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 21, 2025 8:45 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 JONATHAN P. BACH -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
(Pages 1991 through 1994 sealed)
(Trial resumed; jury not present)
THE COURT: First, on Dr. Hughes, who will be presenting Dr. Hughes?
MS. STEINER: I will, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand. I take it you're going to elicit on direct that Dr. Hughes did not review any of the evidence in this case; is that fair?
MS. STEINER: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: And that she's not talking about any specific witness in this case?
MS. STEINER: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Was she here during Ms. Ventura's testimony?
MS. STEINER: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: She's not going to be commenting on Ms. Ventura specifically?
MS. STEINER: In no way at all.
THE COURT: In your letter, I think you addressed most of what defense had identified in their letter. The only portion of your letter that I had a question about is on the second page. You indicate that as part of her testimony, the government will elicit brief testimony regarding how specific types of abuse cause a victim to remain in a relationship. I think that's consistent with the Court's ruling. But you go on to say that Dr. Hughes will provide concise definitions of the relevant forms of abuse. And I haven't heard from the defense, but I would imagine what they would say is, well, isn't that a backdoor way of introducing what is in the coercive control section in Dr. Hughes's report and that should be out. But maybe you can shed a little more light on what Dr. Hughes would be saying.
MS. STEINER: Of course, your Honor. First of all, I think, as the Court can see, we're very much trying to hue to the April 25th order of the Court, and what's specifically in Dr. Hughes' notice, we expect that during the course of Dr. Hughes' testimony, she's going to need to differentiate between different types of abuse because they have different effects on the victim, and as your Honor order contemplated and I think understood, it's important that Dr. Hughes be able to explain and not be hindered from explaining the reasons that a victim is engaging in the behavior that they are. In order to explain those reasons, she has to explain kind of the effect of these different types of abuse. This is going to be very limited, your Honor, but I do think it's necessary and I think for two reasons.
THE COURT: Well, when you say limited, are you saying like five minutes?
MS. STEINER: I don't even think, your Honor, I'm going to ask her, I don't expect to ask her, can you please define this term. She's an expert, and the first time she uses a term, she'll want the jury to understand what she's referring to. So, for example, if she talks about financial manipulation, she'll want the jury to understand what that term is. It's going to be something that is relevant to coping, it's going to be something that's relevant, of course --
THE COURT: Why does she have to explain what it is? Doesn't that go to what's in the coercive control section, meaning Dr. Hughes will explain that these tactics may include, among other things, the following, actual or threatened physical violence, aggression, sexual assault and abuse, sexual degradation, micro regulation, financial and physical and emotional isolation from preexisting support networks and external influence, use of collateral or damaging or compromising information, exploitation of preexisting psychological traumatic and financial vulnerability, et cetera. So is that what she's essentially going to be testifying about?
MS. STEINER: No, your Honor, she's not going to use all those terms. I expect she'll refer to kind of buckets of types of abuse. So for example --
THE COURT: Physical abuse --
MS. STEINER: Sexual abuse. And when she says sexual abuse, to lay a proper foundation for her opinion about what she's talking about, she'll want to define the parameters of what that means to her --
THE COURT: In concise --
MS. STEINER: In concise terms, exactly.
THE COURT: Okay.
MS. STEINER: Exactly.
THE COURT: Because otherwise, what she says, it would be hard for her to provide her opinion --
MS. STEINER: Exactly.
THE COURT: On the things that the Court has permitted her opinion without saying something about what is triggering those things.
MS. STEINER: Exactly. Like I said, your Honor, we're not going to belabor the point. We've kind of instructed her not to repeat the definition. She's going to lay out kind of the contours and then move on just to provide that foundation for the jury.
THE COURT: Look, I think whats the defense says is, Dr. Hughes is a skilled and trained witness, and so she doesn't need to be asked the questions to try to do as much as she can. That's what they're concerned about. Understanding from what you're saying is that you have told Dr. Hughes about the limitations on her testimony, and then you will keep her within those bounds.
MS. STEINER: Yes, we have, your Honor. Yes, and we've worked with her. I would ask even, your Honor, to the extent I feel in any way that the expert is veering, that I be able to lead the witness back to the appropriate scope. She knows this and is going to do her very best --
THE COURT: I think that's acceptable and I think we will also be hearing from Mr. Bach outside of those bounds.
MS. STEINER: Yes.
THE COURT: Anything further from the defense? I think most of the issues you raised in your letter, which were well taken, given the 3500 material were addressed in Ms. Steiner's response, there was that one part of the response I think was a little bit ambiguous, and so we've had some changes. Any further issues from your side?
THE COURT: Good morning.
MR. BACH: Jonathan Bach. Nice to meet you. Secondly, I can tell from the Court's comments and from the government's remarks that the issues are well known to the Court and they seem to be addressed, the devil will be in the details. We are of course concerned about coercive control coming back into play. We're just also concerned about parading kind of a parade of horribles of abuse in front of the jury to suggest that there's a large societal problem here that might not relate to this case. I think your Honor, when you ruled, said that Ms. Hughes was not to expound at length about different types of abusive conduct as a precursor. That's in the transcript.
THE COURT: It's in the paragraph after what was quoted.
MR. BACH: If she's not expounding at length, we can obviously live with it and we'll address it, but if she does --
THE COURT: I expect you to stand up and I will not hesitate to police those lines, which I think is what I said in the transcript you're citing.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, I wanted to note for the record, as your Honor is aware, we're preserving our objection to her entire testimony. So during the examination, the objections will be about policing the Court's ruling, but we don't intend -- by not objecting to every question
THE COURT: You filed your motion and I denied it in part and that preserves the issue.
MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
THE COURT: That addresses Dr. Hughes. As to Mr. Steel's letter concerning certain exhibits, exhibit 406, which is the photograph, I think that's within bounds subject to connection with the testimony that would be admitted. As to exhibit 402, I'm not understanding what that has to do with anything. So I don't know if anyone wants to address that.
MR. AGNIFILO: I can address it, your Honor. So it really, it just shows the relationship between Ms. Ventura and this other particular witness. The relevant part of it is there's been this suggestion in the case that somehow Mr. Combs made, compelled Ms. Ventura to do drugs. Here, what we have in the conversation is only that Ms. Ventura is somewhere else, she says she's in Boston. That's irrelevant one way or another where she is, and that she's contacting this witness to see if there's places where she can get drugs in Boston.
THE COURT: But if that's the case, doesn't it go to the truth of the matter asserted?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, because it's irrelevant she's in Boston.
THE COURT: That's not the only matter asserted. The matter asserted is she's fiending for drugs and she wants to get them in Boston just like she does in New York City, which is the correspondence.
MR. AGNIFILO: But there's no assertion. It's a dialogue. She's having a conversation through text with this witness — do you know a place in Boston? That's really a question. And he says no, the stuff in Boston, other than marijuana, is not very good. And that's really the crux of it.
THE COURT: What is the relevance again?
MR. AGNIFILO: The relevance is that she's a free agent. She goes to other places, she makes decisions on her own about what she wants to do there.
THE COURT: See, as you discuss the relevance, it seems more like you're putting this exchange in for the truth of the matter asserted.
MR. AGNIFILO: But the truth isn't that -- we don't even know whether she got any drugs. And that's not the point. The point is, she has -- excuse me. I'm calling her she. Ms. Ventura has friendships in the group. That's established by the text chain. She can go to these friends she has made in the group to ask for things that she wants. She is responded to and she can make decisions of her own free will about how she wants to live her life. None of this would be horribly relevant if it weren't for the overlay that the government is putting forward that she didn't have this type of free agency and that drugs were imposed on her by Mr. Combs, and this shows that that's just simply not the case.
THE COURT: Any response from the government?
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor. So first, I think there are two instances that are clearly being offered for the truth of the matter asserted to prove the point that Mr. Agnifilo just set out, and that is, I'm in Boston tomorrow hosting a party tomorrow night. The reason the defense wants that in is to prove that she was in fact going to be in Boston that next night. And then the other is on the next page, it's just me anyway, and they want to offer that to prove that it was just her without Mr. Combs. That is the truth of the matter asserted, and that is the only way that they have the relevance hook that Mr. Agnifilo just proffered to your Honor. I'd also note that I don't know how probative this is because I don't believe Ms. Ventura's testimony was that she only ever got drugs from Mr. Combs. To the contrary, I think that she testified that she got drugs from other sources, in particular she started getting drugs from other sources later in the relationship by the time she was addicted, which would have certainly fallen into 2016, which is when these text messages are.
THE COURT: You would agree though, the certification -- well, the question from Ms. Ventura about obtaining drugs, that itself would be properly admissible because it's not being put in for the truth of the matter asserted.
MS. COMEY: I would agree it's not hearsay, your Honor, because there is no truth being asserted.
THE COURT: It's a question.
MS. COMEY: I totally agree, not hearsay, a question is not hearsay. On that, I think the relevance is tenuous at best. I think it's an attempt to impeach Ms. Ventura improperly through this extrinsic evidence that has very, very minimal probative value. But I agree with your Honor that the question alone, if you redacted the assertions, would not be hearsay.
THE COURT: Meaning that she was in Boston and on her own?
MS. COMEY: And that she's on her own, exactly. And I think that those two points are the reason that Mr. Agnifilo wants this exchange in, is to prove not only that she's asking for drugs, but she's asking for drugs when she's in another city and on her own. I think that is the purpose for which the defense is going to want to use this exhibit.
THE COURT: I'll think about that. Before Mr. Kaplan testifies, I'll give you a definitive ruling after I consider the parties' arguments.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. And may I just briefly be heard on 406? I understand your Honor's ruling. I just wanted to flag the reason I had objected.
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. COMEY: Which is that I don't think that the picture in isolation is objectionable, it's the picture together with the message of condolences to Mr. Combs and his children upon the death of Ms. Porter. I think this witness, it is totally fair for the defense to cross examine this witness about the fact that he remained in contact with Mr. Combs, that he remained friendly and supportive of Mr. Combs, even that he sent condolences, I think that's all fair cross-examination of Mr. Kaplan and I won't object to that. My concern about this, my 403 concern about this particular exhibit is that it starts to veer into seeking juror sympathy for the fact that the mother of Mr. Combs's children tragically died and would, I worry, be an attempt to plant a seed in the jurors' minds that if Mr. Combs is convicted, they may be taking away the only remaining parent from these children. And so while I understand Ms. Porter's death is going to come in at this trial and is somewhat relevant, that relevance is extremely limited, and the probative value of this message is extremely low. I don't think it goes to any disputed issues at this trial and I think we start to veer into unfair prejudice and tugging at the jurors' heartstrings and sympathies when we start putting in a picture of her together with condolences. So that was my objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: Understood. I'll take a closer look at exhibit 406 while we're dealing with the other witnesses. And as to Mr. Mescudi, let me ask you this: Whoever is going to be presenting Mr. Mescudi, are any of these concerns well founded, I guess is the way it put it, because I think, in general terms, the defense's concern is that either you are going to try to elicit inadmissible hearsay or speculation concerning Ms. Ventura's state of mind, both of which would be improper, but you may not be trying to do any of that.
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I don't believe the vast majority of the items laid out in the letter are anything we need to tee up for the Court. Mr. Mescudi will not be testifying today, and so the government would appreciate an opportunity to confer further with the defense, and there may be one issue where we need your Honor's input, but I don't anticipate that most of the items in that list will be at issue.
THE COURT: All right. So then if he's not going to testify today, is that based on the anticipated length of the testimony of the other witnesses or is there a change in the order and I missed it?
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, I apologize. We emailed the Court last night and the parties, maybe around 10:30, 10:45, I think there's a chance we wouldn't get to him anyway based on the anticipated length of testimony. If we do, we would need to call the next witness out of order just because of availability issues.
THE COURT: I see that in the paragraph. I saw the list, which had Ms. Morales after Mr. Mescudi. That's my mistake. Okay. Understood. And as to Mr. Kaplan and the issue that was raised over email, Ms. Comey, what, if anything, does the Court need to do, other than potentially signing that order?
MS. COMEY: So my experience with immunized witnesses during trial is that usually during a break outside the presence of the jury, the witness is called to the stand to officially assert his Fifth Amendment privilege, and I think either the Court can --
THE COURT: I'll ask you to do that --
MS. COMEY: -- inquiry.
THE COURT: I think some courts have done that in front of the jury on direct, and there have been some judges who have done the interim instruction that I sent to you, because that's where I got it from. We don't have to do it that way. If the parties are in agreement, I'm happy to have Mr. Kaplan called outside the presence of the jury, we'll swear him in, and then you can ask any questions that you feel are appropriate.
MS. COMEY: That would be our request, your Honor.
THE COURT: Okay. Anything further from the government?
MS. COMEY: No. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything from the defense?
MR. AGNIFILO: No. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's have Special Agent Gannon back on the stand. Let me ask the deputy to check on our jury.
(Jury present)
(Witness present)
THE COURT: Agent Gannon, you understand you are still under oath?
GERARD GANNON: Yes, sir.