Diddy loses bid for gag order against alleged government leaks

Diddy loses bid for gag order against alleged government leaks


Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs have lost a bid to impose a gag order on government agencies involved in the investigation into his federal racketeering and sex trafficking case, which Combs' team accused of leaking information to the press.

In Friday's order reviewed by USA Today, Judge Arun Subramanian declined to accept the proposed order filed by the prosecution and defense. Instead, he wrote, both sides are expected to abide by existing laws prohibiting lawyers, investigators and government agents from disclosing grand jury proceedings and disclosing non-public information that could interfere with a fair trial.

“To be clear, this order is not based on a finding of wrongdoing thus far, as the court has not made any findings at this juncture regarding the defendant's allegations that information related to the case has been leaked,” Subramanian wrote. “The purpose of this order is to help ensure that nothing happens henceforth that would interfere with a fair trial.”

When reached by USA TODAY, an attorney for Combs declined to comment.

Earlier this month, Combs' lawyers asked the judge to issue an order barring federal employees from disclosing evidence to the news media that they say “undermines Mr. Combs' right to a fair trial.” The defense and U.S. attorneys discussed the matter but could not agree on the language of a joint order, instead submitting their own individual proposals.

Need a break? Play the USA Today Daily Crossword Puzzle.

Diddy loses bid for gag order against alleged government leaks

Federal judge vows to 'take appropriate action' against leaks

In a letter addressed Friday, Combs' team drew the judge's attention to a New York Post article published that day and purported to quote “a federal law enforcement source involved in the investigation” who issued comments about Combs' alleged freak-off. .

“These comments, if made by any agent involved in the investigation or prosecution of this case, are clearly improper,” Subrahmanya wrote. “This order requires the government to notify the agencies involved in this case or the investigation of their obligations under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) and U.S. District Court for Southern and Eastern New York Local Civil Rule 23.1” and serve them with this order. .”

“The court will take appropriate action against any violation of rules,” the judge added.

A request for an evidentiary hearing to look into alleged official misconduct by the Combs team is still pending.

In a letter filed with the court earlier this month, Combs' team said it believed the government had been “strategically leaking confidential grand jury material and information, including the 2016 Intercontinental videotape, to prejudice the public and potential jurors since March.”

This increased “public animosity against Mr. Combs in advance of the trial,” they wrote. In May, CNN released hotel surveillance footage from 2016 showing Combs kicking, hitting and dragging ex-girlfriend Casey near a hotel elevator. Combs, in a video, apologized for his “inexcusable” behavior; Her lawyers portrayed the abuse as the result of a toxic relationship rather than evidence of sex trafficking.

The hip-hop superstar was arrested at a Manhattan hotel on Sept. 16 and charged the next day with sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation for alleged involvement in prostitution. Investigators say the 54-year-old elaborately planned to use his money and status in the entertainment industry to “satisfy his sexual desires” in a “repeated and widely known” pattern of abuse.

He has since been held in the Special Housing Unit of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn and has maintained his innocence, pleading not guilty to all federal criminal charges and denying wrongdoing in a civil lawsuit filed against him over the past year.

All attempts by Combs to have him released from prison until his May 5 trial have been denied. They are seeking an appeals court ruling that would overturn a Sept. 18 decision denying requests to be released from jail on conditions that included a $50 million bond.


About The Author

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *