In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, the Government opposed Sean "Diddy" Combs’s request to bar witnesses from speaking with their attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Prosecutors argued that the defense provided no legal precedent supporting such a prohibition, especially regarding third-party witnesses with independent counsel. The Government noted that the defense’s reliance on Perry v. Leeke was misplaced, as that Supreme Court decision focused specifically on a testifying defendant’s communication with their attorney during a brief recess—not third-party witnesses.

The letter emphasized that the Supreme Court, in Perry, actually underscored the constitutional limits of such communication bans, particularly that overnight restrictions would violate the Sixth Amendment. The Government also cited United States v. Triumph Capital Group, a Second Circuit case, to highlight that brief, mid-day limitations on defendant-attorney discussions may be permissible, but broader restrictions—especially those impacting non-party witnesses—pose serious constitutional concerns. Ultimately, the Government asked the court to reject the defense’s request and preserve witnesses' rights to consult with counsel during trial breaks.

In a response letter addressed to Judge Arun Subramanian, the defense team representing Sean "Diddy" Combs reiterated their objection to witnesses consulting with attorneys during breaks in cross-examination. Referencing the government’s and Cassie Ventura’s legal counsel’s previous filings, the defense argued that the reasoning laid out in Perry v. Leeke, 488 U.S. 272 (1989), supports their position. They claimed that the risks of witness coaching or testimony manipulation identified by the Supreme Court in Perry are not only relevant but even more pronounced in the present case due to the high-profile nature and complexity of the allegations.

The defense maintained that to preserve the integrity of the proceedings and ensure the truthfulness of testimony, the court should bar all witnesses from communicating with any third parties—including their own lawyers—while they remain under cross-examination. They argued that even brief consultations during recesses could compromise the adversarial process and allow for improper influence or coordinated narrative adjustments. Accordingly, the defense asked the court to issue a clear order prohibiting such communications for the duration of a witness's cross-examination.


to contact me:

[email protected]