The Expert Witness Report Of Bernard J. Jansen In Support Of Virginia Roberts (Part 3)

In this filing, the government submits its proposed jury instructions, also known as “requests to charge,” ahead of Sean Combs’ upcoming trial. These instructions lay out how the jury should interpret the law as it applies to the charges in the Third Superseding Indictment, including conspiracy, racketeering (RICO), drug trafficking, sex trafficking, and related offenses. The government requests standard instructions on presumption of innocence, burden of proof, credibility of witnesses (including cooperating witnesses and law enforcement), and the meaning of reasonable doubt. Critically, it also asks the court to include specific legal definitions tied to each alleged crime—for example, the elements of a RICO enterprise and the requirements for proving participation in a drug distribution conspiracy.Furthermore, the government includes instructions regarding the consideration of co-conspirator statements, evidence of prior bad acts, and accomplice testimony, reflecting the sensitive and complex nature of the allegations against Combs. The proposed charges emphasize that the jury must evaluate the case based solely on the evidence presented, without speculation or bias, and that guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. These instructions, if accepted by the judge, will guide the jury through the legal standards necessary to determine whether Combs is guilty on any or all of the multiple felony counts he faces. The submission underscores the government's intent to secure clear, legally sound guidance for the jury in what is expected to be a high-profile and multifaceted trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.275.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this April 29, 2025 order, Judge John C. Judge denies Bryan Kohberger’s motion to strike the death penalty from the case and his accompanying request to implement alternative trial procedures based on that removal. Kohberger’s defense had argued that the State’s intent to seek the death penalty was flawed due to alleged constitutional and procedural defects, including vague statutory language, the burden imposed on the defense, and the manner in which aggravating factors were presented. However, the court rejected these claims, finding that Idaho’s death penalty procedures are legally sound and do not warrant dismissal at this stage. Judge Judge emphasized that many of the defense’s arguments are better suited for consideration after the trial, during the sentencing phase or through appellate review if a conviction occurs.Additionally, the court declined to adopt the defense’s suggested modifications to trial procedures, such as a bifurcated guilt-and-sentencing structure or adjustments to jury selection criteria. Judge Judge ruled that existing Idaho criminal procedures provide sufficient due process and that there is no legal basis to preemptively alter them based solely on the possibility of a capital sentence. The ruling solidifies the prosecution’s ability to pursue the death penalty against Kohberger, keeping capital punishment on the table if he is convicted of the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students.to contact me:[email protected]:042925+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Strike+Death+Penalty+and+Adopt+other+Necessary+Procedures.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In this April 29, 2025 order, Judge John C. Judge denies Bryan Kohberger’s motion to strike the death penalty from the case and his accompanying request to implement alternative trial procedures based on that removal. Kohberger’s defense had argued that the State’s intent to seek the death penalty was flawed due to alleged constitutional and procedural defects, including vague statutory language, the burden imposed on the defense, and the manner in which aggravating factors were presented. However, the court rejected these claims, finding that Idaho’s death penalty procedures are legally sound and do not warrant dismissal at this stage. Judge Judge emphasized that many of the defense’s arguments are better suited for consideration after the trial, during the sentencing phase or through appellate review if a conviction occurs.Additionally, the court declined to adopt the defense’s suggested modifications to trial procedures, such as a bifurcated guilt-and-sentencing structure or adjustments to jury selection criteria. Judge Judge ruled that existing Idaho criminal procedures provide sufficient due process and that there is no legal basis to preemptively alter them based solely on the possibility of a capital sentence. The ruling solidifies the prosecution’s ability to pursue the death penalty against Kohberger, keeping capital punishment on the table if he is convicted of the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students.to contact me:[email protected]:042925+Order+on+Defendants+Motion+to+Strike+Death+Penalty+and+Adopt+other+Necessary+Procedures.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

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:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.213.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States federal law enacted in 1970 that provides for extended criminal penalties and a civil cause of action for acts performed as part of an ongoing criminal organization.Under RICO, individuals and organizations can be charged with racketeering if they are found to have engaged in a pattern of illegal activity, such as bribery, extortion, fraud, or trafficking. A "pattern of racketeering activity" requires at least two acts of racketeering within a ten-year period.To take down a human trafficking network using RICO, law enforcement agencies would typically investigate the network's operations, identify key individuals involved, gather evidence of their illegal activities, and establish a pattern of racketeering. This evidence could include financial transactions, communications, witness testimony, and physical evidence linking the individuals to the trafficking activities.Once the evidence is compiled, prosecutors can bring RICO charges against the leaders and members of the trafficking network. If convicted, they could face significant criminal penalties, including imprisonment and forfeiture of assets.Additionally, RICO allows victims of the trafficking network to file civil lawsuits against the perpetrators, seeking damages for the harm they have suffered. This can provide victims with a means of seeking justice and compensation for their ordeal.In this episode we get some confirmation that there are witnesses cooperating with the federal government as far as their RICO investigation goes, and we also get more evidence that the timeline of the Lil Rod suit and the eventual raid was not coincidence, but in fact, connected.  We also get a look at the list of allegations against Puffy over the past few years.  (commercial at 14:10)to contact me:[email protected]:Sean 'Diddy' Combs' alleged victims 'talking a lot,' feds claim 'concrete, detailed, explicit allegations of sex trafficking' (nypost.com)Diddy raided: Here are all the allegations made against Sean Combs | The IndependentBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Our journey into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's orginization continues in this episode as we begin taking a look at Virignia Roberts second amended and unredacted response to Maxwell's first supplemental discovery request.(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:[email protected]:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Our journey into the sewers of Jeffrey Epstein's orginization continues in this episode as we begin taking a look at Virignia Roberts second amended and unredacted response to Maxwell's first supplemental discovery request.(commercial at 8:46)to contact me:[email protected]:epstein-documents-943-pages - DocumentCloudBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Our crawl through the sewer known as the Epstein criminal enterprise continues in this episode as we now pivot towards the Expert witness report of Bernard J. Janson in support of Virginia Roberts and her defamation claim. (commercial at 8:31)to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Our crawl through the sewer known as the Epstein criminal enterprise continues in this episode as we now pivot towards the Expert witness report of Bernard J. Janson in support of Virginia Roberts and her defamation claim. (commercial at 8:31)to contact me:[email protected]:Epstein-Docs.pdf (documentcloud.org)Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.