Sean Combs vs. The United States has been, if nothing else, an overwhelming, eye-opening, jaw-dropping trial of the century. The 32-day proceeding, which concluded with a four-hour summation, revealed how a sense of invincibility can fuel a delusional mindset, how we’re often blinded by celebrity, and how “having it all” can create a warped sense of entitlement.
In the end, Combs was found not guilty on three of the five criminal counts he faced, leaving him guilty only of transportation to engage in prostitution. Still, many are left ruminating on where things went wrong and how we got here.
This breakdown of events is designed to provide more clarity.
GUILTY OF
I know it may seem unfathomable that Combs was found guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution involving Cassie and Jane, yet not guilty of the sex trafficking charges concerning both women.
The simplest way to explain it is that while the two charges share overlapping elements, they operate on different legal scales, one is more egregious than the other.
In this case, the burden of proof fell on the prosecution. There was insufficient evidence to meet the legal threshold for sex trafficking. The prosecution needed to definitively prove that Combs’s actions qualified as sex trafficking beyond a reasonable doubt, and they failed to do so.
JURORS
An attorney friend once told me that the average juror reads at an eighth-grade level. I’m not saying that’s true for this particular group, but it’s worth noting the reported complaints to the judge that one juror struggled to follow the court’s directions.
The law can feel like rocket science, especially when layered with complex legal jargon. It’s important to remember that jurors are everyday people fulfilling a civic duty, not trained legal professionals. That doesn’t always mean they have the bandwidth or legal literacy required to make fully informed decisions.
According to insiders, this jury consisted of 8 men and 4 women: 4 white women, 4 Black women, and 4 Black men, with ages ranging from their 30s to mid-70s. Their credibility, lived experiences, and personal biases inevitably factor into their judgment.
NO PERFECT WITNESS
Any Law & Order enthusiast will tell you they’ve lost count of how many times Olivia Benson has said, “There’s no perfect victim.” In the case of The United States vs. Sean Combs, there isn’t a perfect witness either.
The biggest issue with the witnesses? Too many of them had dirty hands. Among the 34 who testified, several were granted immunity in exchange for their testimony.
As for Combs’ inner circle, not a single person came to the stand with clean hands; they were all seemingly acting in concert. Many may even view his staff as co-conspirators in the alleged crimes.
CHARGES BEING DROPPED TOWARD THE END OF TRIAL
This is exactly why you can’t believe everything you read online, and why it’s crucial to get your information from sources that uphold journalistic integrity.
Many online publications reported that three charges were dropped when, in fact, they weren’t. They were streamlined. It’s a legal tactic used to simplify the information for the jury. Dumbing it down, if you will, which brings us back to the earlier point about the average juror’s level of comprehension.
Streamlining the charges was a strategic move by the prosecution. They simply cut three lines of text to present a clearer, more cohesive argument and reduce the amount of information jurors had to sift through.
RICO
For many of us, our understanding of RICO charges doesn’t extend beyond what we’ve seen in mobster movies and TV shows. We often don’t fully grasp the scope of the crime.
RICO, which stands for the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, is a federal law designed to combat organized crime and covers a range of racketeering activities. To be charged under RICO, a person or group must be part of an enterprise, whether legal or illegal. Key crimes include murder, kidnapping, trafficking (often drugs), bribery, fraud, and extortion.
Of all the charges brought against Combs, this one carried the harshest penalty. Had he been found guilty, the federal government could have seized his amassed fortune. Racketeering was arguably demonstrated in several ways during the trial, but RICO remains a charge most people still associate primarily with drug cartels and mob bosses.
WHAT HE WAS CHARGED WITH VS. WHAT WAS PRESENTED
The prosecution presented a thorough case, complete with transcripts to support their claims. And while it was a job well done, I’d venture to say things got murky when too much time was spent belaboring the point that Sean Combs is an abuser who engages in unconventional sexual activity. The intention was to underscore the larger charges, and that made sense.
Unfortunately, the strategy came across more like a domestic abuse case, which this trial was not. Add to that Cassie’s settlement and Jane’s grotesque testimony—used by the defense (unsuccessfully) to refute the charges—and jurors may have been left with a muddled view of the women’s roles.
Too many will likely see Cassie’s settlement as the justice she was seeking, and Jane as a casualty of the lifestyle she chose. What got lost was a clear explanation of trauma bonding in layman’s terms. Instead, the women were made to seem like willing participants in Diddy’s orbit, without noting how emotional attachment to an abuser can show up as compliance, pleasure, or even protection from further harm.
Even though this case was officially Sean Combs vs. The United States, it felt more like a trial of morality versus criminality, highlighting how society often deems certain acts morally wrong, but not criminal, even when they are.
The case also shed light on the insidious misogynoir that continues to run rampant in our society. And the justice system is not exempt from blame. It consistently lacks accountability when it comes to domestic abuse and sex-based crimes.
Even though sex workers testified to witnessing the abuse, their profession is still viewed as illegitimate and unworthy of respect, which means their words, too, are often dismissed.
We also live in a society where many of the alleged crimes in this case have been adopted as cultural or societal norms. Some of these behaviors have translated into the modern lifestyle. In fact, many toxic relationships echo the same sentiments we heard in the victims’ testimonies.
We must examine and readjust the practices we accept as part of present-day culture. Many men (and some women) proudly boast about their “rosters”—the modern equivalent of calling oneself a pimp or player—while some women eagerly await their chance to be flown out, a euphemism that, in many ways, mirrors the concept of being “trafficked,” all under the guise of love and status.
Being flown out has become a badge of honor, proof of one’s value as a “baddie.” Some of the behaviors Diddy displayed in this case are eerily similar to what’s normalized in everyday culture.
What does it say that so many people weren’t surprised by the outcome of this trial? It reinforces why victims often stay silent and why many pursue justice through civil lawsuits rather than criminal courts.
If nothing else, the trial reminded us that the patriarchy still prevails. It protects its own at all costs, and Mr. Combs’ wealth is just another form of protection within the patriarchal system he belongs to. I guess it’s safe to say that, along with Diddy, both the patriarchy and the justice system are all Bad Boys.
Photo Credit: DepositPhotos.com
