Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Diddy's Ex-Girlfriend Cassie Fires Back at Rapper's Gag Order Bid

Starting point is 00:00:00 Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this law and crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Cassie Ventura's lawyer firing back after Sean Combs asks for a gag order that would bar witnesses like her from speaking publicly about the case. This comes as Combs seems to be making statements of his own. I'm proud of y'all, especially the girls. I mean, all of y'all, but just for being strong. Thank y'all for being strong and thank y'all for being by my side and supporting me. I love y'all. I'll tell you what Cassie and Combs' lawyers are saying

Starting point is 00:00:36 as a First Amendment expert weighs in on what could happen. Welcome to Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Sean Diddy Combs' lawyers are fighting to ensure he gets a fair trial in the Southern District of New York on racketeering and sex trafficking charges. And one way they're doing that, they're asking the judge to issue a gag order that would keep witnesses in the case and their lawyers from saying anything about it. Combs has pleaded not guilty to the federal charges and maintains he's never sexually assaulted anyone.

Starting point is 00:01:05 He's being sued civilly by at least two dozen people claiming he sexually assaulted them. Some say the alleged assaults happened when they were minors. Combs' lawyers, again, have denied the claims. The judge already denied a request for a gag order for federal prosecutors and their agents, but the request for a gag order for the witnesses is different. That came late last week after a man named Courtney Burgess testified in front of the grand jury. Burgess claims he has seen sex tapes of eight celebrities with Sean Combs. And then Burgess granted a couple of interviews. Here's part of one from Banfield on News Nation.

Starting point is 00:01:41 Out of those eight videos, eight celebrities, six men and two women, how many of those eight celebrities were close to being underage or potentially underage? Two, two males. Out of the eight celebrities who were recorded having intimate relations

Starting point is 00:02:01 with Sean Combs, how many of them appear to be either inebriated or intoxicated or into the influence? All of them. All of them. Out of those eight, how many appear to be potentially victimized? How many might have been victimizing? I think all, to be honest, all. Were victims or were perpetrating? The cases I cover each day here on Crime Fix For You show you just how scary the world can be.

Starting point is 00:02:34 And one of the scariest things that can happen is if you ever are hurt. But I want to let you know, if you're ever seriously hurt or in an accident, your case could be worth millions. That's where our sponsor Morgan & Morgan comes in. The firm has an army of more than 1000 lawyers who will fight for what you deserve. And they have the track record to prove it. In the past few months, Morgan & Morgan has won big verdicts like twelve million dollars in Florida, twenty six million in Philly and six point eight

Starting point is 00:03:00 million in New York. All of those were much higher than the highest insurance company offer seeing if you have a case can be done in eight clicks or less and you don't even have to leave your couch to start one also a really great thing you only pay morgan and morgan if you win there are no upfront fees so if you're ever hurt you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com crimefix that interview got the attention of combs's lawyers, Mark Agnifilo and Tenny Garrigas. Agnifilo wrote in a letter to the judge, a grand jury witness and his attorney have given multiple interviews, including outside the courthouse immediately following his apparent

Starting point is 00:03:36 grand jury testimony, making false and outrageous claims, including that the witness possesses videos of Mr. Combs involved in the sexual assault of celebrities and minors. This grand jury witness claims that he was subpoenaed after he made public statements on social media that he possessed videos of celebrities, including minors, being sexually assaulted. The subpoena also comes on the heels of his attorney's statements that she had been asked to shop a particular video and contact a celebrity in the video to see if they were interested in purchasing the video before it became public knowledge attorney ariel mitchell represents courtney burgess and we've talked to her about

Starting point is 00:04:16 the sex tape that mark agnifilo is referring to so um about a month ago, I got contacted by an individual purporting to have some very sensitive information. And they also purported to me to have their possession of three tapes, not just one tape with Mr. Combs. But they were only interested in pursuing this one tape and were looking for legal representation, mainly, like you just said, because they had saw me being actively involved in civil lawsuits against Mr. Combs, that I would be somebody they would interested in to facilitate doing something with the tapes. Initially, I wasn't sure and they weren't exactly clear on whether or not it was going to be like a catch and kill or facilitating the sale to another third party. I actually called one of my business partners and mentors and had been telling him about this pretty much since the onset of it. They invited me, the individuals that have the video invited me to California, to LA to come and view the tapes in person. I was hesitant to do so only because once I know

Starting point is 00:05:27 something, I'm obligated, based on being an officer of the court, to tell the court what I saw and what I knew. They offered to send me screenshots through text messages, which I declined, and I ended up saying, well, let's FaceTime, and then you can can show me this way. I have a sense of no evidence or plausible deniability in terms of things that I've actually received or actually seen with my own two eyes. And in those couple of stills that they showed me was Mr. Combs and another very shocking, I would imagine, very jarring for a lot of people, individuals in a very pornographic nature. So, Ariel, I have to push you a little bit on this. You've said it's somebody more high profile and now you're saying individuals, plural, more high profile than Sean Combs. I mean, are we talking more high profile in Hollywood? Are we talking a politician? I mean, what are we talking about here?

Starting point is 00:06:29 No, it's someone in the entertainment industry. And I would say this person is absolutely undisputedly more famous than Mr. Combs. I don't think anybody would argue if they were to know who it was, that that would be a true statement. So the person in the video who's more high profile than Sean Combs, is this a man or a woman? I'm not going to say. Combs' lawyer, Mark Agnifilo, says this tape that Burgess and Mitchell are referring to doesn't exist. In his request for a gag order, he wrote, by treating these ridiculous claims as anything but a pathetic extortion scheme, the government is fueling the fire of online conspiracy theories and making it impossible for mr combs to have a fair trial now you might be wondering how do cassie ventura and her lawyer douglas wigdor factor into this cassie ventura is victim number one in the

Starting point is 00:07:18 government's case against combs she's claimed combs coerced her into sex trafficking by forcing her to take part in freak-offs. Here's the U.S. attorney describing freak-offs. Combs allegedly planned and controlled the sex performances, which he called freak-offs. And he often electronically recorded them. The freak-offs sometimes lasted days at a time, involved multiple commercial sex workers, and often involved a variety of narcotics such as ketamine, ecstasy, and GHB, which Combs distributed to the victims to keep them obedient and compliant. As alleged, when Combs didn't get his way, he was violent,

Starting point is 00:08:00 and he subjected victims of physical, emotional, and verbal abuse so that they would participate in the freak-offs. Now, Combs' lawyers say the sex was consensual, but he settled the civil suit with Cassie a day after she filed it. But then there was also that video that leaked to CNN that showed Combs beating Cassie in a hotel hallway in 2016 that appeared to corroborate part of her claims. Cassie's lawyer, Douglas Wigdor, represents a second Combs accuser too, and asked the judge to deny the request for a gag order for witnesses. Wigdor wrote, because such an order would inappropriately silence victims who are proactively seeking justice through the civil justice system, because defendant Combs' family

Starting point is 00:08:43 and representatives have themselves engaged in the release of extrajudicial statements, and because an order prohibiting attorneys from speaking about their cases would violate the ethical rules governing the practice of law, we respectfully ask that Mr. Combs' request be denied. Wigder pointed specifically to a statement issued by Combs' mother, Janice Combs, in which she defended her son. Janice Combs called the prosecution of her son a public lynching and a narrative created out of lies. Wigder pointed as well to comments Combs' son posted on Instagram, saying, This past month has devastated our family.

Starting point is 00:09:20 Wigder also pointed to comments Combs' own attorneys have made to the media. Indeed, Mr. Combs' own attorneys have frequently made extrajudicial comments concerning this case itself. That is, unlike the comments he seeks to gag that are potentially unrelated to the criminal investigation or case before your honor. Mr. Agnifilo has proactively called this case a racially motivated prosecution, contending that his client is being targeted because he is a successful Black man. Mr. Agnifilo has also appeared in the tabloid publication TMZ's documentary about this case, playing into the very media circus he claims

Starting point is 00:09:57 prejudices his client's ability to receive a fair trial. And while he didn't mention it, Sean Combs on his 55th birthday called his children. They recorded the conversation and posted it on social media, and that might be considered a blatant PR move. I love y'all. I love y'all so much. We love you too. We love you, Pastor. I can't wait to see y'all. I'm proud of y'all. Especially the girls. I mean, all of y'all. Just for being strong. Thank y'all for being strong.

Starting point is 00:10:37 Thank y'all for being by my side and supporting me. I love y'all. I got the best family in the world. My birthday. I'm happy. Thanks to y'all giving me this call. Thank you very much. I love y'all. Love you more. Can't wait to see you in a couple of days. I'll see y'all in a couple of days. I love you, daddy.

Starting point is 00:10:54 I love you too, baby. She eating? Yo, yo, pops. Chance is right here on the phone, too. Pops, I love eating all your cake, so you're not going to have none left. Douglas Wigder went on to write, Mr. Combs and his agent's abuse of extrajudicial statements alone

Starting point is 00:11:15 undermines the legitimacy of the relief he now requests and is yet another basis for denying his request for a gag order. I want to bring in Jack Griner. He's a First Amendment lawyer with the Farruki Law Firm in Cincinnati. Jack, you've been doing First Amendment law for a really long time. So what do you make of this argument from Sean Combs' lawyers asking the court

Starting point is 00:11:36 for a gag order on witnesses and their lawyers? Well, it's a very uphill fight for him, I think. I mean, I understand why he's doing it. And it is not uncommon for people in his position to seek some sort of a gag order. These are pretty salacious accusations and charges. And no doubt, Mr. Combs wants to minimize the impact as much as possible. But it's an uphill battle for him, I think, because of the First Amendment and because of the notion that we try cases. You know, cases are a public matter and they take place in the public view. And so the idea that witnesses, in the first instance, are somehow to be gagged and not allowed to talk about their testimony, particularly when they are the victims, the alleged victims of this activity, it inhibits their ability potentially to seek justice, whether that be in the court system or in the court of public opinion. As to the lawyers, there's a little bit lesser standard in my experience.

Starting point is 00:12:56 Courts will be a little more willing to impose gag orders on the attorneys because they are officers of the court, and it's kind of considered within that realm. However, there are protections without gag orders. So lawyers are bound by ethical rules, and there is an ethical rule that says that you can't make extra judicial comments, out-of-court comments, if you have reason to believe that that will substantially prejudice the proceedings. Now, that's a rule. I mean, we all, as lawyers, we all have to abide by it. It's also a fairly high standard because just because I say something, you know, I come out of the court and I say, you know, my client was terribly traumatized by the experience at this party or whatever. That doesn't really mean that I don't think that that's going to substantially prejudice a proceeding. Respect jurors And they respect the ability of jurors

Starting point is 00:14:07 And the willingness of jurors To listen to instructions So when jurors are told Not to read a case outside of the jury box They do, in my experience They really do When they're told to stay off social media they do uh not in every case but i think for the most part they do uh mr combs may think that he is completely ubiquitous that he's on the minds of everybody but he's not and and the idea of

Starting point is 00:14:41 getting 12 lives i mean yeah exactly we're talking about a jury pool in the Southern District of New York. And while a lot of people might be interested in this story, it doesn't mean that the jurors in the Southern District of New York are glued to coverage about Sean Diddy Combs and freak offs and baby oil and whatever else is going on with this case. Yeah, I think that's exactly right. And again, what's the pool? Thousands, tens of thousands, right, in the Southern District of New York. And yeah, to find 12 people who have not paid attention to this, I don't think it's that hard. I mean, I think they'll be able to do that easily enough.

Starting point is 00:15:22 And that's one of the protections. Another protection, although I don't think it would be as meaningful here, is change venue. But I think in a case like this, that's just notorious, I don't think a venue change would impact it all that much. But the courts have come down and said traditionally and repeatedly that things like board gear, things like venue change, things like sequestering the jury, those are the steps you need to at least consider before you go to a gag order. And I think that's really critical to understand. The gag order is the last resort. And you need to be able to demonstrate that sequestration, voir dire, change of venue would be fruitless before you can get to the point of a gag order.

Starting point is 00:16:17 And that's because we have a First Amendment right to speak. And it doesn't change because there's a high profile criminal case. So, Jack, one of the things I find interesting here is the fact that the judge has already denied the request for a gag order for, you know, the parties, the government and the defense. You know, the defense wanted that. And for the agents of the government. So, you know, because the defense said, oh, they're leaking're leaking all over the place you know they're leaking like a sieve their sources say this and that and the other and this that and the other and you know he he's saying the defense is saying in this part of it that witnesses are are saying things on the news that are not true and that it's putting

Starting point is 00:16:59 information out there into the ether that that are it's salacious it's lies but but that doesn't mean it's going to be admissible information it doesn't mean it's going to go in front of the jury I mean maybe it'll be a taint but the jury may find out at trial it's not even true uh so you know it's maybe a fact that that is that is bogus we't know. But what I find kind of rich about this is the fact that Sean Combs and Douglas Wigdor, the attorney for Cassie Ventura, pointed this out. He wants a gag order, but he's having family members make statements on his behalf, which I totally understand. You want to defend your loved one and your family member against these allegations. And then the other day, the same day that

Starting point is 00:17:46 his lawyer is writing a letter to the court saying we need this gag order for witnesses and then we can't have this and for people who claim that they're victims you know basically saying they're not victims because that's their whole position that this is consensual this sex was consensual um he's on Instagram calling from jail talking to the kids on the phone and they're like surrounding a birthday cake you know a singing Happy Birthday or whatever to dad and he it's his 55th birthday and it's literally like a press release so I'm assuming the judge is going to say come on yeah rules Yeah, rules for thee, but not for me. I mean, it just doesn't fly.

Starting point is 00:18:27 And I think he's really hurt his cause in that exactly in that in that manner. I was going to you know, I think that's a great point that you bring up because, you know, judges and the courts look for consistency and the idea that he's out there or his family's out there on Instagram and other platforms, while at the same time saying, yeah, but these victims have to keep their mouths shut, really not helpful for his position at all and very prejudicial. So you don't see, like I don't, I mean, maybe it's possible, but I'm not seeing it. You don't see the judge granting this gag order because truly, truthfully, we haven't seen the victims out there, or we haven't seen the victims at least. We haven't seen witnesses other than, you know, a couple, this guy, Courtney Burgess. We haven't seen them out there saying a whole lot.

Starting point is 00:19:26 Yeah, I'd be really surprised if it's granted again it really comes down to it's not a question of these people are saying bad untrue things the question is are the bad untrue things going to prejudice a fair trial and again then you come back to well has, well, is the jury going to be exposed to this information? Are you going to be able to find jurors who have not been exposed to this information? Yes, probably. So it's not enough to come forward with the things people are saying and say, see, Your Honor, this is a big problem. It's, see, Your Honor, and this kind of argument works better in a smaller town, in a smaller venue, frankly, where it's like everybody's talking about it and you can't escape it. Again, I think when you talk about a venue like the Southern District of New York

Starting point is 00:20:18 and just the tens of thousands of people that you're talking about, the idea that you're not going to be able to find 12 who aren't going to be exposed to this, I think is kind of ludicrous, really. Jack Greiner, love talking to you as always. Thank you so much for coming on. My pleasure. Thank you for having me.

Starting point is 00:20:38 And that's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.

Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Diddy's Ex-Girlfriend Cassie Fires Back at Rapper's Gag Order Bid

There aren't comments yet for this episode. Click on any sentence in the transcript to leave a comment.