Dawn Hughes — Cross/Redirect
1,516 linesCOURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning. If I could have counsel approach for a moment, please.
THE COURT: This new PR guy, I don't know who he is, but he just came through the back and he was extremely disrespectful to my sheriffs. To my captain, to my lieutenant. Very disrespectful because I told him he can't have his phone out. One of the deputies said he saw him with his phone out. Very disrespectful. I don't want him coming back.
THE COURT: Ms. Barlow does not come through security. I thought I made myself very clear about that. She doesn't come through the back. Ms. Barlow came through the back with Ms. Heard this morning.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Oh, I didn't know.
THE COURT: I don't care if you didn't I know Ms. Bredehoft This is your responsibility From now on only Ms. Heard her assistant and the insurance attorney comes back to the back Period If it happens again I won't have anymore come to the back Understood
MS. BREDEHOFT: Completely understood, Your Honor. I apologize.
THE COURT: I don't know his name, but he's very close to getting kicked out of my courtroom If you want to let everyone know right now. I'm very upset about that. Nobody disrespects my sheriffs.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I totally agree. Do you want me to go talk to him now?
THE COURT: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Do we have anything else?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor may recall that we talked about --
THE COURT: No. She wasn't supposed to come in the back way.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She has been barred.
THE COURT: Then she couldn't have come.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm with you completely, Your Honor. I completely understand where you are coming from.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So this is the rough transcript. Your Honor may remember Mr. Dennison said that the witness had testified about IPV with prior relationships. And the actual testimony she gave, and I've highlighted them in all of our copies, is she was talking about personality disorder. She said -- I'll let Your Honor read.
THE COURT: "Her emotional instability, her affect dysregulation or her fear of abandonment is only occurring in the relationship with Mr. Depp, and we don't have evidence of it before and we don't have evidence of it after."
MS. BREDEHOFT: Nothing about IPV. And then, Your Honor, I highlighted page 246. This is where it starts. This is where Mr. Dennison says, I think the witness just said that she saw no prior evidence of intimate partner violence. And then he argues that that implicates the prior arrest of Ms. Heard because the person involved, et cetera.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then he talked about the notes. And your Honor may recall, both Your Honor and I said I don't recall her testifying to that.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And she didn't. And, in fact, she mentions nothing of it in her disclosure. She did not testify to any of that. She did not -- it doesn't come up in her deposition, in her 8-hour deposition.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So I think that's incorrect. I don't think she's opened the door I 1 and I don't think you can ask that question.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, it is :3 indirectly in her own notes. But with respect to this testimony, these are the symptoms that she has testified to relative to IPV. These are the emotional instability, dysregulation, fear of abandonment, those are all the symptoms she was Is talking about at nauseam with the assistance of her notes. That's exactly what we're talking
MR. DENNISON: 10 about.
THE COURT: I think I'm -- again, I think I'm just going to stay with what I said yesterday. You can ask that initial question about whether or not --
MR. DENNISON: I wrote down your question. We have it verbatim
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The question I was going to look at the question so I understand.
THE COURT: She wants to make sure everybody is on the same page. question? What is the
MR. DENNISON: I have it in my notes. I will have to find it in my notes.
THE COURT: I understand, Mr. Dennison.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So, "I'm going to allow him to ask her that question."
THE COURT: What page are you on?
MR. DENNISON: "Did you say on direct that you saw no previous inter-partner violence, just yes or no?"
THE COURT: That's it. We'll just go with that.
MR. DENNISON: Before we move out of your face, I'm sorry.
THE COURT: That's okay.
MR. DENNISON: I just want to try to figure out what we're doing with notes. Is this witness coming back up to our cross-examination --
THE COURT: Yeah. We can't have her have her notes. We understand that, right? I mean, she can't refer to her notes unless she asks to do it. It appears yesterday, even when I was watching her, she was still using her notes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I've always bad experts bring their notes up there.
THE COURT: Bringing them is one thing. Put them to the side and have them face down.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We'll tell her to make sure to put them face down, and if she needs to refer to them --
THE COURT: No, no.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What should she do?
THE COURT: I don't think she should bring them to the witness stand, at all. That way she won't have that urge, I think, maybe. That'll be better. And then if she thinks she needs to refresh her recollection, she can ask Mr. Dennison and then maybe her notes can be retrieved for that one question.
THE COURT: Is that okay?
MR. DENNISON: I have a significant number of questions for her, but I don't think it's going to be anything close to a memory test.
THE COURT: Okay. So just don't have them
MS. BREDEHOFT: May I tell her that?
THE COURT: You have a few tilings you have to tell some different people, Ms. Bredehoft. I'm sorry, I'm giving you homework, but I need to get that done. It's totally upsetting.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I totally agree. I feel exactly the way Your Honor does. I totally respect Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: One more thing as long as we're up here. We think there's going to be -- Ms. Heard is going to be on after Dawn Hughes.
THE COURT: Which is after lunchtime?
MS. BREDEHOFT: We anticipate there's going to be some significant hearsay exceptions to that because they have been accusing her of falsifying prior testimony. So we prepared a brief, and I just want to give it to Your Honor now.
THE COURT: Okay so we can start I dealing with the issues
MS. BREDEHOFT: Right. We think there are some cases that are pretty on point to this.
THE COURT: We'll take a look at it. l I'll take a look at it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Your Honor.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Are we ready 112 for the jury, then?
MR. DENNISON: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Wait. No, no, no. Not yet. I put my microphone on. Sorry, Judy. Are we ready for the jury?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, Your Honor.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Appreciate it.
THE COURT: Yes.
THE COURT: All right. Good morning, ladies and gentlemen! All right. Dr. Hughes, if you could come back to the stand, please.
THE COURT: Thank you.
THE WITNESS: Good morning.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. DENNISON: Good morning, Dr. Hughes. I'm Wayne Dennison. We haven't met before.
DR. HUGHES: No. Good morning.
MR. DENNISON: You testified yesterday that you have to give careful attention to gendered stereotypes, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct
MR. DENNISON: When you're talking about intimate partner violence, you have to pay attention to gendered stereotypes.
MR. DENNISON: And during your testimony you, in fact, paid attention to gendered stereotypes, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I'm not sure what you mean.
MR. DENNISON: Well, you said we were going to have to pay attention to gendered stereotypes. And then you testified at length, where you referenced both men and women. You paid attention to those stereotypes during the course of your testimony, correct?
DR. HUGHES: What I was saying was you have to pay attention to gendered stereotypes when you're conducting these evaluations. You can't assume all the time that the male is the perpetrator and the female is the victim. You have to go into the evaluation understanding that the male also could be the victim of intimate partner violence.
MR. DENNISON: In fact, you're aware that there are large-scale studies that do say that IPV towards males does exist?
DR. HUGHES: Of course.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. And every time you referred to I the characteristic of a "victim" of intimate partner violence yesterday, you used the pronouns "she" or "her," didn't you?
DR. HUGHES: I was using the she and her pronouns in ,5 this case because my determination was, as I stated, that Ms. Heard was the victim of intimate partner violence. That is why I was using the she/her pronouns.
MR. DENNISON: You, in fact, said women get into a relationship for all the right reasons. That's what you said, the woman gets I ! 12 into the relationship for all the right reasons. Then you say difficult for her -- for a victim to extricate herself. You go on to say that she can and she should; over and over you used "she," right?
DR. HUGHES: I believe, in that case, I did because I was referencing this case, where I found Ms. Heard to be the victim of intimate partner violence. It doesn't mean that men don't get into the relationship for all the right reasons too. I believe they do.
MR. DENNISON: Nearly every time you referenced "the perpetrator" of IPV, you used he or him, didn't you?
DR. HUGHES: And that goes back to the same reasoning, as I'm describing my understanding of my evaluation in this matter. Of course, men can be perpetrators and victims of intimate partner violence. That's well-established in the research, and that's well-established in my clinical practices as well;
MR. DENNISON: Isn't the reason that you used the ! pronouns that you did, that you almost always testify on behalf of a woman? ,14
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: You don't even remember the last time you testified on behalf of a man.
DR. HUGHES: Well, I don't testify on behalf of someone, I testify as to the results of my evaluation. I frequently treat and assess male victims of childhood sexual abuse who are coming into treatment for abuse by their Boy Scouts leader, by their coach, by their teacher, by a trusted adult. I see them in therapy, I see them in forensic matters, in criminal cases. So I evaluate men all the time.
MR. DENNISON: I didn't ask you about treatment. I asked you about testimony.
MR. DENNISON: You broke up your practice between treatment and testimony. I'm not asking you about treatment.
MR. DENNISON: When is the last time you testified on behalf of a man?
DR. HUGHES: I testified recently in a deposition on behalf of a man who was traumatized because he was wrongly convicted.
MR. DENNISON: At the time of your deposition, six weeks ago, you couldn't remember a single time you had testified on behalf of a man?
DR. HUGHES: I testified, in my deposition, that I testified in a case of a man who was wrongly convicted, about 20 years, and suffered physical and sexual violence in prison. And I detailed the traumatic effect that happened on that gentleman.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Why don't we take a look at your deposition.
DR. HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: I made two copies.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes.
DR. HUGHES: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Transcript of the deposition that you gave March 28th, 2022, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Let's go to page 77. Let's look at -- page 70, line 8.
MR. DENNISON: "So you can't recall a single instance where you were hired by the attorney representing the male in an IPV matter, correct?"
DR. HUGHES: In an IPV matter. Not in a trauma matter or a child sexual abuse matter.
MR. DENNISON: So, that's the distinction. You don't have any recollection of ever testifying on behalf of a male in an IPV matter?
DR. HUGHES: As I stated yesterday, the very first case that I testified in was in a same-sex case intimate partner violence, where the man was the victim of another man. I routinely treat and assess same-sex couples where the female can be the perpetrator of another female, and the male can be the perpetrator or victim of his partner. •7
MR. DENNISON: So, let me get this. You testified in a case where one male is alleged to have engaged in an IPV against another male?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Okay. But that's the only one you remember?
DR. HUGHES: No. I've done this frequently. As you well know, most cases don't go to trial. I've worked on hundreds and hundreds of cases. You've limited the testimony. Many cases don't come to trial, but I've issued reports and worked on many cases of same-sex intimate partner violence where men are the victims.
MR. DENNISON: But I did ask you about testimony. And the question, your testimony, and the only testimony you remember is the same-sex couple, right?
DR. HUGHES: There were multiple same-sex couples that I believed I testified.
MR. DENNISON: That you testified in court, at trial?
DR. HUGHES: I believe, yes.
MR. DENNISON: But you didn't remember that in March?
DR. HUGHES: I did remember that in March.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. You're a professional witness, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: No? You make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year testifying in court, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Not testifying in court. I conduct thorough comprehensive psychological evaluations of individuals who are involved in a court case. The majority of those cases never show up in a courtroom. And half of my practice and half of my income is about my clinical work with people who are coming to me for therapy.
MR. DENNISON: I didn't ask you about the other half of your income. I'm asking you whether you made hundreds of thousands of dollars a year testifying as an expert witness in court?
DR. HUGHES: As you're phrasing that question, that's not correct. That would be the amount of income that I generate from my forensic practice. I testify, perhaps, maybe once or twice a year. Most of the work is done behind the scenes in evaluating individuals and issuing reports.
MR. DENNISON: But you'll agree with me that a big part of that practice is providing expert witness testimony?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: No? That's not a big part of your practice?
DR. HUGHES: If I testify twice a year, that's not a big part of my practice. All the other time is doing the work for the cases and evaluating the individuals and issuing reports.
MR. DENNISON: What percentage of work do you devote to forensic psychology?
DR. HUGHES: As I stated yesterday, I say half and half, clinical, half forensic, but I also have a substantial amount of time that I use in the professional activities and serving on professional boards.
MR. DENNISON: So, what portion of your practice do you provide expert witness services?
DR. HUGHES: I think you're using the "expert witness services" synonymous with the forensic psychology part of the practice.
DR. HUGHES: So, the forensic psychology practice, what I do here today, is one part of it, and it's a smaller part, as opposed to all the evaluations and individuals that I'm assessing.
MR. DENNISON: Your practice is successful enough that you maintain your offices on Madison Avenue in New York, correctly [sic]?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. I've had that office since 2005.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And you're sufficiently successful at your forensic work that you're able to perform unpaid work at a hospital, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. And I also do pro bono work as well.
MR. DENNISON: All right. In fact, you actually I instruct others on the use of expert testimony in court cases, correct?
DR. HUGHES: On the use and understanding trauma and violence abuse in the courtroom and how to - for advocates and people who could not have this level of training or experience. How to come into the courtroom and talk about very difficult issues of domestic violence, yes.
MR. DENNISON: Can we pull up PX 1241.
MR. DENNISON: Do you recognize that document?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, it looks like the front page of a PowerPoint presentation.
MR. DENNISON: And it's a PowerPoint presentation given by whom?
DR. HUGHES: By myself and Mary Ann Dutton, who is a very well-known and respected researcher and clinician in the area of domestic violence.
MR. DENNISON: And what's the topic of the PowerPoint that you're giving?
DR. HUGHES: "Expert Witness Testimony in Cases Involving Domestic Violence."
MR. DENNISON: Okay. And who did you give this presentation to?
DR. HUGHES: That was to the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women. That is an organization that provides legal services to women who have assaulted or killed their partners in self-defense, and mostly people who - these individuals, the women who are being seen in treatment through shelter-based programs or through advocates, and those are individuals who I don't really know how to come into the courtroom and talk, and that's what this presentation and training was for.
MR. DENNISON: I'm going to move PX 1241 into evidence.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. 1241 in I evidence. Do you want to publish it?
MR. DENNISON: Yeah, let's publish it to the jury, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Why don't we pull up PX 1242.
MR. DENNISON: Do you recognize this document?
DR. HUGHES: Yes. This also looks like a PowerPoint presentation that I gave.
MR. DENNISON: All right. What is the name of this PowerPoint presentation?
DR. HUGHES: This is called "The Use of Psychological Experts in Cases of Domestic Violence." It was presented to the Kings County Bar Association, which is in Brooklyn, and what this presentation talked about was some of the things that I talked to you all about yesterday, the myths and misconceptions in intimate partner violence, when women use force, what happens if they drop protective orders, how they present in court. And that's what this presentation was to attorneys at the bar association.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. But this is another presentation that you gave as to the use of psychological experts and you gave it to a bar association?
DR. HUGHES: Right. There were prosecutors and defense attorneys in attendance at that bar association.
MR. DENNISON: Right.
MR. DENNISON: Your deposition, you testified that you were going to be paid a hundred dollars an hour for your time in this case?
DR. HUGHES: I did not testify to that.
MR. DENNISON: You did not?
DR. HUGHES: That's an error in the transcript.
MR. DENNISON: Oh, that's not right?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: So and you corrected the transcript?
DR. HUGHES: We did not do an errata in the transcript at this point.
MR. DENNISON: So you knew there was an error in the transcript, but you didn't fix it?
DR. HUGHES: There were several errors in the transcript.
MR. DENNISON: But you didn't fix any of them?
DR. HUGHES: There was no time to fix them That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: You're not being paid $100 an hour, how much are you being paid?
DR. HUGHES: I'm being paid $500 an hour.
MR. DENNISON: $500 an hour. And that's the bill you set for your deposition, right, $500 an hour?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You submitted a number of disclosures in this case. You have not formed an opinion as to whether Mr. Depp committed intimate partner violence against Ms. Heard, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. I formed the opinion that Ms. Heard's report of the intimate partner violence is consistent with what we know in the literature about intimate partner violence.
MR. DENNISON: You have a limited role here comparing individual data to group data, and then just determining whether it's consistent, right?
DR. HUGHES: I wouldn't say it's a limited role, but that's generally correct.
MR. DENNISON: You used the word "limited role"?
DR. HUGHES: Limited role in terms of how we go about our forensic evaluation, not limited role in this case.
MR. DENNISON: Do you remember whether you used limited role in your deposition?
MR. DENNISON: 143 me, you probably think I did, but, sure.
DR. HUGHES: I don't. If you want it in front of Is
MR. DENNISON: And you have no independent knowledge of the facts underlying the alleged abuse, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I have the knowledge of the plethora of documents that I've reviewed in this case.
MR. DENNISON: I'm asking your independent, firsthand know ledge. You have none of that, right?
DR. HUGHES: You mean whether I was there?
MR. DENNISON: Yeah, you weren't there.
DR. HUGHES: Of course not.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. And you're not testifying to the veracity, the truthfulness of any of the allegations?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. I'm testifying to the consistency of the data points of all the different documents, including the psychological testing and the clinical evaluation that I conducted of Ms. Heard, and how that comports with the therapy records and all the other documents and the photos and texts that I reviewed.
MR. DENNISON: And you have no personal knowledge of any abuse?
DR. HUGHES: Correct, personally. Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And all you know is what Ms. Heard self-reported to you and others?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: Because you did collateral interviews?
DR. HUGHES: And I reviewed medical records and I reviewed other witness statements of what they witnessed and what they saw.
MR. DENNISON: And all of those statements that you reviewed, those are statements that started with Ms. Heard, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Not necessarily.
MR. DENNISON: Well, the medical records did, didn't they?
DR. HUGHES: Well, the medical records, if she's self-reporting what happened to her, sure. I mean, that's what we do when we go to a physician. We say, I have a headache. We're self-reporting our difficulties.
MR. DENNISON: And everything Ms. Heard reported directly to you was after she was sued by Mr. Depp in this case, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you didn't meet Ms. Heard until, what, September 2019?
DR. HUGHES: That was the first evaluation appointment, correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. How did you get engaged?
DR. HUGHES: Engaged?
MR. DENNISON: How did you get hired to do this work?
DR. HUGHES: Oh. I was contacted by the legal team.
MR. DENNISON: Were you interviewed by her legal team as to whether you were going to testify here?
DR. HUGHES: I was not.
MR. DENNISON: You were not interviewed?
DR. HUGHES: I was not.
MR. DENNISON: You were contacted?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Had you worked with that legal team before?
DR. HUGHES: I had.
MR. DENNISON: So they already knew who you were, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And anytime that you were working with Ms. Heard, or assessing Ms. Heard, I 7 she could have chose to fire you, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I suppose her legal team could have chose to fire. I was not her - she is not my client. The legal team is the one who hires me. I am responsible to the legal team, not Ms. Heard.
MR. DENNISON: And this legal-- and the legal team that hired you already knew who you were because you worked together previously?
DR. HUGHES: Including they knew of my expertise in this area of intimate partner violence and traumatic stress, which is why they contacted me to work on this matter.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Several times yesterday you 1120 used language about assessing Ms. Beard's relationship with Mr. Depp. Do you remember talking about that?
DR. HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: You can't assess a relationship without talking to both parties, can you?
DR. HUGHES: You certainly can get a lot of information from one party, absolutely.
MR. DENNISON: But--
DR. HUGHES: Especially when it is buttressed by other documents, including four years of therapy records and couples therapy records. You can get a lot of information based on those documents and contemporaneous reports of the relationship.
MR. DENNISON: Respectfully, I didn't ask whether you get a lot of information. I asked whether you can assess a relationship without talking to both parties?
DR. HUGHES: I believe you can. There are certainly limitations inherent in that, but you certainly can.
MR. DENNISON: You talked to Ms. Heard for, what, approximately 30 hours, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: How long did you spend with Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: I did not spend any time with Mr. Depp. It was my understanding that he did not sit for a psychological evaluation.
MR. DENNISON: Right. In fact, you've never met Mr. Depp, have you?
DR. HUGHES: I have not.
MR. DENNISON: But you purport to be able to assess the relationship between Mr. Depp and Ms. Heard?
DR. HUGHES: But I also read Mr. Depp's transcripts O of his testimony. I watched his deposition testimony. I reviewed his medical records. I reviewed his text messages. So it's not necessarily totally blind. I did have information, although I'm not making a conclusion about Mr. Depp himself.
MR. DENNISON: Is the standard, now, not necessarily totally blind? Is that how you assess the relationship? If it's not necessarily totally blind, I can assess it?
DR. HUGHES: No. We assess, as clinical psychologists, relationships all the time. That's what we're trained to do. Certainly someone who y 1--------------------- has been trained in intimate partner violence to understand and look for the dynamics that happen in that relationship, and then when we have external data that supports what the individual is telling us, way before this legal case even came on the scene, that becomes very strong data to support that conclusion.
MR. DENNISON: Let's talk about some of that data.
DR. HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: All right? You chose to conduct some collateral interviews --
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Right?
MR. DENNISON: And you interviewed Dr. Bonnie Jacobs?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you looked at her notes?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you know that Ms. Jacobs, Dr. Jacobs, doesn't note anything about the version of what happened in Australia until Ms. Heard had ah'early been sued, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I believe she was not in treatment with Dr. Jacobs at the time the Australian incident occurred, so that would be correct. She did reach out to Dr. Connell Cowan about Australia, who she ,5 was treating with at that time, contemporaneously.
MR. DENNISON: I'll ask you about Dr. Cowan. We'll get there.
DR. HUGHES: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: So you know that Ms. Heard stopped O seeing Dr. Jacobs in August 2014?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: She didn't go back until after she got sued, right?
DR. HUGHES: I believe that's the date. I'd have to look to make sure. But I believe that you're correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And you said you reviewed ! s Dr. -- you interviewed Dr. Connell Cowan?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: You also reviewed his deposition testimony?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you know that when -- that he testified when he was treating a patient, he assumes the patient is telling the truth, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I believe he said something to that is effect in his deposition. If he has no reason to believe otherwise. If there's no other data to believe otherwise, that your patient's not being I totally honest with you, then you believe what they're saying.
MR. DENNISON: Right. No other data to believe otherwise. But the sole thing that's happening is Ms. Heard is talking to Mr. Cowan, or Dr. Cowan?
DR. HUGHES: I wouldn't say she's talking to him. She's going to him for therapy and he's using his clinical psychological expertise to understand the connection between her symptoms and what she's reporting, what's going on in her life.
MR. DENNISON: But you understand that he testified that he assumes the patient is telling the truth?
DR. HUGHES: Again, I understand that statement in his testimony. I have a lot more rich information, having spoken to him for two hours and reviewing his clinical notes.
MR. DENNISON: He testified he was making a leap of faith with respect to that, right? With respect to the truthfulness?
DR. HUGHES: Again, that was not my understanding of speaking with him and reviewing his-notes. I'm aware that he testified something to that effect.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And you testified yesterday that Dr. Cowan never diagnosed Ms. Heard with any personality orders.
MR. DENNISON: Do you remember that?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: In fact, Dr. Cowan's deposition testimony reflects the fact that he doesn't make diagnoses, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. And I asked him, specifically, did he have any indications that even if he doesn't, as his practice, use them, does she meet criteria for a personality disorder, and he told me she did not.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So you asked him, g y , specifically, with respect to a topic that you haven't disclosed in your expert report, and then he made a conclusion that's reflected in no document?
DR. HUGHES: It's reflected in my notes. It's reflected in his notes, about what he's treating. He's treating the symptoms. He's not focusing on the diagnosis, but he is treating the symptoms.
MR. DENNISON: You talked about Dr. Cowan' s concern for Ms. Heard's safety.
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: He wasn't tail<ing about her physical safety, was he?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, he was.
MR. DENNISON: Safety.
MR. DENNISON: No, he was talking about her emotional Wasn't that what he was talking about? He was concerned for both. Okay. Did Dr. Cowan testify that he never had the feeling that Johnny intended to hurt Ms. Heard?
DR. HUGHES: I believe he said that I mean he talked about Mr. Depp being very poorly controlled y and that's what made him him Dr. Cowan concerned because in those moments when he was not controlled, that he could accidentally seriously hurt Ms. Heard.
MR. DENNISON: Let's do this again. Ms. Heard told Dr. Cowan that Mr. Depp was poorly controlled, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. He determined that from the treatment he was providing Ms. Heard?
DR. HUGHES: And he also had a couples session with Mr. Depp, and he also had correspondence with Dr. Kipper. So he had other information as to Mr. Depp's functioning.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You talked about Dr. Banks.
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Banks was doing relationship ! 18 consulting, right, consultation on relationship?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And Dr. Banks only met with him once?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you did an interview, I think, with I Ms. Heard's mother, Paige?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You'd agree with me that a 4 person's family member is not the most objective is I source of information?
DR. HUGHES: Sometimes you have to certainly control for that, that the person may be wanting to be protective of their daughter, of course.
MR. DENNISON: And you interviewed Ms. Paige Heard i IO after Mr. Depp had ah-early sued Amber Heard?
DR. HUGHES: Right. The entirety of my work in this case happened, obviously, after the lawsuit.
MR. DENNISON: Did you review, in that context, any of Paige Heard's text messages with Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: I'm not sure if I saw them with Mr. Depp. I do believe I saw some with Ms. Heard. I mean, Ms. Heard, Ms. Paige Heard, Amber Heard's mother did talk with me about her relationship with Mr. Depp.
MR. DENNISON: And she told you that she loved Johnny, even after Amber's alleged abuse, correct?
DR. HUGHES: She did.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Now, you testified that you approach a forensic evaluation with, I think you said it again today, a healthy degree of skepticism?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. This skepticism didn't cause you to conduct interviews with, for instance, Laurel Anderson?
DR. HUGHES: Right. I did not speak to Dr. Laurel Anderson.
MR. DENNISON: And you chose not to speak to Dr. Laurel Anderson because you disagreed with Dr. Laurel Anderson?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. What did Dr. Laurel Anderson do on behalf of Ms. Heard and Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: She was a couples therapist that they sought They had four couples sessions as I stated yesterday one of them in which Mr. Depp stormed out of She did have a long guess evaluation or interview with Mr. Depp individually and with Ms. Heard individually And then she saw them intermittently after the May 21st 2016 incident when they were filing for divorce
MR. DENNISON: So, you didn't interview Laurel Anderson, but you know what she did.
MR. DENNISON: How did you figure that out?
DR. HUGHES: Because we had her redacted notes and her deposition.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And you understood, from her deposition, that Dr. Anderson didn't believe Ms. Heard to be a victim of spousal abuse?
DR. HUGHES: I believe those were her words, yes.
MR. DENNISON: And you also understood, from her deposition, that Mr. Depp had not had a very long history of being violent with any of his wife or women?
DR. HUGHES: She said that as well.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
DR. HUGHES: But that something about Ms. Heard significantly triggered him. She talked about that as well.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Anderson thought that Mr. Depp had been, her words, "well-controlled," I think for almost 20 or 30 years, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Up until this point, I believe she said.
MR. DENNISON: Right. I know that you testified that you reviewed medical records.
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So, you know Ms. Heard had a personal nurse?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Erin Falati?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: You didn't interview Ms. Falati either?
DR. HUGHES: I did not.
MR. DENNISON: You know she spent time with Ms. Heard on a regular basis during her relationship with Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. I had her clinical notes that I reviewed.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And you reviewed her deposition testimony?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Some of which the jury's heard, right?
DR. HUGHES: I believe so.
MR. DENNISON: You reviewed the nursing notes?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: So you know that Ms. Heard admitted to a history of eating disorders to Ms. Falati, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I know that's in the notes. That's nowhere else in any other record, so I'm not sure where that came from.
MR. DENNISON: But you relied on everybody else's I notes?
DR. HUGHES: And there are some things that I disagreed with. Like I disagree with Dr. Laurel Anderson about it being mutual abuse.
MR. DENNISON: Right. So the stuff you disagree with, I you disregard, and the rest you keep, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Well, that's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: But that's what you did.
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You know that Ms. Falati summoned her immediately after she returned from Australia?
DR. HUGHES: I'd have to look at the notes again to be sure, but I know she'did see her when she came back from Australia, that's correct
MR. DENNISON: Did Ms. Falati document any injuries to Ms. Heard in her notes?
DR. HUGHES: I did not see that in the record.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So you looked at her notes and there's no injury to Ms. Heard documented in her nurse's notes following her return from Australia?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. You talked about this concept, which you then defined, "lethality."
MR. DENNISON: And you testified there are certain factors that are present in relationships where the woman ends up murdered by her partner?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And that's one of the ways you look as to whether a woman is in a very dangerous situation?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Can we pull up PX 92.
THE COURT: It's in evidence.
MR. DENNISON: Can we publish it to the jury?
THE COURT: It will be published.
MR. DENNISON: Do you know what this is?
DR. HUGHES: I believe this is the knife that Ms. Heard gave to Mr. Depp as a gift.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And do you speak Spanish?
DR. HUGHES: Un Poquito.
MR. DENNISON: Do you know what it says?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, it says "hasta la muerte," until death.
MR. DENNISON: So, a woman you suggest has characteristics of being afraid for her life gives her intimate partner a large knife, which she has inscribed "until death."
MR. DENNISON: That's your testimony?
DR. HUGHES: Well, there's context.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. We can do that later.
MR. DENNISON: So, we talked about -- you talked a little about Mr. Depp purporting to demonstrate jealousy with Ms. Heard.
MR. DENNISON: Do you recall that?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MR. DENNISON: And you specifically talked about Mr. Depp displaying jealousy regarding the actor James Franco?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Now, the very first time you met with Ms. Heard, she talked to you about Ms. Franco -- Mr. Franco, James Franco, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I don't know if it was the first time, but I did ask about some other relationships.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So why don't we do this.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go to PX 1246. I just want to go to the first page. All right.
MR. DENNISON: So, do you recognize the document that's in front of you?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And what I would like to I do -- what is it?
DR. HUGHES: It's one - a top sheet of a background information questionnaire that I use to help guide the evaluation.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So, now, who filled it out?
DR. HUGHES: I filled it out.
MR. DENNISON: Whose form is it?
DR. HUGHES: My form
MR. DENNISON: I'll going to move just Is the first page into evidence because we're going to talk about other portions of it later.
THE COURT: Could you back out so she can see the whole first page. Any objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I would want the whole thing in. p2
THE COURT: Okay. l'
MR. DENNISON: We will admit the whole thing into evidence.is
THE COURT: You want the whole thing into evidence?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection, s whatsoever. T COURT: All right. 1246 in evidence, m full. Are there any identifiers that need -- l . or we're Just going?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, I'm sure there's going to be some.
THE COURT: All right. So you owe me a redacted one, correct?
MR. DENNISON: Don't know what the nature of the redactions are going to be, but...
MS. BREDEHOFT: We'll work with him on that.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm positive there are identifiers in there.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: 1246 has been moved into evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can we blow up the bottom right-hand corner?
THE COURT: All right. Do you want to publish it to the jury?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I'm not comfortable publishing it to the jury if there's identifiers. I'm happy to do it on a break to make sure --
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't see any on the first page.
THE COURT: If you want to look at that. Any objection to that?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is that the whole page?
THE COURT: That's what they're going to show.
MR. DENNISON: That's what we're going to show.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right.
THE COURT: All right. Publish, then.
MR. DENNISON: So this is the bottom comer, your notes. And it's under the section of your notes that's entitled "intimate relationships.
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And one of the notes here on the right says JF.
MR. DENNISON: That's James Franco, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Got close but really wanted to be with Johnny.
DR. HUGHES: Well, it says "JF friends." They were friends.
MR. DENNISON: Says "friends, but you put him under intimate relationships?
DR. HUGHES: Well, there's a line there because I was asking specifically about other things that were allegations in this matter.
MR. DENNISON: There's a line there because you did n not believe that it should go under intimate relationships but it's on your form?
DR. HUGHES: She wasn't telling me that this was an intimate relationship. I queried as to what's going on with James Franco because that was something that was raised in this case.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And there's a note for December 2015.
DR. HUGHES: When they became more friends, more friendly.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And that was a period of time in which Ms. Heard was married to Mr. Depp, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct [21
MR. DENNISON: So she became close with Mr. Franco in December 2015, and at least you put it under I intimate relationships
DR. HUGHES: With a line differentiating another part of this document.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. Did you provide another header, like a header that says "friends"?
MR. DENNISON: No. Let's look at the next one. The next one says -- I think it says "Elon.
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: That's Elon Musk, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. May 2016.
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: "Met him Met Ball.
MR. DENNISON: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: That's a big, fancy party in New York, right?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, it is.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And she said she dated him after Johnny?
DR. HUGHES: Correct
MR. DENNISON: She met Elon Musk in May 2016 When did she file the TRO
DR. HUGHES: The last incident was May 21st. I believe it was May 26th, 27th, if I'm correct.
MR. DENNISON: When did she start dating Elon Musk?
DR. HUGHES: Sometime after that.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Sometime after the TRO?
DR. HUGHES: I believe so, yes.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. You talked --
MR. DENNISON: We can take that down.
MR. DENNISON: You talked quite a lot yesterday about this concept of reactive violence.
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah. So, just so I understand your position on this, is it your position that if Ms. Heard was abused, she gets to hit Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: That's not my opinion.
MR. DENNISON: But you know she hits him, right?
DR. HUGHES: And I testified to that.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And how many times do you believe that she told you that she hit him?
DR. HUGHES: Do I believe that she told me or how many instances were there?
MR. DENNISON: Well, I don't know. How would you know other than her telling you? You weren't there, right?
DR. HUGHES: I was not there, that's correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. How many times did she admit to hitting him?
DR. HUGHES: She indicated a number of times and a number of instances.
MR. DENNISON: You indicated that you had listened to audio recordings as part of work you did in this case?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. I would like to play a portion of one of those recordings. It's Plaintiffs Exhibit 343. It's already in evidence.
MR. DENNISON: And for the record, the portion I want to play is 2 minutes 46 -- 2:46:01 to 2:47:20.
MR. DEPP: I said to Travis, I said -- I ! no, I said to you, hey, tell Travis what just happened. You remember?
MS. HEARD: You told me to do it. You told me to. You said, "Go do that."
MS. HEARD: And I lied.
MS. HEARD: You're right.
MS. HEARD: You figured it out.
MR. DEPP: In the face. And you said, "No, fucking, I didn't. What the fuck are you talking about?" And I watched you lie.
MS. HEARD: I didn't punch you.
MS. HEARD: I didn't punch you, by the way. I'm sorry that I didn't hit you across the face in a proper slap. But I was hitting you. I was not punching you. Babe, you're not punched.
MS. HEARD: You know you've been in a lot of fights. You've been around a long time. And I know. I 5
MS. HEARD: You didn't get punched. You got hit. I'm sorry I hit you like this, but I did not punch you. I did not fucking deck you. I fucking was hitting you.
MS. HEARD: I don't know what the motion of my actual hand was, but you're fine. I did not hurt you. I did not punch you. I was hitting you.
MS. HEARD: What am I supposed to do, do this? I'm not sitting here bitching about it, am I? You are. That's the difference between me and you. You're a fucking baby.
MS. HEARD: You are such a baby. Grow the fuck up, Johnny.
MS. HEARD: I did start physical fights.
MS. HEARD: Because -- yes, you did. You did the right thing, the big thing.
MS. HEARD: You know what, you are admirable.
MR. DENNISON: Do you agree with Ms. Heard that it's admirable to retreat from a fight?
DR. HUGHES: Is it admirable? It is admirable to retreat from a fight
MR. DENNISON: Anything about this tape suggest to you that it's characteristic of reactive violence?
DR. HUGHES: In this instance, if true, if she said she hit him first, then that would not be reactive, violence.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You testified that Ms. Heard reported to you that she engaged in low levels of violence, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Well, I don't think she said that. I think that was the characterization of knowing the types of minor and severe levels of violence.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. I got it wrong.
MR. DENNISON: You considered it low levels of O violence?
DR. HUGHES: Well, I considered that the literature and the research talks about low levels of violence as opposed to severe levels of violence.
MR. DENNISON: And I think you suggested that Ms. Heard sustained more severe injuries, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I think I said more frequent injuries.
MR. DENNISON: More frequent but not more severe?
DR. HUGHES: Well, certainly the incidence in Australia and the sexual violence and the incidence on December 15, 2015, were quite severe.
MR. DENNISON: You said you reviewed medical records in rendering your opinion?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you reviewed photographs?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: So, other than the reports to her therapists, which you call "medical records," right?
DR. HUGHES: Yeah, I would call those medical records, sure.
MR. DENNISON: Other than the reports to her therapists, there's not a single medical record that reflects any injury to Ms. Heard, is there?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. There is not a -- other than -- what doctor reflected injuries to Ms. Heard?
DR. HUGHES: The note by Erin Boerum, her married name is Falati, I'm not recalling her married name, indicated that she was headbutted by Mr. Depp and that she went for a concussion check and she had a busted lip, and then she went to Dr. Kipper's office in order to get checked.
MR. DENNISON: And there's a medical record other than that note that reflects it?
DR. HUGHES: There's a note that she showed up at Dr. Kipper's office. There's a note -
MR. DENNISON: But there's not a --
DR. HUGHES: In there that Dr. Laurel Anderson saw the two bruises from that same incident as well.
MR. DENNISON: You reviewed photographs?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: I'd like to put up PX 144. It's been published to the jury briefly. I'm going to keep it up very briefly.
MR. DENNISON: That photograph doesn't reflect a low level of violence, does it?
DR. HUGHES: That reflects a severe injury; I would agree.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we go to PX 145.
MR. DENNISON: That's a severe injury that ended up with Mr. Depp on a gurney, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That is a severe injury, correct.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah. All right.
MR. DENNISON: Is it your testimony that throwing a can of mineral spirits at your spouse is characteristic of reactive violence?
DR. HUGHES: If you are running away from your spouse who is trying to hurt you, yes.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So you can throw a can of mineral spirits.
MR. DENNISON: What about if you throw a can of Red Bull?
DR. HUGHES: Again, it depends on - the incident, I think, that you're referring to, that was not necessarily reactive violence. That was in a state of frustration or anger.
MR. DENNISON: So when you throw a can of Red Bull in the state of frustration or anger, that's not reactive violence?
DR. HUGHES: No.
MR. DENNISON: All right. What about if you throw a bottle of vodka because your husband fell off the wagon? Is that reactive violence?
DR. HUGHES: Are you asking me hypothetically?
MR. DENNISON: I'm asking you, would that be a characteristic of reactive violence, throwing a bottle of vodka because your husband fell off the wagon?
DR. HUGHES: If it's in the middle of an assault, perhaps. If it's independent of that, no.
MR. DENNISON: Right. For instance, if your husband was just having a couple of shots at the bar?
DR. HUGHES: Again, you would need more information and context to make that determination.
MR. DENNISON: You don't think that's a reflection of reactive violence.
MR. DENNISON: And you agree with me that when you throw the second bottle, that's not reactive violence?
DR. HUGHES: If somebody's throwing multiple bottles it can - psychological violence and abuse is psychologically destabilizing, which destabilizes individuals' coping strategies. That is absolutely true.
MR. DENNISON: Lost what's true. Is it your testimony that once you've thrown the one bottle and missed, when you throw the second one, now it's reactive violence?
DR. HUGHES: That's not what I'm saying. I don't think throwing bottles is acceptable in any context.
MR. DENNISON: All right. I'm going to ask you about some of the testing that you did.
MR. DENNISON: One of the things that you did was a form, looked like, called a CTS2 Relationship Behaviors form.
DR. HUGHES: On the Conflict Tactics Scale, correct.
MR. DENNISON: So, "CTS2" stands for Conflict Tactics Scale?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: And this is one of the documents that you had with you on the stand yesterday?
DR. HUGHES: I had all my testing with me and all my clinical notes from my evaluation with Ms. Heard.
MR. DENNISON: And you gave me a copy of it because you looked at it during your testimony?
DR. HUGHES: Because you asked me, so I gave it to I you, yes.
MR. DENNISON: Right. All right.
MR. DENNISON: But you have a recollection of what that test is about, the CTS2 test?
DR. HUGHES: I have a very good memory and a very good recollection. I want to give the jury the most accurate and thorough information. Of having done 12 tests with so many questions, I wanted to just be as accurate as possible. I'm sure my memory would miss some things that might be relevant.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So let's talk about the CTS2.
MR. DENNISON: It's dated 9/26/2019, 2019.
MR. DENNISON: Correct. 9/26/2019. And it goes through and it asks a whole series of questions about what you've done and what your partner's done?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: There's tons of these questions.
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And every single one of those questions is preceded by the same question, right? How often did this happen in the past year?
DR. HUGHES: Correct
MR. DENNISON: You knew that as of 9/26/2019, not a single one of the things that Ms. Heard identified happened to her in the last year?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. She was oriented to a different time frame to get a checklist of those behaviors.
MR. DENNISON: And one of the -- although it says please -- how often did this happen in the past year, one of the questions is, "My partner used force to make me have oral or anal sex"?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: She wrote a zero on that, right?
DR. HUGHES: I'd have to see, if you'd like to show me.
MR. DENNISON: You have any recollection that she didn't go to zero on that?
DR. HUGHES: I have a recollection, at that point in time, she was framing those type of acts as angry sex.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
DR. HUGHES: She wasn't framing them as physical force, as most women don't on these measures.
MR. DENNISON: And you helped her to reframe it as something other than angry sex, didn't you, Doctor?
DR. HUGHES: My job was not to do treatment. was to do an evaluation, and that's what I did.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So you did an evaluation. One of the evaluations you did and one of the diagnoses that you ultimately made relates to PTSD?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And you diagnosed Amber Heard with PTSD Jong before you made use of the gold standard test for PTSD?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
DR. HUGHES: And I make the diagnosis of PTSD in my clinical practice without using the CAPS, all the time.
MR. DENNISON: Just so that you and I are on the same I page, and I think we are. This gold standard test that I am referring to is the CAPS-5?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct.
MR. DENNISON: That's the one that Dr. Cuny administered, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You didn't administer the CAPS-5 until, A, after you had already diagnosed Amber Heard with PTSD, right? Ito
DR. HUGHES: She had PTSD in 2019. She had PTSD in the beginning of 2021, when I evaluated her. And then she had PTSD in December 27, 2021, when I administered the CAPS. That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. I think I asked a much more narrow question than that.
MR. DENNISON: You didn't diagnose -- you didn't get the CAPS-5 -- hold on. I'm going to strike that question, altogether, and start it again.
MR. DENNISON: You had already diagnosed her with PTSD before you did the gold standard, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Before I administered the CAPS-5, there was enough data in the psychological testing and s my clinical evaluation to establish that she met criteria for PTSD; that is correct
MR. DENNISON: You submitted an expert disclosure in this case on January 11th, 2022?
DR. HUGHES: I believe the attorneys submitted that disclosure, yes.
MR. DENNISON: You participated in that?
DR. HUGHES: In the January 11th? It was the same disclosure that went before. There were no changes on that.
MR. DENNISON: Did you reference the CAPS-5 in that at all?
DR. HUGHES: I don't believe I gave the results of the CAPS-5 to the attorneys at that point.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You met with -- oh, I've got dates here. This time I'm using the cheat sheet. You met with Amber Heard on September 16th, 2019.
DR. HUGHES: I would like to have my cheat sheet, but I'll take your word for it
MR. DENNISON: I'll share.
DR. HUGHES: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: October 11th, 2019. When did you give the CAPS-5?
DR. HUGHES: The CAPS-5 was administered the last time that I saw Ms. Heard. I saw her over, as stated multiple times, over the past two and a half years, and having not seen her in about a year, to get an accurate assessment of her current symptoms, having had all the background information, the CAPS-5 is a great structured clinical interview to do that.
MR. DENNISON: You hadn't seen her for about a year before you gave her that test?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you did it over Zoom?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we pull up PX 1247.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, this is a new one, so we don't have it. I'm just making a note.
MR. DENNISON: I'll get you a copy.
THE COURT: Sure. It's just to the witness right now.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct. But it would be nice to know how many pages there are.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Hughes, you can actually help with that question. This is like more than 20 pages long, right?
DR. HUGHES: It's about 20 pages.
MR. DENNISON: Right.
MR. DENNISON: Let's get a copy of it.
MR. DENNISON: This is a series of questions that you used to test for PTSD?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And you recognize the first page, this is the first page that you filled out; that's your handwriting?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: I'd like to publish the l first page to the jury.
THE COURT: Do you wish to have it in evidence? Are you moving it into evidence?
MR. DENNISON: Yes, I am.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'd like to have a copy of it before I--
THE COURT: He's just publishing the first page. Any objection on the first page?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't have any objection to the first page.
THE COURT: Okay. First page in I evidence...
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think, Your Honor, the future, they should, at a minimum, give us a copy of whatever they're putting in. I know --
THE COURT: Could you put your microphone on? I'm just having --
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm sorry. I don't have the ability to scroll down, so I can't see the rest of this. It's a brand-new exhibit.
THE COURT: I'm sure they'll get you a I copy of it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MR. DENNISON: I'd like to go to the !, second page. Can we put up the second page?
THE COURT: Are you putting the second page into evidence?
MR. DENNISON: Not yet. 'l O
THE COURT: Then I can't put it up.
MR. DENNISON: I'm sorry. I'd like the witness to see the second page.
THE COURT: The witness can see the second page.
MR. DENNISON: This is the second page. This is the instruction on how you do it?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And then we'll go to the third page. p9
MR. DENNISON: Let's let the witness see the third page.
MR. DENNISON: Now, this is entitled "scoring."
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: So when you score, you look at two things, right, you look at frequency and intensity?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Those are the two factors you use to score?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Can we go to the fourth page of this document, and just show it to the witness. All right.
MR. DENNISON: So, Dr. Hughes, this is a first page of the CAPS B where, other than the identifying information, where there's any input into the document, correct?
DR. HUGHES: The CAPS-5. You said the CAPS B.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah, I misspoke.
DR. HUGHES: Yes. This is the criterion A, which means that in order to, as I said yesterday, to obtain a diagnosis of PTSD, you have to have sustained a very specific traumatic event. That's the first deed to get through the door.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, I'm going to -- I'd like to be able to get them a copy of this. Is it too early to take that break?
THE COURT: A little bit.
MR. DENNISON: All right. I can do something else.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So do you recognize the O first page -- or the fourth page of this document?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MR. DENNISON: And the handwriting on the fourth page is yours?
DR. HUGHES: It's all my handwriting.
MR. DENNISON: All right. The entirety of it is yours.
MR. DENNISON: I'm going to move this document into evidence, along with the first page. And that one is what number? I think it is --
THE COURT: You're still on 1247.
THE COURT: So you want to move the I entirety of 124 7 in?
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
THE COURT: Do you have a copy of 124 7? It's Exhibit 1247.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I don't have the whole page in front of me.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, do you have Plaintiff's Exhibit 1247? Plaintiff's 1247. I don't have it either.
MR. DENNISON: It's Defendant's 1435.
THE COURT: 1435. Defendant's 1435.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll find it as quickly as possible, Your Honor.
MR. DENNISON: Take your time.
THE COURT: Do you want to take a look at the Court's copy? Would that be easier for you?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, it's 59 pages. What is he moving? I mean, I don't think--
THE COURT: I think he's moving-- are you moving the entire document in?
MR. DENNISON: Yeah, I'm going to move the entire document into evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't think I have an objection to that.
THE COURT: No objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection.
THE COURT: Do you want to take a look at the Court's copy or are you good?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I would, thank you. My apologies, Your Honor.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So, even though I pulled it from Defendant's 1435, we want to make this 1247, Plaintiffs, correct?
MR. DENNISON: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you want your copy back?
THE COURT: I kind of need it. Thank you. We'll just change the number on it. So it's 1247 in evidence, Plaintiffs 1247 in evidence, and now it can be published to the jury.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you. Why don't we publish the fourth page, where we're talking about.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So, what this references is the event you said was the worst, and what you have filled in here, is three words, "IPV by Johnny, I right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And then what happened is the next box, and you've not written a single thing in the box, right?
DR. HUGHES: Because I've already spent 20-some-odd hours with Ms. Heard. I know what goes in that box. If you look at the top, it says administered the Life Events Checklist, among other structured trauma screens. That screen had already been conducted.
MR. DENNISON: Right. But there's a box, on the gold standard test, that asks what happened. And it says how old were you? How were you involved? Who else was involved? Was anyone seriously injured or killed? Was anyone in life danger? And none of that information you provide in your analysis on the CAPS-5?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I hesitate to object, but that's very compound.
MR. DENNISON: It is.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection. If you want to rephrase.
MR. DENNISON: We can do it the slow way.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: The first question is, how old were you?
DR. HUGHES: All of the information that would go in that box is contained in my 80-plus clinical notes of my evaluation of Ms. Heard up to this point. It would have been incredibly redundant to do that again here.
MR. DENNISON: But you knew other people would review this, didn't you?
DR. HUGHES: And I knew that they would have my clinical notes as well.
MR. DENNISON: So they're supposed to parse through your clinical notes so that they can figure out I!
MR. DENNISON: What you chose to be the anchoring event?
DR. HUGHES: I didn't choose the anchor. The client chooses the anchor to identify what the worst event is for them.
MR. DENNISON: You wrote "IPV by Johnny." That's what you determined to be the anchoring event.
DR. HUGHES: When I asked Ms. Heard, once again, of the traumatic events that she experienced in her life, which one is the worst, this is what she indicated.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. But you provided no details with respect to it?
DR. HUGHES: There are details - plethora of details in my 80-page, handwritten, single-spaced clinical notes.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Let's go to the next page. All right. You felt it appropriate to fill this page out, didn't you, Doctor?
DR. HUGHES: Well, these are the questions about the symptoms. So I'm asking specific questions and getting her responses.
MR. DENNISON: Didn't you know this already?S
DR. HUGHES: I was making sure, at this point, having not seen her for a year, what is the trauma expression at this time. It can change over time. It could go away. It can get better. It can get ;9 worse.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we go a couple more pages in. Let's go into page 7 of 20.
MR. DENNISON: Now, there are a couple of boxes that you filled in on this. Let's look at item 5, BS.
MR. DENNISON: You don't provide any indication of ; 16 what kind of triggers -- what kind of reminders I triggers these reaction?
DR. HUGHES: She answered that on the previous questions.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And you didn't provide any answer as to how long does it take to recover?
DR. HUGHES: She has some difficulty recovering.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. And then there's this question that says "how often has this happened in the past month, number of times"?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: We've talked about how these things are scored. You've got to look at frequency and intensity, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you left the frequency box blank?
DR. HUGHES: Well, no, she said several times a month. Then that's what the frequency is.
MR. DENNISON: And you didn't fill that frequency box in at all?
DR. HUGHES: Because she told me it was frequently, several times a month, which is one of the anchors in coding the CAPS.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Let's look at the next one. The very next box.
MR. DENNISON: Again, this is scored by frequency and intensity? How often in the past month?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
DR. HUGHES: Pardon?
MR. DENNISON: How often in the past month? You left that one blank, again, right?
DR. HUGHES: She told me it happens at least twice a week, so, certainly, I can multiply two times four and put an eight.
MR. DENNISON: You certainly could have written the number two?
DR. HUGHES: But it wasn't two, if it's happening two times a week.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Two times a week times the number of months, now you've got two digits instead of one, right, that's all it took to write that down?
DR. HUGHES: This is in a one-month period, so it would have been a four-week period.
MR. DENNISON: How often in the past month; that's what it says?
DR. HUGHES: Correct. You said months.
MR. DENNISON: You chose not to answer that question.
MR. DENNISON: Let's look at the next page. scoring is frequency and intensity. the past month. Again, How often in Again, you left it blank?
DR. HUGHES: If you look on the right-hand box, that is where we are indicating the frequency and the severity. If you can see where I circled "moderate," it's happening more than twice a month, that's where I'm indicating the frequency of the symptom expression.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. But aren't you skipping a step? You're supposed to do intensity and frequency.
DR. HUGHES: And when somebody says it's happening more than twice a month, that is a frequency I indicator.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Let's go to the next box. Again, we have "In the past month, how I • many of the important parts of event have you difficulty remembering? Number of important aspects." Didn't fill it out?
DR. HUGHES: Well, I listed two specific incidents of where she indicates she has important aspects that are missing.
MR. DENNISON: But all you had to do was put a number y p in here. You know you had to -- you knew how to score this thing?
DR. HUGHES: Well, this measure actually doesn't get scored by the frequency.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You know something, you're right. Let's look at the next one.
DR. HUGHES: I know I'm right.
MR. DENNISON: The next one gets scored by the frequency. That's blank, right?
DR. HUGHES: Well, I did not code it as a PTSD symptom.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Let's go to the next one.
MR. DENNISON: "How much of the time in the past month have you felt that way as a percentage"?
DR. HUGHES: Right. As you can see, I circled 20 to 30 percent of the time.
MR. DENNISON: Right.
DR. HUGHES: I'm putting it on the right side, in the box where I'm coding the instrument.
MR. DENNISON: We're going to talk about the right side in a minute. You took issue with the way that Dr. Curry did this test, didn't you?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. But your test, in every instance where you're asked the number of times and to fill in the blank, you leave it blank?
DR. HUGHES: They're on the right side of the document.
MR. DENNISON: All right. You want to talk about the right side of the document.
MR. DENNISON: Let's do that.
MR. DENNISON: After you did the CAPS-5 for the anchoring -- the three-word anchoring event, "IPV by Johnny," you went back through again and you said, you know, maybe I should consider childhood trauma as well, right?
DR. HUGHES: I wanted to test for the limits and see - at this point in time, Ms. Heard had had a child, and sometimes when people have children, their trauma gets evoked, and she's having those symptoms as well. She already had, based on this instrument, the PTSD from the interpersonal violence. I wanted to see if there were any y severe child abuse as a young person?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct. additional symptoms.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And you knew that she had had She grew up in a home full of heroin addicts, right?
DR. HUGHES: Opiate abuse, yes.
MR. DENNISON: And there was IPV between her parents?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And so, you wanted to make sure that there wasn't some impact with this childhood trauma in the diagnosis of PTSD?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And so you decided to give her the test again?
DR. HUGHES: Well, I didn't give it again. What's called testing the limits. I went back to some of the questions where she answered in the affirmative and said, is this also happening vis-a-vis your childhood abuse? Are you also having intrusive thoughts and feelings of childhood? Are you avoiding thinking about things about childhood? Is that happening for you now as well?
MR. DENNISON: All right. So there are a series of notations on the right-hand side.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go to page 5 of 20 in the test. All right.
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we highlight the right-hand notations that start under the word "childhood."
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: So the way you tested for childhood PTSD is to write a notation in the comer and answer a couple of questions? Same test?
DR. HUGHES: Well, I wasn't administering a whole CAPS again. What I was doing was seeing, as we know with people who have, what we call, polyvictimization or re-victimization. Someone could, in fact, meet criteria for the PTSD from the domestic violence but then they're also experiencing some symptoms as a result of the childhood abuse. Both can occur.
MR. DENNISON: Right. But Mr. Depp isn't responsible for her childhood abuse?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct. I childhood abuse PTSD is you made notations on the right-hand comer -- in the right-hand column of a
MR. DENNISON: Right. And the way you tested this form that you partially filled out for the "IPV by Johnny," right?
DR. HUGHES: I disagree with the "partially filled out." The frequency was clearly filled out in the box where we scored the CAPS. But, yes, I did write about the childhood to the right of that box.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. And that is the appropriate way that the gold standard test for PTSD for childhood trauma should be administered?
DR. HUGHES: If there were any affirmative, and I needed to go further, I could have administered I another CAPS-5. There were not. I did not need to do that.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So you chose not to do a second CAPS-5 although you knew that she had suffered from severe childhood trauma?
DR. HUGHES: No. Because she wasn't suffering symptoms at that point in time, PTSD symptoms from the childhood trauma.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
THE COURT: Mr. Dennison, are you moving to a different topic now?
MR. DENNISON: I am.
THE COURT: This might be a great time to take our morning break.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we will take our 15-minute break. Please do not discuss this case with anybody, don't do any outside research, okay? Thank you.
THE COURT: All right. We'll go ahead and take --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, before we take the break.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: May I get a copy of the new exhibits from them so that I can see it over the break?
MR. DENNISON: I don't know if we can do it before, but we'll certainly get them to you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I mean, I need to be able to redirect, and I have never seen these.
THE COURT: We'll go through it, that's fine. All right?
MR. DENNISON: Although it's in your exhibit list.
MS. BREDEHOFT: If it's in my exhibit list, if they just tell me.
THE COURT: Tell you the exhibit numbers. That's fine. We'll work through it.
THE COURT: Let's take a recess to 11 :40, then, okay? Back at 11 :40.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: All right. Are we ready for the jury? Okay.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you. You 5 can be seated.
THE COURT: Next question.
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we put back up Plaintiffs 1247.
MR. DENNISON: Again, this is the CAPS-5. You already had Dr. Curry's scores, did you?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct
MR. DENNISON: No? You administered it after Dr. Curry made a disclosure, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct
MR. DENNISON: All right. You administered it after Dr. Curry had administered hers?
DR. HUGHES: I learned that in late February, when she submitted her report, but I had no way of knowing that in December 2021.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And you didn't make any g y y reference to this in your disclosures until after Dr. Curry made reference to hers, right?
DR. HUGHES: I don't recall the date of the final disclosure or the fourth disclosure.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: Can we go to the next page. Let's go to the top of the page and blow Is that up.
MR. DENNISON: The instructions start with "Standard administration and scoring of the CAPS-5 are essential for producing reliable and valid scores and diagnostic decisions." Do you see that language?
DR. HUGHES: I do.
MR. DENNISON: You don't contend it's standard not to fill out the frequency line?
DR. HUGHES: I think if you're filling it out on the right side of the box, I think that's perfectly fine.
MR. DENNISON: You think it's standard administration to simply leave blanks that are already in the form?
DR. HUGHES: I didn't leave blanks when I needed to find out the frequency of the symptoms.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go down a little bit further.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go to "administration."
MR. DENNISON: It says, number 2, "Read prompts verbatim one at a time and in the order presented," and then has a variety of exceptions. IO With respect to the childhood trauma notations you made in the margin of the CAPS-5, you didn't read the prompts verbatim, did you?
DR. HUGHES: I read the first prompt. If there was a yes, then I would have made a decision, do I need to administer a whole nother CAPS?
MR. DENNISON: Right. And you ultimately didn't do that, you just simply wrote in the margin of the last one?
DR. HUGHES: Because she wasn't endorsing those symptoms.
MR. DENNISON: You talked about endorsement of symptoms. Ultimately, what you're looking for, with respect to PTSD, is functional deficiencies. That's one of the things you look for, right?
DR. HUGHES: Well, with any DSM diagnosis, you're looking for what are the functional impairments as a result of the symptoms that the individual is experiencing.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So and, in fact, if you go all the way to the end of the form, one of the things that we deal with is impairment in occupational functioning, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. What's Ms. Heard's occupation?
DR. HUGHES: She's an actor.
MR. DENNISON: And she's in -- she had just wrapped a major motion picture, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: So you didn't determine that she had an impairment in occupational function?
MR. DENNISON: She's still performing at, literally, the highest level of her profession, correct?
DR. HUGHES: She had a number of PTSD symptoms while she was filming Aquaman 2.
MR. DENNISON: Right.
DR. HUGHES: That interfered with her ability to Is really organize a lot of resources for herself in order to go forward and film that --
MR. DENNISON: I asked you whether -- j s
DR. HUGHES: Production.
MR. DENNISON: I asked you whether she was performing at the highest level of her profession, yes or no?
DR. HUGHES: I don't know if I'm qualified to answer that.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. But did she report to you that I she loves to cook?
DR. HUGHES: She loves to cook, yes.
MR. DENNISON: Hike?
DR. HUGHES: I don't recall hiking, but ...
MR. DENNISON: Read?
DR. HUGHES: Yep.
MR. DENNISON: Spend time with friends?
DR. HUGHES: If she can. That has been significantly diminished as a result of her PTSD symptoms and as a result of this case.
MR. DENNISON: She just had a baby?
DR. HUGHES: She did.
MR. DENNISON: Right?
MR. DENNISON: Exercises every day?
DR. HUGHES: The most that I can tell, she does. i 8
MR. DENNISON: Yeah. Completed level 3 Sommelier training?
DR. HUGHES: She did.
MR. DENNISON: She did all of these things and you've made a determination that she is impaired with respect to her occupational functioning?
DR. HUGHES: I made a determination that the symptoms interfere with her functioning. She does these things, but it's not like the symptoms aren't there. She has to continue to work even though she has a panic attack, even though she has an intrusive recollection of the trauma, even though she's having heart palpitations and sweaty palms when something comes into her mind. It does not stop her from doing what she needs to do. But it does interfere.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So I'm going to ask you about another test that you administered, and that one's called the "PAI."
MR. DENNISON: Do you know that one?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MR. DENNISON: That's the Personality Assessment Inventory?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we mark -- why don't we put in front of the witness PX 1244.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, if I may approach.
THE COURT: All right. 1244.
MR. DENNISON: Here's her copy.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So, Dr. Hughes, do you recognize PX 1244?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: And that's a list of critical item endorsements?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And that's derived from the PAI?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And this is the PAI that you gave 9/26/2019?
DR. HUGHES: I don't have the cover sheet in front of me, so...
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we scroll down to the bottom, Tom. There.
DR. HUGHES: Yeah.
MR. DENNISON: There it is, down there.
DR. HUGHES: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: You bet.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. Now, critical item --
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, I'm going to move this document, PX 1244, into evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I would request that the entire document be put in, not just this piece.
MR. DENNISON: I'm only going to ask her about this piece.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I still would ask --
THE COURT: Well, it's his exhibit. Do you have any objection to his exhibit, which is just the first page?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: All right. 1244 in evidence.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So critical item endorsement. This starts "A total of 27 PAI items reflecting serious pathology" have been very low endorsement rates -- "have very low endorsement rates in normal samples. These items have been termed critical items." You're familiar with that concept?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I am.
MR. DENNISON: All right. I just want to ask you about a couple of the critical items. The first one is potential for aggression. This was deemed, under your PAI, a critical item. It says "Sometimes my temper explodes and I completely lose control"
MR. DENNISON: How did that potential for aggression bear on your analysis?
DR. HUGHES: Well, there's a few things. Number one, certainly, Ms. Heard reported to me that in her relationship, that would happen, her anger and her affect regulation would become impaired.
DR. HUGHES: Number two, you have to look at the total scales, where that scale is not elevated, so it would not be a major cause of clinical concern.
DR. HUGHES: Number three, she had four responses that she could say for this question, mainly true - or very true, mainly true, sometimes true or false. She chose "sometimes true." So she's answering honestly about her experience.
MR. DENNISON: Sometimes -- it's sometimes true that ! sometimes my temper explodes --
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: That's what you're testifying?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: All right. So you've talked a little about this concept called malingering. And there's one here for potential malingering. And this is another one of these critical item endorsements. Critical items means that these are I serious pathology, right?
DR. HUGHES: Well, as you can see, it says "endorsement of these critical items is not, in and of itself, diagnostic."
DR. HUGHES: So, you need to review the content of the item and that's how you make the determination, is this something of clinical concern that you need to do more understanding about?
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So this critical item endorsement, this one reads, under potential malingering, "I think I have three or four completely different personalities inside of me."
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And she endorsed that as sometimes true?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
DR. HUGHES: And there's not one elevated malingering scale on the PAI.
MR. DENNISON: Let me ask you about another document.
MR. DENNISON: The document is PX 1248.
MR. DENNISON: 1248. Your Honor, may I approach?
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. DENNISON: All right.
THE COURT: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Can you put up PX 1248, just for the witness.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Hughes, do you recognize this?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: All right. And these are critical items that were deduced on the TSI-2 critical items list?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And what's a zero mean?
DR. HUGHES: Means that she scored a zero on that item. She said it's not something that's relevant for her at the time frame that the test was administered.
MR. DENNISON: And these are all self-reports, right?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: So she scored a zero on doing something I violent because you were so upset?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Do you see that language?
MR. DENNISON: You knew Ms. Heard to do violent things when she's upset?
DR. HUGHES: This test specifies how often have you had these symptoms in the last six months?
MR. DENNISON: Just in the last six months?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: So she hadn't had them in the last , six months?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: This test also asks and inquires about intentionally hurting yourself or cutting.
DR. HUGHES: In the last six months.
MR. DENNISON: Right.
DR. HUGHES: Is the prompt.
MR. DENNISON: In the last six months?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Had Ms. Heard previously indicated to you that she cut herself?
DR. HUGHES: She indicated one time, as a teenager, I l in a reckless moment, she did. "It was stupid and I never did it again."
MR. DENNISON: All right. So that was the first time you met her, she indicated that she had cut Is herself. What did you do to satisfy yourself that she didn't continue to engage in that behavior?
DR. HUGHES: As with most things, I asked about the is frequency of the behavior and had it ever occurred again. Had she ever engaged in suicidal behavior or suicidal gestures. That's part of that screen.
MR. DENNISON: Where did Ms. Heard cut herself?
DR. HUGHES: I'd have to look at my notes to be sure.
MR. DENNISON: All right. Why don't we do that? That's in your intake note, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I don't recall.
MR. DENNISON: Why don't we go to PX 938. And if you'd put it up for the witness. That's not it. Let's go to the next page. There we go. All right.
MR. DENNISON: PX 938, we're on the third page. This background information sheet has already been admitted into evidence. And there's a discussion here, we talked about earlier, about intimate relationships?
DR. HUGHES: I'm sorry. Your question?
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go back to the first page. All right. There we go.
MR. DENNISON: This is in 1246, this page, anyway. I'll ask that it be published to the jury.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think it already was, Your Honor, but we can do it again.
MR. DENNISON: We're going to do it again.
THE COURT: You said 1246?
THE COURT: It's in evidence. There's supposed to be redactions, though.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's in.
THE COURT: All right. That's in. 1246.
MR. DENNISON: So why don't we blow up the intimate relationships section.
MR. DENNISON: There's intimate relationships here relevant to various people, including a person called Tasya?
DR. HUGHES: Tasya.
MR. DENNISON: Who is she?
DR. HUGHES: She was Ms. Heard's wife.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. And that relationship preceded her relationship with Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: Did you say, on direct, that you saw no previous inter-partner violence? Just yes or no.
DR. HUGHES: I don't believe I did.
MR. DENNISON: You don't believe that you saw inter-partner violence or you didn't say it on direct?
DR. HUGHES: I don't believe I said that yesterday.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. DENNISON: Thanks.
MR. DENNISON: PLANE
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. DENNISON: I got there. 1246.
THE COURT: 1246, yes.
MR. DENNISON: Which opposing counsel insisted come in as a full exhibit.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DENNISON: When we get to the last page, there's a legal history that addresses her arrest for domestic violence.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I would want this redacted, Your Honor. I wasn't aware, but I didn't have the exhibit.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: I would like to ask--
MS. BREDEHOFT: It also has the dog-- the dogs, it has all of that on that page. I would want that redacted.
MR. DENNISON: These are the notes that this witness took with respect to her initial intake relative to domestic violence, and Tasya, Tasya, is an intimate partner who is identified in the intake form
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor can see. This is legal history.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. Wait, where am I I looking?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Legal history. It doesn't say intimate partner violence. It also says --
MR. DENNISON: The arrest is for I domestic violence. t 11
MS. BREDEHOFT: The arrest, that should I stay out, and that should be redacted, Your Honor.
THE COURT: So, what are you asking me? Are you asking me if you can ask her about it because it was in her notes?
MR. DENNISON: I'm asking to her ask about -- because Ms. Heard identified this as part of her legal history and this incident included an arrest for domestic violence relative to an intimate partner.
THE COURT: Right. But she didn't testify to it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: I have the Motion in Limine in place, so I'm just not going to allow it at this time.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I ask that this page be redacted. I asked before that we go through for redaction. This is one I'm asking for redactions.
MR. DENNISON: So the Motion in Limine allowed me to ask that single question -- O
THE COURT: No. I believe that the door ain't opened. If she testified to that, you definitely would have been able to get into, but the Motion in Limine, you wouldn't be able to get into it unless the door was opened. But I just want you to know, if the door opens, the door opens. But I think that last page has to be redacted. I'm waiting for redactions anyway. You have a chance to look at it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: All right?
MR. DENNISON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
MR. DENNISON: Did you speak to Ms. Heard around the circumstances that gave rise to the TRO?
DR. HUGHES: On May 21st?
MR. DENNISON: Yes. Thank you.
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I did.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. Did Ms. Heard ever tell you that James Franco spent the night with her at the ECB between May 21 and May 27?
DR. HUGHES: I recall - I mean, again, it would be helpful to have my notes so I can tell you exactly what, but I do recall that she did see him, at some point I do not know if he spent the night.
MR. DENNISON: Do you know if Elon Musk spent the night during that period?
DR. HUGHES: I don't know.
MR. DENNISON: Allright.
MR. DENNISON: You cannot testify that Johnny Depp was not abused, can you?
DR. HUGHES: I can testify that he had physical acts I of violence perpetrated on him, as well as psychological aggressive acts perpetrated upon him.
MR. DENNISON: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Redirect.
MR. DENNISON: EXAMINATION BY COUNSEL FOR THE DEFENDANT AND COUNTERCLAIM PLAINTIFF BY MS. BREDEHOFT:
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes, you were asked about some IO presentations. I think Plaintiffs 1241 was the first one.
MS. BREDEHOFT: If we can bring that up. Tom, would you help me out with that? 1241.
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And if you can scroll down.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What was the significance of this presentation?
MS. BREDEHOFT: And can you give her control or do you have to have control of the document?
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's just one page? provided in this presentation? Oh, it's not the entire presentation? Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you, please, tell the jury what you Is
DR. HUGHES: To the best of my recollection, it was what I spoke to you about before, of how people who are not trained in forensic psychology, but who are working with victims of domestic violence, can go into court and navigate with the court system and present and talk about domestic violence in a legal setting.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you. And that's been moved into --
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's been moved in, correct?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's go to the one I don't think was. 1242, please. Tom, if you could bring that up. All right. And is that just one page, too? How many pages is that one? AV TECHNICIAN: Multiple pages.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall this presentation, Dr. Hughes?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Could you please --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, I'm going to move the admission of Plaintiffs Exhibit 1242, first of all.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. DENNISON: No.
THE COURT: All right. 1242.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can we publish it to the jury, please?
THE COURT: Yes, ma'am.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And, Dr. Hughes, could you, please, tell the jury -- explain to the jury what this presentation entails?
DR. HUGHES: So I was asked, by the head of the Kings County Bar Association, to give a presentation about intimate partner violence, domestic violence, and how psychological experts can be of assistance.
DR. HUGHES: This was, just because of how Brooklyn is, a bar association that was attended by many of the prosecutors from the Kings County District Attorneys Office as well as defense attorneys. And as I stated before, this presentation was about how to really understand cases of domestic violence. How to understand, what if she drops the restraining order? What if she doesn't call the police? What are the myths and misconceptions about intimate partner violence? And when she uses force, what does that mean? How do we understand that? How do we evaluate for that?
DR. HUGHES: Again, without seeing the rest of the presentation, I believe that was the thrust of this presentation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Great. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you testified about the notes you took and the notes you reviewed, and you were asked about some limited questions on testing.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask for Defendant's Exhibit 1434.
MR. DENNISON: Are you going to do that one?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, no, no, no.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We need -- thank you, Sammy. But you were doing a fine job, Tom. I didn't mean to take it away from you. Thank you, Michelle.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes, is this your CV?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, it is.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to move the admission of Defendant's 1434.
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, completeness. They've got all the other records in here for Dr. Hughes. I'm trying to seek completeness.
THE COURT: I understand. I'll sustain the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Next question.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Let's go to Defendant's 1435, please.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Dr. Hughes, you've testified about the different testings that you administered, and this is one of the ones that, I believe, you testified to earlier, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this is the DSM-5?
DR. HUGHES: This is the Clinician-Administered PTSD Is Scale for the DSM-5.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to move the admission of 1435.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. DENNISON: We object, Your Honor, I because it has a Jot of other documents in it, not 1112 just the CAPS-5.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's not the CAPS-5. It's the DSM-5.
MR. DENNISON: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: But she administered all these tests, Your Honor, and for completeness of record, they can't put in partials and then not have the rest of it.
THE COURT: Well, I mean --
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have the rule on this, Your Honor.
THE COURT: There was no objection to when they put theirs in, and now they're objecting to you putting.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I would cite rule of completeness, Your Honor, Virginia Rule 2: 106, that they can't just put a partial in and then not have the completeness of the testing in the documents.
THE COURT: Well, they put their test in, now you want to put more tests in, correct?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct.
THE COURT: That's not a completeness argument, then. That's just a different test.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, it's --
THE COURT: But what's the objection, though.
MR. DENNISON: Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I'll sustain the objection.
THE COURT: Next question.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Well, then, we'll go for the other ones.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You did the TSI --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Before we go on to the others, let's talk about.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you, please, tell the jury what you administered in this DSM-5 and why this is significant?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you tell us why the DSM-5 is significant, that you administered?
DR. HUGHES: So, the DSM-5 is the diagnostic and statistical manual for psychiatric disorders. It's published by the American Psychiatric Association. That's where it has all the criteria and all the information for all major mental disorders, like major depressive disorder or panic disorder or PTSD. What the CAPS is, the Clinician-Administered PTSD Scale, is it follows all of that criteria that's in the DSM-5 so that you can make a very accurate diagnosis.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what, if any, diagnosis did you make as a result of this DSM-5?
DR. HUGHES: So, not only on this. I mean, this instrument can stand alone, where she meets PTSD criteria, just by virtue of this instrument. Pardon me. But, also, the other testing that I gave, where she had elevated scales on PTSD measures, which correspond with the DSM-5 symptoms of PTSD. So there were multiple measures that are consistent across time that she meets criteria for PTSD.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Dr. Hughes. Now, you were also given one page of the scoring on the TSI-2 and one page with respect to the PAI.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall seeing that?
DR. HUGHES: It wasn't the scoring. They were the l . critical items on those respective tests.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, I'm going to ask ! 19 to bring up Defendant's Exhibit 1858, which is the I full PAI.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And was this the actual testing and scoring?
DR. HUGHES: Yes. This is the pro file, the scores that are generated from the 344 questions that Ms. Heard answered on this test.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what did you -- what were the results? What did you determine based on the testing of this P Al?
DR. HUGHES: Well, that the results were valid and reportable. There was no evidence of exaggeration or malingering on this test, and there were significant symptoms that correspond with traumatic stress and post-traumatic stress disorder symptomatology.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And I believe you've said, again, that l l J 4 there was -- that there was no elevated scores.
MS. BREDEHOFT: J 5 Can you explain to the jury what you meant by that?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Leading.is
THE COURT: Overrule that. Go ahead.
DR. HUGHES: So, elevated scores are a way that we get to know where a cutoff is to say that something is clinically significant. And that follows very standard statistical principles. So when a scale is elevated, it means that we have sort of greater confidence that this individual endorsed a lot of different symptoms that make this scale relevant, and we want to figure out why that person is having an elevated score on something like depression or anxiety. It gives us greater confidence that, you know, this person may be reporting depressive symptoms like people who are depressed
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what would constitute an elevated score?
DR. HUGHES: Well, on different tests, it's different things. Certainly on the PAI, it doesn't follow the newer T scores. It's a little different statistically. So you have to look at it differently. But, certainly, you know, it's usually about a T score of a 65, and on some, it's a T score of 70. Which is - a T score is normative curve. It's a way of allowing us to compare people's scores, comparing your scores to the normative group of scores.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would it be helpful to have the entire test as opposed to a -- one piece of paper or one page?
DR. HUGHES: Well, certainly, you cannot tell the entirety of how the symptoms that Ms. Heard endorsed on the scales were elevated just by the critical items.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to move the admission of Plaintiff's -- of Defendant's Exhibit 1858.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this is the completeness, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
THE COURT: Next question.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's bring up 1859.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this is -- you were shown one page from the TSI-2, the Trauma Symptom Inventory-2.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall that?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is the significance of the TSI-2 exam, the full exam? I of common symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and related traumatic symptomatology.
DR. HUGHES: The Trauma Symptom Inventory is a test And on this score, she had, you know, elevations in intrusive experiences, which is the intrusive components of PTSD, where thoughts or memories or feelings come into your mind when you don't want them, with accompanying distress. And then the defensive avoidance, doing many, many different things to push it down, to try not to think about it, to try not to talk about it so that you don't get upset.
DR. HUGHES: And she also scored high on a scale of relational avoidance, having difficulty feeling close in relations -- relationships, not only intimate relationships, but friendships as well. And that's a related trauma symptom that individuals have after having sustained an interpersonal trauma like domestic violence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And would it be helpful to have o ,21 the full exam as opposed to one page out of it?
DR. HUGHES: As with anything, seeing an entire profile gives one more information.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I move the I! admission of Defendant's Exhibited 15 -- 1859.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Hearsay.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I would argue the completeness for that.
THE COURT: You can approach for this.
THE COURT: I just want to make sure. I I I They just did the first page. Is that the actual test or is that just --
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's the entire test.
THE COURT: You want the entire test, understand that. But the first page was just a summary of it?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No. The two pages that he put in were a page from it, and it wasn't even the beginning or a summary. It was a particular snapshot. It was one page from there in a particular area.
MR. DENNISON: I asked the witness about the critical items identified on the test. I didn't go into anything other than the critical items on the test. That's why I put those pages Ill.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's just one page of a particular critical for that particular topic. There's all kinds of different pages and critical items in there.
THE COURT: All right. I understand the objection by him I'm going to sustain the objection.
THE COURT: Thank you, though. I just wanted to make sure.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Dr. Hughes, you were asked -- you were shown a couple of finger pictures of Mr. Depp. And I believe you indicated -- those were shown to you, and I think you were asked if you were -- if these were severe injuries, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Did you have any understanding of the cause of those injuries by Mr. Depp?
DR. HUGHES: I do understand that there's competing accounts of what happened, for sure.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's bring up Defendant's exhibit 373.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I think this is already admitted.
THE COURT: I don't see it and Jamie doesn't have it. So, 373, I can mark it, but it's not admitted yet.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think there's a version of that.
THE COURT: Well, I don't know that. I can just tell you that 373 has not been admitted into evidence.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, it's not redacted, and I don't believe it's been admitted.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The part I'm trying to admit is in another exhibit, so let's go in a different way. We'll take that one down. Let's go with 398.
THE COURT: 398 redacted is in evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That might be the one.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. If you could blow that up. And I think we're looking for -- if you could, move that up, Michelle. There we go. If you could blow that one up.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And this is an email from Mr. Depp to David Kipper, his -- your understanding was that was his doctor, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And then I'm going to draw your attention to the last part of this, and this was on 3/19/2015, "thank you for everything" -- figure out how to do this. I'm missing the controls on this. "Thank you for everything. I've chopped off my left middle finger as a reminder that I should" -- thank you, Your Honor -- "that I should" never cut off my finger again. Do you see that?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So that's Mr. Depp admitting that to Is Dr. Kipper in 3/19/2015?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Leading.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. ,8
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's fine. I'm good I with that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's go to Defendant's Exhibit 499. And, Your Honor, I believe this one is in as well. Or is it the redacted?
THE COURT: It's the redacted one. 'Yes, that's the one.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then, if I could draw your attention, this is a text message from Mr. Depp to Erin Falati, we talked about her earlier, on 10/31/2015. And it says "This is the second time he's held off giving me my meds by blackmailing me into seeing him The first time I had just chopped my finger off.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall seeing that as part of the documents that you reviewed?
DR. HUGHES: I believe I did
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We can take that down.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you were also asked to listen to an audiotape, and it's Plaintiff's 343. I'm going to -- and do you recall listening to that audio tape, at some point, as part of your review?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. I'm going to, now, pull up that same audiotape from the same day, and I believe that's June 2016.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And if we could go to -- we're going to have a few different ones, so hold in there with us. We're going to start with 2 minutes, 40 seconds, 00, going to 2 minutes, 40 seconds and 21
MS. HEARD: Come knocking on the door. I don't get why I want --
MS. HEARD: I don't get why one informs the other.
MS. HEARD: How does one inform the other?
MR. DEPP: So a man would want to get out of that area so that he doesn't get so fucking angry that he actually does pop the fucking wife.
MS. HEARD: How does one inform the other?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, that was just before the punching/hitting that was played.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall that?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Leading.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, the tape recording that you listened to was at 2:46:0 I to 2:4 7:20, and that was 2:40 through 2:40:21, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I understand Is
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Leading.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: Overruled.
THE COURT: Go ahead.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, let's go to after that, 2:52:00 to 2:52:34.
MS. HEARD: Stress yesterday because of i 1 show it's been lately, like, since Australia. And I have been on the road with you. I haven't been working. I don't know what else I can fucking do. I 1 s
MR. DEPP: Since Australia? We were on our honeymoon. We had a great time other than the fight. We had a fight on the train.
MS. HEARD: Yeah.
MS. HEARD: Yeah.
MR. DEPP: And then we had a fight in San Francisco. And I thought everything else was great. And you're saying I'm doing this since Australia?
MS. HEARD: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then, let's go to 3:20:00 to 3:21:37.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And while they're getting that, I'll just ask you the question, Dr. Hughes. Do you recall that Mr. Depp said that they had fights in the places that he listed on that audiotape?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What do you recall Mr. Depp saying about fights that they'd had, on that audiotape?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. No foundation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She just listened to
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUGHES: I think it was hard to hear in this one. I had listened to it previously, just acknowledging that there were fights previously.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Thank you.
MR. DEPP: I left last night, honestly, IO I swear to you, because I just couldn't take the idea of more physicality, more physical abuse on each other. Because had we continued, it would have --
MS. HEARD: I know.
MR. DEPP: Gotten fucking, you know, bad. Baby, I told you this once, I'm scared to death of this. We are a fucking crime scene waiting to happen --
MS. HEARD: I know.
MR. DEPP: If we don't get our shit together. And I -- by getting our shit together, that might mean fucking, aye, we do this, we make
MR. DEPP: It. That might mean, damn, you know, say, I've tried. Done. Toodeloo. But we've got to get our shit together as individuals and as a couple because I love you and I do not want to leave you? I do not want a divorce. I do not want you out of my life. I just want peace.
MR. DEPP: And if I'm the culprit majority of the time, I will fucking do everything I can. And I will recognize when I'm fucking starting to go sideways. Will recognize it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you recall listening to that part of the tape, the audiotape?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what do you recall from that portion? Again, I know it's hard to hear.
DR. HUGHES: It's hard to hear, but what I recall, from hearing that, was the negotiation that the couple is trying to do and trying to say, you know, I'm going to do my part. I'm going to do better.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Is it possible to tum that up any more? I have one more. Just...
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Jamie.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. My last one is 3:26:20 to 3:29:50.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, can we approach?
THE COURT: Okay. Yes, sir.
MR. DENNISON: All of this is beyond the scope of cross.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, you put the audiotape in.
MR. DENNISON: Every audiotape comes in because I asked about one thing?
MS. BREDEHOFT: It's the same audiotape.
THE COURT: It's the same audiotape.
THE COURT: This is the last, correct?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: Thanks. I -- I
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you're ready.
MS. HEARD: It's -- that sounds very l good and I agree. But what about the -- what are we --
MS. HEARD: What are we going to do ! 12 different in the moment, when you're mad and you go, "Fuck it" --
MS. HEARD: And you decide all bets are off?
MR. DEPP: In the moment. I Well, look what I did in Australia. I Look what I accomplished. I put the fucker away. I told myself every fucking day, "No, he's gone. No, he's gone because I fucking put him away. Put him away. And by a list of the things that I feel that fuck you over or make you feel shitty, or anything like that, I'm fucking, when we're in the moment, I remember it. I remember what I put on my list. I remember it and I try to, to, to bring it down notches, many notches. I've tried, when we're heightened, to say, please, I don't want you to feel this. I don't want -- I don't want to feel this. Let's -- O
MS. HEARD: I'm not. I need to know what we need to do different. I need to know.
MS. HEARD: What do we do different if I have a problem?
MS. HEARD: You need to tell me how to tell you different if I'm hurting you. You need to let me be able to be mad. Sometimes you're going to make me mad. I'm a human. I cannot live where it's like --
MR. DEPP: Well, then, the same thing goes for me, then. You're going to have to allow me to get mad then.
MS. HEARD: Yes. Exactly. If I do something that makes you mad --
MS. HEARD: I don't have to start yelling. I think I start yelling once it gets fucking heightened. I've gotten a lot better about that. It's just only -- I only start yelling when it's fuckin' hour 11 and we're really in it.
MR. DEPP: Yeah, yeah. I get hot, but I've been better about that. I was -- we've had three physical fights in the last month and a half.
MS. HEARD: I was talking about the yelling, but...
MR. DEPP: I there in our fucking heads and in our hearts. Let's go back there and know on your list --
MS. HEARD: Is the monster gone? Did you put him away? It's been so --when you get on that train, you're angry, you stay on it for so long and you won't come down. You won't talk to the person that is you --
MS. HEARD: Doesn't have to always be the monster. But what is it? Can you put that away? Can you remember the bigger picture? You don't want to spend your life -- I've asked you this so many times in fights, do you want to spend your time in this? I know you don't. But I ask you because this is something you're choosing. I'm saying to you "olive branch." And you don't take my olive branches. You make me feel humiliated for offering them You asked me to stay in Australia. I stayed. And then you walk out on me all the time. You've got to take some olive branches I j from me. You've 1,2 got to be bigger than what you feel at that moment, and so do I. So do I.
MS. HEARD: But if I call you on it, will you hear it?
MS. HEARD: You call me out on it if I 8 I'm doing it?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Do you remember listening to that, Dr. Hughes?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what is your interpretation of that? What do you recall?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Speculation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She's an expert.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUGHES: I think this is how the couple was trying to negotiate in the face of all of the turmoil and violence and the abuse. I think it's important pointing out, my recollection is there's two Australias. So they're talking about the honeymoon Australia, not the Australia where the incident happens. They go back and that becomes a honeymoon time for them. And I think, certainly, hearing how this couple has talked about the monster and the person who comes out, we talked about that cycle of violence, where the person who, you know, hurts her and hits her and controls her isn't the same person that she loves and she cares about and that she wants to be with.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Dr. Hughes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you also were asked about Dr. Bonnie Jacobs and her treatment and her treatment notes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Did you review the notes o.f Bonnie Jacobs?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I did.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'm going to ask you --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can we bring up Defendant's 1059.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you recognize these -- this document?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And what is it?
DR. HUGHES: This looks like the first of Dr. Bonnie Jacobs' treatment notes, starting in October 17th, 2011.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you recall whether Ms. Heard was already in a relationship with Mr. Depp at that time?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, she was.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And you testified, quite extensively, yesterday, about Bonnie Jacobs' notes and entries there.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Were those reflected in these notes?
DR. HUGHES: These were the notes that I -
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I can ask it differently.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What, if any, of those citations that you gave to the jury were in these notes?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUGHES: These were the notes that I was referring to yesterday.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what was the significance of these notes to you? You were asked, again, about them ,7 on cross.
DR. HUGHES: Again, I found the treatment notes very significant because they had contemporaneous reports of what Ms. Heard was going through. Not only what she was reporting in her relationship with Mr. Depp, but her accompanying symptomatology. What the notes revealed was there's a significant amount -- what we see is unfolding time. We see where the violence starts and we see how it unfolds. We see at least three indications of sexual assaults. We see constant pleadings and upset about his substance abuse and trying to find ways to get him help.
DR. HUGHES: And she I joins Al-Anon to get herself help as a family member of someone who struggles with substance abuse. We see how she is reporting a lot of I controlling behavior and obsessive behavior. We see that there's two instances where the police were going to be called in her apartment in Orange because of the fighting at that time. Once they actually were called and once they weren't, from what I can amass from the notes. So, what it does is it really shows how IS this relationship is unfolding over time and actually getting worse.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then you indicated that Amber Heard moved from Bonnie Jacobs to Dr. Cowan, and that was in 2014; is that correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And what is your understanding of the relationship between Dr. Cowan and Dr. Kipper?
DR. HUGHES: They were professional colleagues and they were friends, and Dr. Curry - well, it's understanding why Ms. Heard left the relationship with Bonnie Jacobs. It became a tumultuous relationship for her there because she was doing a lot to protect Johnny and Bonnie Jacobs had concerns -
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MR. DENNISON: No foundation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I just established the foundation. She reviewed the notes and she interviewed Bonnie Jacobs.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the foundation objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Go ahead.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Nonresponsive.
THE COURT: I'll overrule nonresponsive.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please continue, Dr. Hughes.
DR. HUGHES: The reason that Ms. Heard left her treatment with Bonnie Jacobs was, one, that Mr. Depp continued to denigrate that relationship, their therapeutic relationship.
DR. HUGHES: But number two, really, more importantly, she wanted to protect Mr. Depp because she didn't want - Dr. Jacobs had some concerns about, perhaps, his substance using in front of his children and that she would be a mandated reporter. So, Ms. Heard did not want to do anything and talk more about what was going on with -- Mr. Depp with her therapist for fear that something might happen. So she left that treatment, really, to protect Mr. Depp.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I would like to move the admission of Defendant's O Exhibit 1059, the treatment notes.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Hearsay. Your Honor, this is what we dealt with yesterday.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, I think that for completeness here, she has relied upon these and they reflect the present tense impressions.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection to hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Let's go to Defendant's Exhibit 1057, please.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And, Dr. Hughes, you also indicated that you relied on the treatment notes of Dr. Connell Cowan, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Cowan, Connell Cowan, yes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: That's correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And you also interviewed him as well?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And what was the significance of what he reported to you that related to your opinions?
DR. HUGHES: Well, this was a continuation of her treatment and the treatment here, where it seemed like Dr. Connell Cowan was going with a harm reduction model, really trying to help Amber stay safe in the relationship by not talking back, by leaving, by not engaging. And those are very sort of short-term strategies when you're in a -15 relationship mired with interpersonal violence.
DR. HUGHES: What we also see is what I mentioned yesterday, is her psychological status and functioning continues to deteriorate. She continues to have more anxiety, more affect dysregulation, so the feelings are coming up and down all the time. She's having more sleep problems, she's going on more medication. And the conceptualization and understanding of that is sort of exposure to repeated trauma causes psychological disequilibrium and destabilization. And that sort of, again, seeing the trauma unfold over time.
DR. HUGHES: And also in these notes, I mean, certainly, there were other contemporaneous reports that correspond to specific incidents. Like I was speaking with you yesterday about the Boston plane incident, there are actual notes where she called him after -
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: What's the objection?
MR. DENNISON: Beyond the scope of the question.
THE COURT: Okay. I'll sustain the objection.
THE COURT: Next question.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What, if any, additional information did you get from Dr. Cowan that assisted you in your opinions?
DR. HUGHES: Well, certainly, from the notes, as I was stating, that, you know, there were times where right after an incident, you know, Ms. Heard wrote -- she contacted Dr. Cowan, either by text or by email, and saying, you know, Johnny did a number on me tonight. I really need to see you. I'm safe.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think she can rely on hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection to hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Well, Your Honor, I'm going to move the admission of the notes, Defendant's 1057.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Hearsay, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection. Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Move to strike the hearsay testimony as well.
THE COURT: No, we'll continue on. Go ahead.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You were asked about a knife. You were shown Plaintiff's Exhibit 92 and a knife that's, I think, "until death."
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your understanding of the significance of that knife and that phrase as it related to Amber Heard?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. O No foundation.
MS. BREDEHOFT: He showed it in
MS. BREDEHOFT: Let's pull up Plaintiff's 92.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Tom, could I get you to do that, please.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I believe you respond -- in response to the questions asked by counsel for Mr. Depp, you said it depends upon what the context is. What did you mean by that?
DR. HUGHES: Well, first, I believe that this is the is knife that has a turquoise end, and this was when - a time when Mr. Depp was filming the Lone Ranger and he was in a turquoise phase, and she purchased him that because she felt it would be a kind gift.
DR. HUGHES: The phraseology is that Mr. Depp told her the only way out of this relationship is death.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Hearsay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't understand the I objection. I think she was entitled to be able to ! speak to that.
THE COURT: But she --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, it's Mr. Depp's statement. A party-opponent admission.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is your opinion -- what do you think of that as a clinical psychologist specializing in IPV and trauma?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Can I -- can we approach?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: We're about to launch p O into, yet, another undisclosed opinion that's not I reflected.
MS. BREDEHOFT: This is from cross-examination.
THE COURT: I know, but it's still an opinion. I mean ...
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, but if it comes up in the examination. I didn't raise that with
THE COURT: You did ask her about it. But I don't think her opinion on -- her opinion on it is a different matter.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll try to rephrase it, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes, do you think that the phraseology on the knife bears any relationship or O significance to the opinions you've had in this case?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Leading.
THE COURT: Sustain the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What, if any, significance does the phraseology on the knife have to the opinions you have provided in this case?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Beyond the scope of the disclosure.
MS. BREDEHOFT: He brought it up in cross, Your Honor.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
DR. HUGHES: So there are several things. I certainly am aware that, at this time, that Ms. Heard purchased this knife for Mr. Depp. She was engaged in a - her whole - a lot of denial and minimization about the extent of the violence in the relationship. There is a notation in Dr. Bonnie Jacobs' notes about when Mr. Depp uttered this to her, was around the discussion of the prenup. And he said, I don't want one because the only way out of this relationship is death.
DR. HUGHES: Dr. Jacobs didn't think that that was funny. Ms. Heard was taking it like, oh, maybe it's endearing. Maybe this is okay. But it was definitely a clinical cause of concern at the time that that phraseology was used.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you, Dr. Hughes.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, you were -- you listened to an audiotape and then we shared some additional ones from that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What, if any, photos did you review as I part of your examination?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Beyond the scope of cross.
MS. BREDEHOFT: He was asking all the different authority. I'm just establishing that she also looked at photos.
THE COURT: I'll sustain the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: It's beyond the scope.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes, based on everything in the I
DR. HUGHES: I don't-
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUGHES: I don't have any changes to my opinions that I gave yesterday.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And do you still hold those ' 1 within a reasonable degree of psychological probability or certainty?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have no further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Is this witness subject to recall? e 5
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ma'am, you can't discuss your testimony with anyone, but you're free to stay in the courtroom, based on your expert testimony, okay?
DR. HUGHES: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. I think we'll go ahead -- yes, sir.
MR. DENNISON: May we approach?
THE COURT: Okay.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. DENNISON: Your Honor, I'd like to make an oral motion to strike those portions of Dr. Hughes's testimony that exceeded the scope of the disclosure, including all evidence related to the MMPI-2, her views on personality disorders, and her testimony relative to the various communications she had with the other doctors as to personality disorders. None of that appeared in any of the four disclosures she made. The MMPI-2 information was Dr. Curry's disclosure and she had every opportunity to rebut it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, those needed to be made simultaneously if he was going to --
MR. DENNISON: I did object.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't agree that you did simultaneously object, and they were in the disclosures, and they were in her deposition. I read through the deposition last night. So I don't think there's any basis, whatsoever, for striking any of those.
MR. DENNISON: This is exactly the conversation we had yesterday, where we asked opposing counsel, where, in the disclosure, does it say--
THE COURT: Right. And I sustained that objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Exactly. Your Honor sustained that objection.
MR. DENNISON: But it was much broader testimony. I made repeated objections.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the motion, okay?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we're going to go ahead and take our lunch break-- I I sorry, Judy.
THE COURT: Let's go ahead and take our lunch break now. Do not do any outside research, and don't talk to anybody about the case, okay? We'll see you back here at 2:00, okay?
THE COURT: All right. We'll be back at 2:00, then, all right?
THE COURT: Thank you.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I have one housekeeping matter, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. Which s ones are those ...
MS. BREDEHOFT: These are the four tape recordings that we played out of 343.
THE COURT: 343?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah. Those four that we played.
THE COURT: Okay. All right. I assume there's no objection?
MS. VASQUEZ: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Are we ready for the jury?
MS. VASQUEZ: Yes.
THE COURT: Okay. Sorry, Judy. It's been that kind of day.
THE COURT: All right. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. Be seated.