On Day 2 of the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, the 12-person jury made it clear they’re not a passive bunch at all. The hip-hop mogul stands accused of serious racketeering and sex trafficking charges, and give or take a few witnesses, jurors in this complicated web of alleged behavior aren’t letting him off easy.
Tuesday (July 1) was a flurry of notes from the jury to the judge, five in all, and all indications are that the panel is hot on the trail of the most crucial counts involving drug use, sex trafficking, and disturbing testimony about singer Cassie Ventura and a dude named Daniel Phillip.
One of the day’s biggest questions? Whether giving someone some drugs that they’re asking for is really “distribution” under the law. It’s a seemingly minor question that could have significant legal implications. Jurors are very clearly grappling with the finer points of how, exactly, drugs were said to have circulated through Diddy’s world — and whether those acts amounted to federal crimes.
The board also insisted on several transcripts, including Ventura’s recounting of an incident that purportedly happened in 2016 at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles, as well as her memories of the Cannes Film Festival and scads of sex-crazed “freak offs” she said were arranged directly by Diddy.
Daniel Phillips’ evidence also became a topic of discussion. Asked to rereview his comments on a separate “freak off” at the Essex Hotel, jurors now wonder if they’re crawling into the details about how or even if these encounters might be part of a sprawling sex trafficking scheme.
Diddy has pleaded not guilty to all five federal charges he faces, including racketeering conspiracy and two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution. If found guilty, he could face a minimum of 10 years to life in prison.
Monday’s discussions were intense too, the jury totaling about five hours of deliberation. From early on, the ability of at least one juror to follow legal instructions raised concerns, and the judge reminded them sternly of their duty to respect the law.
Even so, the signal that has come through most clearly from both days has been the jury’s elaborate, pointed questions. This is not jurors simply reviewing evidence; this is jurors interrogating it. The timing of a ruling is unclear, but everyone is waiting at the courtroom doors.
In the meantime, the discussions go on, and Diddy’s future remains unclear. What is clear is that the jury is doing a thorough job, and every note they send is a clue to how closely and critically they are examining thi
0 Comments