Hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs has been denied bail once again, with a New York federal judge citing concerns over his potential danger to the community. Judge Arun Subramanian ruled against Combs’ release, stating that “no condition or combination of conditions will reasonably assure the safety of the community.” The decision marks the fourth time the music executive has been denied bail.
The judge highlighted evidence pointing to Diddy Combs’ alleged history of violence, referencing a video from a 2016 incident at the Intercontinental Hotel involving Cassie Ventura, Combs’ former protégé. Although the defense claimed the footage was edited, Judge Subramanian maintained that even the version submitted by Combs depicted acts of violence. Prosecutors further argued that Combs’ actions, including attempts to influence witnesses from jail, constituted obstruction of justice.
Proposed Bail Conditions Rejected by the Court
Diddy Combs’ legal team proposed stringent conditions for his release, including home confinement in a secured Upper East Side apartment with 24/7 private security. Additional measures included restricted visitor access, limits on communication, and strict monitoring of his activities. However, Judge Subramanian dismissed the proposal, expressing skepticism about entrusting compliance to individuals under Combs’ employ.
Prosecutors reinforced this stance, arguing that no restrictions could adequately prevent the risk of witness tampering or jury manipulation. They pointed to Combs’ history of violating jailhouse rules, such as using other inmates’ phone access codes to evade monitoring, as evidence of his disregard for regulations.
Text Messages and Witness Tampering Allegations Weigh Heavily
Judge Subramanian’s decision also considered text messages exchanged between Combs and Ventura following the 2016 incident. These messages reportedly described injuries, including a black eye and bruising, which Ventura attributed to Combs. Prosecutors used these exchanges to underline the severity of the allegations against him.
Diddy Combs’ attorneys defended their client, arguing that his social media campaign was a form of free speech intended to counter what they described as “outrageous claims” by government agents and others. Despite these assertions, the judge sided with prosecutors, citing “a serious risk of witness tampering” and Combs’ repeated disregard for rules as reasons for denying bail.
The ruling adds to a string of legal setbacks for Combs, with multiple judges denying his bail requests. Subramanian emphasized that Combs’ conduct demonstrated a lack of trustworthiness, further solidifying the court’s decision to keep him in custody.
This case continues to draw significant attention as Diddy Combs remains at the center of mounting allegations, with no resolution in sight.
