Home to the Spectator's best podcasts on everything from politics to religion, literature to food and drink, and more. A new podcast every day from writers worth listening to. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
…
continue reading
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://ppacc.player.fm/legal.
Player FM - Podcast App
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Go offline with the Player FM app!
Diddy Presses The Court To Strike A Whole Host Of Evidence That Was Introduced At Trial (5/27/25)
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 485268206 series 3380507
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
In the case United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs’ legal team submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian outlining key evidentiary concerns ahead of upcoming testimony and formally requesting that certain previously admitted evidence be stricken from the record. The defense reiterated its objections to testimony that it contends is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly on grounds of hearsay, undue prejudice, and lack of probative value. This includes evidence that the court initially allowed over defense objections, which the Combs team argues unfairly damages their client’s right to a fair trial by introducing speculative or inflammatory material not directly tied to the core charges.
Additionally, the filing serves as a preemptive move to frame the admissibility debate for future witness testimony, suggesting that the defense anticipates more problematic evidence may surface as the trial progresses. By submitting this letter, Combs’ attorneys are both preserving the record for potential appellate review and actively seeking to limit the scope of the prosecution’s narrative strategy, which they claim leans heavily on prejudicial anecdotes rather than legally relevant proof. The defense is pushing the court to more rigorously enforce evidentiary standards to prevent what it views as a trial driven by character assassination rather than criminal facts.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.352.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
Additionally, the filing serves as a preemptive move to frame the admissibility debate for future witness testimony, suggesting that the defense anticipates more problematic evidence may surface as the trial progresses. By submitting this letter, Combs’ attorneys are both preserving the record for potential appellate review and actively seeking to limit the scope of the prosecution’s narrative strategy, which they claim leans heavily on prejudicial anecdotes rather than legally relevant proof. The defense is pushing the court to more rigorously enforce evidentiary standards to prevent what it views as a trial driven by character assassination rather than criminal facts.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.352.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1037 episodes
MP3•Episode home
Manage episode 485268206 series 3380507
Content provided by Bobby Capucci. All podcast content including episodes, graphics, and podcast descriptions are uploaded and provided directly by Bobby Capucci or their podcast platform partner. If you believe someone is using your copyrighted work without your permission, you can follow the process outlined here https://staging.podcastplayer.com/legal.
In the case United States v. Combs, 24-cr-542 (AS), Sean Combs’ legal team submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian outlining key evidentiary concerns ahead of upcoming testimony and formally requesting that certain previously admitted evidence be stricken from the record. The defense reiterated its objections to testimony that it contends is inadmissible under the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly on grounds of hearsay, undue prejudice, and lack of probative value. This includes evidence that the court initially allowed over defense objections, which the Combs team argues unfairly damages their client’s right to a fair trial by introducing speculative or inflammatory material not directly tied to the core charges.
Additionally, the filing serves as a preemptive move to frame the admissibility debate for future witness testimony, suggesting that the defense anticipates more problematic evidence may surface as the trial progresses. By submitting this letter, Combs’ attorneys are both preserving the record for potential appellate review and actively seeking to limit the scope of the prosecution’s narrative strategy, which they claim leans heavily on prejudicial anecdotes rather than legally relevant proof. The defense is pushing the court to more rigorously enforce evidentiary standards to prevent what it views as a trial driven by character assassination rather than criminal facts.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.352.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
…
continue reading
Additionally, the filing serves as a preemptive move to frame the admissibility debate for future witness testimony, suggesting that the defense anticipates more problematic evidence may surface as the trial progresses. By submitting this letter, Combs’ attorneys are both preserving the record for potential appellate review and actively seeking to limit the scope of the prosecution’s narrative strategy, which they claim leans heavily on prejudicial anecdotes rather than legally relevant proof. The defense is pushing the court to more rigorously enforce evidentiary standards to prevent what it views as a trial driven by character assassination rather than criminal facts.
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.352.0.pdf
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.
1037 episodes
All episodes
×Welcome to Player FM!
Player FM is scanning the web for high-quality podcasts for you to enjoy right now. It's the best podcast app and works on Android, iPhone, and the web. Signup to sync subscriptions across devices.