that gave rise to the proceeding.Mahmoud v. Taylor (April 22) - Religious Liberties, Education Law, Parental Rights; Issue(s): Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.Diamond Alternative Energy LLC v. EPA (April 23) - Standing, Redressibility; Issue(s): (1) Whether a party may establish the redressability component of Article III standing by relying on the coercive and predictable effects of regulation on third parties.Soto v. United States (April 28) - Financial Procedure; Issue(s): Given the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s holding that a claim for compensation under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a is a claim “involving … retired pay” under 31 U.S.C. § 3702(a)(1)(A), does 10 U.S.C. § 1413a provide a settlement mechanism that displaces the default procedures and limitations set forth in the Barring Act?A.J.T. v. Osseo Area Schools, Independent School District No. 279 (April 28) - ADA; Issue(s): Whether the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 and Rehabilitation Act of 1973 require children with disabilities to satisfy a uniquely stringent “bad faith or gross misjudgment” standard when seeking relief for discrimination relating to their education.Martin v. U.S. (April 29) - Supremacy Clause, Torts; Issue(s): (1) Whether the Constitution’s supremacy clause bars claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act when the negligent or wrongful acts of federal employees have some nexus with furthering federal policy and can reasonably be characterized as complying with the full range of federal law; and 2) whether the discretionary-function exception is categorically inapplicable to claims arising under the law enforcement proviso to the intentional torts exception.Laboratory Corporation of America Holdings v. Davis (April 29) - Civil Procedure; Issue(s): Whether a federal court may certify a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3) when some members of the proposed class lack any Article III injury.Oklahoma Statewide Charter School Board v. Drummond (April 30) Establishment Clause, Education Law, Federalism and Separation of Powers; Issue(s): (1) Whether the academic and pedagogical choices of a privately owned and run school constitute state action simply because it contracts with the state to offer a free educational option for interested students; and (2) whether a state violates the First Amendment's free exercise clause by excluding privately run religious schools from the state’s charter-school program solely because the schools are religious, or instead a state can justify such an exclusion by invoking anti-establishment interests that go further than the First Amendment's establishment clause requires. Featuring: Thomas A. Berry, Director, Robert A. Levy Center for Constitutional Studies, Cato InstituteProf. Brian T. Fitzpatrick, Milton R. Underwood Chair in Free Enterprise, Vanderbilt University Law SchoolSarah Parshall Perry, Vice President & Legal Fellow, Defending EducationTim Rosenberger, Fellow, Manhattan InstituteProf. Gregory Sisk, Pio Cardinal Laghi Distinguished Chair in Law, Professor and Co-director of the Terrence J. Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law, and Public Policy, University of St. Thomas School of LawFrancesca Ugolini, Former Chief, DOJ Tax Division, Appellate Section(Moderator) Elle Rogers, General Counsel, United States Senator Jim Banks

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th […]

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdf

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdf

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a memorandum dated April 17, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team opposed a motion to quash a subpoena directed at Cassie Ventura, a key accuser in his upcoming federal trial. The defense argued that the subpoena, which sought drafts of Ventura's memoir, personal diaries, journals, and bank statements, was justified under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c). They contended that these materials could contain information pertinent to Combs' defense, asserting that the requests were specific, relevant, and not oppressive. The defense emphasized that the subpoena aimed to uncover evidence that might challenge Ventura's credibility or provide context to her allegations.​Furthermore, Combs' attorneys addressed concerns about the breadth of the subpoena, arguing that it did not constitute a "fishing expedition" but was a targeted effort to obtain materials directly related to the case. They maintained that the requested documents could reveal inconsistencies or motivations behind Ventura's claims, thereby playing a crucial role in ensuring a fair trial. The memorandum cited legal precedents supporting the admissibility of such evidence when it bears directly on the issues at hand. Ultimately, the defense sought to demonstrate that the subpoena was a legitimate tool for gathering evidence essential to Combs' defense strategy.​to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.256.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a) reads, “The government may, with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant's consent.” This rule has recently been used by the Justice Department in cases like the Mayor Eric Adams case and January 6th cases. In both instances, judges have questioned the reasons for the dismissal and revealed unsolved conflict between permissive and restrictive views of the judge's role, both to explore executive decisions of the prosecution and whether to dismiss indictments with or without prejudice to their later renewal. This panel will discuss the rule and its recent uses, along with questions regarding the government’s motivation to dismiss such cases and just how far judicial review can and ought to go when approving the dismissals.Featuring:Prof. Paul Cassell, Ronald N. Boyce Presidential Professor of Criminal Law and University Distinguished Professor of Law, The University of Utah College of LawAndrew McCarthy, Senior Fellow, National ReviewWilliam Shipley, Attorney, Law Offices of William L. Shipley & AssociatesModerator: Hon. John C. Richter, Partner, King & Spalding--To resgister, click the link above.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In the motion filed on April 17, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team seeks to exclude video evidence related to a March 5, 2016 incident at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. The defense argues that the CNN footage presented by the government is inadmissible due to alterations, manipulations, and being out of sequence. They assert that CNN paid for, copied, and presented the footage in unknown ways, ultimately destroying the original, rendering it inaccurate. Additionally, the defense challenges two iPhone videos, claiming they are re-recordings of surveillance footage that differ materially from the CNN compilation. The defense contends that these videos cannot be authenticated under Federal Rule of Evidence 901, violate the "Best Evidence" Rule (Rule 1002) due to the absence of original footage, and should be excluded under Rule 403 as their prejudicial impact outweighs any probative value.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.243.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, Sean Combs's legal team reaffirms their argument to exclude evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b), which allow the introduction of prior sexual misconduct or other bad acts to show a defendant's propensity or motive in certain cases. Combs' attorneys argue that the plaintiff's attempt to introduce decades-old allegations and unrelated accusations from other individuals is highly prejudicial, lacks probative value, and would only serve to inflame the jury. They assert that these allegations are unsubstantiated, temporally remote, and bear no direct connection to the claims at issue in this specific case. They argue that the plaintiff is improperly attempting to create a pattern by stacking unrelated claims that would unfairly bias a jury.The reply also takes aim at the plaintiff's justification for using Rule 404(b) evidence, stating that it's being used to improperly suggest character conformity — the very use the rule is designed to prevent. Combs' team emphasizes that allowing this evidence would undermine his right to a fair trial by distracting from the core facts of the case and creating a “trial within a trial” over the truthfulness of other claims. They argue the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 as well, due to the overwhelming danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any alleged probative value. In conclusion, they urge the court to grant their motion and prevent the introduction of prior bad acts or sexual misconduct allegations under both Rule 413 and Rule 404(b).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.216.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, Sean Combs's legal team reaffirms their argument to exclude evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b), which allow the introduction of prior sexual misconduct or other bad acts to show a defendant's propensity or motive in certain cases. Combs' attorneys argue that the plaintiff's attempt to introduce decades-old allegations and unrelated accusations from other individuals is highly prejudicial, lacks probative value, and would only serve to inflame the jury. They assert that these allegations are unsubstantiated, temporally remote, and bear no direct connection to the claims at issue in this specific case. They argue that the plaintiff is improperly attempting to create a pattern by stacking unrelated claims that would unfairly bias a jury.The reply also takes aim at the plaintiff's justification for using Rule 404(b) evidence, stating that it's being used to improperly suggest character conformity — the very use the rule is designed to prevent. Combs' team emphasizes that allowing this evidence would undermine his right to a fair trial by distracting from the core facts of the case and creating a “trial within a trial” over the truthfulness of other claims. They argue the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 as well, due to the overwhelming danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any alleged probative value. In conclusion, they urge the court to grant their motion and prevent the introduction of prior bad acts or sexual misconduct allegations under both Rule 413 and Rule 404(b).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.216.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this filing, Sean Combs's legal team reaffirms their argument to exclude evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b), which allow the introduction of prior sexual misconduct or other bad acts to show a defendant's propensity or motive in certain cases. Combs' attorneys argue that the plaintiff's attempt to introduce decades-old allegations and unrelated accusations from other individuals is highly prejudicial, lacks probative value, and would only serve to inflame the jury. They assert that these allegations are unsubstantiated, temporally remote, and bear no direct connection to the claims at issue in this specific case. They argue that the plaintiff is improperly attempting to create a pattern by stacking unrelated claims that would unfairly bias a jury.The reply also takes aim at the plaintiff's justification for using Rule 404(b) evidence, stating that it's being used to improperly suggest character conformity — the very use the rule is designed to prevent. Combs' team emphasizes that allowing this evidence would undermine his right to a fair trial by distracting from the core facts of the case and creating a “trial within a trial” over the truthfulness of other claims. They argue the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 as well, due to the overwhelming danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any alleged probative value. In conclusion, they urge the court to grant their motion and prevent the introduction of prior bad acts or sexual misconduct allegations under both Rule 413 and Rule 404(b).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.216.0.pdf

In this filing, Sean Combs's legal team reaffirms their argument to exclude evidence under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b), which allow the introduction of prior sexual misconduct or other bad acts to show a defendant's propensity or motive in certain cases. Combs' attorneys argue that the plaintiff's attempt to introduce decades-old allegations and unrelated accusations from other individuals is highly prejudicial, lacks probative value, and would only serve to inflame the jury. They assert that these allegations are unsubstantiated, temporally remote, and bear no direct connection to the claims at issue in this specific case. They argue that the plaintiff is improperly attempting to create a pattern by stacking unrelated claims that would unfairly bias a jury.The reply also takes aim at the plaintiff's justification for using Rule 404(b) evidence, stating that it's being used to improperly suggest character conformity — the very use the rule is designed to prevent. Combs' team emphasizes that allowing this evidence would undermine his right to a fair trial by distracting from the core facts of the case and creating a “trial within a trial” over the truthfulness of other claims. They argue the evidence should be excluded under Rule 403 as well, due to the overwhelming danger of unfair prejudice substantially outweighing any alleged probative value. In conclusion, they urge the court to grant their motion and prevent the introduction of prior bad acts or sexual misconduct allegations under both Rule 413 and Rule 404(b).to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.216.0.pdf

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (S2 24 Cr. 542), the government opposes the defendant's motion to exclude evidence of prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). The prosecution asserts that Combs engaged in a pattern of sexual, physical, and psychological abuse against multiple victims, including those named in the indictment and others not specified therein. This evidence is presented as direct proof of the racketeering conspiracy charge and, alternatively, as admissible under Rules 413 and 404(b) to demonstrate Combs's propensity for sexual assault and to establish motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.The government argues that the probative value of this evidence outweighs any potential prejudicial effect, emphasizing its relevance in illustrating the nature and scope of the alleged criminal enterprise. They contend that such evidence provides critical context for the jury to understand the full extent of Combs's conduct and its impact on the victims. The prosecution also maintains that a preliminary hearing to assess the admissibility of this evidence is unnecessary and inappropriate, asserting that the court can make determinations based on the existing record and legal arguments presented.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdf

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs' legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government's attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs' attorneys argue that the government's notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he's charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it's presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf

This document is a motion in limine filed by Sean Combs' legal team in his federal criminal case (Case No. 24-cr-542) in the Southern District of New York, seeking to exclude the testimony of Dr. Dawn Hughes, a psychological expert the prosecution intends to call. Dr. Hughes is expected to testify about general behavioral patterns of victims and perpetrators of sexual and domestic abuse, which the defense argues would unfairly bolster the credibility of the government's witnesses — including alleged victims — without having evaluated any facts specific to this case. The defense asserts that Dr. Hughes's testimony is not based on a reliable scientific application to the actual circumstances surrounding Combs and instead consists of broad generalizations that risk misleading the jury by presenting “typical” abuse behavior as evidence of guilt.Combs' attorneys argue that Hughes's proposed testimony violates the standards set by Federal Rules of Evidence 702 and 403, which regulate expert witness admissibility. They claim her statements offer no specialized knowledge beyond what jurors already understand — such as abusers exploiting power or victims remaining in abusive relationships — and that she conflates clinical definitions of coercion with legal ones, potentially confusing the jury. The motion asserts that Hughes's testimony is “advocacy masquerading as expertise” and warns it would improperly bolster the credibility of government witnesses under the guise of psychology. The defense urges the court to block her from testifying, citing that her opinions are methodologically unsound and prejudicial rather than probative.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.206.0.pdf