Diddy’s lawyers are arguing that his public statements from jail are protected by the First Amendment. Nothing weird here except they are citing a legal precedent from former President Donald Trump’s case.
Oh, that part …
Combs’ lawyers referenced a decision from Trump’s ongoing election interference case, which affirms that defendants have broad free-speech rights unless their actions pose a “significant and imminent threat” to justice.
Only a matter of time before that person was going to be used in future legal precedents. Whelp, the future is now.
“Like Trump, Combs is a criminal defendant with the presumption of innocence,” his legal team wrote in an eight-page filing Monday. They argued that Combs has a right to defend himself publicly against the “false and outrageous claims” that have tarnished his reputation. “Mr. Combs is not required to sit idly by and acquiesce to all of this. He has a right to a fair trial and a constitutional right to speak out on his own behalf,” they added.
What do ya’ll think, does their argument hold water? Asking all non-lawyers, ha!
As expected, prosecutors, pushed back, accusing Combs of using prohibited communication methods while in custody to influence potential jurors and disrupt the judicial process. Among the allegations are that Combs used a banned messaging app, ContactMeASAP.com, as well as other inmates’ phone accounts, to coordinate public relations efforts and plant stories about his accusers.
“He is saying, ‘I want to, quote, reach for this jury. I just need one,’” lead prosecutor Christy Slavick argued, describing Combs’ alleged attempts to sway public opinion. Slavick also noted Combs’ use of family members to post birthday messages on Instagram as part of these efforts, which prosecutors contend are more than just a “PR campaign.”
In a fiery response, Combs’ lawyers rejected the idea that his actions obstruct justice, claiming he has not disclosed private or false information. They characterized the government’s efforts to restrict his speech as “an unconstitutional attempt to silence him.”
Furthermore, prosecutors dismissed the Trump comparison, arguing that Combs is not a political candidate and that his case does not carry the same public interest considerations. “These efforts are not protected by the First Amendment,” they wrote, alleging that Combs sought to influence witnesses and plant stories in the media to prejudice the trial in his favor.
Priceless back and forth from one legal team to the next.
The judge is expected to rule on Combs’ latest bail request, his third, later this week. As the legal battle continues, the case highlights the tension between free speech rights and the need to ensure fair trial proceedings.
This is literally going to be the trial of the century. Where are the cameras when you need them?
Source link
