(New York) The Jury of the Sean “Diddy” trial Combs for sexual traffic announced on Tuesday that it had rendered his verdict on four of the five charges retained against the hip-hop magnate, but could not decide on the chief of accusation, that of racket conspiracy.
The judge said that he would ask the jury to continue the assessment of the accusation, thus taking up the feeling of the prosecutors and the defense of Combs according to which, after only two days of deliberations, it was too early to give up a verdict on all the counts.
Judge Arun Subramanian said he received a note on Tuesday at 4:05 p.m. indicating that the jury had made a partial verdict. This note specified that the jury had not reached a unanimous verdict on the accusation chief of racketeering, because some jurors had “unconvincing opinions” on both sides.
The lawyers of Combs surrounded him at the defense table shortly after sending the note to the court. The hip-hop magnate seemed gloomy. At one point, the main defense lawyer Marc Agnifilo, moved away from the meeting, returned with a paper and handed it over to Combs, which solemnly read it.
Meanwhile, prosecutors were at their table, riveted to their phones and laptops.
The assistant prosecutor Maurene Comey suggested to the judge to give the jury a modified version of what is called “the Allen accusation”, instructions encouraging jurors to continue their deliberations after a dead end.
Racket’s conspiracy – number 1 number 1 accusation of the jury’s verdict – is the most complex accusation chiefs held against Combs, because he forces the jury to determine not only if he directed a “racketeering business”, but also if it was involved in the commission of all or a part of various types of offenses, as kidnapping and criminal fire.
The accusation is a matter of the Rico (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization Acts “law), best known for its application in organized crime and drug cartels.
The jury has been deliberating since Monday. Earlier Tuesday, the jurors asked to examine the crucial testimony of one of the most important witnesses to the accusation: Cassie, the former long-standing companion of the hip-hop magnate.
The jurors asked for the testimony about 75 minutes after the start of their second day of accusations evaluating accusations, according to which Combs used his celebrity, his fortune and his violence to force two of his girlfriends to sex under the influence of drugs with sex workers, known as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights”.
The jury, made up of eight men and four women, asked Cassie the story of the blows and trail of Combs in a hotel in Los Angeles in 2016 – an assault filmed by images of now famous security cameras.
They also asked to see Cassie’s testimony concerning an incident during which she said, Combs accused her of having taken her drugs and would have expelled her from their yacht at the Cannes Film Festival. On the way back to the United States, she said, he would have threatened to broadcast explicit sex videos.
In addition, the jury asked for the testimony of Cassie and the Nude Daniel Phillip dancer, who said that she had jumped on him in a New York hotel after Mr. Phillip suspected Combs de Gifler and to shake it up in an adjacent room.
“She was shaking with all her body, as if she were terrified,” said Daniel Phillip, who was at the hotel for sex with Cassie between 2012 and 2014.
He explained that he had asked the singer of R&B Cassie, his real name Casandra Ventura, why she was with Combs if he struck and beat her. He said he told her that she was in real danger. Cassie, he said, “has mainly tried to convince me that everything was fine”.
Daniel Phillip and Cassie were among the first witnesses when the trial began last month.
The jury’s request for testimony intervened shortly after the lawyers and the combat prosecutors began to negotiate with judge Arun Subramanian about a question that remained unanswered after the end of the first day of deliberations on Monday.
The jurors wanted clarification on what constitutes a drug distribution, an aspect of the accusation of racket conspiracy which will make it possible to determine whether Combs can be condemned or exempt from this charge.
Judge Subramanian explained that he would remind jurors the instructions he had given them on this point before the start of the deliberations on Monday. Combs lawyers had insisted for a more detailed response, but the prosecutors argued – and judge Subramanian accepted – that this could disrupt the jurors more.
On Monday, the jury deliberated for more than five hours without reaching a verdict.
Defense lawyers argue that prosecutors are trying to criminalize the swinging lifestyle of Combs and that, if necessary, its behavior constitutes domestic violence and not federal crimes.
A sentence that can go as far as life
Combs, 55, risks a sentence ranging from 15 years in prison to life if he is found guilty of all the counts. As he did throughout the trial, Combs spoke intensely with his lawyers to discuss the response to the jury’s request. Later, he looked to examine the computer screen in front of him.
After pleading non-guilty, Combs chose not to testify, his lawyers having built their acquittal arguments mainly by long counter-examination of dozens of witnesses cited by the accusation, including some of his former employees who only testified as a contribution after obtaining immunity.
On Monday, when the jurors left the room to start deliberating, Combs remained sitting for a while, sprawled on his chair at the Table de la Défense, before getting up and turning to three rows of spectators, among which his family and friends were.
These supporters stood their hand and lowered their heads as a sign of prayer, just like Combs, which was a few meters from them in the courtroom. After finishing, they applauded together, just like Combs, who continued to applaud while turning forward in the room.
Combs also showed two books that he read: The power of positive thought from Norman Vincent Peale and The advantage of happiness from Shawn.
Barely an hour after the start of the deliberations, the president of the jury sent a note to the judge, complaining that a juror “could not follow the instructions of your honor. Can I meet with your honor or could you question it? »»
Rather, the judge decided to send a note to the jurors reminding them of their duty to deliberate and their obligation to follow his legal instructions.
At the end of the day, the jury seemed again on the right track, sending the note concerning the distribution of drugs.
