Browse reporter-marked sidebars from the Sean Combs archive, with links to the exact point in each transcript.
The 88 entries below include every sidebar marked in the court reporter transcripts available to the archive.
The court addressed a witness's request to speak with counsel and paused for counsel to consult the witness's attorney.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to consult with the witness's attorney, then instructed the parties to proceed after counsel reported no current concern.
The parties discussed whether a witness could consult with counsel about testimony while cross-examination was ongoing.
Court's actionThe court instructed the witness not to discuss the testimony with counsel overnight and deferred further consideration of the issue until the next day.
The sidebar addressed whether papers used during cross-examination were visible to a juror.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the document be placed on the lectern and said the space arrangement could be adjusted during the break.
The parties discussed whether Cassie Ventura's husband should be excluded as a potential defense witness while she testified.
Court's actionThe court directed that the jury return to the jury room briefly and that the matter be discussed in open court.
At sidebar, the parties discussed limiting repetitive questioning while the government outlined further testimony about supplies.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to condense the questioning about baby oil to avoid a cumulative objection.
The parties discussed safeguards for showing six sealed still images only to the well, Court, and jury without transmission to the gallery or overflow rooms.
Court's actionThe Court proposed a short recess to confirm the display arrangements and address the LiveNote issue.
Counsel objected that generalized questions about physical abuse over an 11-year relationship were vague, cumulative, and difficult to address without identifying particular events.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to use helpful general timeframes or other clarification to identify the events being addressed and allowed further objections to be raised.
The parties discussed proposed testimony about a post-complaint conversation that prompted a correction to the recalled date of the balcony incident.
Court's actionThe Court sustained the objection and directed that the issue could be addressed on rebuttal if needed.
The parties discussed potential Rule 412 objections to questions about the witness's relationships and whether cross-examination should continue that day.
Court's actionThe court directed the parties to proceed and said it would allow the defense additional access to Mr. Combs later than usual; any Rule 412 issue would be addressed if the material were offered.
The sidebar addressed streamlining the review and admission of text-message exhibits while conserving jury time.
Court's actionThe Court permitted the government to hand the exhibit to the witness.
The sidebar addressed how to display documents for authentication or refreshing recollection and raised concern about materials not previously provided.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to remove a document used only to refresh a witness's recollection after the witness has read it, rather than leave it displayed as though it would be admitted.
The sidebar addressed anticipated objections to questioning about Willow House, references to sex trafficking, and what Ms. Ventura was or was not in rehab for.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to raise any objections when the questions arise and directed the parties to proceed.
Defense counsel objected that the question mischaracterized the witness's earlier testimony about whether prosecutors had shown her a message.
Court's actionThe Court instructed Ms. Estevao to ask a different question.
At sidebar, the court addressed conduct during cross-examination and noted that counsel had about fifteen minutes remaining.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to listen to answers after asking questions and avoid looking to the defense team during questioning.
Counsel disputed whether questioning about $9,000 in cash suggested criminal conduct and was relevant to the case.
Court's actionThe court allowed limited questioning about the cash issue.
The defense objected that testimony about an alleged threat was barred, irrelevant, and prejudicial, while the government argued it explained the witness's response and related to alleged obstruction.
Court's actionThe Court recessed for the weekend and said it would briefly address the issue afterward.
The sidebar addressed whether a document could be introduced for impeachment when the prerequisites had not yet been satisfied.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to first lay the required foundation by asking questions before attempting to introduce the document as a prior inconsistent statement.
The sidebar addressed the permissible scope of redirect after cross-examination challenged the witness's credibility and motives for communicating with and suing the defendant.
Court's actionThe court allowed brief redirect on the lawsuit and its reasons to respond to the cross-examination.
At sidebar, counsel discussed whether the witness could be questioned about her awareness of money sought in a civil lawsuit, including a proposed $22 million demand.
Court's actionThe court permitted initial questions to determine whether the witness had any knowledge of the demand or related discussions, but barred introducing an unseen specific amount unless a foundation for her knowledge was established.
The parties disputed whether testimony about Ventura's statement to Morgan could be admitted as a prior consistent statement after Ventura had left the stand.
Court's actionThe court sustained the hearsay objection to the proposed prior consistent statement.
The parties disputed whether a poem could be admitted as non-hearsay evidence of affection and as relevant to the relationship narrative.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and directed counsel to raise any further objection based on the questioning.
At sidebar, defense counsel sought to question David James about an alleged physical confrontation and estimated 10 to 15 minutes remained in cross-examination.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and directed counsel to proceed.
The parties discussed whether jurors should handle physical evidence, with the government stating it would display items rather than pass them out.
At sidebar, the defense sought to question the manner of the search-warrant execution and whether the family and Mr. Combs were away, while the government objected to family-specific questioning as prejudicial.
Court's actionThe court allowed brief inquiry into the search-warrant execution because direct examination addressed the number of agents and how the warrant was executed.
At sidebar, defense counsel stated no objection to the witness's qualifications before discussion moved to the expert's opinions.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the witness could be qualified as an expert before addressing the opinions.
At sidebar, counsel clarified a question concerning the witness's understanding of limits on interviewing case witnesses or victims.
Court's actionThe court instructed that neither the witness nor Dr. Bardey may testify about why she cannot interview witnesses or victims in the case.
The defense sought to strike Dr. Hughes's direct testimony, arguing it exceeded the disclosure and improperly bolstered Ms. Ventura, while the government defended it as within the permitted scope.
Court's actionThe court reserved decision on the motion pending cross-examination.
The parties disputed whether a presentation listed on an expert witness’s résumé could be used to explore alleged bias and whether a foundation or review was required before it could be introduced.
Court's actionThe court instructed the jury to take a brief recess so the matter could be addressed.
The sidebar addressed questioning about the expert's preparation meetings and how the government could provide context for those meetings.
Court's actionThe court permitted cross-examination to continue and allowed the government to explain that discussions were needed to keep the expert testimony within court-imposed bounds.
The parties debated whether cross-examination could address Dr. Hughes's consultation on government filings and whether that consultation showed bias.
Court's actionThe court permitted questioning about whether Dr. Hughes consulted with the government on certain filings, but barred testimony reviewing or displaying the briefs before the jury.
At sidebar, the court considered whether questions about a witness's intimate relationship were relevant and permissible under Rule 412.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection and directed counsel to move to the next question.
The sidebar addressed the permissible scope and foundation for questioning about the California investigation into the car arson.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to limit the question to whether Mr. Mescudi had been contacted by California law enforcement about the incident.
Defense objected to anticipated testimony about why a witness feared Mr. Combs, while the government said its questioning concerned the end of the relationship.
Court's actionThe court directed the parties to move on after finding no basis for a mistrial application before the anticipated question or answer occurred.
Defense challenged threat-related testimony as prejudicial because it had not yet been connected to the defendant, while the government argued prior testimony supported an inference of that connection.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and allowed the examination to proceed.
Defense objected that testimony about the witness’s mother’s death was not sufficiently tied to the charges, while the government said it explained one occasion when the witness declined a directive.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to move on from the question.
Counsel discussed whether settlement details, including nonfinancial agreement terms, should be addressed during the witness examination.
Court's actionThe Court deferred the settlement-terms issue pending cross-examination and indicated it could be addressed on redirect.
The parties discussed whether a stipulated text message could be offered when the witness did not recall the conversation or definitively identify its participants.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to question the witness about the people in the communication and then seek to offer the message again.
The court and defense counsel discussed shortening the remaining cross-examination so the witness could finish testifying without returning the next day.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to proceed as needed and stated the parties would remain to finish the witness’s examination.
The sidebar addressed whether cross-examination about a recommendation letter permitted evidence of the settlement agreement and its payment terms.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection and declined to permit inquiry into the settlement agreement terms.
Counsel disputed whether questions about destroyed fingerprint cards improperly suggested wrongdoing or fairly addressed potential challenges to the investigation.
Court's actionThe Court sustained the objection to the prior question and directed that any further question on the subject be rephrased within the witness's knowledge.
Counsel objected that a direct-examination question invited a narrative response, and the sidebar also addressed the timing of a requested bathroom break.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to break up the questioning and guide the witness with more focused prompts.
The parties discussed whether testimony about a PTSD diagnosis and inability to work was relevant and admissible to prove serious harm.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to avoid any diagnosis and instead ask about the witness's feelings and experiences concerning her inability to work.
At sidebar, the Court addressed the remaining cross-examination time and the need to clarify a vague question about whether conduct was wrong.
Court's actionThe Court instructed counsel to clarify what "it" referred to so the witness would not be confused and granted permission to step back.
At sidebar, the court addressed the jurors' brief review of a binder while defense renewed its objection to the binder's use.
Court's actionThe court allowed the jurors a brief group review of the binder and confirmed that the prior objection was overruled.
The court addressed recurring form objections and asked defense counsel to make the questioning clearer and more direct.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to rephrase and simplify questions so the witness could follow them.
At sidebar, counsel disputed whether a video was admissible to address the witness's demeanor or for impeachment and whether it was cumulative.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection and directed counsel to establish the video's date before admission.
Counsel disputed whether cross-examination could reference text-message statements from an exhibit that was not being admitted.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel not to read from a non-admitted exhibit when asking about prior statements, permitted a few more questions, and directed counsel to move on.
The court addressed improper cross-examination questions and limited the immediate inquiry to the witness's prior reports to the government.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to use proper question form, proceed with the witness-reporting chronology, and take up the attorney-related issue at the break; it also approved a shorter lunch.
The sidebar addressed providing witness interview records for review and narrowing follow-up testimony through possible stipulations.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the witness may review the documents during the break to refresh her recollection before further questioning.
The parties disputed whether testimony had opened the door to questions about Mia's privileged therapist conversations and whether the issue was timely raised.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection for the present time, directed defense counsel to finish the remaining cross-examination questions, and said it would take a short break before addressing any further issue.
The parties disputed whether testimony about Ms. Khorram's communications concerning a video could be admitted as agency or co-conspirator statements and whether related detail was necessary.
Court's actionThe court overruled the hearsay objection and directed that questioning be narrowed to Ms. Khorram's requests or instructions made on Mr. Combs's behalf.
At sidebar, the parties debated whether Garcia could testify about his understanding of directions concerning money paid for a video and their relevance to bribery intent.
Court's actionThe court maintained the objection, while leaving open the possibility of further redirect questioning if cross-examination opened the door.
The parties disputed whether redirect could ask Garcia about his understanding of an agreement he testified he had not read before signing.
Counsel disputed the relevance and witness foundation for questions about the Diageo relationship, while the defense said later evidence could clarify its relevance.
Court's actionThe court limited counsel to one question about issues during the witness's time as CFO.
The sidebar addressed how to question a former CFO about whether he knew of alleged violence, firearms, and related conduct at the companies without characterizing the companies themselves as having criminal purposes.
Court's actionThe Court directed that the witness may be asked in colloquial terms about knowledge of violence, firearms, and similar conduct while working at the companies, rather than using indictment language.
The Court addressed defense ex parte submissions containing proposed impeachment exhibits after the government objected.
Court's actionThe Court instructed that undisclosed impeachment exhibits must be offered during proceedings, when the Court will rule on their admission.
The parties disputed whether a call involving Rob Holladay had a sufficient foundation for admission as an agent or co-conspirator statement, or for its effect on the listener.
Court's actionThe court instructed the prosecutor to ask non-leading threshold questions about the relationship between Rob Holladay and Mr. Combs before proceeding.
Counsel disputed whether testimony about a call made on behalf of Mr. Combs could establish the foundation for a party-authorized settlement statement.
Court's actionThe court said it would review the transcript and stated that it understood the objection.
At sidebar, counsel disputed whether certain question wording suggested sexual innuendo and discussed clearer phrasing for the witness.
Court's actionThe Court instructed counsel to phrase questions to avoid jury misimpressions and to request any instruction for the soft-spoken witness through the Court.
The sidebar addressed the anticipated length of cross-examination and objections to question form, including how to refresh the witness's recollection.
Court's actionThe court directed counsel to avoid argumentative questions and counsel commentary, while permitting the identified areas of inquiry to continue.
The Court addressed an objection to defense questioning about documents and concerns that the defendant's visible nodding could influence the jury.
Court's actionThe Court permitted the leading questioning to continue, said it would monitor for improper testimony before the jury, and directed the parties to proceed after defense counsel agreed to remind the defendant of the Court's admonition.
Counsel disputed whether the witness had tied the balcony incident and resulting injuries to September 26 rather than only placing a photograph around that date.
Court's actionThe court permitted questioning on whether the incident occurred on September 26 and treated the sidebar as resolved after counsel said no further question would be asked.
Counsel raised a fairness request to consider two additional text-message chains alongside messages already admitted.
Court's actionThe Court instructed that the issue need not be addressed immediately because the material would arise after redirect.
At sidebar, defense objected to alleged leading during charged-conduct testimony and requested clearer time frames for the witness's account.
Court's actionThe court said it had not observed improper leading, would monitor the questioning, and asked for context-establishing questions when addressing events over a period of time.
At sidebar, the Court clarified the permissible scope of the witness's testimony and distinguished the challenged phrasing from the subject matter itself.
Court's actionThe Court explained that the sustained objection concerned the question's form and directed that the inquiry be rephrased.
The sidebar addressed whether questioning about a typical experience should be tied more closely to individual events after testimony that aspects differed each time.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to establish a predicate for questions about a typical pattern and to avoid leading questions or assumptions not in evidence when addressing particular hotel nights.
The sidebar addressed the Court's prior instruction against interacting with jurors and defense counsel's response to an alleged interaction.
Court's actionThe Court said its open-court instruction was necessary after it viewed the interaction as defiance of its prior no-interaction directive, and stated that everyone must follow the rules going forward.
The court and counsel discussed the witness's ability to continue testimony while allowing for a later check on whether to end early.
Court's actionThe court instructed that testimony would continue for about another half hour before a break.
The sidebar addressed consistent use of names in text-message testimony and concerns that some text-message wording was being omitted or changed.
Court's actionThe court directed that the names be used after a short break and agreed that counsel could clarify any omissions or changed words when text messages are read.
Counsel raised concerns about potential privilege and the relevance of a witness's reaction to a video, while the prosecutor agreed to move on from the privilege-related inquiry.
Court's actionThe Court directed the parties to take a break and address the remaining issue afterward.
At sidebar, counsel disputed whether questions about events after a fight improperly assumed details rather than allowing the witness to recount events chronologically.
Court's actionThe court stated it had not seen questioning cross the line and characterized the concern as limited to a few questions at intervals.
The transcript notes that a sidebar occurred and that the following page was sealed.
Counsel raised concerns about a juror’s coughing and discussed offering a break if needed.
Court's actionThe court said the deputy was checking on the coughing juror and speaking with her.
The parties discussed whether cell-site records could confuse the jury because they do not capture all phone communications, including Wi-Fi calls and text messages.
Counsel raised concern about the witness’s emotional state and whether breaks could be taken while her examination continued.
Court's actionThe court said it would inquire whether the witness was able to proceed and confirmed that the parties had the entire next day available.
Counsel said the cross-examination was ahead of schedule and expected to introduce voice notes after discussing them with opposing counsel.
Court's actionThe court indicated that cross-examination would finish the next day and allowed an opportunity to discuss the anticipated exhibits.
The parties disputed whether testimony about Jane helping Mr. Combs seek admission to a program was relevant relationship context or unfairly prejudicial.
Court's actionThe court sustained the objection.
Defense challenged photographs of firearms because the witness could not say where on the searched premises they were recovered.
Court's actionThe court overruled the relevance and Rule 403 objection to the gun photographs and noted that the objection had been preserved.
The parties discussed whether and how portions of a lengthy text-message exchange could be used during cross-examination and later admitted with redactions.
Court's actionThe court instructed that the screens be turned off while the exhibit was addressed.
The sidebar addressed a requested transcript redaction and the government's plan to offer exhibits before ending for the day.
Court's actionThe court instructed that, after the exhibits were offered, the jurors would be released for the day and the remaining issues addressed.
Counsel challenged characterizations of record-based meeting attendance and travel as lacking the witness's personal knowledge.
Court's actionThe Court directed that meeting attendance and travel records be described as corresponding to the records and dates shown, rather than as proof of attendance or travel purpose.
The sidebar addressed whether a sequestered witness could rely on reviewed testimony to identify the local user of certain devices.
Court's actionThe court directed the parties to use the stipulation rather than revisit the challenged question.
The parties had not yet conferred about Juror No. 7 and discussed addressing the matter the following day.
Counsel debated whether cross-examination about the witness's understanding of criminal conduct permitted redirect questioning about what he believed cash was used for.
Court's actionThe court instructed counsel to limit the sidebar to two people and then took the matter under review by examining the transcript.
At sidebar, the parties and court discussed whether redirect could explore the witness's lack of knowledge about whether money or events had legitimate or criminal purposes.
Court's actionThe court permitted redirect questions establishing the witness's lack of knowledge about the purposes of the money or events, while reserving any decision on striking testimony until after redirect.
At sidebar, the parties debated foundation and hearsay objections to admitting a limited, redacted entry from a phone note concerning a cash delivery.
Court's actionThe court overruled the objection to the specified portion of the phone note and stated that the objection had been waived at that point.
The court discussed the remaining cross-examination videos and timing, the expected short redirect, and the plan to finish the witness that afternoon.
Court's actionThe court directed a break, with lunch planned for 12:45 and permission for the cross-examination to continue after lunch if needed.
The parties disputed whether redirect could use uncited messages and exhibits to respond to cross-examination of the summary chart.
Court's actionThe court sustained the scope objection because the witness did not select messages for the summary chart.
No sidebars match these filters.