Prosecutors Instructed to Halt Use of Documents Seized from Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ Detention Cell, at Least Temporarily

NEW YORK (AP) — On Tuesday, a federal judge instructed prosecutors not to use documents recovered from Sean “Diddy” Combs’ jail cell until he makes a decision on defense claims that these materials are protected by attorney-client privilege during trial preparations.

Judge Arun Subramanian made this ruling during a court hearing in Manhattan, following heated arguments from both sides regarding the seizure of 19 pages, which had been photographed by an investigator in Combs’ cell.

Combs, who has pleaded not guilty to multiple charges, is accused of having coerced and abused women over several years, allegedly with the assistance of a network of associates and employees.

The documents were seized as part of what the government described as a multi-day operation aimed at clearing out weapons and contraband from all cells at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn as part of an anti-violence initiative.

Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo expressed intentions to potentially ask the judge to dismiss the indictment or require the recusal of prosecutors if it is determined that the materials were improperly obtained or used.

Upon entering the courtroom, Combs embraced his team of lawyers and was seen carrying a stack of papers as he departed at the end of the hearing.

Agnifilo mentioned that he was unaware the Bureau of Prisons investigator had photographed the documents in Combs’ cell and shared them with prosecutors, until he noticed references to them in documents opposing his client’s $50 million bail request. A bail hearing is scheduled for Friday.

In the written arguments opposing bail, prosecutors contended that Combs has continued to engage in criminal activities since his arrest in September. They accused him of attempting to influence potential jurors through social media campaigns, leaking information he believed would aid his case, and contacting potential witnesses via intermediaries.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Slavik stated that the seized documents had been reviewed by independent government attorneys, who were insulated from the prosecution, to determine if they fell under attorney-client privilege. However, these materials were not discussed with defense attorneys as they were related to an ongoing covert investigation of Combs.

Slavik further clarified that prosecutors did not consult with jail officials prior to the search of Combs’ cell and didn’t give any directions regarding the process.

Among the photographed documents were a to-do list, motivational quotes, and notes about birthdays, while two portions specifically revolved around Combs’ efforts to pay for and locate damaging information about possible witnesses.

Nevertheless, Agnifilo argued that even content that might seem irrelevant to the case should still be protected under attorney-client privilege, highlighting that discussions about potential witnesses fall within this framework.

He claimed, “Every single thing” included in the seized documents is covered by attorney-client privilege since Combs discussed them with his attorneys. Agnifilo emphasized the gravity of the situation, stating, “The government now knows potential defense witnesses for a May 5 trial. This has been a complete government failure.”

The judge has requested both sides to submit written arguments over the coming weeks to further evaluate the situation.