June 27 Case Continued

By T.L. Reigns

The Scoop Digital Newspaper: July 2025

Agnifilo noted Cassie kept videos on her own device, suggesting she wasn’t forced. He said the videos depicted private date nights, not criminal acts.

Agnifilo insisted prosecutors misrepresented consensual relationships as trafficking and urged jurors to see the intimate context, not sensational accusations.

Agnifilo argued the alleged $100,000 payment was not bribery but a desperate attempt to avoid public embarrassment after the InterContinental Hotel incident. He noted that everyone involved, including Cassie, wanted to keep the video private to avoid bad publicity—not to influence police or witnesses. 

Agnifilo pointed out that the police were never called about the incident. The alleged bribe wasn’t to sway law enforcement but to keep damaging footage from leaking to the press. 

He stressed that California law requires corrupt intent to unlawfully influence testimony or official information, which was absent in this case. 

Instead, Combs was trying to protect reputations, not obstruct justice. He argued prosecutors twisted efforts to manage a PR crisis into a crime, and insisted there was no evidence that the payment was meant to interfere with any law enforcement investigation.

Agnifilo argued that luxury and status motivated Jane, not fear. He said she willingly arranged encounters and enjoyed lavish trips with Combs. He highlighted inconsistencies in her account of a violent night, including unexplained aggression toward Combs and improbable timelines. Agnifilo argued Jane’s injuries didn’t match her claims of prolonged assault. 

He said Jane’s own texts showed jealousy, not coercion. He insisted Jane consented to their sexual activities and pursued Combs for his wealth. Agnifilo urged jurors to see Jane’s actions as opportunistic, not evidence of sex trafficking or forced encounters. 

Agnifilo argued that government witnesses denied being prostitutes, contradicting prosecutors’ claims of sex-for-money. He noted no witness described negotiating sex for payment. 

Agnifilo pointed to companies like Cowboys 4 Angels, saying Combs had no reason to think paying for time was illegal. He emphasized that prosecutors failed to present evidence of an organized criminal enterprise or co-conspirators. 

Agnifilo said personal assistants described normal work, not racketeering. He argued prosecutors lacked witnesses connecting Combs to criminal conduct. 

Insisting that the case distorted his personal life into false charges of racketeering and conspiracy without factual support. Agnifilo argued there was no evidence of racketeering or conspiracy, emphasizing that KK and D-Rock acted as friends, not co-conspirators. He highlighted their text messages, showing that they had helped Cassie out of concern, not with criminal intent. 

Agnifilo stressed that prosecutors failed to produce a single witness who described participating in a criminal enterprise with Sean Combs. He criticized government arguments as misleading, citing contradictions in testimony and a lack of proof on key points like firearm location and DNA. 

He accused prosecutors of targeting Combs only after Cassie’s lawsuit, not because victims came forward. Agnifilo urged jurors to consider the evidence and not speculation. He argued the government distorted Combs’ personal life into crimes that weren’t supported by facts. 

He reminded the jurors that their role was essential in protecting fairness and urged them to have the courage to acquit, stating that Combs was innocent of all charges. 

Concluding emotionally, he asked the jury to send Combs home to his family, asserting that the government had not met its burden of proof and that Combs did not conspire or engage in racketeering.

Prosecution Rebuttal

In contrast to the defense’s characterization of these events as consensual and part of their private lives, prosecutors rebuked the notion that Combs’s stature and public persona could excuse alleged misconduct. 

They argued the defense sought to recast “freak‑offs” as consensual escapism, but that was a cover for exploitation, arguing that popularity does not supersede personal autonomy.

By describing these actions as part of a concerted criminal enterprise, the prosecution insisted that Combs wasn’t a rogue romantic partner but a ringleader of an organized operation. 

They emphasized that their case met the high legal standard required for both sex trafficking and racketeering: systematic, coordinated wrongdoing with criminal intent.

Closing: A Simple, Legally Sound Directive to the Jury

In their final appeal, prosecutors distilled their argument to its essence: if jurors concluded that Mr. Combs used any element of force, fraud, or coercion in orchestrating at least one group encounter, that breach alone satisfied the four trafficking charges. 

Similarly, the bribery and concealment surrounding the videotaped assault established predicate acts for racketeering conspiracy.

They urged the jury to focus not on the shock value or sensational detail, but on the foundational legal question:

Did Combs use fear or manipulation to control the women?

Did he facilitate or promote non‑consensual sex?

Did he operate as the leader of an enterprise that carried out these acts?

The prosecution reminded jurors that justice required them to look beyond fame, wealth, friendship, or public image, and decide based on law and evidence.

^{Testimony read from Official Court Transcripts on Down the Rabbit Hole News on YouTube}

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

The Scoop Digital Newspaper
thescoop@writeme.com