Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy’s Lawyer Tells All: 8 Major Bombshells About Trial & Possible Release

Episode Date: August 4, 2025

Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber had a chance to sit down with Alexandra Shapiro, one of the members of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ powerhouse legal team, to talk about the biggest bombshells from Combs’ federal sex trafficking trial. They discuss the charges he was ultimately acquitted of, whether the rapper will be released from jail pending sentencing, and a possible pardon.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://forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST: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 Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. Searching for a romantic summer getaway? Escape with Rich Girl Summer, the new Audible original from Lily Chu. The exquisitely talented Philippa Sue returning to narrate her fifth Lily Chu title. This time, Philippa is joined by her real-life husband, Stephen Pasquale, set in Toronto's wealthy cottage country,

AKA the Hamptons of Canada. Rich Girl Summer follows the story of Valerie, a down-on-her-luck event planner posing as a socialite's long-lost daughter, while piecing together the secrets surrounding a mysterious family and falling deeper and deeper in love with the impossibly hard-to-read

and infuriatingly handsome family assistant, Nico. Caught between pretending to belong and unexpectedly finding where she truly fits in, Valerie learns her summer is about to get far more complicated than she ever planned. She's in over her head and head over heels. Listen to Rich Girl Summer now on Audible. Go to audible.com slash richgirlsummer. There's a lot of rumors floating around the internet and in the news media. Rich Girl Summer now on Audible. Go to audible.com slash rich girl summer. There's a lot of rumors floating around the internet and in the news media.

This is big. We are sitting down with one of the criminal defense attorneys of Sean Diddy Combs as the convicted rat mogul awaits sentencing in federal court and a decision on whether he'll actually be released from jail before sentencing. Oh, and by the way, there's also talk that he may get a pardon from the president. Yeah, all this going on. I get the chance to actually discuss what has been happening behind the scenes

with Diddy's lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, we're about to do something that we've never done here on Sidebar. For a show that has covered every aspect of Sean Diddy Combs' criminal case, we are about

to speak with one of his defense attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro. She is part of his legal team at trial. And the trial, by the way, that ended with Combs acquitted of the most serious charges, racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking. He was convicted of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. They call these the Man Act violations, moving women and men across state lines for the purposes of commercial sex work. Now, we have talked about Alexandra Shapiro before.

She was the attorney, for example, who argued for admitting that video of rape accuser Mia wishing Combs a happy birthday after the alleged assault. She played a key role in this case. And with questions about could Combs convictions be thrown out? What could he be sentenced to? Will he make bail before he's sentenced? Can he get a presidential pardon? This feels like a great opportunity to get some insight into all this and certain aspects of

the trial like why didn't they call Christina Corum? Alright so let me get right into it. I am joined right now by Alexandra Shapiro herself. Thank you so much for taking the time to come here on Sidebar. We really, really appreciate it. Thanks so much for having me. Happy to be here. Yeah, I have a lot of things I wanna get into.

We will talk about all the latest developments. But first of all, I gotta ask, what was it like to be part of a team like this one? Because you know every argument, every question, it is going to be focused, debated on a national, maybe an international stage. This is a major case. And also, by the way, you were representing somebody and are representing somebody who for the past two years has taken quite a hit in the media and wasn't the most popular figure

in the last two years. So to be representing Sean Combs in this massive trial, what was it like for you? I mean, it was actually an amazing experience. First of all, the team was fantastic. I mean, I've never worked with so many great lawyers with different talents meshing together. And it was great after I'd been working on this case since last September, dealing with the client being just bashed in the media, bashed by a ton of frivolous civil lawsuits that just sort of whipped up the hysteria against him. It was great to finally be able to help him have his day in court.

And so the actual witnesses could be heard, and we had a chance to really expose a lot of the truth of what was really behind all of this. Obviously this is a win, right? He was acquitted of the most serious charges that he was facing. Did there ever become a time though during the course of the trial, maybe in the first several weeks when you're like, I'm a little nervous, I think he may get convicted of racketeering or sex trafficking or you were confident throughout the prosecution's case that they just weren't reaching their burden?

Well, we felt good about the trial most of the time and were confident, but you never can be too confident in a federal criminal trial. I mean, especially in the Southern District of New York, the government almost always wins, and it's a huge challenge and really, really difficult to win. So we were always concerned. There were points where

it seemed to be going well, but you can never bank on that. By the way, talking law, like we do so many times here on Law and Crime Sidebar, there is a reason that Morgan & Morgan, our sponsor, is America's largest injury law firm. They're a firm with over a thousand attorneys. You know why? Because they win a lot. They have recovered over $25 billion for more than 500,000 clients. In the past few months, a client in Florida received $12 million after the insurance company offered just $350,000. Pennsylvania, the client was awarded $26 million. That is 40 times the insurer's $650,000 offer. another client in Pennsylvania, received $29 million after being offered only $500,000.

And even if you think your case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for what you deserve? Morgan & Morgan makes it so simple. You can start a claim from your phone in just eight clicks. So if you're injured, you can easily start a claim at ForThePeople.com slash LC sidebar by clicking the link below or scanning the QR code on screen. I just want to understand something about the defense's argument. Was the defense's argument, hey, all the people who testified against Sean Combs were not

being truthful or were taking their accounts, were listening to their accounts and what they're saying just didn't amount to a federal crime. Is it a mixture of both? Just trying to understand what the argument was. I mean I think it was a mixture. It depended on the witness and a lot of the witnesses were telling the truth but the truth didn't hurt Sean. It helped him.

There were some people who were shading the truth. The great thing about it was there was a ton of evidence in written communications that people had created at the time, all these text messages. There were videos and that really helped us expose the truth because these were things that had been recorded. This is what people were, the girlfriends, others were saying to Sean at the time of the events in question. And so, you know, there was really no way for the witnesses or the government to hide what was in the written documents. Now, I will tell you, if you had been following what we've been doing here on Sidebar Law on Crime,

we call balls on strikes. So there were, during the course of the trial, we would say, this was the strength of the prosecution, this was the strength of the defense. There was such effective cross-examination of these key witnesses that we all kind of wondered, you know, was the defense going to call any witnesses? And you really did.

And what was that decision? Because I understand there were witnesses who were planning to be called. There was an idea to put forward a defense case. There was a choice to not to do that. Can you talk to us a little bit more about what that strategy was about? Sure. I mean, you always have to be ready to put on a case. And at the end of the day, what it comes down to at the end of the government's case is how well do you feel it went in for us? And it's always risky to put on a defense case. People don't realize that, but there's

always two sides to everything. And if you put on a witness case. People don't realize that, but there's always two sides to everything. If you put on a witness, and even if it's 70% good, if the prosecution scores some points, it can really undermine you. If you feel like the government's case has gone in really well for you, it can be actually riskier to call any witnesses. People don't necessarily realize that. At the end of the day, we just made a decision that we thought the case had come in well and and we didn't want to, you know, sort of change the dynamic in a in a way that could be

risky for us. Was Christina Quorum ever potentially going to be called by the defense? We were all shocked why the government never chose to call her since I don't know her name came up almost every single day through almost every witness. Was there a plan by the defense to call her? Yeah, I mean, I'm not gonna get into specific plans or non-plans. I had to ask, I had to ask. It was more of an overall decision

just not to put anyone on and just to use a few pieces of evidence that hadn't come in. What do you think about the prosecution's choice not to call her? Because I will tell you, we did lunchtime shows, live shows with our audience. I would say 80% of the questions that we got during seven weeks of testimony

Was why is she not being called and will she be called were you surprised? Prosecution chose not to call who was supposed to be the main alleged co-conspirator. I Mean, I don't think so I think that she would have been a double-edged sword for them, and they probably didn't want to take the risk. As you saw during the trial, even a number of the witnesses that they had always planned to call, that they did put in, kind of blew up in their faces or had positive things to say about Sean that maybe they weren't anticipating.

And so it would have been pretty risky for them to put Christina Corm on the stand, I think. There was so much being said about your client in that trial, obviously in the media, facing a number of different lawsuits. We also wondered whether or not he, and it's his decision alone, whether he wanted to take the stand and give his story, tell his story, give his version of events. Obviously, there are a ton of risks that come with putting a defendant on the stand, but it would be his choice. Was there a conversation about that? Well, I mean, I can't get into, you know, attorney Klein privilege conversations.

You know, obviously he he thought about it, decided not to. And, you know, as I indicated earlier, we thought the case had gone in really well for us. And so we didn't want to we liked where we were. And you know, as I indicated earlier, we thought the case had gone in really well for us. And so we didn't want to we liked where we were. So that was basically the decision. Now the big news, some of the big news, a lot of big news came out after the trial was the firing of Maureen Comey, the lead prosecutor in this case. Now there's obviously a political angle to it.

There are comments that she has made, but I have to ask, to ask, you going head to head against her for so many weeks, months in before that, the firing of her, what did you make of that? I think it was unfortunate. She's a very well-respected prosecutor. We had good professional relationships with her during the course of the trial. And you know, I don't really think it had anything to do with the trial, but I don't, I can't really say anything beyond that. It just, yeah.

I'm Saruti, one of the hosts of Red Handed, a multi-award winning weekly true crime podcast. And we have just taken a big old deep dive into the case everyone is talking about. Erin Paterson and the mushroom mass murders. On the 29th of July, 2023, in the small town of Leongatha in Australia, five people sat down for lunch. Within a week, three of them would be dead, and one of them would be in a coma for two months. Was the host, Erin Paterson, the world's most unlucky cook or a cold-blooded killer? To find out, join us over two episodes as we analyse all the gritty details, including what happened at that fateful lunch, the aftermath, the investigation, the trial

and of course all the lies. Only on Red Handed. Listen to Red Handed wherever you get your podcasts or listen early and ad free on Amazon Music or Wondry Plus. Okay, that's fair enough. Let's talk about something we can get into quite a bit. Let's talk bail. Okay, so we did a previous sidebar breaking down the defense's renewed motion for release, several arguments for why Combs, Sean Combs,

should be released on bail pending sentencing, you know, acquitted of the most serious charges. There's no comparable case of someone who is convicted of the Mann Act alone and not engaging in sex trafficking or a prostitution for financial gain, and they would be locked up like this. Talked about the issues plaguing the MDC, how it is dangerous, how he's not a risk of flight, not a danger to the community. But do you think Judge Arun Subramanian is going to be persuaded by your letter,

by your motion, because obviously he specifically highlighted after the verdict your client's violence, how the defense asserted at trial that Combs was violent. Do you think he's gonna have a change of opinion now based upon the legal papers? Well, I think we certainly hope so. And as we pointed out in the papers, the unfortunate violence that occurred was mostly a really long time ago, other than the one incident in June that Jane testified to, which was kind of unusual. They had been together for three years. There had been no violence. She essentially started

the fight. I'm not excusing anything, but it was kind of a one-off. I think the government really hadn't put in any evidence of any recent violence. The Intercontinental video, remember that was almost 10 years ago. He broke up with Cassie in 2018. And in our reply papers yesterday, we submitted a letter from Gina Heung, who was one of the alleged victims of different ex-girlfriend. And I think it was a pretty powerful letter about how Sean has changed, how she's not concerned about violence. She thinks he should be released on bail. So we're hoping that that will persuade the judge, given everything else, particularly, as you noted, like the really, really unusual nature of this particular Man Act conviction and the fact that he's

already been in prison or jail rather for like 11 months. This case is a one-off to begin with but you know we're not aware of any case like this with a man act conviction where anyone's done that much time to begin with. And prosecutors I'm imagining have come back or will come back and say well listen look you know after the raids on his property, he engaged, or what they will say, he allegedly engaged in criminal activity, you know, obviously violence, they say with Jane. But they say, look, what was in his hotel room when he was picked up in New York, they made allegations of what he was trying to do while he was in

the MDC, whether it was using other inmates' phone privileges to have three-way phone calls. That was litigated before trial. What would be your response to say, you know, you make the point that he is a changed person, the violence that was shown during the course of this trial is from years ago, but how would you convince the judge to say, listen, we are being truthful, we are being honest, we are being forefront, that he really is a different human being? Because the judge, again, this was right after the verdict and didn't have an opportunity for a briefing schedule.

How can you make the argument that he is different and that he should be trusted? Well, I mean, I think, you know, the point you mentioned about the arrest, I mean, unfortunately, Sean has struggled with drug addiction for a long time and I think one of the good things and positive things that has come out of his incarceration is giving him an opportunity to rehabilitate.

He's committed to continuing that. He's committed to a long-term program of therapy and helping with the domestic violence problem that he's had in the past. So, you know, at a certain point, you have to just, maybe it is a leap of faith, but you have to just give a person another chance. And he really is committed to change and to there being a new chapter of service on his part. So, you know, I think we have to hope

that the judge will agree with that. And I think we've made a strong case for that. Do you know when the judge might make a decision on bail? We don't know. Okay. If he denies release again, does that give you a sense of what sentencing could be like? Now, to be clear, my understanding is Judge Arun Subramanian even said at the point, if I make a decision on Release and it's not indicative of where I'm leaning towards sentencing

I know there's a pre-sentencing investigation still being conducted or has be conducted There's a lot of factors to consider but I have to ask about whether this is gonna, you know, have an effect on sentencing Do you believe it's gonna have an effect on sentencing? Does it give you a preview of where the judge is lining up? Because my understanding, correct me if I'm wrong, you are probably going to be arguing for time served, maybe a minimum of 21 to 27 months. Where do you think the judge is going to go here? Yeah, I mean, I think that you have to take each step

at a time and that the judge is not going to prejudge that. There's a lot more information he needs to get, not only the pre-sentence report, but we're going to make a very fulsome sentencing submission and he's going to have a much more detailed picture. Even the trial was about the charges, right? And he doesn't have the full picture of all the factors about Sean's life that he's going to consider. There's going to be a big fight about the sentencing guidelines. We think actually we're going to consider. There's going to be a big fight about the sentencing guidelines.

We think actually we're going to end up arguing for an even lower guideline range than we had originally believed at the time of the verdict where we didn't have a, we had like a couple of hours to try to figure out what to say about bail. So, I hope the judge will grant bail, but I feel confident that even if he doesn't, it doesn't necessarily mean he's not going to sentence

Sean to time served. He's going to take everything into account when he gets all the submissions. And I've got a lot of confidence that the judge is going to be fair and not prejudge the situation. And you also have this motion for judgment of acquittal, that the Mann Act convictions should be tossed out, Combs be granted at a minimum a new trial.

Number of very interesting arguments that are present, and it's basically that there has really never been, as we talked about, a prosecution conviction on a Mann Act like this, that Combs wasn't profiting off of the business, there were all consenting adults that were involved, the jury didn't find that there was any sex trafficking, that this isn't even prostitution per se.

It's more voyeurism, that the intent wasn't for people to travel for sex for money, but paid them for their time. They were all having a good time. There's a First Amendment argument that the freak-offs and the hotel nights were performances that were videotaped so he could watch them later. It's amateur pornography. There's an argument that he was prejudiced the freak-offs and the hotel nights were performances that were videotaped so he could watch them later.

It's amateur pornography. There's an argument that he was prejudiced because of all the other evidence that came in to prove Rico or sex trafficking but would never have come in if this was merely a prosecution for the Mann Act violations. Specifically, we talk about the Intercontinental Hotel footage. But couldn't the counter argument be if you look at the text messages and voice notes and the travel hotel, the payment documentation, that these charges, the Mann Act charges, could have been proven based on that evidence alone and not anything else about racketeering or sex trafficking?

Well I think that goes, I don't agree with that. I think that as we argued in the papers, the government didn't really show that the purpose of the travel was to have sex for money and that in fact all the testimony and a lot of the other evidence showed that the men were being paid for their time. But even if we were wrong about that one, we have a number of the other arguments that you mentioned that really aren't undermined by those records. For instance, one of our main arguments is that this statute, which used to be called the White Slave Traffic Act, it has this long history. But even with this long history, it's never been applied to a case like this.

The term prostitution in a lot of states doesn't include this conduct, even if someone's being paid, if the person making the payment is paying, essentially, to observe other people having sex, that that's not prostitution. So we have, and we've got the First Amendment argument, as you mentioned, and the new trial argument. So all of those arguments, I think,

are independent of the issue you raised, which... So we think we have a really strong motion, and so we're hoping the judge will agree. We'll see. So just to be clear, I'll list out a couple things that stood out to me when we were watching the trial. There was apparently this voice message that was played from Combs to Paul, right,

one of the purported sex workers. Hit me up when you close. There was a voice message, hey Jess, I need to get him from Atlanta to here, let me know, hit me up. There was a message from, I think, Combs to Christina Corum, can security bring me 5,000? There was another audio message to Jane,

I sent you 15K, baby girl. There was another one to Frank Rodriguez, Frank, make sure that room is set up right. So in other words, you could look at this and say, and the argument is, even despite all that, it's paying people for their time, it's setting up, let's say, amateur pornography, what makes this not,

because it always seemed that those charges were relatively straightforward, transporting people for the purposes of sex work. You're saying the intent, the intent was not sex work, that just so happened, whatever happened, happened, but the intent wasn't there. I just want to clarify that point. Yes, so that's one of the arguments. And then the other argument is just that as a matter, it's more of a pure legal argument that prostitution only includes when you're paying someone to have sex with you and he wasn't having sex with the males.

So that's kind of a separate, a totally separate thing even if you buy the government's argument that these payments were always for sex. And I do want to point out that like there's testimony and evidence that there were a number of occasions where the guys didn't end up having sex and they still got paid for their time. There's a bunch of text messages between Sean and people who work for Cowboys for Angels, one of the escort services where she's making clear that they dot all their I's and cross all their T's and that this isn't sex for money. So that's kind of his mindset. And the crime is transportation with the intent for the person being transported to engage in prostitution.

So it's all sort of what's in his head and whether he's believing that he's paying or arranging the transportation rather in connection with prostitution. And then you get into sort of what is prostitution and does it include paying someone even if you're not the person who's going to have sex with them. Let's say the motion for judgment of acquittal is not successful. Let's say the bail motion is not successful and let's say your client is sentenced to a significant prison time, prison term, because there is discretion on the part of the judge. There's been a lot of talk in the news about this idea of a presidential pardon. Is the president really considering it?

Have there been conversations with his team? Is there anything you can tell us about that? Well, I don't really know. The trial team's not really involved in any of that. There's a lot of rumors floating around the internet and in the news media, so I can't really speak to it. It would make sense that the president, given his history, would be thinking about it for someone like Sean, but I can't really. I have no personal knowledge about that. And if there is an unfavorable sentence, I imagine you would immediately appeal this

conviction and sentence. What would be some of the arguments that would be made if you can give us a preview, and why you think they would be successful? So I think Sean would almost definitely appeal if all of those things happen, which we hope won't, but it would be a lot of the same arguments that are in our post-trial motion that we've been talking about.

The First Amendment, the argument about whether this actually was transportation to engage in prostitution, whether he should have, in light of the acquittals, he should get in the alternative a new trial where none of the evidence about the violence and the alleged racketeering would come in. Those would be, you know, the principal arguments I would imagine. Yeah, if they didn't have racketeering or sex trafficking, you think they would have actually prosecuted him

just for man act violations? I don't think so. It certainly would have violated justice department policy. I mean, the justice department policy for the past 75 years has been generally not to prosecute people other than people who are actually running prostitution rings to make money. And then on top of that, in more recent years, the only kinds of cases they've brought have been cases where they're alleging sex trafficking or other serious crimes.

And you know, at the beginning of this case, we made a selective prosecution motion. We argued that Sean was targeted because of his race, because this, with respect to the Mann Act in particular, because this was so unique. And one of the things they came back with is they said, well, we charged him with RICO and sex trafficking. And then they pointed to other cases involving white men where they had brought these other charges as well as the Mana Act. I know I have to let you go.

Before I do, I just want to ask you one more question because I know all of our viewers will be asking, what happened to victim three? What happened to victim, I think, five? There were other people that were supposed to be called by the prosecution, and there was a back and forth where the defense basically said, right, to the prosecution, they're not a part of this case anymore. Everybody's been asking, weren't there supposed to be other people that were going to be called by the prosecution and weren't?

Is there anything you can tell us about what happened there? Well, I think one thing that's now public is that Gina was the alleged victim three, and it's pretty clear she doesn't consider herself a victim. And I imagine, you know, I don't want to speculate, but I am, you know, I think the government, they certainly cut back their case as things went along. And, you know, there were probably a lot of witnesses along the way who were pushing back on the government's hoped for narrative and saying, you know, that a lot of it wasn't true. And that's certainly what happened with with Gina, I believe.

Well, listen, Alexandra Shapiro really, really appreciate you taking the time to come on here. Thanks a lot for having me. And 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 YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber, I'll speak to you next time.