Federal prosecutors in New York are expected to rest their case Tuesday against Sean “Diddy” Combs, while the music mogul’s defense team intends to offer no witnesses of its own, bringing the sprawling racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking trial to an end sooner than expected.
That Combs’ defense team would decide to call no one was unexpected but far from unusual, legal experts say.
“It’s more likely than not at a trial that the defense is not going to call any witnesses,” said Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor for the District of New Jersey who now practices criminal defense in New York. “So what you may hear the defense counsel say during closing arguments is that the prosecution’s witnesses ‘made our case. We didn’t have a burden to prove our case, and the cross-examination of their witnesses makes it clear that we’re right and they’re wrong.’”
Sign up for the “Diddy on Trial” newsletter for key developments and analysis
Since the trial began more than six weeks ago, jurors heard from 34 witnesses who testified to the government’s claim that Combs, the Bad Boy Records founder, rapper and entrepreneur, leveraged his businesses as a “criminal enterprise” to sexually abuse and exploit women for decades. A jury of eight men and four women reviewed reams of evidence, including text messages, videos and receipts, meant to implicate Combs.
His attorneys had said last week that they had about three witnesses they could call, including a former vice president of operations at Bad Boy Entertainment. But lead defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo clarified Monday to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian that his team will instead submit its own evidence and stipulate several issues before closing arguments, which could begin as soon as Thursday.
After the prosecution rests, the defense is also expected to ask Subramanian to dismiss the case entirely — a typical request at that point in the trial but one that is rarely successful.
Legal experts say Subramanian should instruct jurors not to give less weight to the defense for putting on no witnesses because the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt still falls on the prosecution.
While Epner said the jurors “shouldn’t pay attention to the number of witnesses either side puts on,” they’re also “human beings, and they’re going to pay attention and be curious as to why they didn’t hear certain people testify.”
What the prosecution must prove
Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to one count of racketeering conspiracy; two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. He faces a lengthy prison sentence if found he is guilty of even one charge.
Federal prosecutors have successfully used racketeering charges, more commonly associated with organized crime rings, in recent years against high-profile figures accused of sex offenses, including the R&B singer R. Kelly and NXIVM cult leader Keith Raniere. (Agnifilo represented Raniere in his 2019 trial.)
The federal indictment against Combs specifically refers to four women who accuse him of sexual abuse and alleges a racketeering conspiracy in which an array of predicate offenses, or crimes, were committed, including sex trafficking, forced labor, narcotics offenses, kidnapping, arson, bribery and obstruction of justice.
At the trial’s start, the R&B singer Cassie, Combs’ former girlfriend, testified over multiple days about drug-dazed marathon sex sessions, known as “freak offs,” that she said Combs orchestrated for her with male escorts.
Her career suffered as the “freak offs,” she testified, “became a job.”
Some legal experts who were not initially convinced that the testimony from Cassie, whose real name is Casandra Ventura, amounts to a racketeering conspiracy, say the prosecution put on a wide-ranging case.
“I understood why there was a reaction early on of ‘Where’s the evidence of the conspiracy?’ — I didn’t see it, either,” said Jennifer Beidel, a former assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York. “If the jury was called to deliberate after week two or week three, would they have convicted on the racketeering? Probably not. Now, it could happen.”
And while three women testified against Combs — Ventura, a former assistant using the pseudonym “Mia” and an ex-girlfriend going by “Jane” — the charges are not tied to the accusers as individuals, so jurors can evaluate their claims separately or as a whole.
“One might think Cassie is credible but decide Jane isn’t compelling,” Beidel said. “But even if they don’t find one compelling, there still could be enough to convict with the way this is charged.”
The federal racketeering statute requires the government to prove at least two predicate acts occurred, but jurors do not have to agree on which ones they are, Beidel said. If some jurors do not believe the allegations of sex trafficking because they think the sexual relationships between Combs and the women were consensual, as the defense has suggested, the prosecution presented “lots of alternative ways each juror could get to the predicate act necessary” for racketeering, she added.
Key testimony may have advanced the prosecution’s case, legal experts say.
Grammy-winning rapper Kid Cudi, who was a romantic rival of Combs’, testified about the firebombing of his Porsche in 2012. Cudi, whose real name is Scott Mescudi, said Combs broke into his home in the Hollywood Hills neighborhood of Los Angeles in the weeks before the alleged act of arson on his car.
A former personal assistant of Combs, Capricorn Clark, said Combs was armed with a gun when he kidnapped her to go with him to confront Cudi while also threatening to kill him.
Another former employee of Combs, George Kaplan, testified about acting as a drug courier and stocking hotel rooms where “freak offs” were held with the necessary baby oil and candles.
Meanwhile, testimony from Eddy Garcia, a security supervisor at a Los Angeles hotel where Combs was seen on security video beating Ventura in 2016, centered on an allegation that Combs was desperate to get the sole copy of the video. Garcia said that Combs paid $100,000 in cash, which was divided among members of the hotel’s security team, and that he signed a nondisclosure agreement that called for his silence in what could be examples of bribery and obstruction of justice, according to legal experts.
The government began to wind down its case with a U.S. attorney’s office special agent, Deleassa Penland, who went over flight records belonging to Jules Theodore. Prosecutors say that Theodore, a male escort, was often hired to engage in “freak offs” with Combs and Ventura and that he traveled between New York and Los Angeles. Penland testified that credit card charges were paid off by a Signature Bank account held by Bad Boy Entertainment Worldwide.
The prosecution’s line of questioning appeared to try to bolster the two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution that Combs also faces, legal experts say.
Defense may sow doubt during closings
During cross-examination, defense lawyers prompted some government witnesses to say they still admire Combs, enjoyed working for him and were testifying only because they were subpoenaed.
Ventura said during her cross-examination that she does not hate Combs: “I have love for the past and what it was.”
Mark Zauderer, a veteran trial and appellate lawyer in New York, said the defense’s decision to not call anyone to the stand indicates it has “concluded that the testimony of additional witnesses will not help Combs.”
“In this circumstance, the defense will place all of its eggs in one basket, arguing to the jury that the government has failed to prove the elements of its [racketeering] case beyond a reasonable doubt,” Zauderer said.
He added that not calling Combs is a strategy that his defense is betting will pay off.
“He can’t testify without being subjected to a withering cross-examination about other bad acts, all of which could expose him to civil liability in lawsuits brought by others,” Zauderer said.
Epner said the defense may use its closing arguments to suggest not only that the government’s witnesses were helpful to Combs but also that key witnesses were simply not reliable.
“The defense is going to be about attacking the credibility of the prosecution’s witnesses,” Epner said. “The thing that is absolutely clear to me is that Mia and Jane were subjected to more cross-examination and, it appears from press reports, more damaging cross-examination than Cassie.”
Defense lawyer Nicole Blank Becker, who helped represent R. Kelly at his 2021 sex trafficking trial, said it will also be important for the defense to distance Combs from some of the decisions that led to the alleged crimes.
“If he looks like a kingpin,” Blank Becker said, “it’s very easy for a jury to check the guilty box.”
Combs has had an “uphill battle” since before the trial, she added, as he faces a slew of lawsuits that have included accusations of rape and sexual assault. He has vigorously denied such allegations and accused various plaintiffs of pursuing quick “paydays.”
“The prosecution threw in witness after witness — that can be a difficult challenge for the defense to rebut, and the cards are stacked against them,” Blank Becker said. “That’s the way the feds roll. They don’t come after you unless they believe they got you.”
Leave a Reply