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. June 4, 2025 8:37 a.m. Before: HON. ARUN SUBRAMANIAN, District Judge -and a Jury- APPEARANCES JAY CLAYTON Interim 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- HARRIS TRZASKOMA LLP 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 Shannon Becker Paralegal Specialists Raymond McLeod, Paralegal
(Trial resumed; jury not present)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Ms. Geragos, I'm correct that your objection to GX 115 is based solely on rule 403, right?
MS. GERAGOS: Yes.
THE COURT: So, on that basis, the objection is overruled. First off, the Government Exhibit 115 is simply a compilation of exhibits that are already in evidence. Second, the defense does not object to the use of GX 115 as an illustrative aid under rule 107. So they concede for that purpose, any unfair prejudice would not substantially outweigh the exhibit's ability to assist the jury's understanding of the evidence or argument. Third, the Court has reviewed GX 115, and especially given the modifications made to the exhibit, including breaks in the video to eliminate any concern that the timing of clips was being presented in a deceptive way, the unfair prejudice does not substantially outweigh the probative value here. The Court notes that the video compilation reflects the government's best effort to accurately depict the timing of events.
And even if there were fair or certain issues that the defense wished to raise, those arguments would go to the weight to be given to the evidence and not to its admissibility. The Court also notes what it's previously raised that there's an absence of certain evidence in the case because certain of the original videos on the server were made unavailable, and the Court notes that in making this ruling. So the defense's rule 403 objection is overruled. The Court also notes and refers to the cases cited in the government's brief that suggests that numerous courts in this district have omitted these types of video compilations to come into evidence, including United States v. Powell, 18 Cr. 287. With that, let's move to other exhibit issues in the order that we should address them given how they're going to come up. So I think there are various issues raised with respect to Ms. Bongolan's testimony and the exhibits. So why don't we first address objections to the testimony, and then we can talk about the particular exhibits that are going to come up. So I understand the government has an objection to an anticipated line of the defense cross here; is that correct?
MS. SMYSER: That is correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Now, in general terms, what is the possible relevance in this case to Ms. Bongolan's prior assaults or disputes with romantic partners?
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, can I just clarify one factual thing. The last incident was with an ex-colleague and not an ex-girlfriend. I don't think that changes the analysis here.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. SHAPIRO: So, good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: Good morning.
MS. SHAPIRO: I'll be addressing this. Let me just say this, we anticipate that if we need to get into this, it will be extremely limited and it will be directed to impeaching the testimony about a particular incident Ms. Bongolan claims occurred. And if the Court needs more details, I understand the Court may not want to take it ex parte, but I had another suggestion, which would be that after the direct or right when the direct appears to be over, if Ms. Smyser asks for a sidebar, we could then provide a little more information, but --
THE COURT: Well, I understand the concern that was raised in the defense's letter, but the way I would treat this is like a motion in limine, which is, it's granted, meaning the government's objection is sustained. However, just as with any motion in limine, when you get to the point where you would like to get into testimony about this fact, the defense can call for a sidebar and approach and explain what they intend to do and the reasons why they should be permitted to do it. I think that's how we usually handle these types of issues. It's essentially what you're suggesting.
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes.
THE COURT: It's flipping the burden to the defense, which I think is fair. Because if you're at the point where you think you've laid the foundation to get into certain issues, then that's the point where you should call for a sidebar to come up. I think before then, the government doesn't know exactly what the defense is seeking to elicit or why. So I think it would be unfair to ask the government to ask for that sidebar.
MS. SHAPIRO: That's fair, your Honor, and we're happy to do that. And just so you know, to avoid wasting time on this, we are withdrawing our objections to the two Government Exhibits, GX 3S-105 and 106, just so the Court is aware.
THE COURT: Very good. Making progress again.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, can I just say one thing on this particular topic?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: You know, I understand and appreciate the Court's ruling, but it would be very helpful to have a final ruling on this before the direct examination, because these are the kinds of things that we would want to draw the sting out on direct examination if the defense is going to be able to ask about them. For all the reasons stated in our letter, I think it's wholly irrelevant, not proper impeachment, unduly prejudicial and they shouldn't be able to. But in the event that they did, this is something we would want to address on direct.
MS. SHAPIRO: Well, your Honor, that's actually -- I thought the government would say that and that's why I originally suggested that we have the sidebar right where the direct would otherwise conclude so that if the Court ruled that it could come in and Ms. Smyser wanted to --
THE COURT: But if we're doing that, then why don't we just resolve it now? That's what I don't understand.
MS. SHAPIRO: Because --
THE COURT: The defense's response was that we don't want to tell the government exactly what we're doing. So let's deal with this later.
MS. SHAPIRO: Because, your Honor --
THE COURT: Which I was happy to do. But even if the defense -- hold on.
MS. SHAPIRO: Sorry.
THE COURT: If the defense doesn't think that makes sense because of the government's concern, then wouldn't the appropriate time to address this be right now?
MS. SHAPIRO: No, your Honor. Because the reason we would be willing to do that is that the direct would essentially be concluded except that she could ask, you know, these questions about it. But if we explain --
THE COURT: No, we're not doing it that way. Either we address it right now or we do it in stride on cross. But I think Ms. Smyser has raised a fair issue that if it's going to be somehow permitted in the cross, then it would be unfair to the government to deprive them of the opportunity to address it in their direct. And I'm not understanding what's like state secret.
MS. SHAPIRO: Let me --
THE COURT: What's like the secret here.
MS. SHAPIRO: Let me try to lay -- explain that a little bit without disclosing the facts that will create the problem and the unfairness for the defense. So what's going to happen if we tell the government now before the witness takes the stand the precise purpose of this is that they will change the direct not just to include some disclosure of that there have been fights in the past, but in a substantive way that will undermine our ability to show that the incidents didn't happen. That's what I'm talking about. And so -- and we've seen -- and I just want to note, like, that kind of thing has happened several times in this case already. And we appreciate the reasons for the Court's trial procedures and the efficiencies that have -- those have produced. And so we understand that. But in this particular case, there's very strong reason for us to believe that if we explain this, we would be prejudiced because the direct would be changed in a way to make it seem that testimony about a certain incident is truthful, when in fact we can show that it's not. And so, you know, I think, as I said earlier, this questioning, if it's permitted, would be highly general and very brief. It's not going to get into -- and I can consult with Ms. Westmoreland to the firmness -- but I believe it's not going to get into any chapter and verse or details. At a very high level of generality.
THE COURT: Let me make sure I understand the back and forth between the parties that led up to this. I take it that the defense told the government that as part of their cross-examination, they intended to cross-examine Ms. Bongolan on these prior assaults or issues with colleagues and romantic partners. Is that fair?
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes, except what I would say is the government asked us were we planning to do this or were we going to waive that, and we said, no, we were going to reserve the right to do it.
THE COURT: All right. So you told the government you were planning to do it. So in a generalized way, what is the proffer of relevance?
MS. SHAPIRO: Can I consult with Ms. Westmoreland?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, we think that your first idea is the best way to deal with this. And if we were to make -- say anything more now in front of the government, it would severely compromise our ability to use this to any effect in the cross.
THE COURT: Give me a rule. How are you going to get this, under which rule would this be admissible?
MS. SHAPIRO: It's impeachment.
THE COURT: How could it possibly be impeachment if what you're talking about are assaults under rule 608(b) --
MS. SHAPIRO: It has to do --
THE COURT: Let me take a step back. I asked for a rule. The rule would be 608(b). You think this would be consistent with 608(b). Is that fair?
MS. SHAPIRO: It's not 608(b). Your Honor, I'll just -- we're happy to provide the proffer ex parte. And I think if we did, you would understand why it's difficult to -- I would have to explain the facts so you would understand it.
THE COURT: Does the government have an objection to an ex parte proffer? I think that's irregular.
MS. SMYSER: Yes, your Honor, I think that's entirely inappropriate.
THE COURT: Okay. Here's how we're going to resolve this. I'm not hearing, as you can tell perhaps from my questioning, I'm not understanding either the relevance on a 401, 403 basis, or the particular avenue that this type of testimony would be introduced. The government points to 608(b). That would seem to be the way in which you would be able to explore this on cross-examination if there is any way. And I'm not hearing any justification for doing that. So it's out, and that's how you should proceed on your direct examination. And I'll have to hear some compelling justification depending how the cross develops in order for this to be in. I'm not seeing it and I'm not hearing it. So that's the comfort I can give the government at this point while they're doing their direct.
MS. SMYSER: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So we have four exhibits that are being objected to. Seven really. And, Ms. Smyser, are you handling the presentation of this witness?
MS. SMYSER: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. So as to the three exhibits, 1851, 1854, and 1858, have those objections been resolved or not?
MS. SMYSER: I honestly don't know, your Honor. I haven't heard back.
THE COURT: Means have not.
MS. SHAPIRO: It doesn't, your Honor. I think there might have been some kind of misunderstanding. The only exhibits we're object -- that they -- I'm sorry. I think the only exhibits that the government is objecting to that we still plan to use for purposes other than, if necessary, refreshing, are the ones identified in my letter. So I think the government's letter mentioned DX 1851, 1854, and 1858, and we've withdrawn our -- we don't plan to introduce those into evidence.
THE COURT: Very good. Even more progress. So then we have four exhibits left. Let's start with DX 652 and 1875. Why do we need these? What's the purpose of putting these in as exhibits?
MS. SHAPIRO: So as we've discussed previously, the government's -- one of the government's principal arguments about coercion with regard to Ms. Ventura is they are arguing that Mr. Combs controlled her career and prevented her from pursuing her career in various ways. And these exhibits rebut that claim. The first one, DX 652, which we also had addressed in one of our earlier letters and we had previously attempted to introduce and there was a 412 objection is album art from her song Love a Loser that she designed together with Ms. Bongolan, we think the evidence will show, and this art was designed by Ms. Ventura herself to promote the song. DX 1875 is a flyer that Ms. Ventura posed for and helped create working with Ms. Bongolan. And this one relates to a business that she and Ms. Bongolan had that was completely independent of Mr. Combs. Mr. Combs had nothing to do with this. And she chose that -- Ms. Ventura chose how to present herself on the flyer. It was used to promote the brand and it was handed out to people for marketing. It shows Ms. Ventura has engaged in business activities independent of Mr. Combs on her own contrary to the government's narrative. And the reason, I know the Court is probably going to ask, well, why do you need these photographs.
THE COURT: That is, in fact, what I was going to ask.
MS. SHAPIRO: For the same reasons we've articulated before and for the same reasons the Court has allowed the government to introduce many, many photographs when they could have just elicited testimony. The pictures are relevant to showing how Ms. Ventura presented herself, how she was marketing herself independent of Mr. Combs or without his objection in the case of the song, which she, the song cover, which she designed herself together with Ms. Bongolan. So, you know, like all the other photographs in this case introduced by both sides, the visual expresses a meaning and provides evidence that is independent of and amplifies anything coming out of testimony in a way that brings things to life for the jury in a way that simply someone talking about an event does not.
THE COURT: Does someone have 1875 that they can put up? We've seen 652 before.
MS. SHAPIRO: Sure.
THE COURT: All right. So for the reasons that I've previously expressed with respect to certain of the Instagram posts, I don't see the probative value of either DX 652 or DX 1875. The defense is free to question the witness concerning these two projects and explore all of the issues that Ms. Shapiro just referred to. If necessary, you can also use these two exhibits to either refresh the witness's recollection or if they deny -- if she denies involvement in those affairs, then at the appropriate juncture you could seek to admit them if there was a real need to get these particular exhibits before the jury. But I don't see the basis under rule 403 for admission of these two exhibits into evidence. I agree with the government that there are substantial 403 and potentially 412 issues that are raised by both of these exhibits. But mainly, it's the a 403 issue given what the government notes, the content of these two exhibits balanced against their probative value, which the Court's view is that essentially nil given the testimony that can be freely elicited from the witness concerning those two events. So DX 1652 and 1875 are excluded.
MS. SHAPIRO: Can I ask a question?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. SHAPIRO: With regard to DX 1875, to the extent the photograph is just used with the witness but not admitted, can we inquire about some of the writing on it, for instance, that, you know, it talks about an in-store signing and that it was a flyer, that it was distributed, etc.? Even though the document is not going to be admitted.
THE COURT: I don't think that there's an objection to using these documents in that way. Is that correct, Ms. Smyser?
MS. SMYSER: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: So you can use them in that way.
MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
THE COURT: Let's see 1855. Ms. Smyser, what's your response to the defense's argument that these would be admissible under 803(3).
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, I don't know that this is really a statement of future intent here. I think this is an implied assertion that Ms. Bongolan is getting drugs and she's going to provide them or going to tell Ms. Ventura about them. And so that the underlying premise here is that she's going to learn about the drugs and she's going to get them. And I think that that presents a hearsay problem in addition to a 403 problem in that it's both unduly prejudicial and it's going to be cumulative given the testimony that we expect Ms. Bongolan to give about providing drugs to Ms. Ventura.
THE COURT: Ms. Shapiro, what is the probative value of DX 1855?
MS. SHAPIRO: Well, your Honor, I think putting in an actual text is corroborative and probative of what was going on at the particular time period. And, in addition, I would note, and we cited this case in our letter, later in our letter, but the fact that there may arguably be an implied assertion doesn't take this out of 803(3) certainly, and that's not really a basis to say that it's inadmissible hearsay.
THE COURT: All right. I agree with the defense that this would be admissible under rule 803(3) and that the unfair prejudice or cumulative nature of this particular exhibit would not substantially outweigh its probative value. So on that basis, at the appropriate juncture, if it is offered into evidence, it will be admitted. As to 1856, does someone have 1856 that they could put up? And, Ms. Shapiro, what's the point of this exhibit? What are you trying to get at?
MS. SHAPIRO: The point of this exhibit is to show that Mr. Combs -- as to Mr. Combs' state of mind, that he's unhappy with the fact that Ms. Bongolan and Ms. Ventura are taking ketamine together and he's trying to direct Ms. Bongolan, you know, not to do that and at least to have her back. And it's very important because the government has been suggesting throughout this trial that to the extent Ms. Ventura was using drugs, it was all at the hands of Mr. Combs and it's all caused by the fact that he is encouraging that. And this shows to the contrary that he was upset that she was taking drugs and Ms. Bongolan, I think the evidence will show, was providing drugs to her and that is why it's relevant and important to the defense case. And I think the letter makes clear why it's not inadmissible hearsay.
THE COURT: Ms. Smyser, what's the response? There's not really -- this isn't being admitted for the truth of any matter. To the extent it's being admitted for the truth of something, it's just for Mr. Combs' state of mind at the time that Ms. Bongolan is wack for doing ketamine with Ms. Ventura.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, I respectfully disagree. I think why the defense is using this is for the truth that Ms. Bongolan was doing drugs with Ms. Ventura. Ms. Ventura was doing drugs with Ms. Bongolan and that was unconnected to Mr. Combs. That is the assertion that they want in here. The defense has said that this is a statement of Mr. Combs' state of mind because he's unhappy. But those aren't the words on the page. So it is not an existing state of mind statement as to Mr. Combs. Instead, what he says is that like he's talking about friends getting high with each other, and you're not supposed to let friends fuck up and not stop them, and you're wack, and if you're going to do K at least have her back. So the assertion here, your Honor, is that they're doing ketamine together, which is inadmissible hearsay.
THE COURT: Based on what you said previously, Ms. Smyser, I take it that on direct examination you are going to elicit that Ms. Bongolan and Ms. Ventura did drugs together.
MS. SMYSER: Absolutely.
THE COURT: So that's not going to be a disputed point?
MS. SMYSER: No.
THE COURT: So 803(3) is -- the only real additional purpose of this is to demonstrate that Mr. Combs, during this period in time, had the mental state that he disapproved of that drug use. And if that were all that this said, you wouldn't have a problem with that. Right? If he said I don't like it when you and Ms. Ventura do drugs.
MS. SMYSER: If he phrased it that way, your Honor, then yes, we wouldn't have a problem.
THE COURT: Well, isn't that what he means when he says you're real wack for doing this, real wack.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, respectfully, I think it is an implied assertion that they are doing drugs together. But it is also not just him saying you're real wack, there's a lot of context here that I think is being offered for its truth.
THE COURT: I agree with the defense this would be admissible under 803(3) and that the unfair prejudice or cumulative nature of this exhibit would not substantially outweigh its probative value. So, again, at the appropriate juncture if it is offered into evidence, it will be admitted. Anything further, Ms. Shapiro?
MS. SHAPIRO: Not on Ms. Bongolan, no. Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything further from the government before we bring in our jury? Well, let me take a step back. So the government did put in a submission relating to Dr. Hughes. The defense, I take it, would like an opportunity to respond to that letter?
MS. SHAPIRO: Yes, your Honor, we vigorously object to that. We have not -- I have barely had time to read it. And we actually would like as much time as -- we would like, if possible, until Monday to respond. But we certainly also would ask that -- we don't believe that if the Court is going to allow this, which we think it shouldn't for a variety of reasons which I can get into now briefly, but we really need to address it in a letter because we think it is very important and it would be very unfair to the defense. We think that if the Court is even remotely inclined to allow this, it should not occur until after Jane, and if the other alleged victim who its unclear whether the government still intends to call, but until after any alleged victims have testified. So we would ask if the Court will indulge us to give us until Monday or late in the weekend to respond to this.
THE COURT: Does the government have any objection to that timing? It's the government's case.
MS. COMEY: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: So if the government intended to introduce this testimony earlier, then I'll certainly accommodate that.
MS. COMEY: No, your Honor. We were not planning to seek to offer this additional brief testimony until after Jane finishes her testimony anyway.
THE COURT: All right. Very briefly, is the testimony that you would seek to elicit within the coercive control section of Dr. Hughes's disclosure? Is that the real point that I excluded that testimony and you now want to get into that given what the Second Circuit said in Ray?
MS. COMEY: I'll let Ms. Steiner respond.
MS. STEINER: Your Honor, that is correct that there are very select portions that were previously in the notice under the section of coercive control that we would seek to elicit. We wouldn't be seeking to elicit that entire section. We would just be seeking to introduce those limited portions of it. And, yes, we would be seeking to do so both under the Second Circuit's recent decision in Ray, as well as the reasons we expounded upon in our letter given the cross-examination that the defense has put forth for Mia, which the government anticipates may be put forth with Jane as well.
THE COURT: So, Ms. Shapiro, you had asked for?
MS. SHAPIRO: Until Monday.
THE COURT: Okay. And the government doesn't seem to object to that so you'll have until Monday to put in your response.
MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you very much, your Honor.
THE COURT: Let's bring in our jury --
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, sorry, just one additional thing to flag for the Court. We're conferring with the defense, but we anticipate at least the government would ask for a slightly different instruction before Jane takes the stand on the pseudonym issue. We still want to continue our conferrals with the defense and will propose something to the Court hopefully by the next break.
THE COURT: Yes. You can just give it to me on a piece of paper if there's agreement and I will read it.
MS. JOHNSON: Absolutely.
THE COURT: Very good.
MS. SMYSER: One final thing, your Honor. Apologies. Ms. Bongolan does intend to invoke her Fifth Amendment right, and we'll ask the Court to enter an immunity order. We can either do that now or take a short break before her testimony, whatever the Court prefers.
THE COURT: Let's do it now. Do you have the order?
MS. SMYSER: I do.
THE COURT: Welcome. You can come right up here. Come on up. And just stay standing.
COURT CLERK: Raise your right hand.
BRYANA BONGOLAN, Sworn
DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MS. SMYSER:
MS. SMYSER: If you just pull the mic toward you. Good morning, Ms. Bongolan.
BRYANA BONGOLAN: Good morning.
MS. SMYSER: Did you receive a subpoena requiring you to testify at this trial?
BRYANA BONGOLAN: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: Do you have an attorney who represents you in connection with this case?
BRYANA BONGOLAN: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: And based on your discussions with your attorney, do you intend to invoke your Constitutional right not to testify on the grounds of potential self-incrimination?
BRYANA BONGOLAN: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: And do you understand that if the Court enters an order of immunity, that you'll be required to answer all questions truthfully here today?
BRYANA BONGOLAN: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: And do you understand that the order will not protect you from prosecution for perjury if you intentionally make a false statement today?
BRYANA BONGOLAN: Yes.
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, the government asks based on the witness's answers that the Court enter the proposed order of immunity.
THE COURT: I will enter the order now. And we'll make it a court exhibit. Is there anything further, Ms. Smyser?
MS. SMYSER: No, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Thank you, Ms. Bongolan. You can leave the stand at this point.
(Witness temporarily excused)
THE COURT: I'll ask the courtroom deputy to check on our jury.
COURT CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
(Continued on next page)
(In open court; jury present)
THE COURT: Welcome back, members of the jury. The government may call its next witness.
MS. FOSTER: Government calls --
MS. COMEY: No, no.
MS. FOSTER: The government plans to briefly offer and publish for the jury a few exhibits.
THE COURT: Very good.
MS. FOSTER: Ms. Gavin, could you please first pull up Government Exhibit 1301 or the stipulation between the parties. This is stipulation between the parties. And could you please turn to page three and highlight paragraph 11c. On or about March 25th, 2024, as part of a search of the residence located at 2 Star Island, Miami Beach, Florida, HSI seized the following electronic devices: Paragraph C, Government Exhibit A900, a cell phone from a bedroom on the second floor of 2 Star Island. And, Ms. Gavin, could you please highlight paragraph 14. Government Exhibits A900-A through A926 and AX 901, including the subdivisions thereof, are true and accurate excerpts of data extracted from Government Exhibit A900. Pursuant to that stipulation, the government now offers Government Exhibit A900-A, and Government Exhibit A-905-A.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. AGNIFILO: No, your Honor.
MS. GERAGOS: Our previously stated objection, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Understood. Government Exhibit A900-A and A-905-A will be admitted.
(Government's Exhibits A900-A & A-905-A received in evidence)
MS. FOSTER: Thank you. Ms. Gavin, can you please publish these for the jury. Starting with Government Exhibit A-900-A, this is a, it states, preliminary device report. And could you please highlight the apple IDs for this device. It states fb@combsenterprises.com, sc@badboyworldwide.com. Ms. Gavin, could you now turn to the second page of this preliminary device report and highlight the bottom few rows starting with Twitter. Twitter, Diddy; Snapchat, Puff Daddy. Ms. Gavin, you can take that document down and just focus on A-905-A. And turn to the second page. I'll now read this chat. Owner: Hit my shorty and ask her what is going on. Tell her that you just left me and you asked about her and all I said was I want to talk about it right now. Asking what's going on. And the date of this is 9/13/2015. From D-Roc cell: Okay. Owner: Also be like, I thought you was coming to the big concert this weekend. Say he told me you were last week. Owner: Next weekend I mean. D-Roc cell: Okay. Owner: Call me.
D-Roc cell: Yeah, we in the security room talking now. She wants you to come hug her and lay down. She didn't sleep yet. Owner: What did shorty say? D-Roc cell: Said she thinks she's suppose to see but you said no. Sorry, I skipped one. Before that message owner writes: G. D-Roc cell: Cass is calling studios looking for you. Owner: What did she say about the other questions? Owner: Ask her are we broken up? And ask why I said I don't fuck with her. D-Roc cell: G right? Owner: Yeah. You have to act like I said I'm not fucking with her and you're wondering what's going on. D-Roc cell: Okay. D-Roc cell: She saying you don't want to talk to her no more and she wants to see you. Owner: Its time for the ice. D-Roc cell: Okay. Owner: So what you going to tell her? Owner: What's Cass doing? D-Roc cell: I told her I don't know what's going on, but was just checking on her. Owner: What she say? D-Roc cell: Cass was eating. She about to ice up.
She keep asking for you, telling me she wants to go to the studio. I told her to chill out and said you are feeling bad about what happen. Owner: I spoke to Yum Yum, I will call you in 30 minutes. Stay on top of Cassie. D-Roc cell: I am. Owner: So she didn't say what's going on. G. D-Roc cell: Yeah, she wants to see you but you not fucking with her. D-Roc cell: Talking to Cass. I just gave her an ice pack. Owner: She didn't get into anymore detail. Owner: G. D-Roc cell: Not really. She just want to see you and she think you not going to fuck with her. Owner: Does the eye look better? How is she holding up? D-Roc cell: She looking for you crazy, blowing everybody up. She feeling Faheem. Are you coming back? D-Roc cell: Rio and Justin saw her eye. We said I fight broke out last night in the club. Owner: Why did she not have herself hiding? Owner: Can walk away and call me? D-Roc cell: It wasn't nobody here for a while. But she ain't tripping. She ain't tell nobody. I'm about to call you. That's it, your Honor.
THE COURT: Thank you. The government may call its next witness.
MS. SMYSER: The government calls Frank Piazza.
THE COURT: Welcome. You can come up here.
COURT CLERK: Remain standing for one moment and raise your right hand. FRANK PIAZZA, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows:
COURT CLERK: Can I please ask you to give the Court your first and last name and spell your first and last name into the microphone, please.
FRANK PIAZZA: Frank Piazza. That's F-R-A-N-K, P-I-A-Z-Z-A.
THE COURT: Ms. Smyser, you may proceed.
MS. SMYSER: Thank you, your Honor.