Jury Delivers Verdict on 4 of 5 Diddy Charges as Judge Signals Ongoing Deliberation

NEW YORK — Sean “Diddy” Combs awaits a jury’s verdict in his high-profile sex trafficking trial, where jurors have reached a decision on four of the five charges against him. However, the critical charge of racketeering conspiracy remains under deliberation.

Judge Arun Subramanian instructed the jury to continue their discussions after they expressed difficulty reaching a unanimous agreement on the racketeering charge. This directive came after just two days of deliberation, emphasizing the importance of thorough examination.

Late Tuesday, the jury sent a note indicating they were split, with jurors holding “unpersuadable views” on the matter. Combs displayed visible concern as his attorneys briefed him on these developments. His mother and children were also present in the courtroom for support.

Subramanian reminded the jury of their duty to engage in meaningful discussions to reach a consensus. The accusations against Combs include claims that he employed his power and influence to coerce two former girlfriends into participating in drug-fueled sexual encounters with male sex workers.

Combs has maintained his innocence, suggesting that the prosecution seeks to vilify his personal lifestyle. His defense argues that if any laws were violated, it stemmed from personal disputes rather than criminal activity.

Should he be convicted on all counts, the 55-year-old mogul faces a potential prison sentence ranging from 15 years to life. The racketeering conspiracy charge demands a complex evaluation from the jury, involving discussions on various allegations, including kidnapping and arson.

This charge falls under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), traditionally associated with organized crime cases. Earlier in the trial, jurors sought to revisit testimony from key witnesses, including Combs’ former girlfriend, Cassie Ventura.

The jury showed interest in Cassie’s recounting of an alleged assault by Combs in 2016, evidenced by security footage. They also requested details regarding an incident in 2013 at the Cannes Film Festival, where Combs purportedly threatened Cassie with explicit video exposure.

One witness, stripper Daniel Phillip, reported observing Cassie in distress, highlighting her fear during their encounter. His testimony suggested that Combs’s behavior in the neighboring hotel room was alarming.

During deliberations, confusion arose regarding the definition of drug distribution within the context of the charges. Jurors expressed concerns over compliance with the judge’s guidance, prompting a reminder about their legal obligations.

In a notable decision, Combs chose not to testify throughout the proceedings. His legal team primarily focused on cross-examining prosecution witnesses, many of whom were compelled to testify after being granted immunity.