Slavik began by hammering home that Sean “Diddy” Combs was the unquestioned leader of a criminal enterprise—a “kingdom” built on wealth, fame, and a loyal inner circle ready to do his bidding. She painted a picture of Combs as empowered by his status and surrounded by lieutenants—assistants and security personnel—who enabled violent and criminal conduct. Addressing the racketeering conspiracy, she reminded jurors that the law views group crime as more dangerous, arguing that Combs’s enterprise committed hundreds of predicate acts: from drug distribution and bribery to witness tampering and forced labor. She emphasized that Combs “doesn’t take no for an answer” and “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted,” spotlighting the relationship between his authority and the alleged crimes.Slavik then pivoted to the heart of the case—the sex‑trafficking and “freak‑off” allegations. She revisited testimony from former partners Cassie Ventura and Jane, underlining how they were allegedly drugged and coerced into participating in orgies with escorts, all orchestrated by Combs. She stressed that “drugs were an essential ingredient” in these events, part of how Combs maintained control and compliance, procuring substances through his enterprise. ith stark imagery and ferocity, she alleged that he repeatedly “forced, threatened and manipulated” victims—making it clear that this was a pattern of exploitation, not isolated incidents.After lunch, Slavik resumed by delving deeper into the case of the witness known as “Jane,” outlining the four stages of her relationship with Combs—from early “love‑bombing” to repeated “hotel nights” (or “freak‑offs”) orchestrated under Combs’s control via lies, threats, and the looming possibility of losing housing or having intimate recordings released. She emphasized that even a single coerced encounter—if facilitated by his enterprise—met the legal definition of sex trafficking. “You do not need to find that all of the freak‑offs… were force or coercion,” she told jurors; “if there was one time, one single freak‑off, when the defendant knew or recklessly disregarded that [Jane] was participating because of his lies, his threats or his violence—then that’s it. He’s guilty”Shifting focus, Slavik then tackled the transportation-for-prostitution counts, showing how Combs and his aides paid for male escorts to travel—through flights, hotels, and bank records—to facilitate these encounters. She dismissed the notion of consensual participation, arguing that it “doesn’t matter” whether the escorts consented—the crime lies in transporting them for paid sexual activity. She underscored that the enterprise facilitated this process, reinforcing the RICO charge’s breadth. Shortly before the afternoon break, Slavik turned back to Cassie Ventura’s situation, pointing to the strategic use of text messages and fear-based threats—recalling that Combs blackmailed her with videos and deployed violence and control tactics—to show the jury how a pattern of coercion extended across relationshipsight after the lunch recess, Slavik resumed by focusing on Combs’s relationship with “Jane,” the pseudonymous ex-girlfriend. She recapped how Combs escalated from “love‑bombing” with gifts and trips to coercive “hotel-night” sessions, leveraging his control over Jane’s living situation and finances. She emphasized that even a single coerced “freak-off” session is enough for a sex-trafficking conviction, reminding the jury that Jane testified: “I didn’t want it to feel too real… it just made things easier,” indicating she participated out of fear and manipulation.Slavik then turned to racketeering and witness tampering, detailing how Combs and associates reached out to Jane and former assistant “Mia” after Cassie Ventura's lawsuit—playing recordings of calls where he encouraged Jane to downplay her experiences and used D‑Roc’s presence to intimidate Mia, who testified she felt “terrified”Christy Slavik concluded her nearly five-hour closing argument with a powerful, emotional plea that marked a clear turning point in her case. First, she reminded the jury that regardless of how disturbing the evidence was, it “proves to you that the defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Then, with quiet force, she directly appealed to the jurors: “Up until today, the defendant was able to get away with his crimes because of his money, power and influence. It’s time to hold him accountable. It’s time for justice. It’s time to find the defendant guilty.”By ending her summation this way, Slavik framed the jury’s role sharply: Combs’s fame, wealth, and the influence that once shielded him must no longer be a barrier to accountability. Her closing words repositioned the deliberation as a matter of principle—justice over ...
Más
Menos
Oct 5 202511 m