Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Says ‘New Information’ Means Judge Should Let Him Out of Jail

Episode Date: October 20, 2024

Sean “Diddy” Combs, once one of the most prominent and wealthy hip-hop artists in the world, has been behind bars in Brooklyn for a month. A grand jury for the Southern District of New York indicted him on racketeering and sex crimes charges. After being denied bail twice by two different judges, Combs’ legal team now plans to file a new petition for pretrial release, citing “new information” that has come to light. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has the very latest.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest 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. The prosecution and defense are continuing to battle it out when it comes to Sean Combs' bail and pre-child detention. We're going to break down some new filings in this case. Could Sean Combs be set free. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, so we have some new developments regarding the Sean Combs case, and it concerns bail, his pre-trial release. And as we know, Combs currently sits locked up in the Metropolitan Detention Center out in Brooklyn as he awaits trial on federal sex crimes charges,

racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, transportation, to engage in prostitution. And he is sitting there because he was denied bail twice. This is despite offering a bail package of $50 million, home confinement, a security team to monitor him, essentially 24-7, visitor logs provided to the court, no telephone or internet access, limited visitors coming to that property.

Now, the problem for Sean Combs is that the courts were persuaded by the prosecution's argument. The gravity of Combs' allegations, the weight of the evidence, the potential danger he is to society, the risk of flight, and the allegations that he had been improperly contacting witnesses. Now, Combs appealed the latest decision to deny him bail. He appealed it to a higher court in New York. It's called the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, in Combs' bail motion, and we've talked about this on a previous sidebar, so I'm going to get

to this before I get into the new stuff, but they wrote, this case does involve extreme and unusual circumstances, but none that typically foreclosed bail or warrant forcing Sean Combs to defend himself from a prison cell. What is extreme and unusual about this case is that Mr. Combs was detained immediately after he was charged. It goes on to say, the sensationalism surrounding his arrest has distorted the bail analysis. Mr. Combs was not released pending trial, even though he offered to comply with restrictive conditions that would have prevented any conceivable risk of flight or danger. Now, in this motion, Combs denies the government's accusations of obstruction. His attorneys concede that, yes, he spoke with people about the civil lawsuits

that he was facing. Remember, he's been hit with a number of lawsuits, people claiming they were abused by him. But he says he wasn't aware that the Southern District of New York was investigating him. And he claims once he realized he was being investigated, the appeal motion says he made sure not to contact these people anymore. The motion reads, although the government vaguely described contacts with two grand jury witnesses, it proffered no evidence of any threats or intimidation. The government could only state that there were 14 total contacts between Mr. Combs and one witness and another witness who was contacted multiple times. Defense counsel explained these contacts involved no obstruction or witness tampering. For example, one witness

contacted Mr. Combs not the other way around. She reached out to Mr. Combs and told him, I'm a grand jury witness. After Mr. Combs informed defense counsel, he was instructed not to contact the witness anymore and didn't. So in other words, Sean Combs' defense counsel is arguing that the prosecution didn't meet its burden to hold him until trial. By the way, I got to say, we plan to continue to follow all aspects of this Sean Combs saga as it progresses. And because of the support that we get from our incredible sponsors, that helps us to keep on doing this. So I want to call out one right now for you, our amazing partner, Morgan and Morgan. This is America's largest injury law firm. Look, here's the deal. If you're injured, you got to know what your legal

rights are and whether you can be compensated. And Morgan, Morgan has a dedicated team of over a thousand attorneys, case specialists, paralegals, investigators, they have an incredible track record of multi-million dollar verdicts and settlements. I'll give you recent examples, $6.8 million in New York, $12 million in Florida, $26 million in Philadelphia. All of these minds are considerably higher than the highest insurance offers in these cases. There's no upfront fee. The whole process can be done straight from your smartphone. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at for the people.com slash LC sidebar. Okay, so what's the latest?

Well, the prosecution responded to this. They are opposing this defense motion, and at the very beginning of their filing, they lay out the status of the case, right? The arrest, the indictment, what has been happening with bail, but they also reemphasize the allegations and the charges against Sean Combs. So to set the stage, they say, as alleged, Combs and other members and associates of the racketeering enterprise, the enterprise wielded the power. and prestige of Combs' reputation in the entertainment industry to commit federal crimes, including racketeering, sex trafficking, and other offenses, including crimes of violence. From at least 2009 through 2024, Combs used force, threats of force, and coercion to cause female victims to engage in sexual activity, which included sex acts with male commercial

sex workers that Combs referred to as freak-offs. Freak-offs, which sometimes lasted days, were elaborate sex performances that Combs directed. He said he pleasureed himself during and often electronically recorded. Combs ensured that female victims participated in freakoffs through coercion and violence, including by supplying female victims with controlled substances, subjecting female victims to physical, emotional, and verbal abuse, controlling female victims, careers, livelihoods, housing, and threatening to disseminate recordings of freakoffs.

And after highlighting how serious these charges are, the prosecutors then focused on what happened at the other bail hearings in front of to other judges. Now, specifically when talking about the second bail hearing in front of district court judge Andrew Carter, one of the main pieces of evidence to demonstrate that Combs is a danger to society and shouldn't be released is the 2016 videotape that was published by CNN earlier this year of Combs appearing to beat his ex-girlfriend Cassandra Ventura in a hotel hallway. And prosecutors say that even though Combs tried to say, hey, look, this had nothing to do with a freak off. This was about a domestic spat, about infidelity, the government writes, based on multiple sources of

evidence, the government proffered that immediately prior to Combs' assault of the victim, there was a male commercial sex worker in the hotel room with Combs and the victim, who remained inside the hotel room during the assault. It makes me think that that person is probably going to testify at an upcoming trial. Maybe that person was caught on surveillance footage. It goes on to say, the government then read text messages between Combs and the victim, which confirmed the severe injuries. The government highlighted text messages sent by Combs himself immediately after the assault suggesting that Combs feared a law enforcement response including the following call me the cops are here and yo please

call I'm surrounded the government emphasized that whatever the contacts the undisputed conduct captured on video punching kicking and dragging the victim underscored Combs dangerousness and prosecutors double down on what happened in this 2016 video they write With respect to the March 2016 incident at the Intercontinental Hotel, Combs' counsel characterized the relationship between the victim and Combs as very loving and freakoffs as a sought-after special part of the relationship. Judge Carter responded, what does this have to do with him punching her, throwing a vase at her, kicking her?

What's love got to do with that? Combs' counsel continued to argue that there was no sex trafficking, but Judge Carter pressed him to respond to the argument that Combs' violent conduct was relevant to Combs' dangerousness more generally. Combs' counsel conceded, I think it's relevant, I think it's relevant, I haven't said it wasn't relevant, I'm saying it's not part of the sex trafficking. Combs' counsel nonetheless urged Judge Carter that even if the court doesn't fully trust, trust the package as a whole. So in other words, I think a way of looking at this is, even if it didn't have to do with sex trafficking and racketeering, if you were trying to present the argument that Sean Combs is violent and a danger, whatever reason was behind him essentially beating Cassandra Ventura, That's enough evidence. That's it and of itself. That proves the point. And prosecutors also explain how Judge Carter was especially troubled by the allegations that Combs was reaching out to witnesses,

including witnesses who received grand jury subpoenas, that he was engaging in witness tampering, that he was engaging in obstruction. And they say, Judge Carter properly denied Combs' motion for bail, just as Judge Tarnovsky did before him. Combs cannot demonstrate that Judge Carter clearly erred when he found after considering lengthy written submissions, reviewing a transcript of the bail hearing before Judge Tarnovsky, and presiding over extended oral argument that the government had established by clear and convincing evidence that Combs posed the danger to the community and that no bail conditions could reasonably assure the safety of the community. So let me take a quick second to explain this. The Second Circuit Court of Appeals, in order to overrule Judge Carter's denial of bail,

they would have to find that he clearly made a mistake here. And the tricky part about that is, A, by law, this appeals court has to defer to Carter's reasoning when making this ruling. And B, essentially, they would have to find that the government hasn't established by something we call clear and convincing evidence that Combs was a danger to the community or that he would threaten or injure or intimidate a witness. The government has the burden. Yes, the government has the burden. True. But clear and convincing evidence, that is a low standard under the law. It is a lower bar for the government to cross than, let's say, beyond a reasonable doubt. Basically, the government has to show that there is a high probability of this.

And here, given these specific charges, prosecutors say by law, there is a presumption that he should be detained. There is a presumption that the defendant is in danger and can't be out on bail. But they also explain that the defendant has a limited burden of production to rebut that presumption. But they also write, even where a defendant produces sufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption of detention, the presumption doesn't disappear. Instead, it becomes a factor to be weighed and considered like all the others in deciding whether to release the defendant. And that's going to be important in a minute. But first, federal prosecutors argue that Judge Carter's finding that Sean Combs is a danger, it was supported by clear and convincing evidence. They say Combs is ignoring the charges he faces and the strength of the evidence.

They write, quote, as alleged since at least 2008, Combs has engaged in serious acts of violence, including forcing and coercing women to participate in sex acts with commercial sex workers by using physical force, financial pressure, emotional abuse, narcotics. They continue, although Combs claims on appeal as he did below, that the freak-offs involved adults voluntarily engaging in consensual sex, The grand jury found probable cause otherwise, and the district court properly credited the allegations in the indictment and the government's detailed evidentiary proffers. Moreover, undisputed video evidence corroborated that Combs used brutal violence against his victims, including by hitting, punching, kicking, and dragging them. And more specifically when it came to that 2016 video, they write, even if the evidence did not support the conclusion that Combs' assault at the Intercontinental Hotel was related to sex trafficking, which it did,

Combs' counsel conceded that Combs' violent conduct against women was nonetheless relevant to his dangerousness. Bottom line here, whether he struck Ventura because of sex trafficking or a domestic dispute, the argument is he's still violent. He's still dangerous. That's all that matters. Now, when it comes to obstruction, the government writes, in arguing that evidence of obstruction was thin and that the government provided no basis to believe that Combs tampered with witnesses, Combs primarily quibbles with the strength of the government's evidence that Combs made inappropriate contact with government witnesses, but Combs ignores altogether the serious and substantial allegations of obstruction, bribery, and witness tampering charged in the

indictment as part of Combs' pattern of racketeering activity that amply supported Judge Carter's determination. So sort of using their allegations in the indictment to support the claim that he was reaching out to witnesses. Now, the government continues, the facts, including Combs text messages that he, the cops are there, supported the inference that Combs wanted to destroy the hotel surveillance video to avoid prosecution for a vicious assault. And while Combs argues that witness contacts were minimally relevant or entirely innocuous because they concerned civil suits, the suits alleged years of physical and sexual abuse, including sex trafficking, allegations that Combs was plainly aware could subject him to criminal

prosecution and investigation. Moreover, as the government made clear, clear, Combs continued to contact witnesses, including witnesses who have received grand jury subpoenas into the summer of 2024 when he undoubtedly knew about the government's criminal investigation. Now, from there, the prosecution argues that Judge Carter didn't make a clear error or mistake when he rejected Combs' proposed bail package that I described earlier. Why? Well, they argue the government established that Combs used methodical and sophisticated means to silence and intimidate witnesses throughout the racketeering conspiracy and, during the government's investigation.

Combs often used loyal intermediaries to accomplish his objectives and wielded violence and blackmail, as well as his substantial wealth and influence relative to his victims and employees. To achieve compliance, Judge Carter therefore rightly concluded that the proposed conditions were inadequate

because they would still permit Combs to obstruct justice and intimidate witnesses through employees and other individuals and even coded messages. Combs baldly asserts that there was not a shred of evidence that Combs used coded messages as well. Only one example, however, Combs tried to ensure a victim's silence about her sexual trauma by telling her that he needed her and that if she needed Combs too, she ain't got worry about

nothing else, alluding to a promise of financial security in exchange for loyalty. Now, while Combs asserts that this incident did not involve an intermediary, Combs then texted an employee to ensure that his financial advisor kept paying the victim's rent. The evidence therefore supported the conclusion that even if confided, to his home, Combs has the means and the influence to evade even seemingly restrictive bail conditions. Now, prosecutors, they also focus on a more policy reason too. Should we give Sean Combs someone who is so wealthy and has the means to provide such an attractive bail package, the opportunity to stay out of detention because he can, a defendant who's facing such

serious charges? They write, the district court rightly rejected Combs' effort to pay his way out of detention when the record established that no set of conditions can ensure the safety of the community. This court has expressly held that the Bail Reform Act does not permit a two-tiered bail system in which defendants of lesser means are detained pending trial while wealthy defendants are released to self-funded private jails. That's an interesting argument there. And finally, prosecutors respond to the allegation that Judge Carter essentially summarily decided Combs was a danger and was engaging in obstruction without holding the government's feet to the fire, that they didn't properly prove he was doing the things that they were alleging

to justify pre-trial detention. In other words, government, where's your evidence? The government responded, quote, given the thorough proceedings below, this court should swiftly reject Combs' argument that Judge Carter committed legal error by failing to make factual findings or to weigh required factors. While the Bail Reform Act includes a provision requiring written findings of fact and a written statement of the reasons for the detention,

This court has explained that where, as here, the court's findings and reasons for issuing a detention order are clearly set out in the written transcript of the hearing. The requirement of a writing is satisfied. At the end of the hearing, Judge Carter denied bail only after reiterating, I've heard from the parties, and I've reviewed everything, which included written submissions from the parties and the transcript of Judge Tarnovsky's bail hearing. As memorialized in the transcript, Judge Carter then specifically found that Combs posed a danger to the community and a risk of obstruction based on the evidence put before him. This is therefore not a case where the detention order contained only implicit findings or no finding whatsoever. So as the government in this filing is asking the Second Circuit to affirm Judge Carter's denial of bail and for the reasons that I laid out, it seems quite likely they will do so because they're given the legal standard and given the evidence that has been presented, something else has happened which we need to talk about. Combs team has now filed another motion asking the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to not do anything, to suspend his appeal of the bail decision. Don't do anything. Don't make a decision on it.

It's called holding the appeal in abeyance. Hold it in abeyance until Combs' team has the opportunity to now argue the issue of bail in front of the new judge overseeing Combs' criminal case. This is the third judge in the case. This is Judge Arun Suburmanian from the Southern District of New York. We talked about him on an earlier sidebar because he had a hearing last week. But this is really interesting. They're asking now the Second Circuit, don't do anything.

I know you heard our arguments, I know you heard the prosecutions, don't do anything yet. Wait until we have an opportunity to now present this issue to the judge overseeing the criminal case. Now, I know what you might be saying. I don't get it. Combs was denied bailed twice by two different judges. He appealed this to a higher court in New York. Why is he asking them to wait on ruling on this? Why go to Judge Sub-Romanian?

Well, this is where it gets interesting. So Combs team says that during that hearing that I mentioned with Judge Sub-Romanian-Lamian, last week, and we covered it on a previous sidebar where they talked about the evidence, they talked about the trial date. Well, apparently, the defense says that during that hearing, Subramanian remarked, if the defense has any bail application that they would like to raise, then the court will certainly hear it. Hmm. Now, in their motion, and this part is key, Combs lawyers say, because certain relevant new information has come to light since the detention order, Mr. Combs intends to file a renewed motion for pretrial release on conditions with an updated

proposed bail package in the district court. Now, to be clear, not sure what they mean by new information, is this something about Combs' conditions in the MDC? Could it be evidence that he did not engage in improperly reaching out to witnesses and victims? When they say new evidence, is it really new evidence, or is it something that they've already argued to the Court of Appeals? clear. But they say this renewed request is based on, quote, change circumstances. So that's really interesting. And what would a new package look like, a new bail package? Now, of course, if the district court approves bail for Sean Combs, his attorneys have indicated they will drop this appeal in the Southern Circuit. So we will wait to see what happens. There's a lot of moving

parts. And of course, if Judge Subramanian has the opportunity to now review this bail motion, Will he look at it differently than Judge Tarnovsky and Judge Carter? Will Sean Combs be released? We'll see with a little bit of unknowns about what the defense will present. But as we mentioned, the prosecution makes some very, very solid arguments. But for right now, that's all we have for you here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcast, 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 long crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.