エピソード

  • Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Takes The Stand Once Again On Day 19 (Part 1) (6/10/25)

    Diddy Trial: Jane Doe AKA Victim 2 Takes The Stand Once Again On Day 19 (Part 1) (6/10/25)
    2025/06/10
    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 Opposes The Governments Continued Attempts To Quash The Cassie Ventura Subpoena (6/9/25)

    Diddy Opposes The Governments Continued Attempts To Quash The Cassie Ventura Subpoena (6/9/25)
    2025/06/10
    In their letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense opposed motions by Mia, Ms. Ventura, and the government seeking to quash compliance with a subpoena directed to Mia, which the Court had previously ordered on May 31, 2025. The defense argued that the objections raised by both Ms. Ventura and the government lacked valid legal grounds and did not justify quashing the subpoena. They contended that Mia’s arguments were also without merit, asserting that the subpoena was properly issued under Rule 17(c) and sought relevant, admissible evidence essential to preparing the defense.

    The defense maintained that the subpoena targeted materials directly related to Mia’s credibility and potential biases, which were critical to the cross-examination process. They emphasized that the subpoena did not represent an undue burden or violate any protections afforded to the witness. Instead, they argued that granting the motions to quash would undermine the defendant’s right to a fair trial and to confront witnesses. Accordingly, the defense urged the Court to deny the motions and enforce compliance with the subpoena as originally ordered.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.385.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    11 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)
    2025/06/10
    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 Argues That Victim 2 (Jane Doe's) Notes To Herself Are Inadmissible As Evidence (6/9/25)

    Diddy Argues That Victim 2 (Jane Doe's) Notes To Herself Are Inadmissible As Evidence (6/9/25)
    2025/06/10
    In this letter to Judge Subramanian, the defense reiterated its renewed objections to the admission of exhibits GXE-331-F-R and GXE-331-H-R, which were introduced during the continued direct examination of the witness “Jane” on June 6, 2025. The defense argued that these exhibits were either improperly authenticated or unfairly prejudicial, lacking the necessary foundation for admission under the Federal Rules of Evidence. They maintained that the government’s use of these materials risked misleading the jury and compromising the defendant’s right to a fair trial.


    Additionally, the defense sought to provide broader legal context to guide the Court’s rulings on any similar evidentiary issues moving forward. They emphasized the importance of applying a consistent and rigorous standard to the admission of exhibits that could impact witness credibility or the core allegations in the case. The letter urged the Court to sustain the defense’s objections and exercise heightened scrutiny to prevent the introduction of unreliable or prejudicial evidence that could unduly influence the jury.


    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com



    source:

    gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.387.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 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)
    2025/06/10
    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
  • The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion For Pre Trial Release (Part 3) (6/10/25)

    The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion For Pre Trial Release (Part 3) (6/10/25)
    2025/06/10
    In response to Sean Combs' appeal for pretrial release, the appellee (the prosecution) has filed an affirmation opposing the motion. The government argues that Combs poses a significant flight risk due to his vast resources, international connections, and alleged history of witness intimidation. They emphasize that the seriousness of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, increases the likelihood of Combs attempting to evade justice if released.


    The prosecution also highlights concerns regarding public safety, citing allegations of ongoing criminal behavior that could continue if Combs is granted pretrial release. They argue that his wealth and influence could enable him to obstruct the investigation or intimidate witnesses, further compromising the integrity of the trial. The appellee maintains that the initial decision to deny pretrial release was justified and urges the appellate court to uphold that ruling.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.29.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    10 分
  • The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion For Pre Trial Release (Part 2) (6/10/25)

    The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion For Pre Trial Release (Part 2) (6/10/25)
    2025/06/10
    In response to Sean Combs' appeal for pretrial release, the appellee (the prosecution) has filed an affirmation opposing the motion. The government argues that Combs poses a significant flight risk due to his vast resources, international connections, and alleged history of witness intimidation. They emphasize that the seriousness of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, increases the likelihood of Combs attempting to evade justice if released.


    The prosecution also highlights concerns regarding public safety, citing allegations of ongoing criminal behavior that could continue if Combs is granted pretrial release. They argue that his wealth and influence could enable him to obstruct the investigation or intimidate witnesses, further compromising the integrity of the trial. The appellee maintains that the initial decision to deny pretrial release was justified and urges the appellate court to uphold that ruling.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.29.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分
  • The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion For Pre Trial Release (Part 1) (6/10/25)

    The Feds Respond To Diddy's Motion For Pre Trial Release (Part 1) (6/10/25)
    2025/06/10
    In response to Sean Combs' appeal for pretrial release, the appellee (the prosecution) has filed an affirmation opposing the motion. The government argues that Combs poses a significant flight risk due to his vast resources, international connections, and alleged history of witness intimidation. They emphasize that the seriousness of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, increases the likelihood of Combs attempting to evade justice if released.


    The prosecution also highlights concerns regarding public safety, citing allegations of ongoing criminal behavior that could continue if Combs is granted pretrial release. They argue that his wealth and influence could enable him to obstruct the investigation or intimidate witnesses, further compromising the integrity of the trial. The appellee maintains that the initial decision to deny pretrial release was justified and urges the appellate court to uphold that ruling.



    to contact me:

    bobbycapucci@protonmail.com


    source:

    gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.29.0.pdf
    続きを読む 一部表示
    12 分