Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial: ‘His trial team rightly decided it’s better to rest on reasonable doubt’

Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs trial: ‘His trial team rightly decided it’s better to rest on reasonable doubt’

in New York jurors in the trial of hip hop star and music mogul Shaun Diddy Combmes are deliberating for a second day this Tuesday in his trial for sex trafficking and rakateeering the 55-year-old’s accused of coercing two former girlfriends to perform in sex parties jurors are weighing five counts against him now on Monday the judge who was overseeing the trial had to intervene after the jury said one member of the 12person panel may not be able to follow the judge’s guidance the judge then sent a note to the jurors reminding them of their obligation to deliberate and follow his instructions about the law well we’re going to talk more about this case and this latest twist with former federal prosecutor Elise Adamson who joins me from Washington elise thank you for taking the time to share your expertise with us from very early over there in the States uh the jury for person sent this note to the judge complaining about this one juror worried that the juror could not follow the judge’s instructions i mean what do you read into all of this is that kind of thing common yeah so what I will say is it’s not particularly uncommon that there are issues within the jury especially very early on they’re settling in they’re they’re figuring out what they’re going to do and remember these are 12 people who were just called to jury service they come from all over that part of New York and they’re coming in with a lot of different viewpoints preconceived notions and so sometimes jurors just disagree and the judge is the only person that they can communicate with during their deliberations now with this particular jury note what it seemed to indicate to me is that perhaps that juror came back into the jury room with a viewpoint with a very strong viewpoint with respect to how the verdict should go and that they were not interested in deliberating again they can’t share very mo much in their note because these are secret deliberations but that’s what it seemed to telegraph to me that this person came in with their mind made up which of course is a no no and the jury the judge instructed the jury that they must deliberate and that is what the judge wrote back to the jury in his reply
right and given all of that and given that this jury is deciding whether prosecutors have proven these charges against Diddy I mean talk us through about how they might come to their decision if they do yeah so it’s it’s a it’s a long process if the jury is doing it correctly and I’m saying this as somebody who tried many cases and as a prosecutor you want the jury to pour over that trial evidence this was a seven-week trial and there was a lot introduced for the jury to consider and especially with that talk count you mentioned that racketeering it’s called a RICO conspiracy there is a lot that the jury needs to find in order to convict so they need to be sitting down looking at all of the evidence reviewing that testimony from the two victims in this case jane who testified under a pseudonym of course and then Cassie Ventura and they also need to find for a RICO conspiracy that there were these things called two predicate racketeering acts that the enterprise committed and that’s basically two crimes that are unrelated to the ones that are actually charged here but two crimes that Combmes and the people around him which prosecutors are calling his corrupt enterprise committed that is very complicated and so one of my concerns about this case is that it’s just so complicated and the defense quite frankly had a very effective narrative that this was an overcharged case combmes is guilty of crimes but crimes that are not charged here and I do think that that would at least resonate with a few jurors now will that you know will that narrative be overcome by the overwhelming evidence at trial i think we’re going to have to see but I I definitely think that this is going to be a tough one and the jury has its work cut out for them for sure
right i mean the devil obviously always in the details and another thing that seems complicated is the interpretation of a series of text messages that were presented i mean we all know tone meaning and text can be blurry confusing at any time in this case both the prosecution and the defense tried to use those text messages between Diddy and his former girlfriends to prove their case yeah so the texts are interesting because you have some texts where you have the victims indicating that they are not interested in what’s been called freakoffs or hotel nights that they have a lot of reservations this is something they don’t want to do but again talking about that really effective defense the defense was able to find text message that indicated that these were consensual relationships that these victims at some point cared for their abuser that being combs that they were even willing participants in these freakoffs and sometimes especially with respect to Ventura and even Jane helped coordinate the freakoffs which tends to undermine the prosecutor’s theory that this was coercive conduct but I want to make one point very clear here in the jury instructions and this is why the instruction portion of the trial is so critically important something we don’t cover as much because it’s kind of technical and not fun but they the judge explains what the jury has to find in order to get that conviction and here the jury doesn’t need to find that every single hotel night or freakoff was coerced they need to find one and there has been evidence especially with respect to Cassie Ventura remember we have that 2016 video from the Intercontinental Hotel where it shows Combmes beating Ventura that is not in dispute and a text message cannot undermine what people saw with their own eyes there was testimony that there was an escort in the hotel room and she was fleeing a freakoff so the jury can find that that freakoff occurred by violence and by coercion and that would satisfy the elements of that sex trafficking charge so those text messages of course were very powerful in undermining the prosecution’s case but they don’t necessarily sink it because they don’t need to prove that every single action in their 11-year relationship was coercive in the meantime Combmes now is facing 15 years in prison to life behind bars if convicted of all charges and yet I find it interesting that he himself did not testify why so when a criminal defendant testifies it’s very very risky i’ll tell you I spent eight almost eight years as a federal prosecutor i’m now a defense attorney and we just simply do not see defendants testifying in their own defense very often and that’s because it opens the door for the prosecution to then ask them questions and undermine what they’re pos they’re saying also you cannot lie under oath and so sometimes if the evidence is bad and maybe you did do some of these things you’re being accused of doing how are you going to spin that on the stand what is your story going to be it is it is risky because you’ll probably tell and again this is the former prosecutor in me saying this editorializing but a self-serving narrative right that tries to get you out of whatever it is you’re being accused of but within that self-serving narrative there’s going to be the other side of the story and the prosecution has an opportunity to come and cross-examine you and please believe the prosecution is going to exploit every single thing they possibly can they’re going to impeach you with your own words and we all know that Combmes does have a checkered past and a lot of these negative things about him could be used if he had taken the stand to defend himself we most commonly see people defending themselves in cases of uh a defense of self-defense because that’s the only way they could say I felt scared but here self-defense is not on the table that is not a defense to any of these things and I think there his tri trial team rightly decided that it was better to just rest on reasonable doubt because there are questions in this case than to risk putting their client up on the stand and being embarrassed and and crossed in a way that was ultimately going to be detrimental to their case
all right Elise thanks so much for sharing your expertise with us uh former federal prosecutor Elise Adamson talking to me there from Washington as this second day of deliberations in the Combmes case is going to get underway in Washington thank you so much thanks for having

Jurors return for a second day of deliberations in the sex trafficking trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs. Combs is accused of orchestrating a two-decade racketeering and sex trafficking scheme involving coercion of girlfriends into sex acts with male sex workers. If convicted, Combs, 55, faces 15 years to life in prison. For in-depth analysis and a deeper perspective, FRANCE 24’s Genie Godula welcomes Alyse Adamson, former Assistant US Attorney. Ms Adamson is a Principal at Beveridge & Diamond PC and Co-Chair of B&D’s Environmental Crimes.
#Diddy #Trial #SexTrafficking

🔔 Subscribe to France 24 now: https://f24.my/YTen
🔴 LIVE – Watch FRANCE 24 English 24/7 here: https://f24.my/YTliveEN

🌍 Read the latest International News and Top Stories: https://www.france24.com/en/

Like us on Facebook: https://f24.my/FBen
Follow us on X: https://f24.my/Xen
Bluesky: https://f24.my/BSen and Threads: https://f24.my/THen
Browse the news in pictures on Instagram: https://f24.my/IGen
Discover our TikTok videos: https://f24.my/TKen
Get the latest top stories on Telegram: https://f24.my/TGen