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 24, 2025 8:45 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 -and- XAVIER R. DONALDSON BRIAN STEEL NICOLE WESTMORELAND Also Present: Lucy Gavin Shannon Becker Paralegal Specialists Raymond McLeod, Paralegal
(Trial continued; jury not present)
THE COURT: Are there any pending objections or have the parties worked them out?
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, the parties do have objections to raise to the documents that Ms. Estavao sent to the Court last night. There is one we are still discussing, but I would suggest that we start with 1054, 1136-R --
THE COURT: With 1026, is there any objection?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes.
THE COURT: To which part?
MS. JOHNSON: Give me one moment. I sorted them in order of objections.
THE COURT: We can do it in a different order if that's easier. You said 1054?
MS. JOHNSON: Yes 1054, 1136-R and 1149 all have the same type of objections, so I thought it might be easier to address them together.
THE COURT: All right.
MS. JOHNSON: These are explicit messages sent from Ms. Ventura to Mr. Combs about wanting to engage in sex acts with Mr. Combs. The government objects on the basis that these are cumulative. There is ample evidence in the record, and undisputed at that, that Ms. Ventura wanted to have sex with Mr. Combs. There have been many messages of the same ilk read into the record already, some more than once, and additional number of messages with the same type of texting.
It's cumulative, and I don't think it's probative particularly on an issue that is not in dispute. And I note that I think the defense will say that these are before alleged freak-offs, but I don't think that's clear from the face of these documents, and the chart that the government put in is, you know, was severely restrained to be just a list of names and places and cities at which people might have been together. So that is the nature of the objection on these three documents.
THE COURT: On a prior evidentiary dispute, I remember that the government's position was that the intent or mindset of the alleged victims was relevant to, among other things, the issue of coercion. If that's true, then why wouldn't messages from the alleged victims that, in the defense's view at least, indicate voluntary sexual conduct or desire, why wouldn't that be relevant for the same reasons; meaning, that goes to the probative issue. I understand what you're saying on whether it's cumulative or not.
MS. JOHNSON: These are all about Ms. Ventura sending explicit messages to Mr. Combs about sex acts she wants to perform with Mr. Combs. That is an issue that is just not in dispute. She testified to that multiple times on direct examination. She testified that the only thing she looked -- the only part of this event that she liked was being able to see her boyfriend and being able to be intimate with her boyfriend, just as Jane testified.
THE COURT: Understood. Why don't we start with 1054, Ms. Estavao. You're addressing these or Ms. Geragos?
MS. ESTEVAO: With respect to 1054, this was the day before a freak-off that's listed in the government's summary chart, row 42. So the idea that it's somehow disconnected from a freak-off is incorrect. And so the fact that she is engaging in this kind of sexually explicit communications right before they have a freak-off the day before, or day of in some of these instances, is highly probative. And obviously the issue of force, fraud, or coercion is highly contested and in dispute. And the fact that Mr. Combs was receiving these messages and these sexts from her the day before in close relation bears on his mental state.
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, there is nothing about these messages that makes it more likely than not that Ms. Ventura wanted to have sex with another man other than Mr. Combs. They are explicit on their face that that is what they are limited to.
THE COURT: Well, Ms. Estavao, can you provide the context here. So you indicated there was one of the alleged sex trafficking incidents that followed these messages. Just remind me of the date on the government's view of that incident.
MS. ESTEVAO: I don't think every single date on the government's chart has been fully fleshed out. However, the obvious implication from the chart is that these are all sex trafficking events. So row 22 is the government cited evidence of communications between Ms. Ventura and one of these entertainers on that date -- I'm sorry, I'm going to row 42 on February 26 of 2014 and Exhibit 1054 is on February 25 of 2014, the day before, and the government is free to make the argument to the jury in summation that these kinds of messages were supposed to indicate to Mr. Combs that in fact she only wanted to have sex with him and did not want to have sex in the manner in which they consistently had sex over the years, and they can do that. However, we're entitled to argue that Mr. Combs heard these messages in the context of their sexual relationship and took that to mean that she was voluntarily participating and excited about it.
THE COURT: Well, I mean, I'm looking at the message, and the message from Mr. Combs which is on 1054.2 is about having a sexual encounter in his office. So how could that be connected to any of the sex trafficking incidents that are at issue, and then the ensuing conversation is about having that encounter with Mr. Combs which does not appear to be connected to any sex trafficking incident or any freak-off, hotel night, king night, anything like that. So on the face of the message, it's clear what it refers to, which is the message on 1054.2, and then there's an ensuing conversation about that.
MS. ESTEVAO: The time period alone suggests that they're related. They obviously -- or not obviously -- but according to the government's chart, there was a hotel that was procured the day afterwards so they're connected in that way.
THE COURT: And the time Ms. Johnson has indicated here is in UTC time, is that right?
MS. JOHNSON: It is in UTC time, your Honor, and -- I'm trying to find -- yes, it is in UTC time. So this would be roughly starting at 11:00 a.m. the day before, and the other two messages I will note are not nearly as close in time to any dates on the government's chart, which I also note the government does not intend to argue that every entry on this chart is an instance of alleged trafficking. The chart, as the Court well knows, has been limited to rows of dates where people may have been in a particular location and may have met, although, you know, may not have met as I think the testimony was clear.
THE COURT: All right. The government's objection to 1054 is sustained. On the face of this message, as reflected on 1054.2, there is a specific sexual encounter between Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs that is indicated and that does not refer to one of the sex trafficking incidents alleged by the government or anything related to such an incident.
In fact, it's very clearly related to a one-on-one encounter in Mr. Combs' office. And based on the evidence in the record, there's no indication of any kind that any of these incidents occurred in the office. There's no subsequent reference to any other incident that would make this relevant or probative to the issues in this case.
So the government's objection is sustained as to 1054.
Let's go to 1135, you indicated, Ms. Johnson?
MS. JOHNSON: 1136-R is the same type of document. And that is dated April 5, 2017. And the dates on the chart that are around that are March 21, 2017 and April 27, 2017 so it's just nowhere near anything on the chart.
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, this one is slightly different from the others in that in 1136-R, Ms. Ventura says to Mr. Combs, or Mr. Combs asks Ms. Ventura: "So what you gonna do?" And Ms. Ventura says,"Be your little freak."
The government decided to elicit from Ms. Ventura a number of details about their sexual activity that were kinky in nature, and the fact that she's telling Mr. Combs that she will be his little freak is probative as to his state of mind as to whether or not she was willing to engage in this kind of sexual activity.
THE COURT: So, Ms. Estevao, based on the dates in question, are these communications close in time to one of the alleged sex trafficking incidents?
MS. ESTEVAO: Not to one of the instances on the government's chart, although I will note that the government has suggested that they will argue to the jury that this chart does not represent all of the instances of the times that they engaged in this activity, so the defense should be permitted some leeway with respect to eliciting evidence that at other times they had sex that are perhaps not captured in the chart. So to the extent the government is going to make that argument, then we shouldn't be limited in the evidence that we get to present as to these kind of sexual messages.
THE COURT: When you say "these kinds of sexual messages," here you're making a more particular argument that it's not just sexual talk. It's that in response to Mr. Combs' inquiry of what Ms. Ventura was going to do, she says "be your little freak," and if these incidents were happening around that time period, that could bear potentially on Mr. Combs' intent that Ms. Ventura was interested in that kind of freaky lifestyle.
MS. ESTEVAO: Yes. And I don't think Ms. Ventura was specific as to the times that those particular instances happened. It was pretty vague as to when they did, and she didn't recall. So the fact that this happened on a particular date shouldn't preclude us from introducing it.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson, your objections here are the same as to 402-403 objection?
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly. I will note that this, again, on its face appears to be about an encounter between Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs. She's asking him for a photograph of an explicit photograph of him. She's saying "I miss you." And then she said, I'll be -- it says: "Be your little freak." I think that this is clearly on its face about the thing that is not in dispute: That she wanted to have consensual sex with her boyfriend.
THE COURT: I think this document presents a closer call than the last one which on its face referred to a one-on-one encounter between Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura.
So I'll overrule the government's objection as to 1136-R.
What is next?
MS. JOHNSON: 1149 is of the same nature.
MS. ESTEVAO: With respect to this one, your Honor, on the third page, Ms. Ventura says, "LOL. I just bought baby oil at the store because I couldn't help myself," which suggests that she was independently buying baby oil for herself and has independent probative value.
MS. JOHNSON: And I am fairly confident that I think that part of the message is already in evidence. Our objections start at page 5 of the document.
THE COURT: So let me make sure I'm looking at the right document. We're on 1149, and your objection begins at 1149.5 to the end of the exhibit.
MS. JOHNSON: Very specifically page 5, the messages that start at 1:35 a.m. through the end of the next page.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Estavao, as to these six messages.
MS. ESTEVAO: I think, again, the argument that the government wants to make that Mr. Combs should have drawn from these messages that Ms. Ventura only wanted to have sex with him and not have sex in the way that they consistently had sex over the years is an argument that they can make to the jury, and we should be permitted to make the opposite argument; that he understood it to mean that she wanted to have sex in the way that they consistently had sex, and it's probative for that reason regardless of whether or not it's directly connected to a freak-off date.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson, you indicated that this exhibit, at least the first four pages, were in evidence. So does this correspond to one of the alleged sex trafficking incidents?
MS. ESTEVAO: And Ms. Geragos is telling me that she does not have it marked as a Government Exhibit.
MS. JOHNSON: I thought that we had displayed the baby oil text before. It would take me some further time to find that. I don't know that it's a Government Exhibit. But I thought that we had displayed a similar message before. This chat is not connected to anything on the chart, which, again, I stress is, you know, not necessarily representing alleged freak-offs. These are dated May 14. The next date on the chart is May 25. These messages are clearly about sex acts between Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs. On their face, they are talking about things they would do to each other.
MS. ESTEVAO: I would also just add that the date of this message, May 14, 2017, is two weeks after a physical altercation that the government elicited lots of evidence about, the May 2, 2017 fight. So the fact that two weeks later Ms. Ventura is willingly engaging in this kind of sexual activity and then on May 25 engages in a freak-off which is on the government's chart.
MS. JOHNSON: Again, Ms. Ventura wanting to engage in sexual activity with the person she was in a relationship with is entirely undisputed, and she said it many times during her testimony.
THE COURT: No, I understand that point. That's why I sustained the objection to 1054. The problem is that given the nature of the government's allegations and the testimony of Ms. Ventura, it is often difficult to know based on these messages whether they are referring to one of the alleged incidents or are relating to separate incidents, so much so that even when we began discussing this exhibit there was some uncertainty as to whether this exhibit was in evidence because on page 3 it refers to Ms. Ventura purchasing baby oil at the store, which makes it -- at least makes it potentially the case that it was relating to one of these incidents. There's also a reference to a hotel that has been procured.
And so it may be the case that this is referring to a one-on-one encounter that is not connected to any hotel night, but the defense would be permitted, for the reasons Ms. Estevao has given, to connect the dots between the communications here and not solely a consensual encounter between Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs but to one of the alleged incidents. Ms. Estevao also notes it's close in time to these incidents. Unlike 1054, the government's objections I think are on lesser footing here.
So I'll overrule the objection to 1149.
What's next?
MS. JOHNSON: 1026. The objection on 1026 is to the long chat on the second page that begins "I took that piece of Adderall before I left. My high is kicking back in."
You know, I understand that this will be offered for Ms. Ventura's state of mind, and it says on its face that she has just taken drugs and her high is kicking in. I don't think this is accurate as to -- I don't think that whatever she says after that is necessarily accurate as to her state of mind.
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, this was on December 20, 2012, which corresponds with a freak-off in the government's chart of December 20, 2012 so it is that date. And even if the Court accepts the government's argument that it doesn't reflect her actual state of mind at the time, this is clearly admissible for the effect on the listener because Mr. Combs read this message where she says, "I know it was crazy but even when it's not super hot, I always have fun. The last round was pretty hot to me though." She's talking about the freak-off that they just had.
THE COURT: So, Ms. Johnson, as I understand the objection, it is again a 403 objection. So it would, technically speaking, fall into an exception. But you're saying that given the reference to Ms. Ventura taking drugs, it would be unfairly prejudicial because it doesn't --
MS. JOHNSON: Exactly.
THE COURT: It shouldn't go to her state of mind.
MS. JOHNSON: Correct.
THE COURT: Now I think that particular argument is one the government could argue, but, as Ms. Estavao notes, even if it was irrelevant to Ms. Ventura's state of mind, and given that the drug that she says she's taken is Adderall and indicates that she is focused in the message. But even putting that to the side, Ms. Estavao said it would go to the effect on the listener, meaning that if the key question on the 5091 charges turns on, among other things, Mr. Combs' intent, what would be the response there? So he sees this, and it's close in time to the incidents that are in question.
MS. JOHNSON: I still would say it's prejudicial because it doesn't necessarily reflect an accurate statement given that she said on her face that she is using drugs while she writes this. I think she is clear in her testimony about how the use of drugs affected her willingness to engage in this kind of activity.
THE COURT: Would that be true for Adderall? Is there any evidence in the record that Adderall would effect?
MS. JOHNSON: There's no evidence in the record about Adderall whatsoever, as far as I recall.
THE COURT: The government's objection to that message in Exhibit 1054 is overruled.
MS. GERAGOS: Your Honor, it's 1026.
MS. ESTEVAO: The exhibit was 1026.
THE COURT: Sorry, 1026.
MS. JOHNSON: 1126.
THE COURT: All right. What is the objection?
MS. JOHNSON: So this one, there is -- the first few pages, again, are an objection on the same nature of sexting and cumulativeness. I understand the defense wants to use this message to suggest that there was some sort of freak-off planned that Mr. Combs then canceled because Ms. Ventura wasn't feeling well.
I don't think any of that is even remotely clear on the face of this message. I think that the use of this text message entire thread to achieve that purpose is hearsay. And this is sort of the nature of the objection of the text that would follow is that Ms. Ventura was not shown this message when she testified. She is the one who would be able to explain what this message is about. She was not shown this, and to be able to admit this message and make arguments about assuming what it is referring to when it is very vague and confusing, I think that's a 403 issue. And I also think that the use of the message to suggest that Mr. Combs in fact canceled this event is hearsay.
THE COURT: All right. So as to this exhibit, as opposed to the others, you're making a hearsay objection here.
MS. JOHNSON: Yes, and 403, and also the sexting part of the beginning.
THE COURT: Ms. Estavao.
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, the communications back and forth regarding logistics are not hearsay and clearly suggest that by virtue of the initial text messages about sexting that the government objects to, then Mr. Combs says, "I canceled stuff for tonight. You need rest." And Ms. Ventura is upset about this and continues to try to push for a freak-off, saying "I want to be with you tonight. I need you. What am I to do?" Then she says, "I'm not swaying. I'm not loopy."
The idea is not that Ms. Ventura was not feeling well. It's that she was too high to engage in the freak-off. Mr. Combs recognized this and canceled the freak-off. That's highly probative of his state of mind. The government suggested that he used coercive tactics making people take drugs in order to engage in the freak-off, and here Ms. Ventura is too high. Mr. Combs recognizes that and cancels stuff for tonight.
So it's highly probative and Ms. Ventura would not have likely remembered this exchange, as she didn't remember many of the exchanges we showed her when she testified, especially when this one suggests she was high at the time of the writing of these messages and Mr. Combs was not and was receiving this information from her that regardless of whether or not she was so high, she still wanted to engage in the freak-off.
THE COURT: How are you connecting this message to one of the alleged freak-off incidents?
MS. ESTEVAO: We're not because he canceled the freak-off.
THE COURT: No. How are you going to establish -- is there any other basis --
MS. ESTEVAO: The fact that he says, "I canceled stuff for tonight" clearly suggests there was a freak-off being planned. That was the nature of their sexual activity when they got a hotel and engaged with someone else. That's the stuff that he is canceling.
THE COURT: Where is the stuff that you just said about the hotel and someone else.
MS. ESTEVAO: It doesn't explain that in particular, but by virtue of the earlier text message where they're sending sexually explicit messages back and forth to each other, and then he says, "When you wanna start drinking?" And I'll skip over some of the explicit ones, and then he says, "I canceled stuff for tonight. You need rest."
THE COURT: When is the defense planning to put this exhibit in? You're going to put this in as part of your case in chief?
MS. ESTEVAO: We're planning on reading this as well as a number of other exhibits all at the same time.
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, the message "I canceled stuff for tonight, you need rest" is being offered for its truth. It's also being offered in a very confusing and misleading way because there is nothing in this message that suggests that canceling "stuff" is canceling a freak-off.
As you saw in 1054, Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs were talking there about having a sexual encounter between the two of them at his office. Like the fact that she is sending sexually explicit messages to him in no way indicates that this is linked to a freak-off because, again, she wanted to have sex with her boyfriend.
THE COURT: All right. Let's hold off on this one. What's the next exhibit?
MS. JOHNSON: 1131. The objection is on page 4.
MS. JOHNSON: "You think you can FO without getting high? LOL."
And Ms. Ventura answers: "Yeah."
That is being offered for its truth. We object on hearsay grounds to this. Ms. Ventura testified quite clearly that she never did a freak-off without using drugs. And this message is being used to suggest that she did at some point in time, and it's being offered for its truth. It could have been showed to her during cross-examination.
She could have been allowed to see this and comment on it, and she was not.
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, this is being offered for the effect on the listener.
THE COURT: What bearing does it have on the listener? Can you explain that?
MS. ESTEVAO: Mr. Combs received -- he was told by her that she could freak-off without getting high; that she didn't need to be high in order to freak-off. That bears on whether or not he understood that she was being forced, defrauded or coerced in engaging in sexual activity. She's saying I can do this without getting high, and he's hearing that from her directly. So whether or not she actually could or not is beside the point. Ms. Ventura testified about how she actually felt, but in many ways that doesn't bear on the ultimate issue, which is what was in Mr. Combs' mind.
THE COURT: So it's just these two messages, is that right?
MS. JOHNSON: I object to these two messages, and I think the third one wouldn't make any sense without --
THE COURT: Without the first two.
MS. JOHNSON: Actually, this page.
THE COURT: Given Mr. Combs' inquiry is "You think you could FO without getting high," wouldn't Ms. Ventura's response "Yeah" not go to the truth of whether in fact she could do it without getting high, but rather that at that time she thought that she could given that that's what was asked.
So that would go to her then existing state of mind. And then for the reasons Ms. Estavao gave, if her response of "yeah," whether it was true or not would go to Mr. Combs' knowledge and intent regarding the elements of coercion, et cetera.
MS. JOHNSON: That is a plausible reading of this message, but another plausible reading of this message is him asking her if she can freak-off without getting high, and her saying yes, and that being "Yes, I can do it. Yes, I don't need drugs." And this is the kind of message that she should have been crossed about and asked about on the stand because it is different in kind than what she said in her testimony. And it is prejudicial to offer something like this without asking the witness about it.
THE COURT: Meaning, if it was coming in -- well, wouldn't that only matter if it was coming in as some sort of impeachment or prior consistent statement. If it goes to her existing state of mind, why would she need to be crossed on it?
MS. JOHNSON: I mean, I think they could have used it as impeachment material as well if they thought that based on her testimony that she never did this without being high.
THE COURT: I'm going to overrule the government's objection to these mention in 1131.
What's next?
MS. JOHNSON: 1135. This is another one -- the objection starts on the bottom of the first page where he says: "What do you want -- what you want?"
And she says: "Bank account need to be right, the right team." We have a hearsay objection to that statement. I think it's being offered for the truth that she wants her bank account to be right, whatever that means. I'm not sure what that means because it's also confusing.
She follows it up with "The right team." I don't know what that means. And the rest of the message doesn't clarify anything about what that statement means. Ms. Ventura has been crossed extensively on financial motivations. I think the purpose of this message is to argue that Ms. Ventura is seemingly demanding money, but it is not at all clear based on the face of the document what her statement means at all. So I object to hearsay and 403.
THE COURT: Ms. Estavao.
MS. ESTEVAO: I think the suggestion is clearer than the government says. "Bank account need to be right." I read as a demand for money, and it's different in kind from the cross-examination in that this is Ms. Ventura demanding money in April of 2017. And it's a command of sorts, not hearsay.
THE COURT: What's the relevance?
MS. ESTEVAO: It goes to financial motive.
THE COURT: Whose financial motive?
MS. ESTEVAO: Ms. Ventura's.
THE COURT: Why does that matter? Financial motive to do what?
MS. ESTEVAO: It suggests that she's had a long-standing financial motive.
THE COURT: From 2017?
MS. ESTEVAO: If you read down in the messages, Ms. Ventura says: "All I'm trying to do is keep up with you, stay feeling and looking like your woman."
THE COURT: When you say "financial motive," you're saying that in 2017, Ms. Ventura had a motive to fabricate her texts to Mr. Combs?
MS. ESTEVAO: It's different from the financial motive that has been explored in other parts of the proceedings with respect to her later financial motive. This just suggests that she's demanding money from Mr. Combs at the time.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the government's objection to 1135 on hearsay grounds and on Rule 403 grounds.
MS. JOHNSON: Just two more, your Honor. We are still discussing 1264, so we don't need to take that up at this time.
1154-A is the next one. My objection in this document is to Mr. Combs' statement, repeated statements about seeking couples counseling. I think it's offered for the truth that he was trying to seek couples counseling and repair the relationship. I don't think it goes -- I think it's hearsay.
THE COURT: Ms. Estavao?
MS. ESTEVAO: The fact that Mr. Combs was suggesting to Ms. Ventura to go to couples counseling and Ms. Ventura's refusal to engage in couples counseling undermines the government's theory as to coercion to --
THE COURT: To go to couples therapy?
MS. ESTEVAO: Well, that he's suggesting in the context of an argument about all of their -- about their issues and their jealousy and issues with their relationship, that they engage in couples counseling, and her refusal to engage in couples counseling.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson, can you remind me what was the last exhibit that I sustained the government's objection to?
MS. JOHNSON: That one was 1135.
THE COURT: 1135. All right. Give me one second.
What's the response on the hearsay objection?
MS. ESTEVAO: The fact that she's refusing to engage in couples counseling, and Mr. Combs hears that from her goes to the effect on him and his state of mind -- not his state of mind. The effect on the listener.
THE COURT: And, again, relevance is what?
MS. ESTEVAO: It undermines the government's theory as to coercion, and this is them in the context of --
THE COURT: Just explain, connect the dots for me. Ms. Ventura doesn't want to go to couples therapy or at least that's the suggestion in the text message.
MS. ESTEVAO: In the text message, it also shows that they're in an argument with each other. They're in the process of breaking up one of several times, and they're arguing about her not feeling appreciated and jealousy, and the fact that he's not supporting her lifestyle financially enough. And the fact that he is suggesting that they get in the room with a counselor undermines the government's theory that in fact the whole time he was in the process of sex trafficking her, and the fact that he's receiving information from her that she does not want to go to counseling, she wants to work it out between the two of them undermines the government's this theory of coercion.
THE COURT: And, again, the financial motive is relevant why?
MS. ESTEVAO: It's just the context of their relationship which -- instead of being upset and -- about their sex life, what she's upset about and what they're arguing about and what the source of all their fights are about is her -- the her perception that she doesn't have enough financial support, jealousy, and her feeling unappreciated and comparing herself to other women in his life.
THE COURT: So are you saying that because Ms. Ventura in the defense's view had financial motivations during this time period, that's why she engaged in these incidents and not because of any kind of coercion? I think the government might suggest that financial pressure and career issues, et cetera, were part of the serious harm that Ms. Ventura was concerned about that led her to engage in the sex trafficking incidents.
MS. ESTEVAO: The argument is slightly different in that these issues explain the source of the other -- the fights in their relationship and the physical aspect of the fights. So it explains that whole context of their relationship.
The defense is that these issues -- they have many issues in their relationship, and those issues of jealousy and financial issues all tie to each other and the physical fights in their relationship, the domestic violence in their relationship, which is completely separate from their sex life which was entirely consensual, and that was not a source of distress for Ms. Ventura.
THE COURT: All right. Now I've asked a few times, and I think that the relationship, the nexus to the issues in this case as to 1154 and 1135 is attenuated. And as to both of those exhibits, there is a hearsay objection. I don't see a plausible basis to overcome that objection.
In addition, the Rule 403 issues are profound, especially because there is a very minimal, if any, probative value to these two communications, but there is the potential for significant unfair prejudice given Ms. Ventura's text messages concerning financial issues that have — at least on the face of these documents, and I've not heard a good explanation otherwise — no relationship to the alleged sex trafficking incidents alleged by the government.
So the objection is sustained as to 1154 as well.
What is next?
MS. JOHNSON: Your Honor, just to confirm on the last exhibit, it was 1154-A.
THE COURT: 1154-A. Thank you.
MS. JOHNSON: The last one is 1417.
This is a thread that if we were to go message by message, there is some, you know, just things that are obviously not being offered for their truth. But the entire thread is about Ms. Ventura's decorating a hotel room and getting a bouquet for Valentine's Day. It's hearsay, and, you know, I do not see an exception, because I think the argument here will be that for the truth of her decorating the hotel room on Valentine's Day wanting to make it a romantic night, et cetera.
MS. ESTEVAO: I will note that this is a freak-off in the government's chart on February 14 of 2017. This is a sex trafficking event as alleged by the government, and this chat shows that Ms. Ventura was actively involved in setting up this hotel room, not at the direction of Mr. Combs but as a surprise to him, getting these giant bouquets of flowers.
THE COURT: Perhaps you could overcome the 403 objection. How do you get over the hearsay objection?
MS. ESTEVAO: These are logistics and photos.
THE COURT: Is that one of the exceptions in 403 - logistics?
You're putting these in. Your arguments on relevance is that if you took these messages for their truth, they show that Ms. Ventura was engaged in preparations that would undermine any inference of being coerced into the incident. So it would appear that you're putting these messages in for the truth. So on that ground, on that basis, what would the exception be that you could get these in under the hearsay rules?
MS. ESTEVAO: I mean, I'm happy to work with the government in chopping up the messages a little bit more to reduce any hearsay problems, but some of these messages are not hearsay, and the photos, for example, are not hearsay.
THE COURT: Ms. Johnson, is there some portion of these messages that the government would agree they could come in because they would exclude the hearsay or do you think it's all hearsay?
MS. JOHNSON: I think there may be -- I think that the defense would want the photos and sort of the back and forth about, you know, picking the decorations and stuff because that's a -- I don't see a way to chop this up that makes it understandable, put it that way. The photos in and of themselves I agree are not hearsay. If they want to admit the photos divorced from the messages, that's fine. But like the photos with the messages are being offered for their truth to show that she wanted to set up this room. And Cassie is the only person who could have authenticated these photos.
MS. ESTEVAO: We have an authenticity stipulation that's being worked out with respect to all of these. They were found on Ms. Ventura's devices. I don't think that will be a problem. I mean, there's no -- this exhibit could be made so that there's no assertion that's being made for its truth. I mean, for example, after receiving the photos of the assistant setting up the flowers, she says: "OMG. Thank you so much." The fact that she's having this communication with assistants and exchanging photos back and forth --
THE COURT: Why don't you just do that? Why don't you start with Violet's messages sending the photos, and then you have the message from Ms. Ventura and the two messages from Violet, none of which have any assertions that would be going to the truth because Ms. Ventura is saying, "Oh my God. Thank you so much." What you do have is the date, which is critical in the defense's view, because this relates to an alleged sex trafficking incident. And so for the reasons you explained, you could put it in as evidence that there was a setup and that Ms. Ventura was working with Violet to have this set up done, but you wouldn't be running into any of the hearsay issues by the government.
(Continued on next page)
MS. ESTEVAO: We would also propose including the bubble at the top of the second page. It says: I kind of wanted to go a little over the top. And her message suggests that it's her state of mind at the time; she wants to create a romantic experience. And it shows that it's at a hotel. She's thinking a hotel would be best. She's planning it out. This is not backward-looking. It's forward-looking.
MS. JOHNSON: The planning is what we object to, because that's being offered for the truth of the fact that she planned this.
THE COURT: All right. I'm going to sustain the government's objection. However, if the defense wants to put in these last messages, I think they get the defense where it wants to go. The only issue that would not be covered by these messages would be the fact that Ms. Ventura planned this event. But that is clearly hearsay, going to the truth of the matter, would not be admissible, and I'm not hearing a reason why it would be admissible over a hearsay objection.
However, these last messages get the defense pretty much where it wants to go, which is she is presented with the layout of the room on the date of the alleged sex trafficking incident with a heart spread on the bed and on the table and flowers everywhere, and she expresses her satisfaction with the layout to Violet, and there's an exchange with Violet. So that part of the message can be used by the defense, and I'm not hearing that the government has an objection to that portion of the message. So it is overruled to that extent.
MS. JOHNSON: And just for clarity, that's the photos that start on page 9.
THE COURT: Right. So it would be the last message on eight that has the photos that go on to nine and ten and then the three messages that follow.
MS. JOHNSON: OK.
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, we would also propose including the photo that Ms. Ventura sends on page 3.
MS. JOHNSON: Again, I think that goes to planning, which is --
MS. ESTEVAO: Your Honor, it's a photograph.
THE COURT: I'll overrule the government's objection. There's not really an assertion of anything other than this is a picture that Ms. Ventura pulled. So I'm going to overrule the objection.
You want to put in that photo and you'll redact the other messages and then put in the other messages.
MS. ESTEVAO: Yes, and we will mark this as 1417A.
THE COURT: 1417A, assuming it follows those parameters, will be admitted.
(Defendant's Exhibit 1417A received in evidence)
THE COURT: All right. So then let's go back to the long one, and can someone remind me what the number is.
MS. JOHNSON: Sure. 1126.
THE COURT: All right. Ms. Johnson, is the government just making a 403 objection here, or is there a hearsay objection as well?
MS. JOHNSON: I think there's a hearsay objection as well. There are a lot of different parts to the message, but to the extent that this is being offered for the truth that Mr. Combs canceled something because Ms. Ventura was too drunk, I object to that on hearsay grounds. I also have just a 403 -- I think it's confusing, and it's far from clear what this message is about. It's far from clear that this relates to, that this could potentially relate to a freak-off.
He says I canceled stuff. We have no idea what stuff is, and there are many, many instances where Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura had plans that were just the two of them that did not involve the male escorts, and I don't think there's anything on the face of this chat that makes that clear. In that case, it has, as far as I can tell, almost no probative value.
THE COURT: All right.
Ms. Estevao, the government is saying if the defense is planning to use 1126 to demonstrate that Mr. Combs canceled a freak-off and he understood Ms. Ventura to be either sick or on drugs or anything else, then that goes to the truth of the matter. So there's a hearsay issue. You can address that.
Second, they say that there is nothing in the message, at least, that connects this to an actual incident of sex trafficking, and if there's no connection somewhere to an actual incident or hotel night, anything in that range, then there's no relevance or probative value to this communication and it's obvious in that context there would be unfair prejudice because of the nature of the communication.
So why don't you start with the hearsay issue.
MS. ESTEVAO: May I have one moment to consult with counsel?
THE COURT: Yes.
MS. ESTEVAO: The defense is willing to withdraw this exhibit. Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right.
And that is it, right?
MS. JOHNSON: That is. There's one more exhibit we've been talking about, but we may be able to reach an agreement without your Honor's intervention.
THE COURT: All right. Very good.
With that, anything further from the government?
MS. COMEY: Just one clarification of the record from yesterday, your Honor. In reviewing the transcript, we realized it was not clear whether your Honor had received in evidence Government Exhibit 1407 under seal and 1407R publicly.
Would your Honor mind confirming that so we have it for the transcript, please?
THE COURT: Confirmed.
(Government Exhibits 1407, sealed; and 1407-R received in evidence)
MS. COMEY: Thank you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Anything from the defense before we get started?
All right. Very good.
MR. AGNIFILO: Could we get three minutes just for a restroom break, your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes. That's fine.
(Recess)
MS. GERAGOS: Your Honor, Ms. Becker just told me that all of the Listen Talks turned off because we took so long in our argument. So if your Honor would like to instruct the jury to turn them back on, or I can, whatever you prefer.
THE COURT: You mean you have to hold down the button.
MS. GERAGOS: Yes, that's right.
(Continued on next page)
(Jury present)
THE COURT: All right.
Please be seated.
Welcome back, members of the jury.
Agent Cerciello, you understand you're still under oath.
JOSEPH CERCIELLO: Yes, your Honor. JOSEPH CERCIELLO, resumed.
THE COURT: Ms. Geragos, you may proceed when ready.