Inner City Press

In Other Media-eg New Statesman, AJE, FP, Georgia, NYTAzerbaijan, CSM Click here to contact us     .

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis

Share |   

Follow on TWITTER

Home -

These reports are usually available through Google News and on Lexis-Nexis


(FP Twitterati 100, 2013)

ICP on YouTube

More: InnerCityPro
Sept 24, 2013

UN: Sri Lanka


FOIA Finds  

Google, Asked at UN About Censorship, Moved to Censor the Questioner, Sources Say, Blaming UN - Update - Editorial

Support this work by buying this book

Click on cover for secure site orders

also includes "Toxic Credit in the Global Inner City"




Bank Beat

Freedom of Information

How to Contact Us

Columbia Dirty Doc Hadden For Trial Wants to Show Graphic Video of Exams by Other Doctors

By Matthew Russell Lee, Patreon Video Photo

SDNY COURTHOUSE, Jan 1 – Columbia University doctor Robert A. Hadden was hit on September 9, 2020 with a Federal indictment charging that "sexually abused dozens of female patients, including multiple minors, under the guise of conducting purported gynecological and obstetric examinations."

The case was assigned to U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York Judge Richard M. Berman, who handled the case of Jeffrey Epstein until he died in the Metropolitan Correctional Center.   Epstein came up during the bail argument, which Hadden won. Inner City Press live tweeted it, below.

 On July 14, 2021 Judge Berman docketed a letter the US had filed, with a full paragraph redacted, that it will seek a superseding indictment on another count of enticement, regarding an adult Victim-6. Letter on Inner City Press' DocumentCloud here.

  On August 2, 2021 Hadden's publicly funded (for now) counsel filed a series of motions, with redactions, citing Evelyn Yang and request dismissal of the case. It mentioned Evelyn Yang's interview then redacts a two line sentence. Then, "Andrew Yang public a statement, this media attention led to outrage regarding the 'lenient' sentence Mr. Hadden had received in the DANY Prosecution." Yes.

On December 15, 2021, Judge Berman held a proceeding and Inner City Press live tweeted it here (podcast here)

Jump cut forward a year to December 14, 2022, the pre-trial conference before the January 4, 2023 (one day?) jury selection - Inner City Press was in the courtroom, threadette:

Hadden's lawyer says they commit that in front of the jury they will not question the motives of the prosecution.

Hadden plans to call a Dr Berg as his OB-GYN expert. Jury will not get the "speaking" portion of the indictment.

Asst US Attorney: We may want some victim to testify not under their full names [like in US v Ghislaine Maxwell trial a year ago]

On December 22, Judge Berman held another conference and ruled: "1- defense motion to preclude generalized expert testimony of Dr. Eddleman is denied; 2- defense motion to preclude testimony and evidence re: fibroid procedure Victim-1 is denied in part and granted in part; 3- defense motion to strike all surplusage from S2 Indictment is denied as moot; 4- defense motion to preclude impact evidence/testimony is denied; 5- defense motion to preclude introduction of prior consistent statements is denied; 6- defense motion to preclude the 911 call from 3rd party is denied; 7- defense motion to preclude patient witnesses from being referred to as victims, minor victims or survivors is denied in part and granted in part; The Court will schedule a conference for next week to address other outstanding motions."

On December 29, 2022 Judge Berman held a final final pre-trial conference, Inner City Press live tweeted here:

Judge Berman: The government names in its motions some 20 non-statutory victims not listed in the indictment, including the defendant touching Victim 8's [private parts], licked [same] rubbed Victim 10. US says under Rule 404b, such evidence is admissible here

Judge Berman: The defense wants to exclude this bad-act evidence. They say Mister Hadden is not charged with sexual assault in the indictment, so they cannot bring in this evidence... The defense wants a pre-trial admissibility hearing on four witnesses

Judge Berman: Minor Victim 3, Victim 27, Witness 1 and Witness 2 - the US motion to admit these is granted under Rule 413 and 414 (minors), citing US v. Vickers, the 2d Circuit. The Court denies the request for a pre-trial hearing on this After a pause, the US v. dirty doc Hadden hearing continues.

 Judge Berman: The 9-1-1 call is admissible, as an excited utterance. Witness 3 left his work to go to Dr Hadden's office, to meet Victim 15 who said Hadden [xxx-ed my xxxx].

 Judge Berman: So I'll see you all for jury selection, we'll be up in Judge Stein's courtroom.

 AUSA Pomerantz: Our motion to seal witnesses names? Judge Berman: I'm inclined to grant it, it's the same as in Judge Nathan's Maxwell trial, yes? A: Yes.

There followed a discussion of if notes prospective jurors jot on questionnaires are voir dire records, then this from Judge Berman: "rulings on the following motions in limine: 1- government motion to admit defendant's February 2016 guilty plea is granted; 2- government motion to admit evidence of defendant's other sexual assault and abuse crimes, etc. is granted and defense application for pre-trial admissibility hearing is denied; 3- government motion to admit June 29, 2012 text messages is denied as moot and government motion to admit testimony about the text messages and to admit 911 call is granted; 4- government motion to admit prior consistent statements is denied in part as moot and granted in part; 5- government motion to preclude challenges to credibility of non-witnesses will be ruled upon following receipt of more information on non-witnesses, due 12/30/22 at 12:00 pm; 6- government motion to preclude defendant's prior statements in medical records, notes, etc. will be ruled upon following receipt of medical records, notes, etc., due 12/30/22 at 12:00 pm; 7- government motion to preclude evidence of defendant's failure to commit other bad acts is granted; 8- government motion to preclude evidence tending to support jury nullification is granted; 9- government motion to preclude evidence of the government's motives for the prosecution is denied as moot; 10- government motion to preclude evidence of the "#MeToo" movement is granted; 11- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Dr. Berg is denied as moot; 12- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Ms. Unger is granted; 13- government motion to preclude expert testimony of Dr. Goodsell is denied in part and granted in part. 14- 12/22/22 ruling denying defense motion to preclude introduction of prior consistent statements is confirmed and defense request for clarification regarding the governments opening statement is denied as moot and defense request for confirmation that the government should request permission before eliciting prior consistent statement testimony is denied; 15- 12/22/22 ruling denying defense motion to preclude 911 call is confirmed; 16- defendant motion to preclude certain witness testimony is denied in part and granted in part. "

On January 1, 2023, the US filed: "The Government respectfully submits this letter seeking permission to file supplemental motions regarding the defendant’s proposed exhibits and witnesses, which the Government received from the defense on December 21, 2022, after the parties’ motions in limine had been submitted to the Court. The Government has conferred with the defense about its proposed witnesses and exhibits in an attempt to obviate or narrow any motion, and the defense has indicated it opposes the Government’s position on each of the motions the Government intends to file. The Government would like to advise the Court of its challenges to the defendant’s exhibits and witnesses in advance of the parties’ opening statements, so that jury addresses may proceed in an orderly fashion. By way of background, the defendant’s proposed exhibits include highly graphic videos and photographs of a non-testifying doctor performing vaginal, anal, and breast exams on an actual person, in addition to other unduly prejudicial, confusing, misleading, and irrelevant exhibits. The defendant’s witness list includes twelve former or current Columbia University employees, many of whom have no personal knowledge of the facts at issue in this case and whose anticipated testimony seems likely to implicate rulings that the Court has already made (such as concerning good acts by the defendant) or has reserved decision on (such as concerning self-serving, false exculpatory statements by the defendant). Additionally, as the Court is aware, there is a pending motion to quash a subpoena issued to one of the defendant’s witnesses, the attorney Anthony DiPietro, Esq. (Dkt. 216). As the Government has advised the Court (Dkt. 215 at 2 n.1), the Government intends in its response to the motion to quash to advise the Court that virtually any testimony from Mr. DiPietro should be precluded as duplicative, confusing, misleading, and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403, particularly in light of attorney-client privilege issues.1  FN 1  On December 23, 2022, the Government invited the defense to provide more information as to whether there was a valid basis for Mr. DiPietro’s testimony. The defense declined to provide such information." Full letter on Patreon here.

Inner City Press will be similarly covering this Hadden trial. Watch this site.

Back on June 13, 2022, when Hadden was arraigned on a superseding indictment, in preparation of the September 12, 2022 trial. Inner City Press live tweeted it here

 The case is US v. Hadden, 20-cr-468 (Berman).



Your support means a lot. As little as $5 a month helps keep us going and grants you access to exclusive bonus material on our Patreon page. Click here to become a patron.

Feedback: Editorial [at]
SDNY Press Room 480, front cubicle
500 Pearl Street, NY NY 10007 USA

Mail: Box 20047, Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017

Reporter's mobile (and weekends): 718-716-3540

Other, earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.

 Copyright 2006-2021 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other permission, e-contact Editorial [at]