NEW YORK: Sean “Diddy” Combs was denied bail on Wednesday as he awaits a May sex trafficking trial by a judge who cited evidence showing him to be a serious risk of witness tampering and proof that he has violated regulations in jail.
US District Judge Arun Subramanian made the decision in a written ruling following a bail hearing last week, when lawyers for the hip-hop mogul argued that a $50 million bail package they proposed would be sufficient to ensure Combs doesn’t flee and doesn’t try to intimidate prospective trial witnesses.
Two other judges previously had been persuaded by prosecutors’ arguments that the Bad Boy Records founder was a danger to the community if he is not behind bars.
Lawyers did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the decision.
Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to charges that he coerced and abused women for years, aided by associates and employees. An indictment alleges that he silenced victims through blackmail and violence, including kidnapping, arson and physical beatings.
A federal appeals court judge last month denied Combs’ immediate release while a three-judge panel of the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan considers his bail request.
Prosecutors have insisted that no bail conditions would be sufficient to protect the public and prevent the “I’ll Be Missing You” singer from fleeing.
They say that even in a federal lockup in Brooklyn, Combs has orchestrated social media campaigns designed to influence prospective jurors and tried to publicly leak materials he thinks can help his case. They say he also has contacted potential witnesses through third parties.
Lawyers for Combs say any alleged sexual abuse described in the indictment occurred during consensual relations between adults and that new evidence refutes allegations that Combs used his “power and prestige” to induce female victims into drugged-up, elaborately produced sexual performances with male sex workers known as “Freak Offs.”

ALBANY, N.Y.: New York on Friday repealed a seldom-used, more than century-old law that made it a crime to cheat on your spouse — a misdemeanor that once could have landed adulterers in jail for three months.
Gov. Kathy Hochul signed a bill repealing the statute, which dates back to 1907 and has long been considered antiquated as well as difficult to enforce.
“While I’ve been fortunate to share a loving married life with my husband for 40 years — making it somewhat ironic for me to sign a bill decriminalizing adultery — I know that people often have complex relationships,” she said. “These matters should clearly be handled by these individuals and not our criminal justice system. Let’s take this silly, outdated statute off the books, once and for all.”
Adultery bans are actually law in several states and were enacted to make it harder to get a divorce at a time when proving a spouse cheated was the only way to get a legal separation. Charges have been rare and convictions even rarer. Some states have also moved to repeal their adultery laws in recent years.
New York defined adultery as when a person “engages in sexual intercourse with another person at a time when he has a living spouse, or the other person has a living spouse.” The state’s law was first used a few weeks after it went into effect, according to a New York Times article, to arrest a married man and 25-year-old woman.
State Assemblymember Charles Lavine, sponsor of the bill, said about a dozen people have been charged under the law since the 1970s, and just five of those cases resulted in convictions.
“Laws are meant to protect our community and to serve as a deterrent to anti-social behavior. New York’s adultery law advanced neither purpose,” Lavine said in a statement Friday.
The state’s law appears to have last been used in 2010, against a woman who was caught engaging in a sex act in a park, but the adultery charge was later dropped as part of a plea deal.
New York came close to repealing the law in the 1960s after a state commission tasked with evaluating the penal code said it was nearly impossible to enforce.
At the time, lawmakers were initially on board with removing the ban but eventually decided to keep it after a politician argued that repealing it would make it seem like the state was officially endorsing infidelity, according to a New York Times article from 1965.