Diddy and his legal team continue to engage in a heated battle with prosecutors as his trial for alleged sex trafficking continues to form itself. According to court documents from Friday (November 8) reportedly obtained by TMZ, his attorneys claimed to have a lot of federal discovery material from the government over the past six weeks or so. Specifically, they seek to combat the prosecution's claim that there could be a second alleged sex trafficking victim in this case. The original indictment against Sean Combs centered around one anonymous victim, for which they hit him with charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation to engage in prostitution.
Furthermore, in this new court filing, Diddy's legal team alleges that this is "nonsense," and that this purported second alleged sex trafficking victim (a female) is "not a victim at all." According to the defense, prosecutors haven't yet interviewed this alleged victim, whom the Bad Boy mogul's lawyers claim was never a target of any behavior on his behalf. In addition, the defense also alleged that he never tried to interfere in the prosecution's investigation into this alleged victim through contact, something that they claim federal authorities know well.
Diddy Performs During REVOLT Party
Finally, Diddy's legal team hit prosecutors with the scathing accusation that they led the court in a false direction and did not disclose the factual truths behind the case during his first bail hearing following his September 16 arrest in New York City. In addition to these allegations and claims, the defense also submitted yet another bail motion, comparing Puff's case to that of other powerful individuals charged with similar alleged crimes that were able to secure bond for far less.
Meanwhile, these legal docs also address the alleged sex trafficking victim that centers the original indictment against Diddy. Defense attorneys said they were in a relationship for 11 years, but that complaints only surfaced in 2023, five years after they broke up. They additionally alleged extortive action on behalf of this alleged victim by demanding $30 million. Given the complexities of this case and its sprawling nature, only official court actions could direct us toward more concrete considerations.