The Daily - The Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs Verdict

Episode Date: July 3, 2025

After a eight-week trial whose every turn has grabbed headlines, a jury found Sean Combs, the music mogul known as Diddy, not guilty of the most serious charges against him.Ben Sisario, who has been covering the trial, explains why the prosecution’s case fell short, and Jodi Kantor, an investigative reporter at The Times, discusses what the verdict may tell us about how prosecutors and juries see sexual abuse cases.Guest:Ben Sisario, a reporter for The New York Times covering music and the music industry.Jodi Kantor, a New York Times reporter whose job is to carefully uncover secrets and illuminate how power operates.Background reading: The music mogul was convicted of arranging for the travel of male escorts across state lines but acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy.After the verdict, the testimony of Cassie and “Jane” lingers.For more information on today’s episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Shareif Ziyadat/Getty Images for Sean "Diddy" Combs Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.

From the New York Times, I'm Natalie Ketroeff. This is The Daily. On Wednesday morning, after an eight-week trial whose every turn has grabbed headlines, a jury found Sean Combs, the music mogul known as Diddy, not guilty of the most serious charges against him. Today, I speak with Ben Cesario about why the prosecution's case fell short at trial, and Jodie Cantor on what the verdict may tell us about how prosecutors and juries see sexual abuse cases. It's Thursday, July 3rd. Ben hi, thank you for being here. Are you outside the courthouse right now?

Yeah, I'm right around the corner from the federal courthouse downtown. Okay, well, we'll try not to take up too much of your time, but very happy to have you here. As we know, since we did an episode on this with you last week, Diddy has been on trial for the last two months or so facing sex trafficking and racketeering charges. These are accusations that centered on the argument that he had coerced two ex-girlfriends into repeated sex sessions with multiple men. The jury started its deliberations on Monday and you were at the courthouse today when the verdict was announced. So tell me how it unfolded.

Well, it started like most mornings where there's a long line of people to get into the courthouse. There's all the reporters, but then there's influencers and just members of the public who have been showing up every day at this point after two months. You know, I recognize a lot of them and we say good morning to each other and we head inside the court building. There was a real sense of tension about this because we've all been waiting for the verdict for two months now. But the other thing

is that on Tuesday, the jury told the judge that they had reached a verdict on four of the five counts against Sean Combs, but they were still deadlocked on the fifth one, which is the racketeering conspiracy charge. Since they said that, I think everybody has been trying to game out in their minds how this day might go. So what happened when things started today? It started off pretty normal. The jury was deliberating. And then a little later in the

morning, a note was delivered and word got around that the jury had reached a verdict. So Sean Combs comes in, he's accompanied by the US Marshals who have brought him in every day of the trial. And he gets to his seat, looks to his family who are seated right in the front of the public gallery and he mouths to them, we got this. And he has a copy with him of the 11th Psalm, which is the one that begins, In the Lord I take refuge. It's about putting your trust in God.

The jury comes in and the foreperson is called on by the judge to read their verdict. And the first count that's read is racketeering conspiracy. This is one of the most serious charges he was facing. It carries a potential life sentence. It's also one of the trickiest ones for the government to prove. It's very complicated law. And the verdict was not guilty.

And you could see the release on Sean Combs, the feeling of relief that he has been found not guilty of this very serious charge. It's a big moment. Big moment, very dramatic moment in the courtroom. And then they get to the second count, which is sex trafficking of Cassie. Cassie, his ex-girlfriend who got this entire thing started when she filed a lawsuit against him a year and a half ago. And she was definitely the star witness in the trial. She was on the stand for four days giving pretty grueling testimony about her experience

with Combs. But the jury found that Sean Combs was not guilty of sex trafficking of her So two wins right off the bat for him. The next count that they read was transportation to engage in prostitution related to Cassie's story. This is also known as the man act It's a law that says it's illegal to transport people across state lines for the purpose of prostitution And it was guilty. So now he's been found guilty of one charge, but not of two others. Okay. What about the rest?

So the next one is sex trafficking of a woman known as Jane. This is an anonymous woman who was Combs girlfriend after Cassie. And she told, in some ways, a very similar story to Cassie about being coerced into these long sex marathons with prostitutes, but not guilty. And the fifth and last count that was read was another transportation to engage in prostitution, this time related to Jane, and it was guilty for that one. So just to sum up here, Ben, he's found not guilty of these two really serious charges, racketeering and sex trafficking in the case of both of these former girlfriends, but he is found guilty of this lesser charge,

which is essentially hiring a sex worker. Is that right? That's right. He was acquitted of by far the most serious charges, the ones that could have landed him life in prison, and that the government had really built its entire case around. He still was found guilty of two counts of a federal crime, but the sentence is a lot lower and the crime itself is regarded as far less serious than racketeering and sex trafficking. The family who have been in court almost every day, and some supporters behind them were in just jubilation when the not guilty verdicts were read,

cheering, clapping, holding their arms up in the air. And it sounds like Diddy and his team are viewing this as a huge win, just based on their reaction. Absolutely. Short of a full acquittal, this was the best outcome he could have hoped for.

The body language from him was utterly different than we had seen even just the day before, when he seemed quite worried about the way this might all play out. And he thanked the jury as they filed out of the room. And there was just this palpable relief from him. His lawyers were all smiling. And the prosecutors who are seated at the table in front of them,

who represent the federal government, were looking straight ahead, stone-faced. Okay. I want to walk through the two big buckets of charges that he was found not guilty of. First let's talk about what we said the last time that we talked was always going to be the more complicated of the two charges, which is racketeering conspiracy. The prosecution here, as you told us, needed to prove that Diddy had a network of employees who were all actively helping him commit these crimes.

Why do you think the jury didn't buy the prosecution's argument? Well, we can't read their minds and we haven't heard from any of the jurors yet, but I think that the government maybe just didn't persuade them that this machine that Sean Combs had of assistance and bodyguards

and all these people who worked for him, even if it was a perfectly well-oiled machine, that its purpose was committing crimes, that the employees knew, if they're conspirators, then it means that they knew that they were engaged in something illegal. There was conflicting testimony about what the assistants did know about these sexual encounters which were called freak-offs at the trial, whether they knew what was happening in the room or they didn't know what was happening in the room. Right, yes.

I mean, there were these questions about whether these were accomplices or just employees doing a job who didn't actually know what they were participating in effectively. I think that was certainly the defense's position that the government hadn't proved that. The government argued very strongly, but I think when it came to the jury, they just didn't buy it. Okay. Now let's turn to the second charge, which by comparison seemed more straightforward, the sex trafficking charge.

The prosecution argued that these two former girlfriends were essentially forced into these freak-offs. It seems as though the jury, though, was more persuaded by the defense's position, which is that the girlfriends were willing participants in these encounters. Is that right? Either that or that they just didn't believe beyond a reasonable doubt that they were coerced. Maybe they bought the defense's position fully. Maybe they just didn't feel persuaded by the story that the government told, that these women were coerced, even just in certain instances over the course of the long relationships

that Combs had with these women. He was with Cassie for over a decade, and the government actually said, we're not arguing that every single time they did this, it was coerced. But we are saying that it happened sometimes, and they pointed to a few particular episodes of that. And just to remind folks who may not have been following this as closely as you were, the jury was adjudicating that question

of were they coerced into this or not, based on a huge body of text messages, right, that these women had with Diddy that was presented at trial? Well, there was also testimony from the two women who had the longest time on the stand of any witness. Cassie was on the stand for four days. Jane was on the stand for six days.

And they told very gripping, upsetting stories about the things that had happened in their relationship, but the defense's strategy was to undermine them with those text messages. And there were hundreds of them that they presented at court where they would make flirtatious comments to combs, where they would get involved with the planning and even the choosing of which male escorts were going to be invited. And I think that that really complicated the story that the government was trying to tell. And that may have been the reason that the jury found him not guilty. The government's response was that these women were telling Diddy what he wanted to hear, right? That they were in a scenario in which they felt they had to say they were happy

About this, but they weren't really I Mean the women said that themselves they said a lot of times I was only saying this because I knew that's what he wanted and if I didn't give it to him He would get it somehow or I would suffer or I was afraid that he would release those Sex tapes that he had made of me. So they did talk about their fear of consequences. Some of those consequences that they feared was violence. We heard a lot about that from Cassie, and we even saw it on the hotel videotape that was broadcast on CNN.

That was a central piece of evidence in the trial that the jury saw again and again and again. And the defense's response was not to deny that it happened because it was on film, but to say, yes, he beat his girlfriend. He was violent, but he wasn't a sex trafficker. Do you think it's possible, Ben, that the government opened itself up to criticism for the strategy that it took in this case? We talked on the show about how difficult racketeering would be to prove, and I'm wondering if you think it's possible that the government's now vulnerable to critics who say maybe they shouldn't have brought those charges.

Maybe those more complex charges muddied their case. That's possible. I think they also may face criticism simply over the sex trafficking charge. The defense portrayed the entire case as overreach. And as the government looking to police behavior in the bedroom is the way that they would describe it. Their position was always that this was consensual sexual activity. The counterpoint is that it was always going to be a difficult case for the government to prove. And after the verdict was announced, the government released a statement where they basically

defended their work and they talked about prosecuting sex crimes requires brave victims to come forward. And I read that as a signal to the victims that we're not giving up on you. Basically saying, these are really tough cases. We stand by our strategy and we're still going to go forward with prosecutions like this. That's how I read it. Ben, thank you so much for being here. Thank you very much, Natalie.

After the break, I talked to my colleague, Jody Cantor, about what this case may show about how prosecution of sexual assault claims has evolved in the aftermath of MeToo. We'll be right back. Jodi, you're one of the reporters who broke the Harvey Weinstein story that sparked the MeToo movement. You've been following his case as it returned to court in New York for a retrial. You've also just generally been a student of sexual assault litigation in the wake of MeToo.

So I wanted to talk to you to help interpret this verdict. How are you thinking about the outcome of this case and particularly the fact that Combs was found not guilty of sex trafficking? Well, let's start here. These are intimate crimes, right? They occur behind closed doors. They are often very hard to prove.

And it's also a premise of our legal system that we would rather have a guilty person walking around free than we would send an innocent person to prison. So the starting assumption, I think, for most sex crime trials is that it's very hard to convict. But the question for the legal system in the wake of the Me Too movement has been, is it too hard? Is the system so rigid that it can't recognize reality when a crime has taken place. Can it not recognize what is sometimes the messy nature of these interactions and of women's lives?

Right. One of the central questions that came in the aftermath of the Me Too movement seemed to be, how are all of these accusations that have been made in the public square, how do they translate to a court of law, right? How are judges and juries going to handle the complexity and mushiness of cases that hinge on questions of consent? Totally. So, here's a really messy thing that both the recent Weinstein trial in New York and the Diddy trial have in common, which is that some of the women at the center of these cases acknowledged having had somewhat romantic,

somewhat consensual relationships with the accused. It is so hard for a jury of strangers to walk into one of these rooms, take a look at this very private thing that happened in the past, and say, ooh, you know, I can draw a clear line between, you know, what is consensual and what is non-consensual here. Will a jury decisively, unanimously be willing to say,

yes, this man is guilty, and in the Diddy case, send him to federal prison for a really long time, based on a relationship that's hard to parse. That was a problem for prosecutors in both trials. Right. And in this case, while we don't know everything that the jury was thinking, it seems clear that they felt unable to say definitively, these two women didn't consent to these sexual encounters. Like the jury is saying, we're on the outside looking in, deciding if this was consensual or not. I mean, making that kind of determination just has to be difficult, right?

It's really difficult. And part of what prosecutors did in both cases is that they used somewhat creative techniques. Like in the first Weinstein trial in New York, the one that was overturned, the prosecutors brought these other women in who were kind of pattern witnesses who testified about Weinstein's behavior towards them. And it was both very effective in the courtroom and it was also the reason why the conviction was overturned by a very narrow margin because it struck some of the appellate judges as unfair.

There's like a bedrock principle in the legal world that you can only be tried for the thing you're being tried for. Bringing in some other outside thing is unfair. That became a problem for prosecutors with Weinstein. With Diddy, what you see is this kind of creative prosecution that involves sex, trafficking charges and racketeering, even though in so many ways, what this looks like is maybe a little more similar to a domestic violence case. So you know, we talked a second ago about how rigid the system is.

This is the prosecutor's attempt to make the system a little bit less rigid and find new ways of saying this behavior is criminal. But as they're doing that, what you're telling us is that you kind of make what could be a straightforward charge into a much more complex case that may be harder to prove. Look, these are both cases about extremely powerful men who are alleged to have used their power to victimize women. And the criminal justice system doesn't have a straightforward way of measuring that. And both of these cases involved the really difficult question of like, what exactly is coercion?

And prosecutors in constructing these much more elaborate cases, which in this instance included racketeering, are trying, it seems, to illustrate that power, to map it out, to show how it works, they say, in service of these crimes. Absolutely. They're trying to bring to legal life these terrible power dynamics that the women experienced. And crucially, they're trying to say that these power dynamics aren't just unfortunate, but that they were deployed in a criminal way. And that's not an argument we would have seen a generation or two ago.

It isn't that long ago that prosecutors really would not touch cases like this that involved consensual sex because the conventional wisdom among prosecutors were that juries were just going to find it too messy. And so that's why the kind of mixed results of these two cases are so interesting, right? The juries did and didn't buy prosecutors' arguments. In the Weinstein retrial, there are three women at the center of that trial. With one of them, Weinstein was declared not guilty. On another, the jurors couldn't come to agreement themselves, and that one was a mistrial. And then on the third, he was convicted.

And then with Diddy, as we saw, he was convicted on these two kind of side dish charges that involved transportation for the purposes of prostitution. So in both trials, you sort of get the sense that the message from the jury is, we're not cool about what happened. There was some criminality here. There's something seriously wrong, but we are unwilling to go with the full force of

the charges either. What do you make of that, this mixed result? In this case, also in the Weinstein case, what does that tell you? It's funny, Natalie, I've spent years telling people, don't draw broad conclusions from one legal proceeding. You can't judge the entire Me Too movement based on the performance of one jury or the outcome of one criminal trial. However, I do think when we take the Weinstein saga and we add Diddy, we do have a decent barometer of how people

are thinking now, right? Because there is willingness to recognize the women's stories and to say that something was wrong. There is a desire on the part of prosecutors to better reflect the reality of what women have experienced. And yet there's also a lot of debate and reluctance. And remember, juries require unanimity. So given all the currents swirling around Me Too and these issues, good luck getting so many people to agree on them.

Right. And Jodi, I think a lot of people are looking at this result in this case and saying, look, this is a failure for prosecutors. They didn't get a conviction on their two biggest charges. And so, I mean, I wonder if there is a kind of resounding message there. You know, I wanted to know the answer to the question you're asking. So earlier today, I called some of my most expert sources, former sex crimes, prosecutors who track this stuff very closely.

And what they said is that for prosecutors, they don't see this as an abject loss. They are so happy that prosecutors brought this case in the first place, see it as a sign of progress and a kind of testing because prosecutors don't know what will work until they actually discover in court what will work. The question now given these mixed, is what cues do the prosecutors take from this? Do they say, oh, there is a little room to work here, things have changed. Juries are more willing to believe very complicated stories told by women? Or do they look at these results and say these prosecutors went too far? Jodi, thanks so much. Natalie, great to be with you.

On Wednesday evening, the judge presiding over the Sean Combs case denied the music mogul bail, citing his history of domestic violence. Combs will remain in federal custody until his sentencing. He faces a maximum sentence of 20 years for his two guilty charges. We'll be right back. Here's what else you need to know today. On Wednesday night, House Republicans were locked in tense negotiations over the fate of President Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill. Conservative Republicans have complained that the bill doesn't make deep enough cuts to

federal spending, while moderate Republicans fear it makes too many cuts to the country's social safety net. Trump can only afford for three House Republicans to vote against the bill, and he spent much of the day trying to persuade them to back the legislation. White House officials predict that the bill will pass as soon as today. And new data shows that the number of migrants crossing into the U.S. from Mexico has dropped to the lowest level in decades. The decrease highlights just how much President Trump's hard-line immigration policies are

discouraging people from entering the U.S. Monthly arrests by border patrol agents peaked at nearly 250,000 during the presidency of Joe Biden. They plunged to just 6,000 arrests last month. Today's episode was produced by Nina Feldman, Michael Simon Johnson, Alex Stern, and Claire Tannis-Getter. It was edited by Brendan Klinkenberg and Mike Benoit.

Fact Checked by Susan Lee. Contains original music by Sophia Landman and Pat McCusker. And was engineered by Alyssa Moxley. Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsberg of Wonderly. That's it for The Daily. I'm Natalie Kittroweth. See you tomorrow.