Source : PERTHNOW NEWS
The legal team for Sean” Puffy” Combs has requested a trial.
The 55-year-old audio mogul is now facing a trial in New York after entering a not-guilty plea for racketeering and sex trafficking by army. However, his attorneys have filed a second request to have the case declared invalid after claiming “prosecutorial misconduct.”
The defense claimed in a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian on Saturday ( 07.06.25 ), that the government had received” the testimony that it knew or should have known was materially false related to its allegation that Mr. Combs dangled Bryana Bongolan from the balcony of Cassie Ventura’s apartment in September 2016″.
The word continued,” Appropriately, the Court should grant a mistrial in this case to avoid an unjust judgment.”
Additionally, the Combs team argued that Cassie’s witness, in which she claimed she saw the singer hang Bryana from a ledge, was “demonstrably misleading” because text communications allegedly claimed she only learned of the affair later.
The affair, as claimed, is shocking and strong evidence, and the state has used it to portray Mr. Combs as an angeklagter and harmful guy who terrified Ms. Ventura and her friends, according to the letter.
The defendants also argued that the trial had images of Bryana’s reported injury from the event, which were said to have occurred on September 26, 2016 in Los Angeles, despite the fact that” the government has long known” the Bad Boy information leader was in New York City between September 24 and September 29 that time.
Additionally, the defense claimed that when they attempted to “expose the perjury upon cross-examination,” the prosecution “repeatedly attempted to disrupt” their line of questioning.
The letter added that “everything was incredibly improper and only exacerbated the harm caused by [ …] the perjured testimony.”
The balcony incident serves as an illustration of prosecutorial error in this trial.
At the end of May, Combs ‘ attorneys had previously requested a mistrial when prosecutors inquired about the destruction of fingerprint evidence related to the bombing of Kid Cudi’s car and who might have authorised the ruling.
The I’ll Be Missing You rapper’s attorneys claimed that the questioning could provide a scathing indication that their client had a chance to escape trouble.
The judge, however, rejected the first motion and determined that the questions were not harmful to the case.
