The latest beef between Sean “Diddy” Combs and federal prosecutors amidst his sex crime case stems from an accusation that the Feds are trying to silence the rapper in violation of his Free Speech protections. You’ll never believe whose case they pulled to support their argument.
Federal prosecutors continued arguing against Combs’ request for bail in a letter to the court filed Monday. They claimed that while in pretrial detention at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, Combs has used multiple unauthorized means of communication in “extensive efforts” to taint the jury pool. The letter also claimed he used unauthorized communication to instruct family members and others to contact potential victims and witnesses through coded language.
In reference to the birthday posts published to his social media pages by way of his children, prosecutors accused Combs of conducting a “meticulous” social campaign to influence the jury - even tracking the analytics of the posts. Finally, the Feds called him out on his thoughts that “his prosecution is politically motivated,” such words they claim are not constitutionally protected, per court documents.
In opposition to the claims, attorneys for Combs argued that all of Combs communications, indirect social media posting included, are protected under his First Amendment rights. To support their argument, guess whose free speech case they pulled? That of none other than former President Donald J. Trump. Last year, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. District upheld portions of a gag order against the 45th President after he was accused of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election, per Justia.
From Trump’s case, Combs’ attorneys argued that the Court should apply the piece of the ruling that sustains a defendant has the right “to criticize and speak out against the prosecution and the criminal trial process that seek to take away his liberty.”
“In United States v. Trump, the D.C. Circuit ‘assume[d] without deciding that the most demanding scrutiny applies to’ pre-trial speech restrictions on criminal defendants, ‘and that only a significant and imminent threat to the administration of criminal justice will support restricting [a defendant’s] speech,’” the attorneys wrote.
Overall they argued Combs’ speech and other communications were not in violation of the Court’s gag order.