A jury in New York is now tasked with deciding the fate of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, following weeks of explosive testimony and a trial that’s drawn national attention.
The 12 jurors began reviewing extensive evidence on Monday—including thousands of documents and the testimonies of 34 witnesses—after nearly two months of emotional and, at times, disturbing court proceedings. At the heart of the case are serious allegations: that Combs used his influence, status, and money to orchestrate a network that exploited women for sex over a number of years.
Now 55, Combs is facing multiple federal charges, including sex trafficking and racketeering. If convicted, he could spend the rest of his life in prison. Combs has denied all allegations.
During closing arguments on Friday, his defense team painted a very different picture. His lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, challenged the integrity of the accusers, suggesting their motives were financial and emphasizing that Combs had only been involved in “complicated” but consensual relationships.
Prosecutors, however, pushed back hard. Lead prosecutor Maurene Comey accused Combs of believing he was “untouchable,” saying he manipulated women into silence for years. “That ends in this courtroom,” she told jurors. “The defendant is not a god.”
At the core of the prosecution’s argument are two women: singer Cassie Ventura and another identified only as Jane. Both shared gut-wrenching stories of physical abuse, threats, and coercion. They described how emotional manipulation and fear blurred their ability to consent—stories the defense dismissed as exaggerated or fabricated.
While Combs’ team admitted to incidents of domestic violence, they insisted those acts did not amount to organized crime or sex trafficking. Still, prosecutors claimed Combs built an environment where loyalty to him meant enabling harm—through coercion, coverups, and silence.
The jury also heard from a forensic psychologist who explained how victims in abusive relationships may continue communicating with their abusers, which the defense tried to use as evidence of mutual consent.
Central to the government’s case is the accusation that Combs controlled a network of employees and associates who helped maintain his dominance—allegedly participating in acts like forced labor, arson, witness tampering, and intimidation. However, none of these individuals took the stand, and none have been charged alongside him.
Many witnesses, however, were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony.
To secure a conviction for racketeering, prosecutors must convince the jury that Combs collaborated with at least one person to commit two or more crimes listed under that charge.
Judge Arun Subramanian is expected to walk the jury through the legal framework before they begin their deliberations. The panel—eight men and four women—must agree unanimously on each charge to reach a verdict.
Now, all eyes are on the jury room, where Combs’ future hangs in the balance.
