Judge in Diddy's trafficking trial bars most testimony about uncharged sex assaults
Jury selection will begin May 5 after the trial judge rejected a two-month delay and ruled on key evidentiary issues including uncharged acts and witness anonymity.
Sean “Diddy” Combs will begin trial next month as scheduled after a judge on Friday rejected his lawyers’ request for a two-month delay, but the jury won’t hear about as many uncharged sexual assaults as prosecutors hoped.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said concerns from Combs’ lawyers about evidence related to an alleged victim don’t warrant a delay, and the two new charges in his superseding indictment only expand on existing charges.
“It is unclear why there isn’t sufficient time to prepare,” the judge told Combs’ attorneys, according to CNN.
Subramanian said jury selection will proceed on May 5, and opening statements still are expected May 12.
The judge issued several other orders that will affect the trial, including one that allows three alleged victims to testify under pseudonyms instead of their true legal names. He gave Combs at least a big win by granting his motion to exclude testimony about prior bad acts from all but one proposed witness. Prosecutors wanted three other alleged uncharged victims to testify, including one who was a minor at the time Combs allegedly assaulted them.
Subramanian also said Warner Bros. must give Combs’ lawyers outtakes from “The Fall of Diddy” documentary series about Combs that includes interviews with two alleged victims. And he said Combs’ former girlfriend Cassie Ventura, who will testify under her true name as Victim-1, must disclose to Combs’ lawyers drafts of a memoir she’s writing by April 25.
But Subramanian said Ventura doesn’t have to release other information sought such as bank statements and diaries, and he granted her lawyers’ motion to quash a subpoena for all but the memoirs.
Combs’ new lawyer Brian Steel of Atlanta, Georgia, attended the hearing on Friday. Steel has represented rapper Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams for years, including during the year-long Young Slime Life gang racketeering trial in Fulton County, Georgia, that led to Williams’ release from jail last October on 15 years probation.
Steel has since modeled $160 sweatshirts and sweatpants for Williams’ Sp5der clothing line, and Williams recently released a shirt with Steel’s image that says “WWBD,” for “What Would Brian Do?” Rapper Drake also titled a new song “Brian Steel” that begins, “Shout Brian Steel, I'm too geeked for the guys.” (Drake also mentions Fulton County Judge Paige Reese Whitaker with the line, “Big Paige Reese, done freed up the Slime.”)
Steel walked into the Daniel Patrick Moynihan Courthouse in lower Manhattan on Friday with Georgia-based attorney Nicole Westmoreland, who represented Williams’ co-defendant Quamarvious Nichols in the YSL trial with attorney Bruce Harvey. Judge Subramanian approved Steel’s pro hac vice admission request on Thursday; Moreland, a licensed attorney in Georgia since 2018, has not yet asked to formally appear in Combs’ case.
Steel has been licensed to practice law in Georgia since 1991. He earned his law degree from Fordham University School of Law in New York City and was licensed to practice in New York state until 1999.
The affidavit for his pro hac application said he was held in civil contempt in a 1997 criminal case in Gwinnett County, Georgia, after a judge “denied my client’s Plea of Former Jeopardy and I properly filed a Notice of Appeal.”
“The Court of Appeals of Georgia granted an emergency stay of the trial finding that the trial court had been divested of jurisdiction and that I was wrongly held in contempt,” Steel wrote. It also mentions his contempt of court arrest during the YSL trial last summer, which occurred after he refused to tell Judge Ural Glanville how he learned that Glanville met secretly with prosecutors and a key witness.
“On June 10, 2024, I was held in contempt by a Superior Court Judge in Fulton County, Georgia in State of Georgia v. Jeffery Williams et al., Case Number 22SC 183 572 when the judge wrongfully ordered that I reveal privileged information,” Steel wrote. The Georgia Supreme Court reversed his conviction in October.
Steel was joined in court on Friday by Combs’ lead lawyers Marc Agnifilio and Teny Geragos, who have represented him since before he was indicted. Alexandra Shapiro Anna Estevao and Jason Driscoll of Shapiro Arato Bach LLP also were in court.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District New York has six assistant U.S. attorneys assigned to the case, all women: Maurene Comey, Meredith Foster, Emily A. Johnson, Christy Slavik, Madison Reddick Smyser and Mitzi Steiner.
Here’s more information about the evidentiary issues decided Friday:
Uncharged acts
Combs’ defense on April 7 asked Judge Subramanian to block prosecutors’ recently announced plan to present evidence of prior uncharged acts of sexual assault by Combs.
“These are entirely new, untested, uncorroborated, and uninvestigated allegations,” according to a 39-page memo. “The government should not be permitted to pollute the trial with decades of dirt and invite a conviction based on propensity evidence with no proper purpose by painting Mr. Combs as a bad guy who must have committed the charged crimes.”
Combs’ lawyers argued Rule 413 of the Federal Rules of Evidence allows for uncharged bad acts only if a defendant is formally charged with sexual assault, which Combs is not. His five charges are racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking and two counts of transportation for prostitution.
“In some, the proffered evidence does not satisfy Rule 413’s requirements because Mr. Combs is not ‘accused of a sexual assault,’” according to the memo. “Put simply, whatever one thinks of Congress’s wisdom (or lack thereof) in enacting Rule 413, it does not apply to this case.”
They also said the evidence can’t be admitted under Rule 404(b)(2), which bars other acts as character evidence but says they can be admitted to prove “motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, absence of mistake or lack of accident.”
Combs’ lawyers also said there “is little reason to believe” the new and uncharged sexual assault claims.
“Some are so lacking in evidentiary foundation that they have not even resulted in civil claims—or even demands,” they wrote. “Indeed, the government has provided virtually no discovery in relation to the alleged sexual assaults, and certainly none that provides any corroboration that Mr. Combs committed a sexual assault.”
Prosecutors said jurors should hear about the other acts because Combs “has put his knowledge and intent squarely at issue” by stating “his intention to argue at trial that he believed every alleged coercive sex act was consensual.”
“That testimony powerfully establishes that the defendant made no mistake when he coerced other victims into unwanted sex,” according to the 36-page opposition. “It proves that the defendant intended to take the sexual gratification he wanted, regardless of consent.”
Combs’ lawyers said in a filing on Thursday that prosecutors falsely stated during an April 14 status conference that “the government misled the Court as to the timing of its interviews with the four additional alleged victims.”
“The government was clearly in a position to include every one of these four alleged victims in its February 1, 2025 Enterprise Letter had it truly believed the evidence was relevant to its direct case. But it didn’t,” according to the letter from Shapiro, the public version of which is heavily redacted. “The defense should not be forced to defend against these late-breaking allegations on the event of trial when the government is at fault.”
Judge Subramanian granted the motion for all but one uncharged alleged victim, who is identified as Victim-5.
Victim anonymity
Prosecutors asked the judge on April 4 to allow the women identified in the indictment as Victim-2, Victim-3 and Victim-4 to testify under pseudonyms.
Victim-1, meanwhile, “is prepared to testify under her own name,” according to the 24-page motion. Prosecutors don’t publicly identify her, but Victim-1 has been widely known to be Ventura since Combs was first charged in September.
Combs’ lawyers called the request “extraordinary” that violates Combs’ Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses and have a public trial. They also said it “risks preventing potential witnesses from coming forward to testify on Mr. Combs’s behalf.”
“The government’s request would also contravene the public’s and press’s First Amendment and common law rights of access for a trial of immense public interest in which there could not be a stronger need to enforce these rights,” according to the 22-page response filed April 17.
They said the proposal “would also create a logistical nightmare that would confuse witnesses and the jury.”
“Just imagine conducting a trial with Jane Doe 1, 2, and 3, interspersed with references to other witnesses’ true names,” they wrote.
Later that day, Combs’ lawyers said they no longer oppose Victim-2 testifying under a pseudonym. Their two-page letter is heavily redacted from public view to comply with a protective order regarding case evidence and victim information.
On Friday, Subramanian ordered prosecutors to meet with Combs’ lawyers to “decide what pseudonym each alleged victim will use.”
Attorney appeals anonymity rejection, avoids sanctions
Meanwhile, attorneys in a civil case against Combs have announced their intent to appeal a Southern District of New York judge’s order rejecting anonymity for the plaintiff. The lawsuit is from a woman who claims Combs raped her in 1991 in the locker room of a charity basketball event at City College in New York City.
U.S. District Judge Jennifer Rochon rejected anonymity in a 12-page order issued March 27. Plaintiff’s attorney Antigone Curis filed notice of her appeal to the 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals on April 17.
Curis recently avoided sanctions in another lawsuit against Combs in which she falsely told Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil that the attorney working with her, Tony Buzbee of Texas, had never been denied admission to a court when he’d recently been denied admission to the Southern District of New York.
According to a court reporter’s transcript, Curis took a different tone in the April 14 hearing than the “somewhat belligerent and contemptuous” one judge said she took in a letter.
“I can’t express how sorry I am to this Court,” Curis said.
Vyskocil reminded Curis that she also took issue with her filing documents signed by Buzbee when he wasn’t admitted in the SDNY.
“And rather than just taking to heart my calling to your attention potential issues, which may be happening in other cases was well, you chose to double down. And you filed a letter with the Court saying, ‘I review everything, and I approve it for accuracy,’” the judge said.
“I don’t know how you could have reviewed the pro hac vice application and confirmed its accuracy when right on top of your affidavit, which is undated simple /s/ signed, there was an affidavit from Buzbee saying that he had been denied admission to the Southern District, which is directly at odds with what he reportedly told you,” she said.
Curis said she meant to say Buzbee had never been rejected admission “by any other court.”
“The affidavit was missing one operable word, ‘other,’” Curis said.
“This is my mistake. I apologize. You are 1,000 percent right,” Cris said. “It was missing a very important word in there, and it’s not right.”
Vyskocil told Curis, “It is not my want to sanction lawyers” and said she was declining to do so here.
“But I do take seriously lawyers’ duties to be forthcoming and truthful with the Court. You’ve heard it a million times, but the most important thing in he world is your own personal integrity and reputation,” the judge said.
Previous article:
‘The Fall of Diddy’
Combs’ lawyers in March subpoenaed Warner Bros. seeking material related to its “The Fall of Diddy” documentary series, including “raw and unedited footage” from interviews, “all diary entries, journals, narratives or notes” provided by interviewees and “records of any financial payments” made to certain people.
Combs’ lawyers withdrew their request for everything but the interview outtakes, then Warner Bros.’ lawyers moved to quash the subpoena for those.
Their nine-page memo supporting their motion argued the request was overly broad, and some of the information sought is protected “by the reporter’s privilege that applies to unpublished newsgathering materials.”
Combs’ lawyers said in opposition that they need the raw interviews because “in a few weeks, these witnesses are expected to testify about the same subject matter that they discussed in their documentary interviews.”
“But while [Warner Bros.] accepted their stories at face value, their testimony at trial will be subject to cross-examination, and part of that cross-examination will involve impeachment with their prior inconsistent statements,” according to the 21-page opposition. “Mr. Combs seeks the raw footage from their interviews precisely so that he can effectively cross-examine these anticipated witnesses with their prior statements about the same subject matter.”
Judge Subramanian said Friday the information sought is “significant,” according to reporter Matthew Russell of Inner City Press, and overcomes reporter’s privilege.
Cassie Ventura’s diaries
Combs’ lawyers subpoenaed Ventura in March for “all draft memoirs, autobiographies, narratives, diaries, journals or notes” as well as communications about “plans to publish or threaten to publish such a document.” They also sought 10 months of bank records from 2023.
Ventura’s lawyer Douglas Wigdor asked Judge Subramanian to quash the subpoena and said Combs’ lawyers hadn’t demonstrated why the information was needed.
“Defendant may argue that the documents sought pursuant to both requests could have some bearing on [redacted] motives for testifying in this matter,” according to a 10-page memo filed April 17. “However, arguments that documents ‘may or might help impeach [a witnesses’s] credibility, or demonstrate bias or motive are too speculative to support a Rule 17 subpoena,” quoting a 2008 District of Oregon case.
Prosecutors supported the motion to quash in a two-page letter that said Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 17(c) “does not provide a means of trolling for additional discovery.”
“Rule 17(c) is different from the civil rules that permit the issuance of subpoenas to seek production of documents or materials that, although themselves not admissible, may lead to admissible evidence,” prosecutors wrote.
Judge Subramanian on Friday quashed the subpoena for everything but prior drafts of a memoir Ventura gave prosecutors. She’s to disclose the drafts by April 25.
Victim-4’s communications
Combs’ lawyers told Subramanian on Wednesday about concerns regarding potential evidence related to Victim-4. They said prosecutors were purposely not obtaining documents from Victim-4 because they don’t want to disclose them to the defense.
A redacted version of their letter to the judge said the government “is aware of, but declines to take possession of, the vast amount of communications that seem to relate to charged racketeering acts and communications with the defendant.”
They mentioned prosecutors’ attempts to quash subpoenas for Ventura’s diaries and for Warner Bros.’ “The Fall of Diddy” footage.
“Here, it appears that the government has put the defendant in an untenable position—defend the case with only the discovery the government decides to take possession of, and if he tries to subpoena relevant materials, the government will move to quash,” according to the letter.
Prosecutors said the defense has no reason to request the communications.
“A broad, improper request for documents to which the defendant is not entitled cannot form the basis to adjourn trial, and courts in this district have denied such requests under similar circumstances,” according to an April 17 letter. “Contrary to the defendant’s suggestion, he is not entitled to discovery of documents in Victim-4’s possession.”
Subramanian sided with prosecutors on Friday and wouldn’t allow the defense to serve a subpoena for the information.
Text messages, 911 call
Prosecutors filed a 100-page motion in limine that details text messages they want to show the jury if Combs’ lawyers challenge the victims’ credibility.
The publicly filed version is heavily redacted to comply with the protective order. It says much of the women’s expected testimony is “directly corroborated by contemporaneous text messages with the defendant” and in cell phone notes. It describes the documentary evidence for Victim-2 as extraordinary” and says it “provides powerful corroboration of a large swath” of her expected testimony.
“Once the defense inevitably attacks her credibility, the jury is entitled to see that Victim-2 previously wrote essentially the same things that she will testify to at the trial,” prosecutors wrote.
The filing also details evidence from a former employee of Combs who is expected to testify in relation to the racketeering conspiracy charge.
“During the time that Employee-3 worked for the defendant, Employee-3 kept a personal diary in which she detailed the specific incidents of the defendant's behavior toward herself and others, about which the Government anticipates she will testify at trial,” according to the filing. “To the extent that the defense attacks Employee-3’s credibility, the Court should allow the introduction of select portions of Employee-3’s diary which describe these incidents in a manner consistent with Employee-3’s anticipated testimony.”
The motion also seeks admission of a 911 call from December 2011 “placed by Individual-2 after the defendant broke into the Los Angeles home where Individual-2 had been staying.”
On the other hand, the motion seeks to bar Combs’ lawyers from introducing Combs’ prior statements and from presenting evidence that he “engaged in certain consensual sexual encounters, including sexual encounters similar in kind to Freaks Offs, with women other than the Victims.”
“In other words, the defendant cannot admit evidence of consensual sex acts with other partners or argue that because other women supposedly consented to Freak Offs, the victims in this case must have also consented on every occasion,” prosecutors wrote. “The Government is not required to prove and will not contend at trial that every sexual encounter the defendant ever had—or even every Freak Off he ever had—was nonconsensual.”
Prosecutors also want Combs’ lawyers barred from mentioning “other unrelated good acts” such as volunteer work or philanthropic giving, and they don’t want them mentioning “the punishment or consequences he faces if convicted.”
“Similarly, the defendant should be prevented from raising any argument or evidence that the defendant has already suffered any consequences, whether personal or professional, through being charged with crimes,” prosecutors wrote. “Such argument has no relevance other than to seek sympathy and implicitly suggest that the jury should acquit because the defendant has already suffered enough. In short, the Court should not countenance any attempts at jury nullification.”
Additionally, prosecutors want Combs’ lawyers prohibited from cross-examining witnesses “about unrelated acts of domestic violence and/or physical abuse” as well as “illegal sexual activity” and drug use and arrest for driving under the influence and other crimes.
Expert testimony
Judge Subramanian hasn’t yet ruled on prosecutors’ request to preclude testimony from Alexander “Sasha” Bardey, a forensic psychiatrist hired by the defense.
Prosecutors said in their 100-page motion that Bardey’s opinions are “unreliable, not based on the scientific literature, squarely within the ken of the average juror, and would invade the province of the Court and the jury.”
Bardey’s opinions “merely underscore” why testimony from an expert hired by prosecutors “is necessary to disabuse common misconceptions about intimate partner violence, sexual abuse and coercion and to properly inform the jury about the cadmic literature on these subjects.”
The prosecution’s expert is Dawn Hughes, a forensic psychologist who testified as an expert for Amber Heard in her defamation trial with Johnny Depp.
Court documents are available below for paid subscribers. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible.