Federal prosecutors expanded the original September 2024 three-count indictment through multiple superseding indictments, culminating in five criminal charges against Sean Combs. The charges included one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution under the Mann Act. The explosive indictment revealed decades of allegations that prosecutors say demonstrate a pattern of criminal enterprise activity.
Verdict Breakdown and Court Proceedings
The 12-member jury composed of eight men and four women delivered a split verdict after 13 hours of deliberation across three days in Manhattan federal court.
Count 1: Racketeering Conspiracy – Not Guilty Count 2: Sex Trafficking of Cassie Ventura – Not Guilty
Count 3: Transportation to Engage in Prostitution (Ventura) – Guilty Count 4: Sex Trafficking of “Jane” – Not Guilty Count 5: Transportation to Engage in Prostitution (“Jane”) – Guilty
Judge Arun Subramanian instructed the jury to continue deliberating after they reported reaching decisions on four counts but remained deadlocked on the racketeering conspiracy charge. The jury sent a note stating they had “unpersuadable opinions on both sides” regarding Count 1.
Jury Deliberation Challenges
Early in deliberations, the jury sent a note to Judge Subramanian expressing concern that Juror No. 25 “cannot follow your honor’s instructions.” The judge responded by reminding jurors of their duty to deliberate and follow legal standards.
The judge instructed the jury that to convict under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), they must find an agreement between two or more people to participate in a pattern of racketeering activity affecting interstate commerce. The prosecution needed to prove Combs knowingly joined an enterprise that committed at least two predicate crimes from a list including kidnapping, arson, bribery, and sex trafficking.
Mann Act Convictions and Sentencing Framework
Combs was convicted under the Mann Act, a federal statute from 1910 that criminalizes interstate transportation for prostitution. Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison, creating a potential 20-year maximum if sentences run consecutively.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey stated in court filings that federal sentencing guidelines recommend 51 to 63 months imprisonment (approximately four to five years) for the two convictions. Defense attorneys argued for a sentence closer to two years. The final determination will incorporate federal guidelines, defendant conduct assessments, and judicial discretion.
Bail Denial and Continued Detention
Judge Subramanian denied the defense request for release pending sentencing, finding that prosecutors had presented sufficient evidence of violent conduct. The defense proposed a $1 million bond with travel restrictions to judicial districts in Florida, California, New York, and New Jersey, plus passport surrender and drug testing compliance.
The court cited mandatory detention provisions under the Bail Reform Act for Mann Act convictions. Prosecutors argued in court filings that “crimes of violence mandate detention following the defendant’s conviction.” Combs will receive credit for 10 months served since his September 2024 arrest.
RICO Acquittal Analysis
The racketeering conspiracy acquittal prevented what could have been a life sentence. RICO prosecutions require proof of a criminal enterprise engaged in a pattern of illegal activity. The prosecution alleged Combs led the “Combs Enterprise” involving bodyguards, assistants, and staff members who facilitated crimes including sex trafficking, kidnapping, arson, and bribery.
Defense attorneys successfully argued that Combs’ business operations constituted personal expenses rather than organized criminal activity. The jury rejected the prosecution’s enterprise theory despite testimony from multiple former employees about their roles in arranging travel, hotel accommodations, and other logistics for the alleged “freak-off” sessions.
Prosecution Evidence and Witness Testimony
The government presented 34 witnesses over six weeks of trial proceedings. Key witnesses included Cassie Ventura and a woman identified as “Jane” who testified under court-approved pseudonym. Both women described coercive sexual encounters involving hired male escorts in hotel rooms across multiple states.
Prosecutors alleged these “freak-offs” constituted sex trafficking because participants were transported across state lines and compensated, while the women were coerced through threats of violence, financial cutoffs, or reputation damage. The defense countered that all activities were consensual arrangements between adults.
Defense Strategy and Trial Conduct
The defense team, led by attorneys Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos, called zero witnesses during the seven-week proceeding. They relied exclusively on cross-examination of prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence to challenge the government’s case.
Defense counsel focused on consent arguments, presenting text messages and communications showing apparent willingness by the women to participate in sexual activities. Attorney Marc Agnifilo characterized the verdict as “a great victory for Sean Combs” and “a great victory for the jury system” in post-trial statements.
Sentencing Timeline and Procedures
Judge Subramanian initially proposed an October 3, 2025 sentencing date but agreed to consider expediting the schedule at defense request. A remote conference was scheduled for July 8, 2025, at 2 p.m. to discuss pre-sentence procedures and scheduling.
Federal sentencing guidelines will incorporate multiple factors including the defendant’s conduct during detention, criminal history, and the nature of the offenses. The probation department will conduct a pre-sentence investigation and provide sentencing recommendations to the court.
Civil Litigation Implications
Combs continues to face dozens of civil lawsuits alleging sexual abuse and misconduct spanning multiple decades. Legal experts note that civil proceedings will continue independently of the criminal case, and Combs will not have Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination in those matters. Among the ongoing civil cases are allegations of drugging and sexual assault during studio sessions that have emerged from various accusers.
Douglas Wigdor, attorney for Cassie Ventura, stated that his client “paved the way” for the conviction on transportation charges. The civil lawsuits may proceed to trial without the evidentiary restrictions that applied in the criminal case.
Court Security and Public Interest
The courthouse in Lower Manhattan drew extensive media coverage throughout the seven-week trial. Security measures included multiple overflow courtrooms to accommodate public interest and press coverage. Outside the courthouse, supporters and critics gathered daily during proceedings.
The case attracted significant social media attention and commentary from legal analysts regarding the application of federal sex trafficking statutes to celebrity defendants. Celebrity reactions to the charges reflected broader industry concerns about accountability in entertainment. Court officers maintained strict protocols for courtroom access and media coverage throughout the proceedings.
Federal Guidelines and Legal Precedent
The Mann Act convictions establish important precedent for federal prosecution of interstate transportation cases involving commercial sex. Legal analysts noted the jury’s willingness to convict on transportation charges while rejecting the broader RICO and sex trafficking theories.
The split verdict reflects the complexity of proving coercion in relationships where financial support and career opportunities were intertwined with sexual activities. Federal prosecutors achieved partial success while falling short of their most serious allegations. The case has also cast shadows over Combs’ entertainment legacy, including questions about his music catalog and business holdings amid the legal proceedings.
The case concluded with Combs remaining in federal detention pending sentencing proceedings. The final outcome will depend on judicial application of federal sentencing guidelines and consideration of all relevant factors in determining appropriate punishment for the Mann Act violations.
