Nov 04 2024 12 mins 1
In the case of United States v. Sean Combs (24 Cr. 542), federal prosecutors have filed an opposition to the defense's motions requesting a hearing, a bill of particulars, and a gag order. The defense sought a hearing to investigate alleged government leaks of evidence, specifically a 2016 video purportedly showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Prosecutors refuted these claims, stating they did not possess the video prior to its public release and had no involvement in its dissemination. They argued that the defense's allegations are baseless and represent a strategic attempt to suppress critical evidence that is highly probative of Combs' alleged criminal conduct.
Regarding the request for a bill of particulars, the defense sought detailed information about the charges to prepare for trial. Prosecutors contended that the indictment already provides sufficient detail, outlining the nature of the charges and the alleged criminal activities. They maintained that additional specifics are unnecessary and could compromise ongoing investigations or witness safety. Concerning the motion for a gag order to prevent public statements by potential witnesses and attorneys, prosecutors argued that existing court orders already address these concerns, rendering the defense's request redundant. They emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial with the public's right to information, asserting that current measures are adequate to maintain this balance.
(commercial at 7:32)
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
diddy.pdf
Regarding the request for a bill of particulars, the defense sought detailed information about the charges to prepare for trial. Prosecutors contended that the indictment already provides sufficient detail, outlining the nature of the charges and the alleged criminal activities. They maintained that additional specifics are unnecessary and could compromise ongoing investigations or witness safety. Concerning the motion for a gag order to prevent public statements by potential witnesses and attorneys, prosecutors argued that existing court orders already address these concerns, rendering the defense's request redundant. They emphasized the importance of balancing the defendant's right to a fair trial with the public's right to information, asserting that current measures are adequate to maintain this balance.
(commercial at 7:32)
to contact me:
[email protected]
source:
diddy.pdf
