US v. Sean Combs - End Of Trial
Quotes To NBC News & The BBC
Today, after 29 days of trial presentation, the government rested its case against Sean Combs on counts of RICO, sex trafficking and interstate travel for purposes of prostitution. Less than an hour later, the defense rested its case without calling a single witness. Instead, the defense presented some stipulations (agreements) with the government regarding some additional exhibits.
Tomorrow will be a quiet day, with no jury present, while the Court holds a conference on the proposed jury instructions. Thursday and Friday will be the closing arguments. The jury is not expected to start deliberating until Monday.
I provided my analysis of the decision of Sean Combs not to testify or present his own witnesses to NBC News (here) and the BBC (here and here).
Some thoughts:
It is not unusual for the defense not to call the defendant as a witness.
The chief trial skill of a criminal defense attorney is cross-examination of prosecution witnesses.
The cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses in this case appeared (from press reports) to become more effective with later witnesses, such as “Jane” and “Mia”. That only occurred after the testimony of the government’s primary victim, Cassandra (“Cassie”) Ventura. According to press accounts, the jurors did not react favorably to the cross-examination of Ms. Ventura.
If the defendant takes the witness stand, the case almost certainly turns on how the jury perceives the defendant’s testimony.
In this case, Sean Combs would have been cross-examined about even more extreme behavior than the jury has already about, had he taken the witness stand.
The defense moved for a verdict in its favor under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29 even before the jury gets the case, which the judge “reserved” for later decision without requiring the Government to make any argument. This is standard operating procedure. The full arguments on the motion for a defense verdict will take place (if necessary) only after the jury returns its verdict (and there is at least one guilty verdict).
The attorneys on both sides are going to have a lot of time for their closing arguments. Each side is essentially going to have a full day of argument.
A long closing argument by the prosecution sometimes sends a message to the jury that the case is not simple, because it would not take five hours of argument to present a simple case.
Based upon 30+ years of training and experience, I believe that “facts are not persuasive, stories are.” Jurors will often grab onto facts that support their conclusion about the verdict, rather than reasoning from the facts to a verdict.
There are two competing stories here:
Government: The “victims” were coerced by Sean Combs to engage in freak offs by violence, threats of violence and threats of public exposure of sex tapes. Sean Combs’ entourage was a criminal organization designed to feed his sex trafficking, drug use and prostitution.
Defense: There are no “victims” in this case, only adult women who made “adult choices” to engage in sexual activity. The drug use and domestic violence were not coercive.
The prosecution will give the initial closing argument, then the defense will give its closing argument. The prosecution gets the last word in “rebuttal”, but it is only allowed to address the arguments raised by the defense during its closing argument.
The judge (as required) interviewed Sean Combs in open court to make certain that he understood that he had the right to testify, if he wished. Combs stated that he understood his rights, had discussed the decision not to testify with his attorneys and that no one had pressured or coerced him not to testify.
In important ways, a criminal defense team is in the same position as a boxer during fight. The jurors (like boxing judges) are keeping score as they trial goes along, but their thoughts are kept secret until after the trial is over. If a defendant knew that the jurors were ready to convict, that defendant might “swing for a knockout” by taking the stand. The decision not to take the witness stand (or present witnesses) implies that Sean Combs and his attorneys believe that he has a chance at an acquittal (or hung jury).
I have no predictions about what the jury will do in this case. Anyone who says that they know what a jury is going to do (or how long it will take them to do it) is either (a) lying to you, (b) lying to themselves or (c) much smarter than anyone I have ever met.