Skip to content
Sean Combs— Case Archive
personpersonDawn HughesDawn HughesClinical and forensic psychologist specializing in trauma, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault.← All People
Expert witness

Dawn Hughes

Clinical and forensic psychologist specializing in trauma, intimate partner violence, and sexual assault.

Appeared2025 Federal Trial
437 lines·18 proceedings·9 mentions

About

Dawn Hughes testified as a psychology and trauma expert on Day 12. After the court accepted her as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology with specializations in trauma and traumatic stress, she gave general testimony about barriers to leaving abusive relationships, coping strategies, delayed or partial disclosure, and possible trauma-related effects on memory. She disclosed that she was paid for her work and that her compensation did not depend on the trial's outcome.

Hughes did not offer opinions about any particular witness. On cross-examination, she said she had not evaluated witnesses or reviewed case-specific materials, evidence, or data points. Defense counsel questioned her about distinctions between clinical treatment and forensic evaluation, psychological testing and malingering, the possibility that memories can change, prior court-related work, a training webinar, and meetings with prosecutors. Hughes said those meetings did not involve case-specific facts and described her consultation on filings as addressing science she believed was being misconstrued.

The court instructed Hughes to give yes-or-no answers during cross-examination. It later denied the defense motion to strike her testimony, finding that it stayed within the earlier Daubert ruling, had been limited during examination, and did not create unfair prejudice substantially outweighing its probative value. The court also declined the government's request to recall her, concluding that recall was unnecessary and could prejudice the defense.

Key Points

Trial Record (18)

Trial 12025 Federal TrialMay 5, 2025 – Jul 2, 2025Called by prosecution

Dawn Hughes testified as a trauma expert on general responses to abuse, including barriers to leaving, coping, delayed disclosure, and memory. Cross-examination emphasized that she had not evaluated witnesses or reviewed case-specific evidence.

Day 12

DirectDawn Hughes — DirectDawn HughesMitzi Steiner3highlights140lines spoken

Summary

Dr. Hughes was qualified as a trauma expert and gave general, non-case-specific testimony on abusive relationships, coping, delayed disclosure, and trauma memory.

Highlights (3)

rulingThe court accepted Hughes as an expert in clinical and forensic psychology with specializations in trauma and traumatic stress after the defense stated it had no objection.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightHughes described herself as a blind expert with no knowledge of the case or its participants and outlined four general subjects for her testimony: remaining in abusive relationships, coping, disclosure, and trauma memory.Open in transcript →
Quote“So my role here today is to provide expert witness testimony as a blind expert.”— Dawn HughesHughes defined the non-case-specific role of her testimony.Open in transcript →
CrossDawn Hughes — Cross ResumesDawn HughesJonathan Bach2highlights96lines spoken

Summary

Hughes described the multi-method approach to forensic psychological evaluations and defined malingering during cross-examination.

Highlights (2)

testimony highlightHughes distinguished a forensic evaluation from ordinary clinical listening, describing a semistructured interview and psychological testing as part of a different methodology.Open in transcript →
Quote“I rely on multiple methods. What we say, a forensic evaluation is a multi-method, multi-hypothesis driven model. So I'm relying on all of these methods to arrive at my conclusion.”— Dawn HughesHughes described the methodology she said forensic evaluators use to reach conclusions.Open in transcript →
CrossDawn Hughes — Cross ResumesDawn HughesJonathan Bach2highlights103lines spoken

Summary

Hughes confirmed that her testimony was general rather than case-specific as the defense tested its limits and pursued an alleged-bias exhibit at sidebar.

Highlights (2)

Quote“I was not asked to do that. I was asked to give general testimony to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury.”— Dawn HughesHughes distinguished her trial role from a case-specific forensic evaluation.Open in transcript →
testimony highlightCross-examination tested the limits of Hughes's memory testimony. She agreed that memories can change over time and that memory issues can be related to prevarication, while qualifying that recalled memories may be prompted by context and cues.Open in transcript →

Day 14

Day 16

ProceduralMia Testimony Evidentiary Rulings2highlightsMentioned

Summary

The court denied the motion to strike Dr. Hughes, set privacy measures for Mia's testimony, and ruled on proposed defense exhibits, including the scrapbook and text messages.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

rulingThe court denied the defense motion to strike Dr. Hughes's testimony, finding it stayed within the court's Daubert ruling and that the risk of unfair prejudice did not substantially outweigh its probative value.Open in transcript →
Quote“So with that, the motion to strike is denied.”— Arun SubramanianThe court formally denied the defense challenge to Dr. Hughes's testimony.Open in transcript →

Day 20

Day 23

Day 24

ProceduralMistrial and Evidentiary Motions Rulings2highlightsMentioned

Summary

The court denied the mistrial and evidentiary motions, declined to recall Dr. Hughes, and received defense preservation requests concerning alleged false testimony, a juror, and later Rule 29 issues.

Mentioned in this proceeding.

Highlights (2)

rulingThe court denied motions to strike GX-E-331-FR and HR and denied the government's request to recall Dr. Hughes, concluding that additional expert testimony was unnecessary and could prejudice the defense.Open in transcript →
Quote“Under these circumstances, permitting the government to recall Dr. Hughes, an atypical step that might signal to the jury that her testimony is of elevated significance, is unnecessary and would potentially prejudice the defense”— Arun SubramanianThe court explained why it would not permit the government to recall its expert witness.Open in transcript →

Day 36