エピソード

  • Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Takes The Stand Once Again On Day 19 (Part 2) (6/9/25)

    Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Takes The Stand Once Again On Day 19 (Part 2) (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In a gripping morning session, Jane Doe, the second alleged victim to testify, told jurors she was coerced into years of humiliating sexual acts orchestrated by Combs under a veil of manipulation and control. Fighting back tears, she read text messages in which she pleaded for the abuse to stop, including one that said, “It’s been three years of me trying to f--- strangers. I’m tired.” The witness described a relationship that began romantically in 2021 but swiftly turned into a cycle of coercion, where Combs allegedly paid her rent and held financial sway over her. He allegedly forced her into drug-fueled “hotel nights” — exploitative sex parties involving third parties — despite her repeated objections. “I told him, ‘I’m not a porn star,’” she testified. “I didn’t want to do it.”

    Jane further detailed how Combs used ecstasy to maintain control over her during extended sex sessions with male escorts and strangers, which he directed for his own gratification. She described the physical toll of these encounters — exhaustion, recurrent urinary tract infections, and ongoing trauma. According to Jane, the coercion was relentless, her financial dependence leveraged against her resistance. The morning’s testimony reinforced the prosecution’s portrayal of Combs as a manipulative abuser operating behind a facade of glamour and wealth, while also underscoring the emotional and physical damage allegedly suffered by his accusers.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    (1) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial coverage | CNN
    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分
  • Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Takes The Stand Once Again On Day 19 (Part 1) (6/9/25)

    Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Takes The Stand Once Again On Day 19 (Part 1) (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In a gripping morning session, Jane Doe, the second alleged victim to testify, told jurors she was coerced into years of humiliating sexual acts orchestrated by Combs under a veil of manipulation and control. Fighting back tears, she read text messages in which she pleaded for the abuse to stop, including one that said, “It’s been three years of me trying to f--- strangers. I’m tired.” The witness described a relationship that began romantically in 2021 but swiftly turned into a cycle of coercion, where Combs allegedly paid her rent and held financial sway over her. He allegedly forced her into drug-fueled “hotel nights” — exploitative sex parties involving third parties — despite her repeated objections. “I told him, ‘I’m not a porn star,’” she testified. “I didn’t want to do it.”

    Jane further detailed how Combs used ecstasy to maintain control over her during extended sex sessions with male escorts and strangers, which he directed for his own gratification. She described the physical toll of these encounters — exhaustion, recurrent urinary tract infections, and ongoing trauma. According to Jane, the coercion was relentless, her financial dependence leveraged against her resistance. The morning’s testimony reinforced the prosecution’s portrayal of Combs as a manipulative abuser operating behind a facade of glamour and wealth, while also underscoring the emotional and physical damage allegedly suffered by his accusers.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    (1) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial coverage | CNN
    続きを読む 一部表示
    21 分
  • Diddy Makes New Charging Requests In Light Of The Testimony Given So Far At His Trial (6/9/25)

    Diddy Makes New Charging Requests In Light Of The Testimony Given So Far At His Trial (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In this filing titled “Defendant Sean Combs’s Additional Requests to Charge,” Combs’s legal team submitted supplemental proposed jury instructions for Judge Subramanian to consider as the case approaches deliberations. The defense emphasized that these additional instructions were necessary to ensure the jury fully understood the legal standards governing the charges, particularly with respect to the government’s burden of proof, the definitions of key terms under RICO and sex trafficking statutes, and the presumption of innocence afforded to the defendant. They argued that without these clarifying instructions, the jury risked being misled by the government’s broad and potentially prejudicial narrative framing.


    Furthermore, the defense stressed that the proposed instructions were rooted in well-established case law and were essential to safeguarding Combs’s constitutional rights during deliberations. The filing highlighted concerns that certain elements of the government’s case—such as its reliance on character evidence and speculative inferences—could improperly sway the jury unless properly neutralized by clear guidance from the Court. The defense urged Judge Subramanian to adopt these additional charges in full to preserve the fairness and integrity of the proceedings.


    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.388.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • Diddy Fires Back At The Government Over 'Mia' And Her Testimony (6/9/25)

    Diddy Fires Back At The Government Over 'Mia' And Her Testimony (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In its May 28, 2025 letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the defense responded to the government’s objections regarding several exhibits the defense intended to introduce during its cross-examination of the witness "Mia." The defense argued that the government’s objections lacked merit and that the exhibits in question were both relevant and admissible. The letter emphasized that these materials were critical for challenging Mia’s credibility, highlighting inconsistencies in her prior statements and demonstrating potential bias or motive, particularly in relation to her pending civil litigation and prior public statements.

    Additionally, the defense contended that excluding these exhibits would unfairly limit its ability to mount an effective cross-examination, violating Combs’ constitutional right to confront his accuser. The letter urged the court to overrule the government’s objections, stressing that the contested exhibits were essential to providing the jury with a full and accurate understanding of Mia’s testimony and credibility. The defense maintained that these materials were not prejudicial or misleading, but rather necessary for the jury to evaluate the truthfulness and reliability of the prosecution’s key witness.














    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.383.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    20 分
  • Diddy Nukes The Prosecution In His Latest Motion For A Mistrial (6/9/25)

    Diddy Nukes The Prosecution In His Latest Motion For A Mistrial (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    On June 7, 2025, the defense team for Sean “Diddy” Combs submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian in support of its renewed motion for a mistrial in United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS). The defense argues that recent conduct by the prosecution constitutes clear prosecutorial misconduct, compromising Mr. Combs’ right to a fair trial. The letter, filed via ECF, emphasizes that these actions warrant the granting of a mistrial to preserve the integrity of the proceedings.


    The defense contends that the cumulative effect of the government’s behavior has irreparably tainted the jury and undermined the trial’s fairness. While specific examples of the alleged misconduct are likely detailed within the full motion, this letter serves to formally reiterate the defense’s position that the prosecution’s actions are incompatible with due process. The defense urges the Court to take immediate corrective action to prevent further prejudice against Mr. Combs.


    to coontact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.381.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分
  • Mega Edition: The Prosecution Looks To Exclude Connor McCourt's Testimony In Support Of Diddy (6/9/25)

    Mega Edition: The Prosecution Looks To Exclude Connor McCourt's Testimony In Support Of Diddy (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    Federal prosecutors have filed a motion to exclude testimony from Conor McCourt, a former NYPD sergeant and forensic video analyst, whom Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense team intends to call as an expert witness. McCourt analyzed surveillance footage of an alleged 2016 assault involving Combs and concluded that the videos were distorted and not faithful representations of the events. The government contends that McCourt's testimony should be barred due to the defense's untimely and incomplete disclosure, which failed to meet the requirements set by Rule 16 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Specifically, the defense did not provide a comprehensive summary of McCourt's opinions, his qualifications, or a list of prior cases where he testified as an expert, all of which were due by March 14, 2025. The government argues that this delay hindered its ability to prepare a rebuttal and prejudiced its case

    Beyond procedural issues, prosecutors assert that McCourt's anticipated testimony lacks substantial probative value and could mislead the jury. They argue that his technical critiques—such as claims about video distortion and transcoding artifacts—are speculative and unlikely to assist jurors in understanding the evidence. Furthermore, the government warns that presenting McCourt as an expert may unduly influence the jury, giving his opinions more weight than warranted. They also note that McCourt's analysis includes videos not intended for presentation at trial, rendering parts of his testimony irrelevant. Consequently, the government urges the court to exclude McCourt's testimony entirely or, at the very least, limit it under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 702 to prevent confusion and ensure a fair trial.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.277.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    31 分
  • The Mega Edition: Diddy's Motion To Deny Tony Buzbee's Request To Appear Pro Hac Vice In The SDNY (6/8/25)

    The Mega Edition: Diddy's Motion To Deny Tony Buzbee's Request To Appear Pro Hac Vice In The SDNY (6/8/25)
    2025/06/09
    ​In Case 1:24-cv-08054-MKV, the defendants have filed a Memorandum of Law opposing the plaintiff's amended motion for the pro hac vice admission of attorney Anthony Buzbee. Pro hac vice admission allows an out-of-state lawyer to participate in a specific case in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed to practice regularly. The defendants argue that Buzbee's admission should be denied due to concerns about his prior professional conduct, which they believe could negatively impact the proceedings. They emphasize the importance of maintaining the integrity of the court and ensuring that all participating attorneys adhere to the highest ethical standards.

    Furthermore, the defendants contend that the plaintiff has not sufficiently demonstrated that Buzbee's involvement is necessary for their case, especially considering the availability of other qualified counsel who are already licensed in the jurisdiction. They assert that granting the motion could set a concerning precedent, potentially allowing attorneys with questionable conduct records to participate in cases without proper scrutiny. The memorandum concludes by urging the court to carefully consider these factors and deny the amended motion for Buzbee's pro hac vice admission to uphold the court's standards and ensure a fair trial.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    続きを読む 一部表示
    35 分
  • The Teleconference Transcripts Between Diddy's Legal Team And Accuser Rod Jones Lawyer (Part 2)

    The Teleconference Transcripts Between Diddy's Legal Team And Accuser Rod Jones Lawyer (Part 2)
    2025/06/09
    The telephone conference in the case of 24 Civ. 1475 (JPO) took place between attorneys Zakarin and Blackburn, with Judge J. Paul Oetken presiding. The discussion primarily centered on procedural issues, including the timeline for motions and discovery. Zakarin argued for an expedited schedule to address key evidentiary matters critical to his client’s position, citing potential prejudice if delays continued. Blackburn countered by emphasizing the need for thorough discovery to ensure all relevant materials were accounted for, arguing against rushing the process. Both sides agreed on the importance of resolving these disputes efficiently but differed significantly on the approach.


    Judge Oetken stressed the need for cooperation between the parties and highlighted his preference for minimizing unnecessary motions. He set preliminary deadlines for document production and urged counsel to work collaboratively on narrowing disputes before formal filings. The judge indicated a tentative schedule for a future hearing, contingent on the progress of discovery, while cautioning both parties against dilatory tactics. The call concluded with the judge emphasizing the importance of clear communication between counsel to avoid escalating procedural disagreements.



    (commercial at 8:38)

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    o49rJONc
    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分