June 25 Case Continues

By T.L. Reigns

The Scoop Digital Newspaper: July 2025

1. The Government’s Streamlining Letter

In a letter to Judge Subramanian, the prosecution informed the court:

They are dropping certain predicate theories, specifically:

Attempted kidnapping under California and New York law

Attempted arson under California law

Aiding and abetting sex trafficking

These instructions are no longer necessary as they are not proceeding on these theories.

They have simplified the language for Count One (the RICO conspiracy) to reduce confusion and align with the operative agreement for that count.

Essential Jury Clarifications Still Needed

Despite the streamlining, the government emphasized that the following additional jury instructions are necessary to ensure jurors fully grasp the law, especially on sex trafficking and forced labor charges:

a) Prior Consent ≠ No Trafficking

Sex trafficking: Early consensual sex by a victim does not prevent a later finding of trafficking.

Forced labor: A victim’s initial willingness to work does not preclude a finding of later forced labor (citing Marcus, 628 F.3d at 45).

Example: patterns involving Cassie and Jane.

b) Payment Doesn’t Impute Consent

Jurors must understand that payment, or other benefits, to victims for sex or labor does not rule out trafficking or coercion.

Example: Jane received $10,000/month rent, and others received salaries or gifts; that alone can’t negate coercion.

c) Totality of Cumulative Conduct Matters

The jury should evaluate the entire pattern of threats, violence, and control, not just isolated incidents, when considering coercion for both sex trafficking and forced labor.

d) No Physical Restraint Required

Jurors must know that traffickers don’t need to physically restrain victims; psychological coercion or force suffices.

Example: incidents with Jane and Mia were based on threats or directed movement.

e) A Completed Commercial Sex Act Is Not Required

Attempted or impending commercial sex gestures—such as dragging someone toward a room—can qualify for sex trafficking, even if no act is completed  .

f) “Reckless Disregard” for Knowledge Element

A more detailed instruction is requested to clarify the government’s burden to show the defendant knew, or acted with reckless disregard, for the victim’s lack of consent.

g) More Guidance on Conspiracy Law

RICO and narcotics conspiracy require special attention; jurors should be properly instructed to understand what qualifies as a conspiracy (noting that the current draft is “a few sentences”)  .

h) Interstate Commerce Instruction

A succinct explanation is needed to demonstrate that narcotic activity within the alleged enterprise meets the interstate commerce requirement of RICO.

i) Unanimity Clarifications on Trafficking and Mann Act Counts

The prosecution objects to the current unanimity instruction; instead, they suggest clearer language stating:

As long as jurors agree on one instance of trafficking or prostitution (within the charged period), they don’t have to agree on how each element was met, just that they were met beyond a reasonable doubt.

Judge’s Courtroom Remarks

Judge Subramanian welcomed the streamlining effort, acknowledging the court had to resolve around 200 objections and that clarifying charge language was a key focus. He even quipped:

“This is the most people I’ve ever seen at a charge conference. Buckle in.”  

He also partially adopted the government’s compromise: allowing the instruction that “initial acquiescence” to sex doesn’t rule out future trafficking—but noting jurors may consider it when assessing knowledge.

Bottom Line

The government has narrowed its case by eliminating several predicate theories.

Yet they insist that in-depth instructions on consent, payment, coercion over time, and legal thresholds remain essential for clarity.

Judge Subramanian seems receptive—balancing brevity with thorough guidance to ensure the jury applies the law correctly.

As the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs nears its conclusion, prosecutors have made a final plea to Judge Arun Subramanian: include a series of detailed jury instructions they argue are essential for a fair and lawful verdict.

In a letter submitted to the court, prosecutors laid out why these instructions, despite the judge’s preference for a streamlined charge, are vital for jurors to understand the complexities of sex trafficking, forced labor, and conspiracy law.

One of the most significant requests centers on the concept of reckless disregard. Prosecutors believe the jury will be asked to evaluate whether Combs had sufficient knowledge that Jane and Cassandra Ventura felt compelled to engage in commercial sex acts. 

To guide that decision, the government argued, jurors need a deeper explanation of what legally constitutes “reckless disregard.”

According to the letter, such an instruction would help jurors determine whether Combs should have known that his conduct, through coercion, manipulation, or threats, left his alleged victims with no real choice. 

Without this, the prosecution fears, jurors might wrongly believe the defendant had to explicitly acknowledge wrongdoing to be held accountable.

Another proposed instruction deals with conspiracy, especially as it relates to Count One (the racketeering conspiracy charge) and predicate narcotics trafficking. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The Scoop Digital Newspaper
thescoop@writeme.com