Sean Kent

And two, going back the other way, when they're protected in their name and identity, it almost shows the jury that we're protecting that person, meaning we believe what they said before they ever got on the stand. Because why would you protect somebody's identity if you don't believe them?

And two, going back the other way, when they're protected in their name and identity, it almost shows the jury that we're protecting that person, meaning we believe what they said before they ever got on the stand. Because why would you protect somebody's identity if you don't believe them?

What they would have to come up with is they'd have to come up with some past background fact goes specifically to the defense. Where you worked is specific for the jury to know. What your name is, if you were tied into another witness, you know, something that it has to be so specific and it's just not there.

What they would have to come up with is they'd have to come up with some past background fact goes specifically to the defense. Where you worked is specific for the jury to know. What your name is, if you were tied into another witness, you know, something that it has to be so specific and it's just not there.

What they would have to come up with is they'd have to come up with some past background fact goes specifically to the defense. Where you worked is specific for the jury to know. What your name is, if you were tied into another witness, you know, something that it has to be so specific and it's just not there.

So what I just gave you is the argument that's going to be made and the argument that's going to be shut down because it's the argument that's always made and it's always shut down.

So what I just gave you is the argument that's going to be made and the argument that's going to be shut down because it's the argument that's always made and it's always shut down.

So what I just gave you is the argument that's going to be made and the argument that's going to be shut down because it's the argument that's always made and it's always shut down.

You'll hear it a lot as it gets closer to the trial. You hear the judge has got to do a probative versus prejudicial balancing test. And it literally is a balancing test. And what he's trying to figure out is probative, meaning does the jury need to have it to reach a decision versus how prejudicial that information could be.

You'll hear it a lot as it gets closer to the trial. You hear the judge has got to do a probative versus prejudicial balancing test. And it literally is a balancing test. And what he's trying to figure out is probative, meaning does the jury need to have it to reach a decision versus how prejudicial that information could be.

You'll hear it a lot as it gets closer to the trial. You hear the judge has got to do a probative versus prejudicial balancing test. And it literally is a balancing test. And what he's trying to figure out is probative, meaning does the jury need to have it to reach a decision versus how prejudicial that information could be.

So it might be necessary because everything's necessary because you want to show every part of who Sean Combs is. Every part, because it's a trial. But showing some of his stuff is so prejudiced, the jury will not be able to unhear it. And that's what the defense is saying. Their argument is going to be he's just not a good person. That's it.

So it might be necessary because everything's necessary because you want to show every part of who Sean Combs is. Every part, because it's a trial. But showing some of his stuff is so prejudiced, the jury will not be able to unhear it. And that's what the defense is saying. Their argument is going to be he's just not a good person. That's it.

So it might be necessary because everything's necessary because you want to show every part of who Sean Combs is. Every part, because it's a trial. But showing some of his stuff is so prejudiced, the jury will not be able to unhear it. And that's what the defense is saying. Their argument is going to be he's just not a good person. That's it.

Whatever we want to believe it or not, that is the prosecution's case in a nutshell. And how much do we get to he cheated on his third grade math test? That might be probative because he's a cheater. But how prejudicial is that to bring something up like that? And the judge is like, well, that's not that big of a deal.

Whatever we want to believe it or not, that is the prosecution's case in a nutshell. And how much do we get to he cheated on his third grade math test? That might be probative because he's a cheater. But how prejudicial is that to bring something up like that? And the judge is like, well, that's not that big of a deal.

Whatever we want to believe it or not, that is the prosecution's case in a nutshell. And how much do we get to he cheated on his third grade math test? That might be probative because he's a cheater. But how prejudicial is that to bring something up like that? And the judge is like, well, that's not that big of a deal.

Well, if the allegations are that he sexually assaulted a girl in the fifth grade, Man, that could be probative, but that's so prejudicial because it has nothing to do with these charges. And that's what the defense is saying. The defense is saying he's not charged with sexual assault. Why are you bringing all this sexual assault information?

Well, if the allegations are that he sexually assaulted a girl in the fifth grade, Man, that could be probative, but that's so prejudicial because it has nothing to do with these charges. And that's what the defense is saying. The defense is saying he's not charged with sexual assault. Why are you bringing all this sexual assault information?

Well, if the allegations are that he sexually assaulted a girl in the fifth grade, Man, that could be probative, but that's so prejudicial because it has nothing to do with these charges. And that's what the defense is saying. The defense is saying he's not charged with sexual assault. Why are you bringing all this sexual assault information?