Sean “Diddy” Combs The criminal case will span much of 2025. His trial is currently scheduled for starts next May although this may be delayed if new charges or defendants are brought. But while we’re still a few months away, a closer look at the filings that have been filed so far — and what mogul the legal team said – revealing that his lawyers have dropped serious hints about what his defense might look like.

What Diddy’s Lawyers Are Demanding

On October 15, Diddy’s lawyers submitted a letter of demand to Judge Arun Subramanian and included an accompanying exhibit. The main objective of the letter was to asks the government to identify the names of the alleged victims — but that wasn’t interesting. Buried on pages three and four of the exhibit are the mother strings: a list of the kinds of “exempt materials” Diddy’s team wants from the government — essentially, Diddy’s lawyers are telling prosecutors, if you’ve got that stuff, turn it over -it. to us.

Of course, the government must return all of his potentially exculpatory evidence. So it’s worth noting that Diddy’s team is laying out the specific types of evidence they’re looking for — a hint that these may be defenses they’re thinking of presenting.

The list of material types can be grouped into several categories. One relates to whether Diddy’s participation is now notorious “Freak Offs” it was voluntary. In fact, the very first point calls for “All information indicating that participation in ‘Freak Offs’ was consensual” and that people were not “forced” to take part. This section also covers the narrative that took shape in many of them Diddy’s civil lawsuits : that the alleged victims were forced to drink alcohol that was laced with the rape drug GHB. Diddy’s team is asking for any information showing that “to the extent participants consumed drugs or alcohol, they did so voluntarily.”

Another category concerns the credibility of any alleged victims: whether they “lie, exaggerate, or are otherwise unreliable, including all information regarding the alleged victims’ financial, reputational, personal, or professional motivations for reporting abuse.” Similarly, Diddy’s attorneys are asking for any evidence “to show that prior to the alleged victims’ motivation to lie, they were not afraid of Mr. Combs and never reported … any instances of coercion, force or abuse.” There is also much talk of “phone records, email records, travel records, arrest records, medical records, drug abuse and rehabilitation records, draft memos, financial records, and extortion attempts” of the alleged victims.

There are several points that seem directly aimed at Cassie Ventura Video, including suggesting that any disputes between Diddy and the alleged victims were “related to infidelity or other interpersonal matters and unrelated to alleged force or coercion to engage in sexual activity” — which fits with the ways Diddy’s lawyers have talked about the video in court hearings.

Finally, there’s one asking for information indicating that the decision to prosecute Diddy was “racially motivated” — something the lawyer Marc Agnifilo told him TMZ and a suggestion that government prosecutors he objected vehemently at a court hearing earlier this month.

What a lawyer says about Diddy’s game plan

These appear to be attempts to paint the alleged victims as insecure or penniless; to present the Cassie video as a struggle between a troubled couple; prove that any sexual activity was consensual; and to say that the feds brought the case in the first place because of Diddy’s race.

But is that really what Diddy’s lawyers are doing? Have they given up all their defense in document 36-1?

“It’s a game plan. And I think that’s a reasonable game plan, probably,” says the lawyer John M. Phillips . Phillips, a Florida-based attorney, has no connection to Diddy’s situation, but has been involved in a number of high-profile cases: He represented Omarosa Manigault Newman in her fight against Donald Trump’s campaign ; former “Tiger King” Joe Exotic’s corner; and took part in a case probably familiar to Complex readers—representing the family of one of YNW Melly’s alleged victims in a civil suit. Complex asked him to take a look at Diddy’s list.

“They’re asking for specific things to support their case,” he said. “So you can see, reading between the lines of what they’re asking, how that might be their defense.”

He notes that Diddy’s lawyers are really fighting three battles at once: the criminal case, an ever-growing lawsuit. the number of civil lawsuits and a battle in the court of public opinion.

“So asking for things that describe your narrative serves everyone,” he said. “Request supporting evidence in the criminal case; but you also say, “Hey, wait, wait, court of public opinion. There are two sides to this story, and my client has not yet been convicted,’ which is one way a savvy, media-friendly lawyer would put it.”

“It’s a smart list,” he said. “We can’t that it. We can say that it undermines the victims. But that’s literally their job, is to create reasonable doubt.”

Diddy’s legal team pushing buttons

Victoria Bekiempis is a journalist who has covered some of the biggest court cases of the past 10 years, featuring figures such as Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly and Ghislane Maxwell. After seeing Diddy’s list, she tells Complex that she’s seen this movie before.

“Diddy’s lawyers are doing what one would expect, and we often see, in high-profile sex crime trials,” she said. “Many times, the defense will argue that other factors motivate the prosecution of their clients. For example, attributing prosecution to racism.”

But, she warns, Diddy’s strategy may not hold up to the judge’s scrutiny.

“There is a very big (difference) between what a lawyer can say in pre-trial filings and what he can say in an actual trial. It is not yet clear how much latitude the judge will allow him. One might expect to see at least some of this in opening and closing arguments, but judges have broad discretion on this point.”

Both Phillips and Bekiempis have thoughts about the “racially motivated” aspect of the list. When I mention to Phillips that the suggestion that the indictment might be because of Diddy’s race really pushed the government’s buttons, he responds that, from the defendant’s perspective, pushing buttons might be a good thing.

“I mean, sometimes you want to push buttons just because they work,” he says. “There’s the old joke in law school: if you know the law, argue the law; if you know the facts, argue the facts; if you don’t know, just argue. They know the law and they know the facts, but (sometimes) just arguing, if it works, consumes oxygen in the opposing counsel’s room, so you do it—within ethics.”

And, Phillips argues, it doesn’t sound like the suggestion is crazy.

“You maybe compare it to other cases and other charges and they definitely handle Sean’s case differently,” he says, while noting that it’s also “a different type of case” than Jeffrey’s trial Epstein.

The Florida lawyer also says that “the justice system itself is systemically racist. Someone who says that and holds them accountable, if they have a bona fide basis, I’m all for it.”

Bekiempis, for her part, says that for a theory like that to sway jurors, you’d have to have some evidence — “or be a master orator.” The whole thing reminds her of a case she once reported on.

“I once saw two accused mobsters acquitted in a trial where their lawyers claimed they were ethnically profiled because they were Italian,” she said. “This was a very diverse Manhattan jury. I was shocked, but the evidence at trial, while not necessarily supporting that claim, weighed heavily in favor of the defense. And it didn’t hurt that the lawyering was masterful.”