Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Makes Urgent Demand in Sex Trafficking Trial

Episode Date: April 17, 2025

The federal trial for disgraced music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is set to get underway in May, but the rapper’s defense attorneys say the trial needs to be pushed back. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber breaks down the possibilities with celebrity criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Go to https://ThriveMarket.com/sidebar to receive 30% off your first order AND a FREE gift when you join Thrive Market today!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript 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. views 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. Are we now dangerously close to Sean Combs' criminal trial being delayed? And I don't mean by just a few days or weeks. I'm talking months. The defense has just filed a letter with the court accusing the prosecution of not playing fair, and they say they can no longer, in good conscience, have proceedings begin on May 5th. We're going to bring on criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen to break down the arguments and what we can expect next. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by law and crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Okay, before we jump into this story, let's just talk true crime news for a second, some long crime merch to be more specific. The long crime docket is your one-stop shop for trending stories, thrilling body cams, an exclusive look at brand new shows and podcasts from the faces you love. So sign up for our docket newsletter by scanning the QR code you see here or click the link in our description and the pinned comment right there onto this video. At the beginning of June, we're going to pick 10 new docket subscribers and we're going to send them a long crime hat. Winners will be announced in the newsletter.

Hope you can check it out. Back to the case. You know I said this would happen? I said, be on the lookout for if we see a delay to the start of Sean Combs' criminal trial, The trial where he's facing sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy, transportation to engage in prostitution charges. I said there could be a delay. And what happens? The defense is now asking for a two-month delay.

Now, I originally said that last week. This was the week before when his attorneys objected to prosecutors apparently wanting to introduce evidence of uncharged conduct into this case. Or more specifically, prior alleged acts of sexual abuse in order to prove that Sean Combs had. had the intent to sex traffic victims. And despite his planned defense of everything was consensual, that this evidence will show there was no consent, that there was no mistake about consent. But now we have this letter that Combs attorneys have filed with the court yesterday. More specifically, his attorney, Mark Ignifalo.

And I'm going to read it to you. It's a short page and a half. And I don't know if they're asking for a delay per se because of what I just mentioned. Maybe something else, probably. Here you go. Let me read it to you. We write to update your honor regarding a request for a. adjournment of the trial currently scheduled for May 5th, 2025. This court ordered that if the

defense was considering an adjournment to make the application within 48 hours of our conference on Monday, April 14th, 2025. As we noted for the court at the conference, council stated we may ask for a short two-week adjournment. We have discussed multiple times the possibility of a two-week adjournment with the government, which they oppose. And then there's a batch of text that is redacted, we spoke to the government today and have requested instead a two-month adjournment, again, redacted, while also allowing Mr. Combs the necessary time to prepare his defense of the third superseding indictment and resolve victim four's evidentiary issue. We're going to talk all about this.

Though the government has argued to this court that the third superseding indictment is encompassed by a previous charging instrument, there is actually substantially new conduct in the third superseding indictment about which we are continuing to receive new discovery as recently as last night. Much of this discovery, which has been produced on a rolling basis since April 4th, 2025, was in the government's possession prior to the grand jury returning the third superseding indict. And by the way, as we've discussed here on Sidebar, a third superseding or amended indictment was filed against Combs last week. He was arraigned this week on it, basically adds two new charges against him for sex trafficking and prostitution with respect to unidentified.

identified victim two. There are also tweaks to some language a bit as a sentencing factor with respect to victim two as well. As you know, we've been covering Diddy from like the beginning and I focus on this so much. I'm always rushing to get the next script done, the next script done and I just sometimes rush to eat food and I'm trying to be very careful about what I eat. But I will tell you honestly, shopping for healthy food is not easy. It's tough to know what is actually good for you. But that is why I'm so happy we have Thrive Market now sponsoring sidebar. So Thrive Market is a go-to online grocery store for getting healthy essentials. And one of the things that I absolutely love is their shopping experience because as a Thrive Market member, you can

customize the assortment of products in just a few clicks based on your preferences and diet. You can filter the products to get exactly what you're looking for. Like instead of chopping on candy, I found these amazing organic avocado oil chips. Also, they're super echo conscious with all their products shipped from their zero-waste warehouses. Everything is delivered straight to your door. You don't even have to leave the house. So if you're ready to make healthy food shopping as easy as a few clicks, check out Thrive Market. Scan the QR code on screen, click the link in the description, or head over to thrive market.com slash sidebar to get 30% off of your first order and a free gift when you join Thrive Market today. But then the letter continues. There's a whole batch that's

redacted, but then it says, we note that the court has broad authority to grant such continuances where the government seeks a superseding indictment, which operates to prejudice a defendant. The government opposes our proposed reasonable adjournment request, even though it is still producing discovery, including discovery on count for a 15-year mandatory minimum count. That's sex trafficking against victim two. And quote, has indicated over our objection that it will not produce the exhibits and witness list due today or additional 3,500 material while this request is pending. 3,500 material or statements from government witnesses.

Under these circumstances with discovery seemingly incomplete on a 15-year mandatory minimum count, we cannot in good conscious go to trial on the scheduled date. This is a problem that the government has created, yet it opposes our reasonable request. And then there's redacted language. Okay, I want to bring in celebrity criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen, who has represented stars like Kodak Black and Drake to talk about this. What do you make of this, Bradford? Good to see you.

I saw this coming as you did. Once one of the attorneys left Mr. Combs's team and then they were looking for new attorneys and then Garragos came on and these things that are. proceeding before the court, you could tell that they were going to be asking for a continuance because individuals that may have had some tangential knowledge about the case now need to get up the speed. They need to read all the documents. They need to come into play where they're going to be needed. What kind of strategic position that they're going to have on a legal team? And none of that can be done within three weeks. So I was surprised they only asked for 60 days. I thought they would

to ask for 90 or 100 to want it. Let's talk about this for, I mean, obviously, I have made of questions right now. First of all, this is a big deal that the defense is asking this, because you and I both know, Sean Combs was racing towards trial, okay? If he was out on bail, right, he, out on bond, he would have, I imagine, been pushing this case as long down the road as possible, but he was sitting in the Metropolitan Detention Center, the MDC, wants to go to trial, believes he can, you know, be found not guilty, and continue on with his life.

The fact that basically he and his attorneys are like, I will stay put for at least another two months, that's a big deal. That's a big thing the defense is saying that this is a real problem. Yes and no, and I'll tell you why. Yeah, a little bit. So I'll give you my take on it. These cases don't get better with age, right? So generally when you have this type of case, more facts come out, people start piling on, civil cases get filed, more witnesses get found. So generally speaking, these cases don't.

get better with age. So when you first get the case, you're like, hey, let's get the trial as soon as we can because it's not going to get better with age and let's deal with what we got, et cetera, et cetera. What I think they came to realize over the past 10 or 12 months is that the government has everything that they could possibly have. There is no more secret people coming out of the woodwork. They kind of analyzed all the evidence. They've looked at it. In their minds, I think they're thinking, hey, listen, if we take a two-month continuance to get fully prepared for something that you're looking at a 15-year midman or possibly getting 25 years on other charges or even more, if all these are combined, I think the two months then becomes a lot less concerning to me

because, like I said, I think they really looked at the evidence and realized, hey, listen, we could take a two or three-month continuance, and it's not like they're going to come up with the smoking gun. They've had time to come up with the smoking done. We've seen all their evidence, and I think they're not impressed with the evidence. I think there's some problems with it, like we've discussed before in the past, I think there's some issues there on both sides of the fence. This is a case that could very well have two or three counts not guilty, and then he gets hung up on one count, and that one count still gets him five to ten years. Let's break this down a little bit, what they said in the letter about why they want this delay.

So one of the things that I have to mention is that reference to victim four, who actually came up at the arraignment hearing that was earlier this week, too, on Monday. So Combs' legal team argued that the government hasn't been forthcoming. coming with evidence. And more specifically, they raise the issue of all of these apparent emails and messages from unidentified victim number four who has been indicated to be a key witness in this case. Not necessarily a victim as part of the overall charges per se, but a key witness. And the prosecution fired back and said, look, there is just too much stuff here, too many emails. We haven't been able to get our hands on all of them. So Bradford, when you hear an argument like that

regarding victim four and evidence being turned over. Again, significant issue. What do you take away from it? I think that number one is whenever the government says there's too much evidence, we can't go over at all. They have so many people at their disposal. Most people don't realize that the federal government is not the guy sitting at the table. He's the 30 people that are backing him up back at the office that are running backgrounds. There's agents running around taking statements. There's a forensic team going through computers. So when they tell me, there's too much there to go through. I don't put much weight in that.

I do think that is the reason why a continuance is necessary. And to be honest with you, a 60-day continuance, in my opinion, is not that great, number one, in terms of the amount of time they could have asked for. Number two is the fact that the government is objecting, all the while knowing that they haven't turned over everything that they have, that there's still outstanding discovery, there's still issues that are outstanding, considering all that to say, hey, listen, judge, we don't want to give him a 60-day continuance, is ridiculous. The judge is 100% going to give them a continuance. I don't know if it's going to be for 60 days. I think it will be,

because I don't think that's an obnoxious ask. And the fact that he just got a superseding indictment that he just entered his plea of not guilty on, that in itself would warrant a continuance. Let's talk about that for a second. By the way, just real quick, have you ever seen a judge say, I know you're asking for two months? I think you need three. Have you ever seen a judge do that give more than what they're asking for? So there is a judge in Fort Lauderdale and he's very funny. And he's essentially what he says is if you come to me for a continuance, make sure it's exactly what you want. Because I don't want you coming back. So if you want six months, I'm okay with six months. If you want three, I'm okay with three. But whatever the continuance is,

make sure that's it because that's all you get. So a lot of judges do that. I've never seen a judge say, hey, I think you need three. I'm going to give you three instead of two. I haven't had that experience. But it could happen, but I doubt that it would happen here. Okay. So let me go through this because you heard the argument from the defense in the letter where they said that this new indictment, this third superseding indictment contains, quote, substantially new conduct. And they are continuing to receive new discovery. I mean, what do you make of that argument? Again, considering substantively, we are talking about two new charges with respect to victim two, who already was a victim listed in the racketeering charge.

So the charges don't change, right? He's still facing sex trafficking and racketeering charges and transportation to engage in prostitution charges. It's just now, not only with respect to victim one, now it's with respect to victim two. Do you believe that the defense has a point here? Yeah, I, listen, whenever there's a superseding indictment, and there's new allegations or there's additional facts in it that need to be explored. No judge says, oh, okay, we're in trial in three weeks.

In fact, a superseding indictment that has new facts and new issues in it, three weeks before trial is, or even four weeks before trial, is obnoxious. Why they wait? Why do they wait till the 11th hour to file this? Well, I think that they didn't have that information. And I think that her story may be changing as it goes along or maybe she's modifying it. They could be saying, hey, this is what we have an issue with between this time and this time. Did anything happen here?

And she's like, well, I don't know. Well, we're going to have a problem with between here and here. And all of a sudden, she's like, oh, you know what? I remember this is what happened between here and here. That type of thing doesn't bode well. And I actually made a comment on my Instagram about a superseding indictment three weeks before a trial doesn't bode well for the prosecution. It says one of two things. Either one is they didn't know what they were doing when they filed it originally or number two is, all of a sudden, her

memory got jogged, that suddenly she remembers something she didn't remember over the course of the past 10 months. Or number three is they were hiding that and they were going to spring it on them at the last moment, which is the worst one, then now they have to deal with it at trial in three weeks. So like it just doesn't bode well when someone gets a superseding indictment three weeks before trial, I think it's very shady and it makes them look bad in the eyes of the court, my opinion. Now, whether or not this judge is used to seeing it from the Southern District of New York or not, I don't know. It's interesting. When the third superseding indictment came down, I spoke with Nima Romani about it. And his basic conclusion, if I was, if I'm summarizing correctly, was there seemed to be

they wanted to particularize certain charges. They wanted to clarify certain points. They really, it seemed to prosecution, didn't want to confuse the jury, you know, really make it clear about what they were alleging. And you look at this and you say, the defense wanted to start with a two week delay. And now they're asking for two months. Is it that they saw something in the evidence that was turned over or the lack of evidence that was turned over? Or did something happen in their conversation with prosecutors where they're now saying, we need two months? I mean, that is significant. Yeah, well, I think that number one is they haven't gotten all the evidence. They keep getting new evidence and more discovery as on a rolling basis, which prosecutors love to say,

well, that's our obligation judge. We have to keep giving them stuff. Yeah, that's their obligation. But the problem is when you bring a case, when you indict someone, you have a grand jury meeting, And the case is 10, 11, 12 months old, the fact that you're still disclosing, that you still have more evidence, does not speak volumes in terms of the wherewithal of the government. The government knows what they're doing. The government has agents. The government is watching everything and looking at everything and going through computers. So, yes, there is a rolling obligation to provide discovery. But that really should be done in the first six to eight months of the case.

The fact that you're waiting until the 10th month. three weeks out before trial. I just don't think that it bodes well for them. Let me ask you this. I'm going to ask you to switch gears and anticipate what the prosecution is going to be arguing here. Because if you take Combs's accusations as true, why would the government refuse to turn over exhibits and a witness list or additional statements from government witnesses while this request to delay the trial is pending? So let me ask you this. Why would they say, hey, let's just sort this out first. Let's sort of. out this whole delay first. We're not turning over anything additionally until this is until we know

this trial's delayed or not. And why would they oppose a delay? So again, I'm asking you to put on the prosecutor's hat and let's, what are some arguments they would put forward for why they say a delay is not appropriate and why we don't need to turn over everything yet until we know what's going on with the delay? Well, let me take it in two parts. One is why I think they're doing it is because there's probably some evidence there that's not great for them that they don't want to give over to the defense early enough for them to do something with. That's generally why the government doesn't turn over stuff two months before trial, a month before trial.

Now, what's their excuse in front of the court? That's going to be very difficult. Why wouldn't you turn that stuff over until you want to see if they get a continuance? If I'm the judge, why is that relevant? If I give them a continuance or I don't give them a continuance, they're going to say, oh, well, Judge, they're going to have opportunities to go out and do these things and then it might cause a bigger delay. But if you say, listen, I need a two-month continuance.

Give me my stuff. I don't see a judge saying, hey, no, we're not going to address this until three weeks before the next trial date. It doesn't make any sense. I think their argument is going to be that. It's not a good argument. And they really have no good argument for not allowing the 60-day continuance. None of their individuals are in custody or they're afraid they're going to flee the country or a witness is not available or a witness is 90 years old and they're going to die before trial. Those are all reasons why you would think a prosecutor would.

say I object to 60-day continuance. None of that's happening in this case. There is a hearing tomorrow where they're probably going to sort a lot of this out. We're probably going to hear some of the explanations and counter arguments. But while I have you, Bradford, there are these other issues that are tied to it. And I always want to monopolize all my time with Bradford Cohen as much as I can. So let me ask you this. I mentioned it before. I'll bring it up again. Even though it wasn't explicitly stated in this letter, I said originally the idea, if you take the defense's allegations is true that the prosecution wants to bring in now all of this evidence of uncharged conduct in order to prove their case, which I said could possibly delay the case.

The uncharged conduct, including as the defense labeled in their filing, quote, purported instances of sexual assault, all but one of which supposedly occurred decades ago. The defense said these incendiary allegations are substantially more serious than the charged defenses and if admitted, would make it impossible for Mr. Combs to receive a fair trial. And Combs team argued that it can't be included as a form of sexual assault evidence under the federal rules of evidence, specifically 413, because Combs is in charge with sexual assault, that this is improper propensity or character evidence to demonstrate to the jury that Combs has a propensity for sexual violence. That's not allowed to be shown. And that the prejudicial nature of this uncharged conduct, Combs defense team argued, it outweighs any probative or relevant value that it might have at trial. So I said when this came out from the defense that they were complaining and objecting to the prosecution introducing this.

They even said if this comes in, you know, it might have to delay the case. I mean, we won't have time to ultimately prepare in time. Again, not mentioned in the current letter, but do you take issue with this? How do you think the court's going to resolve this issue of uncharged conduct coming in to prove the charges combs is currently facing? So, you know, there's a couple ways to look at this. Number one is I've had cases where uncharged conduct has come in, but that is generally to prove, like, a motive. The M.O. of the case is that I'm charged with some sort of crime, and I always use the wet bandits.

We've talked about this before. You know, the wet bandits from home alone. They would go and break into people's houses, turn on their water, and run out, and the house would flood. Well, they did that like 30 times. Now, they probably caught them in the last house that had happened in, and they don't know if they did these other ones. but they can bring in that evidence to say, hey, look at all these other, there's 30 other homes on the same block that the water was turned on and that these guys ran out of the house and there's a flood going on. That's usually what this is used for, that this is the way that he operates. He uses drugs to put someone under and then this sexual assault happens. But the defense has a very, very strong argument here. That's not what he's charged with. So like, it's a sex trafficking

in case. The nature of these other offenses really shouldn't come in. Now, If they're saying it's some part of the RICO that, you know, this is his ongoing criminal enterprise that he sexually assaults people. Again, that doesn't work. So it would be very strange to me if the judge let all of it in. If he lets one of them in to show like this person came to the hotel room, he or she was told to do X, Y, Z, and they didn't do X, Y, Z. And then he was hurt because he didn't do X, Y, Z. That might lend itself to the trafficking case because you'd say, like, look, this is what happens when people don't listen to him. So those type of arguments would need to be made in order to bring any of that in.

And I don't see the judge bringing in the old, old, old cases unless, like I said, it has some relationship to the trafficking, that it was intended to be trafficked. The person didn't do what he asked them to do in terms of the trafficking. And then that person was injured as a result of that. Maybe. But that's such a stretch. I just don't see that coming in. And if it does come in, you're talking about potential other.

delay in this case. And by the way, the judge had a side order yesterday, either at the time or before the filing that we've been going over from the defense. And it read pending this Friday's conference, meaning tomorrow, the party should proceed on the current schedule, including making all required disclosures. As for the evidentiary issue pertaining to victim four, which was first brought to the court's attention Monday, the court will also address that issue at Friday's conference. If Combs has a renewed application for that evidence that addresses some or all of the government's objections, the court will promptly consider it so ordered. So tomorrow's conference is going to be quite important.

We're going to be covering it here on law and crime, possibly on sidebar. Bradford, before I let you go, side note, got to ask you about this. As an attorney representing very high profile people, did you see this bit of news reported by different outlets, including WSP TV 2, that attorney Brian Steele, who famously represented young thug in his criminal trial, submitted a request to join Sean Combs' legal team. at this upcoming criminal trial. What do you think's going on here? I think they're beefing up their defense.

I think they want to have the very best defense they can. I actually, I think I love Brian Steele. The moment that he said, can I be put in the same cell as my client? Yeah. That speaks volumes, right? For the type of defense attorney that he is. And I just think he's a fighter. I think Diddy has the guys that are on his team that are using a rape.

Pierre, and I think he needs a guy to come in there with a broad axe or a broad sword and start really taking off some heads. And I think Brian steals the guy to do it. I think he's an excellent lawyers. Shame no cameras. Shame no cameras. Wish we would have seen what's going to be happening. All right. Bradford Cohen, you've been so generous with your time. It was great seeing you. Thank you so much. I love breaking down the different aspects of these cases with you. Thanks so much. All right, everybody, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on YouTube. podcast, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts.

I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.