Federal prosecutors with the Southern District of New York face stiff criticism after a jury rejected their most serious charges against music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, casting doubt on the typically laser-focused office’s judgment and strategy in one of the most high-profile criminal cases in years.
Jurors convicted Combs on Wednesday of two lesser counts related to prostitution and drug distribution but acquitted him of racketeering and sex trafficking charges. The verdict has prompted a wave of scrutiny from legal experts over how the case was structured and whether prosecutors overreached in a federal jurisdiction that has historically maintained a streak of success for high-profile convictions.
“They’ll do case studies about how this trial was botched,” Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, told the Washington Examiner, adding that the case will “go down as the most expensive prostitution trial in American history.”
Jurors rejected key accusers’ credibility
The case against Combs, which stemmed from a 2024 investigation launched during the Biden administration, went to trial in May and lasted seven weeks. The government called 34 witnesses over 29 days of testimony, portraying Combs as the ringleader of a criminal operation involving sex trafficking, drugs, and intimidation.
Rahmani said the case crumbled because the government relied on witnesses who jurors found untrustworthy or compromised.
“Cassie Ventura was discredited because of her emails and text messages saying she enjoyed the freak offs,” he said, referring to the term used to describe the rap mogul’s depraved sex parties. “One accuser didn’t report an assault to law enforcement and later posted on social media that she loved Diddy. Another woman, identified in court as Jane Doe, was still receiving rent and gifts from Combs. Jurors saw that as a transactional relationship.”
Prosecutors were also criticized for naming former publicist Gina Huynh, alleged “Victim 3” in the indictment, without confirming she would appear in court. She went missing shortly before the trial began, despite being referenced more than 120 times during the trial.
“You name a victim in the indictment, and she doesn’t even show up? That’s trial strategy malpractice,” Rahmani said.
Prosecutors failed to flip insiders or use stronger witnesses
Rahmani also said prosecutors missed opportunities to strengthen their case by failing to flip Combs’s inner circle, including individuals such as Kristina “KK” Khorram and Damion “D‑Roc” Butler, longtime associates of Combs, who could have offered corroborating testimony.
He also faulted the government for not calling any civil plaintiffs who alleged abuse but had no personal or romantic ties to Combs, individuals jurors might have viewed as more credible and less conflicted.
“Victims who were minors can’t consent, so that avoids the defense’s best argument,” Rahmani said. “And victims who don’t have a relationship with Diddy wouldn’t have messages expressing admiration for him.”
Case relied on expired state charges
Attorney David Seltzer said prosecutors fundamentally miscalculated by trying to pursue conduct that was better suited for state court.
“The prosecution got it wrong because they tried to bring state court charges in federal court,” Seltzer told the Washington Examiner. “No one’s doubting that Mr. Combs is a bad actor or is not someone you want to bring home to mom, or a sexual deviant who likes his sex toys and his oil, but they’re all state court charges. The statute of limitations has run on all of those charges.”
“They tried to put a square peg in a round hole,” he added. “From day one, legal pundits said the government’s not going to meet their burden.”
Seltzer also criticized the use of the federal racketeering statute. “RICO had no business being charged here. There was no criminal enterprise. They didn’t put anybody forth as to who he conspired with. They really just missed the ball completely,” he added.
While the jury convicted Combs on two federal counts, Seltzer said those charges alone would never have justified bringing the case. “If this was just on the guilty part, the prostitution and drug charges, they wouldn’t have brought it,” he said. “There wouldn’t have been enough meat on the bone.”
Echoes of SDNY’s failures in Eric Adams’s Investigation
The Combs case isn’t the only time in recent history that SDNY has faced questions about aggressive tactics and overreach. Earlier this year, SDNY’s bribery case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams collapsed after the Justice Department intervened in the weeks following President Donald Trump’s inauguration.
Danielle Sassoon, a former U.S. attorney who resigned after Attorney General Pam Bondi moved to dismiss the Adams case, had less involvement in the Combs case, which U.S. Attorney Maurene Ryan Comey, the daughter of former FBI Director James Comey, spearheaded. Sassoon was partly responsible for handling the superseding indictment in February, adding two additional victims to the case.
While Rahmani agreed with Sassoon’s decision to resign, citing an alleged “quid pro quo” between the federal government and Adams’s attorneys, he also agreed the mayor’s case wouldn’t have been a cake walk, had it gone to trial.
“Bribery is really hard to prove. The Supreme Court has gutted it,” Rahmani said, noting that the Adams case “was a very tough case to prove” despite the Trump administration “pulling the rug” from beneath it.
Despite the obvious distinctions between the outcomes of both high-profile cases, Rahmani said he sees a common thread in the office’s recent stumbles.
“Certainly overaggressive,” he said, noting that many prosecutors from SDNY only stay long enough to get a high-profile “scalp” before working at a private firm.
“People go to SDNY not to make their career. They go there for three to five years to get a scalp and go back to the private sector and make a lot of money,” he said.
Seltzer agreed that the typically high success rate of SDNY was upset by their failure to convict Combs on the most serious charges. “They’re taking big swings and they’re missing,” he said. “But they’re using Uncle Sam’s checkbook to foot the bill.”
Though Combs still faces civil lawsuits, the government’s best chance to secure a serious conviction appears to have passed.
“You’ve got to take your loss and move on,” Rahmani said. “I’m as pro-prosecution as they come, but the jury rejected the government’s theories unanimously.”
Jury confusion underscored a weak foundation
During deliberations, jurors sent multiple notes to Judge Arun Subramanian seeking clarification on legal standards, including the definition of drug distribution.
At least one juror said they could not follow the instructions, a sign of confusion in a case already burdened by a sprawling indictment and evidentiary gaps.
Combs could serve minimal prison time
Despite the convictions on lesser charges, experts say Combs has a chance to avoid a significant time behind bars. While the most serious counts for racketeering and sex trafficking carried decadeslong sentences, jurors rejected those claims. Combs’s convictions, including violations of the Mann Act, carry a combined statutory maximum of up to 20 years in federal prison.
DIDDY BECOMES CELLMATES WITH DISGRACED FTX FOUNDER SAM BANKMAN-FRIED
Despite potentially facing two decades behind bars, Rahmani predicted that “Diddy is going to get time served or “as low as 15–21 months.”
Still, Comey remained vigilant that Combs should face significant time in prison as the government prepares for sentencing, and asked the judge Wednesday to consider a 20-year maximum sentence.
Combs will remain in federal custody for now ahead of sentencing, after Judge Arun Subramanian denied his attorneys’ request for a $1 million bond, citing legal restrictions that bar his release at this stage of the case.