Witness: Jonathan Perez

Jonathan Perez’s Testimony in Sean 'Diddy' Combs’ Sex Trafficking and Racketeering Trial: Day 23 Highlights On June 13, 2025, during Day 23 of Sean 'Diddy' Combs’ federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial at the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in New York, Jonathan Perez, Combs’ former personal assistant from December 2021 to September 2024, testified as a prosecution witness. His insider account provided jurors with a glimpse into Combs’ inner circle, focusing on his role in arranging 'king nights'—a term used by staff for the alleged 'freak-offs' or 'hotel nights,' drug-fueled sexual encounters central to the prosecution’s case. Perez’s testimony aimed to support the racketeering conspiracy charge by illustrating how Combs’ employees facilitated these events, though the defense portrayed his actions as personal favors, not criminal enterprise tasks. Perez, who earned a starting salary of $85,000, testified that he was tasked with personal errands for Combs, including writing cards to Combs’ girlfriends, buying flowers, and helping arrange 'king nights.' He learned the term from Combs’ chief of staff, Kristina 'KK' Khorram, and other staff. Perez described ensuring Combs had 'everything he would need for 12 to 24 hours,' including liquor, music, food, drinks, lubricants, and 'Vital Honey,' a product for enhancing male libido. A May 2023 text exchange with Khorram and another staffer, shown to jurors, detailed setting up a hotel room for Combs and 'Jane,' a former girlfriend testifying under a pseudonym. The list included outfits, shorts for Combs, fruit, shakes, and juices, per Jane’s requests. Perez identified Jane as a 'female friend, companion' of Combs but was unsure of their exact relationship. He testified that Jane trusted his fashion sense, often asking him to shop for dresses and outfits for 'king nights,' with the goal of 'looking good for Mr. Combs.' A significant moment came when Perez recounted discovering a video on a staff iPad at Combs’ Los Angeles home, showing Jane having sex with another man while Combs was in the background. Perez informed Combs, asking whether to delete or secure the video, and later told Khorram, who instructed that such matters should go directly to her. Six months later, Khorram questioned Perez again about the video after an external inquiry, suggesting its potential significance. During cross-examination by defense attorney Brian Steel, Perez described setting up hotel rooms and procuring drugs as 'personal errands,' constituting only 1% of his duties compared to business-related tasks. When Steel asked, 'You just did it because you’re a nice person?' Perez agreed, saying, 'Yes.' Steel pressed further, asking if Jane ever appeared 'upset or unhappy' after 'king nights' or hesitant to participate, to which Perez consistently replied, 'No,' stating she always seemed 'willing.' This supported the defense’s narrative that Jane’s participation was consensual, challenging her earlier testimony of coercion. On redirect, prosecutor Madison Smyser countered by establishing that personal errands, including arranging 'king nights,' were part of Perez’s job. When asked, 'Who told you to set up king nights?' Perez replied, 'KK,' referring to Khorram. Smyser asked if he did so 'for free,' to which Perez said, 'No,' and confirmed he never arranged them during vacations, suggesting they were work-related. This bolstered the prosecution’s claim that Combs’ employees, including Perez, were integral to a criminal enterprise facilitating 'freak-offs.' Perez’s testimony concluded after redirect, offering a window into the logistics of Combs’ alleged 'king nights' but leaving ambiguity about criminal intent. The prosecution used Perez to show how Combs’ staff enabled his lifestyle, supporting the racketeering charge by depicting a structured operation. However, the defense’s cross-examination painted Perez’s actions as minor, consensual favors, aligning with their argument that Combs’ relationships were part of a 'swingers’ lifestyle,' not a criminal conspiracy. Legal analysts noted that while Perez’s account added context to Jane’s testimony, it lacked direct evidence of coercion or trafficking, requiring further corroboration to tie Combs to the charges. His testimony, combined with the video incident, underscored the complex dynamics within Combs’ circle, leaving jurors to weigh whether these arrangements were consensual or coercive.

Compiled from news sources and summarized by Grok.

Transcript