Witness: Dawn Hughes

Dawn Hughes’ Testimony in Sean 'Diddy' Combs’ Sex Trafficking and Racketeering Trial: Day 8 Highlights On May 21, 2025, Day 8 of Sean 'Diddy' Combs’ federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in Manhattan, forensic psychologist Dr. Dawn Hughes took the stand as an expert witness for the prosecution. Her testimony, which unfolded over several hours at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in New York, aimed to provide the jury with a deeper understanding of the psychological dynamics of abusive relationships, particularly in the context of the allegations against Combs. Hughes, a board-certified clinical and forensic psychologist with 30 years of experience, specializes in interpersonal violence, traumatic stress, and anxiety disorders. She has testified in high-profile cases, including the 2022 Johnny Depp-Amber Heard defamation trial, as well as the criminal trials of R. Kelly and NXIVM founder Keith Raniere. Background and Role in the Trial Dr. Dawn Hughes was called by the prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey, to testify as a 'blind witness,' meaning she had not reviewed specific evidence in the case or evaluated any individuals involved, such as Combs or his accusers. Instead, her role was to provide general expert insight into the behavior of domestic abuse victims, focusing on why they might remain in abusive relationships, how they cope, and the effects of trauma on their memory and actions. This testimony was particularly relevant to the accounts of Casandra 'Cassie' Ventura, Combs’ former girlfriend and a key witness, who testified earlier in the trial about enduring years of alleged physical and psychological abuse, including coerced participation in drug-fueled sexual encounters known as 'freak-offs.' Hughes’ testimony was intended to contextualize Ventura’s behavior, such as her prolonged stay in the relationship despite the alleged abuse, her delayed disclosure of the events, and her coping mechanisms, including substance abuse. The prosecution hoped to use Hughes’ expertise to counter potential juror skepticism about why Ventura didn’t leave sooner or report the abuse immediately, a common point of misunderstanding in abuse cases. However, Judge Arun Subramanian had previously ruled that Hughes could not testify on certain topics, such as the concept of coercive control or the credibility of the accusers, to avoid overstepping into areas that might prejudice the jury. Key Points of Dawn Hughes’ Testimony 1. Why Victims Remain in Abusive Relationships Hughes began her testimony by explaining the complex psychological factors that often keep victims in abusive relationships. She emphasized that 'no victim wants to be abused,' but many feel trapped due to a combination of emotional, psychological, and situational factors. 'It’s not just about hitting,' Hughes told the court. 'It’s about a lot of abusive behaviors that make a victim feel trapped.' She highlighted that victims often form an intense psychological bond with their abuser, rooted in love and attachment, which can make leaving feel impossible. 'There’s almost always love,' she said, noting that this bond creates a powerful emotional conflict for victims, who may simultaneously fear and care for their abuser. This testimony directly relates to Ventura’s earlier account of her 11-year relationship with Combs, during which she alleged enduring physical beatings, coercion into 'freak-offs,' and psychological control. Ventura had testified that she felt forced to participate in these encounters out of fear of physical abuse and blackmail, yet also described moments of emotional attachment to Combs, reflecting the dynamics Hughes described. 2. Coping Mechanisms and Substance Abuse A significant portion of Hughes’ testimony focused on how victims cope with the trauma of abuse. She described substance abuse as a 'very common coping mechanism to numb the pain.' This point resonated with Ventura’s testimony, where she admitted to turning to drugs, including opiates, during the 'freak-offs' to 'numb' herself, eventually leading to addiction. Hughes explained that such behavior is not a sign of complicity or consent but rather a survival strategy for victims enduring ongoing trauma. She also noted that post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) can make recalling information difficult, which might explain inconsistencies or delays in victims’ accounts of abuse—a potential defense point of contention regarding Ventura’s testimony. Hughes’ discussion of coping mechanisms aimed to frame Ventura’s drug use and participation in the 'freak-offs' as responses to trauma rather than voluntary actions, countering the defense’s narrative that these events were consensual. Posts on X reflected public interest in this angle, with some users noting that Hughes’ testimony helped explain Ventura’s behavior, though these sentiments are not conclusive evidence of broader opinion. 3. Delayed Disclosure and Memory Fragmentation Hughes addressed the common phenomenon of delayed disclosure in abuse cases, explaining that victims often wait years to speak out due to fear, shame, or a lack of psychological safety. She testified that it’s 'very common' for victims to delay disclosing abuse until long after it has occurred, often because they don’t feel safe or supported enough to come forward sooner. This was particularly relevant to Ventura, who only publicly accused Combs of abuse in a 2023 lawsuit, years after their relationship ended, though she settled with him the next day. Additionally, Hughes discussed how trauma affects memory, noting that memories of abusive events can be fragmented or hazy. She agreed under cross-examination that PTSD can impair a victim’s ability to recall details accurately, which might lead to new or shifting memories over time. This point was likely intended to address any inconsistencies in Ventura’s account that the defense might highlight, framing them as a natural consequence of trauma rather than evidence of fabrication. 4. Cross-Examination by the Defense The defense, led by attorney Jonathan Bach, conducted a rigorous cross-examination of Hughes, aiming to undermine her testimony’s relevance and her credibility. Bach portrayed Hughes as a 'hired gun' for prosecutors, alleging that she earns more money testifying in court than in her clinical practice. He pointedly asked, 'Isn’t it a fact that you have never come into court, taken the witness stand in defense of a man accused of a sex crime?' Hughes responded, 'That’s correct, I don’t evaluate offenders,' clarifying that her expertise lies in assessing victims, not perpetrators. On redirect, Hughes noted that she has testified for both prosecution and defense in criminal cases, though she admitted on re-cross that she was once retained by Combs’ attorney Brian Steel in a prior case but did not testify. Bach also challenged the generality of Hughes’ testimony, arguing that it was 'not keyed to the particular facts at issue' in the trial. He stressed that Hughes had not examined Ventura or anyone else involved in the case, asking, 'You can’t diagnose somebody without hearing what they have to say, correct?' Hughes agreed, confirming her role as a blind witness providing general insights rather than specific diagnoses. Bach further probed the concept of 'malingering,' which Hughes defined as fabricating psychological symptoms. He asked if people can fabricate emotional responses, to which Hughes responded, 'They can,' though she did not suggest this applied to Ventura. Bach also explored whether victims might speak to civil lawyers to 'make a little money' rather than solely to 'right a wrong,' as Hughes had suggested. Hughes maintained that victims often seek to right a wrong, but Bach’s line of questioning aimed to plant doubt about the motivations of Combs’ accusers, including Ventura, who had settled a civil lawsuit against Combs. Legal and Trial Context Hughes’ testimony followed that of Homeland Security Investigations Special Agent Gerard Gannon, who detailed the March 2024 raid on Combs’ Miami mansion, where agents found items like gun components, baby oil, and platform heels—evidence tied to the alleged 'freak-offs.' Her testimony complemented Ventura’s earlier account, which described a controlled and abusive environment, and preceded that of George Kaplan, Combs’ former assistant, who later testified about facilitating Combs’ lifestyle, including setting up hotel rooms and procuring drugs. The prosecution used Hughes’ testimony to bolster their argument that Combs ran a racketeering enterprise that facilitated sex trafficking through coercion and intimidation, with Ventura as a key victim. The defense, however, sought to frame Hughes’ testimony as too general to be relevant and to cast doubt on the motivations and reliability of Combs’ accusers. Implications and Next Steps Hughes’ testimony provided a psychological framework for understanding Ventura’s actions, potentially strengthening the prosecution’s case by addressing common misconceptions about abuse victims. However, the defense’s cross-examination highlighted the limitations of her 'blind' testimony and aimed to question the credibility of the accusers’ narratives. As the trial continues, Kaplan’s ongoing testimony on May 22, followed by that of rapper Scott 'Kid Cudi' Mescudi and a male hotel employee, will likely build on these themes, further exploring the dynamics of Combs’ alleged enterprise and the experiences of those within it.

Compiled from news sources and summarized by Grok.

Transcript