P6KQcom1 - Corrected 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 20, 2025 8:35 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 P6KQcom1 - Corrected 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 -and- XAVIER R. DONALDSON BRIAN STEEL NICOLE WESTMORELAND Also Present: Lucy Gavin Shannon Becker Paralegal Specialists Raymond McLeod, Paralegal P6KQcom1 - Corrected
(Trial continued)
THE COURT: Good morning. Welcome. Please be seated. Earlier this week we discussed the defense application in relation to a juror. I have reviewed the record and the parties' submissions, and we have questioned the juror. The defense's application is denied. Remaining exhibit objections: The only exhibit objection that I have before me has to do with GX-H-110 and GX-A-432. Both exhibits are admitted. The sole objection raised is under Rule 401, and the argument from the defense is that for two reasons, there's not a proper foundation as to the relevance of these two exhibits. The defense first argues that no foundation has been laid; that the communications actually involve One Stop, the drug dealer. And, second, the defense argues that it is not clear that the text message communications are about drug transactions. The defense's objections are overruled. As to the first objection about One Stop's identity, the Court notes that GX-H-110 and GX-A-432 are pulled from two different phones.
One is D-Roc's and the other is Mr. Combs' but in both phones the same phone number ending in 7333 is listed with the contact name One Stop. Importantly by connecting this phone number with the name One Stop in his phone, Mr. Combs himself identified this number as longing to One Stop. P6KQcom1 - Corrected As to the second objection about to the content of the chats, the government on Wednesday explained, and the Court has reviewed the communications and confirms, that the chats in the exhibits are on their face about drugs. For example, including terms like vals and relaxers, while other text communications use abbreviations that Ms. Ventura explained during her testimony were used for drugs. For example, PK means pain killer, and PK is an abbreviation used in the text communications.
The Court finds that within the context of other exhibits and previous testimony, the government has more than satisfied its burden to show by a preponderance of the available information that there is a foundation for relevance of these two communications, and for those reasons the objections are overruled. There was a letter yesterday submitted concerning certain other exhibits that were to be used in today's proceeding. My understanding is that those objections have been resolved by agreement of the parties. As to the jury charge, the Court will provide the parties with its proposed jury charge today, and I will have certain instructions for what the parties need to do in terms of meeting and conferring to determine what objections or additional instructions or modifications the parties may have.
Big picture: The parties' submissions were largely P6KQcom1 - Corrected the same, although structured in completely different ways, so I have a way of presenting the charges, but the parties will have an opportunity, obviously, to ensure that there is nothing missing in the Court's proposal. The only really -- there is one issue -- let me take a step back. So in terms of the charge, what I'd ask the government to do is really look through especially on the RICO charge, which is by its nature very complicated, and see if there are ways to simplify that. The complexity in some ways arises because of the number of the predicates. So obviously one question is whether the government intends to proceed on all the predicates. But then underlying some of the predicates, there is not only the actual offense charged but also attempts aiding and abetting, willfully causing, and so there's a complexity there that I don't know the government had intended.
It might just be in the initial submissions all the bases were covered, so I would just ask the government to look at that. Substantively, the one dispute I think has to do with the drug predicate. The way that the government had proposed the drug predicate was that there's a RICO conspiracy to engage in a drug conspiracy, so a conspiracy to engage in a conspiracy, which if you had to use emojis would be the mind-blown emoji. So I think that the defense's proposal was that it's a RICO conspiracy to engage in the possession with P6KQcom1 - Corrected intent to distribute or distribution of controlled substances. I think that makes sense. And I don't think that it's -- anything is lost in treating things in that manner, so I'd ask the government to look at that. On the defense side, the government on the interstate commerce portion of the RICO conspiracy charge indicates that under Taylor v.
United States, which involved Hobbs Act conspiracy, the Court said that anything pretty much having to do with drugs automatically satisfies the jurisdictional predicate. I wasn't able to find a case applying Taylor in the context of a RICO conspiracy, and the language of the Hobbs Act is a little bit different, it's interstate commerce, but then any matter that the United States would have jurisdiction over, and that's really the language that was interpreted in Taylor. So I'll just flag that for the parties. It may be that there's not a dispute that if there's a drug allegation, that that would satisfy the interstate commerce element given Taylor and some other cases. I'm just flagging that because it's a proposal that the government made, and the defense didn't have an opportunity to respond to that given the submission of the charges. So I'm just flagging that. But, Ms. Shapiro, happy to hear you if you have a reaction
MS. SHAPIRO: No, that's fine. I'll take a look at P6KQcom1 - Corrected that. I wanted to flag for your Honor, and we're happy to do this in response to the draft charge, but we were going to submit some amended requests on a couple of the predicates this weekend because I'm preparing for the Rule 29 and doing more research. There were some additional things that -- and in light of the way the evidence has come in that we wanted to modify our requests, but we can just do that in response to the charge.
THE COURT: I think the best way to do it — and I'll put this in an email when I send you the proposed charge — is to put in what you would like to add or modify, and then just include a comment so that I can see what case or authority or the reason why you're making that proposal, and then we're going to have the opportunity for you to fully air any objections or, you know, we're going to have a whole proceeding to determine what the charge should look like. So that's the easiest way I think to handle it so I can see -- what I'd like to get back from the parties, and we can determine the right timing, is one document that has both sides' proposed modifications with the reasons why. That way I can go through all of the proposed changes and figure it out. I think that's a little bit more helpful. If you need an additional letter in addition to that to just make your points clear, that's fine. P6KQcom1 - Corrected
MS. SHAPIRO: That's fine, your Honor. I think we'll probably want to do a letter as well just so that our points are crystal clear on the record. And then, the other additional charge that we hadn't submitted yet, because we had to see how the evidence came out, is the theory of defense charge.
THE COURT: Sorry, I didn't hear it.
MS. SHAPIRO: The theory of defense charge.
THE COURT: Yes, I have an insert for that.
MS. SHAPIRO: Thank you.
THE COURT: Anything further from the government before we get started today?
MS. SLAVIK: No, your Honor.
MS. SHAPIRO: Judge, there's one other thing we may want to put on the record, but we'll want to do it under seal regarding the other matter the Court just ruled on so we can submit a paragraph or something.
THE COURT: Anything else from the defense?
MR. AGNIFILO: One issue, your Honor. I know in the past we've had some success, if it's free, using your Honor's courtroom. And my question, so what we want to do today is we want to be able to go through some of the videos with Mr. Combs. It would be much easier to do it here, and I know that this is something that your Honor has talked to someone at the marshal service about. And since we have an early day, if P6KQcom1 - Corrected no one was using the courtroom after 1:00, that would really just be very convenient to us, and it would allow us to do it here in a controlled place. Again, I mean, the marshals stay here with us, and they've been wonderful, and I have no issue with that. So if your Honor can work your Article III magic, we would really appreciate it. So that is our request.
THE COURT: All right. I'll check on that during a break. We are not going to have a lunch break today, but I take it that after -- is Mr. Paul the next witness?
MS. SLAVIK: He is, your Honor.
THE COURT: So I believe that what I was told is that there's approximately 90 minutes in the direct. So I think we'll take a break after the direct. During that time, I'll consult with the marshals and see if that poses any issues.
MR. AGNIFILO: This would likely be the last time we'd need the courtroom.
THE COURT: Don't say that.
MR. AGNIFILO: I said likely. I said likely.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, I don't anticipate this being an issue, but I did just want to flag for the Court that the next witness, Mr. Paul, has been here in New York City prepared to testify since Tuesday. It's obviously now Friday. The direct examination I estimate to be about 90 minutes or so. My conversations with Mr. Steel indicate that his P6KQcom1 - Corrected cross-examination should wrap up by the 1:00 cutoff. But I just want to put on your Honor's radar that we are really trying to get this witness back home after today's proceedings.
THE COURT: I think that we are okay.
MS. SLAVIK: I think you're right, your Honor. I'm just putting it on the record because I really want to get this witness home.
THE COURT: And we'll take care of that. I don't think it will pose an issue. Anything further? Mr. Donaldson?
MR. DONALDSON: Yes, your Honor. While you're working all your magic, we still have to -- Mr. Combs is still without those minutes we talked about earlier, and --
THE COURT: Did you hear back from MDC counsel?
MR. DONALDSON: I did, and I want to preface it with saying that they are magnificent with me for the last five years, so I don't have any problem with legal. But for some reason he still doesn't have those minutes, and we kind of need those right now so that we can communicate with him during these off hours. So if there's any magic the Court has left in those magic stuff, we'll take that.
THE COURT: Okay. Let me check in with them and let me see if I can figure anything out before we adjourn for the day. P6KQcom1 - Corrected
MR. DONALDSON: I appreciate that. Thank you.
THE COURT: With that, I'll ask the deputy just check to see if we have our jurors here. If we don't, we can take a break and come back at 9:00. DEPUTY CLERK: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: I think we're still waiting for a couple jurors to trickle in, so we'll take ten minutes and come pack at 9:00.
(Recess)
THE COURT: We have our jury here. Let's get started.
MS. SLAVIK: Your Honor, may I place a binder of documents on the stand?
THE COURT: You may.
(Jury present)
THE COURT: Please be seated. Welcome back, members of the jury. The government may call its next witness.
MS. COMEY: Your Honor, before the government calls its next witness, we have some exhibits to offer if that's all right.
THE COURT: Of course. MS COMEY: May we please pull up, Ms. Foster, Government Exhibit 1508 as a demonstrative. Your Honor, the government offers all exhibits listed in the demonstrative marked as 1508, and we would ask that the P6KQcom1 - Corrected exhibit numbers with the word sealed in red next to them be admitted under seal pursuant to your Honor's pseudonym order.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MS. GERAGOS: No objection, your Honor.
THE COURT: The exhibits listed in 1508 will be admitted, and those identified as sealed will be admitted under seal.
(Government's Exhibits 3D-118-A, 3D-120-B, 3D-130-AR, 5A-204-3, 6G-116 SEALED, 6G-117 SEALED, 6K-101, 6L-102, A-102, A-103, A-103-A, A-103-B, A-104-35 SEALED, A-104-5-A, A-106-A, A-111, A-112, A-112-A, A-112-B, A-112-C, A-112-D, A-112-E, A-112-F, A-116-A SEALED, A-116-A1, A-116-A2, A-116-A3, A-120-A, A-121-A, A-121-A1, A-121-A2, A-121-A3, A-121-A4, A-121-A5, A-121-A6, A-122, A-124, A-138-41, A-141 (excerpted p. 41, 56-76, 234-38, 242-43) SEALED, A-141-A, A-141-B, A-141-C, A-141-D, A-141-E, A-141-F, A-141-G, A-141-H, A-141-I, A-141-J, A-141-K, A-141-L, A-141-M, A-141-N, A-141-O, A-141-P, A-141-Q, A-141-R, A-141-S, A-159 (excerpted to p. 5-12, 32, 34-40, 43, 47-52, 56-61, 75-77, 82, 86) SEALED, A-159-B, A-159-C, A-159-D, A-159-E, A-159-F, A-159-G, A-159-H, A-159-I, A-159-K, A-159-L, A-159-M, A-159-N, A-159-O, A-159-P, A-159-Q, A-159-R, A-159-S, A-159-T, A-159-U, A-159-V, A-159-W, A-159-X, A-166 (excerpted to p.
2, 9-10, 52-55, 59-64, 86) SEALED, A-166-F, A-166-G, A-166-H, A-166-I, A-166-J, A-166-K, A-168 (excerpted to p. 5, 63, 66-67, 71, 79-87, 117-23, 134-35) SEALED, A-168-A, A-168-B, P6KQcom1 - Corrected A-168-C, A-205, A-205-A, A-207-D SEALED, A-207-E SEALED, A-207-G SEALED, A-209-B, A-209-B1, A-210-A, A-210-A1, A-210-A2, A-210-A3, A-210-A4, A-210-A5, A-210-B, A-210-B1, A-301-L SEALED, A-407, A-426, A-430-A, A-510-A SEALED, A-510-F SEALED, A-513 SEALED, AX-102-G SEALED, AX-102-S SEALED, AX-701-114 SEALED, AX-701-145 SEALED, C-229 (excerpted to p. 6) SEALED, C-231 (excerpted to p. 20-21) SEALED, C-621, C-621-A, C-621-B, C-621-C, C-621-D, C-622-2, C-627-1, C-647, C-648-1 SEALED, C-648-2 SEALED, E-334 SEALED, EX-173 SEALED, EX-173-M SEALED, EX-176 SEALED, EX-176-M SEALED, F-101-A SEALED, G-101-AF, G-104 SEALED, G-106, G-107, J-106-L, J-106-O, J-106-P, J-108-I, J-110-B, J-110-B1, J-112-A, J-112-B, J-112-K, J-112-L, J-112-M, J-113, J-114, J-116, J-118-A, J-120, J-123, J-124-B, J-124-D, J-141-A (only p. 1), J-304-A, J-307 (only p. 129-130), J-314 (only p. 75-78), J-314-A received in evidence)
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor. I understand Ms. Geragos has some corresponding exhibits to offer at this time as well.
THE COURT: Very well.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes. We don't have it up on the screen, your Honor, but I will provide a copy to the court reporter and the Court. It's demonstrative defendants 3330. We offer all of these under seal except for 1748-R and 1794-R, with the consent of the government.
MS. COMEY: No objection, your Honor. P6KQcom1 - Corrected
THE COURT: Those exhibits will be admitted under the terms specified by Ms. Geragos.
(Defendant's Exhibits 3330, 1748 (sealed) 1748-R, 1794 (sealed), 1794-R, 3080-R, 3082, 3083, 3084, 3088-A, 3093, 3094, 3100, 3106, 3106-A, 3127, 3130, 3136, 3137, 3145, 3152, 3171, 3171-A, 3172, 3191, 3206-B, 3288, 3306-M, 3311, 3311-M, 3328 received in evidence)
MS. SMYSER: Your Honor, the government also offers Government Exhibit 3D-126, which was offered by the defense last week subject to further redactions. The parties have conferred on those and jointly offer 3D-126 under seal pursuant to the Court's pseudonym order and 3D-126-R into evidence. And the government also offers under seal pursuant to the pseudonym offer Government Exhibits 3D-107-B, 3D-108-A, 3D-112-A, 3d-114-A, 3D-123-A, 3D-123-B, 3D-129-B, 3D-130-A. And the government also offers J-122 which was offered last week under seal pursuant to the Court's pseudonym order and offers J-122-R into evidence, and I understand there are no objections.
MS. GERAGOS: No objection.
THE COURT: I'm not going to repeat all those exhibit numbers, so those exhibits specified by Ms. Smyser will be admitted under the terms specified by her.
(Government's Exhibits 3D-126 (sealed) 3D-126-R received in evidence)
(Government's Exhibits 3D-107-B, 3D-108-A, 3D-112-A, 3d-114-A, 3D-123-A, 3D-123-B, 3D-129-B, 3D-130-A received in evidence)
(Government's Exhibits J-122 and J-122R received in evidence)
THE COURT: Anything further?
MS. SLAVIK: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. The government may now call its next witness.
MS. SLAVIK: The government calls Brendan Paul. BRENDAN PAUL, called as a witness by the Government, having been duly sworn, testified as follows: DEPUTY CLERK: Please provide the Court your first and last name and spell your first and last name.
BRENDAN PAUL: First name is Brendan. Last name is Paul. B-R-E-N-D-A-N; P-A-U-L.
THE COURT: Ms. Slavik, you may proceed.