Sean Combs is a complicated man, but this is not a complicated case. This case is about love, jealousy, infidelity, and money.
This case is about voluntary, adult choices made by capable adults and consensual relationships. This case is about those real-life relationships, and the government is trying to turn those relationships into a racketeering case, a prostitution case, and a sex trafficking case. It will not work.
Let’s start with the basics, the most important things in this courtroom are you and him. At a time when everything in government can feel so uncertain, one thing has remained the same in our justice system, and that is standing between all of us and a criminal conviction, is a jury of our peers. That is you. You will hear the evidence. You will get to the truth. You will see the witnesses and evaluate them one by one.
And finally, finally, the story about this case can finally come out. Why do I say that? I say that because this case is not about what you’ve heard on the news, read in the news, or have seen on social media for the past year and a half. This case is not about what civil attorneys looking for a payday are trying to make my client out to be. There has been a tremendous amount of noise around this case for the past year and it is time to cancel that noise and hear and see the evidence that will be presented in this courtroom. And it will be crystal clear.
The story of Sean Combs is a fascinating one, but it is a human one. We are going to tell you his story over the next two months in this courtroom. And you will learn that he is a man who grew up here in New York City, in Harlem, who came from little, but built ground breaking, lawful businesses. You will hear that he is a wealthy individual, but know that the evidence will show that nobody gave him this money. He worked for it and no one gave him a dime. It will show that he made every single dollar. Recreated a culture and produced music that I believe you will hear will change the generation. And I believe that the evidence is going to show that this ingenuity is what drew people to Mr. Combs.
Witnesses will share with you that Mr. Combs is a fascinating person, and that people are drawn to him. Yes, he is famous. Yes, he is wealthy. And that’s certainly part of it. But he was charismatic and magnetic and a larger than life figure. If you had any interest in climbing the social ladder at the time and being involved in the music industry, the apparel industry, spirits industry, attending his legendary parties, you wanted to be around Sean Combs.
You also wanted to be around him because of the benefits that came along with being with him. As you listen to the evidence in this case, try to remember why that matters. Try to remember why people stayed around him and why it matters. I expect it will matter to you as the jury because he gave people opportunities and he gave people chances to work at his companies. They believed he had a vision that few others had, and, for the most part, I believe the evidence will show you that they loved him. I don’t think that the witnesses will tell you they always liked what he did or how he behaved, but the real time text messages that you will review in this case show that the people really loved him. And they believed that by being with Sean Combs, they were part of something special.
So, by now, you’ve heard the government say a lot of things about my client. It’s time for me to introduce you to him. His name is Sean Combs. You may have heard him by Puff Daddy, P. Diddy, Puffy, Diddy, but standing in this courtroom, at 55 years old, in the same place he was born and raised, he’s going by the same name he was born with, Sean Combs. My name is Teny Geragos and I am one of the attorneys honored to represent him.
The government started their opening statement by telling you this is about a 20-year racketeering influence corrupt organization act enterprise that he committed with his apparent trusted inner circle. The only people in this courtroom who will tell you that they participated in, knew about, or came to an agreement to participate in a racketeering enterprise are the prosecutors. Not one witness will get into this courtroom and will take that witness stand and tell you that they were part of any racketeering influenced corrupt organization act enterprise. And the reason is simple: There was not one.
You heard what the government tried to say the enterprise is, that he used his lawful businesses to feed his every desire, including sexual ones. This case is about Sean Combs’ private, personal sex life, which has nothing to do with his lawful businesses. The government has no place here in this man’s private bedrooms. The government can say over and over again that this is not about his private sex life, but the evidence will show you that it is.
The people who will come into this courtroom and testify are the people who would know about a racketeering enterprise, and those people will all say they knew nothing about any enterprise. That is because these hard working individuals were either doing their jobs as personal assistants, or as top executives running his successful businesses. These are individuals educated at places from Harvard to Howard University.
The prosecution will bring in those same employees and others into this courtroom and have them testify that Sean Combs has a temper. And when he drank, or when he did the wrong drugs, he would get violent. My client is not proud of that. But it is one of the many things we are going to own and fully admit right up front at this trial.
Sean Combs has a bad temper. He sometimes gets so angry or so jealous that he is out of control. You will see evidence and you will hear some testimony that does not portray my client in a good light. You will hear some text messages, some voice notes, and some witness testimony that may make you think I don’t think this guy is a great guy. I don’t like how he just lied to his girlfriends. I don’t like the things he just said in that text message.
I want to tell you now there may be one point, there may be multiple points at this trial where you think I think he is a jerk and I think he is kind of mean. But he is not charged with being mean. He is not charged with being a jerk. He’s charged with running a racketeering enterprise.
And though there was violence that you are going to hear about, you already have, that violence is not part of any RICO. That violence is not connected to sex trafficking and that violence is not prostitution.
There was a name in criminal law for the violence that we will hear about and we will see at this trial. It is called domestic violence. It is called assault. Domestic violence is a very serious matter. I want to say that now. It is a bad, illegal problem, and it is something that the law addresses. We take full responsibility that there was domestic violence in this case.
Domestic violence is not sex trafficking. I want to say it again. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking. Had he been charged with domestic violence, had he been charged with assault, we would not be here right now. We would not be sitting through an eight-week trial. However, he has been charged with different crimes: Sex trafficking, prostitution, racketeering. These are federal crimes with their different statutes, they charge different elements, and he is simply not guilty of those crimes.
One of the central themes of my statements to you will be personal accountability and personal responsibility. As the trial goes on, we will see that with each witness. We are going to take that on ourselves. We will not shy away from the things Mr. Combs did. But we will not, we will not deny his personal responsibility or own the things he did not do.
We are telling you right now that he is physical, that he is a drug user, and I’m telling you he had a bit of a different sex life. For example, you have not heard any evidence in this case, but the prosecutors already told you about lubricant, and you may know of his love of baby oil.
Is that a federal crime? No. You will hear that he got IVs after ingesting drugs. Is that a federal crime? No. He will be responsible. He will be accountable for the things that he did. But we will fight for his freedom throughout the next eight weeks for what he did not do.
And he cannot be the only person in this case who accepts personal responsibility and accountability for his actions. The alleged victims who will testify in this case are capable, strong, adult women. They were all getting something each of them wanted from him and from being in a romantic relationship with him. And these adult, capable, strong women will have to take on the same level of personal responsibility for their lives that he is going to take on for his.
When any person in life makes an adult choice, that is a free choice. A free choice has pros. It has cons. You may think there are better choices. You may think there are worse choices. But that does not eliminate the personal responsibility behind those choices. And each of the women you will hear from, they all had the personal responsibility and the freedom to make the choices that they made.
You will hear from these women. You will see these women. You will meet them. They will sit in that witness chair a few feet away, and you will evaluate them for yourselves. You will see that they are capable, you will see that they are strong, and you will see that they made free choices every single day for years.
As you are listening to the evidence and you listen to them testify, I want you to ask yourselves: What are all the ways that this individual had the ability to make that choice? Ask yourselves: What are they getting from being with Sean Combs? They are not with him because they are stuck or because they are without a choice. The government will try to show you that Sean Combs is the only one getting something from each of the alleged victims who testify in this case. But with each of these individuals, ask yourselves, what is this person getting? They are with him or they are working for him because they are getting something they want from being with him. Now, with each person, that something may be different. And it usually is. But with each person, they are all getting something.
So as you listen to the evidence, watch closely to the role that jealousy plays in this case. We have talked to you, both of us already, about jealousy and how it is pervasive and present in every single relationship. But I want to also let you know it drives a lot of the choices that the alleged victims make here.
Combs is one of those men that, I’ll submit to you, we all know. The evidence is going to show that he is somebody who never married, but he needed to always have a woman around him. He is a many-women man. He has seven children by four different women. And he is the kind of guy who is always in relationships. In fact, he was always in multiple relationships. But critically, he was not always honest about that fact. And you’ll find that even when he was, even when women knew he was in multiple relationships, this would drive a primal jealousy in people. It would drive a lot of the choices you are going to see in this case.
You are also going to see that Sean Combs is extremely jealous. You might think that it’s hypocritical. You might not like it. But you are going to see that he is also extremely jealous. So as you’re listening to the evidence and you’re evaluating the testimony, ask yourself, what is causing that fight? The answer is, without exception, jealousy or drugs. The hitting, the things we are going to take responsibility for, it is typically because of jealousy or drug use. The role of jealousy here is critical and it’s pervasive.
The evidence will show you that, over the course of the 20 years we will examine in this courtroom, we’ll see the same women over and over. They remained in multi-year relationships with him. And I believe that you’ll pretty much know about every relationship he’s had over the past 20 years. Again, that’s whether this is an employee or a girlfriend, you will pretty much know about every girlfriend he has had.
You will see that these women are strong, capable, and they were in love with him. You will see that breaches of trust, infidelity, and jealousy are what drove the domestic violence you will hear about. You will see that alcohol and drugs played a major role in his temper. The evidence is going to show you a very flawed individual, but it will not show you a racketeer, a sex trafficker, or somebody transporting for prostitution.
So, as we’ve said, you’re going to hear from two women: Cassie and Jane. This case is, in large part, about his sexual relationships with these two women. And you’re going to hear that they went to private hotel rooms to engage in what I expect some witnesses at this case to call the swingers lifestyle, which is essentially just a fancier terminology for threesomes by adults.
Sometimes Combs partook in the sex with his girlfriend and the male escort, and other times he watched while the male escort was having sex with his girlfriend. You heard the government call these freak-offs. I expect you will hear that. I expect you will also hear them called parties and entertainment.
You will hear from both Cassie and Jane about these nights. They will testify about their relationships, and you will hear things that should never be heard in a federal courtroom. I think you’ve heard that already. You’ve heard things that may make you uncomfortable at first, that he liked to watch this. You might hear about his kinky sex or his preferences for sex that may make you uncomfortable and may not be what you like to do in your bedroom.
But you are not here to judge him for his sexual preferences. You are not here to judge him for all purposes. You are here to evaluate whether the government can prove beyond a reasonable doubt what they actually charged him with. They cannot. You’ve also heard that in his relationships with both Cassie and Jane, he bought them things. Yes, like every relationship, they got things from their boyfriend. Here, a wealthy rapper, paid for their housing, he paid for Cassie’s car, and he gave them money. These are nice houses that he paid for. It was a nice car that Cassie drove. And they were nice vacations on private planes because he is a wealthy individual. These were vacations that they took together as couples. And as I’ve said, like every relationship, there was jealousy and there were flaws.
But as you evaluate the evidence in this case, remember that he is not charged with being a flawed individual or having a flawed relationship. They did not stay with him over and over again because of force, fraud, or coercion. The evidence in this case will show you that over and over again, day after day. These women fought to be in a relationship. Fought to do what they wanted to do in consensual adult relationships.
This case started with Cassie, so I think it’s best for me to start there. I expect you will hear from her this week. She will sit in this witness box and she will tell you about her 11-year relationship with Sean Combs. You heard that they met when she was an up-and-coming artist. What you didn’t hear is that she had a boyfriend at the time, and he was in a very public relationship with the mother of four of his children named Kim Porter.
After the two fell in love and started dating, she broke up with her producer boyfriend. But Combs, for his part, did not break up with Kim. He remained in a public relationship with her, and that is something that caused extreme jealousy with Cassie. He continued that relationship with Kim Porter until her tragic untimely death from pneumonia in 2018. This is important because, as you look at the evidence and as you evaluate Cassie and Combs’ relationship, you will see that their fights, their cheating, their jealousy, it typically surrounded his cheating or it surrounded hers. This is something that plagued their relationship until the very last day.
The evidence will show you that he was extremely jealous of Cassie’s actual or perceived infidelities, and she was uncontrollably jealous of his. This led to a toxic relationship between two people that I expect the evidence will show deeply, deeply loved each other. Perhaps they did not always show love to one another the way you would with your partner, but they were in a relationship and she was not being trafficked.
You will see that over and over again in this decadelong relationship. These two fought about his inability to remain faithful. I expect Cassie to tell you about the jealousy of Kim Porter and another girlfriend that he started dating in 2014 named Gina. This jealousy is something that plagued their relationship, even the day of the InterContinental video in the elevator bank, that much of you told us during jury selection that you saw. That day, unfortunately, jealousy was on full display. And in combination with the bad drugs that I expect Cassie to testify that Combs took, it led to domestic violence in the elevator bank.
This assault happened almost 10 years ago on March 5 of 2016. I expect that we are all going to see this video many, many times throughout this trial. You are going to see it later today, and I expect you to see it many more times throughout this week. You’re going to see it a lot. But I want to start by saying two things.
First, what Combs did to Cassie on this videotape is indefensible. It is horrible. It’s dehumanizing. It’s violent. It’s virtually every bad word you can think of. And while it is dehumanizing and violent and terrible, the second most important thing is that it is not evidence of sex trafficking. It is evidence of domestic violence. You will see that it is also evidence of the central theme in this case, which is jealousy. That’s what this videotape shows you.
As you watch it later today and as you watch it throughout the week, I want you to look for two things. The first part is Cassie walking out of the hotel room, walking down the hallway. She is carrying two bags, and you see that she makes it to the elevators, and then Combs comes down wearing only a towel. He pulls Cassie by the hoodie and she falls to the floor. He kicks her in her back side and he stomps her on the back of her leg and he starts to drag her by her hoodie back to the hotel room. You will see him walk away momentarily with her bags. And you will see this. Then he comes back around and walks towards her, and she is kind of in the left part of the screen. When he comes towards her, he has nothing in his hand. And when he walks away from her, you will see an illuminated phone in his hand. He wanted this phone and he got it.
Please understand that this video is overwhelming evidence of domestic violence, but it’s overwhelming evidence that this domestic violence is over a phone and not because of sex trafficking. What causes a fight about a phone? We can all use our life experiences to show us that. Phones keep the secrets of infidelity. And you will hear that there was another fight even later that year, again, about a phone. I’m not justifying the assault, not by a long shot, but I’m putting it in the proper context. Because you will see that as soon as he gets the phone, he sits down. He’s visibly disgusted. He broke a vase, and he threw flowers and stayed away.
The video has a second part. Cassie calls security from the hotel phone. The security officer comes to the floor, and I expect you will hear from him later today. Combs is sitting in the chair slumped over. He’s holding his head in his hands and the security officer tells them to leave the public area of the hotel where they are making a commotion. You will see Cassie turn to Combs and gesture to her. And pay attention to the words that I think you will see her say to him, which is, Get back to the room.
Two parts. Both of them important and both of them important to show that Combs assaulted Cassie. But you can’t stop there because he is not charged with assault. Is it because of sex trafficking, as the government is going to argue to you, or is it because of something else?
I expect the evidence, even just this week, will show you that the fight was over a phone. These two stay together two more years after this incident. And to understand how and to understand why is to understand how this relationship ended. You’ll hear that, even into 2018, these two were fighting to stay together. But the evidence will show you that in the summer of that year, of 2018, she woke up to a gossip site that showed a photo of Combs and Gina, the same woman who he had started having an affair with in 2014, or a relationship with, I should say, walking out of The Standard Hotel together.
Cassie could not come back from it. She could not give him another chance. And instead, she made the choice, as she often did, when he was caught in public with Gina, to break up with him and date another man. For Cassie, she made a choice every single day for years. A choice to stay with him. A choice to fight for him. Because for 11 years, that was the better choice. That was her preferred choice. And so she made the choice to stay with him until one day she decided she was going to break up with him because that was her preferred choice.
So it’s important for you to remember as you evaluate the evidence, because she was not coerced to continue or engage in this sex life with Sean Combs. When she made the decision to leave, there were no repercussions, as the government hinted. She made the choice to leave. She communicated it to him and she ran into the arms of another man, a physical trainer who Combs had hired to train her.
So I will ask you, ladies and gentlemen, pay close attention to the messages, the realtime communications between these two individuals, and the messages surrounding their breakup. Does Combs release the videotapes the government was just talking about? No, he doesn’t. You will hear that the government raided two of his homes, you have already heard that, over a year ago. They seized countless electronic devices. The only freak-off videos you will see or hear about at this trial came from her devices that she kept for five years.
So when the government talks about power and control, who had the power? Who had the control? The government did not find any freak-off videos with Cassie on those devices. And so going back during the time of Cassie and Combs’ breakup, Cassie is already dating her now husband. She is with him for months as she is breaking up with Combs, all while telling Combs she still loves him.
And then in November of 2018, Kim Porter tragically passes away from pneumonia. Knowing that Combs would be distraught and wanting to be there for him, she did everything she could to be there. She came to memorial service at his home. She flew to Kim’s home state of Georgia to be at the funeral. Don’t lose the sight of the fact that, amidst a breakup, all the way at the end of 2018, she flew to a funeral service to be there for him and support him and his family during this trying time of their life.
And at the service at their home, Combs, to a group of loved ones, former employees, and others, and to many people on social media who were paying respects, said, and I quote, “Kim was my soulmate.” In Cassie’s presence for everybody to hear, he said, She was my soulmate. The end of the relationship between Cassie and Combs is important, and I want you to focus on the evidence of how and why it ended. When Combs publicly said Kim Porter was his soulmate to all the people around him who were there, for the first time maybe ever, Cassie realized all the things she would not be.
I expect many witnesses at this trial to tell you she wanted to be Combs’ wife. I expect even she may tell you that. That is what she spent 11 years trying to get. And in one day, it became clear to Cassie she was never going to be that. And if she was never going to be Combs’ wife, if she was never going to be the love of his life, then she would leave. And that is what she did, on her terms, her choice, for reasons that, for her, were the right reasons.
This is where bringing personal experience to this jury matters. This is something we have all been through. That one life event you can point to where you can say that is when I knew it was over. Because that is what this was for her. Because this was a relationship, although toxic at times, like every other relationship, it was not based on coercion. It was not based on force. At a certain point, you know you’re not going to get what you need from that other person and you leave.
After Kim’s funeral, they never saw each other again. The very first time that this former couple will see each other after six and a half years of a breakup is in this courtroom later today or tomorrow. We are all going to witness their closure, and that is because she moved on with her life and he moved on with his. You will see that she married the trainer. She had two children with him. And she’s pregnant with her third. And Combs also moved on with his life.
As you listen to her testimony, as you read her messages closely, evaluate what Combs’ intent was at the time. Evaluate what he understood about what she wanted during those 11 years that they spent together. What he understood, I expect the messages to show you, was that she was a willing participant in their sex life. That was a voluntary adult choice by two capable adults. What Cassie may testify to this week, six years after a breakup, is not a match for the realtime evidence that you will have. The realtime text messages I urge you to read. Evaluate his intent, which is the only thing that matters here.
The government also talked to you a lot about Jane. She is the other woman that the government alleges Combs sex-trafficked. She was his girlfriend of three years, and she comes into his life several years after the Cassie breakup. He, I think you will find in the evidence, is a little bit different in 2020 and 2021 than he was when he was dating with Cassie. And I think the most important reason you will see is that he was more upfront about his dating life. Rather than saying that he was only dating one person, he was very upfront with Jane. I expect her to tell you that he was dating multiple different women.
However, as I started my opening statement, this did not stop the jealousy. Jane’s relationship with Combs was plagued by jealousy. Their relationship was not the 11-year public romance that Combs and Cassie had. The problem is that Jane wished that it was. The government told you that their relationship was not public. You are going to hear from Jane why that was. There were many different reasons why that was.
And so, after a period of time, their relationship becomes primarily sexual. Jane is also older than Cassie was when she started dating him, and she was living her own life in a different state raising her child. She is a capable, strong adult woman. And you are going to hear, as I expect that you’ve already heard, that pretty soon after her relationship with Combs started, he brought up the idea of whether she would want to have sex with another man. Again, like a consensual threesome. And Combs would watch. She agreed, and they went to a private hotel room, away from his employees, away from family. And I expect that she will testify that she enjoyed that night. She laid down on the couch after and said to herself, like, wow, I can’t believe I just did that.
And you will see that Combs really began to love these hotel nights with her. And I expect that she will testify that she began to do everything possible to make these nights incredible for Combs. That includes finding the best male entertainment to join them, to wear the outfits he would find the sexiest, and saying all the things during these nights that would excite him.
I expect she will testify she did this because she loved him. She was desperate to spend time with him, to be with him, and ultimately, to give him something none of the other girlfriends that he was dating at the time were giving him. She will tell you that she tried many times to change the tenor of the relationship from one of a purely sexual nature to something maybe deeper or more meaningful. I’m not sure exactly how she will put that to you, but she will testify that it always came back to what they would call parties, which were these nights in hotel rooms.
And the evidence will show you that she did it over and over again for three years because she made the choice. And this became their time together. This became their sex life. And I expect that she will testify that she realized that if she didn’t have these hotel nights with Combs, they may not get their alone time together, which is time she so deeply craved.
I expect she will tell you that she kept coming back over and over again because she did it for the affection, she did it for the love, for the cuddle, and because she knew it would make him happy. And she wanted more than anything to make him happy. She was unable to resist him emotionally, and her desire to be with him outweighed all other considerations of hers.
The government told you about a phone call they had in November of 2023. I expect the evidence will show you that even after this phone call, she continued. She flew out to see him many more times, and continued willingly engaging in these nights. The evidence is going to show you a toxic and dysfunctional relationship between these two individuals. And you may think to yourself, wow, he is a really bad boyfriend. But the evidence is going to show you that she is a capable, strong woman who willingly engaged in their sex life so they could spend time together. That is simply not sex trafficking.
I expect her to testify that she was a willing participant, and being a willing participant in your own sex life is not sex trafficking. I expect her to also testify that there were nights she engaged in the sex because she hoped she could turn their relationship from one of a more sexual relationship into something more. And she will testify that if she walked away, she would have lost him. That is not something she was willing to do.
And as I said, you will see her jealousy on full display at this trial. And you will see that she was willing to engage in these nights with Combs, and then she would be on social media after, and she would see he was with another one of his girlfriends, either out to dinner or traveling, and she would send messages with regret afterwards. These are born out of jealousy, which was the root of their troubles. And regret does not mean that she was coerced. Her jealousy drove her to make the moves that she made.
As I said, every single witness in this case had free choice to make the choices that they made. The jealousy of other women in Combs’ life was one of hers. Seeing the other women that he would be on social media posts with or otherwise drove her to try to be in first place and made her more desirous of their time together. This was the way to get there and the evidence will show you that that is simply not a crime.
The government also told you about a night a year ago where Jane hit Combs. Once again, as I said, this was a night born out of jealousy. You will hear, as you’ve already heard, that he also hit her back. But what you didn’t hear was the start of the fight. She was overcome by jealousy that night. She slammed his head down on her kitchen counter. This is how the fight started. I do not want to justify this night. I do not want to justify the assault. But I simply am here to tell you that the evidence will show you that it starts because she slams his head on her kitchen counter.
And you are also going to hear that less than a month or approximately a month after this assault, an incident of domestic violence at her home, she flew to Combs’ home in Miami. She called an escort and had what I expect her to say was one of her best hotel nights that she had with one of their regular escorts.
Now, during the testimony of both Cassie and Jane, I expect the government is going to put in a bunch of videotapes of the so-called freak-offs or hotel nights or wild king nights, however you would like to call them, into evidence. These videotapes depict what we’ve been telling you about, Sean Combs, one of his girlfriends, and a man. These videos, we believe, are powerful evidence that the sexual conduct in this case was consensual and not based on coercion.
But I want to say one thing to you now. Some of you may find them hard to watch. Not because they are violent, not because they are non-consensual, but because they were never meant to be seen by people outside of that room. They are in one word — intimate. And they were always meant to remain that way. The reason these videos will be seen by you is because the government has chosen to take possession of these videos and to put them into evidence in a federal courtroom. Playing these videos will feel invasive, but the government has charged him with sex trafficking, and the evidence of the alleged sex trafficking is on these videos. This is why you will have to see them.
You may hear about other women. The government told you about someone named Mia, for example. I urge you to pay attention to these other women’s realtime communications with Combs. Ask yourself, why are they making this allegation now? What is their motive? You will conclude, like you will with every single other witness in this case, that everybody who testifies has a motive.
With Mia, for example, I ask you to evaluate her motive when you listen to her testimony. What are the reasons she is saying what she might be saying now, what she never said before, and certainly never said when she first started cooperating with the government? This is someone you should evaluate her messages carefully, ones of unbelievable love for Combs throughout her employment.
You are also going to hear from several other past employees of his. They will try to paint a picture for you of a hostile workplace. As I’ve said with nearly every single witness in this case, when these people testify, ask yourself: Why did anybody, if they were so scared and if this was so hostile, ever call the police? Why not? I expect that the evidence will show you that the testimony against him, their former boss, for many, not all, is vindictive or they are being subpoenaed to give it.
Like every other witness, ask yourself: What is the something? What is the reason that they stayed. You will find, with every single person, they had a something. So when you hear from the witnesses who testify here who will tell you they were victimized, and you ask yourself, What is their motive? For many of them, the answer is simple: Money.
This criminal case started because of Cassie. Not because she went to law enforcement with her allegations, but because she filed a public lawsuit against Combs in November of 2023, at this time when she was having financial trouble and living in her parents’ modest home in Connecticut with her family. Rather than go to law enforcement about what had allegedly happened to her, she went to a civil lawyer who is here today.
I expect that this trial, from nearly every witness that you hear from, they will tell you that instead of going to law enforcement, after either their employment ended for the alleged victims, they went to a civil lawyer for a money grab. They will claim that they were so afraid of this man that they could, of course, not go to the police because he was so powerful. But they were not so afraid that they could not go to civil lawyers to make money demands against him. Demands for unbelievable amounts of money. More than any of us have ever made.
Cassie, for example, will tell you that she first made a demand on Combs for $30 million. Another witness will tell you that in a breach of contract case, she made a demand for $22 million. And as you listen to these witnesses — and there will be many, as the prosecutor told you — who made civil demands against him, I want you to ask yourself: How many millions of reasons does this witness swearing to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, have to lie? How many hundreds of thousands of reasons does this witness swearing to tell the truth, and nothing but the truth, have to lie?
Will you really believe that these people who have demanded an unimaginable amount of money from Mr. Combs would have traded all of that to not have been abused? Because if that is the case, I submit that you will consider, why did they never go to law enforcement?
So, in closing, the evidence will be framed to prove from the government, they will attempt to prove racketeering influence and corrupt organizations act charge, two sex trafficking charges, and two prostitution counts. The evidence you will hear at this trial will not make out any of them. The conspiracy charged is that Combs allegedly committed two counts of acts of kidnapping, one act of arson, a bribery, an obstruction of justice, forced labor, and drug trafficking.
I’m going to take these briefly, briefly in turn, and then I’m going to ask you to evaluate the evidence by the witnesses who will testify about these acts.
First, he did not commit any of these acts. In terms of the alleged bribery and the obstruction of justice, this relates to the InterContinental Hotel incident that we’ve talked about this morning. You will hear, as you already did, that he paid money to a security guard at the InterContinental so the footage would go away. This was solely, solely related to preventing bad publicity for both Combs and Cassie, and had nothing to do with obstructing a law enforcement investigation. No law enforcement investigation existed, period. That is a requirement. And so the evidence will show you he simply did not commit those acts.
As to the kidnappings and the arson, I submit that you are not going to find there were any kidnappings, and he was simply not involved in the alleged arson. The government told you that the kidnappings relate to one employee, who I am telling you the evidence will show worked for Combs for almost a decade. As you listen to her testimony and evaluate: Was this person actually kidnapped? I expect the evidence is going to show you that, even after the criminal investigation into Combs started, she asked to work for him again 12 years after her employment ended. 12 years after she claimed she had been kidnapped the last time. Now, more than a decade after these kidnapping acts. And so the evidence is going to show you that he simply did not commit them.
As to the drug trafficking, I submit the evidence is going to show you that the drugs are personal-use drugs for him and, at times, the women he was with. And those drugs have nothing to do with an enterprise.
As to the forced labor, you will see that Combs worked hard, his employees worked hard, but they were there to do something great and novel for his lawful businesses. It was not forced. Being there was an adult, free choice like everything else in this case.
Second, the RICO conspiracy requires a group effort, even if the group is two people. And there will be no evidence of that. So as you are listening to the evidence, ask yourself: Who is Combs actually conspiring with to violate the racketeering influence corrupt organization act? The answer will be no one.
Finally, the last of the charges I will talk to you about are the two counts that charge him with causing interstate travel for the purposes of prostitution. For him to be guilty, I expect the judge will tell you that he had to intentionally engage in what he knows to be prostitution. What the evidence is going to be is that he was paying different men for their time and an experience.
Think about the pornography industry, for example. Actors in pornographic movies are paid for their time, and generally they have sex. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be pornography. You also hear about many companies, I expect you’ll hear from one later today, called Hunkomania, a company called Cowboys4Angels that advertise online across the country where you can pay money for time and an experience.
These escort companies are common and they do not advertise themselves as money for sex. They advertise themselves as money for time and money for an experience. And that is what Sean Combs was doing. He was paying money for that experience.
So, in closing, I ask you once again to listen carefully to all of the evidence. You are not here to judge or impose your moral beliefs onto this man. You are here as a jury of his peers to determine whether the government can meet its burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed these crimes.
When you hear the evidence, when you go back into the jury room and evaluate the evidence in light of the crimes that are actually charged here, you will return the only verdict that the evidence demands, that is he not guilty of these crimes.
