Diddy Juror Removed for Inconsistencies About Where He Lives, Rapper's Lawyer Questions Racial Bias
A juror in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial was formally removed from the jury on Monday after he gave inconsistent answers over whether he actually lives in New York.
'The record raised serious concerns as to the juror's candor and whether he shaded answers to get on and stay on the jury,' Judge Arun Subramanian said of Juror No. 6, initially one of two Black men on the jury. 'There's nothing that the juror could say at this point to put the genie back in the bottle.'
During jury selection, the man said he lived in the Bronx. However, during Week 5 of the trial last week, he reportedly told a court staff member he recently moved to New Jersey. Subramanian said these inconsistencies showed the former juror's 'lack of candor' on Friday, ultimately upholding his decision to remove the Department of Corrections accountant from the jury on Monday.
In response to the judge's Friday comments, one of the rapper's lawyers said the prosecution was making a 'thinly veiled effort to dismiss a Black juror.'
However, Subramanian insisted: 'From the outset of this proceeding to the current date, there has been no evidence and no showing of any kind of any biased conduct or biased manner of proceeding from the government.'
The jury originally consisted of eight men and four women of diverse races. The first alternate is reportedly a white male.
Combs has been charged with five counts of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. He has pled not guilty to all charges.
The post Diddy Juror Removed for Inconsistencies About Where He Lives, Rapper's Lawyer Questions Racial Bias appeared first on TheWrap.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Kenya protesters clash with men wielding clubs
Kenyan protesters have clashed with club-carrying young men, believed to be loyal to the government, in the centre of the capital, Nairobi. The demonstration, held in the wake of the death in custody 10 days ago of blogger and teacher Albert Ojwang, was called to demand the sacking of a top police officer. Police initially said that Mr Ojwang died of self-inflicted wounds, but were forced to retract the statement after an autopsy found that it was likely he died after being assaulted. Two policemen have been arrested in connection with the death. The protest comes amid simmering tension ahead of next week's first anniversary of the storming of parliament by demonstrators. Earlier on Tuesday, there were pockets of violence in the capital's central business district when groups of young men riding motorbikes, armed with whips and clubs, attacked protesters. Videos show the men seemingly working side-by-side with police, who fired teargas to try and disrupt the demonstrations. The Reuters news agency is reporting that its staff saw the body of one man on the street with a head wound. Kenya's police spokesman has said he was unaware of the death. Officers had been deployed across key parts of the city, in an attempt to block protesters from accessing major intersections and government buildings. Deputy police chief Eliud Lagat has stepped aside as an investigation into Mr Ojwang's death is under way. But activists want him removed from office as it was his complaint against the blogger that led to the young man's arrest. The 31-year-old was accused of defaming Mr Lagat on social media. The situation in Nairobi remains tense. Most businesses in the city centre are shut and there are visibly fewer people than usual on the streets. Last year's protests, led by young Kenyans, were against an unpopular finance bill which sought to introduce new taxes. It culminated in the protesters entering parliament on 25 June and forced the government to drop the controversial proposals. There are no contentious tax measures this year, but activists plan to build up momentum to what they are calling "a total shutdown" of business next Wednesday. Additional reporting by Akisa Wandera BBC identifies security forces who shot Kenya anti-tax protesters Batons, tear gas, live fire - Kenyans face police brutality Why Kenya's president has so many nicknames Go to for more news from the African continent. Follow us on Twitter @BBCAfrica, on Facebook at BBC Africa or on Instagram at bbcafrica Focus on Africa This Is Africa
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Karen Read retrial: Jury ends first full day of deliberations with no verdict
Editor's note: This is a summary of jury deliberations in the Karen Read trial for Monday, June 16. For the latest on the deliberations, visit USA TODAY's story for Tuesday, June 17. Jurors in Karen Read's second murder trial ended their first full day of deliberations Monday without a verdict in the case over whether the Massachusetts woman killed her Boston police officer boyfriend. Judge Beverly Cannone sent jurors home for the evening, telling them to come back refreshed Tuesday at 9 a.m. The 12-person panel began discussing Read's fate Friday, June 13, for about two hours, after lawyers finished delivering closing arguments in the eight-week-long murder retrial. By 4:25 p.m. on Monday, after more than nine hours of deliberations, they still had not reached a decision. Read, 45, has pleaded not guilty on three charges, including second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Discover WITNESS: Access our exclusive collection of true crime stories, podcasts, videos and more Prosecutors accuse Read of backing into John O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV after a night out drinking in January 2022. Her defense team has suggested she was framed for the crime by sloppy and biased investigators. 'Don't you have questions?' one of her lawyers, Alan Jackson, said, prodding jurors in his final message to them. He told them their confidence in the case against Read needed to be 'unshakeable' to convict her. Catch up with our coverage and analysis from the most pivotal moments of the retrial. Why Karen Read is a true-crime obsession Karen Read screams: Jennifer McCabe, prosecution's star witness, testifies Scratches, taillight shards, hair: Jurors get a look at Karen Read's SUV The dog did it? What to know about the German Shepherd tied to the Karen Read trial Karen Read claims police bungled the investigation. What did they supposedly do wrong? Was John O'Keefe struck by a baseball bat? Doctor testifies about cops injuries Karen Read Trial in hands of jury: Which evidence could tilt the case? What did lead investigator Michael Proctor say about the case over text? Lewd messages revealed The deliberations come nearly a year after the prosecution's first case against Read ended in a mistrial, when a jury could not come to a unanimous verdict on the charges against her. Crowds of people dressed head to toe in pink, Read's favorite color, milled outside the Dedham, Massachusetts courthouse Monday to cheer for Read as they waited for a verdict. The demonstrations have become a common site, as the years-long legal saga has garnered massive intrigue and captivated true-crime fans, This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: No verdict from Karen Read jury after first full day of deliberations
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
A broken taillight, a dead cop, a bombshell admission: Karen Read trial in hands of jury
Karen Read's voice boomed through the courtroom speakers. 'Could I have clipped him?' she asked. 'Could I have done something that knocked him out, and in his drunkenness, and in the cold, he didn't come to again?' It's a question the jury in Read's murder retrial is now considering as they decide whether she is responsible for the 2022 death of her police officer boyfriend, John O'Keefe. The 12-person panel began deliberating Friday, June 13 on the three charges against Read: second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated, and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death. Their verdict is expected to come nearly a year after Read's first trial ended, when, after five days of discussions, jurors were unable to come to a unanimous decision. This time around, Shira Diner, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, said it's impossible to gauge how long the jury could take. Through almost two months of testimony, prosecutors have painted a picture of a winter night in the suburbs of Boston gone horribly wrong. A relationship on the rocks. A historic snowstorm barreling down. Friends and coworkers drinking together at a local bar to start the weekend. An after-party at a cop's home. A body found under a pile of snow the next morning. Fueled by jealousy, anger and alcohol, prosecutors allege Read backed into O'Keefe with her Lexus SUV while dropping him off at the house party, then left him to die in the snow and cold. Her defense team maintains investigators were biased against Read and overlooked evidence pointing to another cause for O'Keefe's death: law enforcement officers inside the home at 34 Fairview Road may have beaten O'Keefe, let a violent dog attack him, and discarded his body, they suggested. The 45-year-old woman has never taken the stand. Yet, even more than in Read's first trial, the commonwealth's case against her hinges on what they describe as her own 'admissions.' Prosecutors peppered multiple clips from Read's media appearances throughout their case to reinforce witness testimony and crime scene evidence, adding a new twist to the years-long legal saga that has captivated true-crime fans, sparked conspiracy theories and splintered communities. The commonwealth is hoping the tactic will tip the trial in their favor. But legal experts say Read's fate more likely hangs on jurors' predispositions, the battle between expert witnesses and the definition of reasonable doubt. The prosecution and defense have largely followed the same blueprint for Read's second trial – with a few potentially critical changes. For one thing, they've each added more muscle to their bench; the commonwealth hired Hank Brennan, one of famed mobster James 'Whitey' Bulger's lawyers, and Read's defense brought on attorney Victoria George, an alternate juror from her first trial. Brennan focused more on analyzing evidence than on showing the chronology of events when questioning witnesses, as did the lead prosecutor in Read's first trial. He called only 38 people to the stand compared to the more than 60 prosecution witnesses who testified last time. Misty Marris, a New York-based legal expert who has been following the case, said Brennan's approach appeared aimed at putting 'pieces of the puzzle' together for jurors. He brought Jennifer McCabe, the sister-in-law of Brian Albert, whose home whose it was where O'Keefe was found, to the stand earlier in this trial to deliver bombshell testimony alleging Read said, 'I hit him, I hit him, I hit him,' when they discovered his unresponsive body in the snow around 6 a.m. Digital analysts spent hours presenting vehicle and phone data that mapped out Read and O'Keefe's actions in the hours before he died. Forensic scientists testified about small pieces of red plastic found near O'Keefe's body, the nature of his injuries and Read's fractured taillight. Notably missing: Michael Proctor, a former Massachusetts State Trooper and the lead investigator in O'Keefe's case. He testified for the prosecution in Read's first trial and was seen as a potential liability to their case, Marris said. Proctor sent crude text messages about Read during the investigation and was fired before the second trial began. The defense highlighted the texts as evidence that police were biased against Read from the beginning. Kensley Barrett, a Rhode Island defense attorney, said Brennan also presented several new pieces of evidence, including clips of interviews Read conducted and a crash reconstruction report showing Read's SUV moving 87 feet in reverse at about the time O'Keefe's car locked for the last time. The interview clips of Read appeared aimed at bolstering witness testimony about her intoxication and claims she 'hit him.' But Jeffrey Abramson, a former assistant district attorney in Massachusetts who has written daily about the trial in a Substack, told USA TODAY the video clips could play against the prosecution. 'It could humanize Karen Read in the eyes of the jury,' he suggested. 'She might come across as not a monster, and that could help (the defense).' Read's defense team slightly altered its strategy, too. In Read's first trial, her defense directly accused Albert, a police officer, and his friend Brian Higgins, of killing O'Keefe. This time, the defense does not have enough evidence for that approach, Judge Beverly Cannone ruled. Instead, they used a "Bowden defense," arguing that police failed to properly investigate Albert, Higgins and other potential suspects. 'While the judge's ruling sounded like a blow to the defense it isn't really,' Marris said, adding the defense can still raise reasonable doubt. Many of the most important elements from Read's first trial are still at play, however. To convict Read on charges of second-degree murder, vehicular manslaughter while intoxicated and leaving the scene of a collision resulting in death, the jury must find that prosecutors proved their case beyond a reasonable doubt. 'That's a really high standard,' said Diner, the Boston University School of Law professor who is also a defense attorney. Massachusetts' instructions on reasonable doubt tell jurors they need to be convinced to a 'moral certainty,' said Abramson, who also teaches at the University of Texas at Austin. The word 'reasonable,' he said, doesn't mean 'beyond all doubts, because everything human is subject to some doubt.' Read's lawyers have built their case by sowing doubt into the reliability of evidence and the trustworthiness of the prosecution's witnesses. The success of her team's central argument that investigators bungled O'Keefe's case may depend on whether 'jurors were predisposed before this trial began to trust law enforcement, and which jurors were predisposed to have some doubts about law enforcement,' Abramson said. But Christopher Dearborn, a law professor at Suffolk University in Boston, said the jury doesn't have to believe the defense's theory, or even a piece of it, to acquit Read. They merely have to think there's enough uncertainty in the facts prosecutors presented. Dearborn suggested one of the biggest challenges facing the jury could be deciding which experts to believe. The defense and prosecution have called witnesses who have presented competing testimony about what caused O'Keefe's injuries and Read's broken taillight and the reliability of evidence collected by police. 'A lot of this case is going to come down to which experts the jury found more credible,' Dearborn said. 'Was it a dog fight, or was it broken glass? Was the taillight completely broken before or not? Is there a possibility the officers messed with (Read's SUV) in the sally port?' The jury continues deliberating June 16. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Karen Read trial in hands of jury: Which evidence could tilt decision?
