5 New P. Diddy Case Details Revealed in Court Hearing

As you all know, I made a request today for what we were calling a gag order, and I'm not going to walk out of court and do anything other than live up to that. We may be hearing from the attorneys for Shawn "Diddy" Combs a lot less as we move toward a trial in his sex trafficking case. In court Thursday, we learned more about his defense team's push to exclude a damning piece of evidence.

We learned about the trial date, the evidence found inside the hip-hop mogul's mansions, and the support that he is getting from his family. We got a full recap of the court proceedings and a lot more. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law & Crime.

I'm Jesse Weber. Well, it's been more than three weeks since Shawn "Diddy" Combs, one of the richest and most influential rappers in the world, was locked up in New York on federal charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. Prosecutors in the Southern District of New York say that Combs used that money and power to force people to do his bidding, with a heavy focus on what has been dubbed the "freak offs.

" These are described as elaborate, lengthy sexual performances that allegedly involved the hiring and transportation of commercial sex workers and the administration of drugs. Witnesses allegedly told the government that sometimes Combs would participate in these sex sessions; other times, he would just watch and pleasure himself. But these sessions were almost always recorded and saved—maybe for Combs to watch later, maybe for potential blackmail.

Hey, so I know I always say this, but look, it is our privilege to be able to bring you these kinds of stories, and I want to thank one of our great partners who helps make episodes like this possible: Upside. Upside is actually the sponsor of today's Law & Crime YouTube takeover. Now, Upside is awesome!

It is a free app that helps you get cash back on gas, groceries, and food. It's real cash back—money that appears in your Upside app that you can transfer straight into your bank account. Super simple to use!

For example, I used Upside to find a gas station; I claimed an offer, I paid at the pump with my credit card, and then I followed the steps on the app and I got cash back. You can use Upside at all different kinds of places—restaurants, convenience stores. So, to find out how much you could earn, click the link in the description to download Upside or scan the QR code on screen and use our promo code "LCTakeover," and you'll get an extra 25 cents back on every gallon on your first tank of gas.

Well, what we're going to talk about now is the fact that Combs and his substantial defense team were back in court on Thursday in front of yet another new judge: Aroon Subramanian. He is going to be the judge presiding over Combs' trial as of now, and by the way, it is now scheduled for May 2025, which we’re going to talk about now. I've got to call this out: There's no recording equipment allowed in New York's federal courthouses; there are no cameras.

It is annoying, trust me. I could talk all about this, but anyway, that's why we haven't seen video of Shawn Combs in court or heard audio of him speaking to the judge. But we did have a correspondent in the courtroom; we're going to hear that in just a moment.

But here's another thing to note: A lot of people are asking why they didn't discuss the issue of bail this week. Well, we know there was a petition filed for a third crack at it, but that is not with this court; that's actually going on simultaneously in the Court of Appeals. This is a higher court, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals; they're going to decide if Combs should be granted bail.

Now, Combs' attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, filed a motion for pre-trial release earlier in the week with the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and Shapiro opened the motion by writing, "This case does involve extreme and unusual circumstances, but none that typically foreclose bail or warrant forcing Shawn 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, even though he has been in the spotlight his entire life, with many of his purported antics and episodes being widely reported in the press and known to law enforcement authorities. Indeed, hardly a risk of flight; he is a 54-year-old father of seven, a U.

S. citizen, an extraordinarily successful artist, businessman, philanthropist, and one of the most recognizable people on Earth. 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. Talking about that, Combs, by the way, had offered a $50 million bail package, putting up his Miami home and his mother's home as collateral. He promised to stay in close contact with authorities, only speak to certain people, and even offered to have a third-party security team to monitor his house if he should be under home confinement.

But two different judges denied bail, so Combs has been behind bars since September 16th at the Metropolitan Detention Center out in Brooklyn. One of the reasons that was cited for keeping Combs locked up is his alleged influence and reach because prosecutors claimed that Combs had engaged in witness tampering and possible intimidation. His legal counsel says that is not true; they concede he spoke with people about the civil lawsuits that he was facing but say he wasn't aware that the Southern District of New York was investigating him.

And once he did realize he was being investigated, the appeal motion says he made sure to stop contact with these people. 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 there were 14 total contacts between Mr Combes 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 Combes, not the other way around; she reached out to Mr Combes and told him, "I'm a grand jury witness. " After Mr Combes informed defense counsel, he was instructed not to contact the witness anymore and didn't.

Shapiro argues that the prosecution didn't meet its burden to hold Combes until trial. Days later, there was an update that was filed with the court saying it is hereby ordered that the motion for bail is referred to a three-judge panel. The request for immediate release pending a decision on the bail motion by a three-judge panel is denied; the motion to seal is granted.

So basically, Combes can't be released immediately; they have to wait until the judges hear the arguments, and then they'll decide on what to do. Now, there was no information provided on when that might happen or when the case is going to be heard in court, but we'll continue to follow it. All right, so now we're going to talk about Thursday's hearing for Combes' criminal case, and again, he's charged with racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution.

The core accusation, again, is that Combes used coercion, intimidation, and force to get people to participate in these activities. To talk about everything, I want to bring in criminal defense attorney Natalie Whittingham Burell, who I love having here on Sidebar. Her window is making her look extra angelic today; she was sent from the heavens to talk about Sean Combes.

So good to see you! See you, Jesse. Thank you for having me on.

Can we talk about the bail motion—the third bail motion? I want to start there before we talk about what happened Thursday. Does he have a shot?

I think his attorneys raised some good arguments. I think they raised good arguments as well. Maybe this will be third time's the charm, because the difference between this bail motion and the prior two is that this one really does get to the heart of what the court was concerned about, which was witness intimidation.

When you have this dangerousness assessment, it's not just a danger that you will harm people or harm yourself but a danger that you will interfere in how they conduct the case. Those were good arguments. I did not know that after he found out they were grand jury witnesses, he had no further contact with them, and that when the contact was happening, it was more in relation to the civil cases.

I don't know how they're going to prove that up at the hearing, but that is a good rebuttal to the prosecution's argument that he was contacting grand jury witnesses. It is unique that there are civil and criminal cases tracking along the same time frame, so it's a good argument. I'll admit it's a really good argument, and it makes me believe that maybe his attorneys didn't have that full information when the issue of bail came out.

But they've been speaking to Sean Combes seemingly every day or consistently about what's been going on, so maybe they got that information from him. I guess somebody might be looking at this and saying, you know what, they have a point; the government hasn't necessarily proven that Sean Combes was reaching out to witnesses or contacting them or intimidating them. But the standard to get him locked up is lower; you don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

I think it's clear and convincing evidence, right? So explain to our viewers: is it right that the government can lock somebody up just by making an allegation that they've been intimidating witnesses without proving it necessarily? Yes, so that's the difficult thing about these bond review hearings that all of us criminal defense practitioners have to make, and that is that the prosecution can just make allegations about our clients without much proof other than the allegation.

The judge will then turn to us and say, "Well, what's your response to that? " That does kind of put us on the back foot, where we have to prove something that's not our burden to prove, right? So it is a very low standard; they really just need to make the allegation.

But many times when the defense can come with something to rebut, that helps to kind of even the playing field. But the prosecution definitely has the advantage when it comes to pre-trial detention of criminal defendants. Okay, now I want to talk about what happened yesterday, and there's a lot to discuss.

So, this was at the Southern District of New York, again in front of this new judge, Ron Subromanian. We now know when this case could go to trial; a date has been set—maybe I should say a tentative date has been set for May 5th, 2025. That was what was decided on, with several pre-trial conferences planned between now and then.

Natalie, is Combes hedging his bets here? In other words, if he feels he can't get out of jail now and he doesn't want to, let's try to get to trial as soon as possible. Changes for criminal defendants, depending on where they are, so a criminal defendant who is out a lot of the time.

. . Okay, with things taking their time, you know, I'm doing a full investigation, not rushing to the end of the race.

Whereas if you're incarcerated, you're trying to get out of there as soon as possible. I'm sure that he wants the quickest possible date; however, given the amount of evidence there is in this case—discovery and investigation that needs to be done on the defense side—I would gamble that May 2025 would be too early of a date for a case of this magnitude. It probably will take them longer.

Oh, I’ll get to the discovery in a minute, but what happened? So he just came on the record; his attorneys came on the record May 5th. Your Honor, this is what we want.

What happens if the Second Circuit Court of Appeal says he’s released pre-trial? If pre-trial release is granted, can he then turn around and say, “You know, that May date, I don’t really want to go to trial in May 2025. Maybe May 2026”?

Can he turn around and push for a longer time, or is that going to look very transparent about why he’s doing it? Because essentially, I’ve always said I think he came to New York; I think he’s been as cooperative as possible because I thought he thought he could make bail. I’ll be on home confinement for one year, two years.

I’ll push this trial out as long as possible until I actually have to go to trial where I possibly can get convicted. So what happens if the Second Circuit says he’s granted pre-trial release? Can he turn around and say, “You know what?

I want to push the trial date longer”? Good cause to continue a trial? Good cause is a pretty low standard, but courts guard trial timeliness very passionately.

You don’t want to make a transparent request of, “You know, I’m out now, and I don’t want to see this thing through, so can we move this to the next year? ” You have to have some other reason. “Hey, we need this expert; this witness is unavailable for the trial date.

” They’re going to have to be a bit more artful than that. I get it; they could say, “Look, the discovery is more than we thought. ” I get it; they can make those arguments.

I guess the question from another point of view is: does it show that they feel confident in their defense right now? They’re putting the prosecution's feet to the fire. They’re saying, “We’re ready to go.

” They said, “We’re going to have one week to present the defense,” which I think would fairly argue would be a majority of them cross-examining the state’s witnesses, maybe calling a few sex workers to say everything was consensual. They feel confident now that they can get an acquittal because what’s the end result? We’re going to rush to trial where he might get convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison—that’s not good for them.

So doesn’t it seem like they feel confident in the case? The defense, I mean. I don’t necessarily think that’s what it means.

I think that sometimes trying to rush your case to trial as quickly as possible is a strategy to catch the state off guard. You’ve got to remember, or the federal government here, the government has the burden of proof; they have the burden to prove the case. So they’re the ones that have to scramble to get all their witnesses and evidence together by May 2025, and maybe they won’t be able to.

If they rush the case as soon as possible, that has less to do with being confident in the defense case and more to do with trying to game and strategize so that the prosecution won’t be ready to prove their case. What happens if he’s hit with additional charges? What happens if he’s hit with a superseding indictment?

There’s no way this is going to happen in May, right? A superseding indictment would mean that the case gets continued because there’s more discovery that has to come about, and the state, or the government, will be given more time to prepare. Now, something that you mentioned, why we say the May 5th trial date feels so soon, is considering this other big thing that was talked about inside the courtroom yesterday, and that was discovery.

So everything the prosecution has uncovered that is relevant to this case has to be turned over to the defense and vice versa, so there’s a level playing field. Everyone’s pretty much working off the same set of facts. An assistant U.

S. attorney, Emily Johnson, told the judge that the prosecution team is working its way through a huge amount of electronic information. She says 96 electronic devices were seized in the March raids on Com's mansions in Miami and Los Angeles, as well as a private Florida airport.

Of those, eight of the devices in Miami had more than 90 terabytes of information. Think about your phone; you have, what, two terabytes of information on the cloud? So, 90 terabytes of information!

Johnson called that extraordinary, pointing to a reason for some of the discovery delays. What do you make of that, Natalie? Yeah, that’s a trying a criminal case in modern times.

A lot of evidence is on electronic devices—cell phones, tablets, computers, things of that nature. And the devices, especially if you have external hard drives, and 90-something terabytes of data on a single device, makes me think this is some type of hard drive that takes. .

. Weeks to go through just for one device on its own. The celebrite extractions that we have in our county are just voluminous.

So, if you have multiple devices—which, again, once you print out all the data, is about 20,000 to 30,000 pages per device for a smaller device—that lets you know that it's going to take a long time for the prosecution to go through it to do their review. They have to review it before they hand it over to make sure that it is what they need to hand over and that it doesn't have any breathing material in it, things like that. Then the defense has to review it and decide whether or not they need additional information based on what they've reviewed.

So, that can take months and months and months if you're only dedicating your time to looking at the discovery in this case. Yep, absolutely. And there's another point of this hearing besides the discovery, which again is extraordinary.

This other point I want your opinion on was a point of contention during the hearing, and it involved the assertion from the defense that someone from Homeland Security had leaked the now infamous video of Sean Combs reportedly beating his ex-girlfriend, Cassandra Ventur, in a hotel hallway in 2016. CNN, as you might recall, aired that video and published it in May, two months after the raids on Combs' homes. His lawyer states that that video and other alleged leaks have led to damaging, highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity that can only taint the jury pool and deprive Mr Combs of his right to a fair trial.

Prosecutor Johnson fought back, telling the judge that the claims were baseless and simply a means to try to exclude a damning piece of evidence from the trial. She added that not a single one of those alleged leaks came from the members of the prosecution team. Natalie, how do you think that shakes out?

Yeah, so, Combs has some pretty experienced attorneys. I would not like to think that they're casting those types of aspersions without some proof to back that up. The reason I say that is because if the prosecution team or law enforcement leaked those videos to the press, it would actually be inappropriate.

Because they're not supposed to do that. They can make pre-trial statements about the guilt or innocence of the defendant, but really it's like, you know, we believe in our case; this is a case that we're proceeding on. But you're not supposed to do it so that you taint the jury pool against the defendant.

In a case that would be so widespread and popular because of his fame, it just seems like leaking that type of video would lead to people already assuming that he's guilty, and you don't want that. So, the prosecution denies it, and I think you'll just have to wait and see. But I would agree with the defense—if that actually happened, that would be inappropriate.

But I would hope that they're not making false accusations against the prosecution. And look, no, the defense, to be clear, hasn't said that the prosecutors did; they blamed Homeland Security and have also attributed, as you mentioned, some comments that they made—or allegedly made—in the media. Now, going back to the hearing: Combs had the support of more family members for this hearing.

His mom, Janice Combs, flew in from Florida, and his 17-year-old twin daughters were there as well, flying in from California. His sons, Quincy, Christian, and Justin, who attended their father's earlier hearings, were also back. And by the way, talking about Janice Combs, she walked past a throng of reporters who were gathered outside.

Someone could be heard shouting, "Your son is a predator! " We actually recently did a sidebar episode on his mom's first public statement as all this has gone on, and as part of that statement, she read, "I’m not here to portray my son as perfect because he is not. He has made mistakes in the past, as we all have.

My son may not have been entirely truthful about certain things, such as denying he has ever gotten violent with an ex-girlfriend when the hotel surveillance showed otherwise. Sometimes the truth and a lie become so closely intertwined that it becomes terrifying to admit one part of the story, especially when that truth is outside the norm or too complicated to be believed. This is why I believe my son's civil legal team opted to settle the ex-girlfriend's lawsuit instead of contesting it until the end, resulting in a ricochet effect as the federal government used the decision against my son by interpreting it as an admission of guilt.

" Now, our correspondent inside the courtroom, Elizabeth Milner, said that Combs looked really happy to see his family at the hearing. Take a listen. "It was pretty interesting because I think, you know, we have seen many photos and videos of Sean Combs, aka Diddy, through the Associated Press and through Instagram.

So, to see him kind of in person after being in jail for three weeks now was pretty interesting, to say the least. I say that because you would expect him to feel a little defeated, a little gaunt, or anything like that. But it wasn't the case.

He appeared confident; he stood tall. But most importantly, and most notably, when he walked inside the courtroom, the first thing that he looked at was his family. As soon as he saw his family, he just lit up.

" Another thing to note, too, is he wasn't shackled, but he was wearing a khaki prison outfit. "Like jumpsuit" when he appeared inside court, and his family appeared on their end very just happy to see him. Now, I will say, when I was inside the courtroom, I was a little bit towards the back, um, right side of the gallery, and so for seeing Shan comes, I had to look through um a few heads and stuff like that.

But again, he appeared just kind of confident, um, walking inside that courtroom, and it might have just been the look that his family was there. So let me kind of paint a picture for you as well, too. His mother arrived a little bit before 1:00 p.

m. Eastern time today, and then whenever his children actually came into the courtroom, the courtroom or the courthouse actually kind of got silent. It was pretty interesting to see that as well, too.

So as far as who was sitting by who, you had um, Janice Colmes, who sat by Justin, then it was followed by Chance, the twins, Jesse and Delilah, Quincy, and then Christian Colmes, AKA King. And so again, once they all saw their father, they all smiled at him, waved at him, and even when we were all leaving the courthouse today, um, did he just blew kisses at his mother and his family members? They didn't say much of anything.

I wasn't outside when they had first entered um the courthouse, so I'm not sure if they said anything to the press. Previously, they had been very quiet um whenever they had entered the courtroom, so I assume it'll be kind of like that as well, too. And reporting indicates that the twins, Jesse and Delilah, had a chance to visit their dad in jail for the first time last week.

They accompanied Janice Colmes to the MDC, and sources tell TMZ that they were all able to hug and talk in a visiting area while under supervision. You know, Natalie, it's interesting to hear that description that Elizabeth explained because his family might be the only people right now who believe he's not guilty or might be siding with him. So many people are remaining silent; so many people have spoken out against him.

So what do you make of that description of his attitude and his demeanor? I do know that for incarcerated people, family support is extremely important. I can't extrapolate to him personally because I don't know him, but I do know many criminal defendants, and that is the highlight of their day, of their week, of their month—to come to court and be able to see their family members.

Jail visits are not the best for communication; however, you know, I try my best not to judge family members for supporting people who are incarcerated. Because, you know, if nobody loves you like a mother loves you, right? If your mother isn't coming to court with you anymore, you've really lost it, right?

Like you have no hope whatsoever if even your mother won't support you. So I try not to put too much stock into that. Whatever the family members believe, I do think the fact that the rest of the music industry is not running to his defense like you would see a lot of times—I mean remember what happened with Jesse Smollett when the allegations first came out that he had formed a hoax?

A lot of Hollywood was still supporting him until, you know, damning evidence came out to show that he was lying. So I think that this is indicative of maybe before these allegations even came to light to the public, people in Hollywood probably knew, and um, I think they might believe the allegations and not want to get their name tarnished by getting involved with him. Yeah, it's just a change.

And, again, I think it was also reported that he was wearing a piece or some type of jail garb as well—just, again, very different. Um, how much a year changes things. Um, before I let you go, Natalie, another big update from inside the courtroom is that the judge, Judge Subranian, told Colmes' lead counsel, Mark Anif, to write up a proposed gag order because the judge wants to keep the outside chatter to a minimum to try to not taint a future jury.

And that order would also prevent the attorneys themselves from making comments about the case. AA Johnson said that that was necessary because Agnifilo himself had appeared on a TMZ documentary after Colmes' indictment, saying that the government wanted to take down a successful Black man. And so when reporters clustered around Anif after the hearing, he definitely wasn't as forthcoming as he's been in the past.

Take a look: "I'm not going to talk about anything that I haven't said in court or in the papers. These are all great questions, but I'm just not going to get into it. " So, can you speak about your concerns about the leak?

"And the video? " We have spoken about that. I I I did it in the court papers, and I'm just going to stick to the court papers.

As you guys all know, let me just finish, as you all know, I made a request today for what we were calling a gag order, and I'm not going to walk out of court and do anything other than live up to that. So talk about his demeanor in jail and what it's been like. So here's what I'm going to do.

Um, I'm not going to answer any more questions. I want to help you guys out, but I'm not going to do it. I'm going to go back and speak to my colleagues, and then, you know, I'm going to be—just tell us about the.

. . MDC and what it's like.

Can we see him being transferred anytime soon? Can we see him being moved anytime soon? Or which way are you headed?

Okay, yeah, let's go this way. Natalie, what do you think? It's interesting; he did court a bit of publicity before he asked for the gag order, and it does seem like he's uncomfortable now, saying, "I know, guys—like, but I can't—I can't be a hypocrite.

" You know, I don't do the high-profile cases, thankfully. The press isn't one of my things that I have to deal with. My heart goes out to defense attorneys who do.

But I really don't think that a lot more press would benefit Sean PJ Holmes. I think a gag order really is in his best interest because the more we find out about the case, the worse it looks for him. Yeah, I guess it's a long way away from the time that he came out and said, "You know, a thousand bottles of baby oil go to Costco.

You know, that's what you get—a bulk deal. " So now it's going to be limited information, but we'll see where it goes. Natalie Whittingham Burell, thank you so much for coming on again.

I really love having you to talk about this. We'll see you next time. Thank you for having me, Jesse.

All right, everybody, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us, and as always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber.

I'll speak to you next time.