Podcasts about limine

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed Motion in Limine #5 titled "Re: Inconclusive Data," seeking to exclude certain evidence deemed inconclusive. The court granted the defense's request to seal this motion, as indicated in an order dated March 3, 2025. Consequently, the specific details and arguments presented in the motion are not publicly accessible.​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State filed a Motion in Limine on February 21, 2025, to restrict the defense from introducing or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first meeting specific relevance and admissibility standards as outlined in the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) 401, 402, and 403. The State contends that during the investigation, thousands of tips regarding possible perpetrators were received, but none, except those related to the defendant, were substantiated. Allowing the defense to present alternative perpetrator theories without concrete evidence directly connecting others to the homicides could mislead and confuse the jury, result in undue delays, waste time, and unfairly prejudice the State's case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Motion-inLimine5-RE-Inconclusive-Data.pdf022125-States-Motion-in-Limine-RE-Alternative-Perpetrator-Evidence.pdf

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In State of Idaho v. Bryan C. Kohberger (Case No. CR01-24-31665), the State responded to the Defendant's Motion in Limine #2, which sought to exclude or limit the testimony of twenty-two of the State's expert witnesses on the grounds of vague and undisclosed expert testimony. The State asserted that it had complied with Idaho Criminal Rule 16(b)(7) and the applicable Idaho Rules of Evidence by providing detailed disclosures for each expert, outlining their anticipated testimony, the facts and data supporting their opinions, and their qualifications. The State emphasized that any disagreements with the experts' anticipated testimony should be addressed through cross-examination and rebuttal expert testimony, rather than exclusion. Additionally, the State highlighted its good-faith effort to comply with the Court's scheduling orders and instructions, noting that the Defendant had ample opportunity to review and respond to the State's disclosures, and had not demonstrated any actual prejudice resulting from the disclosures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:031725-States-Response-Defendants-MiL-2-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the defense filed Motion in Limine #5 titled "Re: Inconclusive Data," seeking to exclude certain evidence deemed inconclusive. The court granted the defense's request to seal this motion, as indicated in an order dated March 3, 2025. Consequently, the specific details and arguments presented in the motion are not publicly accessible.​In Case No. CR01-24-31665, the State filed a Motion in Limine on February 21, 2025, to restrict the defense from introducing or arguing alternative perpetrator evidence without first meeting specific relevance and admissibility standards as outlined in the Idaho Rules of Evidence (I.R.E.) 401, 402, and 403. The State contends that during the investigation, thousands of tips regarding possible perpetrators were received, but none, except those related to the defendant, were substantiated. Allowing the defense to present alternative perpetrator theories without concrete evidence directly connecting others to the homicides could mislead and confuse the jury, result in undue delays, waste time, and unfairly prejudice the State's case.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Motion-inLimine5-RE-Inconclusive-Data.pdf022125-States-Motion-in-Limine-RE-Alternative-Perpetrator-Evidence.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdf

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

In State of Idaho v. Bryan Kohberger (Case Number CR01-24-31665), Motion in Limine #2 seeks to exclude vague and undisclosed expert testimony from being used at trial. Kohberger's defense argues that the prosecution has not properly disclosed the identities, qualifications, or specific opinions of their expert witnesses, violating established discovery rules. The defense contends that admitting broad, undefined, or last-minute expert testimony would place them at a severe disadvantage by preventing effective cross-examination and rebuttal preparation. They emphasize that expert testimony should meet the Daubert standard, ensuring that all scientific or technical evidence presented in court is reliable, relevant, and based on a sound methodology. Without proper disclosure, the defense fears that the prosecution may introduce unvetted or speculative testimony, which could unfairly sway the jury.Additionally, the defense raises concerns about ambiguous or generalized expert conclusions that lack a clear factual foundation. They argue that the court must preclude any expert testimony that was not properly disclosed or that fails to meet the necessary scientific and legal standards. The motion highlights the risk of unverified forensic interpretations or psychological assessments being introduced without proper vetting, potentially leading to misleading conclusions. The defense urges the court to enforce strict evidentiary standards by limiting expert testimony only to properly disclosed, scientifically validated opinions. This motion is a critical part of the defense's strategy to prevent prejudicial, speculative, or unreliable forensic evidence from influencing the jury in one of the most high-profile cases in Idaho's history.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:022425-Defense-Motion-inLimine-2-RE-Vague-Undisclosed-Expert-Testimony.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's objection concerning his Motion in Limine #6, which seeks to exclude specific opinions of forensic analyst Rylene Nowlin and the use of the terms "touch DNA" and "contact DNA" during trial. Kohberger's defense argues that these terms are misleading and could confuse the jury by implying a certainty about the method of DNA transfer that is not scientifically substantiated. They emphasize that Nowlin's own disclosures acknowledge the complexity of DNA transfer mechanisms and the current inability of DNA technology to conclusively determine how or when DNA was deposited on an item. Therefore, the defense contends that allowing such terminology and speculative testimony would prejudice the jury and should be excluded to ensure a fair trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:032425-Defendants-Reply-States-Objection-Defendants-MIL6-RE-Nowlin-Touch-Contact-DNA.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This order memorializes the oral rulings made by Judge John C. Judge on April 17, 2025, in the Bryan Kohberger case regarding several motions in limine. The court granted the prosecution's request to preclude defense counsel from mentioning or suggesting that third parties—specifically “other men” or unidentified persons—are responsible for the crimes unless the defense can provide a proper evidentiary foundation outside the presence of the jury. This aims to prevent speculation or unsupported accusations from being introduced at trial. Additionally, the judge ruled that the defense may not use characterizations like “rush to judgment” or claims of a biased investigation unless such arguments are supported by specific, admissible evidence.The court also ruled in favor of the prosecution's request to limit or exclude any irrelevant or inflammatory evidence, including any references to the victims' personal histories, sexual activity, or alleged drug use, unless it directly relates to the defense's theory of the case and passes legal scrutiny. Similarly, the judge limited the introduction of expert opinions unless those experts have been properly disclosed and vetted. These rulings were intended to ensure a fair trial, maintain focus on relevant issues, and reduce the potential for prejudicial arguments that could mislead or confuse the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:041825+Order+Memorializing+Oral+Rulings+on+Motions+in+Limine.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This order memorializes the oral rulings made by Judge John C. Judge on April 17, 2025, in the Bryan Kohberger case regarding several motions in limine. The court granted the prosecution's request to preclude defense counsel from mentioning or suggesting that third parties—specifically “other men” or unidentified persons—are responsible for the crimes unless the defense can provide a proper evidentiary foundation outside the presence of the jury. This aims to prevent speculation or unsupported accusations from being introduced at trial. Additionally, the judge ruled that the defense may not use characterizations like “rush to judgment” or claims of a biased investigation unless such arguments are supported by specific, admissible evidence.The court also ruled in favor of the prosecution's request to limit or exclude any irrelevant or inflammatory evidence, including any references to the victims' personal histories, sexual activity, or alleged drug use, unless it directly relates to the defense's theory of the case and passes legal scrutiny. Similarly, the judge limited the introduction of expert opinions unless those experts have been properly disclosed and vetted. These rulings were intended to ensure a fair trial, maintain focus on relevant issues, and reduce the potential for prejudicial arguments that could mislead or confuse the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:041825+Order+Memorializing+Oral+Rulings+on+Motions+in+Limine.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

This order memorializes the oral rulings made by Judge John C. Judge on April 17, 2025, in the Bryan Kohberger case regarding several motions in limine. The court granted the prosecution's request to preclude defense counsel from mentioning or suggesting that third parties—specifically “other men” or unidentified persons—are responsible for the crimes unless the defense can provide a proper evidentiary foundation outside the presence of the jury. This aims to prevent speculation or unsupported accusations from being introduced at trial. Additionally, the judge ruled that the defense may not use characterizations like “rush to judgment” or claims of a biased investigation unless such arguments are supported by specific, admissible evidence.The court also ruled in favor of the prosecution's request to limit or exclude any irrelevant or inflammatory evidence, including any references to the victims' personal histories, sexual activity, or alleged drug use, unless it directly relates to the defense's theory of the case and passes legal scrutiny. Similarly, the judge limited the introduction of expert opinions unless those experts have been properly disclosed and vetted. These rulings were intended to ensure a fair trial, maintain focus on relevant issues, and reduce the potential for prejudicial arguments that could mislead or confuse the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:041825+Order+Memorializing+Oral+Rulings+on+Motions+in+Limine.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​In Case Number CR01-24-31665, defendant Bryan C. Kohberger has filed a reply to the State's response concerning his Motion in Limine #7, which seeks to exclude testimony related to a witness's identification of the intruder based on "bushy eyebrows." The defense argues that such testimony is highly subjective and could lead to wrongful convictions, emphasizing that mistaken identifications have historically been a leading cause of such outcomes in the United States. They contend that allowing the witness, referred to as D.M., to describe the intruder's "bushy eyebrows" would be tantamount to an in-court identification of Kohberger, which they believe is inappropriate given the circumstances.Furthermore, the defense highlights that D.M. has a personal interest in drawing eyes and eyebrows, suggesting that her focus on this feature may not be a reliable basis for identification. They also point out that D.M. was interviewed multiple times by law enforcement, and her descriptions evolved over these interviews, raising concerns about the consistency and reliability of her testimony. The defense asserts that admitting such subjective identification could unfairly prejudice the jury and undermine Kohberger's right to a fair trial.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ty ABecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdf

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​The U.S. government's motions in limine in the case against Sean "Diddy" Combs seek to shape the evidentiary landscape for the upcoming trial. Prosecutors aim to introduce corroborative materials such as text messages, diary entries from a former employee, and a 911 call to support the testimonies of alleged victims. They argue that these pieces of evidence are crucial to demonstrate patterns of behavior and to counter anticipated challenges to the credibility of witnesses. Additionally, the government requests the exclusion of certain defense evidence, including prior consensual sexual encounters Combs had with individuals not involved in the case, asserting that such information is irrelevant and could mislead the jury.Furthermore, the prosecution seeks to admit expert testimony from psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes, who would explain how victims of abuse might remain in relationships with their abusers due to emotional manipulation or fear. This testimony is intended to provide context for the victims' continued association with Combs, which the defense might use to question their credibility. The motions also address the admissibility of a 2016 surveillance video allegedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. The defense contests this video's inclusion, claiming it has been altered and lacks authenticityto contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.260.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This order memorializes the oral rulings made by Judge John C. Judge on April 17, 2025, in the Bryan Kohberger case regarding several motions in limine. The court granted the prosecution's request to preclude defense counsel from mentioning or suggesting that third parties—specifically “other men” or unidentified persons—are responsible for the crimes unless the defense can provide a proper evidentiary foundation outside the presence of the jury. This aims to prevent speculation or unsupported accusations from being introduced at trial. Additionally, the judge ruled that the defense may not use characterizations like “rush to judgment” or claims of a biased investigation unless such arguments are supported by specific, admissible evidence.The court also ruled in favor of the prosecution's request to limit or exclude any irrelevant or inflammatory evidence, including any references to the victims' personal histories, sexual activity, or alleged drug use, unless it directly relates to the defense's theory of the case and passes legal scrutiny. Similarly, the judge limited the introduction of expert opinions unless those experts have been properly disclosed and vetted. These rulings were intended to ensure a fair trial, maintain focus on relevant issues, and reduce the potential for prejudicial arguments that could mislead or confuse the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:041825+Order+Memorializing+Oral+Rulings+on+Motions+in+Limine.pdf

This order memorializes the oral rulings made by Judge John C. Judge on April 17, 2025, in the Bryan Kohberger case regarding several motions in limine. The court granted the prosecution's request to preclude defense counsel from mentioning or suggesting that third parties—specifically “other men” or unidentified persons—are responsible for the crimes unless the defense can provide a proper evidentiary foundation outside the presence of the jury. This aims to prevent speculation or unsupported accusations from being introduced at trial. Additionally, the judge ruled that the defense may not use characterizations like “rush to judgment” or claims of a biased investigation unless such arguments are supported by specific, admissible evidence.The court also ruled in favor of the prosecution's request to limit or exclude any irrelevant or inflammatory evidence, including any references to the victims' personal histories, sexual activity, or alleged drug use, unless it directly relates to the defense's theory of the case and passes legal scrutiny. Similarly, the judge limited the introduction of expert opinions unless those experts have been properly disclosed and vetted. These rulings were intended to ensure a fair trial, maintain focus on relevant issues, and reduce the potential for prejudicial arguments that could mislead or confuse the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:041825+Order+Memorializing+Oral+Rulings+on+Motions+in+Limine.pdf

This order memorializes the oral rulings made by Judge John C. Judge on April 17, 2025, in the Bryan Kohberger case regarding several motions in limine. The court granted the prosecution's request to preclude defense counsel from mentioning or suggesting that third parties—specifically “other men” or unidentified persons—are responsible for the crimes unless the defense can provide a proper evidentiary foundation outside the presence of the jury. This aims to prevent speculation or unsupported accusations from being introduced at trial. Additionally, the judge ruled that the defense may not use characterizations like “rush to judgment” or claims of a biased investigation unless such arguments are supported by specific, admissible evidence.The court also ruled in favor of the prosecution's request to limit or exclude any irrelevant or inflammatory evidence, including any references to the victims' personal histories, sexual activity, or alleged drug use, unless it directly relates to the defense's theory of the case and passes legal scrutiny. Similarly, the judge limited the introduction of expert opinions unless those experts have been properly disclosed and vetted. These rulings were intended to ensure a fair trial, maintain focus on relevant issues, and reduce the potential for prejudicial arguments that could mislead or confuse the jury.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:041825+Order+Memorializing+Oral+Rulings+on+Motions+in+Limine.pdf

Bryan Kohberger had a hearing on April 9th, 2025 to go over Motions in Limine. What was first thought to be a 2 day affair, was completed in 1 day because Judge Hippler runs a tight ship! The Defense and Prosecution were able to go over 25 Motions. Some were decided on the stand, others were taken under advisement. The most intense part of the hearing focused on a dispute over AT&T records.The Defense Attorney, Anne Taylor, made accusations about the Prosecution withholding evidence, leading to a strong rebuke from the judge. Judge Hipper reminded Anne Taylor that she is an "Officer of the Court" and that when he took on this case he doesn't want theatrics or accusations that aren't supported evidence about supposed bad conducts.He said that he respects all of the attorneys and the types of accusations made can get a person disbarred! When Rulings are posted in writing, I will break them down in an upcoming Monday - The Emily Show podcast episode.Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/L_LYXsaPV8ERESOURCESThe Emily Show Podcast - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLFdNnRZUqH60WELo6OInNVPU7Fed0d2BzBushy Eyebrow - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHlYOkcFXAwThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy

Bryan Kohberger will be back in court on April 9th & 10th, 2025 to discuss Motions in Limine and other filings. The State adds another Prosecutor to the team - Attorney Hurwit. An important limine is the AT&T Timing Advance Records. There's a dispute between the Prosecution and Defense regarding access to these records. The prosecution claims the records related to Kohberger timed out and no longer exist due to AT&T's policy of keeping them for only seven days. The defense questions this, suggesting that law enforcement may have seen these records and that the Prosecution might not be fully disclosing information. What's the truth about the 7-day retention policy? This could be a potential for a major issue if the Prosecution had the records and didn't disclose them, versus if AT&T simply stating the records no longer exist.Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/mHlYOkcFXAwThis podcast uses the following third-party services for analysis: Spotify Ad Analytics - https://www.spotify.com/us/legal/ad-analytics-privacy-policy/Podscribe - https://podscribe.com/privacy