Puffy Accused of Witness Tampering

March 8, 2001 -- According to phone records presented Wednesday at Sean "Puff Daddy" Combs' trial for gun possession and bribery, the hip-hop mogul — or members of his entourage — exchanged calls with witnesses who later testified that Combs did not have a gun during a 1999 nightclub shooting.

Earlier in Combs' trial, the three witnesses in question gave testimony regarding what they had seen at a December 1999 shooting at a New York Club in which three people were wounded. Each of the witnesses denied speaking with Combs after the incident.

The witnesses were called back as part of the prosecutor's rebuttle in what was the final day of testimony. The jury is on break until Monday and is expected to be handed the case next week.

Questionable Phone Calls

Charise Myers, a security guard at the club, said on the stand that she never spoke to Combs after the shooting. But phone records show a three-minute call from her home to Combs' cell phone on Jan. 8, 2000, according to The Associated Press.

Myers had testified that she fell on top of Combs after the shooting and that she did not feel a gun. The prosecution said this contradicted what she told police immediately following the shooting.

The prosecution evidence also showed records of five calls last January to the hip-hop star from a cell phone owned by auto technician Christopher Chambers, who also testified that he did not know Combs, while his phone received one call from Combs, according to the news service.

Chambers had testified with certainty that Combs did not have a gun that night; during cross-examination, however, he was unable to recall other details from the club.

The records also showed 22 December calls from witness Glen Beck's home to one of Combs' bodyguards, Paul Offord.

The evidence was introduced to support prosecutor Matthew Bogdanos' accusation that the defense has tampered with witnesses who gave evidence throughout the six-week trial.

Under cross-examination from Combs attorney Benjamin Brafman, the paralegal who analyzed the records said there was no way of knowing who made the calls or who answered the phones — the records only indicated which telephones were used.

Closing arguments for the trial will be presented next week.