Diddy trial latest: Prosecution outlines final argument as trial nears end
Closing arguments are kicking off in court, after a six-week case against Sean 'Diddy' Combs. The prosecution is up first, with the defence's turn expected tomorrow. Follow the latest below.
16:02:30
Drugs were an 'essential' part of freak offs
Prosecution lawyer, Christina Slavik says Diddy caused his girlfriends and sex workers to cross-state lines, and transported drugs across state lines too.
She describes Diddy as "the through line" in his enterprise, a constant as its leader as other members changed over time.
To prove the racketeering charge against Diddy, she says the law only requires the jury to find that Diddy and another member of his enterprise committed two acts together, she says those acts can be any of a long list including drug distribution, kidnappings, arson and bribery.
Going into detail, she begins by talking about hard drugs which she says Diddy "fed to Cassie and Jane" to keep them "energised for freak offs". She says Diddy's staff – including his security team and assistants - 'helped keep the drug supply high'.
Some of the drugs she lists are Methamphetamine found in a Gucci pouch, Ketamine, Oxycodone which is the active ingredient in Percocet, Xanax, MDMA, GHB and mushrooms. She says the quantity of drugs are not relevant, adding, 'giving drugs to someone is distribution, period.'
Slavik says: 'The defendant and his staff were all involved in buying and distributing drugs.' She describes the drugs as being an essential part of "freak offs", saying Diddy needed a constant supply to give to Cassie and Jane.
She also says Diddy introduced Jane to drugs and gave her drugs at all but one hotel night, adding that when he ran out, he had assistants or security drop off more.
She says he also made his assistant Mia do drugs, "even if she didn't want to'
16:02:08
Diddy moving in his seat as closing argument continues
Just to paint a little picture of the scene in court for you, Diddy has been fairly animated during the closing argument so far.
He has, at times, sat back in his chair, looked down and cast a glance over at the jurors.
He has been previously warned against doing anything that could be interpreted as communicating with jurors.
15:43:48
Diddy's enterprise 'was his kingdom,' and 'everyone was there to serve him'
The prosecution begins by looking at the racketeering charge against Diddy. Slavik says that while Diddy was "very powerful", he became even more so with the support of his business.
Describing him as being "at the top of his enterprise", she goes on - "it was his kingdom" and "everyone was there to serve him".
She says she will describe it as "the Combs enterprise", meaning not his actual companies including Bad Boy Records, but himself and his trusted inner of circle, which she says existed to "serve his needs".
Slavik lists staff including Kristina Khorram, Diddy's former chief of staff, his security team including D-Roc and Uncle Paulie, and what she calls "a rotating case of assistants", who she describes as "foot soldiers" who were "young and eager" and "didn't blink an eye" to do whatever it took to make Diddy happy.
She says the defence has argued there is no criminal enterprise because no one testified they were part of one, but she urges the jury to use common sense.
Slavik says: "When your boss asks you to buy drugs you are agreeing to a crime, when you lock his girlfriend in a room after he stomped on her face you are agreeing to commit a crime together and that is what racketeering conspiracy is."
15:25:37
Diddy wouldn't 'take no for an answer,' prosecution says
Christy Slavik begins by describing Diddy as the "leader of a criminal enterprise", saying he used "power and violence and fear" to get what he wanted, refusing "to take no for an answer".
She highlights two alleged violent interactions between Diddy and his girlfriends - with Cassie at the Intercontinental Hotel in March 2016 and then in 2024 with Jane, calling them "chapters in the same book", albeit 18 years apart.
Slavik says Diddy "counted on silence and shame" over two decades, using his "fame, wealth and power" to "put him above the law", as well as his "small army of personal staff".
She moves on to detail the charges against him and says she will then outline "how the evidence fits together to show he is guilty of the crimes".
Diddy is charged with one count of racketeering conspiracy, two charges of sex-trafficking, and two charges of transportation to engage in prostitution.
15:11:20
Prosecution's closing argument begins
The jury is now in place.
Prosecution lawyer Christy Slavik is making the government's closing argument - the culmination of their six-week case against Diddy.
15:09:51
Diddy gestures to his family
Diddy is now in the courtroom, and is wearing light-coloured trousers and a white jumper.
He had come into the courtroom earlier during lawyer discussions, but then left until closing statements began. When he came back in, he made gestures to his family, putting his hand to his heart. He also took his glasses out of his folder and put them on the table and then sat rubbing his palms together as he waited for the session to begin.
Diddy has remained in jail without bail since he was arrested in New York in September last year.
15:00:41
Court is in session
There is a high energy in the courtroom today, ahead of closing statements.
Several of Diddy's family members have arrived and are sitting in the second row of the courtroom.
Diddy is yet to enter.
14:44:29
Welcome back to our live coverage of the Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial
We're back with live updates on day 30 of the Sean "Diddy" Combs trial in Manhattan, New York.
The jury were not in court yesterday, as it was a day of legal discussions between lawyers and the judge, putting the plan in place to set out the evidence over the next two days.
Prosecutors will begin their closing argument today, at 3pm UK time, and are expected to last around four hours.
The defence will start their closing argument on Friday.
Judge Arun Subramanian has said he hopes to charge the jury (brief them before they go out) tomorrow.
21:45:03
Case against Diddy rests while defence calls no witnesses - here's a recap
Today, we saw prosecutors and defence lawyers rest their cases in the sex-trafficking trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs.
This brings more than six weeks of testimony against the hip-hop mogul to a close.
We've heard from more than 30 witnesses - but one person jurors won't hear from is Combs himself.
For a full recap, click on the link below...
20:52:01
Scroll down to catch up - and see you back here on Thursday
Judge Arun Subramanian has told the jury that court won't be in session tomorrow, so they have the day off.
They should return on Thursday for 9am (2pm UK time) to hear the start of the closing arguments, he said.
Court will sit for full days on Thursday and Friday.
Scroll down to catch up on proceedings as they happened today - and we'll be back soon with a full story of the day.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
34 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Shocking new twist in 'Pokemon Go' killing of baseball star Calvin Riley... nine years after unsolved shooting
The FBI has released a new sketch of a second person of interest in the unsolved 2016 killing of college baseball star Calvin Riley. Riley, 20 was gunned down in San Francisco on the night of August 6, 2016, while he was playing the video game, Pokemon Go, with a friend. His loved ones said he was struck from behind. His friend heard the shot and saw the 20-year-old fall to the ground. Riley was a rising star for the San Joaquin Delta College Mustangs, who dreamed of playing for the Red Sox. But his killing has remained a mystery for the past nine years. Earlier this week, however, federal investigators revealed the new composite drawing in the hope that those responsible can finally be found. It shows a bearded man with glasses. Riley's father, Sean Riley, paid tribute to the authorities and told KTVU that he hopes this represents a turning point in the investigation. 'They've done an outstanding job,' Riley said of the FBI. 'It's been a lot. I mean, it has been nine years.' The family also posted a statement to social media, per Fox News, which read: 'There's not a day, hour, minute or second that we don't think about you and the great memories that you left us with. 'Calvin, we promise you that we will find this person and bring them to justice. Cal we love you and miss you so much. Until we all meet again!!!' Both the killers and the motive have remained a mystery. The FBI is offering up to $25,000 as a reward for information that helps bring down those responsible. Not long after the shooting, police released a sketch of one person they thought could be connected to the case. The man was reportedly driving a car - with a blonde woman aged between 20 and 30 - which was parked nearby. According to KTVU, a family friend previously said Riley and his friend had noticed someone watching from the top of the hill above them. Another person was seen recording the crime scene and the new sketch shows a bald man with a beard and glasses. Police also identified a couple of suspicious cars - a 2015 white Hyundai Sonata and a dark Audi A3 - that arrived together and left together after the killing. It's not believed Riley was involved in any confrontation or robbery before being shot. Neither his phone nor his wallet was touched. 'This has ripped my family apart,' Sean Riley said at the time. 'I miss my family. I miss him. I miss it all.'
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
The alarming rise of US officers hiding behind masks: ‘A police state'
Some wear balaclavas. Some wear neck gators, sunglasses and hats. Some wear masks and casual clothes. Across the country, armed federal immigration officers have increasingly hidden their identities while carrying out immigration raids, arresting protesters and roughing up prominent Democratic critics. It's a trend that has sparked alarm among civil rights and law enforcement experts alike. Mike German, a former FBI agent, said officers' widespread use of masks was unprecedented in US law enforcement and a sign of a rapidly eroding democracy. 'Masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls,' he said. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has insisted masks are necessary to protect officers' privacy, arguing, without providing evidence, that there has been an uptick in violence against agents. But, German argued, the longterm consequences could be severe. The practice could erode trust in the US law enforcement agencies: 'When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority,' he noted. And, he said, when real agents use masks more frequently, it becomes easier for imposters to operate. German – who previously worked undercover in white supremacist and militia groups and is now a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-profit – spoke to the Guardian about the dangers of officer masking, why he thinks officers are concealing themselves and how far the US has deviated from democratic norms. This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity. Were you surprised by the frequent reports of federal officers covering their faces and refusing to identify themselves, especially during the recent immigration raids and protests in Los Angeles? It is absolutely shocking and frightening to see masked agents, who are also poorly identified in the way they are dressed, using force in public without clearly identifying themselves. Our country is known for having democratic control over law enforcement. When it's hard to tell who a masked individual is working for, it's hard to accept that that is a legitimate use of authority. It's particularly important for officers to identify themselves when they are making arrests. It's important for the person being arrested, and for community members who might be watching, that they understand this is a law enforcement activity. Is there any precedent in the US for this kind of widespread law enforcement masking? I'm not aware of any period where US law enforcement officials wore masks, other than the lone ranger, of course. Masking has always been associated with police states. I think the masking symbolizes the drift of law enforcement away from democratic controls. We see this during protests. We see this in Ice raids. And we see this in the excessive secrecy in which law enforcement has increasingly operated since the 9/11 terrorist attacks. How does masking fit into the post-9/11 trends in American policing? After 9/11, there were significant changes to the law – the Patriot Act, expansion of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, changes to FBI guidelines – that allowed mass warrantless surveillance. Those changes rolled back reforms that had been put in place to address law enforcement abuses, including the targeting of disfavored political activists. As the federal government greatly expanded its authority, state and local law enforcement adopted a similar approach they called 'intelligence-led policing'. That included the creation of 'fusion centers', in which state, local and federal law enforcement share information with each other and private sector entities. Roughly 80 fusion centers exist today, and there is very little oversight and regulation, and they operate under a thick cloak of secrecy, often targeting disfavored protest groups. Once police think of themselves as domestic intelligence agents rather than law enforcement sworn to protect the public, it creates this attitude that the public doesn't have a right to know what they're doing. And now that includes even hiding their identities in public. Why do you think some officers are masking? I have not had conversations with current officers, but I imagine some are masking because they don't normally work for Ice or do immigration enforcement, but are now being sent to do these jobs. [The Trump administration has diverted some federal officers from agencies like the FBI, Drug Enforcement Administration and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to support Ice, reportedly pushing agents who would be tackling violent crimes to instead handle civil immigration violations]. When these officers go home at night, they may not want people in their communities to know it was them. Maybe they have upstanding reputations because of the work they do for the FBI or ATF, and they don't necessarily want to be identified with this kind of indiscriminate targeting of immigrants. And that reluctance to be identified as engaging in those activities really highlights the illegitimacy of those actions. Are there concerns about having masked officers from other agencies working for Ice? Officers from other federal law enforcement agencies are used to operating within specific authorities, and they may not recognize that Ice enforcement actions don't necessarily allow for those same actions. When an FBI or ATF agent is seeking to arrest someone, they typically have a warrant signed by a judge and can go after that person even on private property. Ice's civil enforcement powers don't give them that authority. If Ice doesn't have a judicial warrant, they can't go into someone's home. So if the FBI is doing Ice enforcement, they have to understand their authority is limited in important ways in order to not violate the law. That's also why it's critical for agents to identify what agency they are with. Otherwise, it's hard to understand under what authority an action is being taken. Who is this person shoving a member of the public who is just asking questions? Historically, what are the basic standards and training for law enforcement showing their faces? I'm not aware of any general authority authorizing an agent not to identify themselves during public law enforcement activity. As a former FBI undercover agent, I tried to avoid getting my picture taken as much as possible. But it is a small number of individuals who engage in undercover operations who would require any kind of masking, and they have the option of not participating in arrests where they are going to be in public. A lot of training is about police safety. And part of that safety is having a clear indication that you are a law enforcement official when you're engaging in some type of activity that could involve use of force or arrest, including protest management. The badge was intended to protect the officer, to make it clear you're acting under the authority of the law and not just shoving somebody you don't like. As an FBI agent, if I was going to talk to a member of the public, I'd identify myself and display my credentials. It was routine. And anytime I would write up the interview for evidentiary purposes, the first thing I'd write was, I identified myself and let them know the purpose of the interview. Do you think lawmakers can address this issue with legislation? Some Democratic US senators have pushed Ice to require that agents identify themselves, and California lawmakers have introduced state legislation to ban law enforcement from masking on duty, arguing public servants have an obligation to show their faces – and not operate like Star Wars stormtroopers. Having clear laws, regulations and policies that require law enforcement to operate in an accountable fashion is critical. But a lot of this is about leadership. Law enforcement leaders are justifying masking as some dubious security measure instead of ensuring officers act in a professional manner at all times and holding them accountable when they don't. That has been a significant problem over time when police engage in illegal or unconstitutional activity. It's great when federal, state or local legislators pass laws requiring accountability, but those measures cannot be successful if police aren't expected by their own leaders to abide by those rules. What are the ongoing consequences of officers hiding their faces? The recent shootings of two Democratic lawmakers in Minnesota, by a suspect who allegedly impersonated an officer, highlights the danger of police not looking like police. Federal agents wearing masks and casual clothing significantly increases this risk of any citizen dressing up in a way that fools the public into believing they are law enforcement so they can engage in illegal activity. It is a public safety threat, and it's also a threat to the agents and officers themselves, because people will not immediately be able to distinguish between who is engaged in legitimate activity or illegitimate activity when violence is occurring in public. What are people supposed to do when they're not sure if an officer is legitimate? That question highlights the box that these tactics put Americans into. When they are not sure, the inclination is to resist, and that resistance is used to justify a greater use of force by the officers, and it creates this cycle that is harmful to people just trying to mind their business. And that can mean that these individuals are not just subject to use of force and very aggressive arrests on civil charges, but they could also face more serious criminal charges. The more illegitimate police act, the more resistance to their activities will result. And if the public doesn't trust officers, it becomes very difficult for them to do their jobs.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
Group of high-profile authors sue Microsoft over use of their books in AI training
A group of authors has accused Microsoft of using nearly 200,000 pirated books to create an artificial intelligence model, the latest allegation in the long legal fight over copyrighted works between creative professionals and technology companies. Kai Bird, Jia Tolentino, Daniel Okrent and several others alleged that Microsoft used pirated digital versions of their books to teach its Megatron AI to respond to human prompts. Their lawsuit, filed in New York federal court on Tuesday, is one of several high-stakes cases brought by authors, news outlets and other copyright holders against tech companies including Meta Platforms, Anthropic and Microsoft-backed OpenAI over alleged misuse of their material in AI training. The authors requested a court order blocking Microsoft's infringement and statutory damages of up to $150,000 for each work that Microsoft allegedly misused. Generative artificial intelligence products like Megatron produce text, music, images and videos in response to users' prompts. To create these models, software engineers amass enormous databases of media to program the AI to produce similar output. The writers alleged in the complaint that Microsoft used a collection of nearly 200,000 pirated books to train Megatron, an AI product that gives text responses to user prompts. The complaint said Microsoft used the pirated dataset to create a 'computer model that is not only built on the work of thousands of creators and authors, but also built to generate a wide range of expression that mimics the syntax, voice, and themes of the copyrighted works on which it was trained'. Spokespeople for Microsoft did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. An attorney for the authors declined to comment. The complaint against Microsoft came a day after a California federal judge ruled that Anthropic made fair use under US copyright law of authors' material to train its AI systems but may still be liable for pirating their books. It was the first US decision on the legality of using copyrighted materials without permission for generative AI training. The day the complaint against Microsoft was filed, a California judge ruled in favor of Meta in a similar dispute over the use of copyrighted books used to train its AI models, though he attributed his ruling more to the plaintiffs' poor arguments than the strength of the tech giant's defense. Tech companies have argued that they make fair use of copyrighted material to create new, transformative content, and that being forced to pay copyright holders for their work could hamstring the burgeoning AI industry. Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, said that the creation of ChatGPT would have been 'impossible' without the use of copyrighted works.
