Sean “Diddy” Combs faces a critical legal juncture as a federal judge is expected to decide on Tuesday, June 10, whether to declare a mistrial in his ongoing s3x trafficking and racketeering case.
The ruling follows new claims by Combs’ defense team that key testimony presented by the prosecution was misleading.
The case, now in its 19th day, took a turn this weekend when Combs’ attorneys filed a motion for mistrial, citing text messages that allegedly contradict earlier testimony by singer Cassie Ventura. Ventura had told the court she witnessed Combs holding Bryana Bongolan over a balcony edge. However, texts she sent to Kristina Khorram, a former employee of Combs, appear to suggest otherwise. In one message, Ventura wrote, “I just found out some crazy sh**,” implying she learned of the alleged incident after it occurred, rather than witnessing it firsthand.
The defense has also raised concerns about the timeline presented by prosecutors. Images of Bongolan’s injuries were submitted as evidence, with metadata showing they were taken on September 26, 2016. Combs’ legal team maintains that he was on the East Coast that day, not in Los Angeles where the alleged incident reportedly took place.
Judge Arun Subramanian opened court proceedings on Monday, June 9, by confirming he will not issue a decision on the mistrial motion until Tuesday, June 10. Prosecutors were expected to file their response to the defense’s claims by the end of the day.
Meanwhile, testimony continued in the courtroom. A witness identified only as “Jane,” a former girlfriend of Combs testifying under a pseudonym, returned to the stand for the third day. Her previous testimony included allegations of drug use and medical complications stemming from what she described as “freak-off” s3xual encounters involving Combs and others.
This is the second time Combs’ attorneys have sought a mistrial. A previous motion last month challenged fingerprint evidence linked to an investigation involving rapper Kid Cudi.
The court’s ruling on the latest mistrial motion could have major implications for a high-profile case that has drawn national attention, further complicating the legal battle facing the hip-hop mogul.
