Sean “Diddy” Combs is asking a federal judge in New York to force the government to reveal the identities of individuals allegedly involved in his racketeering case.
Combs’ legal team claims the vague accusations make it impossible for him to mount an adequate defense.
The charges against Combs point to his involvement in a sprawling racketeering conspiracy stretching back 16 years.
The indictment accuses him of crimes such as kidnapping, forced labor, and sex trafficking. However, his attorneys assert that the charges lack vital details, including the names of the supposed victims.
“Mr. Combs is charged with various offenses arising out of allegations that he coerced some individuals into sexual conduct, but he does not know their identities,” the defense memorandum reads.
The filing goes on to argue that the allegations originate from “dozens of financially-motivated individuals” with allegedly false claims of sexual assault.
Some of these people, according to the defense, Combs has never even personally met.
Central to Combs’ argument is the complaint that the indictment spans from 2008 to 2024 but doesn’t clarify which specific individuals were allegedly coerced during that time.
His legal team believes this lack of precision complicates their ability to sift through the significant amount of evidence the court provided in discovery.
“The productions are so voluminous that, in the absence of further information, it is unclear which portions are even relevant to the charges,” Diddy’s lawyers argued. “Discovery review under the circumstances is an endless and impossible task.”
One of Diddy’s primary attorneys, Alexandra A.E. Shapiro, highlighted a crucial hurdle in preparing a defense without more transparent information.
“Mr. Combs deserves fair notice of the fundamental nature of the charges so he may defend himself,” Shapiro stated, adding that “he cannot reasonably prepare a defense without knowing the identities of the alleged victims.”
While federal prosecutors maintain that they have complied with providing discovery and other necessary information, Diddy’s legal team views the situation much differently.
They assert that the current level of detail leaves them ill-equipped to counter the “wild and ever-expanding allegations appearing in the press” from government representatives and civil attorneys.
Diddy’s team dismissed concerns that revealing victims’ names could pose dangers, pointing out that several alleged victims and their attorneys have come forward publicly despite any supposed risk.