Seeking bail, Sean Coombs downplays risk of witness tampering

Sean Combs, the music mogul facing racketeering and sex-trafficking charges, filed an appeal Tuesday against a judge's decision to deny him bail, arguing that concerns that he would intimidate witnesses if released from prison are unfounded.

Mr. Combs has been held at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn for three weeks since the federal case against him became public. Manhattan Federal District Court Judge Andrew L. Carter ordered that Mr. Combs be detained before his trial, ruling that he posed a risk of witness tampering and a safety risk to others.

In their appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, lawyers for Mr Combs, who pleaded not guilty to the charges, wrote that the government's argument that their client posed a risk of obstruction of justice was based on speculation, not evidence. That he wanted to interfere with the criminal investigation of his conduct.

Lawyers, Alexandra E. Shapiro and Jason A. Driscoll, in court filings, argued that Mr. Combs' decision to travel to New York to face the charges, and a complex proposal to be monitored outside of government custody, helped secure his release from prison. before his trial.

“Mr. Combs is presumed innocent,” they wrote in the filing. “He traveled to New York to surrender because he knew he would be indicted. He took extraordinary steps to prove that he wanted to face and contest the charges, not flee. He offered a bail package that would clearly prevent him from posing a danger to anyone or contacting any witnesses.”

Prosecutors accused Mr. Combs of running a “criminal enterprise” that allowed him to carry out a pattern of physical and sexual violence over decades, alleging that he coerced women into “highly organized” sex with prostitutes through the use of drugs, physical abuse. and emotional abuse, and financial stress.

Mr. Combs' lawyers strongly denied the allegations, saying the hip-hop mogul was “a flawed person but he is not a criminal.” They argued that sexual encounters, known as freak-offs, only involved consenting adults.

The defense tried to convince the district court judge that Mr. Coombs should be released before his trial. His lawyers proposed a $50 million bond, secured at his home in Miami Beach, and a team of personal security officers who would monitor him at all times, limiting visitors to an approved list.

But Judge Carter sided with prosecutors, who argued that Mr. Combs' history of violence and evidence of obstruction in the case made his release too risky. As a key example, the prosecution cited Mr. Combs' communications with witnesses who served grand jury subpoenas.

“Simply put, he is a serial abuser and a serial obstructionist,” a prosecutor, Emily A. Johnson, said at a bail hearing last month.

In their appeal, Mr. Combs' lawyers wrote that there was no evidence of threats or intimidation of grand jury witnesses, saying that in one case, a woman approached Mr. Combs saying she was a witness. Lawyers said he complied when they asked him to stop contacting her.

“Witness communications cited by the government were either minimally relevant or entirely innocuous,” the lawyers wrote.

Inside the Metropolitan Detention Centre, Mr Combs is living in a special housing unit where high-profile inmates are often housed. A roommate in his unit is Sam Bankman-Fried, the crypto mogul who is appealing his fraud conviction. (Mr. Combs' appellate lawyers are also overseeing Mr. Bankman-Fried's appeal.)

Under the release offer submitted by his lawyers, Mr. Combs agreed to live in highly restricted conditions, with no phone, Internet access and video monitoring if necessary. Judge Carter was not persuaded that the motion would prevent the interception, saying in the hearing that Mr. Combs could still work through staff, “even through coded messages if necessary.”

In their appeal, his lawyers countered that there was no evidence that Mr Combs had used coded messages. They wrote in a footnote, “Mr. Combs does not risk using such code under monitoring.” “How would a viewer know how to interpret the supposed 'code'?”