Introduction
Introduction Statistics Contact Development Disclaimer Help
.-') _ .-') _
( OO ) ) ( OO ) )
.-----. ,--./ ,--,' ,--./ ,--,'
' .--./ | \ | |\ | \ | |\
| |('-. | \| | )| \| | )
/_) |OO )| . |/ | . |/
|| |`-'| | |\ | | |\ |
(_' '--'\ | | \ | | | \ |
`-----' `--' `--' `--' `--'
lite.cnn.com - on gopher - inofficial
ARTICLE VIEW:
How the prosecution failed to prove its most serious charges against
Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs
By Holly Yan, Rebekah Riess, CNN
Updated:
1:50 PM EDT, Thu July 3, 2025
Source: CNN
“This is Sean Combs,” Assistant US Attorney Emily Johnson told
jurors in May, during opening statements of the hip-hop mogul’s .
“To the public, he was Puff Daddy or Diddy, a cultural icon, a
businessman, larger than life.
“But there was another side to him. A side that ran a criminal
enterprise.”
Jurors disagreed. On Wednesday, 51 days after Johnson promised to make
that case, Combs was found not guilty of the most serious charges
against him: racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force,
fraud or coercion.
How and why did things go sideways for the federal prosecutors from the
prestigious Southern District of New York?
Racketeering conspiracy is hard to prove
Racketeering conspiracy – sometimes – doesn’t refer to a specific
crime. Rather, it involves people engaging in an illegal scheme. And
the charge is difficult to prove.
“When you look at the issue of RICO and racketeering, what you
generally look at are mob bosses who have these underbosses who are
furthering (a) criminal enterprise,” CNN legal analyst Joey Jackson
said.
In Combs’ case, prosecutors claimed he and members of his inner
circle had engaged in crimes involving kidnapping, arson, forced labor,
bribery and sex trafficking, among others. For a conviction, jurors
would have needed to find Combs and at least one other person had
agreed to commit at least two relevant acts within a 10-year window.
But jurors never heard any direct testimony from many of the people who
prosecutors claimed participated in the enterprise. That’s unusual
for a racketeering trial, Jackson said.
Typically, “you have one of those mob bosses or the underbosses come
testify saying, ‘He, the one sitting right there, told me to engage
in an arson, told me to bribe this one, extort this other person, get
money from the other, pass drugs here.’ You didn’t have that, nor
did you have other people besides (Combs) sitting at that table,”
Jackson said.
Legal experts say the prosecution may have overcharged Combs.
“I think this racketeering charge was an overcharge from the
start,” CNN senior legal analyst Elie Honig said.
“If you try to show racketeering as a prosecutor, you have to show
that there was an organized criminal enterprise, that there was some
structure to this, that there was a criminal operation that was ongoing
and that committed multiple crimes. They just did not have that
proof,” Honig said.
“Could they prove Sean Combs was a horrible human being, physically
abusive, engaged in domestic violence? Yes, yes and yes. But none of
those are racketeering.”
The sex trafficking charge didn’t work
The prosecution’s witnesses gave stunning testimony about –
drug-fueled sexual performances they said Combs organized.
Prosecutors charged Combs with two counts of sex trafficking by force,
fraud or coercion: one related to his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, and
one related to another ex-girlfriend who testified under the pseudonym
“Jane.”
Maria Cruz Melendez, who successfully prosecuted singer and music
producer for racketeering, wasn’t surprised that Combs was acquitted
on the sex trafficking charges.
“At the end of the day, the jury had to be convinced that coercion
was happening within the dynamic of that relationship,” Cruz Melendez
said.
But the defense argued the women wanted to spend time with Combs
because they loved him and their presence at the “Freak Offs” or
“hotel nights” was not due to violence and fraud, she said.
In addition, both women had long-term relationships with Combs, which
was “unconventional” for sex trafficking cases, Jackson said.
“When you look at sex trafficking, you’re looking at not (a)
long-term relationship, generally, of 11 years, as it related to Cassie
Ventura, or three years, as it related to Jane,” Jackson said.
Former federal prosecutor Alyse Adamson agreed.
“These were individuals who had been in long-standing relationships
with Combs. So there was a thin line between consent and coercion – a
thin line that, of course, the defense exploited very effectively” on
cross-examination, Adamson said.
Prosecutors ‘got their teeth kicked in’
Even though Combs was , “the defense won this case,” Honig said.
“The Southern District of New York – the vaunted SDNY, my beloved
former office – got their teeth kicked in in this case. There’s no
other way to say it,” the former federal prosecutor said. “And the
primary thing I attribute that to is they overcharged this case.”
But Julie Grant, a Court TV anchor and former assistant district
attorney, said she believes prosecutors made a solid case for the more
serious charges – but the jurors didn’t buy it.
“So certainly, with this verdict, we’ve got to respect it, like we
do everyone here in America,” Grant said.
CNN’s Karina Tsui contributed to this report.
<- back to index
You are viewing proxied material from codevoid.de. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.