Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy’s Defense Team Begs Judge to Plug Grand Jury Leaks: 'Feeding the Frenzy'

Episode Date: November 12, 2024

New paperwork filed by Sean “Diddy” Combs’ legal team makes more arguments for the federal judge to crack down on alleged leaks by the government. It also lays out why Combs believes the prosecution must reveal the names of the victim or victims he’s accused of harming. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber has the latest.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:Level up your website today with Odoo - https://www.odoo.com/LCSidebar3HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger and Christina FalconeScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

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

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Sean Combs' defense lawyers are fighting back once again against alleged leaks by the government and are saying the government needs to reveal who the purported victims are in this criminal case. Let's see what they're arguing, and will it work? Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Well, the legal warfare between Sean Combs' defense counsel and prosecutors continues

as the embattled rapper faces racketeering, sex trafficking, prostitution charges. It's currently locked up in the Metropolitan Detention Center as he awaits trial in May of 2025 on these charges. And you know what we're talking about here. The allegations that Combs operated a criminal enterprise, that he represents. repeatedly sexually abused women, that he directed, coerced, prolonged, drug-fueled sexual performances known as freak-offs with male sex workers. You know the story by now. And if you have been following the legal back and forth between Sean Combs' defense

counsel and prosecutors, there are a lot of issues that are coming up. And the issue that we're going to talk about first is one that we've seen quite a few times by the defense, because they have accused the government of leaking information. And if you recall, Combs Defense Council has accused the government, more specifically, Homeland Security agents and law enforcement authorities of leaking the 2016 videotape of Cassandra Ventura, essentially being beat up by Sean Combs in a hotel hallway. This was published by CNN a few months ago. And they also have said that these Homeland Security agents or federal law enforcement agents

have made improper comments about the investigation and the case to the media. For example, Combs' defense cited an October 25th New York Post article that quoted a federal law enforcement source who is involved in the investigation, making comments about the evidence and calling Combs' alleged conduct, quote, sick and calling him, quote, a predator. And I've talked about this previously, but obviously, this can be an issue with Sean Combs getting a fair trial, right? Could this information improperly influence a potential jury? Could it affect witnesses coming forward? Could it affect their testimony?

And the defense has also made the argument that if they can prove the Department of Homeland Security or the government in some way leaked the 2016 tape, it could be suppressed at trial. It may not come in. And that would be a big win for the defense given how bad that tape is for Sean Combs. Now, the government, to be clear, has denied all wrongdoing. They have even suggested that neither they nor federal agents were in possession of the 2016 tape until CNN published it. By the way, we actually did an episode, maybe two of them now that I'm thinking about it, about how much all of this has hurt Sean Combs financially, including his businesses. And it seemed you guys really were interested in that, they liked it. Maybe we'll actually do a follow-up piece on that.

But it did make us think there are probably a lot of you out there who watch our videos who might in fact be business. owners, maybe even thinking of starting a side hustle. Well, if that is the case, we have this amazing sponsor for you. It is called Odu. It can really help you out. Odu is a free all-in-one business management software that provides you with a range of applications that helps with the day-to-day of owning a business. I'll give you an example. I host an executive producer YouTube show called Prime Crime. It's on Long Crimes YouTube page. Now watch this. With Odu's website builder application, I can easily and for free build a prime crime website using their tools like their AI copywriting and their drag and drop feature. Look how easy that was. Five minutes later,

I now have primecrime.com. So thank you to Odu for sponsoring Sidebar, and thank you for getting me a Prime Crime website too. And you can build your website now as well. The domain is free for the first year. Just use our link, odu.com slash LC Sidebar 3. Both sides in this case, they presented proposed gag orders to the judge about what should and should not be said. And then the judge, who's overseeing this case, the current judge, Arun's Subramariam, issued an order on this. And he even highlighted that, look, there is a problem here because in relation to that New York Post article that I mentioned, Judge Subramanian said those remarks, if made by an agent involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case, are plainly improper.

And in the order, he wrote the following. The court has considered the party's proposed orders and declines to adopt either side's proposal in full. And again, this is about what both the prosecution and the defense and government agents, what they can and can't say. this. But he says that he rejected both, and he wrote, instead, the court finds that an order underscoring the party's existing responsibilities is appropriate. With this order in hand, both sides can make sure that anyone involved with this case or the related investigation understands what they are not permitted to disclose. The point of this order is to help ensure that nothing happens from now on that would interfere with a fair trial. And then Judge Subremaining

continues, with this order requires the government to notify the agencies involved in this case or the related investigations of their obligations. And Judge Sub-Romanian's order directed the prosecutors, their staff, law enforcement officials working with prosecutors and the defense to follow the rules and not disclose grand jury material or other non-public information. Okay, so with that in mind, let's talk now about Sean Combs' attorneys' latest filing on this. It is entitled, Reply Memo in Further Support of Mr. Combs' motion for a hearing. Sean Combs' defense attorneys, right, quote,

This case has been the subject of extraordinary media attention, including a deluge of false and prejudicial accusations against defendant Sean Combs. As the defense has chronicled in multiple filings, much of the media coverage appears to be fueled by information sourced to law enforcement agents familiar with the case. Accordingly, the defense moved to prevent the government from continuing to leak false and prejudicial information to the media, and the court issued an order intended to prevent further leaks. That's the one I talked about. Now, defense counsel continues with saying the defense also moved for other relief, primarily an evidentiary hearing and discovery to determine the source of the leaks, examine government misconduct, and for other potential remedies. The government vociferously opposes any hearing, but remarkably does not deny that government agents have leaked information to the press other than as to the intercontinental video. The government does not even give any indication that it has conducted any investigation whatsoever regarding the leaks. And that is their main issue, that Combs is entitled to due process, he's entitled to a fair trial,

and the government hasn't even looked into how all of this information is being leaked, how it's being spread. They write, the United States Attorney's Office is apparently content to look the other way. See no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil, while agents involved in the case feed the frenzy. And then they allege that the leaks, they have continued. They have continued even after Judge Sub-Romanian's order. They argue the court right now needs to step in and order a hearing to get to the bottom of what's happening. They write, a federal law enforcement agent involved in the investigation made further false and prejudicial statements to the New York Post. This included suggesting falsely that Mr. Combs engaged in wrongdoing with, quote, underage victims.

are none. They write, those leaks clearly violated this court's October 25th order. This is yet another case where mere admonishments are insufficient to deter what seems to be growing practice. So from there, Sean Combs' attorneys explain how the court has the legal authority to hold a hearing, saying it has the inherent authority to regulate proceedings, especially when you're trying to protect the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights, including a right to an impartial jury. And moreover, they say the court has inherent authority to police violations of its own court orders. And from there, the defense, what they do is they try to dismantle any of the prosecution's arguments, any of the arguments from the prosecution for why there shouldn't be a hearing, why it's not necessary. So first, with respect to the prosecution's argument, well, we didn't leak the 2016 video.

The defense argues, yeah, but you didn't provide any indication you actually investigated how this happened. Second, with prosecutors claim that, look, Combs failed to show that these statements to the media came from any member of the prosecution team. Combs' defense team argues, well, prosecutors, you never outright denied that government agents spoke to the press either. They also say prosecutors, they didn't even look into this either. From there, the defense addresses another prosecution claim. This is a big one, where the prosecution, they say, is basically arguing court, we don't need

a hearing because everything that's being. leaked, it has nothing to do with grand jury material. And your order was about prohibiting grand jury material from being leaked. The defense has a response to that. They say, not so fast. The government is reading matter occurring before a grand jury. They're reading that way too narrowly. It's not about only testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury. It's anything that would reveal the nature or the direction of the grand jury. It's anything about expected witnesses. It's about the strategy of an investigation.

So it's a lot more broad than the government claims. And they say the leaks are about the target and the nature of the investigation. And that is what's improper. That is covered by the rule. This information is exactly what Judge Subramanian was trying to prevent from being leaked. That's what the defense is saying. So those are some of the reasons laid out for why the defense says a hearing is needed to get to the bottom of this. because they write, the government will do nothing to stop the leaks

unless and until the court requires it to do something. But as I mentioned, that is not the only filing from the defense. There is another one we need to talk about. And this is really, really interesting. Because you see, the defense has been petitioning the court to order the prosecution to identify the alleged victims in this case. So this is big. If you read through the indictment, no one is listed by name.

Even victim one with respect to the sex trafficking charge that Sean Combs faces, that person's not identified. We can read through the tea leaves and say that might be Cassandra Ventura, but we don't know for sure. And we don't know who the other alleged victims are in this case. We don't even know who the witnesses are in this case. But we've talked about this before. Defense is asking the prosecutors for something called a bill of particulars. A bill of particulars is when a defendant says to the government, look, I need some more clarity on my charges. I need you to itemize it out for me.

I need more details on each charge so I can properly understand the case and defend myself. It's a way for a defendant to avoid being surprised at trial. Prosecution here has adamantly opposed a bill of particulars. They've raised a number of issues which we'll get into. But the defense rights, given the extraordinary and indeed unprecedented nature of the allegations in this case, this court is well justified in ordering a bill of particulars identifying the names of alleged victim. Simply put, Mr. Combs is charged with various offenses arising out of allegations that he coerced some individuals into sexual conduct, but he does not know their identities. This case is highly unusual in that dozens of financially motivated individuals have made false claims of sexual assault, many of whom Mr. Combs has never even met or perhaps only met in passing at a party along with hundreds of others.

That's, of course, in relation to all the lawsuits that he's facing. But his defense counsel writes, Mr. Combs has no way of knowing whose claims the government is crediting. The discovery, largely made up of Mr. Combs' own devices and showing uniformly consensual sexual activity, provides no guidance. It is impossible to prepare a defense in such circumstances. So in other words, what the defense is basically saying is, are all of the people who are currently suing Sean Combs? Are they the alleged victims in this criminal case? We don't know. How are we supposed to defend ourselves?

And from there, what the defense does is they try to address each of the prosecution's arguments against revealing these alleged victim's names. So first, the government says, look, the indictment, it speaks for itself. You don't need to know more. The defense says it's so broad, it's not specific. For example, defense says, government, your indictment is so broad and so unspecific. I'll give you an example. It alleges that Combs subjected victims to abuse and maintain control over that. by promising career opportunities, but Combs' lawyers are like, that could mean anyone who had sex

with Combs to advance their career. And therefore, these allegations are so general, they don't properly advise Sean Combs, the defendant, of the specific acts that he's accused of. Second, Combs' defense team says, despite the prosecution's argument that through discovery and evidence being turned over, Combs will know what all this case is about and who the alleged victims are, the defense is like, you turned over already so much data, we don't even know what's relevant to the charges and what's not. And they say, other than the sex trafficking charge with respect to victim one, we don't know who's going to be leveling accusations

against our client. There is no way for us to review all of this material and prepare a defense. For example, you say Sean Combs engaged in kidnapping. Kidnapping of who? And this part's also interesting. And we've talked about this before, because prosecutors say, we don't need to identify the victims. We don't need to do that. Why? Because Sean Combs knows who he assaulted. We don't have to list out any of their names. He knows what he did.

He knows what we're talking about with respect to these charges. The defense says, quote, Mr. Combs has no way of knowing which of his prior sexual partners over the decades now claim that they were coerced into sexual activity. Worse still, given the number of people making claims against him, it is. impossible for him to guess whom the government is crediting. And then Combs' defense also addresses the idea of safety, the safety concerns of the government, namely, you're putting the victims in danger if you identify who they are. Tell you what, I actually want to revisit that because there's another case involving Sean Combs that may kind of affect that decision, but bottom line here, Combs is saying, look,

they're going to have to reveal themselves at one point or another. Finally, Sean Combs' defense counsel addresses the government's argument. their claim that, look, Combs, he only wants a bill of particulars identifying the alleged victims so he can use that to help him in all the lawsuits that he's facing. And the government's right. Sean Combs couldn't get a bill of particulars in a criminal case just so he can use it to help him in civil cases. But what Sean Combs' defense team says is the problem is the government's criminal case is

so broad that, of course, it impacts the civil cases. By the government not identifying the alleged victims here, we don't know how wide a gag order needs to be or what Combs can say about the accusers in the civil case. And from a legal point of view, you know, sometimes you can pause lawsuits that allege sex trafficking if there's also a sex trafficking criminal case going on. But again, how do we do that if we don't know who is alleging what? So in the end, he is asking for a bill of particulars that IDs the victims. And here is the thing about that. I mentioned another case that Combs is facing. In a civil case, so not a criminal case, in a civil case that Sean Combs is facing,

the judge there actually agreed with Sean Combs. In one of the lawsuits from an unidentified woman who only goes by Jane Doe, she claims that Combs raped and threatened her life in 2004 when she was just 19 years old. But the judge in this case, Judge Mary Kay Viscosil, said, you can no longer remain anonymous, Jane Doe. Her claims that, look, if her identity was revealed, this would lead to embarrassment and humiliation, or her safety would be put in jeopardy if her identity was revealed, or, look, it's not right because she's alleging sexual assault claims, which are highly sensitive. The judge said, no, no, no, no, no, that is not enough. You need to show more to justify being anonymous.

Combs has a right to defend himself, he is a right to challenge her, to challenge her credibility. And the judge was not convinced, then the judge ordered that she would have to reveal her identity or the case would be dismissed. So now the question is, will Judge Sub-Romanian, the judge overseeing this criminal case, will he agree? I will say there is a difference. There's an important difference here, being that those accusers, they chose to sue Sean Combs. They made that their decision. They put their credibility on the table by deciding to sue Sean Combs. That was their decision. Alternatively, it is the government's choice in bringing a criminal case. And sure, there needs to be cooperating witnesses and cooperating accusers, but it is different. It is

different. And we have seen criminal cases where there are Jane or John Doe's who are the key witnesses in a criminal case. So we shall see what Judge Subramanian ends up doing. But another interesting legal development, legal back and forth between Sean Combs' defense counsel and prosecutors. That's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. And as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. Speak to you next time. podcasts or Spotify.