
No verdict on first day of jury deliberations at Sean ‘Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial
The first day of deliberations saw a flurry of notes from the jury and Combs and his supporters bowing their heads in prayer in the courtroom – but no verdict.
The jury of eight men and four women are sifting through seven weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony about the rap, fashion and reality TV impresario 's propensity for violence and his sexual predilections, including drug-fuelled sex marathons dubbed 'freak-offs' or 'hotel nights'.
About an hour in, the foreperson reported that a juror might be having trouble following the 61 pages worth of instructions the judge had just read to them.
'We are concerned (the juror) cannot follow your honor's instructions,' the foreperson said in a note to Judge Arun Subramanian just after 12.30pm.
After the judge originally proposed asking the jury foreperson the nature of concerns about the fellow juror, defence lawyer Marc Agnifilo suggested caution and that it was better to say less than more.
'We can always ratchet it up. We can't ratchet it down,' Agnifilo said.
Subramanian sent his response to the jury around 2pm, reminding the panel to deliberate and to follow his instructions on the law.
The jury sent another note about three hours later asking for clarification on the part of the instructions addressing drug distribution – an allegation included in Combs' racketeering conspiracy charge.
As deliberations were happening, Combs prayed with his family and friends in the courtroom. Wearing his customary sweater and khakis, he stood facing his contingent in the audience and bowed his head with them. As they finished, they applauded, along with Combs.
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.
As he sent the jury to deliberate, Subramanian told the five alternate jurors to remain on standby at home in case they're needed at a later point.
Jurors were provided with a laptop loaded with all of the exhibits shown in court, including text messages, photographs and videos of the sexual encounters at the heart of the case.
Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to federal charges of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking – relating to two of his ex-girlfriends – and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution for allegedly arranging to fly his girlfriends and sex workers across state lines.
In closing arguments last week, federal prosecutors and Combs' defence team took their last shots at convincing jurors to convict or acquit the Grammy Award-winning founder of Bad Boy Records.
'The defendant used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted,' Assistant US Attorney Christy Slavik said. 'He thought that his fame, wealth and power put him above the law.'
She said that he used his 'close inner circle and a small army of personal staff, who made it their mission to meet the defendant's every desire, promote his power and protect his reputation at all costs'.
Defence lawyer Marc Agnifilo countered, 'This isn't about crime. It's about money." He noted that one of Combs' accusers in the criminal case also sued him in civil court.
'He is not a racketeer. He is not a conspirator to commit racketeering. He is none of these things. He is innocent. He sits there innocent. Return him to his family, who have been waiting for him,' the lawyer told jurors.
In all, 34 witnesses testified, headlined by Combs' former girlfriends Cassie – the R&B singer born Casandra Ventura – and ' Jane ', who testified under a pseudonym. Both women said he often was violent toward them. Cassie said he forced her into hundreds of sexual encounters with paid male sex workers while Jane recounted numerous 'hotel nights'.
Jurors also saw now-infamous security camera video of Combs beating, kicking and dragging Cassie at a Los Angeles hotel in 2016 and clips from videos of sexual encounters.
Combs chose not to testify, and his lawyers didn't call any witnesses in their defence case. His attorneys elected instead to challenge the accusers' credibility during lengthy cross-examination questioning.
The defence has acknowledged that Combs veered into violence, but his lawyers maintain that the sex acts were consensual. They contend that prosecutors are intruding in Combs' personal life and that he's done nothing to warrant the charges against him.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Online Citizen
3 hours ago
- Online Citizen
Louis Vuitton awarded S$900,000 in statutory damages in Singapore trademark infringement case
The Singapore High Court has ordered Ng Hoe Seng, formerly trading as EMCASE SG, to pay French luxury brand Louis Vuitton Malletier S$900,000 in statutory damages for trademark infringement. The decision, delivered by Justice Dedar Singh Gill on 2 July 2025, underscores the Singapore judiciary's strong stance against counterfeit goods and the importance of protecting brand reputation. Louis Vuitton, a renowned French fashion house, owns multiple registered trademarks in Singapore, including its iconic LV monogram and other patterns. In 2022, it discovered that Ng was selling various products such as phone cases, watch straps, pouches, wallets, and other accessories bearing counterfeit marks through Instagram accounts 'emcase_sg' and later 'emcrafts_sg'. Despite a cease-and-desist letter issued in March 2023, Ng continued selling these counterfeit goods under a new account, prompting Louis Vuitton to commence legal proceedings on 15 August 2023. Ng did not contest the suit, and a default judgment was granted in November 2023. Louis Vuitton then elected to seek statutory damages instead of proving actual losses, as allowed under section 31(5)(c) of the Trade Marks Act 1998 (2020 Rev Ed). Louis Vuitton initially sought a substantial award of S$2.9 million, using what it referred to as the 'Canadian Scale' approach, which sets fixed damages per infringement adjusted for the nature of operations. Louis Vuitton argued that the scale, used frequently in Canadian cases, should guide the assessment given the scope of Ng's activities. According to its submissions, the total claim could have amounted to approximately S$4.84 million but was capped to S$2.9 million in line with the statutory framework. Justice Gill, however, declined to adopt this method, stating, 'Using the Canadian Scale to anchor the amount of statutory damages to be awarded would, in effect, be tantamount to placing undue weight on the loss that the claimant has suffered.' He explained that Singapore's statutory damages regime requires a holistic evaluation, considering multiple factors beyond quantifiable losses. In assessing the infringement, Justice Gill described Ng's actions as 'highly flagrant,' involving repeated sales of counterfeit goods even after receiving legal warnings. He stated, 'There can be no doubt in the present case that the trade marks used by the defendant on the Offending Goods are so nearly resembling, if not identical with, the corresponding Registered Marks so as to be calculated to deceive.' The judge rejected Ng's argument that his products were 'upcycled' from authentic materials, explaining, 'Such a disclaimer is an extraneous factor which has no place in the inquiry into whether a counterfeit trade mark has been used.' The court emphasised that statutory damages in Singapore serve both compensatory and deterrent purposes. Justice Gill remarked, 'The award should be high enough to deter the defendant and others from committing the same or similar acts of infringement.' He further observed, 'When a defendant sells counterfeit goods that are not necessarily in keeping with the high standards the claimant holds itself to, then the exclusivity of the goods sold under the trade marks is diminished.' The judge also clarified the interpretation of statutory limits under Singapore law. Louis Vuitton had argued for higher limits based on the number of counterfeit marks used. However, Justice Gill held that the statutory cap applies per type of goods rather than per mark, ultimately setting the award at S$900,000, corresponding to nine types of goods. Ng's persistent non-cooperation and continued infringing activities despite legal warnings were highlighted as aggravating factors. Justice Gill stated, 'A cooperative defendant's participation in the proceedings would carry some mitigating weight in so far as it reduces the need to deter him from committing other similar instances of infringement.' By contrast, Ng's conduct warranted a firm and substantial award to reflect the seriousness of the infringement. Justice Gill concluded by affirming that deterrence was paramount: 'The need to deter other similar instances of infringement is expressly provided for under the Trade Marks Act, and it must be given effect. The quantum awarded must be sufficient to signal that such disregard for intellectual property rights will not be tolerated.'


CNA
3 hours ago
- CNA
Meeting your cloned dog for the first time
Scroll up for the next video X Meeting your cloned dog for the first time


CNA
4 hours ago
- CNA
Finding out your "pure" honey is a lie
Scroll up for the next video X Finding out your "pure" honey is a lie