In a surprising courtroom twist, federal prosecutors claim Sean "Diddy" Combs' defense has paved the way for expert testimony attorneys previously opposed by pushing the envelope in cross-examining a key witness.
In legal papers this week, prosecutors informed Judge Arun Subramanian that the defense's cross-examination of Diddy's ex-assistant, who goes by "Mia" in court documents, was too hostile and misleading for expert witness Dr. Dawn Hughes not to retake the stand.
It started when Diddy's legal team called Mia's emotional connection to the Hip-Hop mogul into question, citing loving messages, social media posts, and even a scrapbook she made. The goal is to discredit her by intimating that anyone who says she has been abused could not also have feelings of love, loyalty, or friendship toward her alleged abuser.
Check out this Articles.
Prosecutors hit back with being a classic example of why expert testimony about trauma is critical. "Having strenuously opposed any expert testimony on these topics, the defense's cross-examination of Mia drove through the door testimony that otherwise would have been unavailable," U.S. Attorney Jay Clayton wrote in a scathing court filing. And now, says he, the jury needs an appropriate context in which to interpret why Mia's self-contradictory behavior is not only perfectly normal but tragically typical in abuse dynamics.
Dr. Hughes, an experienced forensic psychologist, also has experience in high-profile cases, having testified in the trials of Johnny Depp, Harvey Weinstein, and R. Kelly. Prosecutors say her possible return to the witness stand would be circumscribed but also crucial. She'd talk about the definitions of emotional and sexual abuse, how abuse works toward control, the emotional scars that abuse leaves, and how abusers frequently create emotional bondage through love.
On cross-examination, Diddy's lawyers peppered Mia with sharp-edged questions like, "Why did you decide to make a scrapbook for Mr. Combs?" and "How could you be best friends with someone who mistreated you? Prosecutors say those questions falsely infer that real victims cannot love their abusers — a myth that experts such as Hughes are trained to debunk.
"The defense did that directly, and it did it indirectly. "The defense expressly and impliedly told the jury that someone who was sexually abused could not have done this sort of thing," Clayton wrote. "They disparaged Mia's credibility to jurors without any context for what she had been through."
The court had previously limited Hughes's ability to speak. But now, the government says those lines need to move. If defense attorneys want to walk through the door, prosecutors are arguing; they can hardly complain when expert knowledge comes strolling behind them.
At the time of publication, Judge Subramanian has yet to decide if Hughes will be permitted to retake the stand. But with the dramatic heft of the trial in the balance, the focus is on how the bench will rule.
0 Comments