P. Diddy’s Lawyer Tells All: 8 Major Bombshells About Trial & Possible Release

There's a lot of rumors floating around. the internet and in the news media. >> This is big. We are sitting down with. one of the criminal defense attorneys of. Shaun Diddy Combmes as the convicted rap. mogul awaits sentencing in federal court. and a decision on whether he'll actually. be released from jail before sentencing. Oh, and by the way, there's also talk. that he may get a pardon from the. president. Yeah, all this going on, I. get the chance to actually discuss what. has been happening behind the scenes. with Diddy's lawyer, Alexander Shapiro. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and. Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Okay, we're about to do something that. we've never done here on Sidebar for a. show that has covered every aspect of. Shaun Diddy Comb's criminal case. We are. about to speak with one of his defense. attorneys, Alexandra Shapiro. She is. part of his legal team at trial. And the. trial, by the way, that ended with. Combmes acquitted of the most serious. charges, racketeering, conspiracy, sex. trafficking. He was convicted of two. counts of transportation to engage in. prostitution. They call these the man. act violations, moving women and men.

across state lines for the purposes of. commercial sex work. Now, we have talked. about Alexandra Shapiro before. She was. the attorney, for example, who argued. for admitting that video of rape accuser. Mia wishing Combmes a happy birthday. after the alleged assault. She played a. key role in this case. And with. questions about could Col's convictions. be thrown out, what could he be. sentenced to? Will he make bail before. he's sentenced? Can he get a. presidential pardon? This feels like a. great opportunity to get some insight.

into all this and certain aspects of the. trial, like why didn't they call. Christina Cororum? All right, so let me. get right into it. I am joined right now. by Alexander Shapiro herself. Thank you. so much for taking the time to come here. on Sidebar. We really, really appreciate. it. >> Thanks so much for having me. Happy to. be here. >> Yeah, I have a lot of things I want to. get into. We will talk about all the. latest developments. But first of all, I. got to ask, what was it like to be part. of a team like this one? Because you. know, every argument, every question, it.

is going to be focused, debated on a. national, maybe an international stage. This is a major case. And also, by the. way, you were representing somebody and. are representing somebody who for the. past two years has taken quite a hit in. the media and wasn't the most popular. figure in the last two years. So to be. representing Shawn Combmes in this. massive trial, what was it like for you? >> I mean, it was actually an amazing. experience. First of all, the team was. fantastic. I mean, I've never worked.

with so many great lawyers with. different talents meshing together. And. it was great after I've been on the. working on this case since last. September dealing with the client being. just bashed in the media, bashed by a. ton of frivolous civil lawsuits that. just sort of whipped up the hysteria. against him. It was great to finally be. able to help him have his day in court. and so the actual witnesses could be. heard and we had a chance to really. expose a lot of the truth of what was.

really behind all of this. >> Obviously, this is a win, right? he was. acquitted of mo the most serious charges. that he was facing. Did there ever. become a time though during the course. of the trial, maybe in the first several. weeks when you're like, I'm a little. nervous. I think he may get convicted of. racketeering or sex trafficking or you. were confident throughout the. prosecution's case that they just. weren't reaching their burden. >> Well, we felt good about the trial most. of the time and were confident, but you.

never can be too confident in a federal. criminal trial. I mean, especially in. the Southern District of New York, the. government almost always wins, and it's. a huge challenge and really, really. difficult to win. So, we were always. concerned. There were points where it. seemed to be going well, but you can. never bank on that. >> By the way, talking law, like we do so. many times here on Law and Crime. Sidebar, there is a reason that Morgan. and Morgan, our sponsor, is America's. largest injury law firm. They're a firm. with over a thousand attorneys. You know. why? Because they win a lot. They have.

recovered over $25 billion for more than. 500,000 clients in the past few months. Client in Florida received $12 million. after the insurance company offered just. $350,000. Pennsylvania client was. awarded $26 million. That is 40 times. the insured $650,000 offer. Another. client in Pennsylvania received $29. million after being offered only. $500,000. And even if you think your. case isn't worth millions of dollars, why not just start a claim and fight for. what you deserve? Morgan and Morgan. makes it so simple. You can start a.

claim from your phone in just eight. clicks. So, if you're injured, you can. easily start a claim at. forthepeople.com/lc. sidebar by clicking the link below or. scanning the QR code on screen. I just want to understand something. about the defense's argument. Was the. defense's argument, hey, all the people. who testified against Shawn Combmes were. not being truthful or we're taking their. accounts. were listening to their. accounts and what they're saying just. didn't amount to a federal crime. Is it.

a mixture of both? Just trying to. understand what the argument was. >> I mean, I think it was a mixture. It. depended on the witness and um a lot of. the witnesses were telling the truth. Um. but the truth didn't hurt Shawn. It. helped him. There were some people who. were shading the truth. Um the great. thing about it was there was a ton of. evidence in written communications that. people had created at the time. all. these text messages, there were videos. and that really helped us expose the. truth because these were things that had.

been recorded at this is what people. were the girlfriends others were saying. to Shawn at the time of the events in. question. And so, you know, there there. was really no way for the witnesses or. the government to hide what was in the. written documents. >> Now, I I will tell you if you had been. following what we've been doing here on. sidebar law crime, we call balls and. strikes. So there were during the course. of the trial we would say this was the. strength of the prosecution, this was. the strength of the defense. There was. such effective cross-examination of. these key witnesses that we all kind of. wondered, you know, was the defense.

going to call any witnesses and you. really didn't. And what was that. decision? Because I understand there. were witnesses who were planning to be. called. Um there was an idea to put. forward a defense case. The there was a. choice to not to do that. Can you talk. to us a little bit more about what that. strategy was about? Sure. I mean, um, that's always you always have to be. ready to put on a case. Um, and you. know, uh, at the end of the day, what it. comes down to at the end of the.

government's case is how well do you. feel it went in for us? And it's always. risky to put on a defense case. People. don't realize that, but there's always. two sides to everything. And if you put. on a witness and even if it's, you know, 70% good, if the prosecution scores some. points, it can really undermine you. And. so if you feel like the the government's. case has gone in really well for you, it. can be actually riskier to call any. witnesses. People don't necessarily. realize that, but at the end of the day, we just made a decision that we thought.

the case had come in well and and we. didn't want to um you know, sort of. change the dynamic in a in a way that. could be risky for us. Was Christina. Cororum ever potentially going to be. called by the defense? We were all. shocked why the government never chose. to call her since I don't know. Her name. came up almost every single day through. almost every witness. Was there a plan. by the defense to call her? >> Yeah. I mean, I'm not going to get into. specific specifics or not, but uh it was. more of an overall decision just not to. put anyone on and just to use a few.

pieces of evidence that that hadn't come. in. >> What do you think about the. prosecution's choice not to call her? Because I will tell you, we did. lunchtime shows, live shows with our. audience. I would say 80% of the. questions that we got during 7 weeks of. testimony was why is she not being. called and will she be called? Were you. surprised the prosecution chose not to. call who was supposed to be the main. alleged co-conspirator? >> I mean, I don't think so. I think that. she would have been a double-edged sword. for them and and they probably didn't.

want to take the risk. As you saw during. the trial, even a number of the. witnesses that they had always planned. to call that they did put in kind of. blew up in their faces or had positive. things to say about Shawn that maybe. they weren't anticipating. And so it. would have been pretty risky for them to. put Christina Cororm on the stand. I. think. >> there was so much being said about your. client um in that trial, obviously in. the media facing a number of different. lawsuits. We also wondered whether or.

not he, and it's his decision alone, whether he wanted to take the stand and. give his story, tell his story, give his. version of events. Obviously, there are. a ton of risks that come with putting a. defendant on the stand, but it would be. his choice. Was there a conversation. about that? >> Well, I mean, I can't get into, you. know, attorney client privilege. conversations. um you know obviously he. he thought about it decided not to and. you know as I indicated earlier we. thought the case had gone in really well. for us and so we didn't want to we liked.

where we were so that was basically the. decision. >> now the big news some of the big news a. lot of big news came out after the trial. was the firing of Morin Comey the lead. prosecutor in this case now there's. obviously a political angle to it um. there comments that she has made But I. have to ask, you know, you going. headtohead against her for so many. weeks, I mean months and before that, the firing of her, what did you make of. that?

>> I mean, I I think it was unfortunate. Uh. she she's a very wellrespected. prosecutor. We had good sort of. professional relationships with her. during the course of the trial. And you. know, I don't really think it had. anything to do with the trial, but um I. I don't I I can't really say anything. beyond that. I just uh. >> Yeah. >> Okay, that's fair enough. Let's talk. about Let's talk about something we we. can get into quite a bit. Let's talk. bail. Okay, so we did a previous sidebar.

breaking down uh the defense's renewed. motion for release. several arguments. for why Combmes, Shawn Combmes, uh. should be released on bail pending. sentencing, you know, acquitted of the. most serious charges. There's no. comparable case of someone who is. convicted uh of the man act alone and. not engaging in sex trafficking or a. prostitution for financial gain and they. would be locked up like this. Talked. about the issues plaguing the MDC, how. it is dangerous, how he's not a risk of. flight, not a danger to the community.

But do you think Judge Run Subbermanian. is going to be persuaded uh by your. letter, by your motion? Because. obviously he specifically highlighted. after the verdict your client's. violence, how the defense asserted at. trial that Colmes was violent. Do you. think he's going to have a change of. opinion uh now based upon the legal. papers? >> Well, I think we certainly hope so. And. um you know, as we pointed out in the. papers, uh the unfortunate violence um. that occurred was mostly a really long.

time ago other than the one incident in. June that Jane testified to, which was. kind of unusual. I mean, they had been. together for 3 years. There had been no. violence. And she essentially started. the fight. I'm not excusing anything, but it was kind of a one-off. And I. think the government really hadn't put. in any evidence of any recent violence. The Intercontinental video, remember. that was almost 10 years ago, um he. broke up with Cassie in 2018. And in our.

reply papers yesterday, we submitted a. letter from Gina Hun, who was one of the. alleged victims, a different uh. ex-girlfriend. Um, and I think it was a pretty powerful. letter about how Shawn has changed, how. she's not concerned about violence. She. thinks he should be released on bail. So, we're hoping that that will persuade. the judge given everything else, particularly as you noted, like the. really really unusual nature of the this.

particular man conviction and the fact. that he's already been in prison or jail. rather uh for like 11 months. this case. is a one-off to begin with, but you. know, we're not aware of any case like. this uh with a man conviction where. anyone's done that much time to begin. with. So, a. >> and prosecutors, I'm imagining, uh, have. come back or will come back and say, "Well, listen, look, you know, after the. raids, uh, on his property that he. engaged or what they will say he. allegedly engaged in criminal activity.

and uh, you know, obviously violence, they say with Jane, but they say look. what was in his hotel room when he was. picked up uh, in New York. They made. allegations of what he was trying to do. while he was in the MDC, whether it was. using other inmates phone privileges to. have three-way phone calls. that was. litigated before trial. What would be. your response to say, you know, you make. the point that he is a changed person. Uh the violence that was shown during. the course of this trial is from years. ago. But how would you convince the. judge to say, listen, we are being.

truthful. We are being honest. We were. being forefront that he really is a. different human being. Because the. judge, again, this was right after the. verdict and didn't have an opportunity. for a briefing schedule. How can you. make the argument that he is different. and that he should be trusted? Well, I mean, I I think you know the the. point you mentioned about the arrest, I. mean, unfortunately, Sean has struggled. with drug addiction for a long time, and. I think one of the good things and. positive things is that has come out of. his incarceration, it's given him an.

opportunity, you know, to to. rehabilitate. He's committed to. continuing that. He's committed to a. long-term uh uh program of therapy and. um helping with the domestic violence. problem that he's had in the past. So, you know, at a certain point you have to. just um it maybe it is a leap of faith, but you you know, you have to just give. a person another chance. And he really. is committed to to change and to to. there being a new chapter of service on.

his part. So, um, I, you know, I think we have to hope. that that the judge will agree with that. and and I think we've made a strong case. for that. >> Do you know when the judge might make a. decision on bail? >> We don't know. >> Okay. If he denies release again, does. that give you a sense of what sentencing. could be like? Now, to be clear, my. understanding is Judge Arun Subermanium. even said at the point, if I make a. decision on release, it it's not.

indicative of where I'm leaning towards. sentencing. I know there's a pre-in uh. sentencing investigation still being. conducted or has be conducted. There's a. lot of factors to consider, but I I have. to ask about whether this is going to, you know, have an effect on sentencing. Do you believe it's going to have an. effect on sentencing? Does it give you a. preview of where the judge is lining up? Because my understanding, correct me if. I'm wrong, you are probably going to be. arguing for time served, maybe a minimum. of 21 to 27 months. Where do you think. the judge is going to go here? Yeah, I mean I think that you have to.

take each step at a time and that the. judge is not going to prejudge that. There's a lot more information he needs. to get, not only the pre-sentence. report, but we're going to make a very. wholesome sentencing submission. Um, and. he's going to have, you know, a much. more detailed picture. Even, you know, the trial was about the charges, right? And he doesn't have the full picture of. all the factors about Shawn's life that. he's going to consider. you know, there's going to be a big fight about. the sentencing guidelines. You know, we. think actually we're going to end up.

arguing for an even lower guideline. range than we had originally believed at. the time of the verdict where we didn't. have a, you know, we had like a couple. of hours to try to figure out what to. say about bail. So, you know, I hope the. judge will grant bail, but I feel. confident um that even if he doesn't, it's doesn't necessarily mean he's not. going to sentence Shawn to time served. he's going to take everything into. account when he gets all the submissions. and you know I I've got a lot of. confidence that the judge is going to be.

uh fair and um not prejudge the. situation. >> and you also have this motion for. judgment of a quiddle that the man act. convictions should be tossed out you. know combs be granted at a minimum a new. trial number of very interesting. arguments that are present and it's. basically that there has really never. been as we've talked about a prosecution. conviction on a an act like this, that. Combmes wasn't profiting off of the. business, there were all consenting. adults that were involved. Uh the jury. didn't find that there was any sex. trafficking. Um that this isn't even.

prostitution per se. It's more voyerism. That the intent wasn't for people to. travel for uh sex for money, but paid. them for their time. They were all. having a good time. There's a first. amendment argument that the freakoffs. and the hotel nights were performances. that were videotaped so he could watch. them later. It's amateur pornography. There's an argument that he was. prejudiced because of all the other. evidence that came in to prove RICO or. sex trafficking, but would never have. come in if this was merely a prosecution. for the man act violations. Specifically, we talked about the.

Intercontinental Hotel footage. But. couldn't the counterargument be if you. look at the text messages and voice. notes and the travel hotel, the payment. documentation that these charges, the. man act charges could have been proven. based on that evidence alone and not. anything else about racketeering or sex. trafficking? >> Well, I think that goes I I don't agree. with that. I think that uh as we argued. in the papers um the government didn't. really show that the the purpose of the.

travel was to have uh sex for money and. that in fact all the testimony and a lot. of the other evidence showed that the. the men were being paid for their time. But even if we were wrong about that. one, we have a number of the other. arguments that you mentioned that really. aren't undermined by those records. Um, so for instance, one of our main. arguments is that this statute, which. used to be called the White Slave. Traffic Act, it has this long history, but even with this long history, it's.

never been applied to a case like this. Um, you know, the term prostitution in a. lot of states doesn't include this. conduct. Even if someone's being paid, if the person making the payment is. paying essentially to observe other. people having sex, that that's not. prostitution. So we have and we've got. the first amendment argument as you. mentioned and the new trial argument. So. all of those arguments I think are. independent of you know the issue you. raised which um but but so we think we.

have we have a really strong motion. Um. and so we're hoping the judge will. agree. We'll see. >> So just to just to be clear there were I. I'll list out a couple things that you. know stood out to me when we were. watching the trial. There was apparently. this voice message that was played from. Combmes to Paul, right? One of the uh. purported sex workers. Hit me up when. you close. There was a voice message. Hey Jess, I need to get him from Atlanta. to here. Let me know. Hit me up. There. was a message from I think Combmes to. Christina Cormin security. Bring me.

5,000. There was another audio message. to Jane. I sent you 15K baby girl. There. was another one to Frank Rodriguez. Frank, make sure that room is set up. right. So, in other words, you could. look at this and say, and the argument. is even despite all that, it's paying. people for their time. It's setting up. um let's say amateur uh pornography. What makes this not because it always. seemed that those charges were. relatively straightforward, transporting. people for the purposes of sex work. You're saying the intent the intent was. not sex work that just so happened.

Whatever happened happened, but the. intent wasn't there. Just want to. clarify that point. >> Yeah. So that that's that's one of the. arguments. And then the other argument. is just that as a matter it's more of a. pure legal argument that prostitution. only includes when you're paying someone. to have sex with you and he wasn't. having sex with the males. So that's. kind of a separate a totally separate. thing even if you buy the government's. argument that these payments were always. for sex. And I do want to point out that.

like there's testimony and evidence that. there were a number of occasions where. the guys didn't end up having sex and. they still got paid um for their time. There's a bunch of text messages between. Shawn and people who work for Cowboys. for Angels, one of the escort services. where, you know, she's making clear that. they dot all their eyes and cross all. their tees and that this isn't sex for. money. So that's kind of his mindset. and you know the the crime is. transportation with the intent for the. person being transported to engage in in.

prostitution. So it's all sort of what's. in his head and whether he's he's. believing that he's paying you know or. arranging the transportation rather um. in connection with prostitution and then. you get into sort of what is. prostitution and does it include you. know paying someone even if you're not. the person who's going to have sex with. them. >> Let's say the motion for judgment of a. quiddle was not successful. Let's say. the bail motion's not successful and. let's say your client is sentenced to a.

significant prison time uh prison term. because there is discretion on the part. of the judge. There's been a lot of talk. in the news about this idea of a. presidential pardon. Is the president. really considering it? Have there been. conversations with his team? Is there. anything you can tell us about that? >> Well, I don't really know. Um the trial. team's not really involved in any of. that. There's a lot of rumors floating. around the internet and in the news. media. So, I c I can't really speak to. it. It would make sense that the. president, you know, given his history,

would would be thinking about it for. someone like Sean, but I I can't really. I don't I have no personal knowledge. about that. >> And if there is an unfavorable sentence, um I imagine you would immediately. appeal this uh this conviction and. sentence. Um what would be some of the. arguments that would be made if you can. give us a preview? and do you and and. why you think they would be successful? So, I think Sean would almost definitely. appeal if all of those things happen,

which we hope won't, but um it would be. a lot of the same arguments that are in. our post-trial motion that we've been. talking about, the First Amendment, the. um the argument about whether uh this. actually was transportation to engage in. prostitution, um whether he should have in light of. the acquitts, he should get in the. alternative a new trial where none of. the evidence about the violence and the. alleged racketeering would come in. Those would be, you know, the principal.

arguments, I would imagine. >> Yeah. If they didn't have racketeering. or sex trafficking, you think they would. have actually prosecuted him just for. man act violations? >> I don't think so. It certainly would. have violated Justice Department policy. I mean, the Justice Department policy. for the past 75 years has been generally. not to prosecute people other than. people who are actually running. prostitution rings to make money. And. then on top of that, in more recent. years, the only kinds of cases they've. brought have been cases where they're. alleging um sex trafficking or or other.

serious crimes. And and you know, at the. beginning of this case, we made a. selective prosecution motion. We argued. that Shawn was targeted because of his. race, because this uh pro with respect. to the man act in particular, because. this was so so unique. And one of the. things they came back with is they said, "Well, we charged him with RICO and sex. trafficking." And then they pointed to. other cases involving white men where. they had brought these other charges as.

well as the man act. So. >> I I know I have to let you go. Uh before. I do, I just want to ask you one more. question because I know all of our. viewers will be asking, what happened to. victim three? What happened to victim I. think five? there were other people that. were supposed to be called by the. prosecution and there was a back and. forth where the defense basically said. right to the prosecution they're not a. part of this case anymore. Everybody's. been asking weren't there supposed to be. other people that were going to be. called by the prosecution and weren't. Is there anything you can tell us about. what that what happened there?

>> Well, I think one thing that's now. public is that uh Gina was the alleged. victim three and it's pretty clear she. doesn't consider herself a victim. And I. imagine, you know, I don't want to. speculate, but I, you know, I think the. government, they certainly cut back. their case as things went along. And it, you know, there were probably a lot of. witnesses along the way who were pushing. back on the government's hoped for. narrative and saying, you know, that a. lot of it wasn't true. And uh that's. certainly what happened with with Gina,

I believe. >> Well, listen, uh, Alexander Shapiro, really, really appreciate you uh taking. the time to come on here. >> Thanks a lot for having me. 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 get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next. time. [Music].