Didi admits abuse – but is convicted of him enough?

New York’s prosecutors will rest on the case of rapper Sean “Diddy” comb during a week-long federal sex trafficking and blackmail trial.

The 55-year-old music tycoon has been accused of using his power as the leader of the business empire to promote sexual trafficking of women and cover up crimes.

Mr. Coms has pleaded guilty to domestic violence – but pleaded not guilty to the allegations in prosecution, some relying on laws once against mob bosses in an attempt to disappoint him.

The defense has not filed a lawsuit – Mr. Coms’ lawyer said it will take only a few days.

Meanwhile, prosecutors gathered more than 30 witnesses, including Mr Combs’ ex-girlfriend and musician Casandra Ventura and rapper Kid Cudi, who had dated Ms. Ventura – as well as former assistants, Hotel Security Pulards, Hotel Security Guans and others say they witnessed Mr Combs’ abuse.

Legal experts say their testimony helped prosecutors raise a convincing case to a panel of 12 jurors – but the conviction of all charges is still far from secure.

This is some key aspects of the case – and potential loopholes in the prosecution argument.

The prosecutor’s main witness is a musician, a musician and model named Cassie. She testified in a few days about her abuse and 11-year relationship with Mr. Combs.

Ms. Ventura, who was eight months pregnant and often spoke through tears, testified that Mr. Coms beat and forced her into the so-called freak, during which she had sex with her male escorts while watching and filming.

Prosecutors accused Mr Combs of using drugs, violence and manipulation to exert unnecessary sexual intercourse with male escorts on several women.

Ms. Ventura’s testimony – delivered a few weeks after delivery – is crucial to the prosecutor’s case, that Mr. Coms committed sexual trafficking, a charge that would be sentenced to a maximum sentence in prison.

Some of the strongest evidence is surveillance videos showing Mr Combs assaulting Ms Ventura in the hotel corridor during the freak, as well as testimony from a hotel security guard who said Mr Combs provided him with money to get rid of the videotape. Prosecutors also showed photos of Ms. Ventura’s injury, allegedly due to rapper’s abuse.

Ms. Ventura is not the only ex-girlfriend who testified. The lawyer also called “Jane” “Jane”, who testified under a pseudonym and shared similar stories that she was also under pressure to be a freak or what she called “hotel night.”

However, the jurors were also shown the love text messages sent by Ms. Ventura and “Jane” to Mr. Coms, including some women’s interest in participating in sexual acts.

Jennifer Biedel, a former prosecutor for the southern New York region, said the public is increasingly knowledgeable about domestic violence and women may feel compelled to maintain abusive relationships.

Ms Biedel suggested that it is sometimes difficult for juries to mix loving messages and coercion allegations.

She said.

Further complicating the case, prosecutors lost the third alleged victim, who they hoped they could testify because they were no longer able to contact her.

Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani said the loss of alleged victim could hurt the case because the prosecution benefited from multiple testimony.

“Judges may not believe in one victim, but they really have a hard time believing in many victims,” ​​he explained.

Mr Combs is facing equally serious charges of extortion, with prosecutors accusing him of relying on loyal employees to run a “criminal business” to promote his sexual abuse of women and cover up his behavior.

The RICO regulations for Racket Affected and Corrupted Organisation Act (RICO) were originally created to replace mob bosses, but have since been used in other cases, including a sex trafficking trial on convicted shameful singer R Kelly.

During the trial, the prosecutor brought testimony from Mr Combs’ staff about the establishment of freaks and cleaning up and brought him drugs during the encounter.

The government also accused Mr Combs of using his criminal enterprise to conduct arson. rapper Kid Cudi testified that Mr Combs was shooting at his Porsche because the singer was angry at his date with Ms. Ventura.

Ms Biedel said prosecutors demonstrated that elements of sexual trafficking may be easier than blackmailing because many technical parts of the blackmailing regulations, including the participation of other people and entities.

“It’s hard to simplify complex legal concepts into language that laymen from various backgrounds understand,” the former prosecutor added.

But if jurors have concluded that Mr. Coms is a “bad guy”, they may be unlikely to be acquitted for just a specific element of a complex legal charge.

“In my experience, jurors tend to solve a story and then adjust the facts to fit the story,” Mr Epner said.

Now, Mr. Combs’ lawyers will replace them on the podium.

They face a dilemma: whether to get their clients up. This week, his lawyer said they won’t call witnesses, meaning music tycoons won’t testify.

Legal experts say the entire case might have come down to his remarks if he were there.

Rahmani said the situation was risky for the rapper because he had to address many allegations of violence, some of which had been filmed.

In criminal trials, high-profile defendants usually do not stand in order to avoid cross-examination of themselves.

The lawyer said Mr. Coms’ lawyers had some victories during cross-examination by government witnesses.

Mr Epner said, for example, during Jane’s testimony, they tried to portray witnesses as someone who sometimes seemed to work with the agency with Mr Combs.

Ultimately, Mr. Coms’ lawyers are unlikely to try to discredit many people about the alleged misconduct of the rapper – after all, he has admitted some misconduct.

Instead, lawyers will try to evade the case in search of a wider range of rackets and sex trafficking plots, Ms. Biddle suggested.

“The prosecution brought a series of very compelling facts that would make it difficult for the defense to compete,” she said. “So, I think the defense will revolve around whether these facts are in line with the legal elements.”