The State Objects To Kohberger's Motion To Suppress The First Apple Warrant (Part 2)
In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 15min
The State Objects To Kohberger's Motion To Suppress The First Apple Warrant (Part 1)
In this filing dated December 6, 2024, the State of Idaho formally objects to Bryan Kohberger’s motion to suppress evidence obtained from his Apple iCloud account via a federal grand jury subpoena and a subsequent search warrant issued on August 1, 2023. Kohberger's defense claimed the searches violated his Fourth Amendment rights, but prosecutors countered that the data falls under the “third-party doctrine,” which permits law enforcement access to user data voluntarily shared with companies like Apple. The State emphasized that the Apple data acquired was limited to account subscriber information—such as email addresses and registration dates—and did not include detailed location tracking or sensitive content. This, they argue, negates any assertion that the warrant violated Kohberger's reasonable expectation of privacy.Further, the State rebuts the claim that the search warrant lacked probable cause or specificity, asserting that the accompanying affidavit clearly outlined the basis for the request and was legally incorporated into the warrant under well-established legal standards. They cite relevant federal cases supporting their position, such as United States v. SDI Future Health, which allows an affidavit to “cure” any alleged warrant deficiencies if it is referenced and available to the executing officers. The State maintains that there were no intentional or reckless misstatements in the affidavit and urges the court to deny the suppression motion, emphasizing that all procedural safeguards were met and the information obtained was narrow in scope and lawfully collected.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.211.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 10min
The Diddy Trial: Deonte Nash And His Victim Impact Statement (10/4/25)
In the letter submitted to the court, stylist Deonte Nash voiced strong concern over the possibility of Sean “Diddy” Combs being released before sentencing. Nash described Combs as having a “long, well-documented history of violent, coercive, and retaliatory behavior,” and warned that releasing him would likely be taken by Combs as “yet another license to continue intimidating, threatening, and harming people who challenge or expose him.” He urged the judge to prioritize the safety of those who had testified and the public at large over any presumption that Combs should be granted leniency at that stage.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:Ex. E (Deonte).pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 8min
The Diddy Trial: Diddy Gets Slapped With 4 Years And Some Change (10/4/25)
Sean “Diddy” Combs was sentenced to 50 months in federal prison—just over four years—for violating the Mann Act, a century-old law prohibiting the transportation of individuals across state lines for prostitution or immoral purposes. The charges stemmed from multiple incidents where prosecutors alleged Combs used his private jets and security teams to move women across the country for what they described as “commercial sexual activity under coercive conditions.” While prosecutors initially sought an 11-year sentence, citing a pattern of predatory behavior and abuse, the defense pleaded for leniency, pointing to his age, charitable works, and family ties. The judge ultimately “split the difference,” opting for a sentence that reflected both accountability and proportionality, landing closer to the middle of the guideline range.Alongside his prison term, Combs was hit with a $500,000 fine and five years of supervised release following his incarceration, during which he’ll face restrictions on travel, mandatory counseling, and drug testing. The judge also ordered him to complete a rehabilitation and behavioral accountability program, emphasizing that this sentence was not just punitive but corrective. Despite avoiding the more severe sex trafficking and racketeering charges—which could have landed him a life sentence—Combs’s conviction under the Mann Act marked a significant fall from grace for one of hip-hop’s most powerful figures.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 15min
The Diddy Trial: Impact Statements From Mia And Capricorn Clark (10/4/25)
In her impact statement, “Mia” (a former assistant who testified under that alias) urged the judge to deliver a sentence that truly reflects the harm she says Combs caused. She stressed that his wealth, power, and fame shouldn’t protect him from full accountability, and she asked the court to consider not only past abuse but the ongoing danger she feels.Capricorn Clark, another former employee who testified about a violent incident involving Combs, asked for a more substantial sentence, saying that time away from “his money, drugs, and power is the only punishment he will recognize.” She framed a longer sentence as justice not just for her, but also a message to others, stressing that Combs’s influence must be checked.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.516.3_4.pdfgov.uscourts.nysd.628425.516.4_3.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 13min
Mega Edition: Diddy Moves To Keep Prior Bad Acts Out Of Evidence (10/4/25)
In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 19min
Mega Edition: Prince Andrew Asks For The Original Picture And The Fallout That Came After (10/4/25)
Prince Andrew has pushed for access to the original, unaltered version of the now-famous photograph showing him with Virginia Roberts Giuffre, arguing that the image could hold the key to challenging her allegations. His legal team has questioned the authenticity of the photo for years, suggesting it may have been doctored, and Andrew has maintained he does not recall ever meeting Giuffre despite the picture. By demanding the original, he seeks forensic analysis that could either validate or undermine one of the most damning pieces of evidence tying him to Epstein’s trafficking network.The fallout from Prince Andrew’s decision to settle with Virginia Giuffre was immediate and devastating to his reputation, reinforcing public perception that the royal was attempting to avoid a courtroom battle that could expose damaging details. Though the settlement included no admission of guilt, it was widely seen as a tacit acknowledgment of the seriousness of Giuffre’s claims and further tarnished Andrew’s standing within the monarchy. He was stripped of his military affiliations and charitable patronages, effectively forced into public exile, and the move sparked outrage among critics who argued that a man who insisted he was innocent would have fought to clear his name rather than write a multimillion-pound check. The royal family itself faced intense backlash, accused of protecting its own by allowing Andrew to quietly buy his way out of accountability while the scandal dragged the monarchy’s image through the mud.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 39min
Mega Edition: The Contentious Legal Battle Between Prince Andrew And Virginia Roberts (10/4/25)
The legal battle between Virginia Roberts Giuffre and Prince Andrew quickly spiraled into one of the most contentious royal scandals in modern memory. From the outset, Andrew’s legal team fought aggressively to have the case dismissed, citing Giuffre’s prior settlement with Jeffrey Epstein as grounds to shield him from liability. Giuffre’s lawyers, however, pushed back just as forcefully, determined to keep the prince from evading accountability. The clash played out in the courts and the press, with each new filing drawing global headlines and deepening the damage to Andrew’s reputation.As the pressure mounted, the stakes for the monarchy itself became undeniable. Prince Charles, keenly aware of the danger the scandal posed to the royal family’s already fragile standing, was forced to intervene behind the scenes. Reports suggested that he personally assisted in securing the funds needed for the multimillion-pound settlement, effectively ensuring his brother could avoid a public trial. While the payment brought the case to a close, it also underscored the perception that the royals were circling the wagons to protect one of their own, further fueling criticism that accountability had once again been sidestepped through privilege and money.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.
4 Loka 46min
