it's officially 2025 and the road to sha colm's criminal trial has begun but it seems both the prosecution and the defense can't seem to agree on a number of key deadlines in this case for when information will be disclosed and arguments will be presented with all eyes set on a May 5th 2025 trial will that still hold we're going to break down one of the latest filings from both sides in this high-profile case welcome to sidebar presented by law on crime I'm Jesse Weber I actually think one of the more controversial elements of Shan com's
prosecution is not even the allegations of sex trafficking or racketeering or freak offs or baby oil or sex workers I mean it's all quite controversial I still think though one of the biggest issues one of the most controversial things we've been talking about in the legal Community especially is the trial date I mean for a guy who was arrested in September to go to Tri on these federal charges on May 5th 2025 which is right around the corner just over 7 months after his arrest given the mountain of evidence in this case how complex a
racketeering conspiracy criminal Enterprise case can be that is so soon I've said that for a while how do you go to trial so soon are both sides really ready and look that date was agreed upon and I I think that argument could be made it was pushed by Shan col's side while he was still trying to fight Bale even though we know he lost every time he tried to petition for pre-trial release so there seems to be an argument that he wants to hold the prosecution's feet to the fire right after all it's their burden
they have to prove this case get this case over with as opposed to what would be the alternative languishing in a detention center for years as he awaits a trial because he's currently locked up at the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn that is notorious for its violence its hard conditions so I get it I get it the argument could be let's get this trial over and undone with we think we can win that's it let's put it in the past but I've also wondered would that trial date stick with so much going on well I
tell you that because the trial date has come into Focus once again in a new filing from both the prosecution and the defense and that is what we're going to break down for you right now this letter this letter that was addressed to judge Arun sub Manan of the southern district of New York the judge overseeing this criminal case and in this joint letter submitted by both parties it discusses the pre-trial schedule so everything leading up to the trial and by the way you might be saying this seems boring no no no no no no
the reason this is so important the reason these dates are so important is aside from the fact that it kind of gives us a sense of the strategy of both the prosecution and the defense is because those dates are so important because if those dates hold whichever side we're going to be going through if the judge decides with the prosecution or the defense or there's times they consented to a date that is giving us a window of when and if we can learn some new key details about this prosecution and defense so much of this
case has been wrapped up in Mystery in terms of the actual events the witnesses the victims the defenses so if these dates stay we now have a timeline of when things might be presented and what things might be presented this is important so now the question is what is this pre-trial schedule well as the lawyers lay out in this joint letter to the court they write the court set the following pre-trial motion schedule motions due on February 177 2025 oppositions due on March 3rd 2025 and replies due on March 10th 2025 again this is all
leading up to the May 5th 2025 trial now the prosecution and the defense have two different perspectives on this schedule and I'm going to start with the prosecution they write given the May 5th 2025 trial date in this case the government respectfully submits that the current pre-trial motion schedule in which the pre-trial motions would be fully brief less than two months prior to trial will not permit the parties to raise and the court to resolve pre-trial issues sufficiently in advance of the May 5th 2025 trial while the defendant is fully entitled to request a speedy
trial that does not mean that he's entitled to demand disclosure deadlines appropriate in cases with significantly longer timelines accordingly the government objects to any schedule including that proposed by the defendant requiring the government to make trial disclosures before the filing and or resolution of pre-trial motions which may shape or affect those disclosures including by affecting the scope of the charges or the evidence the government is permitted to rely upon in its case in Chief okay so a lot of what does all that mean well basically the prosecution is saying look there are a lot of
filings and issues that need to be resolved before trial which by the way I will get into but essentially the government is saying on the current schedule there's not enough time to sort all this out and even though sha Colmes has a right to a speedy trial that's enshrined in the sixth amendment protects against undue or unreasonable delays in criminal cases even though comes has that right the prosecution argues it doesn't mean we have to disclose certain aspects of this case prematurely we shouldn't have to turn over things earlier than we would in other Federal
cases and it's too premature for us to disclose certain things before we even resolve some important pre-trial issues because then if we did that the disclosures wouldn't even make sense or maybe they don't apply anymore by the way I got to say this I hope that you know when it comes to our coverage of these stories particularly the Diddy one we don't put any kind of bias or slant on them we deliver balls and Strikes we deliver the facts and that is why we are thrilled to partner with a company like straight arrow news so
this is an app and website that is focused on objective unbiased reporting how refreshing is that right as someone who's always researching for sidebar I know how easy it is to get lost in biased journalism but straight arrow news helps us cut through that with tools like the media landscape which shows where Outlets fall on the political Spectrum the media Miss tool highlighting stories that mainstream media might be skipping so you can check it out for yourself for free at s.com slidebar or click the link in the description supporting them means supporting journalists like us
who are committed to delivering the truth now before I even get into what all those issues and those disclosures are the prosecution proposed a revised timetable so they want to move up the current pre-trial motion schedule by about two weeks in other words January 31st 2025 pre-trial motions February 14th 2025 for oppositions and February 21st 2025 for replies the defense has taken a different position they want the current schedule as it's laid out and they want the government to disclose certain things basically ASAP basically now they write the defense objects to a modification of the
existing pre-trial schedule which has been set for months defense Council have planned around the existing schedule and are not in a position to file pre-trial motions in just four weeks and only one month after the close of discovery which included thousands of of pages of search warrant affidavits then they say prosecution don't worry about disclosing things too early to us they say look we're going to move to dismiss these charges we're going to move to suppress evidence from coming into trial because we say the evidence was obtained unlawfully by authorities and even if we're successful
and the scope of the criminal case is narrowed the defense says this would simply make any trial disclosures over inclusive there's no danger there the defense argues the risk that Mr Colmes will be deprived of a fair trial is far greater than the DI Minimus risk of over inclusive disclosures on the part of the government meaning Colmes has a right to have the government disclose everything now if it's too much if it's over inclusive because you know the case is Whittle down later on so be it there's not much danger there as opposed to he
has a right to know everything at this point and they also say you know what we may not even file any pre-trial motions in the end in which case these disclosures from the prosecution they shouldn't really depend on this motion schedule at all so now I bet you're wondering well what has to be disclosed what are we even talking about what has to be exchanged here well that's what I'm going to get into next so the letter talks about that so first we have something called an Enterprise letter that the government proposes filing now an
Enterprise letter quote will set out the specific acts and conduct underlying the racketeering conspiracy charged in the indictment so what we're talking about is is providing Colmes and his lawyers more information more particular notice of the specific objects of the charged racketeering conspiracy including to the extent possible the dates times places and participants for each racketeering act and by the way that is something that colm's attorneys have been asking for for quite some time they want to know more specifics they want to know how they can properly defend sha Colmes they need to know the
specifics of these different acts and you know the racketeering charge in the indictment has a number of underlying acts kidnapping forced labor sex trafficking bribery the idea again is there was a criminal Enterprise controlled by Sha Colmes that engaged in all sorts of illicit activity and there was a criminal agreement amongst Colmes and others to further this Enterprise to violate the racketeering laws but so far the government really hasn't explained each instance who are the alleged victims who are the witnesses what's the description of these events we don't know that hasn't been laid out so
the government is saying we will produce that to you but we are planning on producing that on March 7th 2025 so that's eight weeks before trial and that will include the Court's rulings on pre-trial Motions like what evidence will come in so basically the prosecution is saying we really can't produce this Enterprise letter and be accurate about the case until we know which way the court is going to rule on key pieces of evidence the prosecution says defense council's proposal that the Enterprise letter be filed prior to pre-trial motions is contrary to the practice in
this district and inefficient given that pre-trial motions could impact the substance of the letter so again they're saying them laying out their entire case and what they have it's too premature the court has to work out other issues before we can submit the letter and the government argues that Combs isn't playing Fair quote the defendant was arrested in September 2024 and the trial date was set at the defendant's insistence for May 5th 2025 a span of fewer than eight months the defendant is trying to have his cake and eat it too here by insisting on
a speedy trial but also insisting on deadlines in cases with much longer timelines and by the way speaking of the defense here is their position on the Enterprise letter they write quote Mr Colmes is at a significant disadvantage defense Council still do not understand the Contours of the government's allegations including who the government even considers a victim and have repeatedly asked for assistance from the government unless and until the government is required to make trial disclosures the defense will remain ignorant of the evidence it is required to meet the result will be a fundamentally flawed
trial accordingly Mr Combs proposes that the government file its Enterprise letter by February 1st 2025 so that is less than a month away that's just a few weeks away so that is one disclosure issue in this letter also in the letter we move on to notices regarding who will be called as expert Witnesses and rebuttal expert Witnesses so here the prosecution is proposing that all parties the prosecution and the defense provide notice of their experts about 8 weeks before trial March 7th 2025 and rebuttal experts if there are any two weeks later by March 21st
so that is six weeks before trial and the reason that you need to provide notice to the other side of who you're planning to call is because opposing sides need time to vet the reliability and the relevance of expert Witnesses in the law we call that the dabert standing or briefing on dabert now the prosecution says here's the problem colm's lawyers have indicated they are not going to provide their notice of who their experts are until the prosecution first provides their experts and the prosecution says that's inefficient it won't provide them enough time to file
challenges and that is inconsistent with how things are done here and speaking of the defense they say yeah prosecution you know what you should present notice of your experts by March 7th 2025 then we'll provide notice of our experts for the first time on March 21st 2025 and then government you can provide your rebuttal experts on March 28th and despite the prosecution's argument the defense is saying this is consistent with how things are done and what the federal rules of criminal procedure say and there's a special rule about that perhaps both sides will debate on
if the defense has to disclose their experts only if the defense first requests the same from the government gets a little complicated but it's going to be a back and forth about when exactly the defense has to submit their experts to the prosecution because again both sides need time to prepare challenges to those experts from there we have something called 404b 413 notice so this is about evidence of other crimes or Acts or wrongs that were committed by Shawn Colmes that may be used to show things like motive or lack of accident or that there
was a plan and also This concerns evidence of other sexual assaults so basically what we're talking about is what the government plans to introduce and for what purpose and how they will introduce it and the prosecution plans to provide notice of this by March 7th com's team says the government should have to disclose this by February 1st okay so again back and forth about what the date will be from there we have something called Mo motions in lemon so motions in lemon and for anybody who who's been following our trials might know what these are
these are motions to exclude evidence or arguments from coming into trial jury will never hear about this for example something might be too prejudicial or maybe it's not relevant or maybe it was obtained through illegal means and can come in and needs to be suppressed so the prosecution is asking for all parties to file their motions by March 21st oppositions to those motions by April 4th the defense has put forward a different timetable they are asking for both parties to file their motions by April 1st and oppositions by April 11th they say unless the government
makes disclosures earlier we just can't be prepared to file motions and Limon by their timeline in other words how can we know exactly what needs to be excluded or what we want to be excluded from trial unless the government provides us some dis disclosures about their case and then from there we move on to another section of the letter discussing 3500 material so that's about state stat ments and reports of government Witnesses including their attorneys the government wants to produce all that by March 21st under an attorney Eyes Only designation probably to make sure that
no information about the witnesses is leaked before the trial and also only in an attorney's possession designation so combms can review that material in April and the government highlights that there is a need for this because of allegations of witness tampering and obstruction on the part of combms we've talked about these allegations before that Colmes allegedly including while locked up at the MDC had tried to reach out to Witnesses and victims in this case even by using intermediaries the defense says no no no no no no no we want the government to disclose this 3500
material about the witnesses by March first and they argue otherwise the government could potentially be withholding exculpatory information from the defense until March 21st that's not fair when we're talking about exculpatory evidence this is favorable evidence to the defense and by the way more specifically in the letter this is what the defense argues regarding victim one in this case who we believe is Cassandra Ventura com's ex-girlfriend she filed that initial lawsuit against him in 2023 that got the ball rolling on all the other lawsuits and potentially the criminal charges so they write in this letter
for instance the government appears to take the view that information undermining certain claims by victim one need not be disclosed promptly because it is merely impeachment rather than exculpatory and therefore should not be disclosed until the 3500 deadline basically the government is saying look this evidence doesn't prove comes didn't commit the crimes that he's charged with but it's evidence that can be used by the defense when they cross-examine victim one when she takes the stand at trial in other words there's no reason for us to present this kind of evidence to you earlier than what
we're proposing but the defense right writes this overlooks the fact that evidence that undermines her claims also undermines the government's theory of the case and the criminal allegations making them affirmatively exculpatory it also minimizes the time required to make effective use of the withheld information of course regardless of whether information qualifies as exculpatory or impeachment it must be disclosed in time for its effective use at trial and the defense continues moreover because the government continues to refuse to identify who it views as a victim also means that the government is also failing to meet its
Brady and Giglio obligations with respect to any other alleged victim requiring Mr combms to follow up on all exculpatory evidence in the 6 weeks before trial is unconstitutionally burdensome 3500 materials should also not be produced with an attorney Eyes Only designation particularly if the court adopts the government's proposal to delay disclosure of such material until March 21st 2025 defense Council will need Mr com's assistance to properly review the material and effectively prepare for trial now finally the parties actually they agree for once they agree about the witness and exhibit list the prosecution proposes submitting that
list 3 weeks before trial April 14th 2025 they say earlier than that doesn't make sense because those motions eliminate excluding evidence or arguments won't have been decided yet and that will affect who or what the government will present they say the defense can present its list by April 25th 2025 so that's one week in advance of trial the defense agrees to both and then both the prosecution and the defense agree to April 11th as the deadline for the jury questionnaire form so those are sent out to prospective jurors across the jurisdiction starts the whole jury
selection process on who will be called into court for further questioning and examination and also both sides agree to April 25th as the deadline for request to charge or Vader that's the more specific process for selecting the jury and also proposed verdict forms to be submitted so in the end what do you see here you see a little gamesmanship you see a little strategy little practical difficulties all at play here remember it is the prosecution's burden the defense arguably wants to trip them up right they don't want them to be as prepared as possible trying
to take any advantage they can so it will be interesting to see if judge sub Romanian issues a written order on each of these deadlines or actually hold a hearing in advance of this timetable to sort this all out and you also have to wonder if the difficulty centers around a trial that is right around the corner so maybe in order to resolve a number of these issues could the trial date change maybe I haven't even discussed a potentially superseding indictment against sha Colmes with new or amended charges that could throw off the entire trial
Daye too so we're a little bit in you know shaky territory we'll see what happens but we will continue to follow more updates for you in this case as it develops that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar everybody thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on Apple podcast Spotify YouTube wherever you get your podcasts I'm Jesse Weber I'll speak to you next time [Music]
