Diddy Was Just Convicted of 2 Sex Crimes: How Much Time Will He Spend in Prison?
Thirty four witnesses testified during the weeks-long trial, including his ex-girlfriend Casandra "Cassie" Ventura
Combs was accused of coercing women to participate in drug-fueled "freak off" parties and running a criminal enterprise over two decadesA Manhattan jury reached a verdict on Wednesday, July 2 finding that Sean "Diddy" Combs was guilty of prostitution charges.
The music mogul was acquitted of the most serious charges - sex trafficking and racketeering - after a seven-week trial.
Combs was found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor and legal commentator, says Combs may not be given a lengthy sentence.
'He is likely going to get little to no time," he tells PEOPLE. "He may even get time served and prostitution has a 10 year maximum. But the fact that he was acquitted of the most serious counts, The government would not have brought this case had they thought they could only get prostitution.'
"[This was] a huge overwhelming win by the defense and a tremendous loss for the prosecution," says Rahmani. "There is no other way to spin it. This is the most expensive prostitution trial in American history."
Rahmani says Combs will most likely stay in jail pending a pre-sentence report and a report from U.S. probation but he expects the rapper's attorneys to ask for a bond to have him released immediately.
"The judge may actually grant bond because he's been acquitted of the most serious counts," says Rahmani. "So I would expect them to make a renewed motion for bond. But even if that motion is denied, he's going to be out soon."
Thirty-four witnesses testified during the weeks-long trial, including Combs' ex-girlfriend Casandra 'Cassie' Ventura.
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Combs coerced Ventura and another woman who testified under the pseudonym "Jane," to take part in drug-fueled marathon sex sessions called "freak off" parties or 'hotel nights" that sometimes lasted for days.
Combs was also accused of running a criminal enterprise over two decades — with help from his staff and inner circle — that committed crimes including arson, bribery and kidnapping.
Combs, she said, enlisted 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,' according to the AP.
His defense attorney argued that Combs, who did not testify, was innocent of all charges against him.
'Return him to his family, who have been waiting for him,' Marc Agnifilo said, per AP.
Want to keep up with the latest crime coverage? Sign up for for breaking crime news, ongoing trial coverage and details of intriguing unsolved cases.
During the trial, the jury was also shown the infamous video of Combs chasing, beating and kicking Ventura in a Los Angeles hotel lobby in 2016. She alleged the attack took place when she was trying to leave a Freak Off session.
The seven-week trial had plenty of dramatic moments outside the explosive testimony. At one point, a woman yelled several profanities before Judge Arun Subramanian ordered her removed from the courtroom.
"These motherf—ers are laughing at you," the woman yelled at Combs.
She then said, "you're laughing at a black man's legacy" and "pull your gun out ninja, I dare you."
Read the original article on People
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Boxer Chavez's appeal against arrest if deported from US rejected: Mexico prosecutor
Julio Cesar Chavez Jr., whose sports career is on the decline at the age of 39, is alleged to have ties to the Sinaloa cartel (Harry How) Mexico's attorney general office said a court has so far rejected requests from boxer Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. to not be arrested in the event of his deportation from the United States, where he was detained for alleged drug trafficking ties. Chavez, a former world champion and the son of legendary Mexican fighter Julio Cesar Chavez, was arrested Wednesday in Los Angeles after authorities determined that he was in the country illegally. Advertisement His defense attorneys "have presented us" with "five or six injunctions" from the boxer "to have him released as soon as he arrives in Mexico," Attorney General Alejandro Gertz said at a press conference on Sunday. These injunctions were rejected because Chavez has not yet been handed over to Mexican authorities, he said. His deportation could be decided at an immigration hearing, which according to the defense team, will be held on Monday. Chavez, whose sports career is on the decline at the age of 39, is alleged to have ties to the Sinaloa cartel, one of six Mexican drug trafficking groups designated as terrorist organizations by the United States. Advertisement Following his arrest, US authorities announced Thursday that they were processing his "expedited removal" and referred to the charges against him in Mexico. The attorney general's office confirmed in a statement after his arrest last week that Mexico had issued an arrest warrant for Chavez in 2023 "for organized crime and arms trafficking." Chavez's defense team has rejected the accusations and maintained that his arrest seeks to "terrorize the community" amid raids against undocumented migrants. Chavez's arrest came days after his lopsided loss to YouTuber-turned-boxer Jake Paul in a cruiserweight bout before a sell-out crowd at the Honda Center in Anaheim, California. Advertisement Once a top-rated boxer, Chavez won the WBC middleweight world title in 2011 and successfully defended it three times. He owns a record of 54-7 with one draw, but his career has also included multiple suspensions and fines for failed drug tests. sem/das/abh/dhc
Yahoo
33 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Australian Erin Patterson convicted of mushroom murders
By Alasdair Pal SYDNEY (Reuters) -An Australian woman was on Monday convicted of murdering three elderly relatives of her estranged husband with a meal laced with poisonous mushrooms, and attempting to murder a fourth, in a case that gripped the country. Erin Patterson, 50, was charged with the murders of her mother-in-law Gail Patterson, father-in-law Donald Patterson and Gail's sister, Heather Wilkinson, along with the attempted murder of Ian Wilkinson, Heather's husband. The four had gathered at Erin Patterson's home in Leongatha, a town of about 6,000 people some 135 km (84 miles) southeast of Melbourne, where the mother of two served them individual Beef Wellingtons that were later found to contain death cap mushrooms. On Monday, the jury in the case found her guilty of all four charges. Patterson had pleaded not guilty to all charges, saying the deaths were accidental. She will be sentenced at a later date and faces a maximum life sentence. The 10-week trial in Morwell, a town around two hours east of Melbourne where Patterson had requested the case be heard, attracted huge global interest. Local and international media descended on Court 4 at the Latrobe Valley Magistrates' Court the nearest court to Patterson's home, despite being warned of lengthy delays. State broadcaster ABC's daily podcast on proceedings was consistently among the most popular in Australia during the trial, while several documentaries on the case are already in production. MAJOR DECEPTION The prosecution, led by barrister Nanette Rogers, told the court that Patterson had employed four major deceptions in order to murder her guests. She first fabricated a cancer diagnosis to lure the guests to the lunch, poisoning their meals while serving herself an untainted portion, Rogers told the court. Patterson then lied that she was also sick from the food to avoid suspicion, before finally embarking on a cover-up when police began investigating the deaths, attempting to destroy evidence and lying to police, the prosecution said. Patterson, who said during the trial she had inherited large sums of money from her mother and grandmother, retained a four-person legal team, led by Colin Mandy, one of Melbourne's top criminal barristers. She was the only witness in her defence, spending eight days on the stand, including five days of cross-examination. Patterson told the court about a life-long struggle with her weight, an eating disorder and low self-esteem, frequently becoming emotional as she spoke about the impact of the lunch on the Patterson family and her two children. She had lied about having cancer not to lure the guests to the lunch to kill them, but because she was looking for their help with telling her children and was embarrassed to say that she actually planned to have weight loss surgery, she told the court. Patterson had also not become as sick as her lunch guests because she secretly binged on a cake brought by her mother-in-law and then purged herself, she told the court. The jury of seven men and five women retired on June 30, taking a week to reach a verdict. Justice Beale gave the jurors in the trial special dispensation to avoid jury duty for the next 15 years, due to the length and complexity of the case.
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump administration's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
BOSTON (AP) — A federal bench trial begins Monday over a lawsuit that challenges a Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Trump and members of his administration, would be one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 'The policy's effects have been swift. Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence," the plaintiffs wrote in their pretrial brief. 'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.' Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies. Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities. Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war. Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.' 'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.' They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically." But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. "Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it," plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'
