Diddy Scores Partial Win in Legal Battle

Claims of forced labor will NOT be allowed into evidence in Diddy's RICO trial...

From People

Sean "Diddy" Combs garnered a partial loss in court as his six crimes trial nears.

Combs was charged with six trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prxstitution in September 2024. His trial is scheduled to begin with juror selection on May 5. In their September 2024 indictment, prosecutors alleged Combs coerced women to perform orchestrated six acts, or 'freak-offs,' with male six workers.

On Friday, April 25, Judge Subramanian ruled to allow new six-trafficking evidence related to the freak-offs. However, forced labor allegations related to one of Diddys employees would not be permitted, per court documents obtained by PEOPLE.

In a letter seen by PEOPLE, Combs' defense team references "a mountain of new allegations" that were filed at 11:15 p.m. on April 20, 78 days after the court's deadline and 15 days before the trial begins.

"It is impossible for the defense to investigate and respond to those new allegations in the next two weeks," Combs' lawyers wrote. They further alleged that prosecutors have "explicitly conceded" that "many" of the alleged acts "were consensual," causing the defense to spend its time focusing on the alleged coerced incidents.

 They state that if prosecutors "wanted to include these allegations as part of its case," they "could have and should have" in a previous letter issued on Feb. 1.

"The government's April 20 enterprise letter alleges not simply new incidents but entirely new legal theories of guilt," Combs' legal team continued, pointing out that prosecutors first raised forced labor allegations concerning one alleged victim. However, prosecutors did not raise the new forced labor claims until weeks later.

They asked that, if the evidence is not barred, Combs be granted a continuance to give him "sufficient time" to respond to the new allegations.

Prosecutors replied with a letter on Friday, arguing that the defense has had plenty of time to respond to discovery in the freak-off claims. "The defendant's request is yet another pretextual attempt to exclude powerful evidence against him without a proper legal basis," they continued, per the letter seen by PEOPLE.