Legal News
Rapper Tay-K has been found guilty of murdering a photographer in 2017, but was acquitted of capital murder. On Monday (April 14), a jury found the rapper, real name Taymor Mclntyre, guilty of robbing and killing photographer Mark Anthony Saldivar, according to News 4 San Antonio. Prosecutors had argued Mclntyre fatally shot Saldivar after stealing […]
Quavo is facing a copyright lawsuit centered on a recent music video — not over an uncleared sample or a stolen melody, but a quartz sculpture of a 1961 Ferrari that he used as a prop.
In a complaint filed late last month, attorneys for sculptor Daniel Arsham claim the rapper (Quavious Marshall) “unlawfully exploited” the Ferrari sculpture by rapping in front of it in a video he posted to TikTok and other social platforms in December.
“Without his consent, and without his knowledge, defendants created a video which prominently featured the artwork to promote the music of Quavo,” Arsham’s lawyers write in the March 31 lawsuit. “Mr. Arsham never consented to the artwork being used in the infringing content.”
Trending on Billboard
Arsham created the sculpture — fully entitled “Quartz Eroded 1961 Ferrari GT” — in 2018 as part of a series portraying famous cars that have been “eroded” like an ancient archeological find. He says it’s been publicly displayed twice, most recently at Los Angeles’ Petersen Automotive Museum in 2023.
In December, Quavo posted a video to Instagram and other platforms under the caption “Back To The Basics 2025!!”, featuring him rapping in front of what appears to be Arsham’s work. The video, which remains on TikTok, focuses heavily on the sculpture, including close-ups on its eroded features.
Just like music, books and paintings, sculptures are protected by federal copyright law, and reproducing one without permission can theoretically amount to infringement. Back in 2018, the artist behind Chicago’s “Bean” sculpture sued the National Rifle Association for using the famed statue in a promotional video.
Copyrighted works captured in the background of video footage raise tricky legal questions. A federal judge ruled in 2018 that a Detroit graffiti artist could move ahead with suing General Motors after his mural appeared in a Cadillac commercial. But last year, another federal judge dismissed a case filed by a photographer whose image briefly appeared in the background of a documentary about Billie Eilish.
In his lawsuit, Arsham says the use of his sculpture was hardly coincidental or brief: “The infringing video features Quavo performing in front of the Artwork. The Infringing Video is 45 seconds long and features the Artwork prominently throughout.”
According to the artist’s attorneys, when Quavo posted still images of the video to Instagram, he actually tagged Arsham’s Instagram handle in the caption. They say that not only confirms that he knew he was using a copyrighted work, but also violated Arsham’s likeness rights.
“Mr. Arsham never consented to his name being used in connection with the Infringing Post or any promotion of Quavo,” his attorneys wrote. “Defendants are using Mr. Arsham’s name for commercial advantage.”
A rep for Quavo did not immediately return a request for comment on Friday (April 11). The lawsuit also names Quavo’s label, Quality Control Music, and its parent company, HYBE America, as co-defendants.
Nelly’s former St. Lunatics bandmate Ali wants to drop a lawsuit that had accused the rapper of failing to pay him for his alleged work on Nelly’s 2000 debut album Country Grammar. But Nelly’s lawyers say Ali and his lawyers must pay for bringing a “ridiculous” case.
The action, filed last year, alleged that Nelly (Cornell Haynes) had cut four of his former St. Lunatics crew out of the credits and royalty payments for the hit album. It claimed the star had repeatedly “manipulated” them into falsely thinking they’d be paid for their work.
But three of the St. Lunatics quickly dropped out, saying they had never actually wanted to sue Nelly and had never given legal authorization to the lawyers who filed the case. And in recent months, Nelly’s lawyers had sought punishing sanctions against those attorneys.
Trending on Billboard
In a motion filed Thursday (April 10), Ali and his lawyers moved to voluntarily dismiss the case. They offered no rationale for why they were doing so, and there was no indication that a settlement of any kind had been reached. They did not immediately return a request for comment.
Nelly’s attorneys aren’t going to let him off the hook that easily. In a quick response, they urged the judge to refuse to dismiss the case until he decides whether Ali and his attorneys should face punishment for filing a “vexatious” lawsuit that “should never have been brought.”
“Plaintiff’s counsel succeeded in its frivolous campaign aimed at forcing Haynes to spend money defending Plaintiff’s ridiculous time-barred claims,” the star’s lawyers write. “The Court is respectfully requested to retain jurisdiction and set a briefing and hearing schedule for [potential sanctions].”
Nelly rose to fame in the 1990s as a member of St. Lunatics, a hip-hop group also composed of St. Louis high school friends Ali (Ali Jones), Murphy Lee (Tohri Harper), Kyjuan (Robert Kyjuan) and City Spud (Lavell Webb). With the June 2000 release of Country Grammar — which spent five weeks atop the Billboard 200 — Nelly broke away from the group and started a solo career that later reached superstar heights with his 2002 chart-topping singles “Hot in Herre” and “Dilemma.”
In September, all four St. Lunatics accused Nelly of cheating them out of compensation for contributions they’d made to Country Grammar. They claimed they had waited so long to sue because they believed their “friend and former band member would never steal credit” from them.
But a month later, the lawsuit took a strange turn: Nelly’s lawyers filed a letter warning that Lee, Kyjuan and Spud had never actually wanted to sue Nelly and that they had not given legal authorization to the lawyers who filed the lawsuit to include them as plaintiffs.
“They are hereby demanding you remove their names forthwith,” Nelly’s lawyers wrote in a letter to Walton. “Failure to do so will cause them to explore any and all legal remedies available to them.”
In November, Ali’s attorneys filed an updated version of the lawsuit listing only Ali as a client and vowed to fight on. But Nelly’s attorneys have since argued that the case is “frivolous,” claiming it was clearly filed years after the statute of limitations had expired. In January, they said it was so obviously flawed that the lawyers who filed it should be punished for going to court.
“Plaintiff and his counsel should be sanctioned in the full amount … that Haynes has been forced to incur in defending this action,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote at the time. “That is because plaintiff’s claims should never have been brought in the first place.”
Last month, the judge overseeing the case said he would not rule on that motion until he decided whether to dismiss the case. Such a motion to dismiss from Nelly’s attorneys was pending when the case was voluntarily dropped.
A Los Angeles jury held Soulja Boy liable Thursday (April 10) in a civil lawsuit filed by a former personal assistant who says he raped her, awarding the unnamed woman $4 million in damages.
As first reported by Courthouse News, jurors held the “Crank That” rapper (DeAndre Cortez Way) liable for assault, sexual battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The jury cleared him of claims of false imprisonment or hostile work environment.
Following the month-long trial, the jury awarded the Jane Doe accuser $4 million in so-called compensatory damages. And they could award more in so-called punitive damages in future proceedings.
Trending on Billboard
The accuser, who says she was hired as Soulja Boy’s assistant in 2018, sued the star in 2021, claiming he had repeatedly beaten and raped her over a two-year, sometimes consensual relationship. In one alleged assault, her lawyers claimed that “Way attacked plaintiff so hard that she thought she was going to die.” The rapper has “vehemently and unequivocally” denied the woman’s allegations.
During closing arguments Monday (April 7), as reported by Rolling Stone, attorneys for the Jane Doe portrayed Soulja Boy as a vicious boss and told jurors that “he raped her, he punched her, he kicked her, he cut her.” The rapper’s lawyers, meanwhile, painted the accuser as a bitter former love “motivated by jealousy, revenge and financial gain”: “She wanted to be paid. That’s what this case is all about. It’s not about the truth, it’s just not,” they said.
“We’re happy our client was vindicated and the jury believed her claims,” said Ron Zambrano, the accuser’s lead attorney. “We’re looking forward to moving on to the punitive damages phase of the case.”
An attorney for Soulja Boy did not immediately return a request for comment.
This isn’t the first time Soulja Boy has faced such accusations. Back in 2023, he was ordered to pay ex-girlfriend Kayla Myers $471,900 stemming from an assault and kidnapping lawsuit she filed against the rapper in 2020.
Record executive Kevin Liles is asking a federal judge to throw out a lawsuit accusing him of sexual assault in the early 2000s, arguing there’s zero evidence for the “salacious” allegations because they are “entirely false.”
In a letter to the judge filed Tuesday, attorneys for the 300 Entertainment founder say they’re planning to file a motion to dismiss the case, which alleges that Liles harassed and sexually assaulted an unnamed female employee while serving as the president of Def Jam Records in 2002.
“During his storied career, Mr. Liles has never faced a single accusation of sexual impropriety,” his attorneys write. “That is, until plaintiff filed this patently false and untimely lawsuit some twenty-three years after the alleged conduct purportedly occurred.”
Trending on Billboard
Liles’ lawyers say the Jane Doe’s lawsuit contains only generic accusations and almost no specific details to support her allegations – an omission that they say is “not surprising as the claims are entirely false.”
“Beyond these threadbare assertions, spanning only three paragraphs, plaintiff offers zero factual bases for her salacious allegations,” his attorneys say “This court need not credit Plaintiff’s threadbare recitals and ‘defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me’ accusations.”
Liles served as president of Universal Music Group’s Def Jam Recordings and executive vice president of the Island Def Jam Music Group from 1999 to 2004. After a stint at Warner Music Group, he co-founded 300 Entertainment in 2012 with Lyor Cohen, Roger Gold and Todd Moscowitz. The label, which quickly gained recognition for developing hip-hop superstars like Megan Thee Stallion, Migos and Young Thug, was acquired by Warner in 2021 for $400 million. In September, Liles announced he would step down from his role as chairman and CEO.
The case against Liles was filed in February by a woman who says she was hired as an executive assistant at UMG in 1999. She claims that Liles began sexually harassing her shortly after she was hired, which then “escalated” into groping. In an alleged 2002 incident, Doe says he assaulted her after she rebuffed his advances.
“Kevin Liles proceeded to physically force himself on top of [Jane Doe] where he began to sexually assault and ultimately rape her despite her continued protests,” her attorneys wrote in their complaint.
But in Tuesday’s response, Lile’s attorneys say those allegations are woefully insufficient, arguing they lack the kind of basic facts required to bring legal allegations in court. They say Doe “does little more than simply assert in conclusory form that Mr. Liles assaulted her.”
“Plaintiff offers no detail whatsoever regarding the nature of the purported assault she suffered,” they write. “She fails … to explain when these purported acts occurred, where in UMG’s offices they occurred, identify a single person she reported this information to, or who was present.”
As for the rape allegation, Liles’ attorneys say the case is similarly lacking: “Like the other specific details she fails to provide, plaintiff does not offer a specific time, how she came to be in contact with Mr. Liles who she neither reported to nor worked for, or anything other than the conclusory assertion that she suffered an assault.”
Beyond the alleged deficiencies in the case, attorneys for Liles say the case should also be dismissed for a simpler reason: That it was filed well beyond the statute of limitations. Doe’s attorneys sued under a New York state law that created a one-year window to file such cases, but did so after the deadline to bring them: “Plaintiff failed to assert any claim against Mr. Liles whatsoever during that one-year window, and it has now closed.”
UMG, which was named as a co-defendant in the case, also filed a letter Tuesday saying it would seek to dismiss the case. The music giant’s attorneys have similar protests about time limits, but also argue more broadly that they cannot be sued over alleged actions by one of its executives.
“UMGR cannot be held liable for the alleged actions of Mr. Liles,” the company’s attorneys write, referring to UMG Recordings. “Assuming he had engaged in the conduct alleged, UMGR is a music company and the alleged conduct was indisputably not in furtherance of any business of UMGR.”
Four years after DMX’s tragic 2021 death, a New York judge has ruled that his ex-wife can’t claim a 50 percent stake in the rapper’s music catalog and other intellectual property (IP) rights.
Tashera Simmons, who was married to the legendary rapper (Earl Simmons) for 16 years, sued his estate last year, claiming she was the rightful owner of half of his copyrights, trademarks and likeness rights. But in a ruling Monday (April 7), a New York judge said otherwise.
“The estate is the sole owner of all intellectual property rights [that] Earl Simmons acquired during his marriage to plaintiff, as well as any and all other trademarks and intellectual property rights that belonged to Earl Simmons at the time of his death,” Judge David F. Everett wrote.
Trending on Billboard
The dispute centers on the couple’s 2016 divorce agreement, which mentioned “intellectual property” but didn’t expressly state that Tashera was a co-owner of the copyrights and trademarks. Before his death, DMX insisted the deal only granted her royalty payments — an argument his estate has maintained in the years since his death.
In Monday’s decision, Judge Everett not only ruled that the divorce settlement “does not confer ownership,” but that Tashera had essentially waived the right to make that claim. The judge cited the fact that she had raised the issue in previous litigation and had then signed a settlement that made no mention of sharing ownership.
“Under the circumstances of this case, the court will not, in effect, reopen those proceedings to reinterpret the parties’ 2016 settlement agreement, particularly where the party best positioned to contest a contrary interpretation is now deceased,” the judge wrote.
DMX, one of the most influential stars in hip-hop history, was married to Tashera through his turn-of-the-century heyday, as he released Billboard Hot 100 hits like “Ruff Ryders’ Anthem,” “Party Up (Up In Here)” and “What These Bitches Want.” The pair, who share four children, filed for divorce in 2013 and finalized the split in 2016. After years of health issues, DMX died in April 2021 following a drug overdose and subsequent heart attack.
Tashera sued last year, claiming that the estate’s administrators (DMX’s ex-fiancée Desiree Lindstrom and his daughter by another woman, Sasha Simmons) were improperly disputing her ownership stake. She cited a handwritten excerpt from the divorce settlement, which said she would get half of IP rights, followed by: “which shall include, but not be limited to, royalties.”
But in Monday’s decision, Judge Everett said that language “does not unequivocally assign ownership of decedent’s copyrighted works or trademark and, indeed, makes no mention of ownership or title to such property.”
“Instead, plaintiff proffers an interpretation of the phrase ‘intellectual property rights’ to include ownership, but had that phrase meant ownership, then there would be no need to define those rights further in the subsequent clause, all tellingly limited to various categories of royalty payments.”
The judge did side with Tashera on one smaller issue by refusing to dismiss her accusations that DMX had breached the divorce agreement by failing to pay $214,000 in child support. That issue is factually disputed by both sides, the judge said, meaning dismissing it would be “premature.”
Neither side immediately returned a request for comment on Wednesday (April 9).
The NO FAKES Act was reintroduced to the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate on Wednesday (April 9) with the help of country legend Randy Travis, his wife Mary Travis and Warner Music Group CEO Robert Kyncl.
The reintroduction of the bill, designed to protect artists against unauthorized AI deepfake impersonations, was part of the Recording Academy’s annual GRAMMYs on the Hill initiative, in which the organization visits D.C. to meet with elected officials and advocate for a variety of music-related causes. On Wednesday, the GRAMMYs on the Hill Awards celebrated Travis, along with U.S. Representatives Linda Sánchez (D-CA) and Ron Estes (R-KS), for their dedication and advocacy for the rights of music creators.
Introduced by Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) and Representatives María Elvira Salazar (R-FL-27), Madeleine Dean (D-PA-4) Nathaniel Moran (R-TX-1), Becca Balint (D-VT-At Large), the NO FAKES Act has also found new supporters in an unlikely place: the tech industry. The bill is now supported by tech giants like YouTube, OpenAI, IBM and Adobe, showing a rare moment of solidarity between artists and big tech in the AI age.
Trending on Billboard
The NO FAKES Act was first introduced as a draft bill in 2023, and formally introduced to the Senate in the summer of 2024. If passed, the legislation would create federal intellectual property protections for the so-called right of publicity for the first time, which adds restrictions to how someone’s name, image, likeness and voice can be used without consent. Currently, these rights are only protected at the state level, leading to a patchwork of varying laws around the nation.
Unlike some of the patchy state publicity rights laws, the federal right that the NO FAKES Act would create would not expire at death and could be controlled by a person’s heirs for 70 years after their passing. There are, however, specific carve outs for replicas used in news, parody, historical works and criticism to ensure the First Amendment right to free speech remains protected.
Over the last few years, as AI voice models have continued to develop, many artists have often found themselves on the receiving end of AI deepfakes. In 2023, the AI music craze kicked off with the so-called “fake Drake” song “Heart On My Sleeve” which featured the unauthorized AI voices of Drake and the Weeknd. Last year, Taylor Swift, for example, was the subject of a number of sexually-explicit AI deepfakes of her body; the late Tupac Shakur‘s voice was deepfaked by fellow rapper Drake in his Kendrick Lamar diss track “Taylor Made Freestyle,” which was posted, and then deleted, on social media.
Even President Donald Trump participated in the deepfake trend, posting an unauthorized AI image of Swift allegedly endorsing him during his campaign to return to the White House.
“Recently, I was made aware that [an] AI [image] of ‘me’ falsely endorsing Donald Trump’s presidential run was posted to his site. It really conjured up my fears around AI, and the dangers of spreading misinformation,” Swift wrote in an Instagram post soon after. “It brought me to the conclusion that I need to be very transparent about my actual plans for this election as a voter. The simplest way to combat misinformation is with the truth.”
Overall, the bill has seen widespread support among the entertainment industry establishment. According to a press release about the bill’s reintroduction, it is celebrated by Sony Music, Warner Music Group, Universal Music Group, the Recording Industry Association of America, the Recording Academy, SAG-AFTRA, Human Artistry Campaign, Motion Picture Association and more.
Mitch Glazier, chairman and CEO of the RIAA, praised the bipartisan effort, saying “this bill proves that we can prioritize the growth of AI and protecting American creativity at the same time.”
Harvey Mason jr., CEO of the Recording Academy, added: “The Academy is proud to represent and serve creators, and for decades, GRAMMYs on the Hill has brought music makers to our nation’s capital to elevate the policy issues affecting our industry. Today’s reintroduction of the NO FAKES Act underscores our members’ commitment to advocating for the music community, and as we enter a new era of technology, we must create guardrails around AI and ensure it enhances – not replaces – human creativity.”
The negative response to the song “+57” by Karol G, J Balvin, Maluma, Feid, Blessd, Ryan Castro and DFZM reached a new peak on Tuesday (April 9), when a high court in Colombia ruled that it violated the rights of children because its lyrics “sexualized” minors, reports the Associated Press.
The Council of State, the supreme court for administrative litigation in Colombia, ordered the reggaetón stars to refrain from publishing music that violates the rights of children and teenagers. “Sexualizing minors reduces them to becoming objects of desire, and exposes them to risks that can affect their development,” the court said in a 14-page ruling, according to AP.
The track received a barrage of criticism since its release on Nov. 7 of last year. Rolling Stone En Español published an article titled “The Disaster of +’57′,” which Colombian President Gustavo Petro shared on his X account expressing that “it’s OK to have a cultural debate.” And the ICBF issued a statement saying that the song “reinforces the sexualization of childhood in our country” and that it “does not contribute to our fight against the commercial sexual exploitation of children and adolescents.”
Trending on Billboard
On Nov. 11, Karol gave a lengthy response to the criticism and apologized, saying, “I still have a lot to learn.” A couple days later, the lyrics were changed on the music video, saying “a hot mama since she was 18” instead of “14.”
“+57,” whose title is the international phone code for Colombia, was produced by hitmaker Ovy on the Drums and written by all of the aforementioned artists along with Keityn and newcomer DFZM. The name of the song, and the union of these superstars, had caused anticipation among fans eager for a new reggaeton anthem for Colombia.
The song was recorded in Karol G’s hometown of Medellin, a city that has become famous for nurturing several famous reggaeton singers. A main tourist destination, the city has also struggled to protect minors from sexual predators who visit the city in search of young women, reports the AP.
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Young Thug’s Atlanta prosecutors get really mad over a social media post; Diddy’s sex trafficking case heats up as a trial date looms; Mariah Carey seeks payback after beating a “Christmas” copyright case; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: DA Gets Mad About Young Thug’s Tweets
Less than six months after Young Thug pleaded guilty to gang charges and was sentenced to probation, he found himself facing accusations from Atlanta prosecutors that he had violated his release terms. The issue? A mean tweet.
To rewind: After sitting in jail for more than two years on felony accusations over his “YSL” group, Thug rebuffed a plea deal and simply pleaded guilty in October, winning a sentence of only probation — a humiliating result for the Fulton County District Attorney’s office after the longest-running trial in state history had descended into chaos.
Trending on Billboard
While Thug avoided prison, he was hit with strict release terms from the judge, who warned him that “there better be no violations.” And on Wednesday (April 2), prosecutors accused him of just such a misstep — citing a social media post on X (formerly Twitter) in which the rapper had criticized an investigator as “the biggest liar in the DA’s office.” They called that post “a blatant disregard for the law” and part of a “a calculated campaign of intimidation.”
Unsurprisingly, Thug’s attorneys disagreed — calling those accusations “baseless” and arguing that the rapper was legally entitled to voice his opinion about the government even while under probation: “Mr. Williams can admit to all of the allegations alleged and still not have violated any term of his probationary sentence.”
When the dust settled Thursday (April 3), Judge Paige Reese Whitaker sided with Thug and declined to revoke his probation. But she also suggested that he be more careful on social media: “While the court does not find that the cited social media post rises to the level of a violation of defendant’s probation, it may be prudent for defendant to exercise restraint regarding certain topics.”
Other top stories this week…
DIDDY CASE HEATS UP – The sweeping sexual abuse case against Sean “Diddy” Combs heated up with the trial looming next month, first with a new superseding indictment that added new legal charges against the star, and then with news that his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura would testify against him at the trial using her real name. Prosecutors argued that the other three alleged victims should remain anonymous, though, citing such treatment in previous cases against R. Kelly and Ghislaine Maxwell.
PRE-TRIAL CLASH – Meanwhile, federal prosecutors and Diddy’s defense attorneys sparred over a crucial pre-trial question: Whether jurors can hear testimony from numerous other accusers beyond the four women at the core of the government’s case. His lawyers say the feds are trying to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt” by adding last-minute “incendiary” claims to paint him as a “bad guy”; the government says Combs is “desperately” trying to keep relevant testimony about his other intent and knowledge “hidden from the jury.”
MARIAH’S REVENGE – After beating a copyright lawsuit over her holiday classic “All I Want for Christmas is You,” Mariah Carey and other defendants demanded that Vince Vance, the little-known songwriter who filed the case, repay more than $180,000 they spent on lawyers defending certain “frivolous” motions. That might sound like a lot for just a few motions, but Carey says she was “perfectly justified” in paying elite lawyers because Vance was seeking drastic remedies like $20 million in damages and the “destruction of all copies” of the song.
DRAKE DISCOVERY – A federal judge ruled that Drake could move forward with discovery in his defamation lawsuit against Universal Music Group (UMG) over Kendrick Lamar’s diss track “Not Like Us,” allowing his attorneys to begin demanding documents like Lamar’s record deal. The ruling went against UMG, which had argued that Drake’s case was so flawed that it would likely be quickly dismissed, making discovery a waste of everyone’s time. But discovery in a civil lawsuit is a two-way street — infamously so in defamation cases — and UMG can now also seek vast swathes of sensitive materials about Drake, including demanding to depose the rapper himself.
HAYES v. TRUMP SURVIVES – A federal judge ruled that President Donald Trump must face a copyright lawsuit filed by the estate of Isaac Hayes over the president’s alleged use of the 1966 song “Hold On, I’m Coming” on the campaign trail. The president’s attorneys had argued that Hayes’ estate had failed to show that it even owned a copyright to the song, but a judge said the estate had done just enough to avoid having the case tossed at the outset.
“NOTHING MISLEADING” – SiriusXM asked a federal judge to dismiss a class action claiming the company earns billions by foisting a deceptive “U.S. Music Royalty Fee” onto subscribers, arguing there had been “nothing misleading” about its pricing and marketing. The lawsuit claims the fee makes the service far more expensive than advertised, but SiriusXM argued that users “received what they paid for” and knew about the fee: “Sirius XM has done exactly what it said it would do: charge a monthly price for music subscriptions, plus ‘fees and taxes’.”
Sean “Diddy” Combs and federal prosecutors are locked in a pre-trial battle over a crucial question: Whether jurors can hear testimony from numerous other accusers beyond the four women at the core of the government’s case.
In dueling court filings Monday, attorneys for the two sides exchanged heated arguments over the prosecution’s plan to call witnesses that it identifies as “non-statutory victims” – women who say they were sexually assaulted by Combs but whose claims don’t form the basis for the actual charges.
Diddy’s lawyers say the feds are trying to “pollute the trial with decades of dirt” by adding last-minute “incendiary” claims to paint him as a “bad guy”; prosecutors say Combs is “desperately” trying to keep relevant testimony about his other intent and knowledge “hidden from the jury.”
Trending on Billboard
“That testimony powerfully establishes that the defendant made no mistake when he coerced other victims into unwanted sex,” the government wrote in its filing Monday. “It proves that the defendant intended to take the sexual gratification he wanted, regardless of consent.”
Combs was indicted in September, charged with running a sprawling criminal operation that aimed to “fulfill his sexual desires.” The case centers on elaborate “freak off” parties in which Combs and others would allegedly ply victims with drugs and then coerce them into having sex, as well as on alleged acts of violence to keep victims silent.
A trial is currently set to start on May 5. If convicted on all of the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, Combs faces a potential life prison sentence.
The actual criminal counts against Diddy center on four alleged victims, identified in court documents as Victim-1, Victim-2, Victim-3, and Victim-4. While Victim-1 is known to be Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, the identities of the others are unknown and prosecutors are seeking to keep it that way.
On Monday, attorneys for Combs lodged a scathing filing claiming the government had “suddenly” moved to add new accusations from other alleged victims beyond those four women. They claimed the “incendiary” new claims of sexual assault were “substantially more serious” than the actual sex trafficking and racketeering allegations – and would “make it impossible for Mr. Combs to receive a fair trial.”
“The government should not be permitted to pollute the trial with decades of dirt and invite a conviction based on propensity evidence with no proper purpose by painting Mr. Combs as a bad guy who must have committed the charged crimes,” his lawyers wrote.
Diddy’s lawyers say such testimony would not only “double the length of a trial,” but is improper “character evidence” – material not directly linked to the alleged wrongdoing that’s designed to convince jurors that a defendant could have committed the crime.
“This tactic cannot be allowed to succeed,” Combs’ lawyers wrote in their filing. “If the government’s evidence were allowed, it would mark one of the worst abuses of the character evidence rule in the history of American law.”
Later on Monday, prosecutors fired back to defend their plan, arguing that Combs himself had opened the door to such testimony by planning to argue that the alleged victims had consensually partaken in the “freak offs” and other sexual activity. They say testimony about other numerous other assaults will clearly disprove such a defense strategy.
“When the defendant inevitably argues at trial that he had no clue these four women did not want the sexual experiences that he demanded, the government should be able to point out that someone as practiced as he is in sexual assault surely recognized the signs of non-consent,” prosecutors wrote. “And when the defendant claims that he only ever intended to have consensual, loving sexual experiences with the [charged] victims, the government should be able to point out his repeated intent to sexually gratify himself with unwilling participants.”
Neither side disclosed in court filings who the new alleged victims are, or how many of them the government plans to call as witnesses. But Combs’ lawyers said that “all but one of the alleged incidents happened over twenty years ago” and that the new accusations “implicate dozens of unidentified witnesses and alleged co-conspirators around the world.”