Dawn Hughes

“intimate partner violence is a pattern of manipulation, fear, and coercive control that happens within an intimate relationship”

Hughes's foundational definition of IPV, establishing the conceptual framework she applies to the Depp-Heard relationship throughout her testimony.

“when you pair sort of this violent dynamic, physical violence, sexual violence, with love and attachment, it creates a trauma bond.”

Explains the psychological mechanism—trauma bonding—that Hughes uses to account for why Heard remained in the relationship despite reported abuse.

“Ms. Heard's report of intimate partner violence, and the records that I reviewed, is consistent with what we know in the field about intimate partner violence, characterized by physical violence, psychological aggression, sexual violence, coercive control, and surveillance behaviors.”

Hughes's primary expert opinion, the central conclusion her entire direct examination builds toward and the foundation for Heard's defense.

“that is a very inaccurate way to describe that scale and that test.”

Hughes's direct rebuttal of Dr. Curry's malingering characterization, framing Curry's ATR interpretation as a methodological error rather than a legitimate finding.

“And this is the one thing that women are always afraid of, that no one's going to believe them.”

Hughes explains why the Waldman statement calling Heard's sexual violence a hoax was the most psychologically damaging—it activated a fear universal among sexual violence survivors.

“I'm being paid $500 an hour.”

Established Hughes's financial interest in the case after her deposition had incorrectly reflected $100/hour, supporting Dennison's bias challenge.

“Yes, it says "hasta la muerte," until death.”

Hughes confirmed the inscription on the knife Heard gifted Depp, allowing Dennison to juxtapose a lethality-risk framework with Heard's choice of that phrase for a gift to the alleged abuser.

“The phraseology is that Mr. Depp told her the only way out of this relationship is death.”

Hughes provides Heard's reported context for the knife's inscription, grounding it in a documented therapist record rather than an affectionate gesture.

“I don't have any changes to my opinions that I gave yesterday.”

Hughes's closing affirmation that cross-examination did not undermine her core conclusions on IPV and PTSD.

“That score, the one that's elevated, that she's talking about that percentile rank, has a raw score. Amber's raw score is a 10, the cutoff score is a 15. She's nowhere near that level of exaggerated symptoms where I can't further look at that test.”

Directly refutes Curry's 98th-percentile claim on the TSI-2 by citing the instrument's own manual and raw score threshold, framing Curry as unqualified to interpret the test.

“Dr. Curry did not independently administer -- measure malingering, and there are other ones that she could have done to augment her evaluation.”

Turns a methodology critique back on Curry by pointing out Curry administered no independent malingering measure of her own.

“On this measure, Amber Heard scored in a moderate range. She did not overexaggerate on this test. She could have said no, mild, moderate, severe, and extreme. All of hers were either 2s, or 1s, or 0s.”

Rebuts the claim that Heard's CAPS-5 results reflected extreme or fabricated symptom endorsement, instead characterizing them as clinically moderate.

“I vehemently disagree with that. As I stated to you, over 29 hours and 12 psychological tests and reviewing a slew of documents in this case, most importantly, therapy records and interview, collateral interviews with therapists, using all that data, that is what a solid forensic methodological exam looks like.”

Hughes's most emphatic defense of her evaluation, countering Curry's suggestion that her opinions were opinion-based rather than methodologically grounded.

“It does say that, yes.”

Hughes concedes the PCL-5 manual itself states the instrument should not be used as a standalone diagnostic tool, directly supporting Dennison's attack on her pre-CAPS-5 diagnosis.

“I made my diagnosis during clinical interviewing and 11 other psychological tests that supported diagnosis of PTSD and symptomatology consistent with PTSD.”

Hughes's primary defense of diagnosing before the CAPS-5: that clinical interviewing and multiple tests together were sufficient.

“And I oriented her to not limit herself to the last year, to get an accurate assessment of the violence and abuse that she experienced in the relationship.”

Hughes's explanation for deviating from the CTS-2 one-year timeframe, subsequently struck by the court on Dennison's objection.

“We talked about this before, Mr. Dennison, I had 88 pages of notes of what happened. It would have been redundant to put it there.”

Hughes's defense for leaving CAPS-5 frequency blanks empty, citing extensive supplemental notes as a substitute for standardized field completion.

“the more successive traumas that you have, the greater likelihood that somebody is going to have psychological consequences and symptomatology as a result”

Hughes frames cumulative IPV exposure as clinically meaningful, justifying her decision to assess trauma across the full length of the Depp-Heard relationship rather than a fixed window.

“In the 88 pages were many of the documented incidents of intimate partner violence.”

Hughes characterizes her supplemental notes as a substantive clinical record of IPV incidents, directly countering the cross-examination implication that blank test fields indicated methodological gaps.

“when they're used in research, that means the document stands alone”

Hughes articulates the core distinction Bredehoft sought to establish: blank CAPS-5 fields are a research-scoring concern, not a flaw in a clinical evaluation supported by extensive narrative notes.