Before Cassie heads back to the witness stand in Diddy’s racketeering and sex trafficking trial Wednesday, a heated dispute has erupted over whether she should be allowed to talk with her legal team during cross-examination.
Below, we dive into what both sides are arguing.
What is Cassie’s legal team saying?
In court docs viewed by Complex, Douglas H. Wigdor, an attorney for Cassie, urged United States District Judge Arun Subramanian to deny an impending application from Diddy’s legal team that would prohibit his client from consulting with him and other personal attorneys. In short, Wigdor has argued that Cassie “should be permitted to continue to speak to her private civil attorneys on a number of important issues,” including but not limited to the logistics of her arrival at court and testimony that may focus on her previously settled civil lawsuit against Diddy.
Cited in Wigdor’s argument is the Crime Victims’ Rights Act, specifically a passage about “the victim’s dignity and privacy.”
What is the government saying?
The government has also opposed Diddy’s request for witnesses to be prohibited from talking with their attorneys during breaks in the cross-examination process. In docs viewed by Complex, United States Attorney Jay Clayton argues that Diddy’s legal team hasn’t cited any cases showing that “third party witnesses” should be prevented from doing so. A case cited by Diddy’s legal team in support of their argument, according to Clayton’s letter to Judge Subramanian, “related only to whether a testifying defendant can be prohibited from speaking with counsel during ‘a 15-minute afternoon recess.’” Furthermore, per Clayton, any overnight barring from such communication would mark what the Supreme Court has previously determined to be a violation of the Sixth Amendment.
Clayton goes on to say that the government hasn’t been able to identify “any case” in which a third-party witness was barred from speaking with their attorney during the cross-examination process, adding that the order at hand in the Diddy case, if allowed to move forward, has the potential to intimidate witnesses “by preventing them from receiving emotional support from their counsel.” Clayton also argues that witnesses in this particular case should be allowed to speak with their own attorneys due to the potential for “sensitive subjects” and “potentially privileged areas” to be broached while on the stand.
What is Diddy’s legal team saying?
As touched on above, Diddy’s legal team, including Alexandra A.E. Shapiro and Marc Agnifilo, have instead argued that there are “risks” involved with allowing witnesses under cross-examination to speak with their counsel.
“The court should order witnesses not to communicate with any third parties regarding their testimony, including their attorneys, while under cross-examination,” Daddy’s legal team said in docs viewed by Complex on Wednesday.
In their comments to Judge Subramanian, Diddy’s lawyers also address the government’s argument of being unable to identify cases in which witnesses were ordered to not talk with their attorneys during cross-examination, arguing instead that such examples do exist. Diddy’s legal team also pointed out that they are not asking for a “total bar on all communication” but instead are focused solely on communications related directly to the testimony itself. Allowing Cassie to consult with her lawyers regarding testimony about the settled civil suit, for example, “would be wholly improper,” at least according to Diddy’s lawyers.
What has Cassie said in court?
Complex’s Shawn Setaro has been in court for trial proceedings in the Diddy case. Tuesday, as detailed here, Cassie said while on the stand that alleged “freak offs” could sometimes last as long as several days. She described these sessions, which are further alleged to have involved other men who were paid to participate, as “horrible.” Elsewhere in her testimony, Cassie described Diddy’s alleged mood swings, specifically stating that arguments would lead to “violence” and “dragging.”
Diddy has denied the allegations against him in the case, which is expected to last eight weeks.
