Law&Crime Sidebar - 5 Updates to Expect at P. Diddy’s Hearing in Sex Trafficking Case

Episode Date: March 13, 2025

Sean “Diddy” Combs is expected in court on Friday to address pre-trial issues involving a second superseding indictment, concerns about search warrants and a call to drop one of the charges from his federal case. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has the latest on what we can expect.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Design your website how you want it without coding skills for free at https://odoo.com/sidebarwebHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & 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. We have a big hearing coming up in Sean Combs' criminal case. So what can we expect? What has been happening? Well, I'll tell you what, we're going to dive into some of the recent updates in the case that could be addressed this Friday in question. court. Welcome to Sidebar. Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. All right, so Friday's going to be interesting. We have this court hearing in Sean Combs' criminal case out in the Southern District of New York. We're actually going to be

live streaming updates from outside the courthouse on Law and Crimes YouTube channel. We're going to be doing a whole show on it. I'm going to be hosting it. So in case you want to follow it in real time, you can check it out on Friday. It's going to happen, I think, around 2 p.m. Eastern. And there are going to be a number of issues that we expect that we're going to hear. And I'm going to lay it out for you about what we can possibly expect, because remember, we are quickly approaching Combs May 5th trial day, believe it or not, unbelievable. I didn't think that that was going to happen. And remember, this is a trial where he will face charges of racketeering conspiracy,

sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, transportation to engage in prostitution. That's an important charge. We'll talk about in a minute. But in anticipation of that hearing Friday, here are some things that you should know, maybe what we can expect. We don't know for sure. but this is possible what is going to be addressed on Friday. Now, first up, we believe that Sean Combs is going to be officially arraigned

on the second superseding indictment at this conference. Now, most likely, he will be advised of his rights, the charges, most likely we'll enter a plea, and what is the most significant difference in this new indictment that was filed against him last week on March 6th is really one paragraph. I'm actually going to read you right now. part of the government's letter to the court that was filed in conjunction with this superseding indictment, and it reads as follow. The S2 indictment contains no new charged defenses but includes additional allegations

related to the racketeering conspiracy charged in count one. Specifically, the S2 indictment contains additional allegations as to the means and methods of the racketeering enterprise related to forced labor. So now let me go right to the second superseding indictment that was filed, and I'm going to read it for you now what appears to be. really the only change from the previous indictment. So this one new addition, again, this is under the means and methods section of the criminal enterprise that Combs allegedly led and ran as part of this racketeering conspiracy charge, that he had this criminal enterprise where prosecutors

alleging and this enterprise engaged in forced labor, sex trafficking, arson, kidnapping. And we remember what the main central allegation here is about the racketeering conspiracy, right, that Holmes allegedly engaged in a pattern of abusing women for years, that he verbally, emotionally, physically, and sexually abused them. That included transporting women and commercial sex workers and coercing and forcing women to participate in sex acts for his own desire, and that he would use drugs or threats or power or violence to get them to do what he wanted, and that he used his power and his resources and his business empire and employees and associates to carry out all this criminal activity, including covering it all up.

and his practices are violations of law. So this is what the new paragraph in the second superseding indictment reads, quote, Combs, along with members and associates of the enterprise, also maintain control over certain employees of the Combs' business, whom he forced to work long hours with little sleep through use of, among other things, physical force, psychological harm, financial harm, and reputational harm, and or threats of the same. In doing so, Combs assisted by members and associates of the enterprise,

caused these employees to believe they would be harmed, including by losing their jobs if they did not comply with his demands. With respect to one employee, Combs used physical force, psychological harm, financial harm, and reputational harm, and or threats of the same to cause the employee to engage in sex acts with Combs. Now, we don't know who these employees are or who that specific employee may be. I did a prior sidebar on this where I kind of, you know, gave a little bit of a guess who it might be, but we don't know for sure. But here's what's interesting. You are seeing how much prosecutors may now be relying on forced labor to prove racketeering. Remember, prosecutors need to show underlying crimes to get to the overall racketeering conspiracy charge, right? They're underlying crimes that this criminal enterprise was engaged in. And forced labor may be a more straightforward way to get there. By the way, thank you for continuing to follow us here on sidebar as we cover the Sean Combs case. We really, really appreciate it. And we plan to continue to continue to do this for you. And with that in mind, I want to send a quick shout out and thank you also to our great partner and sponsor Morgan and Morgan because their support helps us to keep on doing this. Now, this is America's largest injury law from a firm with over a thousand attorneys. And that's because they win a lot in the past few months. Morgan and Morgan secured a $9.3 million verdict for a car crash victim in Florida, $5.6 million verdict for another car accident and victim in Atlanta. And not to mention $1.8 million in Kentucky after insurance offered them a mere $4 million. $5,000 in that case. And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not start

a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar. Now, in the prosecution's letter to the judge, they indicated that by March 10th, they will have provided the defense a supplemental enterprise letter. So this is a legal filing by the government in RICO racketeering cases that more specifically lays out the exact allegations in the racketeering criminal enterprise charge. What evidence the government seeks to introduce to prove that the specific underlying acts or events that make up that charge. The first enterprise letter appears to have been filed under seal, meaning the public can't see it, unclear at this time

if the supplemental letter was also filed under seal. But you have to imagine it was because this is all done to ensure details about the alleged crimes or the potential alleged victims and witnesses that their identities aren't revealed before trial. That could obviously create a security issue that could negatively affect the case in some way. And the prosecution also indicated in their letter to the court that they've already provided certain discovery to the defense that is associated with this second superseding indictment. So we'll see if the defense makes any sort of objections to all this on Friday or has issues with, you know, properly preparing for trial in light of this new development. I will say this, though, Combs' attorney, Mark Ignifalo, he's always been adamant

that his client is innocent, denied these new allegations in the superseding indictment and in a statement after this superseding indictment was filed, reads, he looks forward to his day in court when it will become clear that he has never forced anyone to engage in sexual acts against their will. Many former employees stand by his side prepared to attest to the dedication, hard work, and inspiration the experience while helping build groundbreaking award-winning businesses. Kind of gives you a sense of, you know, maybe who the defense is going to call as witnesses. But again, this new superseding indictment, no new defendants, no new charges. There's nothing to do with minors, as has been alleged in a number of the civil lawsuits that

Combs faces. And this is possibly the last time that this indictment will be amended or changed before we go to trial. Maybe, we'll see. So that is probably going to be one part of the hearing on Friday. Another part that we may hear about on Friday is an answer or discussion on a recurring issue in this case that at this point doesn't seem to have been resolved by the judge. Combs claimed that one of his charges should be thrown out on the grounds of racism. That, and by the way, this is quoted language from one of his filings, quote, no white person has ever been the target of a remotely similar prosecution. And really, the focus by the defense is on count three in the indictment, transportation to

engage in prostitution, namely that since 2009, Combs transported victims and commercial sex workers in interstate and foreign commerce with the intent that they engage in prostitution. And Combs argued that that statute has racist origins and was used to target black men and supposedly protect white women from them. And he argued that there is a discriminatory effect and a discriminatory purpose here on the part of the prosecutors in bringing this charge. He argues that escorts are common and routine in America. And specifically, the service, the escort service at issue in this case, although it's not

named is a popular well-known one and that nobody from that company or any of the clients who have used that service have been criminally charged. So why is he being criminally charged? He cites other high-profile white men who got caught up in similar sexual scandals like former New York Governor Elliott Spitzer and they weren't ultimately criminally charged. Why am I being charged? And to further prove racial discrimination, the Southern District of New York, he claims, has gone out of their way to humiliate him, to prejudice a future jury. pool, including by federal agents raiding his homes in the way that they did or arresting him in New York, even though he said he was going to voluntarily surrender himself or the fact that the

former U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, Damian Williams, held a press conference when Combs was arrested and indicted. So he's asked the court to throw out count three or in the alternative order discovery regarding the government's charging decision, why they did what they did. Now, the government responded, and again, this is maybe what we're going to hear on Friday because the government responded and said race never played a factor here. They cited that what makes this argument from Sean Combs really illogical is that Combs claims only one of the three charges brought against him was brought on account of race. And they argue that the reason they brought this charge is because it's connected to the overall case

and the other charges that Combs is facing. That Combs, quote, engaged in horrific and repeated acts of violence and sexual coercion harming multiple victims over the course of multiple years. And they argue that race didn't play a factor into the charges that Combs face, but rather because of his own violent, abusive, and criminal conduct. So in other words, the government here explains that count three, the counted issue, the transporting people for purposes of prostitution, is exactly what makes up the central theme and core of this case.

That count three, quote, served the defendant's abuse of victims. That count alleges that the defendant transported the... The same victims identified in earlier paragraphs as victims of abuse. That count also alleges that the defendant transported commercial sex workers, which corresponds to the allegations in earlier paragraphs that the defendant coerced female victims to engage in sexual activity with male commercial sex workers. All three counts of the indictment, thus on their face, charge a common course of conduct arising out of the defendant's abuse and sexual exploitation of multiple victims.

And they further argue that Combs has failed to prove, selects. prosecution because the decision to prosecute not only had no discriminatory effect, but it also wasn't motivated by discriminatory purpose. They argued first that the origins of this law that Combs cites, they're not relevant to the actual legal analysis here. And then they say, they argue that all those other high-profile white men that he cites like Elliot Spitzer or even Jerry Falwell Jr., who allegedly had another man have sex with his wife as he watched. Again, men who got caught up in similar situations with similar allegations like Holmes, but prosecutors say they weren't facing the same allegations that he's facing, the same kind of charges.

Prosecutors argue that none of those people are in the same situation or facing the same kind of allegations as Combs. They don't have the aggravating factors, like in the Combs case, that Combs is accused of sex trafficking multiple victims through force, fraud, and or coercion, that none of those other people or other clients of the escort service at issue, transported escorts as a pattern of criminal racketeering activity, that he wasn't just transporting escorts, but look at the larger case here. He's accused of transporting victims of sex trafficking, that that's what's key. In other words, his alleged criminal conduct is considerably more serious. And the government

also argued that there are cases in the Southern District of New York where Combs is being prosecuted where you have people of all different races being charged in a similar fashion to Sean Combs with Man Act and sex trafficking violations. You have wealthy fashion executive Peter Nygaard, a white defendant who was charged in this district with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and man act violations. Or what about white Galane Maxwell, Jeffrey Epstein's accomplice, charged with sex trafficking and man act violations? She was found guilty. And from there, they argued that he has failed to present any evidence that the government was motivated by racism in bringing this charge. And that if Combs is citing when former U.S. attorney Damien Williams

held a press conference when Combs was arrested and indicted back in September that this is proof prosecutors were trying to humiliate him or singling him out again trying to show racism they argue this is standard and that Williams held press conferences in other cases like look at the recent sex trafficking case of the white Alexander brothers Alon Tal and Orrin we've been focusing upon them a lot here on sidebar held a press conference there and there are other arguments they address but you get the general gist of the back and forth and I've said this before I'll say again, I think that this is a losing argument for Sean Combs' case. I think it's a very high burden to show that this was selective prosecution, and it doesn't seem to me on the face of it. They've

presented enough evidence to either justify this charge being dismissed or to justify discovery being ordered at this point. So I don't imagine that will be much luck for them, but we'll see. And again, I think it's possible that will come up on Friday. But there's also something else to keep an eye out for as we talk about this hearing on Friday. A motion to suppress evidence, which we don't believe has been addressed as of the time of this recording. So Combs last month filed a motion to make sure a lot of evidence isn't admitted into this trial. And he argues that multiple search warrants used to find evidence against him and indict him were way too broad and that some of the information investigators found actually goes against

their case. And we're talking requesting the court to suppress evidence from the following search warrants and anything that came from that. And this is a big deal. The January 4th, 2024 warrant to search Mr. Combs' I-Cloud accounts. The March 22nd, 2024 warrant to search his Los Angeles residents and to seize evidence obtained therein. The March 22nd, 2020-24 warrant to search as Miami residents and to seize evidence obtained therein. The March 25th, 2024 warrant to search his person and to seize and search two of his cell phones referred to as Combs number one and combs number two and to extract information from those phones. The September 16th, 2024 warrant to search his person and to seize and search an additional two of his

cellular phones referred to by the government as Combs number three and Combs number four and to extract information from those phones and the September 16th, 2024 warrant to search Combs room at the Park Hyde Hotel and to seize evidence obtained therein. Or in the alternative, granting a Franks hearing. That's, by the way, a specific hearing where a defendant can challenge the validity of search warrants. So the main argument being that when the government sought search warrants, it presented a distorted picture of the facts, that it didn't include all the information, that it was misleading, that it didn't include exculpatory evidence for the court to consider, and the court would probably

like to consider that, and evidence that Combs argues was in the government's possession. They had a duty to turn it over, or at least show it to the court. And what would this evidence be? While they argue, that would be evidence that sexual activity was really consensual, or that Combs, for instance, discouraged an alleged victim in this case from doing drugs, which goes against the narrative that he used drugs to keep victims compliant. And again, they say that this was deliberately hidden by the prosecutors in the warrant applications. And particularly when it came to victim one in the indictment, who we believe to be Cassandra Ventura,

this is Combs' ex-girlfriend, the idea is that the government had already gotten evidence from victim one that may help his case. And there was also no mention in the application of that evidence, but also her potential financial motive to exaggerate details and falsify her account, that all of this is something a magistrate judge would have liked to know before issuing a warrant. That's Combs' argument. And Combs says other information in the warrant is tainted from other sources. Quote, some of the most salacious allegations recounted in the warrant applications came

from Producer 1, who the government now says it will not even call to testify a trial. And by the way, we believe this to be, we don't know for sure, we believe this to be Rodney, Lil Rod Jones, who filed a former lawsuit. Again, Sean Combs, he was his former producer. The investigator indicated he had interviewed Producer 1 and Producer 1 had relayed stories about his time working for Combs. Now, the exact details of what producer one told the investigators is redacted, but the defense goes on to say, these accusations were never credible.

They were uncorroborated, redacted, and the government had boatloads of contrary evidence, including redacted. The government eventually dropped these allegations and later warrants, but their lack of credibility was manifest from the outset. So according to the filing goes on, the government has advised us it will not call producer one as a witness at Combs trial. In other words, what the information is. that was given to support the warrants is tainted. And they argue also that these warrants were

so overbroad. Quote, the warrants here authorized unbounded search of Mr. Combs' business and personal affairs. The warrants were allowed the very sort of general exploratory rummaging in a person's belongings that the Fourth Amendment forbids. Nor can the government evade the Fourth Amendment's limits simply by stating that Mr. Combs was himself a sort of criminal racketeering enterprise and therefore all evidence of his business and personal life was relevant evidence of a crime. a rhetorical trick were allowed, the Fourth Amendment would lose all meaning. Now, if Combs were to win this, this would be devastating for the prosecution. None of this evidence potentially coming in.

Now, not so fast because the government responded in a filing of its own. So they write in their filing, quote, the defendant fails to demonstrate that there were intentional misstatements or omissions in the affidavits and that those misstatements or omissions were material. To the contrary, the defendant relies on rank unsupported a subject. about the government's access to and knowledge of facts at particular points in time during its long investigation of the defendant's crimes. Moreover, and fatal to his motion, the defendant makes no attempt to show that the affiant acted with a subjective intent to mislead the issuing magistrate judges or with reckless disregard for the truth. His motion, therefore, should be denied without a hearing.

For example, in response to the problems facing producer one's account, you know, his credibility, the government explains, okay, but his statements, were corroborated by another witness, a witness who was relied upon in the affidavits. There are also text messages that prove and help to show probable cause here. In response to victim one, again, who we believe to be Cassandra Ventura, the government makes the argument

that even if Combs engaged in consensual sex, it doesn't negate if there is a finding of probable cause that he sex trafficked victim one. And even if there were issues with respect to victim one, the warrants back in March to search his profits properties and his person, they set forth sufficient probable cause that he engaged in sex trafficking of other victims, that they don't rely just on victim one alone as the sole victim. And I thought this was interesting. The government argues that the text messages that Combs cites

that are, quote, material omissions, they were actually cherry-picked by the defendant, their argument is, and they're actually part of larger incriminating conversations against him. The problem is all these messages are redacted in the filing, so we really don't know the full context, but interesting they make that argument. And they further argue that purported emissions in the warrants, they were immaterial to the case. And in terms of the overbroad argument, those warrants are too overbroad, the too expansive, they have a response to that as well. Quote, ignoring the language in the warrants themselves, the defendant argues that the government essentially sought authority to search and seize anything in the defendant's iCloud accounts, residences, cell phones, and hotel

room. The defendant is wrong. Contrary to the defendant's unsupported accusations, the warrants each specified a number of detailed categories of highly relevant information to be seized that were all amply supported by probable cause. The warrants were therefore particularized and not overbroad, and the defendant's overbreath challenge to the warrants fails. And this is all that Fourth Amendment analysis, you know, protection against unreasonable searches and seizures. And for warrants, you need to lay out the specific crime that police have found probable cause

for, the place to be searched, the items to be seized. But here's the thing, warrants by law can be broad. The only thing is, and this is key, as laid up by the prosecution, a warrant is overbroad if its description of the objects to be seized is broader than can be justified by the probable cause upon which the warrant is based. And here, the government argues that even though Combs claims the warrants gave the government to search everything, they were actually pretty particularized, according to the government. Quote, the items to be seized set out in each warrant were also tied directly to the

probable cause upon which the warrant is based. The defendant complains that the warrants sought communications, photos, documents, calendars, location data, travel records, financial records, and call records. But the defendant conveniently ignores the limiting principles set forth clearly in each warrant, which only authorized seizure of the aforementioned items that were related to the subject offenses. That would include, for example, communications revealing the defendant's obstructive conduct, photos depicting the defendant's participation in criminal sex acts, and travel records reflecting the defendant's interstate transportation of commercial sex workers. Without question, these materials constitute evidence, fruits, and instrumentalities of the crimes

designated on the face of the warrants. By contrast, the defendant's communications, photos, documents, calendars, location data, travel records, financial records, and call records that were not related to criminal activity were fully protected from seizure. So, should be an interesting time on the criminal front. All right, before we wrap things up, literally right before we were about to finish this recording. We just got word that the party submitted filed a letter with the court. So a few more things we got to call out in this case. So first of all, the government is asking the court to begin jury selection prior to the trial date of May 5th, 2025. Again, this is pursuant to this letter that was filed. And they want openings

on May 5th. So they want this trial to get started immediately on May 5th. Otherwise, their fear is that this trial will go past July 4th. And that could create an issue. in getting a jury selected. Obviously, it's a big holiday. And the government also argues that there is an issue with witnesses, too, that it's important to do jury selection, voir dire, before May 5th, because apparently many of these witnesses have to travel from out of state. So there's some scheduling concerns. So they're asking jury selection to begin next month, April 21st, 2025. And it also becomes a question, by the way, will they get a jury by then? We shall see. Or at least how much can they ferret out by that point?

But the defense argues they want jury selection to start on May 5th and May 6th with written jury questionnaires. And then May 12th, they want to begin the actual jury selection process, you know, whittling it down and then have openings by May 13th. And they say, if you start this earlier, this would actually prejudice their case. And they are also asking for a sequestered jury selection process in which the jurors are questioned individually outside the presence of other jurors so that they aren't. you know, influenced or affected by others. That's presumably the concern there. And the defense says that this has been done in other high profile cases like the Galane Maxwell case. Then there was an issue of the jury questionnaire itself that was brought up in this letter. So the government is asking the court to refrain from using a jury questionnaire or in the alternative, using a

jury questionnaire limited to only logistical issues, meaning whether there are any conflicts that would prevent a juror from being seated in this case, you know, a scheduling conflict, rather than asking them substantive questions about what they know of Sean Combs or this case or things like that. Their argument is that an initial questionnaire about substantive issues, that would delay the case. That would delay the trial. Basically, their argument is you should save that later on for in-person questioning, oral questioning. The defense has a different perspective. The defense wants a written questionnaire because of the pretrial publicity in this case. And they say it's publicity that is mostly in the government's favor. And their argument is this would actually

be quicker and more efficient to do it this way. Then there's an issue of discovery. And without going into all the legal rules and the citations and all this and the back and forth, simply put, the government is saying, look, we made discovery productions to the defense, but they haven't done so in kind. But the defense's perspective, again, really summarizing this pretty quickly, is they don't want to produce discovery until we are aware of the government's witnesses and exhibits. Then we know what we have to turn over.

And then the defense also makes the claim, and I want to point this out as well, that the infamous video of Sean Combs purportedly beating up Cassandra Ventura in a hotel hallway back in 2016 that was published by CNN last year, they make the claim that was altered, and they will file a motion perhaps trying to limit or exclude its USET trial. And we know that could potentially be a key piece of evidence in this case. So interesting to see how that works up. And there was also a debate about a final pretrial conference and when it should be scheduled. So I could obviously dedicate a full Sidebar episode to that letter, but you get the basic

gist of it. I would suggest the best thing to do. Tune in tomorrow on Law and Crimes YouTube channel live stream. We're going to do live coverage of the Sean Diddy Combs hearing. We'll take your questions on it. Elizabeth Milner will be in that courtroom as well for us and do live reporting back to us. But that is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us.

And as always, please subscribe. YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.