On the pivotal day of the trial involving Sean “Diddy” Combs, the courtroom was charged with energy as his attorney, Marc Agnifilo, delivered a passionate closing argument. This crucial moment sets the stage for what the jury will soon deliberate: determining whether Combs is culpable for serious charges including sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for prostitution. Should the jury find him guilty, Combs could face a lifetime sentence, significantly altering his legacy and future.
Agnifilo commanded the courtroom with a lively and personable style, contrasting sharply with the prosecution’s more detached and formal approach. He moved dynamically around the room, commencing his arguments with heartfelt praise for Combs’ character and business acumen, presenting him as a true champion of diversity. “Sean Combs has achieved something incredibly challenging,” Agnifilo asserted. “He’s a self-made, successful, Black entrepreneur.” He highlighted positive testimonials from Combs’ former employees, emphasizing that while they may not have always agreed with him, there was a deep-seated affection that made them reluctant to leave his side.
The defense brought attention to the supportive presence of Combs’ children and mother in the courtroom, underscoring his role as a caring family man. Agnifilo cleverly targeted one of the alleged victims, referred to as “Jane,” stating, “I hope she’s having a pleasant day, but let’s be clear about where she’s doing it—inside a house he’s paying for.” This strategy aimed to cast doubt on the credibility of the allegations against Combs and highlight his responsibilities as a father and provider.
Agnifilo argued that Combs is undergoing a “false trial,” asserting that he is not guilty of sex trafficking, but rather is a participant in the consensual “swingers lifestyle,” enjoying “threesomes” with former partners and male entertainers. His defense painted a picture that framed the allegations as exaggerated or misunderstood interpretations of consensual adult behavior, rather than criminal activities.
“Nobody is forcing her to participate in these activities,” Agnifilo claimed, referring to Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, Combs’ ex-girlfriend who alleged that he raped her and coerced her into numerous drug-fueled sex parties referred to as “freak-offs.” Central to the trial is a 2016 surveillance video that allegedly shows Combs assaulting Ventura in a hotel hallway while attempting to drag her back into a “freak-off.” This evidence is critical in understanding the context of the charges against him.
“We acknowledge the issue of domestic violence,” Agnifilo stated. Throughout the trial, the defense has conceded that while Combs exhibited violence towards Ventura, such actions were not directly related to the “freak-offs.” Agnifilo portrayed Ventura as a strong woman who enjoyed her sexual experiences with Combs, stating, “She’s a woman who genuinely enjoys sex. Good for her! She’s beautiful and should embrace her desires.” This framing aimed to challenge the narrative of victimhood imposed by the prosecution.
Agnifilo referenced Ventura’s account regarding her brief romantic involvement with the artist Scott Mescudi, also known as Kid Cudi. Ventura confessed to attempting to keep her relationship with Mescudi secret from Combs by using a second phone. “Whoa! A burner phone!” Agnifilo exclaimed, his tone rising in excitement. “Cassie is keeping it real!” He suggested that Ventura was adeptly managing her relationships with both Combs and Mescudi, raising doubts about her claims of fear regarding Combs’ behavior.
In addressing the kidnapping allegations associated with the racketeering charges, Agnifilo mocked former assistant Capricorn Clark’s assertion that she was held captive for five days in a Manhattan office, forced to take a lie detector test concerning stolen jewelry. “A door-to-door kidnapping,” he said sarcastically, pointing out that Clark was allowed to sleep at home, and a security guard accompanied her daily to the building. “Anyone here feel kidnapped?” he challenged the jury, questioning the validity of Clark’s claims.
Agnifilo expressed disbelief at the gravity of the kidnapping charge, insisting, “This is serious!” He urged the jurors to scrutinize the prosecution’s assertions and to critically evaluate the testimonies presented by witnesses. He emphasized the importance of their role in ensuring justice is served based on the evidence, rather than mere accusations.
The attorney dissected the allegations of bribery, witness tampering, and obstruction, particularly focusing on the accusation that Combs orchestrated an act of arson against Mescudi’s car. While Combs had allegedly made threatening remarks about the vehicle, an investigation found no evidence linking him to the crime. “That’s just not his style,” Agnifilo reasoned, suggesting that Combs would prefer a direct confrontation, likening it to an old-fashioned Hollywood showdown.
Throughout the closing arguments, Combs maintained a composed demeanor, attentively listening, occasionally leaning back in his chair or crossing his arms on the table. Earlier in the day, his son Justin Combs wore a shirt stating “Free Sean Combs,” which raised eyebrows in the courtroom. A marshal approached him, prompting Justin to leave and return without the message visible, maintaining courtroom decorum.
Agnifilo’s delivery was theatrical, often utilizing sarcasm to emphasize his points. He described the raids on Combs’ properties in a mocking tone, claiming they were unnecessary actions that made America “safe from Astroglide.” “Way to go, guys! You’ve got the evidence that amounts to nothing,” he quipped. While acknowledging that Combs had a substance abuse issue, he clarified that the drugs were for personal use and not part of a larger criminal operation. He noted that when his staff procured medications such as Xanax and ecstasy, they were merely performing personal assistant duties typical in the entertainment industry, arguing that it wasn’t a crime.
Regarding the racketeering charges, Agnifilo stated that there exists a significant lack of evidence. Concerning the allegations of transporting individuals for prostitution, he reiterated the defense’s claim that Combs compensated male escorts for their time, not for sexual services, aiming to dismantle the prosecution’s arguments.
As Agnifilo concluded his remarks, he spoke directly to the jury about the weight of their responsibility. “It takes immense courage to acquit,” he stated. He emphasized that the jury system is one of the great strengths of America and acknowledged the difficulty jurors face when making decisions against federal prosecutors. “You are the United States of America,” he declared passionately. “You need to feel bold; summon the courage required to judge this case as you see fit, and I urge you to do what’s right.” He implored the jurors to find his client not guilty, stating, “He sits there innocent. Return him to his family who have been waiting for him.”
Beginning her rebuttal, which marks the final opportunity for the attorneys to present their cases after weeks of intense trial, prosecutor Maurene Comey exhaled deeply, signaling that they were nearing the end. Comey delivered her most passionate comments yet, following a lengthy closing argument by prosecutor Christy Slavik. She fiercely criticized the defense, stating that the idea that the male escorts were not compensated for sex “doesn’t even pass the laugh test.” When Combs handed cash to the escorts following “freak-offs,” it was certainly not for their “engaging conversation,” Comey argued, referencing testimony from an escort that bolstered her case. She insisted that the escorts need not label themselves as prostitutes for their conduct to legally constitute prostitution.
In support of the racketeering charge, Comey outlined several alleged crimes committed by Combs’ associates on his behalf. “This is a man who cannot even fetch his own water bottle or plug in his phone charger,” she remarked, implying that he would not engage in criminal activities himself. “He’s the general, not a foot soldier or lieutenant. He delegated responsibilities, and his inner circle executed his illicit orders,” Comey stated, pointing to his chief of staff, Kristina Khorram, as a key alleged co-conspirator.
Regarding the drug distribution charges, Comey clarified that there is no requirement for drugs to be distributed for profit or in large quantities to be deemed illegal. In essence, Combs’ act of giving ecstasy to Ventura and Jane qualifies as distribution under the law, reinforcing the prosecution’s position on this matter.
As the intensity of her rebuttal increased, Comey confronted the defense’s assertion that Ventura, along with another accuser, “Mia,” and Jane are “lying.” She meticulously examined each alleged victim’s motives for potentially lying. Ventura, who previously received a $20 million settlement from Combs, had no financial motive. Mia also settled with Combs and testified under a pseudonym, indicating her desire for privacy rather than fame. Jane, who never sued Combs and has no intentions to, revealed that he continues to pay her rent and legal fees, suggesting that if she had any reason to lie, it would be in Combs’ favor, according to Comey.
Since the trial began in May, the defense has characterized Combs’ accusers as “strong” women with agency. “You know what? They’re right about that,” Comey stated emphatically. “They were strong enough to survive the ordeals inflicted by the defendant and brave enough to testify in this trial.” This acknowledgment aimed to validate the experiences of the accusers while underscoring the gravity of the allegations against Combs.
Comey circled back to what she labeled “the most blatant example of sex trafficking in this case,” recounting an incident in June 2024 when Combs allegedly assaulted Jane before providing her with drugs and arranging a “freak-off” with a male escort. “Is this not coercion?” Comey posed, recalling Combs’ alleged mockery of the federal investigation looming over him.
The trial reached a dramatic peak as Comey concluded her rebuttal. “For 20 years, the defendant has evaded justice for his actions. That ends today in this courtroom,” she proclaimed. “The defendant is not above the law. He is merely a man, and in this courtroom, he stands accountable like anyone else. The overwhelming evidence confirms his guilt. It is time to hold him accountable. Find him guilty.”
The jury may reach a verdict as early as next week, marking a significant moment in this high-profile case involving one of the music industry’s most prominent figures.
Here you can find the original article; the photos and images used in our article also come from this source. We are not their authors; they have been used solely for informational purposes with proper attribution to their original source.