Wait, Nore went to Turkey and got with Tory Lanez' guy for a new hairline
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Wait, more went to Turkey and got with Tory Lanez' guy for a new hairline


I mean everybody already seen it.![]()
CNN Destroys Video of Diddy Beating Cassie, Diddy's Lawyers Claim
Bombshell in the Diddy prosecution ... CNN destroyed the only known copy of the 2016 video in which Diddy is seen beating Cassie in the hallway of an L.A. hotel ... this according to new court documents.www.tmz.com
![]()
Cassie's Lawyer Calls Diddy's Claim the Beating Tape Was Doctored BS
Cassie Ventura's lawyer is calling BS on Diddy's claim that the video of him beating her up in a hotel hallway is edited ... and, her attorney says he's sure the footage will be admitted into evidence.www.tmz.com
That shit is on the interwebs. Easy to find.I mean everybody already seen it.
Too Late.
The question is whether it will be admitted in front of the jury. I believe they have a good chance of keeping it out.I mean everybody already seen it.
Too Late.
On what basis?The question is whether it will be admitted in front of the jury. I believe they have a good chance of keeping it out.
On what basis?
That's a nice scenario but it really isn't how it is likely to go down. The Court might order them to play an unaltered version, but I would not bet on it being excluded. When you are a criminal defendant, as a practical matter anything you say or do that hurts you is going to be admitted, with few exceptions. Don't forget that this judge wouldn't even set a bail amount with conditions. Believe me, I wish the system was different. We'll see what happens though.As a defendant I am entitled to review the evidence against me. It has been stated the video has been altered and/or edited and the original destroyed. I am entitled to see the original video so I know in what ways it was changed and altered. Maybe it was edited to make it look worse, who knows? But that is the point. I am absolutely entitled to review the original unaltered video before an edited version is introduced in court against me.
When introducing evidence in court, the proponent of the evidence is responsible for laying a foundation by asking appropriate questions of the person used to enter the evidence indicating the evidence should be admitted. Of course that foundation must be laid prior to the evidence being presented to the jury...one question for certain types of evidence, including videos is "does the video you are holding fairly and accurately depict the events it purports to depict as they happened on that day?" The answer will be 'no'. They will also be asked if the original video had been changed or altered in any way. That answer will be 'yes'. At this point I would ask the court to order the original be produced and when they can't do that I would object to the admission of an edited and altered video without me and my client having the opportunity to view the original.
Bail is completely different. Especially in Federal court. You can’t compare the two. Also, you are completely wrong about anything a defendant saying being admitted against you. There is such a thing as the fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches of seizures. There’s such a thing as a sixth amendment right to counsel. Why do you think Miranda warnings are read to people? If a confession is Received that violates any of those constitutional protections then that evidence is not admitted in court. The entry of evidence has rules. It’s called the rules of federal evidence.That's a nice scenario but it really isn't how it is likely to go down. The Court might order them to play an unaltered version, but I would not bet on it being excluded. When you are a criminal defendant, as a practical matter anything you say or do that hurts you is going to be admitted, with few exceptions. Don't forget that this judge wouldn't even set a bail amount with conditions. Believe me, I wish the system was different. We'll see what happens though.
This gonna be long, so no offense taken if Colin Powell rules are followed.Bail is completely different. Especially in Federal court. You can’t compare the two. Also, you are completely wrong about anything a defendant saying being admitted against you. There is such a thing as the fourth amendment right to be free from unlawful searches of seizures. There’s such a thing as a sixth amendment right to counsel. Why do you think Miranda warnings are read to people? If a confession is Received that violates any of those constitutional protections then that evidence is not admitted in court. The entry of evidence has rules. It’s called the rules of federal evidence.
Where are they going to get the unaltered version if it’s been destroyed?
This gonna be long, so no offense taken if Colin Powell rules are followed.
Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I litigate this shit every day. Every. Goddamn. Day. The system is not a vending machine where you put a coin in, and get the result you deserve. There are more exceptions to the 4th amendment and Miranda than you or I could count, and how they are interpreted is within the sole discretion of the judge. That is why I referred to the bail ruling, because if you can't get a fair shake on bail (which Diddy didn't) you can pretty much expect not to win any close calls on any other issues.
As for anything a defendant says being admissible against him, wake up my brother. Those things are called "admissions" and you can bet your ass that every single one will be admitted, unless you have incontrovertable evidence of torture or the statement being outside of Miranda with no exception. Don't take my word for it. Google the shit. Federal rule of evidence 801.
That said, I am glad you are aware that you do have 4th Amendment rights and Miranda rights. The only proper response to any questions from a cop is
"Am I free to leave?"
If the answer is yes, then leave. If not, shut the fuck up, and we don't have to argue about the "admissions" issue.
Are you currently practicing law?I don't take anything you say as being a jerk...but I was licensed by the State Bar of Texas in 1990 and prosecuted my first year practicing (1991) and have been trying cases every since a baby lawyer, including trying federal criminal cases. I am considered a trial lawyer and the essence of being a trial lawyer is the mastery of evidence. I indicated that they had a very good argument for keeping it out; I never said it was automatic. I persist in that assertion, but fully understand there are areas that fall within the court's discretion.
I don't have to google anything....Fed Rule 801 is the rule against hearsay. That is not what we are talking about. The rule we are talking about is the rule of optional completeness at the very least and simply not being able to lay the foundation for the introduction of a video.
It appears the question may be moot, because there are rumblings that the original video is available, and if it is, here are the foundational questions for offering and having a video admitted as evidence:
I don't mean to be a jerk either, but this is basic evidence 101: (I added some comments)
- "Do you recognize what has been marked for identification as Exhibit A?"
- "What is it?"
- "How do you recognize it?"
- "Is it true and accurate?"
- "Did you witness the events depicted in the video?" (not necessary if the basis of the foundation is the recording equipment operating properly)
- "Is this a fair and accurate representation of what you witnessed?" (see above)
- "Was the video recording made on a device capable of making an accurate recording?"
- "Have you provided the original video or an unaltered copy of the original video for us today?" (crucial to the admission of the evidence regardless of whether the above offer is based on personal observation confirming that the video accurately depicts the events that were witnessed OR whether the offer is based on the equipment operating correctly as in video of and incident in a hotel next to the elevator)
- "Is the copy you provided a digital copy of the video for admission as an exhibit in court?"
- "On what day and time was this video recording made?"
- "Was the camera functioning properly at the time of the recording?"
- "Have any parts of the video been deleted or altered?" (again, crucial to laying a proper foundation)
- "Is this video relevant to the issues in this case?"
As you can see, there are questions that will have to be answered in a way that the sponsor of the evidence can't lay a proper foundation if the original is in fact missing.
If I was arguing for the government, then I would argue that we provided what we had, and since we were not responsible for lost original, then we had no control over that and therefor the evidence should be admitted.
The defense should then come back with the rule of optional completeness....I am sure you know what that is.
At any rate, in my humble opinion, it would be ineffective assistance of counsel to not make the objection and back it up with caselaw....because I can guarantee case law on the issue exists.
Yes. I am 60 years old. I know that for most people onBGOL that’s old and decrepit, but in the area of law many trial lawyers litigate cases as well into their 70s. I have had my own office for a little over 30 years. I still practice criminal law but probably do about 40% Personal Injury trial.Are you currently practicing law?
Being in a stressful environment with minimal sunlight and no access to beauty products has exposed Diddy's decades of partying and neglecting self-care.