home

Sean "Diddy" Combs: Beats Biggest Charges But Bail Denied

Yesterday, with less than two full days of deliberations under their belt, jurors in the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial sent a note to the judge saying they had reached a verdict on four of the five counts against Combs. They said they were unable to agree on count 1, the RICO (Organized Crime) conspiracy charge. The note said more than one juror was intransigent in their position. The judge told them to keep at it. The jury returned this morning and quickly sent the Judge a note that they had reached an agreement on Count 1.

The jury acquitted Combs on the three most serious counts (the RICO conspiracy and two sex trafficking charges) and convicted him on the much less serious "Mann Act" counts -- transporting or aiding and abetting the transport of an individual across state lines with the intent having the transported person engage in prostitution. The named victims were Cassie Ventura in Count 3 and "Jane" in Count 5.

The full jury instructions are here. When the verdict was read, Combs and his family and legal team were all elated and relieved. Gone is the threat of life in prison, or anything close to it. [See section below the fold for the parties' respective preliminary sentencing guideline calculations, which range from 15 to 21 months (defense) and 57-71 months (government)].

The defense immediately asked for bail pending sentencing. The Judge told the parties to submit arguments in writing by 1:00 pm. He set a hearing for later today at 5:00 pm.

At the hearing, the Judge denied bond.[More...]

I think the defense submissions for bail (here and Reply here) are more convincing than what the Government submitted (available here).

In my view, the Government's submission borders on disingenuous. If not that, at least wishful thinking. It twists and turns itself into a pretzel as it tries to turn a Mann Act violation into a crime in which the two named victims are victims in one scenario and perpetrators in another. It morphs a Mann Act charge into a crime of violence by ignoring the legislative history of a big amendment to the statute and then dregs up details from the charged acts of racketeering to show Combs would be a danger if released on bond, when the jury never had to render a verdict on whether any acts of racketeering had been proven once it concluded the Government failed to meet its burden of proof on the RICO conspiracy.

The reason I uploaded both parties' submissions on bond is that they also include each side's preliminary calculations as to the sentencing guideline range for Combs. They are quite different. The defense thinks Diddy's guidelines are 15 to 21 months (of which he's already served 10 in pretrial detention) while the Government, in pretzel mode again, tries to throw the book at him by adding on various guideline enhancements to arrive at range of 57 to 71 months. You can read the defense view of what's wrong with the Government's approach in its Reply to the Government's motion.

I'll wait before weighing in on the guideline calculations, but as to bond, given that risk of flight was not an issue (and Combs was ordered detained pending trial only on grounds of dangerousness), I think the far lesser penalties he is now facing, his acquittal on the RICO conspiracy and sex trafficking charges, and the ability to put him on home detention at his mansion on the uber-exclusive, gated community of Star Island, and a restriction on his visitors to his immediate family, lawyers and business advisors, would be sufficient to minimize, if not eliminate, any risk of him harming another person or the community before sentencing.

< The Big Bad Bill Passes Senate
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Not sure why some trials are televised (none / 0) (#1)
    by McBain on Thu Jul 03, 2025 at 08:57:14 AM EST
    and some aren't.  Maybe this wasn't because of federal charges?  Whatever the case, I wasn't able to follow closely.  Lots of people are upset with the verdicts but I doubt many of them know what evidence was presented.

     

    No federal trials are televised except to victims (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 03, 2025 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    Federal rules prohibit it. See Rule 53 of the federal rules of criminal procedure.

    It took special legislation by Congress to run a video feed from the courtroom to a designated place in that Oklahoma City where victims (only victims) could go to watch the trial of Timothy McVeigh in the OKC bombing case.  Reporters were excluded.

    Originally part of the horrible Biden-Clinton 1996 Anti-Terrorism law, it's now been transferred to
    Title 38 of the US Code, section 20142:

    20142. Closed circuit televised court proceedings for victims of crime
    (a) In general

    Notwithstanding any provision of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to the contrary, in order to permit victims of crime to watch criminal trial proceedings in cases where the venue of the trial is changed-

    (1) out of the State in which the case was initially brought; and

    (2) more than 350 miles from the location in which those proceedings originally would have taken place;

    the trial court shall order closed circuit televising of the proceedings to that location, for viewing by such persons the court determines have a compelling interest in doing so and are otherwise unable to do so by reason of the inconvenience and expense caused by the change of venue.
    (b) Limited access
    (1) Generally

    No other person, other than official court and security personnel, or other persons specifically designated by the court, shall be permitted to view the closed circuit televising of the proceedings.

    What ultimately happened in McVeigh:

    Under plans outlined by the judge, the trial will be televised in an auditorium that seats 330 people at a Federal Aviation Administration complex at the Oklahoma City airport. He will appoint a "special master" to preside there and to maintain the same decorum he insists upon in his own courtroom.

    The camera was not really visible unless you searched for it, which I did not. I don't think I ever gave it any thought.

    Also, people are not allowed to take pictures or record anything inside the courtroom and if you are caught doing that, you will be ejected by the Marshals. It's always been that way.


    Parent

    I think (none / 0) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jul 03, 2025 at 03:21:54 PM EST
    it depends on the judge and the district as to whether it is televised.

    Parent
    I thought from the beginning that (none / 0) (#4)
    by Peter G on Fri Jul 04, 2025 at 01:44:37 PM EST
    the Combs case was overcharged. The verdict seems about right to me. Juries are often quite wise.