Sean “Diddy” combs ‘The criminal case will run through a good part of 2025. His trial is currently scheduled for start next May although that may be delayed if new charges or defendants are filed. But although there are still months to go, a close look at the documentation that has been presented so far and what the tycoon legal team has been saying—reveals that his lawyers have given serious clues about what his defense might look like.

What Diddy’s lawyers ask for

On October 15, Diddy’s lawyers submitted a letter of motion to Judge Arun Subramanian and included an accompanying exhibit. The main objective of the letter was request the government to identify the names of the alleged victims —But that’s not what’s interesting. Buried on pages three and four of the exhibit is the mother lode: a list of the types of “exculpatory material” Diddy’s team wants from the government; In essence, Diddy’s lawyers are telling prosecutors that if they have something like this, turn it over. us.

Of course, the government has to deliver all of their potentially exculpatory evidence. That’s why it’s notable that Diddy’s team lays out the specific types of evidence they’re looking for, a clue that these may be defenses they’re thinking about presenting.

The list of material types can be grouped into some categories. One concerns whether involvement in Diddy’s now-notorious business “Amazing” It was voluntary. In fact, the first point asks for “All information indicating that participation in the ‘Freak Offs’ was consensual” and that people were not “forced” to participate. This section also points to the narrative that has taken shape in many of Diddy’s civil lawsuits : that the alleged victims were forced to consume alcohol mixed with the date rape drug GHB. Diddy’s team is asking for information showing that “to the extent participants used drugs or alcohol, they did so voluntarily.”

Another category addresses the credibility of the alleged victims: whether they “lie, exaggerate, or are unreliable, including all information related to the alleged victims’ financial, reputational, personal, or professional motivations for reporting abuse.” Related to this, Diddy’s attorneys are asking for any leads “that demonstrate that, before the alleged victims were motivated to lie, they were not afraid of Mr. Combs and never reported… any instances of coercion, force or abuse.” “. There is also a lot of talk about the alleged victims’ “phone records, email records, travel records, arrest records, medical records, drug abuse and rehabilitation records, memoir drafts, financial records, and extortion attempts.”

There are several points that seem to point directly to the Video by Cassie Ventura, including suggesting that any dispute between Diddy and the alleged victims was “related to infidelity or other interpersonal matters, and not related to alleged force or coercion to engage in sexual activity,” which is consistent with how attorneys for Diddy have spoken about the video in court hearings.

Finally, there is one that requests information indicating that the decision to prosecute Diddy was “racially motivated,” something the lawyer Marc Agnifilo told TMZ and a suggestion that government prosecutors objected vehemently at a court hearing earlier this month.

What a lawyer says about Diddy’s game plan

These appear to be attempts to portray the alleged victims as untrustworthy or money-hungry; portraying Cassie’s video as a fight between a troubled couple; prove that any sexual activity was consensual; and saying the feds started the case in the first place because of Diddy’s race.

But is that really what Diddy’s lawyers are doing? Have they abandoned their entire defense in document 36-1?

“It’s a game plan. And I think it is a probable and reasonable game plan,” says the lawyer. John M. Phillips . Phillips, a Florida-based attorney, has no connection to the Diddy situation, but has been involved in many high-profile cases of his own: He has represented Omarosa Manigault Newman in her battle against donald trump’s campaign ; been in “Tiger King” Joe Exotic’s corner; and participated in a case probably familiar to Complex readers, which represents the family of one of YNW Melly’s alleged victims in a civil proceeding. Complex asked him to take a look at Diddy’s list.

“They’re asking for specific things that support their case,” he said. “So you can see, reading between the lines of what they’re asking for, how that might be their defense.”

He notes that Diddy’s lawyers are actually fighting three battles at once: the criminal case, a growing issue number of civil lawsuits and a battle in the court of public opinion.

“So asking for things that represent your narrative serves all three,” he said. “You are asking for exculpatory evidence within the framework of the criminal case; but you’re also saying, ‘Hey, wait, wait, court of public opinion.’ There are two sides to this story, and my client has not yet been convicted,’ which is the way a smart, media-friendly lawyer puts this.”

“It’s a smart list,” he said. “We cannot as he. We can say that he belittles the victims. But that is literally their job: to create reasonable doubt.”

Diddy’s legal team pressing buttons

Victoria Bekiempis is a journalist who has covered some of the most important court cases of the last 10 years, featuring figures such as Harvey Weinstein R. Kelly and Ghislane Maxwell. After seeing Diddy’s list, he tells Complex that he’s seen this movie before.

“Diddy’s attorneys are doing what one would expect, and what is often seen, in high-profile sex crime trials,” he said. “Often, the defense will argue that other factors are motivating the prosecution of their clients. For example, attributing the prosecution to racism.”

But, he warns, Diddy’s strategy may not stand up to the judge’s scrutiny.

“There is a very big (difference) between what a lawyer can say in pretrial documents and what he can say in an actual trial. It is unclear at this time how much freedom the judge will allow. You might expect to see at least some of this in opening and closing arguments, but the judges have broad discretion on this point.”

Both Phillips and Bekiempis have thoughts on the “racially motivated” aspect of the list. When I mention to Phillips that the suggestion that the prosecution could be due to Diddy’s race really upset the government, he responds that, from the defendant’s perspective, some pressure might be a good thing.

“I mean, sometimes you want to push buttons just because it works,” he says. “There’s an old joke in law school: If you know the law, argue the law; If you know the facts, argue the facts; If you don’t know, just discuss. They know the law and they know the facts, but (sometimes) just arguing, if it works, consumes oxygen in opposing counsel’s room, so you do it, within the bounds of ethics.”

And, Phillips maintains, it’s not that the suggestion was crazy.

“You can Compare it to other cases and other accusations and they are certainly handling Sean’s case differently,” he says, noting at the same time that it is also “a different type of case” from something like the Jeffrey Epstein trial.

The Florida lawyer also says that “the justice system itself is systemically racist. Let someone report that and hold him accountable, if they have good faith, I am totally in favor.”

Bekiempis, for his part, says that for a theory like that to prevail among jurors, it would be necessary to have some evidence, “or be a masterful speaker.” All of this reminds him of a case he once reported on.

“I once saw two accused mobsters being acquitted in a trial in which their lawyers claimed they had been ethnically profiled for being Italian,” he said. “This was a very diverse Manhattan jury. I was stunned, but the evidence presented at trial, while not necessarily confirming this claim, weighed heavily in favor of the defense. And it didn’t hurt that the lawyering was masterful.”