In New York, jurors at the sex trafficking trial of music icon Sean “Diddy” Combs were given a closer look at the explicit content that forms the core of the case against him. On Monday, prosecutors showcased clips from videos that Combs allegedly filmed during what has been described as drug-laden “freak-off” parties. These clips were sourced from a cellphone linked to Combs, provided by his former partner Cassie, revealing in detail the activities the jurors had been hearing about since May 12 when testimonies began.
One particular video presented to the court was from October 14, 2012. This date is significant because it coincides with allegations that Combs participated in a “freak-off” event in New York City with Cassie and a sex worker by the name of Sharay Hayes, who is also known as “The Punisher.” To substantiate the timeline, jurors were shown an invoice for a hotel stay on the same date at the Trump International Hotel & Tower. The booking, made under the alias Frank Black, was scheduled for 3 a.m.
Text messages corroborating the meetup were also submitted as evidence. In them, Cassie, whose real name is Cassandra Ventura, could be seen arranging the meeting with Hayes, specifically requesting the 3 a.m. time at the Trump hotel. Hayes confirmed the details and mentioned his rate, set at $200 in cash.
Besides the October 14 clip, the jury also viewed parts of videos from October 20, 2012, and December 4, 2014. Despite the graphic nature of these videos, jurors largely maintained a composed demeanor, though one juror did visibly react. Defense attorneys argue that these videos offer evidence of consensual encounters, not criminal acts.
Given their explicit content, viewing of the video excerpts was restricted to the jury, the legal teams, and Combs himself, all equipped with headphones for the sound. Journalists and the public were barred from witnessing the footage.
The videos stood out as the most significant aspect of an otherwise procedural day in court, wherein prosecutors introduced summary witnesses—primarily government agents who detailed text messages, travel logs, and other documentary evidence. After an extensive six weeks of presenting evidence and witnesses, the prosecution intends to conclude its case by Wednesday, after which time Combs’ defense team plans to begin calling their own witnesses.
During previous testimony, a forensic video expert hired by the prosecution affirmed the dates of the videos, and the prosecution had previously described them as “sex videos.” Prior to this, the jury had only seen static images from the alleged “freak-off” recordings.
Sean Combs, aged 55, faces charges of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy following his September arrest at a New York hotel. Repeated attempts to secure bail have been denied, resulting in his continued detention in a Brooklyn federal facility.
On Monday, jurors were exposed to more messages, including communications from Combs’ former girlfriend identified as “Jane,” who expressed distress over the sex marathons and worried over threats that Combs might disseminate explicit tapes to third parties.
“Jane” chastised Combs in the wake of a 2023 lawsuit filed by Cassie, alleging sexual and physical abuse, which quickly resulted in a settlement. Jane’s relationship with Combs, lasting from 2021 until his arrest, saw her accuse him of exploiting her through their “dark and humiliating lifestyle.” A month subsequent to these events, she messaged Combs’ chief of staff, Kristina Khorram, detailing his threats to send her sex tapes to her child’s father and asked for assistance during what she described as one of Combs’ “psychotic bipolar” episodes.
Additionally, before the proceedings on Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian excused a juror due to discrepancies in his statements regarding residence, declaring the juror’s honesty as questionable. Although defense attorneys objected that replacing the juror with a white man might impact the jury’s diversity, the judge decided no further questioning was warranted to prevent further inconsistencies.
Ultimately, citing the juror’s unreliable responses, Subramanian concluded that restoring credibility was unattainable. This decision illustrates the complexity and sensitivity involved in maintaining a fair and impartial jury amid high-profile cases.