This ‘Diddy’ expert witness also testified in the R. Kelly and Keith Raniere trials and in the Johnny Depp defamation case. Here’s why she took the stand

On cross-examination of psychologist Dawn Hughes in the federal racketeering and sex-trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, the defense highlighted that she has been retained hundreds of times as an expert in court cases since 1998. “Now, over all of those years and all of those retentions as an expert, isn’t it a fact that you have never come into court, taken the witness stand, and testified in the defense of a man accused of a sex crime?” defense attorney Jonathan Bach asked. “That’s correct,” Hughes said. “I don’t evaluate offenders.” At another point, Bach tried to chip away at her credibility, asking … “today most of your income comes from working on court-related matters as an expert, correct?” “Today meaning Wednesday?” Hughes said. The clinical and forensic psychologist then responded that 60% of her income derives from courtroom testimony. Hughes testified earlier that she was being paid $600 an hour for her work and $6,000 for a day of testimony. She said there was no additional payment based on the outcome of the trial. Hughes’ testimony has been instrumental in multiple racketeering and sex-trafficking trials, including Nxivm founder Keith Raniere and singer R. Kelly. She also testified as an expert witness in the civil case between Johnny Depp and Amber Heard. “Hughes has proven that she is unintimidated and unflappable in these high-profile cases,” Lisa Fontes, a professor and expert on intimate partner violence and coercive control, said via email. “She holds her ground on the stand.” Mark Lesko, a former federal prosecutor who put Hughes on the stand in the Raniere trial, called her, “the expert’s expert.” “Frankly, she’s just the best out there,” Lesko said. Hughes coherently explains to jurors why the accusers did not give consent, which directly undercuts the typical core defense strategy, Lesko said. “She does it, you know, in a way that communicates these complicated psychological issues in layperson terms that a jury can understand,” he said. “She’s particularly effective at withstanding very aggressive cross-examination by defense attorneys. I’ve seen her hold her own with the best criminal defense attorneys in the country.” She testified as a ‘blind expert’ The prosecution has argued Combs and some in his inner circle used threats, violence, drugs, bribery, arson, kidnapping and lies to coerce Cassie Ventura and another woman into participating in sex parties he called “Freak Offs” and to protect the music mogul’s reputation. Ventura testified that she did not want to participate in the “Freak Offs” but did so out of fear of physical abuse, threats of blackmail and her love for Combs, her boyfriend at the time. The defense has acknowledged Combs was violent with romantic partners and during opening statements said he had “a bit of a different sex life.” They also said that while Combs is “a very flawed individual,” he has not committed the alleged federal crimes. He has pleaded not guilty to racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted of the most serious charges, he could face up to life in prison. On Wednesday, Hughes said she was providing witness testimony as a “blind expert,” meaning she does not know anything about the players in the case but is testifying instead about domestic violence, rape, sexual assault and traumatic stress. She testified in general terms about the behavior of such victims as the prosecution sought to provide the jury with a broader understanding of last week’s testimony from Ventura, the government’s main witness. Hughes testified she has not assessed any accusers or witnesses in this case, nor has she interviewed anyone connected to the case. She said she had seen some press coverage but not what’s been happening in court. She sought to contextualize Ventura’s behavior during her long relationship with Combs. Hughes told jurors it’s common for victims to stay in abusive relationships and testified that perpetrators often use several abusive methods besides physical violence to make victims feel trapped. “It’s about the power and control that the abuser has over the victim,” she said. A victim’s financial dependence on an abuser plays an important role in an accuser staying in an abusive situation, she said. “If you don’t have access to tangible resources, money or an apartment, you are left with a feeling of, ‘Where am I going to go? Am I stuck here?’ And that makes it very difficult to leave,” she said. In addition, sexual abuse can make it difficult for a victim to seek help to leave an abusive relationship, she testified. “They experience a tremendous amount of shame, humiliation, degradation,” Hughes said. “They don’t want to talk about it. They don’t even want to think about it in their own brain.” Testimony focuses on ‘abuse dynamic’ Fontes said Hughes’ testimony is crucial in helping jurors understand, “Why would someone stick around or return to someone who has abused them so cruelly? Why would Ventura send loving notes to her abuser?” “Those of us who work in this field know the answers to those questions,” Fontes said. “Hughes will explain how pleasing and appeasing an abuser is part of the abuse dynamic. These are efforts to de-escalate situations. To try to get on or stay on his good side.” In previous high-profile cases, Fontes said, Hughes was able to show jurors “how an abuser could use their fame, power, and money to influence a victim and make her feel trapped.” “She described emotional manipulation. She explained why there is often a delay in a victim’s disclosure of abuse,” Fontes said. “Interpersonal dynamics are complex. It’s easy for juries to be confused by the arguments. It’s also easy for juries to be swayed by their emotions,” she added. “An expert witness can provide a framework for jurors to think about the case and not simply react emotionally. An expert witness helps jurors move from simply feeling to understanding. An effective expert witness may also help shape how jurors feel.” Most jurors are unfamiliar with the tactics of control, manipulation and abuse that abusers consistently use, Fontes said. “Jurors also may think that a victim of domestic and sexual violence should look a certain way. For instance, that she should always be crying and depressed,” she said. “Cassie Ventura is a beautiful and glamorous woman. She may not fit jurors’ expectations for a victim of domestic violence. Hughes can help jurors see that domestic violence victims can come from all walks of life.” ‘Cycle of violence is difficult to understand’ On the stand, Hughes testified about the “trauma bond” that can develop between abusers and their victims. “We know that in these types of relationships there is almost always love and attention and attraction and companionship, and it’s those positive feelings that when they get paired with the violence and the abuse make it very difficult for the victim to see their way out,” Hughes told the jury. “It creates an intense psychological bond, an attachment with their abuser that makes it difficult for them to leave.” Hughes, who has an independent practice in New York, specializes in the assessment and treatment of interpersonal violence, traumatic stress and the anxiety disorders, according to her website. She is also a clinical assistant professor of psychology at New York Presbyterian Hospital-Weill Cornell Medical College. CNN has reached out to Hughes for comment. Attorney Elaine Charlson Bredehoft said testimony from experts like Hughes is necessary because “there are so many myths that continue to be perpetuated about victims of domestic violence and sexual abuse.” “An expert in this field can help explain the complex dynamics and the psychological hold the perpetrator has on his victim, and how the love and the ups and downs actually create unusual bonds,” she said. “The cycle of violence is difficult to understand if someone has never experienced it.” Perpetrators are often popular, charming, well-liked and on best behavior in public, Bredehoft said. “So it is difficult to believe they are capable of such horrific behavior behind closed doors. Where there is a celebrity or sports figure who has an adoring fan base, those fans do not want to believe their first instinct to adore this person was wrong. They do not want to believe that person would really have a violent side, especially against a woman or someone they love.”