Law&Crime Sidebar - 11 New P. Diddy Sex Trafficking Trial Timeline Details

Episode Date: January 7, 2025

Sean “Diddy” Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking trial is rapidly approaching. For now, the trial remains on the docket for May 5, 2025. But a new joint filing raises some questions about the pretrial timeline. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has the newest details.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Download the FREE Straight Arrow News app at https://san.com/Sidebar and support journalists like us committed to delivering the truth!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that

will keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. It's officially 2025 and the road to Sean Combs' criminal trial has begun. But it seems both the prosecution and the defense can't seem to agree on a number of key deadlines in this case for when information will be disclosed and arguments will be presented. With all lies set on a May 5th, 2025 trial, will that still hold? We're going to break down one of the latest filings from both sides in this high-profile case. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. I actually think one of the more controversial elements of Sean Combs' prosecution is not even the allegations of sex drafts. or racketeering or freakoffs or baby oil or sex workers. I mean, it's all quite controversial. I still think, though, one of the biggest issues, one of the most controversial things we've been talking about in the legal community, especially, is the trial date. I mean, for a guy who was arrested in September to go to trial on these federal charges

on May 5th, 2025, which is right around the corner, just over seven months after his arrest, given the mountain of evidence in this case, how complex a racketeering conspiracy criminal enterprise case can be, that is so soon. I've said that for a while. How do you go to trial so soon? Are both sides really ready? And look, that date was agreed upon, and I think that argument could be made. It was pushed by Sean Combs' side while he was still trying to fight.

bail, even though we know he lost every time he tried to petition for pretrial release. So there seems to be an argument that he wants to hold the prosecution's feet to the fire, right? After all, it's their burden. They have to prove this case. Get this case over with as opposed to what would be the alternative. Linguishing in a detention center for years as he awaits a trial because he's currently locked up at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn. That is notorious for its violence, its horrid conditions. So I get it. I get it. The argument can be, let's get this trial over and done with. We think we can win. That's it. Let's put it in the past. But I've also wondered, would that trial date stick with so much going on? Well, I tell you

that because the trial date has come into focus once again in a new filing from both the prosecution and the defense. And that is what we're going to break down for you right now, this letter. This letter that was addressed to Judge Arun Sub-Romanian of the Southern District of New York, the judge overseeing this criminal case. And in this joint letter submitted by both parties, it discusses the pretrial schedule. So everything leading up to the trial. And by the way, you might be saying this seems boring. No, no, no, no, no, no.

The reason this is so important, the reason these dates are so important is, aside from the fact that it kind of gives us a sense of the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense is because those dates are so important because if those dates hold whichever side we're going to be going through if the judge decides with the prosecution or the defense or there's times they consented to a date that is giving us a window of when and if we can learn some new key details about this prosecution and defense so much of this case has been wrapped up in mystery in terms of the actual events the witnesses the victims the defenses. So if these dates stick, we now have a timeline of when things might be presented and what things might be presented. This is important. So now the question is, what is this pretrial

schedule? Well, as the lawyers lay out in this joint letter to the court, they write, the court set the following pretrial motion schedule. Motions due on February 17, 2025. Oppositions do on March 3rd, 2025. And replies due on March 10th, 2025. Again, this is all leading up to the May 5th, trial. Now, the prosecution and the defense have two different perspectives on this schedule. And I'm going to start with the prosecution. They write, given the May 5th, 2025 trial date in this case, the government respectfully submits that the current pretrial motion schedule in which the pretrial motions would be fully brief less than two months prior to trial will not permit the parties to raise and the court to resolve pretrial issues sufficiently in advance of the May 5th

2025 trial. While the defendant is fully entitled to request a speedy trial, that does not mean that he's entitled to demand disclosure deadlines appropriate in cases with significantly longer timelines. Accordingly, the government objects to any schedule, including that proposed by the defendant, requiring the government to make trial disclosures before the filing and or resolution of pretrial motions which may shape or affect those disclosures, including by affecting the scope of the charges or the evidence the government is permitted to rely upon in its case in chief. Okay, so a lot of legalese, what does all that mean? Well, basically, the prosecution is saying, look, there are a lot of filings and issues that need

to be resolved before trial, which, by the way, I will get into. But essentially, the government is saying, on the current schedule, there's not enough time to sort all this out. And even though Sean Combs has a right to a speedy trial that's enshrined in the Sixth Amendment, protects against undue or unreasonable delays in criminal cases, even though Combs has that right, the prosecution argues it doesn't mean we have to disclose certain aspects of this case prematurely. We shouldn't have to turn over things earlier than we would in other federal cases, and it's too premature for us to disclose certain things before we even resolve some important pretrial

issues, because then if we did that, the disclosures wouldn't even make sense, Or maybe they don't apply anymore. By the way, I got to say this. I hope that you know when it comes to our coverage of these stories, particularly the ditty one, we don't put any kind of bias or slant on them. We deliver balls and strikes. We deliver the facts.

And that is why we are thrilled to partner with a company like Straight Arrow News. So this is an app and website that is focused on objective, unbiased reporting. How refreshing is that, right? As someone who's always researching for Sidebar, I know how easy it is to get lost in biased journalism. But Straight Arrow News helps us cut through that with tools, like the media landscape, which shows where outlets fall on the political spectrum, the media mistool,

highlighting stories that mainstream media might be skipping. So you can check it out for yourself for free at san.com slash sidebar or click the link in the description. Supporting them means supporting journalists like us who are committed to delivering the truth. Now before I even get into what all those issues and those disclosures are, the prosecution proposed a revised timetable. So they want to move up the current pretrial motion schedule

about two weeks. In other words, January 31st, 2025, pretrial motions, February 14th, 2025 for oppositions, and February 21st, 2025 for replies. The defense has taken a different position. They want the current schedule as it's laid out, and they want the government to disclose certain things basically ASAP, basically now. They write, the defense objects to a modification of the existing pretrial schedule, which has been set for months. Defense counsel have planned around the existing schedule and are not in a position to file pretrial motions in just four weeks and only one month after the close of discovery, which included thousands of pages of search warrant affidavits. Then they say, prosecution, don't worry about disclosing things

too early to us. They say, look, we're going to move to dismiss these charges. We're going to move to suppress evidence from coming into trial because we say the evidence was obtained unlawfully by authorities. And even if we're successful and the scope of the criminal case is narrowed, the defense says this would simply make any trial disclosures over-inclusive. There's no danger there. The defense argues the risk that Mr. Combs will be deprived of a fair trial is far greater than the de minimis risk of over-inclusive disclosures on the part of the government. Meaning, Combs has a right to have the government disclose everything now. If it's too much, if it's over-inclusive, because, you know, the case is whittled down later on, so be it. There's

not a much danger there as opposed to he has a right to know everything at this point. And they also say, you know what? We may not even file any pretrial motions in the end, in which case, these disclosures from the prosecution, they shouldn't really depend on this motion schedule at all. So now I bet you're wondering, well, what has to be disclosed? What are we even talking about? What it has to be exchanged here? Well, that's what I'm going to get into next. So the letter talks about that.

So first, we have something called an enterprise letter that the government proposes filing. Now, an enterprise letter, quote, will set out the specific acts and conduct underlying the racketeering conspiracy charged in the indictment. So what we're talking about is providing Combs and his lawyers more information, more particular notice of the specific objects of the charged racketeering conspiracy, including to the extent. possible, the dates, times, places, and participants for each racketeering act. And by the way, that is something that Combs' attorneys have been asking for for quite some time. They want to know more specifics. They want to know how they can properly defend Sean Combs. They need to know the specifics of these different acts. And you know the racketeering charge and the indictment. It has a number of underlying acts, kidnapping, forced labor,

sex trafficking, bribery. The idea, again, is there was a criminal enterprise controlled by Sean Combs that engaged in all sorts of illicit activity, and there was a criminal agreement amongst Combs and others to further this enterprise, to violate the racketeering laws. But so far, the government really hasn't explained each instance. Who are the alleged victims? Who are the witnesses? What's the description of these events? We don't know. That hasn't been laid out. So the government is saying, we will produce that to you. But we are planning on producing that on March 7th, 2025. So that's eight weeks before trial. And that will include the court's rulings on pretrial motions, like what evidence

will come in. So basically, the prosecution is saying, we really can't produce this enterprise letter and be accurate about the case until we know which way the court is going to rule on key pieces of evidence. The prosecution says, defense counsel's proposal that the enterprise letter be filed prior to pretrial motions is contrary to the practice in this district and inefficient given that pretrial motions could impact the substance of the letter. So again, they're saying them laying out their entire case and what they have, it's too premature. The court has to work out other issues before we can submit the letter. And the government argues that Combs isn't playing fair. Quote, the defendant was arrested in September 2024 and the trial date was set at the defendant's

insistence for May 5th, 2025, a span of fewer than eight months. The defendant is trying to have his cake and eat it too here by insisting on a speedy trial, but also insisting on deadlines in cases with much longer timelines. And by the way, speaking of the defense, here is their position on the Enterprise letter. They write, quote, Mr. Combs is at a significant disadvantage. Defense counsel still do not understand the contours of the government's allegations, including who the government even considers a victim and have repeatedly asked for assistance from the government. A lesson until the government is required to make trial disclosures, the defense will remain ignorant of the evidence it is required to meet. The result will be a

fundamentally flawed trial. Accordingly, Mr. Combs proposes that the government file its enterprise letter by February 1st, 2025. So that is less than a month away. That's just a few weeks away. So that is one disclosure issue in this letter. Also in the letter, we move on to notices regarding who will be called as expert witnesses and rebuttal expert witnesses. So here, the prosecution is proposing that all parties, the prosecution in the defense, provide notice of their experts about eight weeks before trial, March 7, 2025. And rebuttal experts, if there are any, two weeks later by March 21st. So that is six weeks before trial.

And the reason that you need to provide notice to the other side of who you're planning to call is because opposing sides need time to vet the reliability and the relevant. of expert witnesses. And the law, we call that the Dowbert standing or briefing on Dowbert. Now, the prosecution says here's the problem. Combs lawyers have indicated they are not going to provide their notice of who their experts are until the prosecution first provides their experts. And the prosecution says, that's inefficient. It won't provide them enough time to file challenges, and that is inconsistent with how things are done here. And speaking of the defense, they say, yeah, prosecution, you know what?

You should present notice of your experts by March 7th, 2025, then we'll provide notice of our experts for the first time on March 21st, 2025. And then government, you can provide your rebuttal experts on March 28th. And despite the prosecution's argument, the defense is saying, this is consistent with how things are done and what the federal rules of criminal procedure say. And there's a special rule about that. Perhaps both sides will debate on if the defense has to the decision. disclose their experts, only if the defense first requests the same from the government gets a little

complicated. But it's going to be a back and forth about when exactly the defense has to submit their experts to the prosecution, because again, both sides need time to prepare challenges to those experts. From there, we have something called 404B 413 notice. So this is about evidence of other crimes or acts or wrongs that were committed by Sean Combs that may be used to show things like motive or lack of accident or that there was a plan and also this concerns evidence of other sexual assaults. So basically what we're talking about is what the government plans to introduce and for what purpose and how they will introduce it. And the prosecution plans to provide notice of this by March 7th. Combs team says the government should have to disclose

this by February 1st. Okay, so again, back and forth about what the date will be. From there, we have something called motions in limine. So motions in limine, and for anybody who has been following our trials might know what these are, these are motions to exclude evidence or arguments from coming into trial. Jury will never hear about this. For example, something might be too prejudicial, or maybe it's not relevant, or maybe it was obtained through a legal means and can't come in and needs to be suppressed. So the prosecution is asking for all parties to file their motions by March 21st. Oppositions to those motions by April 4th. The defense has put forward a different timetable. They are asking for both parties to file their motions by April 1st and oppositions by

April 11th. They say unless the government makes disclosures earlier, we just can't be prepared to file motions in limine by their timeline. In other words, how can we know exactly what needs to be excluded or what we want to be excluded from trial unless the government provides us some disclosures about their case? And then, Then from there, we move on to another section of the letter discussing 3,500 materials. So that's about statements and reports of government witnesses, including their attorneys. The government wants to produce all that by March 21st under an attorney eyes only designation, probably to make sure that no information about the witnesses is leaked before the trial,

and also only in an attorney's possession designation so Combs can review that material in April. And the government highlights that there is a need for this because of allegations of witness tampering and obstruction on the part of Combs. We've talked about these allegations before that Combs allegedly, including while locked up at the MDC, had tried to reach out to witnesses and victims in this case, even by using intermediaries. The defense says, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. We want the government to disclose this 3,500 material about the witnesses by March 1st.

And they argue otherwise, the government could potentially be withholding exculpatory information. from the defense until March 21st. That's not fair. When we're talking about exculpatory evidence, this is favorable evidence to the defense. And by the way, more specifically, in the letter, this is what the defense argues regarding victim one in this case, who we believe is Cassandra Ventura Combs' ex-girlfriend. She filed that initial lawsuit against him in 2023. That got the ball rolling on all of the other lawsuits and potentially the criminal charges. So they write in this letter, For instance, the government appears to take the view that information undermining certain claims by victim one need not be disclosed promptly because it is merely impeachment rather than

exculpatory and therefore should not be disclosed until the 3,500 deadline. Basically, the government is saying, look, this evidence does prove Combs didn't commit the crimes that he's charged with, but it's evidence that can be used by the defense when they cross-examine victim one when she takes the stand at trial. In other words, there's no reason for us to present this kind of evidence to you earlier than what we're proposing. But the defense writes, this overlooks the fact that evidence that undermines her claims also undermines the government's theory of the case and the criminal allegations, making them affirmatively exculpatory. It also minimizes the time required to make effective use of the withheld information. Of course, regardless of whether information qualifies as exculpatory or impeachment, it must be disclosed in time for its effective information.

use at trial. And the defense continues, moreover, because the government continues to refuse to identify who it views as a victim also means that the government is also failing to meet its Brady and Giglio obligations with respect to any other alleged victim. Requiring Mr. Combs to follow up on all exculpatory evidence in the six weeks before trial is unconstitutionally burdensome. 3,500 materials should also not be produced with an attorney-eyes-only designation, particularly if the court adopts the government's proposal to delay disclosure of such material until March 21st, 2025, defense counsel will need Mr. Combs' assistance to properly review the material and effectively prepare for trial. Now finally, the parties actually, they agree for once, they agree about the

witness and exhibit list. The prosecution proposes submitting that list three weeks before trial, April 14th, 2025. They say earlier than that doesn't make sense because those motions in eliminate excluding evidence or arguments won't have been decided yet, and that will affect who or what the government will present. They say the defense can present its list by April 25th, 2025, so that's one week in advance of trial. The defense agrees to both. And then both the prosecution and the defense agree to April 11th as the deadline for the jury questionnaire form. So those are sent out to prospective jurors across the jurisdiction, starts the whole jury selection process on who will be called into court for further questioning and examining.

and also both sides agree to April 25th as the deadline for request to charge of Wadir. That's the more specific process for selecting the jury and also proposed verdict forms to be submitted. So in the one you see here, you see a little gamesmanship, you see a little strategy, little practical difficulties all at play here. Remember, it is the prosecution's burden. The defense arguably wants to trip them up, right? They don't want them to be as prepared as possible, trying to take any advantage they can.

So it will be interesting to see if Judge Suburmanian issues a written order on each of these deadlines or will actually hold a hearing in advance of this timetable to sort this all out. And you also have to wonder if the difficulty centers around a trial that is right around the corner. So maybe in order to resolve a number of these issues, could the trial date change? Maybe. I haven't even discussed a potentially superseding indictment against Sean Combs with new or amended charge. that could throw off the entire trial day too. So we're a little bit in, you know, shaky territory. We'll see what happens.

But we will continue to follow more updates for you in this case as it develops. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.