Connect with us

Breaking News

A federal criminal defense lawyer breaks down the ‘Diddy’ verdict

Published

on


A jury in New York City found Sean “Diddy” Combs guilty on Wednesday of just two of the five federal criminal counts brought against him in a high-profile trial that lasted about seven weeks.

Combs was found guilty of prostitution-related offenses, but was acquitted of the more serious charges he faced for sex trafficking and racketeering. The 12-member panel of jurors spent more than 12 hours over three days deliberating the case.

On Tuesday afternoon, the jury had said it came to an agreement on counts two, three, four and five — sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion regarding Victim 1 (Cassie Ventura) and Victim 2 (“Jane Doe”), as well as transportation to engage in prostitution — but that they were unable to reach a verdict on count one: racketeering conspiracy.

Combs was ultimately found guilty on counts three and five. He was found not guilty on counts one, two and four.

At a hearing later Wednesday, Judge Arun Subramanian denied the defense’s request to release Combs on a $1 million bond while he awaits sentencing. The judge proposed that the first sentencing hearing take place in October.

The hip-hop mogul faces a maximum sentence of 20 years in prison. Had he been convicted of the sex trafficking or racketeering charges, Combs could’ve been sentenced to life in prison.

Yahoo spoke to Molly Parmer, a federal criminal defense lawyer based in Atlanta, to better understand the verdict in this case. Her answers have been lightly edited for length and clarity.

Yahoo: Are you surprised by the verdict? Why or why not?

Molly Parmer: Personally, I am not surprised by the verdict. I did not see persuasive evidence and testimony of a racketeering conspiracy presented by the government, nor did I see persuasive evidence or testimony that showed beyond a reasonable doubt that Combs engaged in sex trafficking through force and coercion.

The charges he was convicted of, 18 USC 2421(a)(2), were the least serious in his indictment and the easiest to prove. I believe the jury did their job as instructed, and even if they found “freak-offs” to be immoral or indecent, they followed the judge’s instructions, looked at the elements of the offenses as charged, and did not see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that Combs engaged in a racketeering conspiracy or sex trafficking by force or coercion.

To prove a violation of 18 USC 1591 (the federal sex trafficking statute) when minors are not involved — as was the case here — prosecutors have to prove both the occurrence of sex trafficking and the defendant’s intent.

Sex trafficking is defined as the recruitment, harboring, transportation, or obtaining of a person for a commercial sex act through coercion or force. Coercion is defined as threats of serious harm or physical restraint. The section of this code that Combs was charged under is a different section than the one that criminalizes trafficking children — that one does not require coercion or force.

18 USC 2421(a)(2), which is part of the Mann Act, outlines the offense of transporting individuals across state lines with the intent to engage them in prostitution. To prove this charge, the government must show that the defendant knowingly transported an individual with the specific intent of having the individual engage in a prohibited sex activity.

The statute does not require force or coercion. Essentially, helping someone travel across state lines — paying for a flight, for example — so that they can engage in prostitution, is enough for a conviction under the statute.

The key difference between a violation of the Mann Act and a violation of the federal sex trafficking statute, as charged in Combs’s indictment, is the presence of force and coercion. A violation of the Mann Act does not require any force or coercion. It just requires interstate transportation.

Before finally reaching a verdict on Wednesday, the jury had told the judge that they were struggling to reach a consensus on the racketeering charge. Can you explain why the bar is so high when it comes to finding a defendant guilty of RICO charges, and why the prosecution ultimately failed to meet it in this case?

I wouldn’t say that the bar is high for a jury to find a defendant guilty of RICO charges. I think it is appropriate to make the government prove every element of every offense beyond a reasonable doubt. I also think that prosecutors’ offices are bringing RICO charges at a level which we’ve never seen before, and to address conduct which the statute was not designed to reach.

The Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act was designed to combat the Mafia. These days, we see it used against any loosely associated group of individuals who are charged with other crimes. Over a decade ago in Georgia, it was successfully used to prosecute a group of public school teachers who changed their students’ answers on standardized tests.

I think it’s easy for the prosecution to lay out a RICO offense to a jury because, rather than just charging the underlying crimes (the RICO predicates), the government gets to add an additional charge — the RICO conspiracy itself — and can get into a lot of evidence and testimony which would otherwise be irrelevant or prejudicial.

The government can make a defendant seem far more dangerous than they are by alleging that the defendant is involved in a criminal enterprise. The risk for the prosecution comes when they simply don’t have a RICO case — they don’t have a racketeering conspiracy or a criminal enterprise — but they push the charge nonetheless. I believe that’s what happened here.

Combs has been acquitted of the most serious charges against him. Would you describe this as a win for him? What should readers make of this?

This is a win for Combs because he was convicted only of the least serious charges in the indictment against him. His two convictions are under a statute that carries no mandatory minimum, and the United States Sentencing Guidelines are fairly low for these offenses.

I think the defense also proved to the jury that Combs was not running a criminal enterprise or engaging in sex trafficking simply because he was having illicit sex parties and participating in a so-called swinger lifestyle. Certainly, some of the evidence as it related to sex trafficking by force and coercion was complicated. You had two victims who testified that they suffered domestic violence from Combs, but domestic violence is not a federal offense.

Other witnesses (and these victims on cross-examination) provided testimony that sounded as though the victims were occasionally willing participants at Combs’s parties. Witness credibility is for the jury to decide, and like any jury, this jury was free to disregard testimony it did not believe.

But certainly, being convicted of only the two least serious offenses in the indictment is a win for Combs and his defense team.

What happens next? What do you think is most important for people to understand about the outcome of this case?

Federal sentencing is very complicated. Next, Combs will be interviewed for a presentence investigation report (“PSR”). Both the prosecution and the defense will have an opportunity to make objections and corrections to that report.

Both parties will file sentencing memoranda, and a very involved sentencing hearing will occur a few months from now. Sentences for federal offenses are determined by the United States Sentencing Guidelines, and violations of the Mann Act are typically covered by Section 2G1.1. Those guidelines are fairly low, assuming Combs does not end up having additional adjustments under the guidelines, which increase his sentencing exposure.

I think it’s likely that the defense is going to ask for a sentence of time served.



Source link

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *