Illustration: Elizabeth Williams/AP Picture
The federal legal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs is overwhelmingly prone to finish with the fallen hip-hop mogul’s conviction. The expenses, introduced by federal prosecutors within the Southern District of New York, are severe: a wide-ranging racketeering conspiracy (together with allegations of arson, kidnapping, and drug trafficking) and numerous sex-trafficking offenses. The proof, together with testimony from 4 alleged victims and surveillance video of a vicious bodily assault, appears sound. And the overwhelming majority of federal trials lead to responsible verdicts — sometimes round 80 %, in keeping with the broad-lens knowledge and my very own expertise.
However upon shut inspection, we are able to see refined cracks within the prosecution’s case. Combs gained’t be outright acquitted; I don’t see any manner 12 New York jurors vote unanimously to let him off the hook fully. However this gained’t be a cakewalk for prosecutors, who have to step fastidiously round sure traps they’ve embedded in their very own indictment. If prosecutors concentrate on the prurience and scandal of all of it greater than the technical legal expenses, then Combs has a number of routes to a palatable protection outcome.
Fast, what’s the one most memorable piece of proof on this case? That’s proper: the “1,000 bottles of child oil and lubricant,” important to the notorious Freak Off intercourse benders depicted within the indictment. (Runner-up: the intravenous drip used to rehydrate members.) All of it makes for golden late-night-comedy fodder and, certain, it offends our collective prim-and-proper sensibilities.
However there’s nothing inherently legal a few thousand bottles of child oil (or ten thousand), or three-ways (or four-ways), or wild intercourse events. Certainly, it appears this will probably be a major protection: Perhaps Combs was a freak, perhaps he had outrageous sexual appetites, perhaps he even handled folks horribly — however none of that’s legal. If prosecutors lean too closely into the nastiness of all of it — and the indictment does have a tendency towards graphic and at occasions gratuitous descriptions of intercourse — then they threat falling right into a entice of their very own making.
And even when Combs was concerned in a long-term, bodily abusive relationship with Casandra “Cassie” Ventura (the first prosecution witness) and different girls, that conduct would possible violate state-level assault legal guidelines — however not essentially the particular federal ones he’s charged beneath. Prosecutors should present greater than a collection of home assaults dedicated inside poisonous relationships. They’ve alleged that, for over a decade, Combs led a sprawling enterprise that dedicated an interconnected spate of crimes — intercourse trafficking, arson, kidnapping, obstruction, and others — to advertise and defend his wealth and public status. Juries are good at distinguishing between unhealthy conduct and legal conduct, and you’ll wager Combs’s protection group — led by Marc Agnifilo, a former federal prosecutor and skilled protection legal professional — will underscore the excellence.
Relatedly, look ahead to the protection to argue that prosecutors have focused Combs and now maintain him up because the mastermind of an alleged legal enterprise consisting of … one individual. The lead cost towards Combs is racketeering conspiracy, which usually includes a number of gamers; the O within the acronym RICO stands for group, in spite of everything. I charged federal racketeering circumstances continuously on the SDNY; they ranged from 5 or 6 defendants on the low finish to 25 on the excessive facet. But Combs stands alone, a racketeering enterprise of 1. Whereas the indictment references different members within the alleged legal operation — a few of whom have been given free rides in alternate for his or her testimony — no one else has been charged. Combs will probably be seated alone (together with his legal professionals) on the protection desk, alleged ringleader of, properly, himself. From the prosecution’s perspective, a one-man racketeering conspiracy is sort of a one-man band. It’s technically attainable, but it surely’s removed from perfect.
Hearken to The Counsel podcast
Subscribe on:
Look ahead to Combs’s protection to use that charging construction and declare that prosecutors have joined a self-serving pile-on. The protection will argue that the victims — a few of whom had long-term relationships with Combs — noticed greenback indicators when the civil fits began flying in 2023 and joined in to get their piece of the motion. On the identical time, the protection argument will go, the prosecutors are participating in a little bit of trophy-hunting of their very own. They singled out Combs as a result of he’s well-known however deeply unpopular as a result of he has confronted scurrilous allegations in civil fits, and the media has demanded a scalp, and since these DOJ hotshots wish to snare a headliner so as to add to their résumés.
Belief me: I’ve heard (and been subjected to) arguments identical to this one in federal courtroom, and I’m not significantly moved, given the proof as we all know it towards Combs. However the protection recreation right here isn’t essentially to influence all 12 jurors that Combs is harmless — that may be unimaginable — however reasonably to hook only one or two jurors who would possibly reject the prosecution’s ways or who would possibly sympathize in some way with Combs. If the protection group can do this, the jury would possibly return a stunning verdict.
First, cut up juries typically compromise to succeed in blended verdicts. For instance, Combs faces the racketeering cost plus two counts of “intercourse trafficking by fraud, pressure, or coercion” (which carries a compulsory minimal of 15 years in jail and a most of life) and two counts of “transportation to interact in prostitution” (which carries no minimal sentence and a ten-year max). If the jury finds Combs responsible solely on the lesser prostitution offenses, he’d possible face a sentence of some years — however not a long time behind bars. That might be a win for Combs by any affordable measure.
Or the jury might dangle; even one holdout out of 12 jurors tanks the case. Hung juries are uncommon, however the threat of a impasse is inherently larger when a celeb defendant is concerned. If one juror is enamored with Combs or his fame, or if a juror decides Combs has been unfairly focused due to his celeb or his wealth or his race, then the stage may very well be set for a impasse. Whereas a hung jury is a “tie” of kinds — prosecutors can select to retry the case — take my phrase for it, having endured a pair deadlocked juries myself: Anytime the jury hangs, the protection group rejoices whereas prosecutors mourn.
If I used to be supervising this case again on the SDNY, my recommendation to my fellow prosecutors could be to maintain it lean and hold it targeted. Don’t dwell for lengthy on the intercourse stuff. Don’t parade across the courtroom with the lube and the IV drips. Don’t sermonize or finger-wag. We wish to vilify this defendant, certain, however don’t ever let it look like we’ve bought it in for him or that we resent his wealth and fame. Focus sharply on the victims and the violence. The jury gained’t convict Combs merely in the event that they consider he’s horrible and grasping and grotesque; they’ll convict him provided that prosecutors show he’s a legal and that he broke the particular legal guidelines they’ve chosen to cost.
