Prosecutors accuse Diddy of ‘grasping at straws’ as they fight over gag order and victims’ names

Prosecutors are taking over Diddy responded to the disgraced tycoon’s demand to ban witnesses from speaking publicly about his criminal case, In touch I can only report.

According to court documents obtained In touchthe government demanded that 54-year-old Diddy’s statement be dropped. Diddy remains behind bars after his Sept. 16 arrest on sex trafficking and racketeering charges.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges. His attempts to obtain bail were stopped three times.

Diddy recently asked the court to issue a gag order that would prohibit witnesses from speaking about him or the case. His lawyer argued that the court had an “independent obligation to prevent the creation of a ‘carnival atmosphere’ in a high-profile case.”

Diddy said witnesses and their lawyers criticized him in the media. He said allowing them to continue with the case would ruin his chances of a fair trial.

Diddy said the lawyers against him made “shockingly biased and false allegations of sexual assault and abuse of minors.”

“Some even promote outlandish conspiracy theories,” his lawyer added. “Moreover, these lawyers did the government’s work for them, repeatedly vouching for the government and commenting on the strength of the government’s case.”

In court documents, Diddy also accused the feds of being involved in the leak of a video of him assaulting his then-girlfriend Cassie to CNN. The video shows Diddy attacking Cassie in a hotel hallway in 2016. He asked that the video be thrown out as evidence.

The government has now filed a petition responding to all of Diddy’s requests.

They claim Diddy is “grasping at straws” when it comes to CNN video leak. Prosecutors said Diddy is trying to “cover up highly compelling evidence – a video of Combs brutally beating the victim in March 2016 that was published by a media outlet in May 2024 – by claiming it was grand jury material leaked by government agents V CNN“

However, a lawyer for the prosecutor’s office noted: “However, as the defendant is fully aware, the video was not in the possession of the Government at the time of the arrest.” CNNAdditionally, “(Diddy) also complains about supposed “law enforcement sources” leaking other alleged grand jury material to the media in multiple news articles. quoted in his articles and set out in the attached table,” they added.

“And here the defendant is grasping at straws. Because defendant cannot prove that the information contained in the cited articles is grand jury material, and because he cannot prove that government agents with access to grand jury materials leaked the information.” Regarding the release of the names of additional alleged victims: “It is clear that (Diddy’s) request to file an indictment containing the names of the victims is merely a means of attempting to prematurely limit the evidence presented by the Government at trial and use these criminal proceedings as a defense.” himself in the press against plaintiffs in a separate civil proceeding,” the government said.

“This unlawful request should be rejected outright, especially here where there are serious and ongoing concerns about the safety of victims and witnesses, tampering and intimidation.”

Prosecutors further noted: “The defendant has a significant history of violence and obstruction. Indeed, Judge Carter found, based on clear and convincing evidence at the conclusion of the second hearing, that the defendant “poses a danger of obstruction of justice and witness tampering” and “poses a danger to the safety of other members of the community at large.” Given the defendant’s history, the government has serious concerns about the safety of victims and the potential for witness tampering if the defendant is provided with a list of victims’ names.”

The government also did not agree with the request to suppress the case. “To the extent that the defendant seeks a general gag order that would prohibit any civil plaintiff and his attorneys from making out-of-court statements, such an order would be even more extraordinary and would go beyond the local rules on which it is based. Indeed, as far as the civil plaintiffs are concerned, the defendant has a specific remedy that goes beyond the scope of the present criminal case,” they said.

The judge has not yet ruled on the matter.