P. Diddy Grasps at Straws with Mental Health Defense

From a brand new potential mental health. defense to proposed questions to. potential jurors as they begin showing. up to court, we're going to get into the. latest filings and developments as the. sex crimes trial for Shaun Diddy Combmes. is about to begin. Welcome to Sidebar. presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse. Weber. Okay, so before we jump into the. case, I want to tell you about something. else real quick. We have this brand new. podcast that we just dropped on Plus. It's called Karen the Retrial. It's. about Karen Reed. shocker. It's the best.

place for a recap of everything going on. in the Karen Reed case. Everything going. on in her retrial that's literally. happening right now, by the way, and. what's to come as the new trial heats. up. So, you can find Karen the retrial. exclusively on the Wondery app or an. Apple podcast. Click the link in our. description below to listen now. Hope. you can check it out. Okay, back to the. case. Well, we are now officially. beginning the Shawn Combmes trial. Yep. It has been reported that prospective. jurors have begun arriving at the. federal courthouse in downtown New York. to begin the initial stage of jury.

selection in Diddy's long awaited. criminal case where he faces five. counts. Racketeering, sex trafficking, transportation to engage in. prostitution. And we're going to get to. the questions a little bit later on. about what these jurors may be asked, but and what the process may be. But. there has been a flurry of new activity. on the court docket leading up to this. trial. So many issues that need to be. sorted out. So, I want to go through. them. And the first one, this is. something. So, first, we have a. interesting defense that was possibly. laid out by Shawn Combmes attorneys. And.

it appears it appears the defense wants. to argue to the jury that Combmes had a. diminished mental capacity, meaning. we're talking about a mental health. defense, that he couldn't properly form. the necessary criminal intent, we call. it men's rehea, to commit the offenses. that he's charged with. More. specifically, it seems Combmes wants to. call Dr. Ellie G. Aoon, MD, an assistant. professor of clinical psychiatry at.

Columbia University and forensic. psychiatrist in New York City. Hopefully, I'm pronouncing the doctor's. last name correctly. Apologize if I'm. not. But the government claims that Dr. Aoon didn't examine Combmes, but looked. at all these records and what he plans. to opine about is not 100% clear because. so much is redacted and blacked out in. the filings. However, there are. references to whether a defendant is. lucid or whether a defendant can control. his behavior and vitional acts and quote. evidence of the effects of drugs and.

alcohol on a defendant's memory or. cognitive function. So, is the idea that. Commes was so heavily intoxicated that. he didn't know what was going on that he. didn't have the proper criminal intent. to commit these crimes? So, before we. get into all that, I want to explain why. the government says Dr. Haroon's. testimony should be excluded from trial. And essentially, it seems that whatever. defense the defense is coming up with, they say it shouldn't be allowed to come. in. So, first argument is that under. federal law, usually a mental disease or.

defect is usually not a legal defense. unless we're talking insanity. However, there's a rare and narrow exception. where a defendant can introduce mental. health evidence to argue that there was. no criminal intent. And because it is so. rare and so narrow, the prosecution. argues that a defendant has to establish. a direct link between the evidence and. the specific intent required under the. charged offenses. And under the federal. rules, the defendant has to provide the. proper notice to the government before.

they can introduce evidence about this. So the government argues that other. rules apply to as well. There's rule 702. regarding expert witnesses and qualified. opinions they can give. There's rule. 703. It puts limits on when and how. experts can testify to facts and data. that are usually inadmissible. Rule 704. prevents the expert from telling the. jury whether or not a defendant had the. required mental state for purposes of a. specific crime. That's up to the jury to. decide. So here the prosecution says the.

defense failed everything. Here the. prosecution says the notice was. untimely, meaning it's coming in too. late in the leadup to trial. This is an. improper justification defense. It's. irrelevant. It's unreliable, especially. because the government claims there's no. direct link between the mental health. evidence and negating an essential. element of the actual crimes that. Combmes is charged with. They claim that. what Commes is arguing is way too. general and it's confusing and it's not. going to be helpful to the jury. And. just going back to one specific line in.

the government's filing for why this. testimony is inadmissible and why this. doctor should not testify. It quotes a. prior case, but it reads, "Thus, the. usefulness of the expert testimony in. determining whether the defendant was. lucid during the course of his. participation in a complex multi-year. scheme is substantially reduced. And. moreover, they claim that this doctor's. testimony would violate the rule that I. mentioned before about how an expert. can't say definitively whether or not. the defendant had the required mental.

state. The government complains that Dr. O's testimony is unreliable because he. didn't examine Shawn Combmes. He only. analyzed certain medical records and the. government says that's not enough. So, in conclusion, the prosecution argues. that Dr. testimony should be excluded or. they're asking the court to hold a. hearing about the admissibility of this. testimony. It's called the Dowbert. hearing. So, I'm not going to lie to. you. This took me hours last night to go. through all of these diddy filings and I. was snacking. I was eating dinner. And. I'll tell you what, I try to eat clean.

I try to eat healthy, but shopping for. healthy food is not so easy. It's tough. to know what's actually good for you. But that is why I'm so happy Thrive. Market is now sponsoring Sidebar. Thrive. Market is a go-to online grocery store. for getting healthy essentials. One of. the things that I love is their shopping. experience because as a Thrive Market. member, you can customize the assortment. of products in just a few clicks based. on your preferences and diet and you can. filter the products to get exactly what. you're looking for. Like instead of me. chopping on candy, I found these amazing. organic avocado oil chips. They're.

perfect for that midday craving. Also, this place super echocious with all. their products shipped from their zero. waste warehouses. Everything is. delivered straight to your door, so you. don't even have to leave the house. So, if you're ready to make healthy food. shopping as easy as a few clicks, check. out Thrive Market. Scan the QR code on. screen, click the link in the. description, or head over to. thrivearket.com/ssidebar to get 30% off. of your first order and a free gift when. you join Thrive Market today. So, lot to. get into. I want to bring on right now. Nema Ramani, former federal prosecutor,

trial and criminal defense attorney. Thank you so much for taking the time, Nema. It's great to see you. We have a. lot to get into. This is just part one. So, first let me ask you, am I outside. the realm of understanding what this. could possibly be? I mean, I've seen. reporting about it, but I feels like. what the defense may be suggesting is, hey, jury, because of drugs and alcohol. or something else, he didn't have the. required mental state to commit these. crimes. Am I understanding that.

correctly, Jesse? You nailed it. And that's exactly. what the defense is trying to do here. And we all know that voluntary. intoxication is not a defense to a. criminal offense. So drug use, alcohol. use, yeah, if you're drugged, sure. But. if you voluntarily take drugs, that's. not a defense. So what the defense is. trying to do here is force a square peg. through a round hole. because like you. said, it's also well established that an. expert or any witness for that matter.

can't testify to a defendant's criminal. state saying they intended to do this or. they did not. So, I think the judge is. going to exclude this particular. witness, setting aside the Dowbert. hearing, setting aside his or her. qualifications or even foundation. because this individual apparently. reviewed some other records, didn't. examine Combmes himself. So, for all. those reasons, I expect this witness to. be excluded. And like you said, Jesse,

there are plenty of federal rules and. cases that support that exclusion. I feel like you're right. I feel like. the pro the def the judge is going to. agree with the prosecution here. Although it does make me wonder the. defense arguing this and again so much. of this is redacted. But assuming we're. right feel like grasping its straws by. the defense to go with this defense. It really is swinging for the fences. here. And the problem with this type of. defense also is you're really admitting.

that Commes did all this, right? And he. just didn't know what he was doing. essentially. That's the defense. You're. focused on his intent at the time. And. like you said, maybe if there was one. episode where he wasn't lucid, maybe a. jury or a judge might consider it, but. we're talking about a conspiracy ranging. decades here. Is the argument that he. was under the influence of drugs for all. these free offs and when he entered into.

this conspiracy and when he was. procuring these women and men to. participate in these sex acts and you. know when he was completing the acts. let's not forget the freakoffs lasted. days I just don't see it in a case like. this by the way so much of this filing. and a lot of the filings is still. redacted in a few weeks are we going to. know anything? Well, if the evidence comes in, we will. absolutely know everything because of. course trials are public and unless.

there's some evidentiary issue like a. hearing that's going to be outside the. presence of the jurors, we're going to. see and hear everything that comes into. evidence in that federal court. But. obviously, if something's excluded in. some pre-trial filing, we're not going. to hear it. Just to be clear, see. everything. I mean, there's no cameras. in the courtroom, but there's going to. be reporting on it and maybe some. exhibits will be released. Possibly not, but there'll be a lot of reporting on. it. Okay, so I want to move on to. another argument from the prosecution. So, not only do they argue that this.

doctor's testimony should not be allowed. at trial, the jury shouldn't can hear. it, but they also filed a motion arguing. the testimony of another defense witness. should not be allowed. And this is. Connor McCort. We've talked about him. before. So, he is who the defense claims. is a forensic video expert who's going. to testify about the infamous footage of. Combmes purportedly beating Cassandra. Ventura in a hotel hallway back in 2016. Remember when CNN published this.

footage? Apparently, there's uh copies. of it. Apparently, there were cell phone. videos taken of it. Apparently, there's. raw footage of it. But essentially, the. defense wants to challenge the. authenticity of this footage. And it's. not surprising because it could. potentially have quite a powerful impact. on the jury. Remember the prosecution. claims this proves Ventura, who we. believe to be victim one in the case, was running away from Combmes and a sex. worker during an infamous freakoff. So, i.e. worst commercial sex work, sex.

trafficking. Right now, the defense. seems to want to call Mr. for court to. make the argument that the videos the. government will rely on are not. reliable. That some are artificially. sped up, they're distorted, including. cell phone videos that make Holmes look. more stocky and more imposing. There are. inaccurate timestamps. In other words, these videos, whatever videos are. actually published for the jury to see, they don't accurately portray what may. have happened. Now, the prosecution.

argues, like they did before, the. defense failed to provide timely notice. of Mr. McCort's testimony by a certain. deadline. This is required under rule. 16. They also argue that this testimony. should be excluded because whatever. probitative or relevant value it may. have is substantially outweighed by the. risk of unfairly prejudicing the jury. Because even though the government says. it plans to authenticate the videos, their argument is having this expert. come in and say these videos have all.

these technical issues, a jury may give. more weight to what he has to say. And. they claim he doesn't add anything and. that he'll confuse the jury. And the. prosecution even suggests that the. defense will have an opportunity to. cross-examine an unnamed witness about. certain videos. So maybe the person who. took them, maybe like the cell phone. videos. And if there's any questions. about quality of the videos, timestamps, you can the defense can cross-examine. this person about any edits that were. made or anything like that. And the. government also argues that at the very.

least his testimony should be limited. because he offers legal conclusions that. are supposed to be decided by a jury. And his conclusions, they argue, are. irrelevant, that they're outside the. scope of his expertise. For example, the. government writes, "For McCort to. testify about the prospect of. intentional tampering with the videos. based solely on the video files being. converted from one format to another is. extremely prejuditial." Or how about. this? The court said that the cell phone. videos were handheld with varying focus.

and zoom recording a fixed camera view, which has the effect of making the. action more dramatic. There's no need. from a court or any expert to opine. whether a video filmed on a cell phone. is more dramatic than surveillance. footage. This kind of subjective. observation, which is based on comparing. one type of visual recording with. another, is certainly something that the. jury is more than capable of making. without McCart's testimony and his. opinion on the matter should be. precluded. Now, remember, recently the. judge said that whatever videos the. defense wants to present about this 2016.

incident will be coming in. So, Nema, you think they're right? You think the. prosecution has an argument for why Mr. McCort should not testify? Yes and no. I think he's likely going to. be able to testify if he can lay a. foundation as to why video was altered. And we know the defense is saying that. it was sped up. Of course, CNN has come. out publicly and said that they aired. what they received. So they received a.

video from someone at the. Intercontinental Hotel in Los Angeles. So we may have multiple witnesses here. that are going to be laying the. foundation in that sort of chain of. custody. You know, I think the pro. argument the prosecution is making. really goes to the weight of the. evidence, not admissibility. I think. this is fair game if again this expert. can say that these videos were. doctorred, they were edited, they were. sped up, they were chopped up. Now, certain things I agree with the.

government on. There's no way a witness. should be able to testify as to the. intent of whoever was editing it. They. can come and say, "Well, this was. edited. This was slowed down. This was. uh whatever." But to say that, you know, the prosecution manipulated this to make. Holmes look bad, that's something for. closing argument. That's not something. that a witness should properly testify. to as to the intent of whomever altered. the video. So, I think a judge is going.

to properly exclude that line of inquiry. and testimony. So, his testimony would. be limited. Tell us what the technical. issues you see in the videos are. Leave. a jury to decide what to make of it and. why it was uh done that way. Okay, that. makes sense. Now, a lot to get through. So, I'm kind of speeding through it, but. another argument we need to talk about. This is an important one is it's called. defendant Shaun Combmes request to. charge. Now, this is about instructions. and language to be provided to the jury. So, for example, the defense asked the. court provide the standard instructions.

that you do when it comes to the role of. the court and the jury and the. presumption of innocence. Okay, tell the. jury that. But then it provides a. request for actual instructions for each. charge. So for example, this is what the. defense wants the judge to read to the. jury. Count one charges the defendant. with conspiracy to violate the Racketeer. Influenced and Corrupt Organizations. Act. In order to prove that the. defendant conspired to violate the. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt. Organizations Act, the government must.

establish beyond a reasonable doubt each. of the following elements of the. offense. First, there was an agreement. among two or more persons to conduct or. participate in the affairs of an. enterprise that would affect interstate. commerce through a pattern of. racketeering activity. Second, that the. defendant knowingly and willfully joined. that agreement. And third, that the. defendant agreed that he or another. member of the conspiracy would commit. two racketeering acts as I will define. that term for you. And this goes through. everything like the list of elements of. a racketeering charge and definitions of. every term like what is an enterprise,

what is interstate or foreign commerce, definitions of all of the underlying. crimes of racketeering like kidnapping, arson, forced labor. And I got to say, it's actually pretty interesting about. how nuanced and specific these. definitions are because honestly, if the. jury carefully considers the evidence. and the charges and the elements, the. case can all depend on this language. So, for instance, listen to this part. about sex trafficking because I think. that this is a little bit of a confusing. charge for people. First, that the.

defendant knowingly transported or. recruited or enticed or harbored or. provided or obtained or maintained or. patronized or solicited a person by any. means. Second, that the defendant knew. or was in reckless disregard of the fact. that force, fraud, or coercion would be. used with respect to this person. Third, that the defendant knew or was in. reckless disregard of the fact that this. person would be engaged in a commercial. sex act, as I will define that term for. you. And let's talk about that because. Combmes wants this to be what a. commercial sex act means. So, his.

definition would be that he wants the. jury to hear any sex act on account of. which anything of value is given to or. received by any person. Mr. Combmes. maintains that for a sex act to be. commercial, there must be a monetary or. financial component to the thing of. value that is given or received, and the. sexual exploitation must be for profit. Now, before I go into the prosecution's. language here, Nema, talk to us about. why this document is so important, how. important it is for this language to be. adopted by the jury.

So, we're talking about jury. instructions and charging instructions, and like you said, certain ones are. standard, right? the role of the judge. and jury, reasonable doubt, evidence, witnesses, but now we're talking about. the specific language for the charges. And whether it's RICO, whether it's sex. trafficking, whether it's the. prostitution charges, there are what we. call pattern jury instructions in every. circuit. And obviously, New York is in. the second circuit. Now, to the extent. that some of those instructions need to.

be modified, that's what a judge is. going to do. I don't think a judge is. going to include any instruction that. says Mr. Combmes or the defense argues. The court's going to decide. So, we're. going to need definitions of force, fraud, and coercion. Right? Those are. important because that's what separates. sex trafficking from consensual sex. between adults. Now, the commercial sex. acts that language is also important. I. don't necessarily think. anything needs to be specified with.

respect to profit. I think that is an. overreach by the defense and obviously. they want to make the definition as. narrow as possible. So the jurors have. something to potentially hang their hat. on. Say well maybe I don't know maybe. the government didn't approve prove that. money was made or maybe Combmes actually. lost money uh on these freakoffs. He. didn't really profit from it. So I think. that's going to be important. You know, there may be individuals that. participated in these sex acts for.

nonmonetary reasons. Maybe they wanted. fame or they wanted to spend some time. with a celebrity. I mean, we know that. sometimes rich and famous artists, they. do have an entourage of folks that may. willingly uh engage in these sex acts. That's of course going to be one of the. defenses here. So, I think the judge is. going to have to sort through all that. and look at case law to see really what. is required for something to be a. commercial sex act as opposed to. ordinary sex. Yeah, I think that this.

case could be won or lost based on the. language in the instructions because let. me just read to you real quick the. government's uh request to charge and. there are certain agreements that they. have with the defense like you know give. the standard instructions for role of. the court the jury all that but talking. commercial sex acts which I think we've. been talking about is a big part of this. case because while the prosecution. claims that these were sexual. arrangements that were a crime the. defense is just going to say they were. romantic relationships. So listen to how. the government defines commercial sex.

acts. They seem to greatly expand what. it can mean. Quote, "That term means any. sex act on account of which anything of. value is given to or received by any. person. The term sex act should be given. its plain meaning, which is ordinarily. understood to be an act performed with. another for sexual gratification. It is. not required that a commercial sex acts. occur as long as the government has. proven that the defendant recruited, enticed, harbored, transported, provided, obtained, maintained, patronized, or solicited the victim for. purposes of engaging in commercial sex.

acts. The thing of value given or. received in connection with the. commercial sex act need not involve a. monetary exchange and need not have any. financial component. Instead, it may be. any tangible or intangible thing of. value given to or received by any. person, including promises to help a. person with career advancement. The. defendant need not be the person who. receives the thing of value from the sex. act. Nemo, quite the difference.

Very different, of course. So, the. defense is saying that it needs to be a. financial transaction. and someone needs to profit from it. the. the government of course is saying that. well if someone wants to advance their. career and that's why they had sex with. Shawn Diddy Combmes that's enough to be. a commercial sex act. So really big. difference there. Who's right? Who's. right? I think the government is gonna. be right here. If there, you know, generally speaking, when you're talking. about something of value, it doesn't.

necessarily have to be currency. If. there is some sort of tangible benefit, the law is pretty broad when it comes to. these issues. Okay, two more documents I. want to talk about here. And I know. we're speeding through it, but there's. just a lot to get into. So, we have. Shawn Combmes proposed voad deer, meaning questions to ask prospective. jurors, which is interesting because, as. I mentioned before, prospective jurors, they are going to come to court. They're. going to fill out questionnaires, both. sides, prosecution, defense, they're. going to look through them, provide. lists of potential jurors to the judge,

and then we believe we're going to get. more thorough juror questioning on May. 5th. But here's what defense attorneys. are looking at in terms of questions. they want to be asked. Standard. questions like, "What is your age? What. is your sex? How do you get your news? Then there's this. Do you believe you. make most decisions based on intuition. or the examination of facts? Do you have. any personal experiences or opinions. about drug or alcohol use or addiction, which is, you know, a common theme in. this case? What kind of music do you.

like? Do you have experience or training. in the area of sex crimes? There's a. question about cheating. There's another. question about feelings towards. prosecutors, how much weight they would. give alleged victims testimony. We. looked at the prosecution's proposed. jury questions, too, and those consisted. of feelings regarding prostitution, sexual assault, rape, firearms. Nemo, what do these questions tell you about. what the defense and the prosecution is. looking for in terms of jurors? The. parties are trying to find favorable.

jurors. And of course, the defense wants. folks who may potentially hang this. panel, people that may decide that, you. know what, I don't believe the testimony. of these victims because let's not. forget this case is going to come down. entirely to those victims. We know there. are at least three and the person's. going to want to corroborate that. testimony with video, for instance. Video is the best evidence. It doesn't. lie. And the defense is going to say. that they're fabricating all this.

because of fame, money, revenge, something like that. So, what they're. trying to do is get people's feelings. about sexual assault. You know, there. are a lot of people that believe that it. is the most underreported crime. Other. people think that it can be falsely. reported. So by asking these questions, they're really kind of try to prod and. probe into these potential jurors to see. who might be favorable or disfavorable. to their case. Yeah. I mean, there's.

even a question, is there any reason why. you cannot be a fair and impartial juror. for this case? I wonder how many people. are going to check that box and be. honest about it because it's tough. This. is a tough jury to be a part of and it's. going to take some time. But I will tell. you there is one more issue I wanted to. talk to you about, Nema, because I said. there's a flurry of filings. So, the. defense wrote a letter to the court on. April 23rd complaining about the. government sending an enterprise letter. on April 20th. This was 2 weeks after.

their last superseding indictment. against Combmes. Remember, Combmes was. hit with a third amended superseding. indictment added to charges. Little bit. of difference in language. And all that. enterprise letter is supposed to do is. provide more details about the. racketeering charge. But here, the. defense is like, "You filed this so. late, well past the deadline. We're. about to go to trial." The defense. claims that this letter has new. evidence, new legal theories, 15 days. before trials to start. We can't prepare.

in time. And what all this is about is. not clear because so much of it is. redacted. But we can kind of get a clue. here. For example, their filing says, in. other words, while the government had. previously raised forced labor. allegations only as to victim four in. the second superseding indictment, the. government now seeks to raise forced. labor allegations and then it's. redacted. And by the way, forced labor. is a part of the racketeering charge. There's no reason to believe these. allegations were ever presented to and. thus approved by the grand jury. To the. contrary, the government's extremely.

late disclosure of these new theories. suggest a lastminute attempt to alter. and broaden its case. So Combmes is. asking the court to exclude evidence. relating to these new allegations. The. prosecution just responded in a letter. of its own. They argue that this is just. the defendant's attempt to exclude. powerful evidence from the case. That we. provided information about freakoffs. already. We believe we already provided. notice of the evidence of racketeering, but it's also, by the way, their.

argument is this is really evidence of. sex trafficking counts for victims one. and two. And if that's the case, we. don't have to provide additional notice. beyond what's in the indictment. We. don't need to provide more particular. details about that. Sex trafficking is. an underlying predicate crime for. racketeering, but it's also stands alone. as two separate charges. And they argue. allowing this evidence to come in. doesn't mean we're amending the third. superseding indictment or anything like. that. Nema, I gave kind of a condensed.

summary of both of their arguments, but. who's right here? I think the. government's right here. So, when you're. looking at the racketeering charge, it's. a conspiracy. So, you have the unlawful. agreement. We talked about that a bit. Then you have the enterprise itself, and. it doesn't have to be an actual. organization like the mob or the cartel. It's a loose association of two or more. people. And we know that Commes had. people that were helping him set up. these freakoffs to procure the. individuals, set up the lights, the. cameras, the hotel rooms. So I think.

we're going to get that. Then we're. talking about those RICO predicate acts. And we know that we need two or more. acts. And you know, typically you have. things like assault, you have things. like extortion, you have sex trafficking. or forced labor. And we know that. there's at least some allegations. related to one employee. and some of. these victims to the extent that they. were forced to engage in these acts that. also can qualify as predicate acts. So I. think the government has the upper hand. here. The indictment is pretty detailed.

and we've had now multiple superseding. indictments. So I think ultimately the. court is going to side with the. government here. All right, we shall. see. Nema Romani, thank you for doing. this marathon of legal issues as we head. into the Shaun Diddy Combmes trial. I'm. sure we're going to get a flurry of more. activity on the court docket website as. this continues. But thank you so much. for taking the time. Good seeing you. Thanks, Jesse. Thanks for having me as. always. And that's all we have for you. right now here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as.

always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcast, Spotify, wherever you. should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse. Weber. I'll speak to you next time. [Music].