Jury reaches verdict on 4 of 5 counts in Diddy trial, judge indicates they'll keep deliberating
Warning: The following story contains graphic details
NEW YORK — The jury in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial said Tuesday that it has reached a verdict on four of five counts against the hip-hop mogul and was unable to reach a decision on the top charge, racketeering conspiracy.
The judge indicated that he would instruct the jury to continue weighing the charge, echoing the sentiments of prosecutors and Combs' defence team that just two days into deliberations was too soon to give up on reaching a verdict on all counts.
Judge Arun Subramanian said he received a note at 4:05 p.m. Tuesday indicated that the jury had reached a partial verdict. The note said the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy charge because there were jurors with 'unpersuadable views' on both sides.
Combs' lawyers surrounded him at the defence table soon after the note was sent to the court. The hip-hop mogul appeared morose as they explained to him what was happening. At one point, lead defence lawyer Marc Agnifilo stepped away from the huddle, returned with a piece of paper and handed it to Combs, who read it solemnly.
Prosecutors, meanwhile, were at their table glued to their phones and laptop computers.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey suggested the judge give the jury a modified version of what's known as a Allen charge -- instructions encouraging them to keep deliberating after reaching an impasse.
Racketeering conspiracy - count 1 on the jury's verdict sheet - is the most complicated of the charges against Combs because it requires the jury to decide not only whether he ran a 'racketeering enterprise,' but also whether he was involved in committing some or all of various types of offenses, such as kidnapping and arson.
The charge falls under RICO -- the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act -- which is best known for being used in organized crime and drug cartel cases.
The jury has been deliberating since Monday. Earlier Tuesday they asked to review critical testimony from one of the prosecution's most important witnesses: the hip-hop mogul's former longtime girlfriend Cassie.
Jurors requested the testimony about 75 minutes into their second day of weighing charges that Combs used his fame, wealth and violence to force two girlfriends into drug-fueled sex marathons with male sex workers known as 'freak-offs' or 'hotel nights.'
The panel of eight men and four women asked for Cassie's account of Combs beating, kicking and dragging her at a Los Angeles hotel in 2016 -- an assault captured on now-infamous security camera footage.
They also asked to see Cassie's testimony about an incident in which she said Combs accused her of taking drugs from him and kicked her off of their yacht at the Cannes Film Festival in France in 2013. On their way back to the U.S., she said, he threatened to release explicit videos of her having sex.
In addition, the jury asked for Cassie and stripper Daniel Phillip's testimony about her jumping into his lap at a New York City hotel after, as Phillip testified, he suspected Combs had been slapping and slamming her around an adjacent room.
'Her whole entire body was shaking, like she was terrified,' said Phillip, who was at the hotel for a sexual encounter with Cassie sometime between 2012 and 2014.
Phillip testified that he asked Cassie, the R&B singer whose real name is Casandra Ventura, why she was with Combs if he was hitting her and beating her. He said he told her she was in real danger. Cassie, he said, 'basically tried to convince me that it was OK, it's OK. I'm fine, I'll be OK.'
Phillip and Cassie were among the first witnesses who testified when the trial began last month.
The jury's testimony request came soon after Combs' lawyers and prosecutors began the day haggling with Judge Arun Subramanian over a jury question left over from the end of the first day of deliberations on Monday.
Jurors wanted clarification about what qualifies as drug distribution, an aspect of the racketeering conspiracy charge that will help determine whether Combs can be convicted or exonerated on the count.
Subramanian said he would remind jurors of the instructions he gave them on that part of the case before they started deliberating on Monday. Combs' lawyers had pushed for a more expansive response, but prosecutors argued -- and Subramanian agreed -- that doing so could end up confusing jurors more.
On Monday, the panel deliberated over five hours without reaching a verdict.
Defence lawyers contend prosecutors are trying to criminalize Combs' swinger lifestyle and that, if anything, his conduct amounted to domestic violence, not federal felonies.
Combs, 55, could face 15 years in prison to life behind bars if he is convicted of all charges. Combs, as he has through the trial, conferred intently with his lawyers as they discussed responding to the jury's request. Later, he leaned forward to scrutinize something on the computer screen that sits in front of him.
After pleading not guilty, Combs chose not to testify as his lawyers built their arguments for acquittal mostly through lengthy cross examinations of dozens of witnesses called by prosecutors, including some of Combs' former employees who took the witness stand reluctantly only after being granted immunity.
When jurors first left the room to begin deliberating on Monday, Combs sat for a while slumped in his chair at the defence table before standing and turning toward three rows of spectators packed with his family and friends.
Those supporters held hands and lowered their heads in prayer, as did Combs, who was several feet from them in the well of the courtroom. After they finished, they together applauded, and so did Combs, still clapping as he turned back toward the front of the room.
Combs also showed off two books he's reading: 'The Power of Positive Thinking' by Norman Vincent Peale and 'The Happiness Advantage' by Shawn Achor.
Barely an hour into deliberations, the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge, complaining that there was one juror 'who we are concerned cannot follow your Honor's instructions. May I please speak with your Honor or may you please interview him?'
The judge decided instead to send jurors a note reminding them of their duties to deliberate and obligation to follow his instructions on the law.
By day's end, the jury seemed back on track, sending the note about drug distribution.
By Michael R. Sisak, Larry Neumeister And Jennifer Peltz.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
3 hours ago
- CTV News
Wanted man rescued from B.C. wildfire
A man was rescued after being stranded on a cliff, surrounded by a wildfire. Then he was arrested on outstanding warrants.
CTV News
5 hours ago
- CTV News
Mark Snow, composer of ‘X Files' theme, dead at 78
Los Angeles, U.S. — Mark Snow, a composer of music for television - including the distinctively eerie theme for 'The X Files' - has died at age 78, his agent confirmed. A cause of death was not provided, but Hollywood trade publication Variety said Snow died Friday at his residence in the northeastern state of Connecticut. In addition to 'The X Files' main theme, which was released as a single in 1996 and charted internationally, Snow composed the music for over 200 episodes and both feature films of the hit science fiction show about a pair of paranormal FBI investigators. Born Martin Fulterman on August 26, 1946, Snow grew up in Brooklyn, New York and attended the prestigious Juilliard School. He began composing music for television in the late 1970s, garnering 15 Emmy nominations over the course of his career. In addition to 'The X Files,' Snow composed the music for other US television series, including 'Blue Bloods,' 'Smallville' and 'Hart to Hart.' He is survived by his wife Glynnis, three daughters, and grandchildren, Variety reported.
CBC
6 hours ago
- CBC
Do we really need another Jurassic Park movie?
Another summer comes and another Jurassic Park movie comes out. This installment, Jurassic World: Rebirth, follows Zora Bennett (Scarlett Johansson) as she leads a covert team (Jonathan Bailey, Mahershala Ali) to collect dinosaur blood for a new miracle drug. But do we need another dinosaur summer blockbuster film? Today on Commotion, guest host Rad Simonpillai sits down with film critics Alison Willmore, Jackson Weaver and Rachel Ho to review Jurassic World: Rebirth. listen and follow Commotion with Elamin Abdelmahmoud on your favourite podcast player. WATCH | Today's episode on YouTube: Rad: Alison, this is the fourth in the Jurassic World series, and then, of course, the seventh in this franchise that began 32 years ago with Jurassic Park. Does this installment justify its existence? Alison: I feel like several of these Jurassic Worlds have had trouble justifying their existence, except that they've all made over a billion dollars, which I guess is the actual justification from a most basic standpoint. A constant drumbeat in Jurassic World is that people just get bored of dinosaurs easily. You know, they have to keep coming up with mutant dinosaurs to please these fickle audiences…. But it's funny that this movie actually, I think, achieves being boring. You've done it, you have finally fulfilled the prophecy. I'm such a sucker for dinosaur action. I'm, like, "Is it going to eat that guy? It ate that guy!" But in this movie, it just really struggles to come up with a reason why ScarJo and her team will have to go. It's like a video game quest, for "reasons" we need to sample blood from a big flying dinosaur and a swimming dinosaur and all. It feels like [the film] itself is frustrated with having to come up with new scenarios, while also hitting the beats we expect from a Jurassic movie. So I think it'll probably make a lot of money anyway because people are also suckers for dino action, like me. But it is the least motivated of all of these movies that I've seen so far. Rad: Jackson, you have a cast here, Oscar winners, very celebrated actors. Do they elevate this from being the typical Hollywood sequel slot? Jackson: They definitely elevate it. But they elevate it from garbage to garbage with a bow on it — really that's as best as I can say. Because we do have one of the best actors, I think, in this movie, or best characters in this movie, played by David Iacono. He plays Xavier, the lazy layabout, Pete Davidson-type character. The actor himself does such a good job of making him interesting to watch, but the writing fails him at every turn. And it fails all of the actors, because Mahershala Ali kind of does the same thing. But when you get a formulaic movie, formulas work for a reason because they have a beginning, middle, end, an arc that makes you satisfied and interested. These character archetypes do not understand why they're character archetypes. Zora Bennett, the Scarlett Johansson character, is supposed to be an Indiana Jones clone, but there's no heart to her character, no reason to care what she's doing, so she's just gruff and mean to people for no reason. The doctor character played by Jonathan Bailey is basically just Milo from the Atlantis movies — except in those movies, he wanted to find Atlantis to prove his grandpa's legacy right and to change his connection to humanity in general and find out that these things are real living beings on the page. But this doctor just likes dinosaurs, sees a dinosaur, says, "Great, dinosaurs!" and the movie just goes forward. All of it is just pointless, bad writing. That great acting — I don't think Scarlett Johansson does great, but everyone else is really good — doesn't make the movie anything more than just: this is terribly written. Rad: The best gag in this movie — and I think Alison, you might have mentioned this in your review — is that Scarlett Johansson is playing a character who is very reluctantly signing on to this dino expedition because of how many zeros are in the cheque. Jackson: Art imitates life. Rad: She was committed to the character in that sense. Rachel, this is a movie that is clearly striking out with both Alison and Jackson. Are you going to find any redeeming quality about Jurassic World: Rebirth? Rachel: Yeah, I loved it. No, I'm kidding. It wasn't good. I will say: there's an incredible, impressively gratuitous use of John Williams's score in this, and it's one of the best scores that has ever been created for film, in my opinion. And every chance that they had to throw those notes in, they did it. And in a movie like this, I'll say that was probably the best part. I enjoyed listening to the score. It's a really beautiful score and I can listen to that over and over and over again. And that was probably the only thing that I went, "Oh that's really cool, I enjoyed listening to this." Other than that, though, I don't know why we're fighting heart disease in a Jurassic Park movie. I think that's very strange. The reasoning to go after the large dinosaurs? They go: "Because they have big hearts." And no one laughed in the theater. I thought that was really funny. But nobody laughed. At this point, it almost feels insulting. They're just actively trying to go on the offensive against the original movie. I don't know why Steven Spielberg's an executive producer on this one. But I fail to find enough good things to talk about it that would justify recommending it to anybody — unless you want to listen to the John Williams score again.
