Diddy has stated that federal prosecutors are hindering his ability to defend himself, as they have not disclosed the identities of his accusers in the ongoing criminal case.
On Tuesday, Diddy’s legal team submitted new documents requesting that a federal judge order the U.S. Attorney’s Office to disclose the names of the anonymous alleged victims mentioned in the indictment. This information is crucial for him to respond to allegations of “abusing, threatening and coercing” women and others to fulfill his sexual desires.
According to the documents, Diddy believes that once the names are revealed, there will be substantial evidence showing that the interactions with these alleged victims were consensual. He is specifically asking the prosecutors to clarify who is claiming non-consensual actions.
The 14-page indictment only refers to one individual as “Victim 1,” who appears to be Cassie, as Diddy’s attorneys have identified her as his ex-girlfriend. However, Diddy’s request to the judge does not seek to reveal her name but rather the identities of any additional accusers involved in the case against him.
Another factor prompting Diddy to seek the names of the accusers relates to the civil lawsuits being filed by attorney Tony Buzbee, who claims to represent 120 clients. Diddy’s team argues that the federal case has led to numerous allegations from unidentified complainants. They noted that six of Buzbee’s clients filed lawsuits on the same day as their documents were submitted.
Diddy has expressed concerns over the “number and anonymity of accusers,” prompting his attorneys to request that federal prosecutors identify the alleged victims, a request the prosecutors have declined to fulfill at this time.
Diddy was arrested last month during a police raid at a midtown Manhattan hotel where he was staying. Since then, he has been detained in Brooklyn, and efforts to secure bail have been unsuccessful on two occasions. His trial is scheduled to begin in May 2025, and he will remain incarcerated until then. The Southern District of New York has chosen not to comment on the matter.