When a jury of eight men and four women cleared Sean Combs of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges on Wednesday – the most severe charges leveled against him by federal prosecutors – reaction was decidedly mixed.
Combs’ supporters cheered the news as a total vindication. While he was convicted of two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution and conceded during the trial that was physically violent in his personal relationships, he was acquitted on the top counts and avoided the worst-case scenario of a possible life sentence.
The national women’s advocacy group UltraViolet called the verdict a “stain on the criminal justice system,” and “an indictment of a culture in which not believing women and victims of sexual assault remains endemic.”
Legal experts say the verdict was also a big loss for the team of prosecutors who tried the case for the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of New York. Yes, the prosecutors managed to convict Combs of two counts under the Mann Act – securing some sort of prison sentence for the rich and powerful defendant. But that was the “low-hanging fruit” in the government’s sprawling case, Alyse Adamson, a former assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, tells Rolling Stone.
“This is a huge, huge blow,” Adamson says, referring to prosecutors and the complicated case they put on with 34 witnesses over nearly two months of trial. “This is a huge win for Combs.” For other prosecutors, this could make them think twice about using RICO in a “novel” way, she says.
“Obviously, they were using the RICO to try to bring charges against Combs that they otherwise couldn’t bring because the statute of limitations had already run,” she explains. “The problem,” according to Adamson, is that the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act enacted in 1970 is understood as something used to go after mob bosses, and “this Combs ‘enterprise’ wasn’t really a clearly defined and structured organization” that you see in a typical RICO case.
“I think they had evidence that somebody had been doing bad things for a long time, and the prosecutors wanted to bring a righteous prosecution to try to catch him, and I think they just were a little over their skis,” Adamson says.
Love Music?
Get your daily dose of everything happening in Australian/New Zealand music and globally.
Brad Bailey, another former federal prosecutor who now works as a defense attorney in Boston, says the verdict “certainly suggests an overreach on the part of the Southern District.”
“They’ve expended a great deal of resources. Six prosecutors on the case is an inordinately high number to commit to any one case. They also have committed a great deal of law enforcement resources in terms of the investigating agents. There was a big splash with the high-profile searches with guns drawn at his residences … so this is an embarrassment in terms of what could have been an overreach,” Bailey says. “On the other hand, you never know what type of factor notoriety and fame place on these cases, and that’s always the wild card – the unknown X factor.”
Bailey noted that the jury signaled more than once to the judge that they were having trouble reaching consensus with the clock ticking. When they were selected, the judge told them he expected they would be finished with the trial by the Fourth of July holiday this week. “My guess is that this is a jury that was tired and wanted to go home and there was contentiousness in there,” Bailey says, “and they just decided that this was the proper reflection of the evidence as presented.”
“I’m as pro-prosecution as they come. But you have to respect the jury verdict. The jurors rejected these allegations. This was a failed prosecution,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor now working as a victims’ rights attorney in Los Angeles, tells Rolling Stone.
Rahmani says the outcome of Combs’ very high-profile trial will likely have a chilling effect on the willingness of other victims and prosecutors to move forward with other cases. “There’s no question,” he says. “Imagine going and testifying before 12 strangers and telling them that you were urinated on in your mouth … that you were forced to have sex on your period or while you had UTIs, and the jurors don’t believe you? You’re talking about the most graphic, explicit, personal details of your sex life, and they think you’re a liar.
“I’ve had maybe over 100 conversations in my office when I’m talking to a victim, and I explained what a civil or criminal trial entails and that you’re going to have to testify publicly and you’re going to be cross-examined and you have to tell your story and relive your trauma in a very public way,” he adds. “Eight out of 10 say they can’t do it. After this, it’s probably going to be nine out of 10.”
Adamson agrees. “It is already extremely difficult to have victims testify. That is a traumatizing experience, no matter the outcome,” she says. “So this is definitely not going to make it any easier to convince witnesses and victims to come forward, for sure.”
Jay Clayton, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, released a statement after the Combs verdict was delivered, saying he wanted to “recognize the important work” of the SDNY’s work seeking to combat human trafficking. He did not mention Combs by name.
“Sex crimes deeply scar victims, and the disturbing reality is that sex crimes are all too present in many aspects of our society. Victims endure gut-wrenching physical and mental abuse, leading to lasting trauma. New Yorkers and all Americans want this scourge stopped and perpetrators brought to justice,” Clayton said. “Prosecuting sex crimes requires brave victims to come forward and tell their harrowing stories. We and our law enforcement partners recognize the hardships victims endure and have prioritized a victim-centered approach to investigating and prosecuting these cases.”
From Rolling Stone US
