Diddy’s Defense Claims Mental Impairment But Prosecutors Push Back

As the countdown to the start of Sean "Diddy" Combs' trial on May 5 continues, reports have revealed he is preparing an unusual defense.

Diddy's legal team reportedly plans to argue that he lacked the mental capacity to commit the crimes he is accused of because he was under the influence.

However, prosecutors are firmly opposing this strategy as the trial date nears.

According to documents obtained by TMZ, part of Diddy's defense is centered around testimony from a Columbia professor.

Prosecutors claim Diddy wants the doctor to testify that he had a "mental condition bearing on the issue of guilt." The specifics of the alleged condition are blacked out in the court documents. However, hints point to Diddy's alleged alcohol and drug use.

Prosecutors argue that "legal precedent requires the defense to give proper notice before offering any evidence of the effects of drugs and alcohol on a defendant's memory or cognitive function."

They also describe the doctor's testimony as trying to show Diddy's "inability to control [his] behavior."

However, this argument is complicated by the indictment itself. Federal charges accuse Diddy of drugging his victims during the so-called "freak offs." Now, Diddy’s team is suggesting he might have been in a drug haze himself.

Meanwhile, prosecutors insist the doctor's opinion does not matter. They point out that the doctor never examined Diddy personally.

Instead, the expert would rely on his general experience with others. In their filing, prosecutors say the doctor's opinion on whether Diddy was "lucid" at the time is irrelevant.

Additionally, prosecutors want to block another defense witness, a forensic video expert, who would analyze the Cassandra "Cassie" Ventura hotel beating footage.

The judge has not yet ruled on either request, but with the trial just a week away, critical decisions are coming soon.

These revelations follow last Friday's court hearing in New York in which Diddy's attorneys seemingly offered a preview of his defense.

They argued that Diddy lived a "swinger" lifestyle and that his behavior, while unconventional, was not criminal.

At the Manhattan courthouse, Diddy's attorney, Marc Agnifilo, told the court, per BBC, "There's a lifestyle, call it swingers or whatever you will, that he thought was appropriate because it was common."

He continued, saying, "Many people think it's appropriate because it's common."

Meanwhile, the sitting Judge, Arun Subramanian, ruled that Diddy's defense team can reference his personal lifestyle choices during the trial. However, they are not allowed to mention other well-known swingers or individuals accused of hiring sex workers.

During the hearing, federal prosecutors also revealed that they had offered Diddy a plea deal, which he rejected. However, they didn't make the details of the deal public.

The 55-year-old rapper appeared serious during the hearing, quietly whispering to his lawyers and passing them notes.

At one point, he shared a smile with one of his sons who was in the courtroom.

Charges against Diddy include racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, he could face a sentence of life in prison.

The embattled music mogul also suffered a setback during the hearing last week.

The Blast reported that a judge ruled that the video in which the rapper was seen physically assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie, would be played in court for the jury to see.

Diddy had requested that the judge exclude the video evidence of him beating Cassie from the trial proceedings.

However, the judge ruled that the jury will get to see the disturbing video. Subramanian explained that it was admissible in court because prosecutors planned to present two witnesses who would testify that it was an accurate depiction of what happened.

Diddy's lawyers attempted to block the release of the footage to the court, claiming that CNN only had a copy and had deleted the original.

They hired forensic analyst Connor McCourt, who said the footage was "significantly sped up" and distorted. However, prosecutors argued they slowed the video to match the original speed and promised to work with the defense on any other concerns.