The jury in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ sex trafficking trial announced on Tuesday that it has reached a verdict on four out of five charges against him but remains deadlocked on the primary charge of racketeering conspiracy. The judge advised the jury to continue their deliberations instead of declaring a partial verdict, emphasising that it was premature to conclude discussions after just two days.
The situation evolved when the jury communicated their inability to reach a unanimous decision on the racketeering conspiracy charge, citing “unpersuadable views” among members. Judge Arun Subramanian recognised the jury’s right to issue a partial verdict but suggested they persist in their discussions.
Combs’ legal team gathered around him after the jury’s note was delivered, with the hip-hop mogul looking troubled as they explained the circumstances. Family members later returned to the courtroom to hear the news of the partial verdict.
Prosecutors allege that Combs exploited his fame, wealth, and intimidation to compel two girlfriends into drug-fueled sexual encounters with male sex workers, known as “freak-offs.” Combs has pleaded not guilty, with his defence arguing that the prosecution is mischaracterising his consensual lifestyle and attempting to portray his actions as federal crimes rather than domestic abuse.
If convicted on all charges, Combs, 55, potentially faces a prison sentence ranging from 15 years to life. The complexity of the racketeering conspiracy charge lies in proving not only the existence of a “racketeering enterprise” but also Combs’ involvement in various unlawful activities, such as kidnapping and arson, under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act (RICO).
The jury had previously requested to revisit critical testimony from key witnesses, including Combs’ former girlfriend, Cassie. They sought specific details regarding a 2016 hotel incident involving assault and threats made against her during the Cannes Film Festival in 2013. Witness testimonies pointed to Cassie’s distress and fear during their relationship, contributing to the jury’s evaluation of the charges against Combs.
As deliberations resumed, the jurors sought clarification on what constitutes drug distribution as part of the racketeering charge. Despite some initial concerns about juror conduct, the judge reminded them of their responsibilities in coming to a conclusion.
Throughout the trial, Combs’ team primarily focused on cross-examining prosecution witnesses, including former employees who testified under immunity. The independent nature of the jury’s deliberation process remains crucial as they continue evaluating the serious allegations against Combs.