Ghislaine Maxwell Is Warned Not To Identify Her Accusers During Her Trial

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Heinä 16min

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

6 Heinä 12min

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Heinä 13min

In this 39-page motion filed on April 7, 2025, Sean Combs’ legal team asks the court to exclude any reference to alleged prior sexual assaults under Federal Rules of Evidence 413 and 404(b). They argue that Rule 413 only applies when a defendant is formally charged with a sexual assault offense, which Combs is not—his current charges involve racketeering, sex trafficking, and related crimes, but not specific counts of sexual assault. Therefore, they assert the government’s attempt to admit uncharged sexual assault allegations under Rule 413 is legally improper and violates the plain text and legislative intent of the rule.Additionally, the motion challenges the admissibility of this evidence under Rule 404(b), which governs the use of prior bad acts to show motive, opportunity, or intent. Combs’ attorneys argue that the government’s notice is procedurally deficient and that the proposed evidence relies heavily on impermissible character inferences—essentially suggesting that because Combs allegedly committed bad acts before, he is more likely to have committed the crimes he’s charged with now. They also invoke Rule 403, saying the evidence has low probative value, is highly inflammatory, and would result in mini-trials over unrelated allegations, confusing the jury and unfairly prejudicing Combs. At minimum, the defense requests a preliminary hearing to assess the reliability of the evidence before it’s presented at trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Heinä 10min

Barry Morphew, through his legal counsel, has filed a motion demanding that the District Attorney’s Office and all associated law enforcement and reporting agencies preserve specific materials relevant to his case. This motion serves as an official notification requiring these entities to retain any evidence or documentation that may pertain to the matter at hand.Additionally, Morphew requests that the court issue an order mandating the preservation and production of this material. The motion seeks to compel the prosecution to ensure that all involved agencies, including the Colorado Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and others, comply with these preservation and production instructions, safeguarding crucial evidence for the defense’s use.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Defense Motion For Preservation and Production of Material D-005.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Heinä 11min

The Reply Memorandum of Law in Further Support of the Motion to Dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants argues that the plaintiff’s amended complaint fails to state a viable claim under applicable legal standards. The defendants contend that the complaint is legally insufficient because it relies on conclusory allegations without concrete factual support, particularly regarding claims of sex trafficking and racketeering. They emphasize that the plaintiff has not demonstrated the necessary elements to establish a criminal enterprise or direct involvement by Sean “Diddy” Combs or his affiliated entities, and thus the case should be dismissed at this early stage.Furthermore, the defendants assert that the complaint improperly conflates business operations with alleged illegal conduct, failing to show that the defendants knowingly participated in or benefited from any criminal activity. They argue that the plaintiff’s attempt to hold the defendants liable for the actions of third parties lacks the required causation and direct connection. The memorandum stresses that courts must reject attempts to extend liability beyond what the law permits, especially in complex cases involving serious accusations, and urges the court to grant dismissal in favor of the Combs Defendants to prevent unwarranted litigation.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.632026.47.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Heinä 11min

In the case of United States v. Combs, the Government submitted a letter to Judge Subramanian addressing GX 1411, a summary chart of records extracted from Kristina Khorram’s electronic devices. The letter reveals that the defense only recently, after more than five months of possessing these communications, notified the Government of their intention to claim privilege over six specific images and videos within GX 1411. These materials depict communications between the defendant, Sean Combs, and an individual named Jane, and were stored on Khorram’s devices.The Government argues that this late assertion of privilege lacks merit and requests that the court deny the defense’s claim. They contend that the defense’s delay in raising privilege undermines its validity, implying that the claimed privilege over the six items should not prevent their use in the case. This position suggests the Government intends to proceed with including these communications as part of the evidence against the defendant.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource;gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.430.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Heinä 15min

The prosecution’s decision not to call Victim 3 to testify in the Sean “Diddy” Combs RICO trial significantly weakened their case by leaving a critical firsthand account absent from the courtroom. Victim 3 was repeatedly referenced throughout the trial as a key figure whose experiences could have directly corroborated the government’s allegations of a pattern of criminal conduct within the alleged enterprise. Without her testimony, the prosecution lost an opportunity to vividly illustrate the systemic nature of the trafficking scheme, undermining the emotional and evidentiary impact on the jury. Her firsthand narrative could have filled gaps in the timeline and reinforced the credibility of other witnesses, thereby strengthening the connective tissue needed to prove the racketeering conspiracy beyond a reasonable doubt.Moreover, the absence of Victim 3 deprived the prosecution of a chance to counter defense attacks on witness credibility and to directly confront contradictions or defenses raised by Combs’s legal team. Her testimony would have likely addressed key elements such as coercion, control, and the involvement of multiple participants in the alleged criminal enterprise—crucial to establishing the RICO predicate acts. The failure to bring her to the stand allowed the defense to exploit this void, sowing doubt about the prosecution’s narrative and weakening the cohesive story required for a complex RICO conviction. Ultimately, not having Victim 3 testify created a noticeable evidentiary gap that hindered the government’s ability to fully connect the dots and secure a unanimous verdict on the RICO count.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

5 Heinä 13min