Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial branded ‘total failure' of justice system
The 55-year-old rapper said nothing as his mixed verdict was read on Wednesday (0.07.25) after spending nearly a year behind bars before he heard a jury acquit him of racketeering and sex trafficking charges that could have resulted in a life sentence.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani, president of Los Angeles-based West Coast Trial Lawyers, and who has been following the case since the beginning spoke to The U.S. Sun about the outcome.
He said: 'Today's verdict is nothing less than a complete and total failure by the prosecution in what will go down as the most expensive prostitution trial in American history.'
The trial, held at a Manhattan federal courtroom, concluded on Wednesday with Combs — known professionally as Diddy — found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
Each count carries a potential maximum sentence of 10 years, with no mandatory minimum.
The charges stemmed from a September 2024 arrest, after which Combs was denied bail multiple times and has remained in custody at Brooklyn's Metropolitan Detention Center.
Rahmani, 45, president of Los Angeles-based West Coast Trial Lawyers and a former federal prosecutor, also told The U.S. Sun: 'Even though the Mann Act carries a potential 10-year maximum sentence, Diddy is going to get time served or close to it. His sentencing guideline range may be as low as 15–21 months.' He added: 'The jury has spoken and prosecutors in the prestigious Southern District of New York should take this very embarrassing loss and move on.'
In a letter obtained by The U.S. Sun, prosecutors wrote to Judge Arun Subramanian following the verdict, noting a preliminary sentencing range of 51 to 63 months.
They added 'the Government has not had adequate time to carefully consider all potentially applicable Guidelines provisions.'
Rahmani said the prosecution failed to secure cooperation from Combs' inner circle, including figures identified only as KK and D-ROC, and called the sex trafficking charges 'weak,' citing jury exposure to 'evidence of consent.'
John Day, a 49-year-old criminal defence attorney based in New Mexico, also criticised the case.
'They presented a tsunami of evidence against Diddy over many weeks, and the jurors did not buy their story,' he told The U.S. Sun.
He added: 'The government was trying to convince the jury that RICO — which was designed to go after the Mafia and mob organised crime families — should be applied to baby oil and Diddy's high-flying lifestyle in the music business, and the jury just was not convinced.'
John added: 'In retrospect, the prosecutors aimed too high with the RICO charges. He's likely to get some time in federal prison — maybe more than three or five years, but not the full 20 years he's facing after convictions on the two counts.'
Rosie O'Donnell, 62, was among the celebrities expressing anger after the verdict.
In a post on Instagram, she said: 'I guess a jury just never wants to believe that a woman stays because of power and coercion – wow – they just think women stay because what? Money – fame – 'they love the abuse' – what a f****** joke – this decision got me angry #cassie.'
Prosecutors did not call any of the civil plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits against Combs but did not have direct relationships with him. Witnesses who testified included former girlfriends and employees.
One such witness, referred to as Jane, testified under an alias.
Combs' legal team, in a letter to Judge Subramanian, argued he is not a flight risk and has been a model inmate.
'Reasonable conditions would ensure he would not have the ability to arrange to meet with escorts in the future,' the letter stated.
The defence further asserted 'the jury unambiguously rejected the government's allegations that Mr Combs ran a years-long criminal enterprise or engaged in sex trafficking – the core of the government's case.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
ABC News
21 hours ago
- ABC News
Family violence prevention advocate Kym Valentine wants changes to alcohol delivery laws
For most, a delivery driver's knock at the front door is a welcome arrival of a package eagerly waited for. For people experiencing domestic violence fuelled by alcohol, it can be a different story. "Abuse may be the bomb, alcohol the fuse, but delivery is like the guided missile that is the match," said family violence prevention advocate Kym Valentine. The former Neighbours star wants changes to how alcohol delivery laws operate to help make a difference for people experiencing domestic violence. "I can't tell you the measure of difference [this] would make for people," she said. "This is not a cure all, but this is one of the most powerful and immediate levers the government can pull to reduce the frequency and severity of domestic violence." A recommendation for lawmakers to review existing alcohol legislation was made after a national "rapid review" into preventing violence against women in May 2024. The report also included calls for more regulation of gambling and alcohol industries. If you need help immediately call emergency services on triple-0 All state and territory leaders agreed to review their jurisdictions' relevant laws in September 2024, to take practical steps to speed up action against gender-based violence. South Australia was the first to do so and has proposed changes to alcohol delivery services — something advocates want the rest of the country to follow suit on. The proposed amendments would change the hours when alcohol can be ordered from 8am-10pm to 10am-10pm. It would also add in a two-hour buffer period from ordering alcohol to delivery. This is something which could act as a "circuit breaker" in family and domestic circumstances, according to Ayla Chorley, who is the chief executive officer of the Foundation for Alcohol Research & Education. Ms Chorley said these changes were "common sense" measures. "We're at a crisis point with family and domestic violence in this country, and what that means is that we have to look at all options," she said. "This is just one of the levers that state and territory governments can consider and can pull at this point in time." Ms Chorley said there were some concerns about the influence of "very powerful" alcohol lobby groups. "We have no doubt that they are pushing very much for these reforms to be weakened," she said. She said it was important for SA to lead with its proposed legislative changes and "send a message" to other states and territories. In a statement, South Australia's Consumer and Business Affairs Minister Andrea Michaels said SA was the "leading the nation" with these reforms. "We were the first state to release a draft bill for consultation," she said. Ms Michaels said consultation had closed and feedback from all stakeholders was being considered, ahead of the bill being introduced to parliament later this year. With the state election being held in March 2026, the amendments will need to pass before then, otherwise, like all legislation which does not pass before the parliament is dissolved, it will lapse. Executive director of peak body Alcohol Beverages Australia, Alistair Coe, said it was important that any changes made were targeted and "fit for purpose". "It's been quite a few years since the liquor laws in South Australia were reviewed, so we very much welcome this review," he said. "We want to make sure that the measures that are taken are evidence based and do exactly what is intended. "We certainly don't want to disadvantage the vast majority of people that drink alcohol responsibly and also order alcohol responsibly." Mr Coe said the alcohol industry did not support the two-hour delivery buffer. "The two-hour delivery window is very convenient for many people," he said. "It's important to note that convenience does not equal harm." For Ms Valentine, she wants to see South Australia take a strong stance which can be followed by other states and territories. She urged the premiers and chief ministers who agreed to review alcohol laws to act. "Live up to what you promised," she said. "Lives actually depend on you fulfilling the promise that you made."
News.com.au
a day ago
- News.com.au
‘Pure evil': Epstein survivors and their families horrified as co-conspirator Ghislaine Maxwell suddenly framed as a ‘victim'
Multiple victims of Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell have expressed their disgust at suggestions she could receive 'preferential treatment' from the government, or perhaps even a presidential pardon. They are increasingly, palpably worried that Maxwell's monstrous crimes, particularly those committed against underage girls, are being forgotten. Maxwell, who has never admitted to her role in Epstein's sex trafficking scheme, was the person chiefly responsible for procuring minors for him to abuse. She enticed them into his orbit, groomed them, and used various methods to keep them trapped. The victims have long alleged that Maxwell also participated in the sexual abuse. Last month, as the Trump administration struggled to neutralise a public backlash against its handling of the Epstein files, the man Donald Trump had appointed Deputy Attorney-General – his own former defence lawyer, Todd Blanche – went to visit Maxwell. Mr Blanche spoke to Epstein's partner and chief co-conspirator for two days. Lawyers representing Maxwell, who are currently trying to get the Supreme Court to throw out her convictions on child sex trafficking charges, later said she had discussed about a hundred people connected to the Epstein case. Obvious fears arose among Maxwell's victims. Did the government intend to seek a shortening of her 20-year prison sentence in exchange for her co-operation? Was President Trump open to pardoning her, which would set her free immediately? And how would the obvious conflicts of interest be navigated? Mr Trump, who was friends with Epstein and Maxwell for about 15 years and whose name reportedly appears 'multiple times' in the Epstein files, wants to be absolved of any suggestion he was involved in their crimes (and, we should note, there is at the moment no evidence he was). Maxwell, obviously, wants to get out of jail, something she almost certainly cannot achieve without Mr Trump's grace. Every incentive compels her to be, ahem, helpful to the President. And this is someone with a long record of lying, including while under oath. Perhaps nothing is amiss, but the ingredients for a potentially corrupt quid pro quo are there. You can understand why Epstein's survivors are suspicious. Two other elements have fed into their building unease. First, on the fringes of America's right-wing media, some bloviaters have started to speak of Maxwell as a 'victim'. 'I think this is great,' Newsmax anchor Greg Kelly said last week, for example, referring to the government's overtures towards her. 'I do have a feeling that she just might be a victim. She just might be. There was a rush to judgment, there was a lot of chaos there for a while. 'Granted, she hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know that's apparently not good.' Apparently! (Oh, and Maxwell did much more than merely 'hang out' with Epstein, as we shall explore in a moment. Apparently some folks need to be reminded.) Second, today we learned that the government had quietly moved Maxwell from her jail in Florida to a lower security one in Texas, which houses several female celebrity inmates. The fraudster Elizabeth Holmes is there, for example. Why move Maxwell? That has not been explained. Hence an angry statement released today, co-signed by Annie and Maria Farmer, both of whom were victims of Epstein and Maxwell, plus the family of Virginia Giuffre, who did so much to expose the pair's crimes before taking her own life earlier this year. 'It is with horror and outrage that we object to the preferential treatment convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell has received,' the statement reads. 'Ghislaine Maxwell is a sexual predator who physically assaulted minor children on multiple occasions, and she should never be shown any leniency. 'Yet, without any notification to the Maxwell victims, the government overnight has moved Maxwell to a minimum security prison. This is the justice system failing victims right before our eyes. 'The American public should be enraged by the preferential treatment being given to a pedophile and a criminally charged child sex offender. 'The Trump administration should not credit a word Maxwell says, as the government itself sought charges against her for being a serial liar. 'This move smacks of a cover-up. The victims deserve better.' Some other remarks worth mentioning, here. 'My little sister is one of her victims, and so am I,' Maria Farmer told MSNBC, slamming politicians who 'want to entertain Ghislaine Maxwell' and 'act like we victims should not be heard from'. Her sister Annie told The Daily Mail any deal between the government and Maxwell would 'be devastating' and 'feel like a slap in the face'. 'It doesn't sit well that this is all happening without any involvement from the people they asked to testify in her case, or other victims,' she said. 'It's hard not to be anxious.' Theresa Helm said any leniency shown towards Maxwell 'would mean the complete crumbling of this justice system'. 'We all deserve a pathway to justice. We don't deserve to have it, yet again, robbed from us,' she told MSNBC. 'It truly does seem like an upside down world.' During an interview about Maxwell's case in 2021, which feels relevant in this discussion, Sarah Ransome described Maxwell as 'the chief orchestrator' who had 'forced' her into the room where Epstein raped her. 'It actually makes me sick that she is claiming to be a victim, or have any form of innocence' said Ms Ransome. 'This is the same woman that grabbed my arm and forced me into a room to be raped by Jeffrey. It was brutal. 'And I remember limping from Jeffrey's bedroom. I remember looking at Ghislaine, and she had this evil smirk on her face. She knew I was there to be raped, and she enjoyed it.' Speaking to CNN this week Ms Giuffre's brother, Sky Roberts, said Maxwell 'deserves to rot in prison, where she belongs'. 'Because of what she's done to my sister, and so many other women. It's absolutely a pure sense of evil,' Mr Roberts said. 'She wasn't stolen. She was preyed upon,' he added, alluding to Mr Trump's complaint this week that Epstein 'stole' staff from his Mar-a-Lago resort, including Ms Giuffre. '(Maxwell) wasn't just a recruiter. She participated, and viciously participated, with these girls, abusing them.' He said his sister described Maxwell as a 'monster' from 'a nightmare'. Journalist Tara Palmeri, who has reported extensively on the Epstein case and knows multiple victims, described recent events as 'infuriating'. 'Because I know so much about her. I know the damage she did to these girls,' Ms Palmeri said on her YouTube channel. 'So many of them are more angry with her, for the abuse, than Epstein. She was the one that violated them. She was the one that called Annie Farmer's mother and said, 'Don't worry, I'll take care of her, you can let her go to the ranch.' That was where Ghislaine Maxwell was the first one to touch Annie, and then Epstein jumped in. 'She was involved in the actual molestation of these girls. She didn't just bring them to Jeffrey Epstein.' All these comments are worth remembering, going forward. Ghislaine Maxwell was not Epstein's sidekick, she was his partner, and is no less culpable. She wasn't pulled into the web of his sex trafficking scheme – if anything, she was chiefly responsible for weaving it. She should not be pitied. Or trusted.
The Age
2 days ago
- The Age
Ghislaine Maxwell
The family of Virginia Giuffre – the American-Australian woman who was among Jeffrey Epstein's most well-known sex-trafficking accusers – said the transfer reflected 'the justice system failing victims right before our eyes'.
