The jury in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ sex trafficking trial has said it has reached a verdict on four of five counts against the hip-hop mogul and was unable to reach a decision on the top charge, racketeering conspiracy.
The judge indicated that he would instruct the jury to continue weighing the charge, echoing the sentiments of prosecutors and Combs’ defence team that just two days into deliberations was too soon to give up on reaching a verdict on all counts.
Judge Arun Subramanian said he had received a note at 4.05pm indicating the jury had reached a partial verdict. The note said the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy charge because there were jurors with “unpersuadable views” on both sides.
Combs’ lawyers surrounded him at the defence table soon after the note was sent to the court. The hip-hop mogul appeared morose as they explained to him what was happening.
At one point, lead defence lawyer Marc Agnifilo stepped away from the huddle, returned with a piece of paper and handed it to Combs, who read it solemnly.
Meanwhile, prosecutors were at their table, glued to their phones and laptop computers.
Assistant US attorney Maurene Comey suggested the judge give the jury a modified version of what is known as an Allen charge — instructions encouraging them to keep deliberating after reaching an impasse.
Racketeering conspiracy — count one on the jury’s verdict sheet — is the most complicated of the charges against Combs because it requires the jury to decide not only whether he ran a “racketeering enterprise”, but also whether he was involved in committing some or all of various types of offences, such as kidnapping and arson.
The charge falls under Rico — the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organisations Act — which is best known for being used in organised crime and drug cartel cases.
The jury has been deliberating since Monday. Earlier on Tuesday, they asked to review critical testimony from one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses: the hip-hop mogul’s former longtime girlfriend, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura.
Jurors requested the testimony about 75 minutes into their second day of weighing charges that Combs used his fame, wealth and violence to force two girlfriends into drug-fueled sex marathons with male sex workers known as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights”.
The panel of eight men and four women asked for Ms Ventura’s account of Combs beating, kicking and dragging her at a Los Angeles hotel in 2016 — an assault captured on now-infamous security camera footage.
They also asked to see Ms Ventura’s testimony about an incident in which she said Combs accused her of taking drugs from him and kicked her off their yacht at the Cannes Film Festival in France in 2013. On their way back to the US, she said, he threatened to release explicit videos of her having sex.
The jury’s testimony request came soon after Combs’ lawyers and prosecutors began the day haggling with Judge Subramanian over a jury question left over from the end of the first day of deliberations on Monday.
Jurors wanted clarification about what qualifies as drug distribution, an aspect of the racketeering conspiracy charge that will help determine whether Combs can be convicted or exonerated on the count.
Judge Subramanian said he would remind jurors of the instructions he gave them on that part of the case before they started deliberating on Monday.
Combs’ lawyers had pushed for a more expansive response, but prosecutors argued — and Judge Subramanian agreed — that doing so could end up confusing jurors more.
On Monday, the panel deliberated for more than five hours without reaching a verdict.
Defence lawyers contend that prosecutors are trying to criminalise Combs’ swinger lifestyle and that, if anything, his conduct amounted to domestic violence, not federal felonies.
Combs, 55, could face 15 years in prison to life behind bars if he is convicted of all charges.
After pleading not guilty, Combs chose not to testify as his lawyers built their arguments for acquittal mostly through lengthy cross-examinations of dozens of witnesses called by prosecutors, including some of Combs’ former employees who took the witness stand reluctantly only after being granted immunity.
