Note from Elie 7/3: The Diddy Verdict — What Went Wrong?
07:06 Share

Support for this show comes from Rinse. Here's a question. Who does your laundry? Well, you can simplify your life by having Rinse do it for you. With one touch in-app scheduling, pickup and delivery are effortless. Your clothes come back fresh, folded, and ready to wear, handled by laundry experts who get every detail right. Rinse makes laundry and dry cleaning the easiest part of your week. Sign up at rinse.com and save $20 on your first order.

Hey, everyone. Ellie here, wishing you a happy. Well, I guess it'll be a Thursday when you get this. Well, we have the verdict against Sean Combs. It was a little uncertain for a bit. They went into the break after the day of court on Tuesday with a verdict on four of the counts, but they were unresolved on the Rico count.

On Wednesday morning, they came back very quickly and had a full verdict on all five counts. This is a bad moment for the Southern District of New York. They are in for quite a bit of criticism as I'm about to level at them. But you can't win them all. I mean, I took my share of tough losses at the SDNY. So it's part of the job. You know, you have to approach the job as a prosecutor, as a

I charge the cases I see fit. I put in my evidence and then the jury's going to do what it's going to do. So it's tough. It's tough for the prosecutors. I promise you they're having a not so celebratory beer maybe at the end of the day. I used to do that. Sometimes you were definitely celebrating. Sometimes you were sort of in between. I guess there may be sort of in between leaning towards the downside with this one. Okay, here we go. Here's my analysis. Thanks for listening. As always, welcome your thoughts, questions, and comments to lettersatcafe.com. ♪♪♪

Sean Diddy Combs has been convicted of two federal felonies, but for all practical purposes, he has won the day. Regular readers of this column won't be surprised by the outcome. As we discussed, as I said before the trial, quoting myself, the jury won't convict Combs merely if they believe he's horrible and greedy and grotesque. They'll convict him only if prosecutors prove he's a criminal and if he's not.

and that he broke the specific laws they've chosen to charge, end quote. In the end, that proof failed. The prosecution's lead charge, racketeering, turned out to be a grievous overcharge. Prosecutors typically use racketeering laws to take down mob leaders and drug kingpins, though broader and more creative applications are possible. I used to use those myself. But the prosecution's proof of a defined organizational structure in this case turned out to be sorely lacking. It showed that Combs

is a horrible human being, an abusive domestic partner, and a purveyor and consumer of interstate prostitution, but not a boss presiding over an organized criminal machine. As we said, again, quoting myself, sorry twice, but I have to, before the trial, quote, from the prosecution's perspective, a one-man racketeering conspiracy is like a one-man band. It's technically possible.

but it's far from ideal. End quote. I promise no more quotes for myself. The bigger surprise is that the jury cleared Combs on two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion relating to two of his long-term romantic partners, Cassie Ventura and the pseudonymous Jane. The evidence was a mixed bag. Despite incontrovertible proof of physical abuse and threats by Combs, text and testimony suggested that the women at times participated more.

voluntarily in the infamous freak offs. The jury was plainly unpersuaded that on the whole, Combs overrode the free will of his purported victims. All the prosecutors achieved here were convictions on the lowest hanging fruit, garden variety, interstate transportation for prostitution relating to Ventura, Jane and various male escorts. The jury actually didn't even specify.

The prosecution merely had to prove that Combs was involved in moving people across state lines to engage in paid sex acts. Here, the freak-offs. Even putting aside the two alleged female victims, the proof at trial was overwhelming that, at a minimum, Combs paid and arranged for the various male escorts to cross state lines for prolonged, lubed-up, drug-fueled sex parties. The defense hardly meaningfully contested these counts,

And the jury found Combs guilty on both. Next up, Combs faces sentencing and the outlook is vastly less ominous for him than it was 24 hours ago. He has dodged the most serious potential outcomes. The racketeering and forcible sex trafficking counts for which Combs was acquitted carried mandatory minimum sentences of 15 years. That's a minimum and life maximums.

Given the two counts of conviction on interstate prostitution, Combs technically faces a maximum of 20 years, 10 years on each count, but there's no way he gets anything close to that. First, because the two crimes are closely related to each other, the sentences will almost certainly be imposed to run concurrently, meaning at the same time, and not consecutively stacked up.

Second, in an ordinary case, an interstate prostitution conviction standing alone might result in a sentence of probation or perhaps a year or two under the federal sentencing guidelines. The judge here might bump up the sentence if he chooses to apply certain aggravating factors relating to physical abuse, for example.

But Combs is now looking at a single digit sentence in terms of years and possibly as little as time served for the 10 months or so he's already spent behind bars. By the way, the prosecution in their bail motion said that they calculate the guidelines range, the recommended sentencing range with all the available enhancements at 51 to 63 months, meaning a little over four to a little over five years. So even they are not shooting for anything close to 20 or 10.

This outcome is an embarrassment for the Southern District of New York, the office where I once worked. The crown jewel of the Justice Department, just ask us, overcharged the case and then overdid it by assigning six, yes, six prosecutors to handle the trial. The SDNY is not used to losing. And despite the two low-level convictions...

This one will haunt the office. Combs' legal team, on the other side, pulled out a remarkable result, and they deserve credit for their work. They adopted a gutsy and unconventional legal strategy by conceding right up front that Combs was a bad guy who had done bad things. But...

The defense urged the jury's job was to carefully assess the proof against the actual federal charges that prosecutors chose to bring. And the jury rejected the most serious of those counts. Sean Combs is not a good person. The jury's verdict changes nothing about what he's done over his lifetime. But trials are not about good and bad. They're not about benevolence and evil. They're about whether prosecutors can prove their specific charges beyond a reasonable doubt. And here, SDNY prosecutors made a series of heavy charges today.

that they ultimately could not back up. Thanks for listening, everyone. Stay safe and stay informed.