nsfs

The infamous 2016 surveillance video showing Sean “Diddy” Combs assaulting his former girlfriend wasn’t illegally leaked to the media by prosecutors, government attorneys argue in a new filing that accuses the rapper’s lawyers of trying to “suppress a damning piece of evidence.”

In a motion filed late Wednesday, federal prosecutors responded to leaking accusations made by Combs’ lawyers earlier this month. They say it was impossible that they had leaked the video of Combs striking Cassie Venture to CNN because they didn’t even have it at the time it was published in May.

The government says Diddy’s attorneys know that, but that they’re using the leak accusations as a way to prevent jurors from seeing Combs “brutally physically assaulting a victim” — a crucial piece of evidence.

“Without any factual basis, the leak motion seeks to suppress highly probative evidence … by claiming that it was grand jury material leaked by government agents,” prosecutors write. “But, as the defendant is fully aware, the video was not in the Government’s possession at the time of CNN’s publication and the Government has never, at any point, obtained the video through grand jury process.”

Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But last month, he was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what the government says was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” If convicted on all the charges, he faces potential life prison sentence.

Wednesday’s new filing came three weeks after Combs’ attorneys demanded an investigation into the alleged leaks, claiming they had “led to damaging, highly prejudicial pre-trial publicity that can only taint the jury pool and deprive Mr. Combs of his right to a fair trial.”

Diddy’s attorneys pointed specifically to the Cassie video, which showed Combs striking his then-girlfriend in the hallway of a Los Angeles hotel in 2016 and made headlines when CNN released it in May.

“The videotape was leaked to CNN for one reason alone: to mortally wound the reputation and the prospect of Sean Combs successfully defending himself against these allegations,” Agnifilo wrote. “Rather than using the videotape as trial evidence, alongside other evidence that gives it context and meaning, the agents misused it in the most prejudicial and damaging way possible.”

Wednesday’s filing from prosecutors also addressed Diddy’s recent demand that the government reveal the names of his alleged sexual abuse victims. In a motion earlier this month, his lawyers arguing he cannot fairly defend himself without knowing their identities.

In the response, the government argued that such disclosures “poses serious risks” to the safety of the victims, citing Diddy’s “significant history of violence and obstruction” that resulted in him being denied release on bail last month.

“Due to the defendant’s history, the Government has serious concerns about victim safety and the possibly of witness tampering if a list of victim names were provided to the defendant,” prosecutors wrote.

A woman who has accused Sean “Diddy” Combs of rape cannot proceed with her lawsuit under a “Jane Doe” pseudonym, a Manhattan federal judge says – a ruling that could potentially impact the many other cases filed against him by anonymous accusers.

In a decision Wednesday, Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil ruled that the privacy rights of Combs’ alleged victim did not trump the right of all defendants “to defend themselves” in open court against such “heinous” allegations.

“Plaintiff’s interest in avoiding public scrutiny, or even embarrassment, does not outweigh the interests of both Combs and the public in the customary and constitutionally-embedded presumption of openness in judicial proceedings,” the judge wrote.

“Plaintiff has chosen to bring this lawsuit, leveling serious charges against Combs and, as such, she has put her credibility in issue,” the judge added. “Combs is, therefore, entitled to investigate her background and challenge her allegations and her credibility.”

The ruling came in one of at least 15 lawsuits brought against Combs in recent weeks by Texas attorney Tony Buzbee, all of which have been filed under “Doe” pseudonyms. Though Vyskocil’s ruling is not binding on other judges, it could influence how they handle the issue in Buzbee’s other cases, as well as numerous other lawsuits that have been filed anonymously against Combs.

Buzbee did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday morning.

Combs has faced a flood of abuse accusations over the past year, starting with civil lawsuits and followed by a bombshell federal indictment last month in which prosecutors allege he ran a sprawling criminal operation for years aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” If convicted on the charges, which include sex trafficking and racketeering, he faces a potential sentence of life in prison.

In the current case – filed last week by one of the 120 alleged victims that Buzbee claims to represent – the accuser alleges that Comb raped her and threatened her life in 2004 when she was 19 years old.

The case was filed under the Jane Doe pseudonym without prior approval from the judge — a common tactic in such lawsuits but one that Vyskocil ruled Wednesday was technically a violation of federal litigation rules.

In her decision, the judge said anonymous lawsuits are supposed to be the exception rather than the rule – both because American court cases are supposed to be open to the public, and because accused defendants have a right to know who is accusing them of wrongdoing.

Buzbee had argued that abuse accusers can face backlash after filing such cases, and that other accusers might be scared away from speaking out if forced to reveal their identities. Though Vyskocil acknowledged the “toll” that such public scrutiny can take, she repeatedly pointed to the “fundamental unfairness” of allowing only one side to remain anonymous.

“Plaintiff, who is an adult, has now decided to file a lawsuit in which she accuses a famous person of engaging in heinous conduct approximately twenty years ago and, further, accuses a number of businesses of complicity in that alleged conduct,” the judge wrote. “Defendants have a right to defend themselves, including by investigating Plaintiff, and the people have a right to know who is using their courts.”