This is Bloomberg Law, with June Grossel from Bloomberg Radio.
After more than six weeks of sometimes graphic and emotional testimony, the jury deliberated about thirteen hours before acquitting Sean Diddy Comb's of the most serious charges against him, racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking charges relating to allegations that he used his money, power and physical force to manipulate his girlfriends
into hundreds of drug fueled sex marathons. The jury only convicted Combs of the lesser charge of transportation to engage in prostitution, so instead of facing a life sentence, Combs is facing a maximum prison sentence of ten years and likely much less than that. After the verdict was read, Combs put his hands together and mouthed thank you to the jurors. He got down on his knee, his head bowed,
apparently in prayer. As the jurors left the courtroom, his relatives in the audience applauded him and his lawyers, some of whom had tears in their eyes as he was led out of court. My guest is former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner maccarter in English. Bob apparently, Combs, his relatives, and his lawyers all thought that this was a win, despite the fact that he is facing some prison time.
Given the charges he was potentially facing, which included up to life in prison for the racketeering conspiracy and a minimum sentence of fifteen years to life for sex trafficking, the fact that he was only convicted of two counts of transportation to engaging prostitution can't be viewed as anything other than a win by the defense and a bitter loss for prosecutors.
Let's go through the charges. So the top count racketeering conspiracy, and the charge has historical life been used to take down mob bosses like John Gotti. Did the prosecutors overcharge him with this count?
Well, I think that's going to be the question that prosecutors will have to ask themselves when they look back on this case, whether or not it was overcharged with
the Rico conspiracy. Now, the Rico conspiracy, as you say, has been used traditionally in order to prosecute organized crime figures, but it has been used more broadly in recent years and was used in a high profile case just a couple of years ago in the r. Kelly case where that hip hop artist was also charged with rico and sex trafficking in twenty twenty one, and in that instance
prosecutors did get a conviction. But here jurors ultimately concluded that the rico conspiracy was overcharged, that the prosecution did not meet the burden of showing that Sean Combs had used his business empire as a vehicle in order to commit further out at and in order to force his former girlfriends into performing sexual acts against their will.
Bob, when a prosecutor overcharges, does that give the defense an opening to, you know, to get the jury to doubt the whole case, that it's all exaggerated.
Well, that's ultimately where this case turned. It was really an argument by the defense that although mister Combe had committed some abhorrent acts, they had the video of him picking Passi Ventura by the elevator bank out in Beverly Hills that was undeniably bad behavior and painted mister Combs
in a very negative light. But when that was held up against the more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy, which included certain criminal acts such as forced labor, bribery, obstruction of justice, all of that was thrown in and basically prosecutors were staying that he uses vast empire that he built up over many years simply as a means of forcing these ex girlfriends to continue to perform these sexual acts against their will, and all the while they were
coerced into doing this. The defense was able to effectively pick that apart by showing text messages from both of the victims which at various times suggested that they had participated in these acts willfully, that they were not coerced, that they could have left but chose not to, And ultimately I think that was the downfall for the prostitution's case.
It really ultimately turned on whether they believed that the victims were actually trapped in this relationship and had no way out and were literally forced to commit these acts, or whether this is more complex than that, and the defense was able to show that these relationships, while toxic, while not healthy, and while it involved bad behavior by mister Holmes, didn't rise to the level of racketeering conspiracy.
The jury said yesterday afternoon that it was unable to reach a verdict, a unanimous verdict on the racketeering conspiracy charge because there were jurors with unpersuadable views on both sides. But today, after an hour of deliberations, they came to a unanimous verdict on that charge. Do you think that with the long weekend ahead, the jurors who wanted to convict on that charge sort of caved.
Well, it's impossible to know really what goes on in the jury room. You don't know the dialogue between and among the jurors, the conversations that are going on. But it did seem like the fact that they were stuck on this most serious charge suggested to at least some observers that they found a guilty verdict on some of
the lesser charges, including perhaps the sex trafficking. But it turned out that they only convicted on the most minor charges, and they did reach a decision before the long holiday weekend. That's not unusual. Juries like to go home for weekends. They like to put this case behind them. But on the other hand, when you were the prosecution, you're sitting
there thinking that was a seven week trial. We produced over thirty witnesses, and the fact that juris came back in only two days with a verdict suggested that they moved very quickly through this process looking at the evidence and reaching a verdict in a way that prosecutors are certainly disappointed with.
So the two sex trafficking acquittals which stem from allegations that Combs coerced to women his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventur and a Jane Doe into these so called freak offs, and Ventura testified over four days some very emotional testimony. I mean, you refer to this, but did the jurors just not believe her?
It's hard to say exactly what they were thinking. That testimony was compelling, That testimony had to be very emotional for juris to it through, and yet at the end of the day they did not believe that she was necessarily compelled to participate in commercial sex acts through force, fraud, and coercion. The key here is there has to be a link between the force, the fraud, and the coercion and the acts of sex, and I think at the end of the day the evidence was just not clear
enough for them to meet that burden. Remember, prosecutors have to prove in their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Anything less than that will result in an acquittal, as we saw here.
And sex trafficking did the charges even fit the facts here? Aren't people usually charged with sex trafficking when it's unrelated people, not people in long term relationships like these women in Combs.
Yeah, that was I think one of the problems too, because the victims here were involved in these long term relationships, and they had written many messages, emails, text messages, other writings evidencing their love for mister Combs at various times. The fact that they willingly participated in some of these acts, the fact that they did things in order to please him, and the fact fact that after some of these sessions
they texted him saying that they enjoyed them. And I think it was very difficult for jurors to necessarily conclude that all of this was done against their will, that none of it was consensual. And as you say, June, it's a situation where the sex trafficking charge is typically brought in an instance where the perpetrator does not have
a relationship with the victim. Here there was a long term relationship, one that was very complicated, and also one in which the victims had benefited financially from their relationship with mister Combs. So it became I think very difficult for jurors to sort out the true nature of those relationships.
I don't think they necessarily disbelieved the victims, but I think they ultimately concluded that the fact as presented to them in court did not meet the elements of the sex trafficking charges.
So you mentioned the financial settlements. Ventura got thirty million dollars from Comb's and hotel, and that was used by the defense attorney in his closing statements. He called her a winner. And I'm wondering how much a huge settlement like that might affect a jury's view of a witness.
I think it had to affect them, and I don't think it necessarily meant that jurors didn't believe what she was saying, But I think it fed into the defense's narrative that this was a complicated relationship, that the relationship was toxic. But at the end of the day, there was responsibility by both parties that created this toxic relationship, and they ultimately could not conclude that mister Combs should be convicted of this very serious charge based on a record that was unclear at best.
He was convicted. He was He was convicted of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. That stems from allegations that he paid sex workers to come to his freak off parties. Tell us about that. That's a felony violation of the Federal Man Act.
These were the charges that were really easiest for prosecutors to prove, because all they have to show is that individual's cross state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution. And there was plenty of evidence presented at the trial that mister Colms had made arrangements for these male prostitutes to meet with his girlfriends. He'd bought plane tickets, there
were credit card statements, there were hotel records. These were the charges that prosecutors were able to prove fairly readily, and there wasn't really much of a defense to them. I think the defense strategy was to focus on the more serious charges, which they ultimately succeeded in convincing jurors to quit their client on Bob.
I'm wondering because the jurors found him guilty of the lowest count, whether some jurors thought this case is overcharge, let's go for the lowest count, or whether they took each charge and considered each one on its own merits.
One thing that you do see sometimes behind the curtains in jury deliberations is what it's called a compromised verdict. Now, there's no way to know whether that happened here or not, but you do sometimes have jurors on one side who want to convict on all counts, jurors on the other side who may want to acquit, and ultimately they may
compromise by convicting on some but not all counts. We don't really know whether that happened here, and I'm not suggesting that it necessarily did, but that is a phenomenon that happened sometimes. We don't know whether that was going on here or whether jurors simply went through these counts count by count And we're convinced that the sex trafficking and the rico conspiracy charges were just as you said, June, over charge and did not apply the fact of the case.
Stay with me, Bob. Coming up next on the Bloomberg Laws Show, I'll continue this conversation with former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz. We'll talk about the defense strategy and how it won the jurors over despite not presenting any witnesses. I'm June Grosso and you're listening to Bloomberg. Sean did he Combs dropped to his knees and prayed in the courtroom after he was acquitted today of sex trafficking and racketeering charges that could have put him behind bars for life.
The hip hop mogul was convicted of lesser prostitution related offenses. He still faces prison time, but likely much much less than the ten year maximum. I've been talking to former federal prosecutor Robert Mintz, a partner Macarter in english Combe's defense. Did it take a huge risk by deciding not to put on any witnesses at all and to rely on the cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses, which sometimes went on longer than the direct examinations.
No.
I think from the very start the defense strategy was always to win their case through cross examination. I think they correctly sized the case up and knew that it was going to turn on the testimony of the two victims and how compelling they were, and that by adding witnesses for the defense it was only going to complicate the case and create a more complex narrative for them to have to convince cures ask exactly what was going
on here. They wanted the case ultimately to be about these two victims and to show that the relationship that they were in with mister Colmbs over many years was one in which they gained financially, one in which they willingly participated. In no doubt, they were ups and downs in those relationships, and there were some domestic violence that went on, and the defense readily admitted that. But the question is did it really rise to the level of
racketeering conspiracy. Defense placed a large set that the jurors would ultimately answer that question in the negative, and ultimately they prevailed.
The defense also took the tact of saying, you're not going to like him. He is a drug user, he's guilty of domestic violence, but he's not a sex trafficker. And the women were willing participants.
Make no mistake, the defense had a tall order here because they were presenting a defendant to the jury who was not necessarily all that likable, a defendant who engaged in some reprehensible conduct, who was on video beating up his girlfriend, who at times had used controlling and threatening language, so he wasn't particularly likable. In the way he was presented to the jury, which is why I think they
decided ultimately to not have him take the stand. But the focus of the case from the defense standpoint was going to be more on the victims and really trying to show jurors that the government had overcharged this case. They presented this as a case of lifestyle versus criminality, and ultimately all those of the lifestyle that I doubt
many jurors could really relate to. It was something that they were willing to accept in the sense that they did not believe that much of the conduct that the government had put on during the course of the trial amounted to criminal conduct.
Yeah. I mean, so the government pulled out all the stops, they had all kinds of witnesses. Do you think they did something wrong or they missed something, or was just a question of overcharging.
I think from the very beginning this was going to be a difficult case for prosecutors, and prosecutors really bet the entire case on the testimony of their victims. They were hoping that these victims would come across as credible. I think they were hoping that in this day and age, jurors would be sensitive to the fact that there can't be abusive relationships where women are assaulted but don't necessarily leave their partners, and that doesn't mean that the acts
were consensual. There was a lot of complexity here that I think the prosecution was hoping that curs could sort out, and it simply turned out that yours were not buying everything the government was trying to argue in terms of who mister Combs was and what kind of criminality he ultimately engaged in.
So technically he faces ten years on each of the transporting counts, but realistically, how much time do you think the judge will give him.
Well, the judge is certainly going to take into account the fact that mister Combs has already been in jail for about a year, and he'll get credit for that time serves. In terms of the two counts conviction, it's highly likely that those will run concurrently, which means they will run at the same time, so he won't be facing twenty years. Really, the maximum sentence here will be ten,
but I don't think he'll even get that. The Federal sentence in guidelines, which give judges guidance as to what type of sentence they should hand down are going to come out much lower than the ten years. And at the end of the day here this is really up to the judge. The judge has complete discretion, has to decide what the appropriate sentence is here, and I think that he will sentence mister Colmbs to some time in prison, but it's not going to be anything close to ten years.
Do you think there's some added pressure on the judge because of all the publicity this case has gotten, you know, pressure not to let Combs off too lightly.
Well, the judge is not supposed to consider outside pressure as you do. The judge is supposed to look at the facts and all the circumstances. He sat through the trial, he heard all the testimony, he heard from all the victims, and he heard the defense arguments, and he has to
fashion a sentence that he believes is ultimately fair. But I think as a practical matter, the judge can't ignore the more serious charges that the defendant faced here and the high publicity factor that was associated with this case. So I think the judge is going to have to balance all these factors, and I do think the judge will sentenced mister Colmbs to some time in jail, but they think it will be far less than the maximum ten years that he's facing on each of the accounts.
Combs's lawyers said he'd likely face twenty one to twenty seven months, but prosecutors said he'd likely face fifty one to sixty three months, and he's already served nine months because he's been jailed since his arrest. So we shall see. But as you say, the final decision is the judges, and the judge denied him bond and made the decision to keep him in jail while he awaits sentencing.
The fact that the judge refused bail here and decided to keep mister Combs in jail pending sentencing, I think reflects the very serious nature of these charges. Even though he was ultimately not convicted of the most serious charges, He's alreays spent a year in jail. He'll get time served for this additional time between the time of conviction and his sentencing, so ultimately it doesn't really work against him.
But I think the judge here is trying to convey the fact that although he was ultimately convicted only of the two less serious charges, the judge still considers this a very serious case and still considers the conduct for which mister Colmes was convicted as serious conduct that creates a danger to the community.
Thanks so much, Bob. That's Robert Mints of maccarter and English and in other legal news today. In a courtroom in Boise, Idaho, Ryan Colberger pleaded guilty to the brutal stabbing deaths of four University of Idaho students in twenty twenty two in order to avoid the death penalty. The killings initially baffled law enforcement and unnerved the rural college
town of Moscow. Colberger was arrested in Pennsylvania, where his parents lived, after investigators recovered a Q tip from the garbage at his parents' house to match Colberger's DNA to genetic material from a knife sheath found at the crime scene. At the time, Colberger had just completed his first semester as a graduate student in criminal justice at Washington State.
In the two years since his arrest, his attorneys unsuccessfully attempted to bar prosecutors from seeking the death penalty and challenged DNA evidence, but a plea deal was their final alternative to spare his life. Before the start of a trial in August Colberger remained impassive as Judge Stephen Hipler questioned him, and he admitted to breaking into a rental home through a kitchen sliding door and killing the four friends who appeared to have no connection with him.
On November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, in Leyta County, State of Idaho, kill and murder Madison Mogan a human being?
Yes?
And did you do that willfully and lawfully, deliberately and with premeditation and melissauthorpe of poor thought?
Yes?
Did you Honor about that same date in Moscow, Idaho, kill and murder Kayleie Gonzalez a human being?
Yes?
And did you do that wilfully, unlawfully, deliberately and with premeditation and malicapport thought?
Yes?
And did you on that same date in Moscow, Idaho kill and murder Xana Kernodle pardon me a human being?
Yes?
And did you do that wilfully and lawfully deliberately, with premeditation and malicipport thought.
Yes?
And then on or about November thirteenth, twenty twenty two, again in Leytoc County, Idaho, did you kill and murder Ethan Chapin a human being?
Yes?
Did you do that willfully, unlawfully, deliberately, with premeditation and malicapor thought yes.
Colberger will serve consecutive life sentences. At least one of the families opposed the Plea deal, but others supported it, saying they were ready to begin healing. The motive for the murder remains unclear, and the murder weapon still has not been found. I'm June Grosso. When you're listening to Bloomberg.
This week, the Trump administration said an investigation found that Harvard University violated civil rights laws in its treatment of Jewish and Israeli students, further endangering federal funding for the school. This ramps up pressure on the country's oldest university, less than two weeks after President Donald Trump said he was nearing a deal with the school following months of attacking it.
Harvard said it strongly disagrees with the government's findings and said it has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias and remains committed to ensuring that Jewish and Israeli students can thrive on campus. My guest is Ken Marcus, the founder, chairman and CEO of the Brandeis Center. He was the Assistant Secretary of Education for Civil Rights during the first Trump administration, tell us about the allegations of the Trump administration here.
The Trump administration is alleging that Harvard violated Title six of the Civil Rights Act of nineteen sixty four by tolerating a hostile environment for Jewish students. Title six is the key federal civil rights statute that provides protection for students at federally assisted programs and activities against discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin.
So Harvard disputes the government's accounts, and it has said several times in different settings that it has worked to combat anti semitism.
Harvard has promised to take a number of steps to address anti semitism, including in particular in their settlement with my organization, the Louis Dei Brandeis Center. Those steps included, for example, adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working Definition of anti Semitism. That's a major step, and it suggests that Harvard is willing to use the standard that is considered to be the gold standard for assessing anti semitism.
But Harvard certainly hasn't done all of the things that advocates are urging, and there is room for improvement, to be sure.
Tell us about that. What more you'd like to see.
There are certainly things that Harvard can do to improve its disciplinary process. There are things that it can do to address the use of masks and protests. Harvard could do more to address the kind of shunning of Jewish and Israeli students that the task force has identified. There are certainly lots of things that Harvard can do that it hasn't yet committed to doing, and we'll see what
it does or doesn't do. But it certainly doesn't hurt to have some pressure coming from outside sources like the federal government.
Harvard has said that the government in this case failed to follow procedures for terminating funding over alleged violations of Title six. Could that lead to dismissal of these allegations by the administration.
It really makes sense that Harvard will argue that the federal government didn't follow the steps that are usually required.
I think that the federal government's recent findings of violation from the Department of Health and Human Services was intended in part to cure any potential deficiencies to dot the eyes and cross the t's Whether the court would find that the procedural irregularities rose to a level that provides a defense for Harvard is something that we will just have to see and what would.
Be the penalty for these alleged violations of Title six if proven.
One could certainly see additional loss of federal funds from Harvard University. We could also see additional lawsuits from students, faculty, alumni, and others. There are lots of different remedies that could come into play, and it would be a significant stain on the reputation of what has been, over the years, one of our most prestigious institutions.
The Trump administration initially accused Harvard of fostering anti Semitism, but the attack has expanded to include accusations of political bias and promoting diversity initiatives and hiring and admissions, and the Trump administration's demand seem to be going far beyond fighting anti semitism.
There's no question that the Trump administration is urging Harvard to do things that are not directly related to anti semitism, but which the federal government argueses indirectly related. Critics of the Trump administration suggest that It might be pretextual for the Trump administration to go after Harvard for anti semitism when they're concerned about things like DEI, But from the administration's perspective, the fact is that DEI is related to
anti Semitism and some fairly complex and tight ways. For example, not only do DEI programs often omit anti Semitism and Jewish identity, but they will sometimes create stereotypes of Jews, sometimes viewing Jews as being oppressors and participating in structures of persecution, and therefore should be considered not as victims
but as perpetrators. When the Trump administration urges Arvored to do things that aren't directly related to anti Semitism, the argument is that they are nevertheless indirectly related.
The Trump administration has real targeted Harvard. I mean, it's scrap more than two point six billion dollars in federal research funding for Harvard, threaten the school's tax exempt status, and try to prevent it from enrolling foreign students. Why is it so laser focused on Harvard?
The Trump administration is actually focused on a lot of institutions right now. Harvard and Columbia are the two that we see the greatest amount of energy directed at But there are actually quite a number over sixty institutions that have been named by the Education Department the hindful that are subject to present proactive reviews, and that I would
say others are also in the scopes. Those institutions that think that they are in the clear because the Trump administration is only focused on Harvard, I think are mistaken the aims of the Trump administration. They are looking much more broadly.
Do you agree with the way the administration is going about this? I mean cutting off the funding, trying to prevent foreign students from enrolling. That hurts a lot of third parties. Why not let the courts decide this?
The Trump administration properly recognizes a few things that had eluded the prior administration. The first is that the post October seventh environment on college campuses is extraordinary and unprecedented, and therefore requires a response that is unprecedented and extraordinary.
The second is that the situation that we're seeing at institutions like Harvard is pervasive of the institution, and therefore the response should be a whole of the government response, one that involves not only the Education Department, but also agencies like Justice, the General Services, Administration, Health and Human Services, and the agencies as well. What we're seeing is an action that is fast, that is powerful, and that is
very broad. That is, I would say, exactly what is needed in the present moment.
Harvard has been in talks with the White House. Apparently they've stalled.
We've seen that President Trump is always looking to make a favorable deal that will benefit the American people. So I would say that President Garber would be wise to do what he can to enter into a settlement that enables Harvard to do the research and teaching that it wants to do, while enabling the government to be able to say, truly and honestly that it is ensuring compliance of federal civil rights laws to protect Jewish and all students.
And tell me a little bit about your lawsuit against Harvard.
We at the Louis de Brandai sent sued Harvard University over the hostile environment at that campus since October seven and also prior to October seven, as well as assaults on Jewish students and discrimination against Israeli students who were prevented from providing the speech and presentations that were available to other students. We obtained earlier this year a favorable settlement. Not all of the terms are public, but they include some things that I believe can make some difference for
Harvard University. One of the big advances from our settlement with Harvard University is that the university agreed to adopt in its conduct code and elsewhere the definition of anti Semitism, which is considered to be the gold standard for assessing allegations of discrimination against Jewish students. That's the so called IRA or International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance Working definition of Antisemitism.
Harvard also agreed to provide a new official who would be an expert on this issue and who would monitor incidents at Harvard and make sure that they were no longer double standards used to assess allegations of anti Semitism?
And do you think the Trump administration is going to continue this attack on Harvard?
While the Trump administration has already been taking a large number of very forceful actions against Harvard, it's not clear that they're done. There are agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission that could also be engaged with potential additional remedies that go even beyond what we've seen so far.
At the same time, we know that the administration is not focused only on Harvard and that there is more to come for other Universe cities around the country and perhaps other institutions as well.
Thanks for joining me today. That's Ken Marcus of the Brandeis Center, and that's it for this edition of The Bloomberg Law Show. Remember you can always get the latest legal news on our Bloomberg Law Podcast. You can find them on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and at www dot Bloomberg dot com slash podcast slash Law, And remember to tune into The Bloomberg Law Show every weeknight at ten pm Wall Street Time. I'm June Grosso, and you're listening to Bloomberg