A fierce legal showdown has emerged in the federal sex trafficking trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, now in its second day, as a coalition of major news organizations petitions to unseal explicit videos central to the case. Dubbed “Freak Off” videos by prosecutors, the recordings allegedly depict coercive sexual performances orchestrated by Combs, pitting the public’s First Amendment rights against the privacy of alleged victims in a case already marked by chilling testimony.
On Monday, a coalition comprising ABC News, The Associated Press, Business Insider, CBS News, The Wall Street Journal, NPR, NBCUniversal News Group, Newsday, The New York Times, the New York Post, Reuters, New York Magazine, and The Washington Post filed a request with U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian. They seek to keep the courtroom open when the videos are shown to jurors, arguing that the public has a right to monitor the judicial process in this high-stakes trial.
In their filing, attorneys Robert Balin and Alexandra Perloff-Giles of Davis Wright Tremaine LLP emphasized the videos’ potential role in determining Combs’ guilt or innocence.
“Given the central role that the videos may play… those privacy interests cannot overcome the public’s powerful First Amendment interest,”
The letter stated.
The coalition cited a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court ruling affirming that criminal trials are historically open to the press and public, playing a vital role in government accountability.
The news outlets are not requesting copies of the videos but rather the opportunity to view them as presented in court. Should full access be denied, they’ve proposed that three pool reporters be allowed to observe on behalf of the media.
Federal prosecutors have fiercely resisted the request, labeling the videos “extremely sensitive.” During an April 25 court conference, Assistant U.S. Attorney Madison Smyser argued that the recordings involve “third parties,” including victims, and are too graphic for public viewing. Both prosecution and defense teams are collaborating to limit access to jurors only during the trial.
Cassie Ventura, Combs’ former girlfriend and a key accuser, has also opposed unsealing the videos through her attorney, Douglas Wigdor. In a four-page letter filed Monday, Ventura’s legal team argued that public access would “punish Ms. Ventura for testifying and re-traumatize her” by exposing her abuse to public scrutiny.
They noted that Ventura will testify about the videos’ contents in open court, rendering their display unnecessary.
“There is no authority… granting this unprecedented request in a sex trafficking case,”
The letter asserted, highlighting risks to the privacy of other individuals, including potential confidential witnesses.
The trial began Monday, is expected to span two months, and has already delivered shocking revelations. Combs faces charges of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking, and two counts of transportation for prostitution. Prosecutors allege he used threats, violence, drugs, and deceit to coerce women into participating in “Freak Offs”—days-long, drug-fueled sexual performances he staged and recorded.
Day one testimony included a security guard’s account of seeing Ventura with a “purple eye” after an alleged violent incident. Another witness, Daniel Phillip, testified that Combs paid him between $700 and $6,000 to engage in sexual acts with Ventura while Combs watched and masturbated, sometimes masked by a bandana. Phillip also described witnessing Combs drag and hit Ventura, but he hesitated to intervene, fearing Combs’ “unlimited power” could cost him his life.
Prosecutors have spotlighted Ventura and another accuser, “Jane,” in their case. Ventura met Combs in 2006 at age 19, entering a relationship prosecutors describe as abusive. In one alleged 2009 incident, Combs reportedly threw her to the ground in an SUV and stomped on her face.
The trial’s core question is whether the “Freak Offs” were consensual or coerced. Prosecutors contend that Combs manipulated women with violence and drugs, with Prosecutor Johnson telling jurors,
“You will witness performances fueled by ecstasy, where they feign enjoyment, as that’s what the defendant desired.”
Defense attorney Teny Geragos counters that the videos, while potentially disturbing,
“strongly indicate that the ‘Freak Offs’ were consensual and not coerced.”
Both sides see the videos as pivotal evidence. The prosecution also alleges that Combs’ businesses and employees facilitated these encounters, supporting the racketeering charge.
The news organizations’ request leans on prior rulings favoring public access to trial evidence. Their filing referenced a 1995 2nd Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals decision affirming the public’s “especially strong” right to such access, as well as a 2008 Idaho federal trial where a judge allowed videos of a serial killer torturing a child to be shown in open court, reinforcing judicial transparency.
Judge Subramanian now faces a delicate balancing act: upholding public access to justice while protecting victims’ dignity. His ruling on the videos could influence this trial and future cases involving sensitive evidence.
Ventura, currently eight months pregnant, is slated to testify as the prosecution’s star witness soon. A conviction could mean life imprisonment for Combs. As the trial unfolds, the decision over the “Freak Off” videos will shape public understanding of this explosive case and the broader debate over media access to courtrooms.