Prosecutors Accuse Diddy of ‘Grasping at Straws’ as They Fight Over Gag Order and Victims’ Names

The prosecutors taking on Diddy fired back at the disgraced mogul’s demand for a gag order preventing witnesses from talking publicly about his criminal case, In Touch can exclusively report.

According to court documents obtained by In Touch, the government asked that the plea made by Diddy, 54, be shut down. Diddy has remained behind bars since his September 16 arrest on charges of sex trafficking and racketeering.

He pleaded not guilty to the charges. His attempts to be granted bond have been shut down on three different occasions.

Recently, Diddy asked the court to issue a gag order that would stop any witnesses from talking about him or the case. His lawyer argued that the court had an “independent obligation to avoid the creation of a ‘carnival atmosphere’ in high-profile case.”

Diddy claimed witnesses and their lawyers have been trashing him in the media. He said if they were allowed to continue it would ruin his chance at a fair trial.

Diddy claimed the lawyers speaking out against him have made “shockingly prejudicial and false allegations of sexual assault and abuse of minors.”

“Some have even peddled in outlandish conspiracy theories,” his lawyer added. “What’s more, these lawyers have done the government’s work for them, repeatedly vouching for the government and commenting on the strength of the government’s case.”

In court filings, Diddy also accused the feds of playing a role in the leak of the video that showed him assaulting his then-girlfriend Cassie to CNN. In the video, Diddy can be seen attacking Cassie in a hotel hallway in 2016. He asked that the video be thrown out as evidence.

Now, the government has filed a motion responding to all of Diddy’s requests.

They claim Diddy is “grasping at straws” when it comes to the CNN video leak. The prosecutors said Diddy is attempting to “suppress highly probative evidence—a video of Combs brutally physically assaulting a victim in March 2016 that was published by a media outlet in May 2024—by claiming that it was grand jury material leaked by Government agents to CNN.”

However, the prosecutors’ lawyer noted, “But, as the defendant is fully aware, the video was not in the Government’s possession at the time of CNN’s publication and the Government has never, at any point, obtained the video through grand jury process.” Further, “[Diddy] also complains about purported “law enforcement sources” leaking other alleged grand jury material to the media in several news articles cited in his papers and set forth in the attached table,” they added.

“Here, too, the defendant is grasping at straws. Because the defendant cannot show that the information in the Cited Articles is grand jury material, and because he cannot show that Government agents with access to grand jury material leaked the information.” In regard to handing over the names of additional alleged victims, “It is plain that [Diddy’s] request for a bill of particulars containing victim names is merely a vehicle to attempt to prematurely restrict the Government’s proof at trial and use these criminal proceedings to defend himself in the press against complainants in separate civil litigation,” the government argued.

“This improper request should be denied in its entirety, particularly here, where there are serious and ongoing concerns of victim and witness safety, tampering, and intimidation.”

Further, the prosecutors noted, “The defendant has a significant history of violence and obstruction. Indeed, Judge Carter found by clear and convincing evidence at the conclusion of the second hearing, the defendant ‘is a danger regarding obstruction of justice and witness tampering’ and ‘is a danger to the safety of others in the community more generally.’ Due to the defendant’s history, the Government has serious concerns about victim safety and the possibly of witness tampering if a list of victim names were provided to the defendant.”

The government also took issue with the request for a gag order. “To the extent that the defendant seeks a blanket gag order that would prohibit any civil claimant and their attorneys from making extrajudicial statements, such an order would be even more extraordinary and beyond the purview of the Local Rule on which it relies. Indeed, as to the universe of civil claimants, the defendant has specific relief available to him outside the present criminal case,” they argued.

The judge has yet to rule on the matter.