Sean 'Diddy' Combs' legal team have requested a mistrial

A letter sent to Judge Arun Subramanian on Saturday (07.06.25) that was obtained by People magazine saw the defense allege "the government has presented testimony that it knew or should have known was materially false related to its allegation that Mr. Combs dangled Bryana Bongolan from the balcony of Cassie Ventura's apartment in September 2016."

The note added: "Accordingly, to avoid an unfair conviction in this case the Court should grant a mistrial."

In addition, Combs team argued his ex-girlfriend Cassie's testimony, in which she stated she saw the rapper dangle Bryana from a balcony, was "demonstrably false" because text messages allegedly showed she only learned of the supposed incident afterwards.

The letter argued: "The incident, as alleged, is disturbing and powerful evidence, and the government has used it to depict Mr. Combs in an extremely negative light, as an angry and dangerous man who terrified Ms. Ventura and her friends."

And the lawyers argued the prosecution presented photos of Bryana's alleged injuries from the incident, which were said to have been taken on 26 September 2016 in Los Angeles, even though "the government has long known" the Bad Boy records founder was in New York City between 24-29 September that year.

Furthermore, the defense claimed the prosecution "repeatedly attempted to disrupt" their line of questioning when they tried to "expose the perjury upon cross-examination."

The letter added: "All of this was highly improper and exacerbated the harm caused by [...] the perjured testimony.

"The balcony incident is just one example of prosecutorial misconduct during this trial."

Combs' lawyers had previously requested a mistrial at the end of May when prosecutors asked Lance Jiminez, an arson investigator from the Los Angeles Fire Department, if fingerprint evidence related to the bombing of Kid Cudi's car had been destroyed and who could have authorised the decision.

The I'll Be Missing You rapper's lawyers argued the questioning could potentially hint that their client was able to buy his way out of trouble.

However, the judge denied the first motion and ruled the questions were not prejudicial to the case.