Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ lawyers are calling the prosecution against the hip-hop mogul “sexist and puritanical,” arguing that nine recordings of sexual encounters presented as key evidence actually show consensual sex between adults.
In a letter to a Manhattan federal court judge, Combs’ defense team asked that the recordings, which authorities claim show Combs organizing “elaborate sex performances,” be turned over for further review. According to the defense, they’ve only been allowed to briefly view the videos twice in the past two months.
Combs, 55, is facing sex trafficking charges after his arrest in September, and has pleaded not guilty. He remains in custody, with bail denied after three different judges ruled against him. His trial is scheduled for May 5.
Prosecutors declined to comment on the defense’s latest filing.
The defense’s argument echoes claims they made during bail hearings, where they accused the prosecution of demonizing consensual sexual activity to build their case.
The indictment accuses Combs of arranging sexual encounters between his alleged victims and male sex workers, referring to them as “Freak Offs.” The indictment describes these as “elaborate, produced sex performances” that Combs allegedly organized, participated in, and recorded.
Prosecutors claim that some of these encounters lasted for days, involved multiple sex workers, and that Combs drugged the participants to keep them “obedient and compliant.” They say evidence found during raids on his Los Angeles and Miami homes included drugs and over 1,000 bottles of baby oil and lubricant, which they argue were used in these encounters.
But Combs’ lawyers push back, saying the videos actually show “six unambiguously consensual sexual encounters” with a woman identified in the indictment as “Victim-1,” who was in a long-term relationship with Combs.
They insist that in each of these encounters, Victim-1 is not just consenting but “happy, dominant, and completely in control.”
The defense also argues that the videos don’t show anything resembling “sex parties” and that there are no signs of secret cameras, orgies, minors, or other celebrities being involved. They say there’s no evidence of violence, coercion, threats, or manipulation—just consensual adult activity.
They also pointed out that some of the video footage is of poor quality—“very bad lighting,” dark and grainy—and that experts will need to enhance the footage to analyze it properly and determine when it was shot or modified.
Finally, the defense argues that the prosecution’s view of these encounters hinges on labeling the sex as “dirty” or “disgusting” and reflects an attempt to “police non-conforming sexual activity.” They believe the government is assuming that because a woman participated willingly, there must have been coercion involved—despite all evidence to the contrary.
