Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Exposes 'Flaws' in Bombshell Piece of Sex Trafficking Case

Starting point is 00:00:00 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

Starting point is 00:00:35 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. I was f***ed up. I mean, I hit rock bottom, but I make no excuses. My behavior on that video is inexcusable. You know what Sean Diddy Combs is doing? right now? He's fighting to make sure a jury doesn't see the infamous tape of him purportedly beating up Cassandra Ventura in a hotel hallway from years ago. The defense has raised a number of arguments about why that key piece of evidence, maybe one of the most important pieces of evidence at his upcoming criminal trial, should not make its way in. And we're going to break it

Starting point is 00:01:18 down for you right now. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Sean Diddy Combs wants a key piece of evidence, potentially one of the most important pieces of evidence at his upcoming criminal trial to be excluded from ever making its way there. He does not want the jury to see it, to evaluate it, to consider it, unless, of course, they've already seen it in the media. That becomes a question for jury selection, what they saw heard leading up to this trial. But that's a separate question. But I am talking about the infamous videotape. The videotape of Combs apparently kicking, striking, dragging Cassandra Cassie Ventura in the hallway of the Intercontinental Hotel out in L.A. back in 2016, that was published by CNN last year, May 17, 2024. This was months before Combs arrest and indictment in September on federal sex crimes charges.

Starting point is 00:02:13 And let's not forget, two days after CNN published this tape, and it is graphic, it is disturbing. we're not going to show it here for you. It is just so difficult to watch. Two days after it was published, Combs apologized on Instagram in a now deleted video. I was fucked up. I mean, I hit rock bottom, but I make no excuses. My behavior on that video is inexcusable.

Starting point is 00:02:42 I take full responsibility for my actions in that video. Disgusted. I was disgusted then when I did it. I'm disgusted now. I'm so sorry. And we believe that prosecutors wish to introduce this surveillance tape to establish this as evidence of Combs' sex trafficking charge, namely a victim one, who we believe to be Combs' ex-girlfriend Cassandra Ventura, that she was not only running away from Combs, who

Starting point is 00:03:10 was apparently seen on that tape just wearing a towel, but that she was running away from a sexual episode involving Combs and a sex worker who was allegedly in that hotel room. And remember the allegation here, right, that he would force and coerce women into these sex acts with commercial sex workers, freak off, all these different kinds of things. And we believe, based on prior arguments from Combs Council, the defense will be that they may plan to argue this was merely an unfortunate domestic spat between Combs and Ventura. That as his attorney, Mark Ignifalo, once put it, evidence of Combs, quote, having more than one girlfriend and getting caught, but not evidence of sex trafficking. Also, by the way, Combs can't be charged at the state level

Starting point is 00:03:53 for allegedly beating up Cassandra Ventura because it's past the applicable statute of limitations, but you can see why it would play a key role in a sex trafficking and racketeering case, transportation to engage in prostitution too. Now, Combs may not want to even test his defense at trial. Now, it seems what he wants to do would be to make sure that, this video doesn't see the lie today in a courtroom because in recent filings, Combs wants that video or videos excluded from trial. And for that, we turn to his motion in limine to exclude video footage of that March 5th, 2016 incident. Motion and limine is a pretrial motion that aims at preventing evidence from coming into trial or limiting it in some way. And it starts by saying,

Starting point is 00:04:35 quote, there is no longer any dispute that the CNN footage from March 5th, 2016 at the Intercontinental hotel offered by the government at three separate bail hearings is wholly inaccurate, having been altered, manipulated, sped up, and edited to be out of sequence. As indicated below, CNN paid redacted, don't know who this person is, redacted for footage, copy that footage in unknown ways, presented that footage out of order and destroyed the original. Accordingly, all the footage from CNN is inaccurate and inadmissible. As for the two items of footage filmed by an iPhone 6, those pieces of footage are inaccurate and admissible as well for the reasons set out below. Now, that's interesting that there's apparently iPhone footage of this incident

Starting point is 00:05:21 as well. So let me get into Combs' argument that all of this video evidence of this incident should be excluded. Shouldn't it make its way into trial. So the first thing Combs requests from the court is to hold a hearing. And at this hearing, Combs explains that his team wants to call a forensic video analysis named Connor McCourt to show that this video evidence is inaccurate. team argues the videos are unreliable, that they would unfairly confuse and mislead the jury, that they would be more prejudicial to Combs than it would provide any kind of relevant or probative value for the prosecution's case. They write, quote, if a pitcher is worth a thousand words, a video is worth a number well over the court's word limit. Again, the basic argument from

Starting point is 00:06:03 Combs and his team is that CNN heavily and deceptively edited the video and turned about 10 and a half minutes of footage into a 48-second, quote, out-of-order clip that ended with Combs appearing to drag, redacted, again, we believe that to be Cassandra Ventura, to a hotel room. And they argue that this painted the rapper and the music mogul in the worst possible light for the world to see. And as they previously incorrectly mentioned, prosecutors relied on this tape in prior bail hearings to support their argument that Combs shouldn't be released pre-trial. By the way, talking digital evidence, talking alleged crimes, did you know that cybercrime is growing more dangerous and widespread. It's threatening businesses like never before.

Starting point is 00:06:44 I mean, did you know that in 2024, one in five businesses fell victim to ransomware and half of those were small businesses? Yeah. Now, here's the good news. We have a sponsor, Apollo Network. They're here to protect your business and help you fight against these business-ending threats. They use the latest cybersecurity technologies to monitor your systems 24-7. They stop threats before you even know they're there. They prevent downtime. They safeguard your data. So beyond just protection, they optimize your daily operations by managing your backups, providing 24-7 tech support, and being your trusted partner for all your IT needs. Their mission is so simple. Deliver elite-level security while helping your business run faster, more efficiently, and with peace of mind. No business is

Starting point is 00:07:21 too big or too small to be protected from one computer to thousands. They have custom solutions to fit every industry. So right now, you can go to Apollo networks.com slash sidebars, scan the QR code on screen, to get a free network health assessment, and 50% off of your first month. But this is where things get interesting because Combs claims that in November 13, 24, the government handed over to them two iPhone videos that were in the possession of redacted. So maybe Ventura, not sure, but they were in the possession of redacted. And Combs claims these videos are recordings of surveillance footage of the hotel incident, but they are very different, Combs claims from the CNN video that was published. And it includes things that weren't in the CNN video. And that's when Combs says that they retained Mr. McCourt, who apparently is a, quote, career law enforcement officer that specializes in forensic analysis of videos.

Starting point is 00:08:13 And Combs claims that McCourt concluded that the government's videos don't represent the original, the raw surveillance footage, that the CNN video was manipulated, and that there's a lack of metadata to know how exactly it was manipulated. Now, Combs Council claims that they were able to get their hands on four videos here. So CNN's published video and three videos with footage obtained. by CNN from three single cameras at the hotel. And Combs argues that these videos were not the ones that CNN got from its redacted source, but that CNN paid their source for the videos, copied those files, and then destroyed

Starting point is 00:08:50 the original video files they received. Quote, to defense counsel's knowledge, the government has not investigated CNN nor redacted for destroying evidence related to this case during the pendency of the investigation. And actually, there's an accompanying declaration from one of the attorneys from a firm that's representing Combs. Her name is Anna Esteveo,

Starting point is 00:09:09 and she provides a bit more context on what these videos are. Quote, after multiple phone, Zoom, and email conferrals with DWT, that's the firm that was representing CNN, over the course of several days, DWT eventually admitted that CNN received a video file from a source, the original video file.

Starting point is 00:09:28 And again, we don't know who this source is, but it continues that CNN, quote, made a complete copy of that video file, and then the original video file, CNN complied with the subpoena and produced four video files. So aside from the video that was published by CNN for the whole world to see and that we all saw, there is also apparently, quote, Exhibit I2, which is a six minute and 13 second clip from the hallway of the Intercontinental. Exhibit I3, a two minute and 15 second clip from the elevator bank at the Intercontinental. Exhibit I4, a one minute and 59 second video of another view of the hallway at the Intercontinental.

Starting point is 00:10:06 We don't know ourselves what these videos do or do not show exactly, but it's interesting that there's more footage here, or apparently. And by the way, this lawyer who's making this statement is doing so under penalty of perjury. And she declared, quote, despite knowing of the federal investigation, CNN Council has represented to myself and Teni Garagos, that's another one of Combs' lawyers, that they destroy, the original footage they received. We have not received any information and discovery reflecting that the government has investigated CNN's destruction of evidence related to an ongoing federal investigation. Those are big allegations. And in fact, in another filing, another exhibit, to be more exact, we have this email from

Starting point is 00:10:49 Anna Esteveo to Kate Bulger, who represents CNN, an attorney for CNN. And it reads in part, quote, Kate, thank you for the call earlier. Based on our discussion, we now understand that CNN. received a video file from a source, the original video file, made a complete copy of that video file, the copy, and as you mentioned for the first time today, deleted the original video file. Now, to be clear, CNN has denied these allegations. They have denied that it altered the video or destroyed the original copy. So we're still trying to figure out what's what right now and even what that apparent conversation between Esteveo and Bolger even was. But I want to

Starting point is 00:11:28 get back to Combs' motion again, this motion in limine, arguing again that all this video evidence should be excluded. So at one point, as laid up by the defense, apparently the court, meaning the judge overseeing this case, Judge Arun's sub-Romanian, he had advised at a prior hearing about what should be done regarding this video. And apparently he said, quote, slow it down, put it in the right sequence, or provide any other context based on the materials. However, according to the defense, quote, after extensive discussions with Mr. McCourt, however, there are several reasons why all available video files are inaccurate and unreliable and cannot be modified to be accurate. What are those reasons? Well, first, Combs claims that

Starting point is 00:12:05 McCourt believes the CNN video is significantly sped up, that it doesn't accurately represent human movement, that it inaccurately displays time stamp seconds, including jumping back in time, so it misleads the viewer as to the proper sequence of events. And there is also, allegedly, missing a considerable amount of footage. And when it comes to the iPhone videos, that I mentioned before, Mr. McCourt apparently believes they, too, distort the events. Quote, the aspect ratio in the iPhone videos differs from the CNN video such that Mr. Combs appears to be stockier and shorter than he appears in the CNN video, causing Mr. Combs to appear more domineering.

Starting point is 00:12:43 Two, they inaccurately display timestamps seconds, misleading the viewer about the timing of the events. Three, they do not show the timestamps in the majority of the videos. And four, they do not depict the entire incident. In other words, the iPhone videos reflect what the person holding the cell phone camera focused on when watching the footage. At times, the iPhone videos zoom in on details like a particular person's shoes, cutting out portions of the events depicted in the CNN videos further.

Starting point is 00:13:11 Because the iPhone videos were created by using a handheld camera to film a static image, the iPhone videos contain doubled images and blurred images, distortive artifacts that are the result of amateur re-recording. So in other words, neither the CNN video nor the iPhone videos accurately depict what allegedly happened in that hotel. That's according to Combs. And first, Combs' defense argues that the CNN video and the iPhone videos, they have to be excluded because the government cannot provide sufficient evidence of their authenticity, which is required by the federal rules of evidence. More specifically, federal rule of evidence 901, which requires a party to submit proof that that specific piece of evidence is what it claims to be.

Starting point is 00:13:56 You can't just take the prosecution or defense's word for it, so you can do that by having a witness with knowledge testify about it or an expert witness testify. And here, the defense argues that when it comes to the recordings, there is a high burden or standard to authenticate video recordings because they can be altered. They are subject to alteration. They can be subject to distortion. And by the way, video recordings, unlike other pieces of evidence, their argument is, and I think there's a fair point to this, they can have quite an impact on a jury, a very different impact on a jury. They are very, very important and persuasive.

Starting point is 00:14:33 Quote, the government has not proffered any competent evidence through which it could authenticate these videos. In the normal course, evidence may be authenticated through such means as testimony of a witness with personal knowledge, evidence that the proffered exhibit has distinctive characteristics demonstrating genuineness. evidence that the proffered exhibit is the result of a process or system that produces accurate results and showing that it produces an accurate result. But this is not the normal course. And these methods do not apply here. Rather, in the absence of testimony by the editor or someone else with personal knowledge to determine how the videos were edited, admitting the videos would be grossly unfair and potentially highly misleading. And here there are several problems. Like according to the defense, we don't have any information.

Starting point is 00:15:19 about the device that was used to generate the CNN videos. And when it comes to the iPhone videos, the defense makes the argument, they haven't even had the opportunity to examine that particular iPhone. And you couple that with the allegations that the videos were distorted and altered and changed in terms of speed and frames and depictions of subjects,

Starting point is 00:15:37 and that the original files were destroyed, again, the argument is there's no way to properly authenticate these videos as being true and accurate copies. Next, the defense goes back to the claims. back to the claim that none of the files at issue are the actual originals, even though the defense argues they made a good faith effort to find them. And they also argue that the government's failure to investigate CNN and to not find reliable video and just to rely on what they claim

Starting point is 00:16:04 are inaccurate, unreliable duplicates actually calls into question the government's motives here. And moreover, the defense claims the government failed the, quote, best evidence rule. What's that? Well, as Combs' lawyers explain, and we learned this very early on, on in our law school evidence class, you always want to introduce the original evidence for purposes of authentication. But we live in a real world, and we all know that sometimes that is not possible. So a duplicate can be allowed unless there is a genuine question about authenticity. And here, Combs argues, there is certainly such a question.

Starting point is 00:16:40 But also they say this. The government's only means of admitting the evidence is federal rule of evidence 104, which permits the use of a duplicate, all the originals are lost or destroyed and not by the proponent acting in bad faith or the original cannot be obtained by any available judicial process. The government's conduct negates admissibility under either prong. It has repeatedly refused to investigate, has not questioned key witnesses regarding the original recordings, and refuses to use available judicial process even to confirm whether the

Starting point is 00:17:12 original still exist. Rather, it has turned a blind eye, hoping that the court will permit it to use far more inflammatory evidence that will unfairly bolster its arguments and prejudice Combs' case. Indeed, at the time CNN destroyed the original footage, it knew about and widely reported on the government's investigation into Combs, yet destroyed evidence anyway. The government has no basis to claim the originals are lost or destroyed because it is not attempted to find out. It is therefore ratified CNN's bad faith, and it should not be rewarded. So basically, Combs' defense is arguing that none of the files are the originals, the duplicates are unreliable, and no amount of editing can fix the problem.

Starting point is 00:17:54 And then the defense moves on to another argument, that the videos should be excluded from coming into evidence under Rule 403 of the Rules of Evidence. We've talked about this before. And this is where the court can exclude evidence if its probative value, its relevance to a particular issue, is substantially outweighed by unfairly prejudicing the jury. And here, the defense argues, look, while the government may simply say any alterations to the videos, that just goes to how much the jury should weigh the value or reliability of the tapes, meaning it goes to a question for the jury to consider, but allow it in nonetheless. This isn't a question about whether or not it should be admitted in the first place or not. The defense couldn't disagree more.

Starting point is 00:18:34 Quote, the manipulation of the videos was specifically designed to inflame the passions of CNN's viewing audience, and that is what the government is hoping to leverage in this case. The videos are sped up to make the violence look more violent. The sequence is reordered to leave the viewer with the impression that the woman has been dragged back to a hotel room. And the clips delete footage that provides important context making clear that the events were not as horrific as the government will suggest. Although that feels like a little bit of a stretch in my opinion. How do you say it's not horrific? I mean, even if it was sped up or slowed down, unless you're saying it was completely doctored and Combs didn't allegedly attack Cassandra Ventura.

Starting point is 00:19:13 I'm not sure what that context necessarily is, but again, he's not charged with assault. He's charged with sex trafficking, so something there. But the defense concludes by suggesting that if the prosecution wants to prove that this event happened, rely on testimony of those witnesses who apparently appear in the videos, have them testify, okay? But otherwise, they claim, they argue, the video should be excluded. Quote, here, where the available video files are not genuine, not accurate, not originals, and it's impossible to make the available video files accurate, none of the inaccurate, unreliable video should be admitted.

Starting point is 00:19:44 Ultimately, if the government has a witness available to testify to the events of March 5th, 2016, such testimony would likely be admissible. However, for that testimony and not the inaccurate, prejudicial, distorted footage, should be the evidence the jury considers. In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, Mr. Combs' request that this court hold a hearing and ultimately conclude that none of the available video files of the hotel incident be admitted into evidence at Mr. Combs' upcoming trial. So, will the court hold a hearing this late in the game?

Starting point is 00:20:11 game. I mean, trials expected to begin, May 5th, a few weeks away, Judge Rune Suburmanian just decided against postponing the trial last week, despite objections by the defense regarding other evidence. Will he choose to not include it? Will he agree with Combs? That would be a big blow to the prosecution, as it's not only visual proof of potential sex trafficking and racketeering, pattern of criminal activity, criminal enterprise, all that, but also if Ventura really is victim one in this case, having that tape come into evidence would support. her credibility. Remember, she first alleged that Combs did this to her in her initial November 2023 lawsuit. It was only months later that this tape was published by CNN. And for those out

Starting point is 00:20:52 there who were skeptical of her claims, who maybe didn't believe her, you wonder if that tape changed their views because that tape published by CNN arguably mirrored her description in her lawsuit from months earlier. So will it be excluded? Or will Sub-Romanian allow it to come in? And then the defense will be forced to question its reliability or authenticity for the jury and also simultaneously make the domestic spat argument I mentioned before. At the time of this recording, we couldn't find any ruling from the judge or even a response from the prosecution, but we'll keep an eye out. It'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 YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts.

Starting point is 00:21:36 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.

Your Ad Here

Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Exposes 'Flaws' in Bombshell Piece of Sex Trafficking Case

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