In the ongoing legal saga of Sean “Diddy” Combs, his defense attorney delivered an impassioned plea to a jury, urging them to exonerate the music icon. The lawyer contended that federal prosecutors had exaggerated and misrepresented Combs’ personal lifestyle choices, such as drug use and a swinger lifestyle, in an attempt to paint him as guilty of grave charges like sex trafficking and racketeering. The allegations, if proven, could potentially result in a life sentence for Combs.
The courtroom, overseen by Judge Arun Subramanian, was set to begin jury deliberations on Monday. Combs’ legal representative, Marc Agnifilo, criticized the prosecution’s approach during a comprehensive four-hour closing argument. Infusing his delivery with casual remarks and humorous observations, Agnifilo accused the prosecution of hyperbolizing the accusations and demeaned the federal agents involved in the raids on Combs’ properties, where items like baby oil and lubricant were confiscated.
Agnifilo further argued that the government had singled out Combs to unfairly prosecute him, while numerous alleged co-conspirators remain uncharged. This tactic irritated both the prosecutors and the judge. Responding to the defense, Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey countered that Combs’ defense was merely an attempt to distract jurors from his alleged “inexcusable criminal behavior,” arguing that in Combs’ world, the concept of “no” was non-existent.
Throughout the trial, Combs remained focused, absorbing his lawyer’s arguments. The seven-week trial proceeded without Combs taking the stand, and the defense refrained from calling any witnesses. Among the court attendees were Combs’ family, including his mother and six children, supporting him through the legal proceedings.
Allegations from Combs’ former girlfriend, R&B artist Cassie, and another witness using the name “Jane” portrayed him as coercing their involvement in “freak-offs” or drug-infused sexual events with male sex workers, where Combs allegedly observed and filmed. Agnifilo presented these claims as invasions into Combs’ private affairs rather than legitimate criminal acts. He scoffed at the prosecution’s claim of numerous racketeering acts, likening the need for evidence to a comical scenario from the movie “Jaws.”
Agnifilo suggested that the series of allegations targeting Combs were financially motivated, with the intent to exploit his wealth through lawsuits. He highlighted Cassie’s significant $20 million settlement from an abuse lawsuit filed against Combs, which not only stirred media attention but also spurred federal criminal investigations. Agnifilo labeled Cassie as a clear beneficiary in the legal controversy.
While admitting to violent behavior, Agnifilo emphasized that such actions did not warrant the severe charges of racketeering and sex trafficking Combs was facing. Describing Combs and Cassie’s relationship as a deeply affectionate but complex bond, Agnifilo suggested that their interactions were far removed from criminal enterprises.
The defense juxtaposed Cassie’s claims with video footage from a 2016 hotel incident showing Combs assaulting her. Although Agnifilo acknowledged the violence depicted, he contested the prosecution’s interpretation linking it to coercive sex trafficking. Instead, he proposed that Combs’ aggression was about retrieving his phone rather than enforcing participation in a “freak-off.”
In the prosecution’s concluding argument, Comey stressed that allegations of domestic abuse cannot be used as a defense for sex trafficking accusations, intending to refocus the jury’s attention on the core issues at hand. As the trial drew to a close, the jurors were left to sift through the intricate narratives presented by both the defense and prosecution.