The final stages of Sean “Diddy” Combs’s federal trial continued today with a charge conference, as the prosecution, defence, and judge Arun Subramanian debated the language and structure of the jury instructions that will guide deliberations.
With both the defence and prosecution agreeing on the general verdict form, today’s focus was to determine how the jury will legally be instructed to interpret the charges, particularly around RICO conspiracy, forced labor, and prostitution-related statutes.
Judge Overrules Key Defence Objections on RICO Instructions
The defence pushed back against the prosecution’s proposed charge that the alleged criminal enterprise must have had a common purpose, arguing that the jury should be instructed that self-interest or personal agendas alone would not meet the legal threshold. However, the judge overruled the defence, agreeing with the government that a group doesn’t need to have uniform motives as long as the enterprise’s core purpose remains intact.
Prosecutors successfully objected to attempts by the defence to showcase that the enterprise must retain consistent “core aspects,” with the judge ruling that changes in positions or roles did not erode the legal definition.
Predicate Acts, Personal Matters, and Repetitive Language
One major point of contention was the inclusion of language stating that to prove a conspiracy under RICO, the government must prove each predicate act. The defence sought to reintroduce phrasing removed by the Supreme Court, but the judge denied the request, siding with the government, which deemed the language repetitive and potentially misleading.
The judge also rejected prosecutors’ proposals that activities of a personal nature couldn’t be used as predicate acts, reverting to the original language.
Bribery, Intimidation, and Conspiracy Definitions
The defence attempted to exclude “bribery” from the list of offences under the conspiracy charge, but was overruled. In addition, the defence tried to insert phrasing requiring that threats must be made with a purpose to intimidate, rather than simply having the tendency to intimidate, but the judge again sided with the government’s broader definition.
The judge also denied the prosecution’s request to include language allowing jurors to assume criminality without proof of an ongoing investigation, noting it could confuse the jury when reviewing the overall evidence.
Debate Over Forced Labor: The R. Kelly Precedent
The government intends to argue that alleged “freak offs” and similar sexual acts qualify as forced labor, citing the R. Kelly case as a precedent. The defence countered that forced labor laws were primarily designed to protect immigrants, and warned that letting the jury broadly including sexual services under this umbrella could be prejudicial.
The judge expressed concern that such inclusion might mislead the jury and clarified that payment for sexual services does not preclude a forced labor charge, leaving room for the prosecution’s theory while limiting their scope.
Controlled Substances and Distribution Clarified
Under the Controlled Substances Racketeering Act, the government made a point of the fact that distribution does not require a sale. Sharing drugs with others—such as friends—may still meet the standard. The judge disagreed, ruling that “supplying” drugs to co-defendants or others could not constitute criminal distribution in a racketeering context.
Sex Trafficking: Disputed Language on Consent and Commercial Acts
The defence argued against the idea that commercial sex acts must be completed to prove the trafficking charge. Prosecutors claimed it was enough that the acts were intended or attempted multiple times within the context of the alleged enterprise. The judge agreed to review this language but ultimately removed wording that implied consent once implies consent always, allowing both sides to argue their theories during closings.
The court also debated the economic value implied by the word “commercial,” with the defence preserving its objection but recognizing that jurors could be instructed that economic value must be present.
Prostitution Counts and the “One Predicate” Standard
For counts 3 and 5, the government asked to include language referring to “engagement in prostitution” tied to transportation, which the judge allowed. The prosecution also asked for the jury to be instructed that if they find just one point of engagement in prostitution, they may still return a guilty verdict under RICO—without requiring proof of every predicate.
What is a Charge Conference?
A charge conference is a meeting between the judge, prosecutors, and the defence lawyers to decide what instructions the jury will get before they begin deliberating. At the charge conference, both sides argue about:
- How the law should be explained to the jury
- What legal definitions to include (like racketeering, trafficking, forced labor)
- Whether certain wording helps or hurts their case.
- If anything should be added, removed, or changed before the jury hears it
- The judge makes the final call. Once the instructions are finalized, the jury uses them to decide on the verdict.
Final Arguments Set to Begin
The defence requested to present their closing arguments on Friday, while prosecutors estimated that their own closing could take approximately four hours on Thursday. The judge granted the defence’s scheduling request, officially setting the stage for final arguments before the jury begins deliberations Monday morning.
Stay with HipHopCanada as we continue our in-depth coverage of the Diddy trial, bringing you the latest updates, testimonies, and drama live from the courtroom as it all unfolds.
