Dawn Hughes — Direct/Cross/Redirect
383 linesMR. ROTTENBORN: Thank you.
THE COURT: 51 minutes. All right Just so we're all clear.
MS. BREDEHOFT: While we're here.
MS. BREDEHOFT: While we're up here. I'm going to call Dr. Hughes next. After that, can we take a quick break? The only other witness we're calling is Ms. Heard, but she really has to go to the bathroom.
THE COURT: Well, I assume that's going to be close. -
MS. BREDEHOFT: It will be right after.
THE COURT: You would, Mr: Chew.
MR. DENNISON: While we're up here, and we're going to talk about Dr. Hughes, this is a rebuttal witness.
THE COURT: Right. - MR, DENNISON: There was no. direct evidence from any of our experts about IPV issues or risk factors on IPV.
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: So I just want to make
THE COURT: The only thing to rebut --
MS. BREDEHOFT: She's going to be 22. rebutting Dr. Curry, .and Dr. Curry did testify on 9512 to May 26, 2022 IJPV and that she couldn't find IPV in these test result. What she's going to say, specifically, what.she's going -- she's going to respond specifically to Dr. Curry, and nothing else.
THE COURT: Just what Dr. Curry said in evidence on rebuttal?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct.
THE COURT: On IPV?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Correct.
THE COURT: Just the factors?
MR. DENNISON: My big issue is I didn't want another litany of IPV factors.
THE COURT: Right. I don't think they have time to do that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We're short on time.
THE COURT: Yeah.
THE COURT: All ‘right. Your next witness.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, we would like to call Dr. Dawn Hughes to the stand.
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Hughes,
THE COURT: All right. Dr. Hughes. Thank you, Doctor. Just a reminder that you're still under oath,
JULIAN ACKERT: Yes, Your Honor. Thank you. DAWN M. HUGHES, PH:D., ABPP, having been previously sworn, was examined and testified as follows:
MS. BREDEHOFT: Could you, please, just remind the jury who you are again?
DR. HUGHES: Sure. I'ma clinical and forensic psychologist; I am board certified in forensic psychology; I am the president elect of the trauma division of the American Psychological Association. And I evaluated Amber Heard over six visits, for, approximately 29 hours.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And why are you here today?
DR. HUGHES: To offer rebuttal testimony to Shannon Curry's testimony of yesterday.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Now, Dr. Curry said you used improper methods. Would you agree with that?
DR. HUGHES: No, I would not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Why? Please explain.
DR. HUGHES: I, as I testified to you all several weeks ago, I used a standard forensic procedure that was well-established in our field. It is a multi-method, multi-hypothesis driven procedure where you're looking at a variety of different details and tests and external data to arrive at an opinion, and you're looking at the consistency across that data. There are three sort of sets of tests that we use as forensic psychologists, and I think that's where it seems that Dr. Curry seems confused. We have forensic assessment 17.
DR. HUGHES: Instruments, those are instruments that are very neatly tied to a legal criteria; those are most notably done in the criminal court for competency, if someone has competency to stand trial. We have very clear measures that can track that legal criteria. The next level are forensically relevant instruments, and those instruments are not linked to a specific legal criteria, but they do have information that's germane to that finding. And that can be an example of a risk assessment measure and a malingering measure. So the malingering measure that I utilized was the M-FAST, and that was the only malingering measure in this case.
DR. HUGHES: The third category are clinical assessment instruments, and those are instruments that are validated and well-researched and used in the clinical realm as we understand people's symptomatology and diagnostic and functional capacities, Those are things like the MMPI, the PAI, the CAPS, the TSI, because they are clinically relevant, and they still give us very valuable information to individuals who are involved in a court case. And the reason that we do that and we use these clinical measures is because the majority of the people that we see are in a clinical realm. They're not in a courtroom. So they're well-validated and well-researched methods. What we also do is use very different types of tests within that category. We use some checklists, some face value checklists; we use some tests that are those broadband personality inventories; we use structured clinical interviews, and then we look for the consistency across those data points.
DR. HUGHES: And when we use different types of tests, it gives us information about the individual, how they go about these tests in these different modalities.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Dr. Curry seemed to suggest that Amber Heard tested the most extreme category in all of these tests. Is that accurate?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled.
DR. HUGHES: That is not accurate. They were not. On the checklists, I mean, people sometimes do, they go, all the time, this happens to me all the time, frequently. And that is not how she endorsed these tests. She endorsed them in a very moderate way and a very nuanced way, describing her symptoms, that I determined was accurate and reliable.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Curry also suggested that Amber Heard was tested very, very high, 98th percentile, I think, on malingering and feigning. Could you speak to that, please.
DR. HUGHES: Sure. She said a lot of things, so let's go through those tests. First was the PAI, and that's that other—
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Nonresponsive.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I think that's very responsive.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Could you tell the jury about the PAI test that Dr. Curry addressed?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, Thank you. So that's the broadband measure that-has validity scales built into it. That gives us indications about how the individual goes about the test. I told you last time that there was no evidence of malingering or exaggeration or feigning on that test. What Dr. Curry was talking about was this tendency to put your best foot forward to minimize false on this PAI. That scale was right at the cusp, and then there were two other measures that we look at that to say, you know, is this enough of an elevation for me to consider that as a serious response distortion, of which Dr. Curry was saying, and it was not.
DR. HUGHES: What was relevant on this test was there were elevations on anxiety, on effectivity anxiety, meaning anxiety, tension, worry, on traumatic stress, on hyperactivity, and on affect of instability. Those were the four scales that were elevated on this test. The borderline scale was not elevated on this test, and this test --
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. May we approach?
THE COURT: Yes. Cary nam a WN Yes.
MR. DENNISON: There was no evidence -- no disclosure in her initial disclosure, any of the subsequent disclosures, about any diagnosis of borderline personality disorder or any other personality disorder by this witness.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All she is doing is rebutting what Dr. Curry said yesterday. She's not doing anything from the disclosures. And Your Honor allowed them to rebut the testimony to. Outside of that, she said, specifically, on this test. ont NA PDD
MR. DENNISON: You'll remember the last time that this witness testified, I objected --
MS. BREDEHOFT: Excuse me. Does this count against me on time?
THE COURT: It kind of does, but go 18.ahead.
MR. DENNISON: You remember the last time we were here with this witness, I objected to this borderline personality material as being outside the scope of the disclosure -- May 26, 2022 I THE-COURT: She can't rebut something she hasn't actually done herself. She can rebut anything that Dr. Curry has done, okay? So, I'll sustain the objection.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Curry, let's move to the TSI-2. Dr. Curry testified about your findings on that. Did you agree with her testimony yesterday?
DR. HUGHES: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Just describe why, explain why.
DR. HUGHES: What Dr. Curry went back to, which is this 98th percentile, which I told you, in the manual, all you have to do is read the manual. It says, specifically, that we do not use the percentile ranks for this test. That indicates to me that, you know, Dr. Curry does not know the psychometric properties of this test, and then she's, therefore, not qualified to interpret it. That score, the one that's elevated, that she's talking about that percentile rank, has a raw score. Amber's raw score is a 10, the cutoff score is a 15. She's nowhere near that level of exaggerated symptoms where I can't further look at that test. Secondly, there are three scales out of about -- maybe it was about 20, a little more, on the TSI that were elevated. Intrusive experiences, that's when thoughts and memories of the trauma come into your mind when you don't want them. Defensive avoidance, sort of behavioral ways that we try to push out those memories and not think about them.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And relational avoidance, a way of having difficulty in interpersonal relationships. Those are all trauma-based symptoms, and those were elevated:on this test.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Dr. Hughes the M-FAST, Dr. Curry addressed that as well and had criticism for your interpretations. Do you agree with that?
DR. HUGHES: No.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please explain to the jury.
DR. HUGHES: So the M-FAST, as I told you last time, is a measure of malingering. It's the only measure of malingering that was done in this case. Dr. Curry did not independently administer -- measure malingering, and there are other ones that she could have done to augment her evaluation. And she kept saying the M-FAST is not for malingering PTSD, That's wrong on a couple levels. People who: are going to malinger and feign don't only feign one diagnosis. They sometimes talk about all different symptoms that they have, and they exaggerate and they make themselves seem much worse than they are.
DR. HUGHES: So when you're doing an evaluation, you're giving a malingering measure to get a sense of how this person is responding to this evaluation. Now, what you do is you take those three tests that I talked to you about, the PAI, the TSI and the M-FAST, all with valid validity scales, you have greater confidence in your results. That is in the literature, and that's literature that Dr. Curry cited in her report, that bolsters the methodology that I used; that in the study that had the PAI, the M-FAST, and the TSI in the title of detecting feign from bona fide PTSD.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you. Now, Dr, Curry also talked about the Danger Assessment Scale and suggested that you had inappropriately interpreted that. Do you agree?
DR. HUGHES: That's also incorrect.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please describe for the jury.
DR. HUGHES: Which I told you last time, the Danger Assessment Scale has statistically validated risk factors for serious or lethal domestic violence. Those risk factors exist whether we go forward, with sitting with someone in acute setting and assessing them right now, or if we look backward and we look retrospectively about what factors may have been present in a case that indicated severity. That instrument is used in what we call -- there's called Domestic Fatality Review May 26, 2022 Boards, those are boards after.somebody has been killed, a homicide has occurred in a domestic situation. They look at these risk factors to see what was there and what could be done.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Allright. Dr. Curry also criticized your administering of the CAPS-5. Do you agree with her criticism?
DR. HUGHES: I do not.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Would you please explain to the jury.
DR. HUGHES: So the CAPS-5, as you all have heard multiple times, is a structured clinical interview in determining PTSD, according to DSM-5 criteria. On this measure, Amber Heard scored in a moderate range. She did not overexaggerate on this test. She could have said no, mild, moderate, severe, and extreme. All of hers were either 2s, or 1s, or 0s. None above that. So she's going in the mild range, which still has functional impairment.
DR. HUGHES: I mean, we don't want somebody to be having moderate PTSD, but that's - not an exaggerated profile or exaggerated response of someone who's answering an instrument.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And the last of these Dr. Curry referred to as the PCL-5S. Do you agree with her criticism of your administration and interpretation of that?
DR. HUGHES: No. So the PCL-5 is a checklist of symptoms of PTSD. It is, as she said it, is a face value instrument, which means it is very clear about how you can endorse this. But what the person has to do is say, how disturbed am I by these symptoms? - And when you have face value measures with these other measures that have the built-in sort of validity scales, you're sort of controlling for that response bias error. You're controlling for that individual to sort of overexaggerate.
DR. HUGHES: But then, what you do with that test, because we're not just administering them like robots, is you go and you do a clinical assessment, and that's what I did. I took what she endorsed on that test, in January of 2021, and 211 did.a clinical assessment of those symptoms to - see if they meet criteria for PTSD. That is something we do clinically and { do in my office all the time. And, yes, she did meet PTSD from that in January of 2021.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you. Now, Dr. Curry said you misinterpreted her test results. Do you agree with that?
DR. HUGHES: Yes. [agree that I misinterpreted — I agree that I interpreted them that she misinterpreted them.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Please explain that.
DR. HUGHES: Yeah. So I am also— you know, my stance on the MMPI and how she interpreted it is, I believe, wrong, and I think.
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Allright.
MR. DENNISON: That's the issue we just addressed.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't.
THE COURT: If you want to approach.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She explicitly said that Dr. Hughes. misinterpreted her test results.
THE COURT: Right.
MR. DENNISON: She did.
THE COURT: ‘She answered that question, but then she: went further.
MR. DENNISON: Now she wants to go further and talk about the borderline personality issue. SYA MW WH
MS. BREDEHOFT: I'll move on.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Dr. Hughes, Dr. Curry also testified that a victim of PTSD has to effectively be prone and unable to function at all. Would you.agree with that?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Misstates the evidence.
MS. BREDEHOFT: She said she couldn't hike, they couldn't move, they couldn't function in any way, shape, or form. May 26, 2022
THE COURT: Overrule the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you. A’ No, that is not correct. That is often, actually, a myth, a misconception about individuals who are struggling with PTSD or trauma-based disorders, and I'm often called to answer that and speak to that. You know, people who are struggling with trauma and PTSD are very strong, courageous, resilient people, even though they're struggling. They get up, they have to go to work and drop their kid off at school and go to the market, even though they're struggling with these symptoms.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So I often talk about sort of walking around with a 50-pound bag of flour on their backs, just sort of trying to get through the day, where sometimes that button is going to press play and the trauma is going to start activating in their head, and then they're going to be having to think about it, and have physiological reactions until they can find a way to hit that pause and shut it off again. So they still have, you know, impairments in other ways
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I did.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Now, Dr. Curry also said that it is not within the scope of a psychologist to evaluate domestic violence. Do you agree with that? Of course I don't agree with that. This is what I do for a living, day in and day out, for 25 years. We are specifically trained to understand the profound impacts that trauma has on people's lives. That's what we do in the trauma division of the American Psychological Association, we disseminate that knowledge, and domestic violence is one of those profound traumas. Domestic violence is part of state licensing boards, that you can't get licensed in some states unless you take training on domestic violence. You can't renew your license unless you get training on domestic violence. So people who have, you know, specialized training in this area, it is, you know, beholden upon them to accurately assess for intimate partner violence and sexual violence. And it more important to assess for the sort of scientific understanding of what domestic violence is.
MS. BREDEHOFT: So you have to assess for the physical violence, the psychological violence, the surveillance, the economic, the emotional abuse, and the sexual violence. That is not gratuitous —
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Relevance.
THE COURT: Allright. Next question. Sustain the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Dr. Curry suggested that you made a determination just based on personal opinion and just on checklists and a couple of tests that you misinterpreted. Would you agree with that?
DR. HUGHES: I vehemently disagree with that. As I stated to you, over 29 hours and 12 psychological tests and reviewing a slew of documents in this case, most importantly, therapy records and interview, collateral interviews with therapists, using all that data, that is what a solid forensic methodological exam looks like. And then I made my conclusions based on my clinical education, knowledge, and training, to come up with a professional expert opinion.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And just to remind -- to make sure we're reminded here, you were qualified in this court, in this case, as an expert in forensic psychology and, specifically, in domestic violence and in the -- now I just lost it. And in violence, correct, and in trauma, correct?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Misstates the record. to May 26, 2022
THE COURT: If you want to ask that question again.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yeah, I probably should do that.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You were qualified -- I've got to find my note, You were qualified as an expert in forensic psychology with a specialty in domestic violence and in trauma, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. And that was in this case? 11. A That's correct. 12. Q Okay. Now, do you still hold the same opinions that you gave the jury earlier?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And do you still hold them within a reasonable degree of psychological probability and certainty?
DR. HUGHES: Yes,I do.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
THE COURT: Allright. Cross-examination.
MR. DENNISON: Yes. Your Honor. but can Yes, Your Honor, but can we approach quickly?
THE COURT: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: The witness suggested that her 29 hours was somehow valuable here. I was hopeful that I could ask whether she knew whether Dr. Curry was limited in the total number of hours she was able to meet with Ms. Heard. I don't want to get into the details, but Dr. Curry had a total of 12 hours and, you know, she's comparing her 29 hours to her. We're talking apples and oranges.
MS. BREDEHOFT: They asked for, in fact, it was 14, they asked for 14, we said yes. We agreed to the full amount they asked for. She wasn't limited. If she had asked for 20, we probably would have agreed to that, if she asked for 29, we probably would have agreed to that. We agreed to what was asked for.
THE COURT: I'm not going to allow it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Thank you.
MR. DENNISON: Good morning, Dr. Hughes.
DR. HUGHES: Good morning, Mr. Dennison.
MR. DENNISON: The last time you were here, I believe that you testified that you had diagnosed Ms. Heard with PTSD before you gave the gold standard CAPS-S test?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct. Q > Right. And that diagnosis is actually reflected in the first of the disclosures you put -forward in this case?
DR. HUGHES: I believe the first disclosure was February 2021, and at that point, I had done 11 psychological tests, that's correct.
MR. DENNISON: Right. And your disclosure reads "Ms, Heard's responses on the PCL-5 supported DSM-5 diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder with an etiology of intimate partner violence she experienced by a former partner." Do you remember writing that?
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. You just testified that you need to read the manual, right?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Can we put up 1311 asa demonstrative?
THE COURT: Any objection to 1311?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't know what it is, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you want to wait --
MS. BREDEHOFT: May we approach?
THE COURT: Do you want to approach?
MS. BREDEHOFT: I just don't know what it is
THE COURT: I assume something from the manual. Just if I could guess, something from the manual.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Which page is that?
MR. DENNISON: We're only on the second ed to May 26, 2022 page.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Well, what is up is a chart.
MR. DENNISON: I know, he had the wrong . thing up.
THE COURT: Now it's up. It's Danger ° Assessment.
MR. DENNISON: Let me get him to the 9: right one.
THE COURT: Let's see the right one first.
MR. DENNISON: May I approach the witness and give her this?
THE COURT: Okay. Sure.
DR. HUGHES: Thank you.
MS. BREDEHOFT: I don't see this in my documents either.
THE COURT: They're getting the right one up.
MR. DENNISON: Yep, we've got it up. Let's see 1312.
THE COURT: 1312. And that -- any objection to that demonstrative?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay: 1312 can be published to the jury.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Hughes, do you recognize what the National Center for PTSD is?
DR. HUGHES: What it is?
MR. DENNISON: Yeah.
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I do.
MR. DENNISON: And they publish the PTSD checklist for 13. DSM-5? ' A That's correct, What's been called the PCL-5?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And are you familiar with the document that's on your screen?
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: What is it? 21. + A _ It's the instruction manual to have administered the PCL-5.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: I would like to move for the admission of 1312.
THE COURT: Any objection to 1312 coming into evidence?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No.
THE COURT: Allright. 1312 in evidence.
MR. DENNISON: Can we go to the second page. Can we blow up the second paragraph on the right.
MR. DENNISON: The PCL-5 should not be used as a standalone diagnostic tool, When considering a diagnosis, the clinician will still need to use clinical interviewing skills and a recommended structured interview, e.g. the CAPS-5, to determine a diagnosis, correct? That's what the manual says?
DR. HUGHES: This manual also says that this is a screening instrument, so when you do the clinical interview, you absolutely can determine a diagnosis - So the answer is yes, the manual says the PCL-5 --
DR. HUGHES: Interviewing skills, with which I used.
MR. DENNISON: Let me finish my question. The PCL-5 should not be used as a standalone diagnostic tool, and they recommend using the CAPS-S5 to determine a diagnosis, correct?
DR. HUGHES: It does say that, yes.
MR. DENNISON: Yes. And you made your diagnosis before you did the CAPS-5?
DR. HUGHES: I made my diagnosis during clinical interviewing and 11 other psychological tests that supported diagnosis of PTSD and symptomatology consistent with PTSD.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. You said that we should read the manual. Would you also agree with me that we need to read the directions on these tests?
DR. HUGHES: Sure.
MR. DENNISON: = Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Tom, can you pull up 1309 as a demonstrative. May 26, 2022 May I approach?
THE COURT: Yes, sir. Thank you. Any objection to 1309 as a demonstrative?
MS. BREDEHOFT: May we approach?
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Can you tell me where this is at and what this is?
MR. DENNISON: I can tell you, 'm almost positive she'll tell you, that's top of her CTS-2, the one that she administered to Amber Heard.
MS. BREDEHOFT: The top of? The first page?
MR. DENNISON: No, it's the instructions.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay.
THE COURT: No objection?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No objection, Your Honor.
THE COURT: It will be marked for It will be marked for . 7543 identification as Plaintiff's 1309 and published to the jury as demonstrative.
MR. DENNISON: Doctor, do you recognize the demonstrative that's in front of you?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, but I didn't put the redlines on that.
MR. DENNISON: No, I did.
DR. HUGHES: Yes, I know.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. So, this -- what do you recognize this as?
DR. HUGHES: I recognize that we previously discussed this, and I told you that I oriented Ms. Heard to a different time frame because she was already out of the relationship.
MR. DENNISON: Okay. Maybe we should back it up a little, This is the CTS-2 that you administered as part of this battery of tests that you indicate you did in relationship to your diagnosis?
DR. HUGHES: Right. This is the Conflict Tactic Scale 2.
MR. DENNISON: And you'll agree with me that this test specifically asks, in front of every single question, how often did this happen in the past year?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Yeah, and --
DR. HUGHES: And I oriented her to not limit herself to the last year, to get an accurate assessment of the violence and abuse that she experienced in the relationship.
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. And move to strike,
THE COURT: All right. I'll move to strike the last part of the answer -- I mean strike the last part of the answer. Thank you. Next question.
MR. DENNISON: = And you know that at the'time that'you gave this test to Ms. Heard, she had been away - from Mr. Depp for far longer than a year, correct? A’ Which is why I oriented her to a different time frame — Yes or no, ma'am? #+.A —in answering the questions.
DR. HUGHES: —in answering the questions.
MR. DENNISON: Doctor, yes or no?
DR. HUGHES: Of course.
MR. DENNISON: You knew she was gone-for more than a year?
DR. HUGHES: Of course.
MR. DENNISON: Allright. Let's look at another one of these. You talked about the Danger Assessment Test.
DR. HUGHES: That's correct.
MR. DENNISON: Allright.
THE COURT: What number is this?
THE COURT: Plaintiff's 1310.
DR. HUGHES: Thank you.
THE COURT: Any objection to 1310 as demonstrative?
MS. BREDEHOFT: No, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. You can publish to the jury.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Hughes, this is a blank form, but this is the Danger Assessment Test that you also gave to Ms. Heard, correct?
DR. HUGHES: I didn't give it to ‘her, I filled it out based on the data that was provided to me. Q _ Oh, so you asked her the questions and then you filled it in?
DR. HUGHES: It was somewhat collaborative.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Can we blow up the second full paragraph.
MR. DENNISON: It says "Using the calendar, please mark the approximate dates during the past year 1]. when you were abused by your partner or 12,ex-partner." You didn't use any calendar, did you? 14. A _ I did not use a calendar because she was already out of the relationship. As I said, these are static risk factors, so they don't change. So I oriented her to the time of the relationship.
MR. DENNISON: But it's fair to say that this
DR. HUGHES: That's one administration. No, that's one administration. People use this instrument for if you're in an acute situation, in a relationship, trying to get.a better assessment of . the current behaviors. We can use it retrospectively, like I just stated, and in homicides and looking back about what are the serious risk factors that were in this relationship.
MR. DENNISON: = I didn't ask you about anything other than don't the instructions limit this test to the previous year? 13. A you can give this test not only on the previous year.
MR. DENNISON: I'masking you about'the instructions.
DR. HUGHES: But I'm telling you how the test.is administered in clinical practice, in forensic practice.
MR. DENNISON: And opposing counsel can come up and ask questions about. I'm asking you about the instructions, and the instructions say look over the past year?
DR. HUGHES: On this, yes, that it says that.
MR. DENNISON: You had actual knowledge, when you gave the test, that Mr. Depp was gone way more than a year before this test?
DR. HUGHES: That is correct.
MR. DENNISON: Right. Let's look at more instructions.
MR. DENNISON: Can we look at 1247, which is already in evidence.
MR. DENNISON: Dr. Hughes, you recognize this one, too, right?
DR. HUGHES: Yes. 13. Q = Allright. This is the -- whatever it's called, the CAPS-5? 145 A Correct.
MR. DENNISON: ‘Can we go to the first page. Let's blow up the instructions.
MR. DENNISON: Standard administration and scoring of the CAPS-5 are essential for producing reliable and valid scores and diagnostic decisions. Correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you know you have to do this in a standardized way because it is the first instruction, correct?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: Can we go to the next page. One more -- oh, wait, that's good.
MR. DENNISON: This is a page on scoring, and we talked about this last time.
DR. HUGHES: Yes.
MR. DENNISON: You scored these tests by frequency and intensity?
DR. HUGHES: Correct.
MR. DENNISON: And you'll remember that in every single instance that you were asked to fill in the blank about frequency, you failed to do so, correct?
DR. HUGHES: That's not correct.
MR. DENNISON: Oh, you filled in any blank on this form with respect to frequency?
DR. HUGHES: Filled in the frequency on the side of the CAPS, where I am actually scoring the CAPS.
MR. DENNISON: No, no, I'm asking whether you filled in a single blank on this form with respect to frequency. Is the answer to that yes or no?
DR. HUGHES: I don't know what you mean "a single blank."
MR. DENNISON: Allright.
MR. DENNISON: Let's page down. Let's keep going. We'll stay at this page for a second.
MR. DENNISON: This is the very first box you were asked to fill in as to, I think, a fairly fundamental question, right, what happened?
DR. HUGHES: We talked about this before, Mr. Dennison, I had 88 pages of notes of what happened. It would have been redundant to put it there.
MR. DENNISON: You know that you are obligated to produce this test in a way that other people can meaningfully review them, yes?
DR. HUGHES: The people in this case who are meaningfully reviewing them, they have my 88 pages of note.
MR. DENNISON: But you chose to put absolutely nothing in the box, the standardized box that said what in the box, the standardized box that said what _ happened?
DR. HUGHES: You don't have to put it in the box if you have it somewhere else.
MR. DENNISON: So this is not a standardized test?
DR. HUGHES: When it's a research instrument that is used for research. If you're using it for a clinical diagnostic purpose, no, you don't, if you have that data elsewhere.
MR. DENNISON: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go another page or ll so. All right.
MR. DENNISON: Let's go to another one. Let's look at item 4B4. And I asked you whether you filled in the blank about frequency. And there's a blank in many of these items that asks a number of times. You didn't fill a single one of them in, did you?
DR. HUGHES: Right. Because I filled them on the right side of the instrument, where I am scoring it.
MR. DENNISON: And that is the way that you believe that you followed the instructions of a standardized test?
DR. HUGHES: Yes, correct.
MR. DENNISON: No further questions.
THE COURT: All right. Redirect.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Very briefly.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You used the term "static risk factor." What did you mean by that? li A Static risk factors are risk factors that don't change. Maybe if you smoke cigarettes, you may have a risk of lung cancer, right, that's a factor that doesn't change. You can look forward of someone smoking, you can look back of someone smoking. So these lethality risk factors are present whether you're evaluating them in the last year or five years ago.
MS. BREDEHOFT: When you're trying to assess for trauma related to the interpersonal violence that-we discussed, why is it important to get a time frame 99? in which the relationship was in existence? in which the relationship was in existence?
DR. HUGHES: Well, you want to see the amount of trauma that the person experienced. The longer that they're in a relationship, you have more successive trauma, and one of things that we know from the research is more trauma is not better, so the more successive traumas that you have, the greater likelihood that somebody is going to have psychological consequences and symptomatology as a result.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And therefore, you need to get it within the relationship?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Leading. So how does that relate to needing to get the time frame in the relationship? We need to understand the -- when you try to evaluate the impact of something, you have to understand what happened to the person, and that's -- so the core and the basis of trauma-informed care and of trauma diagnoses, you have to understand the traumatic event and how it transpired and how it played out for that individual so that you can better assess for the symptomatology that's fallen from it.
MS. BREDEHOFT: You said you had 88 pages of notes. What were your 88 -- without going into the specifics, can you just describe what was included in the 88 pages of notes?
DR. HUGHES: In the 88 pages were many of the documented incidents of intimate partner violence.
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor,
MS. BREDEHOFT: She's just describing. That came up. He said you didn't fill those in the boxes, she said it was in my 88 pages. I'm just saying, what was in your 88 pages? I'm not asking her to give each of the specific events. She can describe the summary of it.
MR. DENNISON: Can we come up?
THE COURT: Okay.
MR. DENNISON: I asked her whether she filled in a box, and we're going to get in a litany of --
MS. BREDEHOFT: He opened the door.
MR. DENNISON: Are you kidding me?
THE COURT: She said she relied on her notes, and she already testified to that, so I'll sustain the objection.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right.
MS. BREDEHOFT: What is the difference between clinical - scoring in clinical evaluation and research evaluation with respect to the CAPS-S5 and the other tests?
MR. DENNISON: Objection. Compound.
THE COURT: Sustained.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Your Honor, when it's compound, it's because it might be confusing to the jury.
THE COURT: Sustained. Next question.
MS. BREDEHOFT: Okay. Can you explain to the jury what the difference is between clinical scoring and evaluation on the test and research?
MR. DENNISON: Objection, Your Honor. Compound.
THE COURT: Overruled. Go ahead.
DR. HUGHES: Sure. The PCL and the CAPS-5 are frequently used in research. And when they're used in research, that means the document stands alone. They don't have 88 pages of notes to help understand the background of the trauma and what the person has experienced. And why those boxes may be relevant in research is because, you know, back in the day, when I was a research assistant, I had to input that into the computer, and then they would maybe look at some of that data for the research study. So that becomes very important in research.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right. Thank you. I have no further questions.
THE COURT: Thank you, Dr. Hughes. You can have a seat in the courtroom or you are free to go. Ladies and gentlemen, let's go ahead and take our 15-minute recess. Do not discuss the case with anybody, and don't do any outside research, okay?
THE COURT: All right. Why don't we just come back at 11:05, then.
MS. BREDEHOFT: All right.
THE COURT: All right. 11:05.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise.
COURT BAILIFF: All rise. Please be seated and come to order.
THE COURT: All right. Are we ready for the jury?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Oh, Your Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, sure.
THE COURT: Remaining time? For both. For both?
MS. BREDEHOFT: Yes, please. THE LAW CLERK: 31 minutes for the defendant. And for plaintiff the plaintiff --
THE COURT: How much time have they used? THE LAW CLERK: They've used 54 hours and 49 minutes?
THE COURT: So they have about six hours.
THE COURT: This is a free sidebar.
MS. BREDEHOFT: And then we rest.
THE COURT: While you're up here, after you rest, I'm going to let the jury go home for the day so they can come back in the morning at 9:00 for the closing arguments. I'm going to have about an hour of housekeeping with the jury instructions, I assume what I can do is after they leave, I can take either the lunch breaks -- I assume your clients don't want to be here for jury instructions. I'm going to the laptop and going over the exhibits, and I want everybody to look at the laptop, I want you to look at all the exhibits. I want to make sure we get all the jury instructions done. I will give you your copies of the jury instructions in the order I'm going to say them, so you can all prepare for your closing arguments tonight, or this afternoon, sounds like.
MS. BREDEHOFT: We prefer to do it before lunch. No, seriously.
THE COURT: We have to take some sort of break so your clients can leave.
MS. VASQUEZ: Can we. take a shorter lunch, Your Honor?
THE COURT: 45 minutes,
MS. VASQUEZ: Yeah, 45 minutes.
THE COURT: 45 minutes lunch.
THE COURT: Yes, yes. What I'm going to do is, also, adapt some of the initial jury instructions I gave the first day. I'm going to give them some of those reminders, since it's been so long since they heard it, just about the note-taking, it's to be used as a reminder. I'm going to add those notes to it. I'm going to tell them that their names are sealed for a year, and then I'll go into the jury instructions that we agree upon today.
MR. CHEW: May we -- 'I'm not saying we will, but may we reference the jury instructions in the juror questionnaire, in the closing?
MS. VASQUEZ: Not the juror --
THE COURT: Oh, yeah. That’ why I'm going to give you copies of -- before you leave today, you'll have the copies of the form I'm going to give them, and you use however the jury instructions you want to. I'm going the give the jurors each their own copy of jury instructions too. But you can reference any jury instruction.
MR. ROTTENBORN: Can we reference the verdict form?
THE COURT: Yeah. if you want to On AO RWN Yeah, if you want to ‘reference the verdict form.
MR. ROTTENBORN: He said questionnaire, so I wasn't sure.
THE COURT: You can reference the verdict form because it's rather lengthy, as far as that goes. I usually explain it to them too, but this is rather lengthy, so if you want to talk about it, then I won't, but it's up to you.
MR. ROTTENBORN: My only request is if -- I assume Mr. Chew is going to make a motion 1] to strike after we rest. Could we --
MR. ROTTENBORN: I respect Mr. Chew's exploratory skills, but can we do it here?
THE COURT: He already said he'll. do the exact same thing you did right here. So after I excuse the jury, we will approach at that time and then we'll do it. Okay.
MS. VASQUEZ: Thank you.
THE COURT: Allright. We're ready for the jury. May 26, 2022
THE COURT: Allright. Thank you, ladies and gentlemen. You may be seated. Allright. Your next witness.