Alexandra A.E. Shapiro

Alexandra A.E. Shapiro served as defense trial counsel for Sean Combs and addressed evidentiary, juror, sufficiency, verdict-form, and jury-instruction issues. Early in the trial, she questioned the permissible scope of expert drug testimony, opposed a photograph under Rule 403 because of the alleged victim's apparent age, argued for proposed cross-examination concerning an alleged victim's pertinent character trait, and supplemented the defense's Batson application. The court excluded one disputed photograph, deferred the proposed cross-examination issue, and maintained its denial of the Batson application.

Shapiro sought limits on witness consultations about the substance of testimony and preserved the defense's objection to Dr. Dawn Hughes's testimony. In proceedings concerning Mia, she argued that a scrapbook and a later-located internet video bore on the defense challenge to Mia's account and presentation; the court ruled on the proposed exhibits, excluded the late-produced video, and limited related questioning. In proceedings concerning Bryana Bongolan, Shapiro defended proposed exhibits and later raised hearsay and completeness objections to a text about the balcony incident. The court excluded two proposed exhibits, allowed another if offered, admitted the government's text, and denied the defense's completeness request. She also argued that further testimony about Jane's feelings was cumulative and that the relevant focus was what Jane communicated to Combs, while the court set boundaries for cross-examination.

Shapiro challenged proposed summary charts as argumentative combinations of evidence rather than neutral summaries. The court required revisions to proposed summaries and later limited Agent DeLeassa Penland to factual descriptions of records and chart construction, leaving inferences for closing argument. Shapiro also opposed an effort to remove a seated juror, characterized the asserted basis as pretextual, and argued against bringing the juror back for another inquiry; the court reserved decisions during those proceedings.

As the evidentiary phase closed, Shapiro argued that listing every alleged racketeering act on the verdict form would be prejudicial. On Day 33, she presented sufficiency arguments in support of the defense's Rule 29 motion, including challenges to the arson and sex-trafficking evidence, and the court reserved decision. At the Day 34 charge conference, she raised constructive-amendment and prejudicial-variance concerns and addressed final instructions. The court separately resolved the charge disputes, removed one obstruction predicate, and revised several provisions.