エピソード

  • Devils Advocate Series: Why The Jury Should Ignore the Obstruction Spin (Part 3) (6/9/25)

    Devils Advocate Series: Why The Jury Should Ignore the Obstruction Spin (Part 3) (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    Sean “Diddy” Combs and his defense team have aggressively pushed back on the obstruction narrative, framing his behind-bars communications and jailhouse notes as legitimate, constitutionally protected efforts to prepare his defense—not criminal interference. They argue that the handwritten notes seized from his cell were clearly privileged attorney‑client strategy documents, and their confiscation violated both his rights and the sanctity of legal defense communications. ombs' attorneys also note that his outreach to family and friends—whether through monitored jail calls or coordinated social media campaigns around his birthday—was positioned as a freedom-of-speech response to what they describe as a flood of "outrageous" allegations, including those from plaintiffs’ attorneys and government agents.


    In court, the defense has consistently argued that none of these actions meet the legal threshold for “acting corruptly,” a required element for obstruction charges. They emphasize that Combs’ efforts to counter narratives and organize support were tactical and defensive, not malicious or coercive. Additionally, the defense maintains that the alleged use of other inmates' phone codes—interpreted by prosecutors as evasion—may have simple administrative explanations unrelated to witness tampering, and certainly do not signify a broader conspiracy to obstruct justice. Throughout proceedings, they’ve urged that these points demonstrate both the overreach of the government’s position and the presence of legitimate, lawful defense activities.



    to contact me:


    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • The Feds Move To Exclude Testimony From Diddy's Expert Elie Aouen (Part 2)

    The Feds Move To Exclude Testimony From Diddy's Expert Elie Aouen (Part 2)
    2025/06/09
    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.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    18 分
  • The Feds Move To Exclude Testimony From Diddy's Expert Elie Aouen (Part 1)

    The Feds Move To Exclude Testimony From Diddy's Expert Elie Aouen (Part 1)
    2025/06/09
    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.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.276.0_1.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    13 分
  • The Prosecution Looks To Exclude Connor McCourt's Testimony In Support Of Diddy (Part 2) (6/9/25)

    The Prosecution Looks To Exclude Connor McCourt's Testimony In Support Of Diddy (Part 2) (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
    13 分
  • The Prosecution Looks To Exclude Connor McCourt's Testimony In Support Of Diddy (Part 1) (6/9/25)

    The Prosecution Looks To Exclude Connor McCourt's Testimony In Support Of Diddy (Part 1) (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
    13 分
  • Judge Subramanian Denies Diddy's Last Ditch Effort To Get Evidence Tossed (Part 3) (6/9/25)

    Judge Subramanian Denies Diddy's Last Ditch Effort To Get Evidence Tossed (Part 3) (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs’s iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government’s warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.

    Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government’s affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分
  • Judge Subramanian Denies Diddy's Last Ditch Effort To Get Evidence Tossed (Part 2) (6/9/25)

    Judge Subramanian Denies Diddy's Last Ditch Effort To Get Evidence Tossed (Part 2) (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs’s iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government’s warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.

    Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government’s affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分
  • Judge Subramanian Denies Diddy's Last Ditch Effort To Get Evidence Tossed (Part 1) (6/9/25)

    Judge Subramanian Denies Diddy's Last Ditch Effort To Get Evidence Tossed (Part 1) (6/9/25)
    2025/06/09
    In the federal case 24-CR-542 (AS), Sean Combs filed a motion to suppress evidence obtained from four separate warrants issued in 2024. These included a January warrant targeting Combs’s iCloud accounts and three March warrants that authorized searches of his Los Angeles and Miami residences, as well as his person and two cell phones. Combs argued that the government’s warrant applications were intentionally misleading and requested a Franks hearing—a legal proceeding used to challenge the truthfulness of statements made in an affidavit supporting a search warrant. He also contended that the warrants constituted unconstitutional “general warrants,” lacking the specificity required under the Fourth Amendment.

    Judge Arun Subramanian denied the motion, concluding that the warrant applications did not meet the legal standard required for a Franks hearing and that they were not impermissibly broad. The court found no evidence of deliberate falsehood or reckless disregard for the truth in the government’s affidavits, nor did it determine the warrants lacked sufficient particularity in describing the items to be seized. As a result, the evidence collected through these searches will be admissible at trial, marking a key procedural victory for the prosecution as it prepares to present a wide-ranging case against Combs involving allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking.

    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.326.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分