Trigger warning: This article mentions sexual abuse and drugs
Sean Diddy Combs has applied to expedite a gag order motion after an eyewitness told the press that some of his alleged sex tapes were in his possession. The music mogul’s lawyers, Mark Agnifilo and Tenny Geragos, wrote to the judge that people making such claims are “undermining Mr. Combs’ right to a fair trial and the integrity of the grand jury proceedings.”
Subsequently, according to the letter obtained by Page Six, the rapper has filed a motion to bar extrajudicial statements by potential witnesses. The statement further claimed that since Diddy’s lawsuit is ongoing, extrajudicial statements could impact the verdict and it would be fair to the rapper if those claims were disregarded.
This was followed by several articles about a man named Courtney Burgess, who testified to possessing Diddy’s alleged sex tape. “Over the past several days, a grand jury witness and his attorney have given numerous interviews – including outside the courthouse immediately following his apparent grand jury testimony,” the rapper’s lawyers wrote in the letter.
He also claimed that Burgess was “issued a summons” after he made these allegations on public platforms such as social media and claimed to have videos of him sexually assaulting celebrities, including minors. This news spread like wildfire through those platforms and a perception against Didi was created.
The lawyers alleged that the news was false and that “the government is actually giving credence to his sensational claims, which is extremely prejudicial.” Diddy’s legal team is asking the judge for a court order to “restrict speech to potential witnesses and his attorney.”
On October 31, Burgess appeared on NewsNation’s Banfield segment and claimed about the rapper’s ex, Kim Porter, that she allegedly gave him 11 flash drives containing videos from before his death. The video reportedly included eight celebrities, six men and two women, and two or three underage individuals and, according to Burgess, they were under the influence and appeared to be “victims”, not “perpetrators”.
Prosecutors had previously opposed the gag order, claiming that the plaintiffs or complainants in the case are in a civil suit and outside the scope of criminal court.
