The Moscow Murders and More

Diddy And The Latest Motion For A Evidentiary/Suppression Hearing (Part 1) (1/1/25)

In the case United States v. Sean Combs (Case No. 1:24-cr-00542-AS), the defense submitted a reply memorandum supporting their motion for a hearing, suppression of evidence, and other relief. They contended that certain evidence was obtained in violation of Combs' constitutional rights, specifically citing a recent incident where federal agents allegedly conducted a warrantless search of his jail cell and seized handwritten notes intended for his legal defense. The defense argued that this action breached attorney-client privilege and infringed upon Combs' Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendment rights, necessitating the suppression of the seized materials.

Additionally, the defense raised concerns about potential government misconduct, including the alleged leaking of a 2016 video involving Combs and his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura, to the media. They asserted that such actions were intended to prejudice public opinion and undermine Combs' right to a fair trial. The memorandum requested a comprehensive hearing to examine these issues, determine the admissibility of the contested evidence, and address any violations of Combs' constitutional protections.

(commercial at 7:53)

to contact me:

bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

source:

gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.120.0_1.pdf

Duration:: 11m
Broadcast on:: 01 Jan 2025
Audio Format:: other

What's up everyone and welcome to another episode of the Diddy Diaries. In this episode, we're going to dive in to the latest court filing in the case against Diddy filed by the US government. Case number 124-CR-000542-AS United States of America vs Sean Combs the reply memorandum of law and further support of defendant Sean Combs' motion for a hearing, suppression and other relief. It is indisputable that a BOP investigator based in West Virginia has been feeding Mr. Combs jail communications to the prosecutors. It is also indisputable that he traveled to New York for a BOP sweep, ostensibly aimed at potential corruption and contraband at the MDC, and that despite finding none, he inspected and copied Mr. Combs' privilege notes. At the very least, this egregious invasion of Mr. Combs' constitutional rights raises numerous questions that can only be answered through discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The government's breezy response stoops to unjustified near-relevant mud-slinging and mischaracterizes the controlling case law and key facts about the filter team protocol. Apparently lacking any concern for the fairness of these proceedings, the government minimizes the breaches of Mr. Combs' privilege and privacy, hoping the court will accept its unsworn say-so and not bother with the hearing. The defense has repeatedly presented sworn testimony and evidence, but the government offers no actual evidence supporting its slippery and inconsistent claims about the underlying facts sufficient to meet the controlling legal standard. Instead of submitting, for instance, a sworn declaration by Investigator I explaining what happened and why, the prosecutors expect the court to simply accept their unsworn hearsay assertions even though they are self-contradictory and provide few answers to the legal questions. The court should refuse to do so. It should insist on sworn testimony from Investigator I and the production of his written communications with the prosecutors. A hearing is the only way to find the true facts so the court can assess how best to remedy this grave violation of Mr. Combs' constitutional rights. The argument won. The government fails to explain why Investigator I search Mr. Combs' notes, underscoring its Fourth Amendment violation and the need for a hearing. The government misreads Second Circuit precedent when it claims the Fourth Amendment doesn't apply to prison searches. It asks the court to blindly defer to the BOP's press release about the reason for the sweep without any further inquiry whatsoever into exactly what peniological interest justified the search. The law, however, requires far more. First, the Second Circuit has squarely held that the Fourth Amendment scrutiny is required for prison searches. United States vs. Cohen could not be clear. Warrenland searches performed at the instigation of non-prison officials for non-institutional security-related reasons or intended solely to bolster the prosecution's case against a pretrial detainee awaiting his day in court or to uncover information that would aid them in laying additional indictments against a detainee, are out of bounds and may be challenged. 796, F.2D, 20, 23 and 24, Second Circuit, 1986 Second, the issue is not just whether the MDC sweep in general was motivated by a larger safety and security initiative. The issue is why Investigator I searched and photographed Mr. Combs' personal notes and immediately offered to share them with the prosecutors. The government still has not offered any explanation whatsoever for these actions, as to the notes, even though the court specifically asked the prosecutors at the November 19, 2024 hearing, whether Investigator I thought of himself as an agent of the prosecution team and took it upon himself to aid in the investigation effort by photographing these pages. 1119, 24 The government refuses to tell the court what Investigator I has to say about his motivations or thinking, but that is the dispositive question under Cohen. Rather than even attempting to provide any explanation from Investigator I, sworn or otherwise, the government instead offers up a series of red herrings about things that may justify prison searches, but have nothing to do with the search Mr. Combs' notes or even the BOP sweep more generally. The government claims, for example, that a prisoner's notes may contain details of an escape plan or be used to hide contraband images, docket 117 at 10, but so what? That was plainly not what motivated the search or why Investigator I searched Mr. Combs' notes. The far more likely reason for Investigator I's conduct is the same one that motivated his prior work on this case. He sought to collect evidence for the prosecution. The government admits Investigator I had been reviewing the defendant's recorded phone calls and DML since the defendant was detained, IDA 3 and 4. Throughout that period, the case team had communicated with him regarding the defendant's monitored communications and had issued legal process to obtain such communications, IDA 4 and 1. The government does not detail those communications, but it never denies the obvious Investigator I understood himself to be investigating Mr. Combs' communications on behalf of the prosecution team. The government denies coordination before the search, IDA 11, but even if literally true, that claim ignores the context. The case team's prior work with Investigator I to procure evidence against Mr. Combs. The government also makes contradictory assertions that cannot be resolved without a hearing. On the one hand, it claims the search was initiated by a prison official for a legitimate, peniological purpose, IDA. On the other hand, it admits it obtained the BOP notes in connection with its covert investigation into the defendant's ongoing obstruction and witness tampering, IDA 18. It even says Investigator I's purpose might have been preventing crimes such as efforts to obstruct proceedings. In other words, to further its ongoing investigation, IDA 10, which is it? If, as the government concedes, Investigator I's aim was to uncover information, to support additional charges, and Mr. Combs continued detention, that is not a legitimate institutional security purpose and would violate the Fourth Amendment. The government's bald assertion that there was a legitimate, peniological purpose contradicts its own admissions about Investigator I's role in assisting the prosecutors to develop evidence against Mr. Combs for this case, and notably is unsupported by any affirmation or declaration by the prosecutors, Investigator I, or any other BOP official. The court should not blindly accept this self-serving assertion. The only way to ascertain the truth is with real fact-finding at a hearing. The government's cases see docket 117 at 9 and 10 do not hold otherwise. Williams vs. Ramos dismissed a 1993 claim alleging prison officials, confiscated the detainees' legal paperwork without any involvement from prosecutors. 2013 WL 7017674 at 1 SDNY, December 23, 2013. Ortiz vs. City of New York involved a search of a detainees' prosthesis and medical equipment, again without any alleged involvement of prosecutors. 2012 WL 6200397 at 6 and 7 SDNY, December 12, 2012. Florence vs. Board of Chosen Freeholders of County of Burlington considered a challenge to a gels general policy of strip searching detainees upon their entry into the facility, 566 US 318 325 2012. It did not address the standard for challenging a particular search of a pretrial detainees' papers, and in Stroud vs. United States, which predates Cohen by decades, papers were seized pursuant to establish practice at the penitentiary. 251 US 1521 1919. Finally, the United States vs. CNCA considered a challenge to a search of an inmate's mail which federal law permits. 2015 WL 137 98678 at 1 Central District, California, May 20, 2015. In Cohen, the second circuit directed courts not to merely pay lip service to a pretrial detainees for the amendment rights, 796 F.2D at 24, yet that is exactly what the government is asking the court to do here. Take its word and ignore facts and logic showing the opposite. The court should resist that invitation to disregard Mr. Combs' rights and paper over the violation. 2. The government violated Mr. Combs' six amendment rights. The government's only response to Mr. Combs' six amendment argument is to breezily assert that its conduct was reasonable and caused no prejudice, but the court cannot simply accept the government's claim, which is unsupported by any evidence and implausible on its face, without finding the actual facts through sworn testimony and proof, adduced at a hearing. The government says the intrusion was not intentional but offers no sworn declaration from Investigator 1 that would enable the court to understand the underlying facts or justify the breach. If Investigator 1 inspected the notes and photographed them to assist the prosecutors as demonstrated above, then the intrusion at issue was intentional government conduct requiring careful scrutiny in the form of a hearing. United States v. Schwimmer 924F.2D 443 447 2nd Circuit 1991. The government ignores Mr. Combs' case law criticizing similar government conduct and ordering a hearing (see docket 98 at 1112 and 16 and 17). Instead, it cites non-binding, unpublished decisions on weather in the unrelated Brady context, the BOP, was an arm of the prosecution (see docket 117 at 16). Those cases are an opposite. Since Investigator 1 is obviously a state actor, his actions are attributed to the government for six amendment purposes. Alright, we're gonna wrap up episode 1 here, and in the next episode we'll finish this bad boy off. All of the information that goes with this episode can be found in the description box.