The high-stakes federal criminal trial of music figure Sean “Diddy” combs has reached its decisive moment. After nearly seven weeks filled with compelling testimony and vast amounts of evidence, the prosecution and defense have delivered their final arguments. The critical task of determining Combs’ future now rests solely with the jury. Combs, age 55, faces severe federal charges, including racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking involving force, fraud, or coercion, and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has consistently maintained his plea of not guilty to every count.
This intense legal confrontation unfolded in a New York federal courtroom, drawing significant global attention. More than three dozen witnesses took the stand, presenting detailed and often graphic accounts. Legal teams for both sides invested hours meticulously presenting their perspectives. Their objective was to persuade the twelve jurors responsible for reaching a unanimous verdict on each distinct charge. The conflicting narratives underscore the considerable complexity the jury must now navigate. They must carefully evaluate every piece of evidence and every witness’s account.
Trial Concludes: A Battle of Narratives
The trial spanned over seven weeks before both sides rested their cases. The prosecution concluded its presentation after calling its final witness on June 24. The defense followed swiftly, opting to call no witnesses at all. Sean Combs himself chose not to testify, a decision he stated was personal and made in consultation with his attorneys. Judge Arun Subramanian will instruct the jury not to consider a defendant’s choice not to testify as evidence of guilt.
News reports on the day closing arguments concluded mentioned Combs and his son were named in a new gang-rape lawsuit. It is important to note this lawsuit is separate from the federal trial proceedings. Prosecutors did withdraw some specific racketeering allegations during the trial. This was reportedly done to simplify the jury’s instructions, ensuring focus remained on the core, serious charges that persisted. Combs has remained in custody since his arrest in September 2024 at MDC Brooklyn.
On Monday, June 30, Judge Arun Subramanian is scheduled to provide detailed legal instructions to the jury. These critical guidelines will explain precisely how jurors should assess the evidence presented and apply relevant complex federal laws to each specific charge Combs faces. Following these instructions, the twelve-member jury will retreat to begin their deliberations in private.
Defense Frames Case as “Tale of Two Trials”
Lead defense attorney Marc Agnifilo presented a lengthy, at times emotionally charged, closing argument. He characterized the entire proceedings as fundamentally unfair. Agnifilo passionately argued that this was fundamentally a “tale of two trials.” One version, he contended, was rooted in concrete evidence like text messages and videos. This version, he claimed, supported the defense’s perspective. The other version, presented by the government, was described as a “badly, badly exaggerated” and fundamentally “fake” narrative.
Agnifilo accused prosecutors of deliberately distorting aspects of Combs’ private life. He argued they spun consensual activities into alleged criminal acts. He suggested the government’s case was motivated more by “jealousy and money” than by genuine criminal behavior. The defense asserted the government specifically “targeted” Combs, portraying him as a remarkably “successful Black entrepreneur.” Agnifilo dismissed the entire trial as a mere “show,” branding the accusations as “false” and significantly “exaggerated.” He even mocked the prosecution’s case by sarcastically referencing large quantities of personal items like baby oil and lubricant seized during raids on Combs’ homes.
Admitting Flaws While Denying Federal Crimes
A central element of the defense strategy involved openly confronting certain uncomfortable realities. Agnifilo publicly acknowledged specific aspects of Combs’ lifestyle. He conceded that Combs is indeed “guilty” of being a “swinger” and that he has struggled with drug problems. He also explicitly admitted to past instances of domestic violence. “We own the domestic violence,” Agnifilo stated plainly to the jury. “It happened. That’s not charged.” However, he vehemently denied that these actions constituted the serious federal charges under consideration.
Agnifilo forcefully argued that drug-fueled sexual encounters were in fact consensual. He referred to them using terms like “freak offs” or “hotel nights.” He described them as simply part of a shared “lifestyle” among the participants. He characterized them as “date nights” in “beautiful settings” involving mutual “rapport” and “intimacy.” The defense questioned how Combs could possibly distinguish alleged trafficking incidents from entirely consensual encounters within this lifestyle.
Regarding payment, Agnifilo noted that even escorts who did not provide sexual services were compensated for their time. He argued this compensation was for their presence and time spent, not explicitly for sex. The defense largely dismissed the charge of transporting individuals for prostitution, asserting there was “no evidence” of explicit agreements for sex in exchange for money. They claimed that employees simply facilitated Combs’ admitted “lifestyle,” rather than operating a criminal enterprise. Agnifilo even noted Cassie Ventura is expected to receive $10 million from a hotel owner in relation to a separate incident, framing the case around money rather than crime.
Attacking Key Witness Credibility
Undermining the credibility of key government witnesses was a significant focus for the defense. Agnifilo challenged the testimony of former girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura Fine. He also questioned the accounts of “Jane,” an anonymous ex-lover, and “Mia,” an anonymous ex-assistant. He painted Ventura’s decade-long relationship with Combs as fundamentally a “great modern love story,” albeit one that was complicated. He insisted it was not an oppressive dynamic driven by coercion.
Agnifilo specifically addressed the widely publicized 2016 hotel assault video involving Ventura. He admitted it was “horrible” and constituted a “misdemeanor.” However, he argued that hiding it was solely to avoid “bad press,” not to evade law enforcement. He suggested disagreements over sex were comparable to typical couple’s arguments. He portrayed Ventura as exhibiting traits of a “gangster,” suggesting she was not genuinely afraid of Combs. He cited her alleged use of a “burner phone” and purported deceit. The defense notably highlighted Ventura’s $20 million civil settlement with Combs, implying a significant financial motive behind her initial lawsuit which triggered the federal investigation. They pointed out she settled this suit before testifying in the criminal trial. Agnifilo even suggested Ventura may have fabricated a rape allegation to conceal infidelity to her current husband, citing her text messages and actions afterward.
Regarding witness “Jane,” Agnifilo suggested she was a “gold digger.” He noted that Combs continues to pay her rent. This, he argued, provided her with an incentive to support him, not testify against him. He questioned the timing and provocation surrounding a physical altercation Jane described occurring in June 2024. For witness “Mia,” the defense claimed her emotional courtroom demeanor was simply “acting.” They starkly contrasted it with her social media posts depicting a seemingly bubbly persona. They also referenced a scrapbook she made for Combs. Agnifilo suggested any alleged sexual contact between Mia and Combs was consensual, claiming they only hid it from Ventura.
Disputing Specific Allegations
Agnifilo also directly countered various specific allegations. He claimed there was “no evidence” linking Combs to the fire destroying rapper Kid Cudi’s Porsche, noting a female DNA profile was found on the Molotov cocktail. He suggested Combs preferred a “good old-fashioned fist fight” to arson. Concerning the alleged kidnapping of former assistant Capricorn Clark in 2004 and 2011, Agnifilo called the claims “laughable.” He highlighted that Clark went home daily during supposed forced lie detector tests. He questioned the absence of any mention of a gun in a phone call Clark made to Kid Cudi during the 2011 incident. He suggested Clark willingly complied due to a positive working relationship with Combs. The defense minimized the drug evidence seized during the raids, calling them “personal-use drugs.” He mocked the discovery of items like lubricant and prescription pills as insignificant. Agnifilo claimed the government introduced firearm evidence solely to scare the jury, not as relevant proof.
Agnifilo concluded his argument by asking the jury for courage. He urged them to acquit Combs if the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt for the specific charges. He declared Combs “sits there innocent” of the serious federal offenses. He appealed directly to the jury to “return him to his family,” emphasizing the loyalty of Combs’ former employees as evidence against the enterprise claims.
Prosecution Argues Combs Believed He Was “Above the Law”
Assistant US Attorney Maurene Comey and fellow prosecutor Christy Slavik delivered potent closing arguments and rebuttals, vehemently urging the jury to convict Sean Combs. They argued forcefully that this case would demonstrate he is not, in fact, “above the law.” Comey asserted that Combs had “gotten away with crime after crime” for two decades. She stated that the courtroom was finally the place where his actions would face consequences. She insisted that “overwhelming evidence proves that” he is guilty as charged. The prosecution’s description of alleged acts starkly contrasted with the defense’s portrayal, depicting them as coerced through violence, threats, manipulation, and the leverage of power.
Prosecutors directly refuted the defense’s characterization of “freak offs” as consensual “beautiful evenings.” Comey described them instead as grueling, non-consensual encounters often occurring in “dark hotel rooms, covered in baby oil, awake for days with their pelvic area sore and being forced to sleep with escort after escort.” Slavik argued that hiring male escorts involved transporting them across state lines with clear intent to pay for sex, presenting text messages and an American Express statement from August 2009 detailing payment for an escort named “Jules” to travel and stay at The London hotel in New York City. She stated collecting a paycheck was payment for “work done,” regardless of the term “prostitute.” Comey dismissed the defense’s claim of merely paying for time, calling it something that “doesn’t even pass the laugh test.” Prosecutors stressed that only one instance where Combs knew or recklessly disregarded that a victim’s participation was compelled by lies, threats, or violence is sufficient to meet the legal definition of sex trafficking.
Defending Witness Credibility
A crucial element for the prosecution was defending the credibility of their witnesses against the defense’s attacks. Comey countered the defense’s arguments, asserting that Cassie Ventura had “no reason to lie.” She addressed the $20 million civil settlement, asking why Ventura would risk perjury to recount traumatic and explicit details if she wasn’t telling the truth. Comey stated that Ventura testified because she wanted “to do what’s right.” Regarding “Jane,” Comey argued that her financial incentive (rent paid by Combs) would actually lean her towards supporting Combs. Her testimony against him, therefore, was arguably more credible. Comey described the June 2024 incident with Jane as “clear cut” sex trafficking, stating Jane had “no choice” but to perform sex acts after allegedly being beaten into “submission.” For “Mia,” Comey defended her courtroom demeanor, noting Mia “physically shrank” on the stand and used a pseudonym. This, Comey argued, indicated genuine terror, not manufactured “acting.”
Prosecutors maintained that Combs systematically used his power and resources. Money, career opportunities, housing, and even drugs were depicted as “tools.” He allegedly used them to keep victims like Ventura and “Jane” “trapped.” This created a “trauma bond” that made leaving difficult. Comey described graphic alleged injuries suffered by Ventura, listing “Black eyes? A gash in her head? Getting urinated in her mouth?” as clear evidence that refuted the defense’s attempt to portray Ventura as a “winner” in the relationship. She argued that in Combs’ world, saying “no” was “never an option,” a reality that applied equally to employees and girlfriends.
Portraying a Criminal Enterprise
The prosecution depicted Combs not just as an individual facing charges, but as the head of a sophisticated “criminal enterprise.” They called him the “general” or “kingpin,” not merely a “foot soldier.” They argued he heavily relied on his employees, describing them as “loyal lieutenants” and “foot soldiers.” These staff members allegedly facilitated his actions and enforced his will, often through physical and sexual abuse. This coercion, they claimed, forced women into participating in the “freak offs.” Prosecutors argued his business operations had both “lawful and unlawful” purposes. They alleged specific instances of sex trafficking against Ventura, including the 2016 hotel assault incident, paying another man to have sex with her, and an incident at the Cannes Film Festival. They also presented jurors with sexually explicit video clips and extensive documentation, including text messages and other records, which they argued detailed dozens of these “freak-offs” and demonstrated arrangements for prostitution and trafficking. A summary witness was used to help jurors understand the volume of data.
Prosecutors stressed that sex trafficking convictions do not legally require completed sex acts; the crime is in the act of coercion and transportation for that purpose. They maintained former aide Capricorn Clark was indeed “kidnapped,” alleging Combs intended to confront Kid Cudi with a gun during that 2011 incident. Comey argued that the defense offered “lies” and “excuse after excuse,” which were merely attempts to justify Combs’ “inexcusable behavior.” She stated the violence was inseparable from the sex acts. She also clarified that drug distribution didn’t require profit; simply giving pills to individuals like Ventura and Jane constituted illegal distribution. As part of the racketeering charge, prosecutors alleged that Combs’ enterprise engaged in numerous underlying crimes, including drug distribution (“hundreds” of instances), kidnapping (three instances highlighted), the firebombing of Kid Cudi’s car, bribery (two instances, including allegedly paying a hotel security guard US$100,000 for the 2016 video), forced labor, and witness tampering allegations regarding witnesses like “Jane” and “Mia.” For a racketeering conspiracy conviction, the jury must find that Combs and another conspirator agreed to commit at least two underlying crimes, but the prosecution asserted there were “far more than two acts.” For the charges of transportation for the purposes of prostitution, prosecutors argued they proved Combs violated the law by paying for former girlfriends and others to travel for the “freak-offs.”
Frequently Asked Questions
What were the main federal charges Sean “Diddy” Combs faced in his trial?
Sean “Diddy” Combs was on trial for several very serious federal offenses. These included 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 pleaded not guilty to all counts. If convicted on all counts, he could potentially face a life sentence, with a minimum of 15 years in prison for a conviction on just one count.
How did the defense and prosecution arguments fundamentally differ on consent?
The core conflict between the defense and prosecution centered on the issue of consent. The defense, led by Marc Agnifilo, argued that alleged “freak offs” or “hotel nights” were consensual activities part of Sean Combs’ admitted “swinger” lifestyle and complex, yet consensual, relationships. They maintained payment was for time or presence, not sex, questioning how trafficking could occur if consent was given. In stark contrast, the prosecution argued these events were non-consensual, depicting women coerced through violence, threats, manipulation, and trapped by “trauma bonds.” Prosecutors contended that consent is legally irrelevant if sex trafficking occurred in even one instance, defining trafficking by the use of coercion and exploitation.
What are the next steps now that the Diddy trial closing arguments have concluded?
With closing arguments finished, the Sean Combs trial now moves to jury deliberation. On Monday, June 30, Judge Arun Subramanian will provide the twelve jurors with detailed legal instructions. These guidelines will explain how they should evaluate the evidence and apply complex federal law to each specific charge. Following these instructions, the jury will begin deliberating in private. Their task is to reach a unanimous verdict of guilty or not guilty for Sean Combs on each of the five federal charges he faces. The duration of deliberations is uncertain.
The Jury’s Monumental Task Ahead
The trial has concluded, leaving the jury with the immense responsibility of weighing the evidence and reaching a verdict. Judge Arun Subramanian’s instructions will be vital, guiding jurors on how to apply complex federal statutes concerning racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation for prostitution to the specific facts presented over seven weeks.
The twelve jurors now face the challenge of reconciling two fundamentally opposing narratives. The defense has painted a picture of a consensual, albeit controversial and flawed, lifestyle, arguing against the application of serious federal charges. The prosecution has depicted a systematic pattern of exploitation and a sophisticated criminal enterprise led by Combs, enabled by his power and resources. The outcome of the trial will ultimately hinge on how the jury evaluates witness credibility and interprets the extensive evidence presented. Their decision carries immense consequences, potentially resulting in a lengthy prison sentence, including life, if Combs is found guilty on the federal charges. This verdict is expected to significantly impact public perception and potentially set precedents in high-profile cases involving allegations of abuse and exploitation within powerful industries.
