Diddy Trial: Diddy Asks The Court To Be Released On Bond As He Awaits Sentencing (7/3/25)

At the July 2, 2025 plea hearing, Bryan Kohberger stood before a Boise courtroom and admitted responsibility for one of the most chilling crimes in recent American memory—the murders of four University of Idaho students in November 2022. In a quiet, deliberate voice, he pleaded guilty to four counts of first-degree murder and one count of felony burglary. As part of the plea agreement, he will serve four consecutive life sentences without the possibility of parole, along with an additional 10 years for the burglary charge. In exchange, the death penalty was taken off the table. When asked directly by the judge whether he was the person who carried out the killings, Kohberger answered yes. It was the first time he publicly acknowledged guilt, nearly three years after the brutal stabbing deaths of Ethan Chapin, Xana Kernodle, Madison Mogen, and Kaylee Goncalves.The prosecution, led by Latah County Prosecutor Bill Thompson, used the hearing to lay out the core evidence that would have anchored their case at trial: DNA from a knife sheath left on a victim’s bed, cellphone tower records showing Kohberger near the crime scene, surveillance footage of his white Hyundai Elantra, and genetic material linked to his father recovered from family trash. With the plea now entered, the highly anticipated trial will never take place. That means some of the most haunting questions—why Kohberger selected these particular victims, what his true motive was, and what he might have done had he not been caught—may remain forever unanswered. Sentencing is set for July 23, and while some victims’ families expressed relief that they were spared the agony of a lengthy trial, others remain deeply unsettled, feeling they were denied the full reckoning they sought in open court.to  contact me:[email protected]:Bryan Kohberger plea hearing: Here is the new evidence we learned about from the prosecution | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter submitted to Judge Arun Subramanian of the Southern District of New York, federal prosecutors addressed the status of Sean Combs following the conclusion of his jury trial. After a seven-week proceeding, Combs was found guilty on two counts of interstate transportation for the purpose of prostitution, a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 2421(a). In light of the conviction, Combs’ legal team filed a motion requesting that he be released on bail while awaiting sentencing.However, the Government argues that under the Bail Reform Act, specifically 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(2), detention is mandatory for a defendant who has been convicted of certain offenses—including the ones Combs was found guilty of. Because of this, prosecutors assert that Combs is not legally entitled to release and must remain in custody pending sentencing.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.433.0_2.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, Sean Combs' legal team requested his release on appropriate conditions under 18 U.S.C. § 3143(a)(1) while he awaits sentencing. The defense emphasized that the jury acquitted Combs of the most serious charges—RICO conspiracy and sex trafficking—undermining the government’s core allegations that he led a criminal enterprise. They argue that given these acquittals, continued detention is no longer justified.The letter also highlights Combs' conduct since his arrest on September 17, 2024. According to his attorneys, Combs voluntarily surrendered, has fully complied with the court, and maintained exemplary behavior while in custody at MDC. With only two convictions under the Mann Act remaining, and significantly reduced sentencing exposure compared to the initial indictment, the defense contends that release on proposed conditions is now both reasonable and appropriate.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.432.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs on racketeering and sex trafficking charges, one glaring absence stood out: Kristina Khorrum, Combs’ longtime chief of staff. Despite being repeatedly named in witness testimony and implicated in key aspects of the alleged criminal enterprise—including orchestrating logistics for “freak-offs,” covering up acts of violence, and directly communicating with victims—Khorrum was never called to testify. Her documented role placed her at the operational center of Combs’ activities, making her a critical figure in proving Count 1, the RICO conspiracy charge. Yet the prosecution relied on texts and voicemails instead of live testimony, leaving the jury to speculate about her involvement and intentions. This omission ultimately weakened the government’s effort to prove an organized criminal structure and contributed to the jury’s deadlock on the racketeering count.The defense seized on Khorrum’s absence to argue that there was no real “enterprise,” framing Combs as a chaotic individual rather than the head of a coordinated criminal group. Without Khorrum to confirm the inner workings of the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution’s case appeared incomplete and less credible. Her testimony could have corroborated victim accounts, clarified intent, and connected disparate pieces of evidence into a cohesive narrative. Instead, the silence around her left jurors with unanswered questions and allowed reasonable doubt to take root. In a case built on proving systemic abuse and hierarchical coordination, failing to call the person who allegedly “ran the enterprise” may have been the prosecution’s most costly strategic error.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs on racketeering and sex trafficking charges, one glaring absence stood out: Kristina Khorrum, Combs’ longtime chief of staff. Despite being repeatedly named in witness testimony and implicated in key aspects of the alleged criminal enterprise—including orchestrating logistics for “freak-offs,” covering up acts of violence, and directly communicating with victims—Khorrum was never called to testify. Her documented role placed her at the operational center of Combs’ activities, making her a critical figure in proving Count 1, the RICO conspiracy charge. Yet the prosecution relied on texts and voicemails instead of live testimony, leaving the jury to speculate about her involvement and intentions. This omission ultimately weakened the government’s effort to prove an organized criminal structure and contributed to the jury’s deadlock on the racketeering count.The defense seized on Khorrum’s absence to argue that there was no real “enterprise,” framing Combs as a chaotic individual rather than the head of a coordinated criminal group. Without Khorrum to confirm the inner workings of the alleged conspiracy, the prosecution’s case appeared incomplete and less credible. Her testimony could have corroborated victim accounts, clarified intent, and connected disparate pieces of evidence into a cohesive narrative. Instead, the silence around her left jurors with unanswered questions and allowed reasonable doubt to take root. In a case built on proving systemic abuse and hierarchical coordination, failing to call the person who allegedly “ran the enterprise” may have been the prosecution’s most costly strategic error.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After four weeks of trial, Sean "Diddy" Combs's defense team has mounted a vigorous challenge to the federal RICO charges against him, which include allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking. Led by attorney Brian Steel, the defense has sought to dismantle the prosecution's narrative by emphasizing that Combs's relationships and interactions were consensual, albeit complex and sometimes tumultuous. They argue that the prosecution's portrayal of Combs as orchestrating a criminal enterprise is a mischaracterization of his personal and professional life. In cross-examinations, the defense has highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and questioned the credibility of accusers, suggesting that some allegations are financially motivated or stem from personal grievances. For instance, they scrutinized affectionate messages sent by former assistant "Mia" after her employment ended, which she attributed to being "brainwashed"Furthermore, the defense has contested the prosecution's use of a 2016 hotel surveillance video showing Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, arguing that while the footage is disturbing, it does not constitute evidence of a broader criminal conspiracy. They maintain that the incident, though regrettable, was an isolated event and not indicative of a pattern of racketeering activity. The defense also challenged the admissibility and interpretation of this video, asserting that its repeated presentation could prejudice the jury . Despite these efforts, the judge has denied motions for mistrial and has admonished Combs for courtroom behavior, including attempting to communicate with jurors, which the defense claims was misinterpreted . As the trial progresses, the defense continues to argue that the government's case lacks the necessary evidence to prove the existence of a coordinated criminal enterprise under RICO statutes.In this episode, I make that argument for them.  to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

After four weeks of trial, Sean "Diddy" Combs's defense team has mounted a vigorous challenge to the federal RICO charges against him, which include allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking. Led by attorney Brian Steel, the defense has sought to dismantle the prosecution's narrative by emphasizing that Combs's relationships and interactions were consensual, albeit complex and sometimes tumultuous. They argue that the prosecution's portrayal of Combs as orchestrating a criminal enterprise is a mischaracterization of his personal and professional life. In cross-examinations, the defense has highlighted inconsistencies in witness testimonies and questioned the credibility of accusers, suggesting that some allegations are financially motivated or stem from personal grievances. For instance, they scrutinized affectionate messages sent by former assistant "Mia" after her employment ended, which she attributed to being "brainwashed"Furthermore, the defense has contested the prosecution's use of a 2016 hotel surveillance video showing Combs assaulting then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, arguing that while the footage is disturbing, it does not constitute evidence of a broader criminal conspiracy. They maintain that the incident, though regrettable, was an isolated event and not indicative of a pattern of racketeering activity. The defense also challenged the admissibility and interpretation of this video, asserting that its repeated presentation could prejudice the jury . Despite these efforts, the judge has denied motions for mistrial and has admonished Combs for courtroom behavior, including attempting to communicate with jurors, which the defense claims was misinterpreted . As the trial progresses, the defense continues to argue that the government's case lacks the necessary evidence to prove the existence of a coordinated criminal enterprise under RICO statutes.In this episode, I make that argument for them.  to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In recent court filings, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team invoked former President Donald Trump's legal experiences to argue for his release on bail. Facing charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, Combs' attorneys highlighted that Trump, despite facing multiple indictments, was granted bail and allowed to remain free during his legal proceedings. They contended that Combs should receive similar treatment, emphasizing that he poses no flight risk and is committed to addressing the charges against him.Additionally, Combs' lawyers referenced Trump's use of public statements and social media during his legal battles, noting that such communications did not result in revocation of his bail. They argued that Combs' attempts to influence public opinion should not be grounds for denying his bail, asserting that he has a constitutional right to free speech. This comparison aims to underscore perceived inconsistencies in the judicial system's handling of high-profile defendants and to advocate for Combs' release pending trial.(commercial at 7:46)to contact me:[email protected]:Diddy compares himself to Trump in bizarre court filing as he begs judge to grant him bail for Thanksgiving | Daily Mail OnlineBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This document is a motion to quash filed by Warner Bros. Discovery in response to a subpoena issued by Sean Combs’ legal team. The subpoena demanded raw footage and outtakes from the CNN Presents: The Scandalous Rise and Fall of Sean “Diddy” Combs documentary. Warner Bros. argues that the subpoena should be quashed on multiple grounds, primarily invoking journalistic privilege, First Amendment protections, and undue burden. They emphasize that the outtakes are protected newsgathering materials and that forcing disclosure would undermine the editorial independence of journalists and chill investigative reporting, especially in cases involving high-profile figures like Combs.Warner Bros. further contends that Combs has failed to meet the high bar necessary to overcome these legal protections. They argue that the subpoena is overly broad, not narrowly tailored, and lacks specificity about what exactly is being sought or why it's essential to Combs’ defense. They also highlight that much of the material is duplicative of what was already publicly aired, and that Combs can obtain the information he needs from other sources. Ultimately, Warner Bros. frames the subpoena as an attempt to use litigation to intimidate the press, stating that granting it would set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving media organizations.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.219.0_1.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In October 2024, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team filed a motion requesting the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit to hold his bail appeal in abeyance. This request aimed to pause the appellate proceedings to allow the district court to consider a renewed bail application based on new information.Prosecutors opposed this motion, arguing that it was a tactic to delay the appellate process and potentially "forum shop" due to the assignment of a new district judge. They contended that the appeal should proceed without delay.In this episode, we take a look at the back and forth.   (commercial at 7:37)to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.32.0.pdfgov.uscourts.ca2.234342fd-2384-426f-a4a4-aeca250ee12d.30.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.