Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ legal team has filed a second request for a mistrial in his ongoing sex trafficking case, citing what they allege is “prosecutorial misconduct.” The new motion, submitted in a June 7 letter to Judge Arun Subramanian, accuses the government of presenting a ‘knowingly false testimony’ that could unfairly sway the jury.At the centre of the defence’s claim was an allegation involving a 2016 incident in which Combs was accused of dangling Bryana Bongolan from the 17th floor balcony of Cassie Ventura’s apartment. According to the letter, the prosecution relied on Ventura’s testimony, in which she claimed to have witnessed the alleged event firsthand. However, Combs’ attorneys argue that text message records indicate Ventura only learned of the incident after it occurred, rendering her testimony “demonstrably false.”“The incident, as alleged, is disturbing and powerful evidence,” the defence wrote, “and the government has used it to depict Mr Combs in an extremely negative light, as an angry and dangerous man who terrified Ms Ventura and her friends,” People reported. Combs’ team further contends that the prosecution introduced photos of Bongolan’s alleged injuries — supposedly taken on September 26, 2016, in Los Angeles — despite evidence placing Combs in New York City between September 24 and 29 of that year.The letter also claims that the prosecutors “knew or should have known that this testimony was perjured,” and that they disrupted defence efforts to challenge the testimony during cross-examination, thereby intensifying the alleged misconduct.“This is just one example of prosecutorial misconduct during this trial,” the defence team wrote, adding that the cumulative effect of such actions warrants a mistrial.This is the second time in two weeks that Combs’ attorneys have filed for a mistrial. The first, filed in late May, focused on the alleged destruction of fingerprint evidence in connection to the 2012 bombing of Kid Cudi’s car — an incident the prosecution attributes to Combs. The defence argued that the knowledge of destroyed evidence was prejudicial to the jury. That request was denied, with Judge Subramanian ruling that the prosecution’s line of questioning was not unduly damaging.As of now, the judge has not yet ruled on the latest motion.
