Unpacking the Sean Combs trial
What’s at stake when the defense admits violence and sex?
By Mimi Rocah
Very few things have pierced the endless news cycle of President Donald Trump’s brazen attacks on our democracy since Jan. 20, but one thing that has broken through is the trial of hip hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs that began this week. We need only remember O.J. Simpson, Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, and Harvey Weinstein, to name a few, to know that the media and people around the world are riveted by stories about celebrities who have long falls from grace. But there is something much more serious and universal contained in the allegations here that I want to highlight.
Let’s start with the background and charges. Combs was arrested by federal agents on charges brought by prosecutors in the Southern District of New York in September 2024. Combs is charged in a five-count indictment that alleges that for about two decades (since about 2004) he abused, threatened, and coerced women and others and led a racketeering conspiracy that engaged in a whole host of crimes: sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, witness tampering, and bribery. He is also charged with substantive crimes of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion of victims, and interstate transportation to engage in prostitution (i.e., commercial sex acts). What does that mean in plain (somewhat legally oversimplified) English? Combs is accused of being a serial abuser who orchestrated “drug-fueled coercive sex marathons” with male prostitutes (the sex trafficking) through physical violence and threats about the women’s careers and reputation (force, fraud, or coercion). Prosecutors claim Combs used employees and the resources of his business empire to help make all of this happen by, for example, setting up hotel rooms, procuring drugs, arranging for male prostitutes, and paying women to keep them under Combs’s financial control. And, when Combs became violent, the employees managed the aftermath through cover-ups (the enterprise and obstruction crimes). The use of the racketeering statute— historically used for organized crime cases—allows the government to bring in a whole host of conduct for which the statute of limitations would otherwise have expired and to give the jury a broader narrative.
For its part, the defense came right out of the gate in opening statements and acknowledged some of the most shocking allegations against Combs: he had a temper, got violent when he drank alcohol or used drugs, and had committed domestic violence. However, they are arguing, that does not equal guilt of racketeering or sex trafficking. According to defense lawyer Teny Geragos, who delivered the opening statement, “Had he been charged with domestic violence or assault, we would not be here right now.” This strategy—a very smart one—is driven at least in part by the fact that admitted into evidence and played for the jury (several times already) is video footage from a hotel security camera and a hotel security officer’s cell phone from 2016 in which Combs can be seen beating his former long-time girlfriend Cassandra Ventura when she tried to leave that night. In her opening, Geragos acknowledged that the violence on display was “indefensible,” “horrible,” and “dehumanizing” but claimed “it is not evidence of sex trafficking … it is evidence of domestic violence.” In addition, the defense strategy seems to be to shame the government (and perhaps make jurors nervous) in asserting that this is just kinky sex and “the government has no place in this man’s bedroom.”
The trial has only been underway a few days and is expected to last approximately two months. So, there is a long way to go, and it is way too early to make any predictions. In addition, without cameras in the courtroom (as in the O.J. trial), it is so much harder to know and understand the nuances that the jury is seeing and hearing in the witnesses and some of the evidence they are seeing that even the press (rightly, I think) is not allowed to see, such as videos and photos from the sex parties. In addition to all of the remaining evidence, closing arguments tend to be very important in any trial but especially so in one like this where the prosecutors really have to tie everything together into their overarching somewhat complex (but warranted) theory of the case. I do see one particular risk in the defense strategy that no one seems to be talking about: Saying what the jury is clearly seeing is not evidence of sex trafficking but “only” domestic violence makes it sound as if a personal relationship between abuser and victim makes the sex trafficking charge and aspect impossible. That flies in the face of what prosecutors, experts (if called), and most people (and therefore jurors) understand today: that it is often the most intimate and personal relationships in which the worst abuse can occur because of dependency and other factors.
One aspect of the charges really worth highlighting is the accusation that Combs secretly recorded some of these sexual encounters and then used those videos to essentially blackmail victims not to leave and not to report him. If these allegations are proved, it will put Combs in line with countless other predators who prey on vulnerable people with a crime that federal authorities call “sextortion.” Sextortion is a growing problem, but it is, at least some measure, a preventable one, through education and awareness. If this trial helps shine a light on this horrific crime plaguing our most vulnerable, then it will be doing a public service in addition to merely serving our prurient interests.
Mimi Rocah was the district attorney of Westchester County, New York, from 2021 to 2024 and was a federal prosecutor from 2001 to 2017.
If Combs had been smart, he would have run for president.
That was not my intent but I read you and hear you. I certainly do not intend to victim blame. I just wish women did not fall victim and prey to these types of men.