I believe one of the side bars was in regard to Dr. Hughes wanting to constantly refer to her notes during testimony and JD's team saying those notes were not submitted into evidence during discovery.
From what I understand, the Judge allowed Dr H to keep using them, but also ordered that the defense team get a copy of all of those notes. They now have time to review this new information and use it tomorrow on cross if they find anything juicy. That's why it was a big deal.
My impression here is that she didn't sound like an expert forensic witness. She barely talked about the tests she used to assess AH, how she came to a conclusion etc. and instead kept referring to AH's reportage as facts, like she'd witnessed them herself. It was very outside of the scope of her job. In fact, she referred more to JD (and what he has supposedly done) than detailed her impressions/experience of AH. She never met with JD, she never assessed JD - how can she give an opinion on him?
I'd like to know when she did her assessment. Was it AFTER the one done with Dr. Curry? I'd like to know which tests she carried out. Did they have validity scales to account for feigning/misrepresentation like the MMPI-2? How many questions were in those tests. Because 20 vs 567 makes a difference. Did she even carry out those tests herself?
JMO, but this witness was terrible for AH's case. She basically came across as trying to enter hearsay as fact. She came across as too emotionally invested and biased against male DV victims. She even minimised JD's physical injuries as 'minor'. Many of the dynamics she described for victim and abuser lined up with JD being the
victim and AH being the
abuser, it was so weird to see her argue the opposite. She also opened the door for past DV incidents in AH's past where she was the aggressor. I think JD are going to have a field day with her on cross tomorrow - which is why they didn't raise that many objections yet to her very biased "Amber told me this" kind of testimony. It also allows them to shred the specific allegations while not being seen to be attacking AH on the stand. Huge advantage and an unforced error on AH's team's side, I think.
I think Dr H. gave some facts about IPV in general which are true in most cases, and what AH reported to her sounds consistent with those typical facts, but the actual evidence itself so far does not support what she's claiming - if that makes sense?
Abuse is not about who name-called who, imo. Abuse is about power dynamics. It is about someone being the aggressor/instigator, the one trying to dominate or control a victim - be that verbally, emotionally, financially, physically etc. Control is a major factor. Who was isolating the other from support mechanisms? Who was preventing de-escalation? And so on. This is important to remember when it comes to assessing such situations. All just my opinion, though, and feel free to disagree.
