Sean Combs at the 2017 Costume Institute Benefit Gala celebrating the opening of the exhibition Rei Kawakubo/Comme des Garcons: Art Of The In-Between held on May 1, 2017 at The Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City (zz/ESBP/STAR MAX/IPx).
Defense attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs on Tuesday asked the federal judge in his RICO and sex trafficking case to order prosecutors to disclose the identities of the victims in the indictment, claiming their client’s right to a fair trial is in serious jeopardy if it hasn’t already been “irreparably” violated by a “torrent” of “false to outright absurd” allegations.
The letter from Combs’ defense team, led by Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos, attorneys who once represented notorious NXIVM “sex cult” leader Keith Raniere, asserted that a “number of individuals lev[ied] allegations against Mr. Combs due to his celebrity status” in recent weeks and created a “hysterical media circus” that must be reined in.
“Yesterday alone, anonymous accusers filed an additional six lawsuits. Counsel for these accusers recently convened a press conference (prior to filing) at which he claimed to represent 120 accusers making outrageous and deeply prejudicial allegations, including violent sexual assault and sexual abuse of minors,” the letter said, alluding to attorney Tony Buzbee’s press conference on Oct. 1. “This publicity stunt, broadcast on Instagram, included a ‘1-800’ number that reportedly received 12,000 calls in the first 24 hours.”
In a letter to prosecutors eight days before the defense’s Tuesday request of U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, Combs’ lawyers said it they are essentially in the dark and unable to mount a vigorous defense unless the government puts an end to the “guessing game” as to the identifies of the alleged victims in the indictment.
More Law&Crime coverage: Diddy claims government ‘leaked’ damning hotel video of Cassie Ventura abuse to CNN knowing Trump’s hush-money trial paused for Barron’s graduation
The defense said there are “serious threats to [Combs’] rights to due process and a fair trial,” and one heading in the letter even stated that there are “Many Pretend Victims.”
“The Indictment treats Mr. Combs’ sexual history over the past sixteen years, from 2008 through 2024, as part of an alleged vast criminal conspiracy. The government has claimed that there are ‘multiple’ victims, yet has not identified any,” the defense said. “Other than Victim- 1, there is no way for Mr. Combs to determine who these other unidentified alleged victims are. Nor do we anticipate being able to ascertain the identity of the alleged victims from the discovery, which we understand will reflect videos of unambiguously consensual sex.”
The defense claimed Combs has a right to know which of his “prior sexual partners” are years later making “baseless allegations” under the cloak of anonymity in “opportunistic civil suits” to “exact a payoff.”
More Law&Crime coverage: Diddy prosecutors shed light on ‘voluminous’ discovery, including iCloud accounts and dozens of seized devices, as defense slams ‘leaks’ of grand jury info
“Accordingly, we demand that the government provide the names of all individuals it considers to be victims of Mr. Combs’ alleged criminal conduct,” the letter said, seeking a bill of particulars.
According to the defense, prosecutors have opposed “disclosure of alleged victims’ names at this stage,” but preserving his right to a fair trial should be paramount. Here’s what they told the judge:
Third, the publicity of these allegations in civil suits seriously undermine Mr. Combs’ right to a fair trial. The attorneys and plaintiffs making these allegations are not bound by Local Rule 23.1 and can therefore make (and have made) limitless and unchallenged statements to the press. Mr. Combs’ denials, on the other hand, are constrained by Rule 23.1 because he does not know which allegations are credited by the government and thus come within the ambit of the Local Rule. Under the circumstances, the Court should require disclosure of the government’s alleged victims and allow Mr. Combs to respond to allegations of other, uncredited and unrelated accusers. See United States v. Ming He, 94 F.3d 782, 792 (2d Cir. 1996) (court can use its supervisory authority to assure that “fair standards of procedure are maintained”).
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
