The Diddy trial: How the jury reached its verdict

0:00At QVC, fall shopping is more than just checking out. It's discovering the brands you love across beauty, fashion, home, and culinary, all in one place. Whether you're getting ready for crisp mornings, cozy nights, or everyday moments, QVC has what you need for the season ahead. With brands like Laura Geller, Philosophy, Ninja, and so many more. Shop now at QVC.com.

0:32Sean Combs entered a federal courtroom on Wednesday morning. He was wearing a yellow sweater and a white collared shirt. It was around 9.45 a.m. He then stood in front of his children and mother, bowed his head, and led his family in prayer. By 9.52 a.m., the jury sent a note to the court that it had reached a verdict in his criminal trial. Style reporter Ann Branigan was there. Combs appeared quite nervous. You know, he kept turning to his family. He raised his hands in prayer. It was a very tense scene up until the verdict was read. After 13 hours of deliberation, the jury found Combs guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.

1:23That's a charge that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. But the jury found Combs not guilty of the more serious charges he faced, sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, charges that could have carried a life sentence. This is a huge victory for Combs. To go up against the federal government in this way and to beat the most serious charges, it is an incredible win for him. Inside the courtroom, Combs looked at the jury and mouthed the words, Thank you.

2:03Outside the courtroom, a large crowd had gathered. And people there had a lot of different opinions on this verdict. I'm just so heartbroken over this for all the women and children that are in this country. I think we failed. I think the system failed. You know, so many people out there today. My perspective is that I think that these charges were overblown, but I agree that men have to be more gentle with women, yes. But I don't think it warrants 10 years, 15 years in prison or nothing like that. So this is bigger than diddy. People are tired of being exploited for their, you know, for their looks, for their talents, being chewed up and spit out.

2:40So this is going to set a precedent. From the newsroom of The Washington Post, this is Post Reports. I'm Elaje Izadi. It's Wednesday, July 2nd. Today, the verdict in the trial of Sean Combs. For two months now, we've been bringing you weekly conversations about this high-profile trial. It's been closely watched by people fascinated by the celebrity at the center of it. And also by people wondering how the criminal justice system deals with cases like this, almost a decade after the height of the MeToo movement. Combs, also known as Diddy Puff Puff Daddy, is a music mogul who's had an outsized role and entertainment in the world of celebrity.

3:26All of that changed when people came forward with allegations of sex abuse against him. Federal prosecutors brought serious charges against Combs and took him to trial. Today, Anne explains how the jury decided this mixed verdict. We'll also talk about whether the government overreached in its case. and the messages this outcome sends.

3:59Hi, Anne. Thanks for taking time one more time to talk to me today about this huge trial. Hi there, Alahi. First of all, Anne, when you were there and this verdict was read, what happened inside of the courtroom? How did Combs react? So Combs was expressive. So while the verdict was being read, while the not guilty verdicts were being read, he sort of covered his eyes with his hand, like he kind of held his hand up to his temple, right, just kind of taking it in. And it was afterward where we really saw him, you know, he was, you know, locking eyes with the jury. He was putting his hands together in prayer and kind of shaking his hands and mouthing the words thank you to them over and over again.

4:50He expressed a lot of gratitude in his body language, but also in this very, I think, explicit way. It sounds like he was really relieved. What about among other people inside of the courtroom? The judge told everybody in the courtroom to, you know, kind of hold their reactions as the jury delivered its verdict. There was a little bit of sound when the verdict was being read, but they really saved a lot of their reaction for when the jury left and when the judge left. And that's when there was clapping for the defense, clapping for Combs, you know, some whoops, some cheering. It was pretty loud in there, actually.

5:35And it was a very pro-Combs courtroom. A lot of his supporters and, of course, his family were there. And so, Anne, what was the reaction like outside of the courtroom? You know, I'm thinking elsewhere in the courthouse and also outside of the courthouse. So outside of the courthouse, it was intense and chaotic at one point. You know, very big crowds gathered pretty quickly once they heard the verdict was in. And at one point, I looked outside and saw a woman in a bikini top just being doused with baby oil, and she was just kind of bouncing around in celebration. It was a very chaotic scene. So, Anne, we'll get deeper into the verdict in a moment, but first, let's just remind everyone what Sean Diddy Combs was on trial for.

6:24He was on trial for racketeering conspiracy, as well as two counts of sex trafficking, and then two more counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. This trial revolved around two women. It was Cassie Ventura, primarily, and then another woman who went by the court alias of Jane to protect her privacy. Now, both of these women accused Combs of sex trafficking them. And so that's the basis of the two sex trafficking counts against him. It's also the basis of the transportation for prostitution counts. And another layer on top of that was this racketeering conspiracy, which is really about how Combs, and this is what the government argued, The government argued that Combs used his staff to facilitate these sex parties with these women called freak offs, which they said that they did not want to participate in, but felt compelled to by force and by coercion.

7:26And part of that racketeering conspiracy charge, there was also a lot of other crimes wrapped in that. So there were allegations of arson and kidnapping relating to about 20 years of activity there. And remind me of the makeup of this jury. The jury comprised eight men and four women, a diversity of ages. So five of them were under the age of 50. Five more were 60 and older. They came from Westchester, Manhattan and the Bronx and were relatively racially diverse as well. Okay, so now we finally have a verdict. I want to walk through each of the charges and how the jury ultimately decided based on what they saw and heard and read during this trial.

8:16So let's start with the two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs was found guilty on those two counts. That's the only thing he was found guilty of at the conclusion of this trial. And tell me about these two counts and the verdict here. Right. So these were the most straightforward and really felt like a slam dunk for the prosecution. So this charge is also known as the Mann Act. It does have a very racialized history. It used to be called the White Slave Traffic Act. It had been used against a few famous Black men for charges that the government brought against them. Now, here, what the government alleged was that Combs hired male escorts to participate in these sex acts with Cassie Ventura and with Jane.

9:07This charge is really about the commercial sex acts paying for these male escorts to have sex with his partners. And so is it fair to say that this was pretty clear and it was easy for the jury to determine that he was guilty on this? Yeah, it felt pretty straightforward. You know, the government had text exchanges showing them sort of negotiating who they were going to pick. There were flight records. You know, this was clearly, they were clearly recruiting them from other cities to take part in freak offs in different cities. And so that, there was a lot of evidence supporting these charges in particular.

9:49And what is the sentence that these two counts carry? So there's no minimum here, but there is a maximum sentence of 10 years. Now that could either be served concurrently or consecutively. Which that means like at the same time versus like back to back. Exactly. So potentially it could go up to 20 years, but consecutive sentences are a bit unusual. And who sets the sentence? It will be the judge. And it's a pretty complicated formula. There will be an entire process kind of connected to the sentencing. So there's this, you know, complex kind of formula that comes into play that looks at the person's history.

10:30It looks at the charge. And then both sides are going to argue for what they think the sentence should be. And so this will be another process that we're going to have to go through before Combs is sentenced. And the judge who presided over this trial is Arun Subramanian. Yeah, yeah. We talked about him at the beginning of this series of conversations. And now let's talk about the charges that Combs was not found guilty of. I want to start with the two counts of sex trafficking. As you said, those related to allegations from these two women, Ventura and Jane, who were both his former girlfriends.

11:08Can you talk to me about the not guilty verdict on those counts? Right. So these were really substantial charges. If he was found guilty of either one of these, it could have he faced a life sentence if he was convicted. Now, to return to sort of like the substance of these allegations, with Cassie Ventura, this was allegations that go back to when they dated, which was between 2007 and 2018. So it covered an 11-year span that goes quite a ways back. And what Ventura alleged was that Combs, who's quite a bit older than her, groomed her. and as they began a relationship, he would be physically abusive, but he also convinced her to participate in what they called freak-offs.

12:04Combs would direct Ventura and the escort as to what to do, and these were acts that she said were primarily for his pleasure and that she felt compelled to do because of the physical abuse, because he essentially controlled her career since she was an artist signed to his label and also because she loved him. And so we heard really riveting and emotional testimony about a really complicated and abusive relationship at the start of this trial.

12:45Now, the second sex trafficking count relates around a woman who we'll be referring to as Jane. Now, what's striking about these allegations is how recent they are. So Jane and Combs got together around 2021 and were together, were seeing each other until last year, up until his arrest. more or less. And what she alleged was that he too made her participate in these sex acts with male escorts. And we saw during her testimony that she did communicate to him quite a bit that she felt used. She felt, you know, she told him she wasn't a porn star or an animal, that she felt exploited by this arrangement, but that she continued to participate in these acts because, again, of the love that she felt for him, but also because the fact that he was paying for her home, which was about$10 ,000 a month in rent.

13:56They had entered into this so-called love contract. So she painted this picture of feeling coerced by Combs who would promise her, you know, these luxurious trips and designer bags. But then when she would ultimately meet him, the substance of their relationship, she said, was solely sex trafficking. So she felt a bit duped, you know, by his offers there. The most significant part of her testimony, though, related to an event that took place in June 2024. So this is after, you know, Combs is aware that the government was investigating him. The intercontinental video showing him beating Cassie had already come out.

14:47And what she alleged was that in June, they had this physical altercation. She started it, but he significantly escalated it. And afterward, he ordered her to do a freak off. Now, according to prosecutors, this was a very clear cut example of sex trafficking. But as we can see, ultimately, the jury did not agree with that. So Anne, what does it mean that the jury has decided that what these women experienced does not constitute sex trafficking? That is a really big question. I think we're, in a lot of ways, are going to be making sense of it for a little while. So there's a few things here that come to mind, right?

15:34one thing that the defense did was they pointed to a lot of communications between Combs and these women where the women show a bit of enthusiasm for these freak-offs. They talk about how much they love him and how they love being with him and how eager they are to please him. A few of them even planned freak-offs. And so that could very well have undercut this idea that they were coerced because that's a very important part of the charges against him. The jury had to believe that these women were forced or coerced to participate. So consent plays into this. If they believe that these women consented, then it follows that perhaps there was not the coercion there that prosecutors argued that there was.

16:32Now, something significant here is that in order to find him guilty, the jury only had to decide that a sex trafficking act happened once, that they were coerced or forced once. And what this verdict tells us is that they don't believe that that happened or that they had enough doubt that that happened, that they couldn't ultimately find him guilty of that. Wow. That's so fascinating because of just how much testimony took place in this trial about many incidents and that this jury decided in the end they could not, beyond a reasonable doubt, determined that at least one of those for each woman constituted sex trafficking.

17:19Right. We're talking about dozens, possibly even hundreds of these encounters. Yeah. OK, let's take a break there. And when we come back, Anne will explain why the government failed to convict on the other big charge here, racketeering conspiracy. We'll be right back.

17:48At QVC, fall shopping is more than just checking out. It's discovering the brands you love across beauty, fashion, home, and culinary, all in one place. Whether you're getting ready for crisp mornings, cozy nights, or everyday moments, QVC has what you need for the season ahead. With brands like Laura Geller, Philosophy, Ninja, and so many more. Shop now at QVC.com. John Deere is putting in work and putting up highlights. Oh man, look at those passes. Tillage, planting, harvesting. Three years in, and these pre-owned machines are still at the top of their game. We're talking reliability, performance, and long-term potential.

18:34And get this, these veteran machines can pick up the latest precision tech with ease. You know it, and fans ready to add John Deere-certified pre-owned equipment and more options to their lineup can shop at machinefinder.com. Booyah!

18:52Okay, and now let's turn to the third charge here. That is racketeering conspiracy, also sometimes referred to as RICO or RICO charge. The jury found Combs not guilty of racketeering conspiracy. But this charge to me felt like the most sprawling one because it required the government to prove that Combs used his businesses to commit crime. So it's like painting this picture of like a web of a business enterprise here supporting a criminal enterprise. You sat in the courthouse most days during this trial. What's your takeaway on this not guilty verdict on the RICO charge? Did the government overreach here with that one?

19:30So there was a lot of debate within the legal community about this that I found really interesting. And there were not insignificant amount of lawyers who believe that the government had in fact overreached with the racketeering conspiracy charge. So to clarify a little bit about what the government's argument here was, they weren't arguing that, you know, the bad boy record label was involved in these crimes or that, you know, Revolt TV was involved in these crimes. And those are businesses that Combs has had at some point. Exactly. What they argued was that it was a much smaller group, and really we could think of them as more sort of personal staff, like his chief of staff, Christina Karam, or members of his security detail, who conspired and had agreed to either commit racketeering acts.

20:24So when I say racketeering acts, I mean, you know, this sort of laundry list of crimes that the government alleged took place. They agreed to do them, commit them, or to cover them up. And that laundry list included acts of arson, sex trafficking, as we mentioned, transportation to engage in prostitution was also, interestingly, one of those predicates there. as well as narcotics distribution, which seemed like a fairly straightforward charge in the sense that we did have a lot of evidence that Combs procured drugs over the course of these 20 years. So then how did the jury not return a guilty verdict on this?

21:10So this was something that they had previously on Tuesday night appeared to be deadlocked on. So on Tuesday afternoon, they sent a note to the court saying that they had reached a verdict on all the other counts except this one and that they felt that they had unpersuadable people on both sides. Now, they'd only been deliberating for two days and there is no court that wants to do, that is eager to do a retrial, right? They don't want this to end in a mistrial. And so they were told to, you know, come back, continue deliberating, see if you can reach a decision. So this is something that they struggled with, but they ultimately came back on Wednesday morning and took less than an hour to decide that Combs was not guilty of racketeering.

22:06And there's a few reasons why they could have come to that decision. What could be those reasons that they returned a not guilty verdict on Rico? So RICO requires the belief that there was a conspiracy here. So they may not have believed that Combs was conspiring with these other members. They might not have believed that that part was met. You know, the defense also argued that with the case of narcotics distribution, that that was for personal use, right? And so when it comes to personal use, that does not count as distribution. What's interesting here is that they did find him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution.

22:49And the jury only needed to find Combs guilty of two racketeering acts in order to the letter of the law return that guilty verdict. But they didn't. So, you know, there is a sort of outstanding question there. So it could go to either the belief in the conspiracy or another option here. Being that there was so much doubt within that panel, they could have said, look, there's clearly doubt here. We cannot return a guilty verdict. Yeah, and also that they were a little bit tortured about it and that there were people entrenched on both sides before they came to a decision. But it is fascinating to wonder at this point that, you know, they did find him guilty on transportation to engage in prostitution, but there wasn't a second criminal act that they were confident about that would have then triggered this, potentially, this racketeering conspiracy.

23:46Or they just didn't think that there was a conspiracy at all. Right. It seems like it might be more of the second because it's two individual acts. It didn't need to be two kinds of acts, just two individual acts. Yeah. So that's a really interesting tension there. And so he was found guilty of these two charges, which you've already described, the transportation to engage in prostitution. Has his team indicated that they're planning to appeal that? There was no indication that they're planning to appeal that. And in many ways, this is a victory for him. Now, remember that these charges, there's not any minimum sentencing requirement here.

24:25So this was a really substantial victory for Combs because the government did make a big show of this case. Yeah, let's talk about what this verdict means for the government. The Southern District of New York prosecuted the case. The government spent considerable time and resources in investigating Combs and bringing this case to trial. I mean, it's not a small thing to have a two-month-long trial. Is this outcome a failure for them? It certainly is not a win. I think we can safely say that in the sense that, you know, we saw leading up to the trial, we saw, you know, these dramatic scenes of Homeland Security agents raiding Combs' homes, right?

25:11They were very, very adamant that they believed him to be a violent man and that they believed he had obstructed justice. You know, they were very dogged in their pursuit of Combs on these charges here. So, yes, it's not a win, even though they did get a couple guilty verdicts here. I want to ask about the alleged victims here. Before I do, Combs is still facing a bunch of civil lawsuits. So what does this verdict mean for those lawsuits? So the belief, well, the conventional thinking here is that had there been guilty verdicts on the more serious counts, that that would have favored the litigants in their lawsuits against him because they could have mentioned the fact that he had been convicted of sex trafficking in this criminal case.

26:06And it might have also encouraged other people to come forward. Now, being that that did not happen, you know, it doesn't add any more fuel to the litigants fire here. But those are still going to be separate processes that have to play out in civil court. So now let's talk about the alleged victims here, Ventura and Jane. I mean, these women shared really harrowing testimony. They now are looking at this verdict. what does this verdict mean for them going forward? Have we heard anything from them or their lawyers? So we have heard from Ventura's lawyer, Douglas Wigdor. He released a statement and he acknowledged the disappointing verdict.

26:50But what he did was he congratulated Ventura on her strength. You know, she was the reason why the government brought forward this case, this criminal case to begin with. And so he lauded her unquestionable strength and noted that this could be part of some long overdue change. So, Anne, stepping back, if we really think about how we even got to this point that Shandidi Combs, this really powerful music mogul who shaped so much of culture and entertainment, was on trial for so long. A lot of it was started with Ventura bringing this civil lawsuit against Combs in 2023. We now know it was settled for$20 million, but that lawsuit triggered a flood of others against Combs.

27:41The government investigated him, took him to trial. But that lawsuit from Ventura, it came out of a law passed during the height of the Me Too movement. And that led a lot of people to bring forward older sex abuse claims, Ventura among them. So you and I, we've talked before about how this trial will serve as a sort of temperature check on the status of the Me Too movement. What's your take on it now that we have a verdict? It feels like we're in a really tricky place right now, I would say. I think, you know, previously we talked about the Me Too fatigue that seemed to be sort of in the public discourse.

28:21I think that very much holds true. Something that comes to mind for me here is that these, in a lot of ways, like what made this case so complicated and potentially so challenging is because of how much it defies sort of the more conventional notions of what sex trafficking looks like, right? These images of vulnerable women, perhaps impoverished women being taken from their homes, maybe taken to other countries. That was not the case here. This was a really rarefied world involving a pop star, involving trips to Turks and Caicos. And so there was a lot of ways where even though there were some, there were elements here that were true of what we see in sex trafficking cases, you know, there were a lot of other parts that I think just didn't jibe with these kind of stereotypes of what sex trafficking is, right?

29:30So I think it was always going to be challenging not only for jurors but for the general public to think of these women in that way because these were women who seemingly had means and power to leave this relationship. And I think that's something that I'm thinking a lot about is this case demanded, I think, a lot of nuance. It demanded this understanding of consent being something that isn't given once but has to be reaffirmed over and over. It required a really fine understanding of coercion. And here's the thing. This is a criminal case, right? The way our system is set up is that there is a high bar to clear.

30:30And that's what we saw. We saw that there was a high bar to clear with the evidence here. And this jury felt that that bar was not cleared.