- Implying he is part of the defense without appearing on record;
- Making racially charged comments that risk prejudicing a jury;
- Using public platforms to interfere with the administration of justice;
- Rule 8.4(d) – Misconduct: Prohibits conduct that is prejudicial to the administration of justice;
- Rule 8.4 (a)(3)Prohibits engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or reckless or intentional misrepresentation. Geragos’ public characterization of prosecutors and implication of racial bias without evidence, particularly in an active federal case, may qualify under this rule;
- Rule 3.6 – Trial Publicity: Attorneys shall not make extrajudicial statements that they know—or reasonably should know—will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding. Geragos’ podcast statements likely fall under this.
Meanwhile, Mark’s daughter, Teny Geragos, is officially listed on Combs’ legal team but has largely stayed behind the scenes. Observers speculate that Geragos may be asserting his influence behind the scenes under the guise of mentorship/consultant.
Combs faces deeply serious federal charges, including operating a criminal enterprise, engaging in sex trafficking, and orchestrating drug-laced sex parties—referred to in court documents as “Freak Offs.”
He has pleaded not guilty and remains in federal custody without bail. His attorneys argue the charges are inflated and driven by his celebrity status, alleging that consensual sexual conduct is being recharacterized as criminal behavior.
Jury Selection Nearing Conclusion
Judge Subramanian is expected to conclude voir dire by Friday, with opening statements scheduled for Monday. The courtroom remains tightly controlled as prospective jurors are questioned individually to ensure impartiality.
Both the prosecution and defense will have the opportunity to use peremptory challenges to finalize the 12-member jury and 6 alternates.
“When an attorney speaks in ways that cast aspersions on the process, that introduce race-based attacks without evidence, and that challenge the court’s integrity under the guise of commentary—it is not merely inappropriate, it is unethical. A referral to the State Bar is not only justified, it is well within this court’s purview.” – Samuel Lopez, Legal Analyst
Explore More
🔗 Follow us on X @RealUSAHerald
Patreon Bonus Content: For in-depth breakdowns on legal ethics, attorney discipline, and jury strategy, join me on Patreon at Legal Insights and Strategies by Samuel Lopez.
