By The General Justice, June 8
Manhattan, USA — In a dramatic turn in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ high-stakes RICO and sex-trafficking trial, his defense team filed a motion for a mistrial on June 7, 2025, accusing the prosecution of allowing witness Bryana Bongolan to perjure herself.
The motion, argued before Judge Arun Subramanian in the Southern District of New York, centers on Bongolan’s testimony alleging that Combs dangled her over a 17th-floor balcony in a 2016 incident, which the defense claims is demonstrably false. As of now, no ruling on the motion has been reported, leaving the trial’s trajectory uncertain.
𝘞𝘩𝘦𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘺 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘶𝘭𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘤𝘳𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘬𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘺, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘯𝘷𝘪𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘴𝘪𝘥𝘦 “𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘭𝘪𝘭𝘬𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘩𝘰𝘰𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘢𝘧𝘧𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘥𝘨𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘳𝘺.
The Defense’s Case: A False Narrative
Bryana Bongolan, a longtime friend of Combs’ ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, testified on June 4, 2025, as part of the prosecution’s case, describing a chilling encounter where Combs allegedly held her over a balcony in a Los Angeles apartment, an act she said left her fearing for her life.
The prosecution presented this incident as evidence of Combs’ pattern of violence and coercion, central to their racketeering charges, which allege he led a criminal enterprise involving sex trafficking and intimidation.
Combs’ defense, led by attorney Marc Agnifilo, fired back in their June 7 motion, asserting that Bongolan’s testimony was a fabrication. They claim metadata from photos of Bongolan’s injuries, allegedly from the incident, places Combs at Trump International in New York on the same day, making it impossible for him to have been in Los Angeles.
Furthermore, the defense suggested Bongolan’s account could be the result of drug-induced hallucinations, pointing to her alleged history of substance use, though they provided no direct evidence of this in court filings reported so far.
The defense argues that the prosecution, led by Assistant U.S. Attorney Emily Johnson, knew or should have known Bongolan’s testimony was false and failed to correct it, violating their ethical obligations under Napue v. Illinois (1959), which prohibits the use of known perjured testimony. They contend this misconduct prejudiced Combs’ right to a fair trial, warranting a mistrial.
The Prosecution’s Stance: A Pattern of Control
The prosecution has stood by Bongolan’s testimony, arguing it aligns with their broader case that Combs used violence and intimidation to maintain control over associates and victims. They bolstered her account with a text message from Cassie Ventura, sent shortly after the alleged incident, which reportedly referenced Combs’ aggressive behavior.
Prosecutors maintain that discrepancies in timing or location are minor and do not undermine Bongolan’s credibility, emphasizing that her story fits a pattern corroborated by other witnesses, including Ventura herself and an anonymous witness known as “Jane.”
During cross-examination, the defense aggressively challenged Bongolan, questioning her memory and motives, but prosecutors argued this was an attempt to discredit a key witness rather than disprove the incident.
They’ve framed the mistrial motion as a desperate tactic by Combs’ team to derail a case built on extensive evidence, including hotel surveillance footage from 2016 showing Combs assaulting Ventura, which was presented earlier in the trial.
The Court’s Response: Awaiting a Ruling
Judge Subramanian, known for his no-nonsense approach, has not yet ruled on the June 7 mistrial motion, based on available reports.
This contrasts with an earlier mistrial motion on May 28, 2025, which he swiftly denied after the defense objected to testimony about destroyed fingerprint cards in an arson investigation tied to rapper Kid Cudi’s car.
The absence of a reported ruling on the Bongolan motion may indicate the court is taking time to review the defense’s claims, particularly the metadata evidence and allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.
Subramanian has already shown a willingness to maintain strict control over the trial, having admonished Combs on June 5 for nodding at jurors during Bongolan’s testimony, warning that further disruptions could lead to his removal from the courtroom.
This suggests the judge is keenly aware of the trial’s high stakes and the need to ensure procedural fairness.
The June 7 mistrial motion is a pivotal moment in a trial already marked by explosive testimony and intense public scrutiny. If Subramanian grants the mistrial, it could reset the case, forcing prosecutors to rebuild their strategy and potentially delaying proceedings for months.
A denial, however, would signal confidence in the prosecution’s case and allow the trial to proceed into its fifth week, with more witnesses, including Combs’ former employees and associates, expected to testify.
The defense’s focus on Bongolan’s testimony underscores their broader strategy of challenging the credibility of prosecution witnesses, many of whom have personal ties to Combs or Ventura.
By alleging perjury and prosecutorial misconduct, they aim to cast doubt on the government’s entire narrative, which portrays Combs as a manipulative figure orchestrating a decades-long criminal enterprise.
Combs’ trial, now in its fourth week, has drawn comparisons to other high-profile cases involving celebrity defendants, with its mix of lurid allegations, star witnesses, and legal maneuvering.
The RICO charges, which carry a potential life sentence, hinge on proving Combs operated a systematic scheme involving coercion, violence, and sex trafficking. The balcony incident, while just one piece of the puzzle, has become a flashpoint, highlighting the trial’s contentious nature.
As the courtroom awaits Judge Subramanian’s decision, the question looms: Is Bongolan’s testimony a critical pillar of the prosecution’s case, or a vulnerable point that could unravel it? For now, Combs remains detained, having been denied bail multiple times due to concerns about flight risk and witness tampering.
The trial resumes this week, with the mistrial motion hanging over proceedings like a storm cloud. Whether it’s a game-changer or a fleeting distraction, the outcome will shape the next chapter in one of the most watched legal battles of 2025.
Stay tuned for updates as the case unfolds.
Author
Latest entries
US2025-06-09National Guard Los Angeles Protests Erupt Over ICE Raids: Waymo Cars Burn, Tear Gas Deployed
South Korea2025-06-08South Korean Model Kim Jong-Suk Dies at 29, Leaving Industry in Mourning
South America2025-06-08Columbia | Miguel Uribe Turbay Shot In The Head In Assassination Attempt
US2025-06-08ICE Raids at Paramount Home Depot Spark Protests, National Guard Deployment in Los Angeles
