Sean Combs Defence Takes Derisive Aim At Accusers In Closing Argument

Sean Diddy Combs’s lawyer aimed Friday to skewer the credibility of the music mogul’s accusers, saying in closing arguments they were out for money while rejecting any notion he led a criminal ring.

Defence attorney Marc Agnifilo scoffed at the picture painted by prosecutors of a violent, domineering man, who used his employees, wealth and power to foster a climate of fear” and force women into demeaning, unlawful sex parties.

Combs, 55, is a self-made, successful Black entrepreneur who had romantic relationships that were complicated but ultimately consensual love stories, Agnifilo said.

In his meandering closing arguments, Agnifilo aimed to confuse the narrative US attorney Christy Slavik provided one day prior.

She had spent nearly five hours methodically walking the jury through the charges, summarising thousands of phone, financial, travel and audiovisual records along with nearly seven weeks of testimony from 34 witnesses.

In explaining the most serious charge of racketeering, the prosecution said Combs led a criminal enterprise of loyal lieutenants and foot soldiers who existed to serve his needs.

Central to their case is the claim that senior employees — including his chief-of-staff and security guards — were aware of his actions and actively enabled them.

But Agnifilo underscored that none of those individuals testified against Combs, nor were they named as co-conspirators in the indictment.

This is supposed to be simple, the defence counsel told jurors. If you find that you’re in the weeds of this great complexity, maybe it’s because it just isn’t there.

It takes a lot of courage to acquit, he said in closing.

If convicted, Combs faces a potential life sentence.

– Consent or coercion? –

Agnifilo spent ample time dissecting the testimony of singer Casandra Ventura and a woman who spoke under the pseudonym Jane. Both witnesses described abuse and coercion under Combs in excruciating detail.

As in their opening statements, Combs’s defence conceded that while domestic violence was a feature of the artist’s relationships, his outbursts did not amount to the sex trafficking he’s charged with.

The prosecution showed multiple examples they say are “crystal clear” evidence of trafficking that included coercion into drug-addled sex with paid escorts under threat of reputational, physical or financial harm.

The defence countered that the women were consenting adults making their own choices — at times even making light of their harrowing witness testimony.

Agnifilo pointed to Ventura’s civil lawsuit against Combs in which she was granted $20 million: If you had to pick a winner in this whole thing, it would be Cassie, he said.

Ventura spent days on the stand, speaking through tears as she described brutal physical violence, emotional manipulation and fear that Combs would ruin her career or reputation if she left him.

Addressing an infamous video of Combs beating Ventura in a hotel hallway, Agnifilo acknowledged it was terrible and very much domestic violence, but insisted the video is not sex trafficking.

Prosecutors have explained to jurors, however, that the case is not about free choices and that the women involved were drugged, covered in oil, sore, exhausted.

Agnifilo questioned testimony from both Ventura and Jane about being coerced into sex with male escorts, scenarios core to charges related to transportation for purposes of prostitution.

This was a lifestyle. You want to call it swingers, you want to call it threesomes… that’s all it is, Agnifilo said.

In taking on drug distribution accusations, which are among the eight possible acts that could result in a racketeering conviction, Agnifilo said that too was simply part of Combs’s party boy lifestyle.

They seem to be doing what people in creative fields do, the lawyer said.

Throughout the trial, jurors were shown voluminous phone records, including messages of affection and desire from both women — but prosecutor Slavik said taking those words literally, and in isolation, doesn’t paint the whole picture.

Slavik repeatedly referenced testimony from a forensic psychologist who explained to jurors how victims become ensnared by their abusers.

The government has the last word: Prosecutor Maurene Comey will rebut Agnifilo’s argument, the last piece of the proceedings jurors will hear before they head into the weekend.

And on Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian will instruct jurors on how they are to apply the law to the evidence during their deliberations before they are handed the case.