UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ------------------------------x UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. 24 Cr. 542 (AS) SEAN COMBS, a/k/a "Puff Daddy," a/k/a "P. Diddy," a/k/a "Diddy," a/k/a "PD," a/k/a "Love," Defendant. Trial
New York, N.Y. May 20, 2025 8:38 a.m. Before: HON. ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge -and a Jury- APPEARANCES JAY CLAYTON United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York BY: MADISON R. SMYSER EMILY A. JOHNSON MAURENE R. COMEY MEREDITH FOSTER MITZI STEINER MARY C. SLAVIK Assistant United States Attorneys APPEARANCES
(Continued)
AGNIFILO INTRATER LLP Attorneys for Defendant BY: MARC A. AGNIFILO TENY R. GERAGOS -and- SHER TREMONTE BY: ANNA M. ESTEVAO -and- SHAPIRO ARATO BACH LLP BY: ALEXANDRA A.E. SHAPIRO JASON A. DRISCOLL -and- XAVIER R. DONALDSON BRIAN STEEL NICOLE WESTMORELAND ALSO PRESENT: LUCY GAVIN, AUSA Paralegal Specialist SHANNON BECKER, AUSA Paralegal Specialist RAYMOND MCLEOD, Defense Paralegal Specialist
(Trial resumed; jury not present)
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone. Please be seated. Just to inform everyone and just as a reminder of how conscientious our jurors are, Juror No. 5 informed the court that they will be ten minutes early instead of 15 minutes early. I want to let everyone know that. I don't think we have a lot to get through before the jury comes in. There was one issue that was flagged by the government, and we can see if we can resolve that.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor. We have conferred further this morning. I understand Mr. Agnifilo does have an objection to testimony that the government intends to offer with Ms. Regina Ventura, Ms. Ventura's mother. The testimony is relating to the events of December 2011 that Ms. Ventura testified to on direct examination already. To remind the court, that is when Mr. Combs learned that Ms. Ventura had been romantically involved with Scott Mescudi. Ms. Ventura testified that Mr. Combs attacked, lunged at Ms. Ventura during -- when he found out. She ran away, was picked up by Mr. Mescudi, and there was an e-mail -- piece of e-mail that we admitted that showed a message sent from Ms. Ventura to her mom and Capricorn Clark that next day describing threats that Mr. Combs made about videos and against the lives of Mr. Mescudi and Ms. Ventura. And in the interim, between when Mr. Combs finds out and the e-mail, Ms. Ventura testified that she went to his home and he assaulted her. Ms.
Ventura's mother would testify that prior to the e-mail that she received, she received a demand from Mr. Combs for $20,000 and that she was told by Mr. Combs that the $20,000 was money that he had spent on Ms. Ventura, that Ms. Ventura had been with another individual, and that Ms. Ventura's mother had to pay him the $20,000. Ms. Ventura's mother then went to the bank, took out a loan, and paid him the $20,000. The wiring information that she received was over e-mail from some individual who worked for Mr. Combs and she transferred the money to Mr. Combs' -- one of Mr. Combs' accounts in the name of 207 Anderson, for which we have bank records that we would also intend to offer after the completion of this testimony. Your Honor, I'm not sure of the precise nature of Mr. Agnifilo's objection to this testimony. I think it's grounded potentially in 403. The government submits this is highly probative evidence of Count Two. It goes to the coercion of Ms. Ventura. Ms.
Ventura previously testified extensively about the various forms of coercion, including control over her career, her appearance, her finances. This is just additional evidence of financial coercion, because as soon as Ms. Ventura was slipping from the defendant's control, he reaches -- this evidence proves that he reaches out to her mother to exercise -- to demand money and to keep -- I mean, I think it's strong proof of that coercion. It's continuing to keep Ms. Ventura in his sphere even as she's attempting to leave. I do not think it's particularly prejudicial given the nature of the case. It's a very short vignette, about $20,000. I will also -- Ms. Ventura's mother will also testify that the $20,000 was returned to her bank account with no explanation a few days later after it was wired out.
THE COURT: Understood. Mr. Agnifilo.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yes, Judge. My colleague is right. It's a 403 objection. The money was returned. The money was paid back, so no money ever left Ms. Ventura's possession on an ongoing basis. It was transferred and it was transferred back. And I just don't know what the relevance is, given that. You know, if Mr. Combs was of the belief that there was some money owed because of some debt, you know, that Ms. Ventura's daughter might have owed and then decided that there wasn't a debt, that just seems to introduce a lot of confusion into the case without a great deal of purpose. And I think, you know, the government saying, well, it was returned without explanation. The whole thing is without explanation. You know, it's money that leaves Ms. Ventura, the mom's, you know, account that she has control over, goes to Mr. Combs, and then is returned. So I don't really know what this proves, and I think it raises a lot more questions than it answers. I think it's purely prejudicial. It doesn't actually advance any of the issues in the case, and so my basis for asking that it be excluded is under 403.
THE COURT: What's the prejudice?
MR. AGNIFILO: The prejudice is --
THE COURT: Given what you just said, which is that it's returned shortly afterward.
MR. AGNIFILO: I mean, the prejudice is, I think the prejudice is that the Ventura family is a hard-working middle-class family who probably could use -- that needs $20,000. And the prejudice that I think is that Mr. Combs probably does not. So I think it shines an unfair light on the economic disparity between those two people, those two -- those two families, in essence, and I think that's prejudicial. I think the nature of the testimony is going to be, when he asked for this money, we had to really scrounge and work to get it, maybe even take out loans. And gave him the money and then he gave it back. And so I think it shines a prejudicial spotlight on the relative finances of the people involved, which have no issue, which is not an issue in this case whatsoever. So that's the nature of the prejudice.
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, if I may just respond to that briefly?
THE COURT: Well, let me ask you a question. You had mentioned that this evidence would be relevant to coercion.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
THE COURT: But coercion is not a freestanding element in this case. Count Two states that means of force, threats of force, fraud, and coercion would be used to cause the person to engage in a commercial sex act. So if that's the standard, then how do you connect the dots between the $20,000, which might have been extortion. Who knows what it was. But I'm not hearing from you that there was some connection to participation in a commercial sex act or that Ms. Ventura, when she testifies, is going to explain that Mr. Combs, for instance, said Cassie Ventura is under my control, we're in this relationship, you know, something to connect the dots. Maybe you can help me do that.
MS. JOHNSON: Sure, your Honor. Just stepping back for one moment. You know, the coercion is a course of conduct here. It is consisting of a number of different elements and ways in which the defendant coerced Ms. Ventura on an ongoing basis to participate in commercial sex acts. That includes control over her career, control over a number of elements of her life, and control over her finances. In this particular time period, recall that at this exact same time, Ms. Ventura has sent her mother a message saying that Mr. Combs is threatening to blackmail her about the particular sex acts and release the videos. That is happening, and Ms. Ventura's mother's mind, this is all part of that same incident. She will testify -- this is all happening to her at the same time. The money is transferred on the same day that she receives that e-mail. I think that this is all tied up in Mr. Combs' efforts to keep Ms. Ventura in his circle and under his influence, which is the coercion that the government is trying to prove.
THE COURT: I take it that you -- that will be elicited on Ms. Ventura's testimony, that she -- at least it was her understanding that there was this issue of blackmail and potentially videos relating to the commercial sex acts that are at issue in this case. And for that reason, Ms. Ventura believed that it was necessary to do what she could do, make this $20,000 payment to avoid the potential ramifications on her daughter. Is that fair?
MS. JOHNSON: That is fair. Ms. Ventura's mother does not -- she receives the e-mail that says videos, she doesn't understand at that time what the videos are of, but she does perceive it as a threat and acts accordingly.
THE COURT: All right. Mr. Agnifilo, so that's a little bit of a more particularized showing of why the evidence would be relevant. Meaning, I'm with you that if it was just $20,000 that came out of nowhere or was just related to something having to do with Mr. Mescudi, then that's one thing. But the government is going to establish before this testimony comes in that there was some understanding that there were videos, there was potential blackmail, and as we know from Ms. Ventura, Cassie Ventura's testimony, the videos at issue were videos concerning the commercial sex acts involved. So, under those circumstances, it would seem to be relevant and probative. And as we addressed, the prejudice here is fairly minimal because the $20,000 is immediately given back, and I'm sure that will be elicited in testimony if not on direct, then on cross. So under those circumstances, how do --
MR. AGNIFILO: I have two arguments.
THE COURT: Why is the unfair prejudice substantially -- why does it substantially outweigh the probative value?
MR. AGNIFILO: I have two arguments. One, the first is, to the extent that the government is saying that this is part of some type of extortion or blackmail, they should have given 404(b) notice of that. That's not the way that we ever understood this evidence. We understood this evidence to be that Mr. Combs is essentially saying I spent a certain amount of money, you know, to try --
THE COURT: This isn't 404(b). They are saying it's actually directly about the Count Two.
MR. AGNIFILO: I think that's far afield. That certainly was not an enterprise letter.
THE COURT: What year was this, Ms. Johnson, 2011?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, December of 2011.
THE COURT: That's within the timeframe at issue in Count Two.
MS. JOHNSON: It is.
THE COURT: So that's why they are saying it's not 404(b). It's not other acts. It's part of this coercion scheme.
MR. AGNIFILO: This connection between the e-mail and the $20,000 is, you know, sort of a new connection. And it was always understood that this was because Mr. Combs had amassed a certain amount of expenses for Ms. Ventura, wanted the money back, and then thought better of it and sent the money back to the family. So, the other thing is, Ms. Ventura certainly didn't connect these things as an extortion. There was no testimony from her that the $20,000 that her family gave to Mr. Combs was given over as part of an extortion. So I think we have a problem that we keep coming to is that the government called a witness with personal knowledge of all these things, the person most -- the best person in a position to talk about, yes, I felt coerced. I didn't feel coerced. Whatever it is I felt about these things. They don't bring it out through her. And now that are trying to bring it out through a witness who's more tangentially involved, I think, in large part, because they didn't bring this connection out through her. And who better than -- and, I mean, Cassie Ventura -- to make this connection. They shouldn't be allowed to do it sort of through this backdoor way.
THE COURT: All right. And, Ms. Johnson, are you going to be presenting Ms. Regina Ventura?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: I take it that you will establish, you will lay a foundation for the circumstances under which Ms. Ventura felt compelled to make this $20,000 payment before you address the $20,000 payment?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: OK. So, Mr. Agnifilo, you can raise an objection at the appropriate time. Let's see what -- I think we need to see how the testimony comes in, and then I'll make a determination.
MR. AGNIFILO: Understood. Since we have a few minutes before the jury comes in.
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: Can I raise another issue?
THE COURT: Yes.
MR. AGNIFILO: I wish I would have raised this last night. I just thought it of this morning. So, I believe Mr. James -- I spoke to the prosecutors just before we started. I haven't gotten into it in great length. There is this incident that Mr. James is going to talk about involving Mel's Diner and that there -- that Suge Knight had some sort of confrontation with Mr. James and another person, and then they went back to the house and they got guns and Mr. Combs came back. And there was this -- they looked for Suge Knight and couldn't find him. There was 3500 material from Cassie Ventura, and I crossed Ms. Ventura on it, she said she didn't remember saying it, that she went along, that she went along on this ride. And had that happened and had that been the testimony, I could see the relevance to that. Because she would say that was scary, it was part of this atmosphere of fear, because I went along. But she didn't say that on the stand. She didn't say what she had said in some prior statements. Just to be fair, in a prior statement, she said both ways. Once she said she went. Once she said she didn't go. In light of the fact that the testimony now on the record is that she didn't go, this is a contested event. It's a prejudicial event. And if Ms. Ventura didn't go along, I don't see the relevance to overcome a 403 objection to Mr. James talking about what he did as part of this. Again, I was under the belief that Ms. Ventura was going to say that she went, but she didn't say that. And in the best of worlds, your Honor, let me start with that, is I would have raised this to you at 10:00 o'clock last night, but I really thought about it at about 5:00 o'clock this morning.
THE COURT: Ms. Slavik, do you want to address this?
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I would be happy to. First, let me just note that Mr. Agnifilo has just complained about not having the opportunity to cross Ms. Ventura on this issue with the $20,000 extortion. Now he's complaining that he did cross Cassie on this very issue. This is the defense trying to have its cake and eat it too.
THE COURT: But you would agree that Ms. Ventura's testimony, at least here, was that she was not -- she did not accompany.
MS. SLAVIK: Right. I would agree that that was -- that that was Ms. Ventura's testimony. And what Mr. James will testify about is something that he personally observed and experienced. This is exactly the type of testimony that should come in. It goes to multiple elements of Count One. This does not entirely relate to Count Two. This relates to Count One, specifically the existence of the enterprise, the membership and the association of the enterprise, the purposes of the enterprise, and the means and methods of the enterprise.
THE COURT: In what way? Meaning, this does not go to any of the predicates, right?
MS. SLAVIK: No.
THE COURT: OK. So you're saying it goes to --
MS. SLAVIK: Excuse me. Except for sex trafficking of Victim 1, in that the culture of fear and violence, but the incident itself is not charged as a predicate. But it was notified in our enterprise letter. Let me direct your Honor's attention to the indictment. Specifically paragraph 11, subparagraph B and subparagraph D, which relate to the purposes of the enterprise.
THE COURT: I'm sorry. You said B and which other subparagraph?
MS. SLAVIK: B and D. Which relate to preserving, protecting, promoting, and enhancing the power, reputation, and brand of Sean Combs as a musician, entrepreneur, and figure in the entertainment industry. That's paragraph B.
THE COURT: That's what this was all about.
MS. SLAVIK: Correct.
THE COURT: So, Mr. Agnifilo, you make a fair point on Count Two, and I agree with you on that, given the testimony that came in. Ms. Slavik says it's really Count One, and in particular, there are actually -- it was indicted that purposes of the enterprise, included preserving and enhancing the power of the enterprise through violence, use of firearms, threats of violence, coercion, and verbal, emotional, physical, or sexual abuse. The last part doesn't apply. But the first part would seem to -- and I take it that Mr. James is going to say, it wasn't just Mr. Combs, it was Mr. Combs and members of the enterprise, and I was there and I witnessed these things. So why wouldn't that pass scrutiny here?
MR. AGNIFILO: So what I think he's going to say is that Mr. James and someone, who I think he's going to identify as D-Roc, were in a car outside the diner. A red car of some -- I don't know if he'll say it's red. A car pulls up. The two doors open. D-Roc gets out of his car. Suge Knight gets out of his car. D-Roc says to Suge Knight, It's me, D-Roc. I was Biggie Smalls -- I was Biggie's best friend. This is not about anything that we are doing in this courtroom. This goes back decades. And there is a conversation, and I think he's -- Mr. James is going to say all this. And Mr. James and D-Roc stayed at the diner for a while and then his prior statements sort of vary. In his first statement, he doesn't talk about going back to the house to get guns and coming back with Mr. Combs. He doesn't say anything about it. That's his first statement. Then he does say that. And then he says what I think, you know, the government is going to say here today. The problem is, this is -- this is a very contentious issue. And I don't know that the first version that Mr. James gave the government is consistent with our -- if we have to prove this up, some other way, how we would prove it up. His second version to the government is not consistent with how we would prove this up, if we had to. And so, I feel like --
THE COURT: Isn't this a situation where you're going to be cross-examining Mr. James and you can --
MR. AGNIFILO: 100 percent.
THE COURT: -- reveal all this? If you want to preview your cross here again.
MR. AGNIFILO: Yeah, I just previewed it. And at the end of the day, I don't know what he's going to say. We are all going to sit at the edge of our seats together and see how he's going to handle this Mel's Diner incident.
THE COURT: I think what Ms. Slavik is saying is she is going to establish by eliciting testimony from Mr. James that this was Mr. Combs and his associates, who are members of this enterprise, and they were engaged in this effort to intimidate and threaten Suge Knight for the reasons that have been addressed here, and that was part of what this enterprise was doing. Then you'll try to undermine that that is what happened. But that's fair game, as far as I can tell.
MR. AGNIFILO: Understood.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
MR. AGNIFILO: Thank you, Judge.
THE COURT: Anything further, Ms. Slavik, or Mr. Agnifilo?
MS. SLAVIK: Not for the government.
MR. AGNIFILO: Nothing from us.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, can I put one thing on the record before we move on? So we had conferrals with the defense last night related to Special Agent Gannon's testimony, and we understand that the defense does not intend to cross him with questions directed at the legality of the search and of the seizure of evidence, as they did with Special Agent Binda's testimony. That should limit the objections during their cross-examination. We just wanted to put that on the record.
THE COURT: Is there going to be a disagreement as to what kind of questioning would be directed to the legality of the search, as opposed to other aspects of this case, as there was with the prior witness?
MS. SMYSER: I hope not, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. We will see. Let's have Mr. James back and then we will get our jury.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, may I take the position at the podium?
THE COURT: Thank you. Good morning, welcome back.
DAVID JAMES: Good morning, your Honor. How are you doing?
THE COURT: Good. How are you doing?
DAVID JAMES: Good.
THE COURT: All right.
(Continued on next page)
COURT CLERK: Your Honor, we are missing four jurors. It may be train problems leading to this.
THE COURT: We'll keep tabs on things. Mr. James, if you want to hang out here, you can, but you can also head back, it might take 15 minutes, whichever you're more comfortable with, and we'll be back. Courtroom deputy, just keep us apprized of the status.
COURT CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
(Recess)
THE COURT: We have our jurors. Let's get Mr. James back on the stand.
(Witness present)
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Welcome back, members of the jury. Mr. James, do you understand you're still under oath?
DAVID JAMES: I do, yes.