By Dennis Byron, Investigative Reporter for Hip Hop Enquirer
New York, NY — May 27, 2025
The high-profile federal criminal trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs took a dramatic turn Tuesday as the courtroom heard explosive testimony from Capricorn Clark, a former executive and close associate of the defendant. Under intense questioning, Clark described a harrowing account of being allegedly kidnapped, threatened, and psychologically manipulated during her tenure with Combs.
Before a jury in the Southern District of New York, Clark testified that in December 2011—while still employed as a senior executive under Combs—she was forcibly taken and threatened in connection with a missing set of high-end jewelry. Clark, who began her relationship with Combs in 2004 as his personal assistant and later ascended to roles such as Director of Marketing and Global Brand Director for his Sean John brand, told the jury she was accused of stealing jewelry loaned to Combs by famed designer Jacob the Jeweler.
“I was kidnapped,” she told the court, her voice steady as she recounted the ordeal. Clark described how she was first grilled by Combs’ head of security, Paul Offert, and then taken to an unfinished building at 1710 Broadway—later discovered to be Combs’ new corporate office. There, she said she was locked in and left alone with an unidentified, imposing man who “looked like the size of two linebackers” and drank black coffee while chain-smoking cigarettes.
From Central Park to Fear for Her Life
Clark’s shocking testimony began with a disturbing recollection from her first day on the job. In 2004, shortly after being hired, she was summoned by Combs and escorted—alongside Offert—to Central Park after dark.
“He told me he didn’t know that I had anything to do with Suge Knight,” Clark testified, referring to the controversial West Coast record executive. “And if anything happened, he would have to kill me.”
Prosecutors allege that this statement was not hyperbole, but part of a pattern of threats and violence that form the backbone of the federal racketeering (RICO) charges Combs now faces. Assistant U.S. Attorney Madison Smyser cited United States v. Bellomo, a 1999 Second Circuit ruling, to support the admissibility of Combs’ alleged threat, arguing that the statement constituted a “command or threat” rather than hearsay, and was probative of a kidnapping predicate in the indictment.
Security as Surveillance
Throughout her employment, Clark said Combs was constantly surrounded by security—Roger Bonds, D-Roc, Ruben, and the ever-present Paul Offert. Their presence, she testified, wasn’t merely protective—it also felt coercive.
“They were around the entire day,” she said. “It let me know there was always a serious nature around.”
Clark’s testimony painted a vivid picture of an environment of intimidation and surveillance, where acts of violence or aggression were always backed by a security apparatus loyal to Combs. “I saw him with a gun at my home,” she added, referencing the same 2011 kidnapping incident.
The Jewelry Incident and Alleged Kidnapping
The courtroom listened closely as Clark described the events leading up to her alleged kidnapping. She had been entrusted with transporting the jewelry—described as “a diamond necklace with a cross, a diamond bracelet, and a diamond watch”—on a trip to Miami. Upon realizing the bag was missing, she immediately contacted Combs and security at the 1440 Broadway office to report the loss.
Rather than being treated as a victim or witness, Clark claimed she was subjected to interrogations by Offert and had her home searched.
But the real terror, she said, began the next day, when Offert picked her up and brought her to the new, largely vacant office building. There, she was led to a gutted sixth-floor room where she was locked in and left with a stranger who she believed was meant to intimidate her.
The courtroom fell into silence as Clark described the eerie isolation and implied menace of her confinement.
A Legal Minefield: DNA, Summary Charts, and Testimony Challenges
Tuesday’s proceedings also involved heated legal wrangling between Assistant U.S. Attorney Mary Slavik and lead defense attorney Marc Agnifilo regarding the admissibility of evidence related to DNA found on a glass bottle at the center of the investigation.
The government objected to the defense’s plan to question investigator Jiminez about DNA evidence included in his report, citing Rule 403 and Rule 702 of the Federal Rules of Evidence. Slavik argued that Jiminez lacked expertise to interpret DNA results and that doing so might mislead the jury.
Judge Arun Subramanian, presiding over the case, ruled that the objection was overruled—for now—but warned the defense not to veer “into left field.” The judge stressed that only foundational questions tied to Jiminez’s investigative process would be allowed, not analysis or interpretations of the DNA evidence.
Additionally, the court debated a series of prosecution summary charts aimed at connecting bank records, hotel logs, and travel documents to Combs’ alleged criminal enterprise. While some charts were deemed admissible under Rule 1006, others—especially those incorporating text messages—were flagged by the judge as “closer calls” due to concerns about context and potential jury confusion.
The Mescudi Moment
Another tense moment came when defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro moved to strike a portion of testimony given by Scott “Kid Cudi” Mescudi. The defense argued that Cudi’s statement, implying that he believed Combs was lying during a SoHo House meeting, constituted improper opinion testimony under Rule 701.
Prosecutors countered that the opinion was rationally based on Cudi’s perception, particularly his firsthand interaction with Combs during the meeting. Judge Subramanian allowed the government to submit a follow-up brief and asked the defense to draft a proposed jury instruction in case the testimony is ultimately stricken.
Fallout and Forward Motion
Clark’s testimony is likely to reverberate far beyond the courtroom. Her allegations not only provide the jury with first-hand accounts of threats, manipulation, and intimidation—they also offer a glimpse into the tightly controlled, and potentially dangerous, inner world of one of hip-hop’s most powerful moguls.
Judge Subramanian concluded the day by urging both sides to be mindful of the sensitive nature of testimony related to prior sexual conduct (Rule 412) and potential character evidence. The courtroom is set to resume proceedings this week, with more testimony expected from individuals within Combs’ inner circle.
Stay tuned for further updates as Hip Hop Enquirer continues to provide exclusive, in-depth coverage of the federal RICO trial against Sean “Diddy” Combs.
Follow @HipHopEnquirer for real-time trial updates. All rights reserved. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.
