With Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ trial on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering now less than a month away, lawyers on both sides have been busy arguing about what that trial will involve. The big dispute this week is whether prosectors can call to the witness stand people who accuse the musician of sexual assault other than the four women whose allegations are at the centre of the criminal case.
Government prosecutors argue that testimonies from those other people are super relevant, because they will counter claims Combs is expected to make in his defence, basically that he believed his sexual relations with the four main witnesses were consensual. But Combs’ lawyers argue that the prosecutors seeking to bring other accusers into the court simply want to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt”, presenting irrelevant and “incendiary” claims that will convince the jury their client is a “bad guy”.
Both sides in the criminal case made filings with the court earlier this week setting out their respective positions regarding the inclusion of testimonies from those other alleged victims. Meanwhile, there have also been filings in relation to some of the civil proceedings that have spun off from the controversies surrounding Combs, both of which have prompted free speech debates.
That includes Combs’ attempt to subpoena information from the maker of a documentary about the musician, and Jay-Z’s ongoing legal battle with the lawyer that named him as a co-defendant on one of the lawsuits accusing Combs of rape.
Producers of ‘The Fall Of Diddy’ claim that “reporter’s privilege” means they shouldn’t have to hand over materials gathered during the making of their programme, materials which Combs possibly reckons could help with his defence. And lawyers working for attorney Tony Buzbee argue that good old anti-SLAPP laws mean a lawsuit filed against their client by Jay-Z should be dismissed.
In terms of the criminal case against Combs, so far the four women whose allegations are behind the charges of sex trafficking and racketeering have been listed in court documents as victims one, two, three and four.
However, we know that one of the accusers is Comb’s ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, who - it was confirmed last week - will testify under her real name during next month’s trial. Ventura sued her former partner in an explosive lawsuit in 2023 which, although almost immediately settled, kickstarted the flood of assault claims against Combs that ultimately resulted in the criminal proceedings.
The other three women involved in the criminal case wish to remain anonymous, and last week prosecutors presented arguments for why that should be allowed. They noted that “this case has already received an exceptional amount of media coverage”, and that will likely only increase as the trial proceeds.
Allowing Combs’ accusers to remain anonymous, they said, would ensure those women are protected from “harassment from the media and others, undue embarrassment, and other adverse consequences”.
Obviously, numerous other men and woman have also accused Combs of sexual assault and other misconduct, many filing civil lawsuits. Prosecutors say that some of those people should be allowed to testify during the criminal trial to show that Combs has a history of sexual assault, in part to counter the musician’s expected defence.
“When the defendant inevitably argues at trial that he had no clue these four women did not want the sexual experiences that he demanded”, prosectors wrote in a court filing earlier this week, “the government should be able to point out that someone as practiced as he is in sexual assault surely recognised the signs of non-consent”.
“And when the defendant claims that he only ever intended to have consensual, loving sexual experiences” with the four main witnesses in the criminal case, “the government should be able to point out his repeated intent to sexually gratify himself with unwilling participants”.
In their own filing, Combs’ legal team said that including those extra witnesses will not only double the length of their client’s trial, but also break rules around “character evidence”, which is evidence not directly linked to the charges made in a criminal case, but which is designed to convince jurors that the defendant is the kind of person who would commit the alleged crimes.
If the other accusers are allowed to testify, Combs’ attorneys wrote, “it would mark one of the worst abuses of the character evidence rule in the history of American law”.
Aside from preparing for next month's trial, Combs’ lawyers are also currently involved in a back and forth with Warner Bros Discovery in relation to a documentary about the musician aired by HBO in January. Combs’ team want access to unedited footage and other materials gathered in the making of ‘The Fall Of Diddy’, and to that end subpoenaed the broadcaster last month.
In response, lawyers for the media company have argued that the materials requested by Combs are protected by “reporter’s privilege that applies to unpublished news-gathering materials”, and therefore there are no legal grounds to force the documentary makers to share them with the musician’s team.
Warner Bros Discovery is not the only media company currently dealing with Combs’ lawyers. NBC has been sued for defamation over its documentary ‘Diddy: The Making Of A Bad Boy’.
Finally in Diddy related legal news, there has been further back and forth between Jay-Z and the attorney Tony Buzbee. A women represented by Buzbee accused both Combs and Jay-Z of raping her at a MTV Video Music Awards after party in 2000. Jay-Z strongly denied the allegations and has been heavily critical of Buzbee, who he has accused of extortion and defamation in a lawsuit filed in California.
Buzbee’s client ultimately abandoned her lawsuit, but Jay-Z’s legal action against the lawyer continues. He accuses Buzbee of pressuring his client to include the rapper as a co-defendant in her lawsuit against Combs, even after she admitted that Jay-Z had not assaulted her. This is mainly based on statements from two private investigators who apparently spoke to Jay-Z’s accuser.
Lawyers working for Buzbee, who denies the allegations of misconduct, are trying to get Jay-Z’s lawsuit dismissed under anti-SLAPP rules, those being rules that block frivolous lawsuits that seek to limit free speech. According to Law360, Buzbee’s lawyers have told the court that, with this litigation, Jay-Z is simply trying to “punish lawyers who do what lawyers do”.
But, in response, Jay-Z’s legal representative insists that the alleged misconduct does not relate to Buzbee simply going through the standard processes of preparing a lawsuit. “Lawyers don't go to law school to go run their mouths off on TMZ to falsely accuse people of rape”, he told the judge, who is yet to decide whether this case can proceed.