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 6, 2025 8:40 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)
THE COURT: Good morning, everyone.
MR. AGNIFILO: Good morning, your Honor.
THE COURT: So, the Court issued an order to the MDC to inquire about the availability of minutes for Mr. Combs to use to communicate with his attorneys.
The MDC, after their investigation, found no issues from a technological level on the call system and confirmed that Mr. Combs had available minutes to use. I believe they also sent defense counsel a reminder on the instructions to use in order to be able to initiate calls using that line, which I think the defense already had, because on some previous cycles, Mr. Combs had used minutes against his 300-minute max.
With that, Mr. Donaldson, has the issue been resolved at this point?
MR. DONALDSON: Judge, good morning.
I did receive an email from Sophia related to minutes that was allocated: that he, in fact, had those minutes; that he, in fact had not used those minutes. And she did give me a rather long, I guess, directions on how to redo it. I think what has happened is that they took his voice off the system so he has to go back in and redo his voice.
My understanding is that he's tried that, has done it, and it still is not working. That's my understanding right now.
I did receive that email from Sophia yesterday afternoon. I didn't get it until last night, so I didn't get the opportunity --
THE COURT: OK. Well, let's try again, because the MDC informs that in May, 47 minutes had been used on that line. So it appears that it was live and active as of May. And so to the extent that there was some subsequent development, the MDC says that they have no evidence of any kind of subsequent development, but they did send the instructions. To the extent that something got reset and they needed to put the voice back in there, they provided detailed instructions on that. So you should follow those instructions, and if there's any further issues, the MDC appears to be available to answer any inquiries to make sure that you can have those calls go through.
MR. DONALDSON: I will do that, Judge.
And just for the record, I think in May, there was a different process. I know that in June, I think June 1, there was another, something happened at MDC where they changed the process of visiting as well as the phone system. I think that happened June 1. And just for the record he did try, when I asked him this morning, before he came over, to use the phone again.
THE COURT: Using those instructions?
MR. DONALDSON: Yes. So I'll try to phone Sophia before 9 o'clock to see if she can work this out.
THE COURT: OK. Good.
MR. DONALDSON: As a matter of fact, I'll leave now.
THE COURT: Good. That's why we should be dealing with it now. It's the beginning of June, so to the extent that there's some issue that needs to be run down, we'll run it down.
MR. DONALDSON: Thank you.
THE COURT: All right.
As to the summary exhibits, which are DX-110 and 111 -- I believe that that's right.
Ms. Foster, is that right?
MS. COMEY: I'll be handling this, your Honor.
Yes, I think that's right.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. COMEY: Yes.
THE COURT: These look like they are appropriate non-argumentative summaries under 1006.
Is there any objection that the defense wants to raise?
MS. SHAPIRO: In addition to preserving the prior objections, because we think they are relevant because of the way they tie things together, one of the charts -- and I reviewed very quickly last night, so I don't have the number in front of me -- has, like, pictures in it of the text messages, including the one we vigorously objected to that your Honor admitted yesterday relating to the balcony incident. And so if the Court is going to allow it over our prior objection, we would ask that the government at least poach these exhibits of any pictures and just include texts about the chats.
We also, obviously, haven't had time to check them for accuracy, I don't think.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, if I may?
MS. SHAPIRO: And we may have hearsay objections to some of the text messages that have not yet been admitted into evidence that are reflected on the charts. So I guess, I don't know that the government had planned to introduce them today, but Ms. Comey will correct me if I'm wrong. But if that's the intent, we really need to go through them and identify the hearsay objections and get any pictures cleaned up.
MS. COMEY: I'm happy to respond to that, if that's all right, your Honor?
THE COURT: You may.
MS. STEINER: We expect to put these in no earlier than Thursday and more likely Friday of next week, so I think there's plenty of time for your Honor to address specific hearsay objections and for the defense to check the chart for accuracy. And obviously if they identify any errors, inaccuracies or anything that they think is misleading about the chart, we are happy to confer and make appropriate changes.
With respect to the pictures, the photographs themselves are in evidence. They are the evidence, and I don't understand the basis of saying there's any prejudice. They are obviously admissible, because the Court has admitted them, and I think it makes it easier for the jury to see that these are screenshots as opposed to text messages. So that's what the pictures are.
If your Honor looks at the exhibit, you can see that what is actually images are either image files or screenshots, and there's a very small number in this exhibit. And it just shows that they're actually photographs of another screen or screenshots. And in particular, the photographs of the other screen are significant and important for the jury to see because you can see a woman's hand appearing to hold the phone, and it appears to be Ms. Khorram's hand. And what she's holding appears to be Mr. Combs's phone. And so she appears to be using her own phone to take a picture of text messages on Mr. Combs's phone, and that is significant to show her knowledge of the events that are described in those text messages. And that is important to show that she had access to Mr. Combs's phone and was taking pictures of the text messages in the phone, and I think just conveying the messages themselves in the content column would be confusing because what the jury would see would just be text messages that they know come from Mr. Combs's devices. They wouldn't be able to see that it is a picture from Ms. Khorram's devices. And so that's why I think the pictures are necessary.
THE COURT: Can you get rid of the TMZ headline?
MS. COMEY: I don't see it, but I'm happy to, your Honor.
I believe, your Honor, that it's in there.
THE COURT: No. I just saw it. It's on page, it's below 57 in what I believe is 110.
MS. COMEY: I may be looking at the wrong one, your Honor. I apologize.
Oh.
THE COURT: It is the 27-page summary.
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
We can get rid of 57 and just have 58, which has the text, which is relevant.
THE COURT: All right. And so I'll allow the defense to be heard, but here's how I'm working through this.
In terms of Rule 1006, this appears to be a proper summary of voluminous writings, and it fits within the text of the rule. I understand the defense's objection to rise under Rule 403, and so for the reasons stated by Ms. Comey and in the government's prior submission and based on my review of these exhibits, I don't see how they either do not accurately reflect underlying evidence or are in any way argumentative. In fact, if you just had these exhibits, like I did, and looked at them, it would be unclear for what purpose the summary is being introduced.
Now, I understand, Ms. Comey, that there's a reason for these.
MS. COMEY: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: But if you just read them, they're not argumentative in the sense of going to the heart of the government's issues. They'll probably be put in for a particular element that the government needs to prove, and compiling all of these various exhibits and having the jury review each one would be inconvenient.
MS. COMEY: That's exactly right, your Honor. It would be very, very time-consuming, and I think that the relevance will become clearer at summations, but I think you're right, your Honor, that we set these out to be as neutral as possible and not argumentative.
MS. SHAPIRO: Your Honor, if I could just respond very briefly?
First of all, we do need the opportunity to review these carefully. I understand your Honor's ruling about the chart itself as a general matter, but we need to have the opportunity to study it and make specific objections to hearsay as well as responding to these pictures. But I also do want, we do want to put something on the record about the pictures Ms. Comey mentioned, because there's an inaccuracy that I'm going to defer to Ms. Geragos to correct there.
THE COURT: Here's what I'd suggest, because Ms. Comey says that these are not going to come into evidence until next Thursday. So you might be able to work some of these issues out. If there's actually an inaccuracy that you wanted to point out to the government, you might be able to point those out. If there's a hearsay objection as to particular line items, you might be able to work those out. And in any event, I think it's easier if you just put in a short letter on the objections you have, because then I can take a look at the letter and to the extent that these need to be pruned at all, I'm happy to do that.
I don't know if it is useful at this time to get into this.
MS. SHAPIRO: I agree, your Honor. I just think there's one thing that we think is very important to put on the record now --
THE COURT: Of course.
MS. SHAPIRO: -- in direct response to what was said.
MS. GERAGOS: That's right, your Honor.
I'm coming in for the assist --
THE COURT: That's fine.
MS. GERAGOS: -- with your Honor's permission.
THE COURT: That's fine.
MS. GERAGOS: I just have to correct this statement, because it's just not accurate, which Ms. Comey put on the record that it's important for the jury to see you can see a woman's hand appearing to hold the phone and appears to be Ms. Khorram's hand and what she's holding appears to be Mr. Combs's phone. She's using her own phone to take a picture of the text messages on Mr. Combs's phone, and that's significant to show her knowledge.
As to the photos that are included in GX 1411, the government knows that that's not true. These are Ms. Khorram's messages with other individuals on another device, and these photographs came from Ms. Khorram's devices that they executed the search warrants on. We received them -- from my recollection, and I could be wrong, this is just from my memory -- January and February of this year. And these are messages, for example, if I just point your Honor to page 25 of 1411, that conversation that is a screenshot with D-Roc, is a message between Ms. Khorram and D-Roc, and the government knows that.
The conversation right below it, between Ryan Lopez and right there, that's between Ms. Khorram and Ryan Lopez. So in terms of what the government proffers as necessary to have these screenshots in because they're from Mr. Combs's phone, they're not. They're from Ms. Khorram's device. She's take -- I mean what was clear to me, although now perhaps I need to run this down and put this further on the record. What was clear to me from my review of this discovery that was turned over to us -- and again, it's just my recollection -- January and February of this year, is this was messages she was taking from her device of another device of her own messages, because I recall then cross-checking it with actual Khorram messages. So these are not Ms. Khorram's messages or her knowledge of Mr. Combs's messages. That's something totally different.
And if that was the case, I could understand the proffer of relevance, but it's just something completely different. These are her own messages, that she's in the middle of a government investigation where she has her own attorney and she's trying to defend herself, it seems to me, taking photos of what would be important.
So I just want to put that on the record. We will continue conferring with the government, but that was really why I wanted to stand up and correct that part.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, I want to apologize and explain my error there.
I was looking just at the first screenshot, which is row 374, which is an exchange between Jane and Mr. Combs. And so that was the one I was looking at. And looking at the rest of the rows that have screenshots, Ms. Geragos is correct. And that was my error, and I apologize for that. The remainder are Ms. Khorram's own messages. The error was looking at the very first one, reading it, seeing that it was with Mr. Combs and then inferring that the rest were. And I apologize to your Honor and Ms. Geragos for that error.
THE COURT: No. That's fine. Do you need the screenshots? If that's an objection, then isn't that one that's pretty easily resolved, understanding that you may like the screenshots as opposed to the actual texts.
MS. COMEY: If I may?
I'm sorry for interrupting, your Honor.
THE COURT: No. I said there's probably another hill to die on.
MS. COMEY: I'm sure there is, your Honor.
If I may?
Because I clearly was not as familiar with the later ones, I just want to take a look at them and understand them more and confer with Ms. Geragos.
THE COURT: That makes perfect sense.
Also, I think I referred to them as DX 110 and 111. They're GX 1410 and 1411, correct?
MS. COMEY: That's correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: So we'll reserve on the summaries, and I'll await further submissions on the parties from those.
As to the amended Jane notes, I'll hear the defense, but I think the government's submission is that especially as they've been culled down and redacted, they would be admissible either under 803(3) as going to Jane's state of mind or, separately, would be admissible as prior consistent statements. And Jane is subject to cross-examination, and the implicit impeachment, at the very least, has already been done in the opening statement. And Caracappa and the other cases cited by the government, I'm not sure that the sequencing in this instance really matters.
So why isn't that sufficient to allow the government to submit these into evidence?
MR. DRISCOLL: So, I'll start with the state-of-mind exception, your Honor, and I think the redactions are a step in the right direction, but they don't cure all of our objections to statements being offered under the state-of-mind objection.
I'll just give one example, in GX E331-J-R.
THE COURT: Give me just one second.
MR. DRISCOLL: Yeah.
THE COURT: All right. I'm there.
MR. DRISCOLL: So there are clear assertions of fact that are not state-of-mind assertions, such as, you have thousands of videos of me on two phones for over 2.5 years performing almost every weekend, and you emotionally manipulate me for years if you're not happy with certain sex performances.
These are clear assertions. They're backward-looking. They don't come within the state-of-mind exception. And there are other examples in some of the messages, so I just don't think these redactions are enough.
As to the general credibility attack in the opening statements, they were at such a --
THE COURT: So, let me just stop you there just to make sure I'm tracking your argument. As to you have thousands of videos of me on two phones for over 2.5 years and performing almost every weekend, you're right, but that doesn't go to state of mind.
But that sentence shouldn't be viewed in isolation. So if you look at the remainder of what Jane is discussing here, that would go to her being coerced into doing these acts on a continuing basis, which is directly, directly responds to the attack that was made in openings that Jane was a willing participant in these acts over the course of their relationship. Right?
MR. DRISCOLL: No. The attack on her credibility in the opening was about the general relationship -- the general nature of the relationship. We argued in opening that the relationship was toxic. It was volatile. It was fueled by jealousy, but that Mr. Combs was up front and honest about the nonmonogamous nature of the relationship. And that was exactly what the witness testified to yesterday on direct examination, that she understood that fact and proceeded in the relationship anyway.
These are essentially diary entries, your Honor, about highly specific moments in time in which the witness had particular feelings about the relationship. There was nothing that specific in the opening statement to challenge her credibility. So to lead the witness, using these exhibits, through her direct examination to talk about particular moments in time, it's just not proper under 801(b)(1)(B). And nothing said in the opening opened the door to that sort of improper bolstering.
THE COURT: You would agree that to the extent the defense challenged the witness's credibility as to her willingness to participate in the hotel nights, then these statements would be properly admissible because they would rehabilitate the witness on those points, right?
Let's say on cross Ms. Geragos attacks Jane's credibility that she didn't want to participate in these acts and that she was coerced based on the videos or the payment of rent, any of those things, and that's the cross.
Then on redirect, Ms. Comey would be able to introduce these statements to show that during the course of the relationship, in fact, Jane was speaking -- to herself -- about the videos and the rent and holding that over her head and the 2.5 years of the relationship, etc. Right? So then she could do that on redirect under (b)(1)(B). Is that fair?
MR. DRISCOLL: I think that would be fair, but I don't believe that's what's going to happen. I think when you zoom in on the particular timeline and particular sex acts at issue, the cross-examination is going to proceed by exposing that, in fact, during the events Jane was participating consensually. And these are really just post hoc reflections on whether or not, in hindsight, the witness may have wanted to do it. But that's why they're improper.
THE COURT: OK.
Now, one question, Ms. Comey -- I'm not sure you can help me with -- but during openings, I'm recalling from the government's letter that there was a specific attack on Jane's credibility.
MS. STEINER: There was. And if I may?
So, it started at page 142 of the transcript, where Ms. Geragos said, this case is about voluntary, adult choices made by capable adults and consensual relationships.
She then went on, on page 144 of the transcript, to say, with respect to Jane, but the evidence is going to show you that Jane is a capable, strong woman, who willingly engaged in their sex life so they could spend time together. That is simply not sex trafficking.
She went on to say, I expect the evidence will show you that even after this phone call Jane continued to engage in freak-offs. She flew out to see him many more times and continued willingly engaging in these nights.
And then on page 146, she said that these videotapes depict what we've been telling you about: Sean Combs, one of his girlfriends and a man. These videos, we believe, are powerful evidence that the sexual conduct in this case was consensual and not based on coercion.
That's a direct attack on Jane's testimony that your Honor heard yesterday, that these interactions were not consensual; that she felt obligated, that she felt coerced. And that is a direct attack on her credibility. It is not a generalized attack. It is specific, suggesting that she did not, in fact, consent -- that she did, in fact, consent and that she was not, in fact, coerced. That door is wide open, your Honor.
THE COURT: OK.
Anything further from the defense?
MR. DRISCOLL: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
So, the amended Jane notes, which are 331AR, BR, C, FR, HR, I and JR, I believe that those are properly admissible either under 803(3) or as prior consistent statements under 801(d)(1)(B). And so when they're offered, at the appropriate juncture, the Court will admit them into evidence for the reasons stated by the government.
And just consistent with the text of the rule and the cases that we've previously discussed, the introduction of these types of statements is appropriate and sanctioned by the rule, where the statements are consistent with the declarant's testimony and offered to rebut an express or implied charge that the declarant recently fabricated it or acted from a recent improper influence or motive in so testifying. And I don't think there's any way to understand the defense's opening other than to make that implied charge.
And so for those reasons, I think it's appropriate for the government to introduce those statements during the direct examination. And of course, the defense will have the opportunity to cross-examine Jane on those statements and any other aspect of her testimony.
That's those notes.
That leaves us with the June 1 exhibits, which are 332B and 332E. And I'll hear from the defense, but I'm not understanding why these wouldn't fit into the exception in 801(d)(2)(D), given the participants in the communications and the nature of the discussions, which seem to be squarely within the scope of the agency relationship.
MR. DRISCOLL: Yes, your Honor.
So, we stand by our previous objections and argument regarding the scope of the rule.
The way these exhibits initially came to us is the government sent literally six years of text communications between these assistants, and we had particular -- we had an objection to that use of the rule, because obviously, six years of text messages can't just come in under the exception. So the government did reduce the scope of what they were seeking to admit, but we stand by our objection.
And I would just note that with respect to some of the assistants involved in the communications, we haven't heard any testimony about who they are or what their role was --
THE COURT: That's fair.
MR. DRISCOLL: -- vis-à-vis the defendant, so I don't think the foundation has been laid.
THE COURT: That's fair.
Before these are introduced, the government should make sure the appropriate foundation has been laid. And I think I left one out. I think I left out C334B.
With that, Ms. Johnson.
MS. JOHNSON: Thank you, your Honor.
Just to note, I do believe the appropriate foundation has been laid. I think there is plenty of testimony about Ms. Khorram's role, and there has already been -- the two other individuals in these chats are Dave Shirley and Elie Maroun.
There has been testimony that both Dave Shirley and Elie Maroun were the defendant's personal assistants; transcripts 2228, 3230 and 3229. And the testimony of three personal assistants of who have testified so far, Mr. Kaplan, Mr. James, and Mia have made clear that hotel rooms, setting up hotel rooms, sweeping hotel rooms were core functions of personal assistants.
THE COURT: All right.
Mr. Driscoll.
MR. DRISCOLL: Yes.
THE COURT: Those are the participants, and Ms. Johnson has given you the cites. So she says that on a preponderance standard, under Rule 104, enough foundation has been laid to lay the predicates for foundation of the exception.
What's the response?
MR. DRISCOLL: The response is that that still doesn't meet the scope requirement. We haven't heard particular testimony about what these particular assistants were actually tasked with doing. At a high level, sure, they may have been involved in details of Mr. Combs's personal life, but the messages are pretty specific.
THE COURT: Understood.
And I think that, based on the government's submission, they've met their requirements for admissibility. And to the extent that the defense has arguments that these individuals were not actually, had no awareness of what was happening in these particular incidents, I think those types of arguments would go to weight rather than admissibility. But under the standards applicable under the rules of evidence, I do believe they would be properly admissible, so the government may introduce these at the appropriate juncture.
Did I get the numbers right, Ms. Johnson?
MS. JOHNSON: You did, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: Second try.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: OK.
MS. JOHNSON: It's Friday.
THE COURT: Right.
Anything further from the government before we bring the witness back in?
MS. COMEY: I just wanted to put on the record the agreement Ms. Geragos and I made last night to resolve the rule of completeness; thanks to your Honor for guidance.
I have modified several of the exhibits, and the few that I did not modify I have agreed with Ms. Geragos that I will not object to the corresponding defense exhibit that she intends to put in on cross-examination.
And for the record I've agreed not to object to her corresponding exhibits for Government Exhibit A-104-13, A-104-14, A-104-60 and A-442-33. So when Ms. Geragos offers her competing versions of those exhibits, I will not object on cross-examination.
THE COURT: Understood.
Ms. Geragos, anything to add?
MS. GERAGOS: No. That's fine.
I just want your Honor to know we've been conferring about exhibits, and we are going to be putting a tremendous amount of defense exhibits during cross that correspond to the government's exhibits mainly because of the emoji issue we were talking about yesterday. So I just wanted your Honor to know that, that we spoke about that.
THE COURT: Yes. I figured there was some reason.
MS. GERAGOS: The emoji line of questioning, yes.
MS. STEINER: The defense has a platform that actually gives them the emojis, so I will have no objection to the overlapping exhibits so that Ms. Geragos can show emojis if she wants to.
THE COURT: All right. Good.
Anything else from the defense before we bring Jane back in?
MR. AGNIFILO: One second?
Nothing, your Honor. Thank you.
THE COURT: OK. Let's bring Jane back in and then we'll bring our jury back in. JANE, resumed.
THE COURT: Good morning.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Please be seated, members of the jury.
Jane, you understand you're still under oath.
THE COURT: Ms. Comey.
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
Before I continue, if I may, I'd like to now offer the government exhibits under seal that are listed on demonstrative exhibit 1504, which I will provide to the court reporter.
THE COURT: All right. Very good.
Any objection to the admission of these exhibits?
MS. GERAGOS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. They will be admitted under seal.
(Government Exhibits A-104-13 through A-104-15, A-104-18, A-104-23, A-104-30, A-104-31, A-104-60, A-104-63 through A-104-73, A-104-76, A-104-78, A-301-K, A-301-R, A-442-19, A-442-31 and A-442-33, sealed, received in evidence)
MS. COMEY: We can take that down. Thank you, Ms. Gavin.
Your Honor, may I inquire?
THE COURT: You may.