Diddy and his legal team have admitted to breaking some rules in their trial preparations and quest for bail, but they still stand by the latter as an absolute necessity. For those unaware, a hearing on his new bail motion (one of many) will take place today (Friday, November 22) in New York federal court. Ahead of this hearing, prosecutors issued a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian explaining why they think Sean Combs does not deserve bail and why the defense's arguments in favor of bond are faulty. Specifically, they targeted defense attorneys' claims that he should get bail because other powerful people with similar charges have gotten bail.
Diddy's defense team's arguments relate to the 2024 sex trafficking case of Michael Jeffries, who secured a $10 million bond with electronic home monitoring and other conditions. However, prosecutors argue that this case is different for a few different reasons. The first is that Jeffries only faced charges of violence and obstruction in relation to sex trafficking, whereas Combs faces similar charges in other areas plus an additional racketeering charge and the use of firearms.
Diddy's Prosecutors Argue Against His Bail
The second reason that prosecutors offered as to why the defense's arguments for Diddy's bail are flawed is that Jeffries' alleged conduct ended by 2015 at the very least. On the other hand, federal authorities allege that Combs' alleged behavior persisted all the way through 2024, and that this allegedly present activity changes his circumstances. Finally, prosecutors argued that since the Bad Boy mogul is much younger with a criminal history, and since Jeffries is 80 years old with no criminal history, their cases can't compare as closely as the defense team believes.
All in all, it will be interesting to see what the judge concludes concerning Diddy's bail motion, and whether this latest attempt is any different from those prior. Defense lawyers also bashed the prosecution, though, so this isn't just a one-sided allegation of bad behavior. Combs' lawyers alleged that prosecutors altered the footage of him assaulting Cassie in a hotel and used misleading evidence to taint the narrative. A judge will have to find a balance between these dangerous and damning accusations from one side to another.