Diddy juror axed for lack of candour about residency
A judge dismissed a juror in the sex trafficking trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs after concluding that his conflicting answers about where he lives might indicate he had an agenda or wanted to stay on the jury for a purpose.
Judge Arun Subramanian made the ruling after rejecting arguments by Combs' attorneys that it would disrupt the diversity of the jury to replace the Black man with a white juror.
Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges after his September arrest at a New York hotel. He was denied bail multiple times and has remained incarcerated at a federal lockup in Brooklyn ever since.
Subramanian had first announced late Friday that he was dismissing the juror after questions arose over whether he resided in New York or New Jersey most of the time, but multiple defence lawyers protested and the judge waited until today to announce his final decision.
The judge said a review of the juror's answers to questions about his residency during jury selection, along with his subsequent responses to similar questions in the robing room, revealed "clear inconsistencies".
ADVERTISEMENT
"Taking these all together, the record raised serious concerns as to the juror's candour and whether he shaded answers to get on and stay on the jury," he said.
The morning's headlines in 90 seconds including disposable vape ban, Auckland Airport meth find, and why Europe hates tourists right now. (Source: 1News)
Subramanian said to leave the juror on the panel could threaten the integrity of the judicial process, and he rejected a defence request that he question him further, saying it could lead to "another set of shifting answers… In other words, there's nothing that the juror can say at this point that would put the genie back in the bottle and restore his credibility."
The judge expressed disappointment that the defence asked him again in a weekend letter to consider the racial makeup of the jury in his ruling as it accused prosecutors of misconduct.
"The court should not, indeed cannot, let race factor into the decision of what happens. Here, the answer is clear. Juror No. 6 is excused," Subramanian said before the jury, minus Juror No. 6, was brought into the courtroom for the resumption of testimony.
Defence lawyers in the letter also accused prosecutors of misconduct in a "coordinated effort to try to destroy one of the most successful Black men in American history".
"The government's case is all about his personal life, and what he and his romantic partners have done in the privacy of the bedroom," the lawyers wrote.
ADVERTISEMENT
"There has been no evidence of prosecutorial misconduct brought to the court's attention. Zero," the judge said, rejecting the defence's third request for a mistrial.
Prosecutors have said they expect to rest sometime this week. The trial is in its sixth week.
Today, prosecutors called what's known as a summary witness to read aloud numerous text messages that jurors hadn't previously heard.
They included exchanges in which the woman who testified under the pseudonym "Jane" complained to Combs about their "hotel night" and "wild king night" sex marathon lifestyle and to his chief of staff, Kristina Khorram, about his threats to release explicit videos of her having sex with other men.
Jane, who dated Combs from 2021 until his arrest last year, excoriated the hip-hop star in a series of text messages after his former long-time girlfriend Cassie, the R&B singer whose legal name is Casandra Ventura, filed a lawsuit against him alleging years of sexual abuse, control and violence.
On November 28, 2023, about two weeks after Combs settled the lawsuit, Jane told him that she felt he exploited her with their "dark and humiliating lifestyle". She wrote that for the three years they were together, she felt confused by their relationship and that being with Combs had deprived her of work opportunities.
A month later, Jane texted Khorram that Combs "just threatened me about my sex tapes that he has on two phones. He said he would send them to my baby daddy".
Jane noted that she didn't typically involve Khorram in such matters, but said she needed help because Combs was having one of his "evil-ass psychotic bipolar" episodes and, along with threatening her, was saying he'd call the police on her.
Jane told Khorram that she was heavily drugged in the tapes.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsroom
13 hours ago
- Newsroom
When abuse masquerades as ‘rough sex'
Opinion: Sean 'Diddy' Combs – also known as Puff Daddy or P Diddy – is on trial in the United States on a raft of sex-trafficking, forced-prostitution, and racketeering charges. The case against the American rapper alleges that he and his associates were responsible for coercing women into drug-fuelled sex marathons known as 'freak-offs'. Combs is alleged to have controlled, abused, and raped his ex-partner Cassie Ventura. Singer Dawn Richard testified that Combs was frequently violent toward Ventura, punching her, choking her, dragging her, and slapping her in the mouth. Kerry Morgan, a former long-time friend of Ventura, also testified she had witnessed his violence against Ventura and that she herself had been choked and assaulted by him. The Combs trial has highlighted the insidious nature of coercion, control, and violence in intimate relationships. It has also drawn attention to 'choking' – a term now commonly used to refer to strangulation. Strangulation is a common and dangerous form of violence. It involves compression of the neck – an area highly vulnerable to injury – with hands, an arm, or objects, such as belts or scarves. Strangulation is also deeply gendered. In New Zealand, a fifth of women who experience physical violence from an intimate partner have been purposely choked or burnt at least once. Strangulation often leaves no visible injury, but it can result in a range of serious health consequences. These consequences might be felt immediately, or they might arise in the days, weeks, or months following the event. People who have been strangled may report difficulty breathing, a sore throat, confusion, vision changes, or loss of consciousness. Strangulation can also result in miscarriage, traumatic brain injury and death. Strangulation is a known red flag for escalating violence in relationships. It is troubling, then, that the same act – applying pressure to the neck – has become an increasingly common aspect of some people's sexual lives, often under the guise of 'rough sex'. How common is 'choking' during sex? In Australia, research with young adults aged 18 to 35 found over half – 57 percent – had a history of partnered sexual choking. In the US, a 2021 survey found a quarter of undergraduate students at a large university reported being choked during their most recent sexual event. Data about the prevalence of the practice in Aotearoa is limited. Project Gender sought to gather some insights through a survey (promoted via social media) of online dating and sex. Thirty percent of the 823 respondents to this survey reported being choked or suffocated during consensual sex with a partner from a dating app. Being choked during sex may be increasing in frequency, but it is not always wanted. It is often reported as a 'scary' experience – particularly for women. A third of respondents in Project Gender's survey said they 'never' or 'rarely' consented to being choked. The influence of pornography Choking during sex is eroticised in pornography, presenting it as a pleasurable and legitimate act within the pursuit of (mostly) male heterosexual pleasure. These portrayals occur in material marketed at 'mainstream' audiences, outside of content aimed at audiences seeking portrayals of safe, explicitly consensual BDSM – bondage, domination, submission, and masochism. Young people report they often first learn about choking through pornography, which can act as a default source of information about sex. However, pornography is not the only arena in which choking and strangulation is depicted. It is eroticised in popular films such as Polish erotic drama 365 days, and in chart topping music hits such as 'Lovin on Me' by Jack Harlow or 'Take My Breath' by The Weeknd. Choking is also discussed in sex and relationships advice in magazines such as Men's Health and Cosmopolitan. Articles often reference the pleasures that can be found – usually for women – during choking. Online articles also frame choking as a positive and 'safe' behaviour. Few articles are subject to expert or medical review. Collectively, these repeated portrayals may reinforce wider messaging that suggests rough sex or 'choking' is ordinary or should be expected. Additionally, these portrayals may neutralise the potential harms associated with these practices. Challenging the 'rough sex is normal' narrative While some people may enjoy partaking in 'rougher' styles of sex, irrespective of consent it is important we do not lose focus on the health risks associated with choking. To help challenge and contextualise broader narratives that are shaping contemporary ideas and sexual expectations, reliable information about sex, relationships, consent, and violence needs to be available to everyone. Rather than learning from the fantasy-based, stereotypical images of sex in mainstream pornography, a good place to begin is with resources developed in conjunction with experts, clinicians, sexual educators, and others with specialist insights. These resources provide concise and accurate information about the realities of choking during sex, enabling people to make more informed decisions about their sexual lives.
1News
3 days ago
- 1News
Mushroom trial: Motive and murder - what the jury must decide
With all evidence now complete, closing arguments are underway in one of the most high-profile murder trials in Australia. But jurors in Victoria aren't being asked to find a motive. They're being asked to decide whether Erin Patterson is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt. Experts agree the legal threshold is one of the most misunderstood elements of criminal trials - so what does that actually mean? Australia Correspondent Aziz Al Sa'afin explains. What's the job of the jury? To weigh the evidence presented and decide whether guilt has been proven beyond reasonable doubt Under Victorian law, jurors must not speculate, assume or 'fill in gaps' - they rely only on what was presented in court What does 'beyond reasonable doubt' actually mean? ADVERTISEMENT Speaking to 1News, Criminal barrister Rishi Nathwani KC explained it like this: 'It doesn't mean beyond any doubt at all - just beyond a reasonable one. If the jury finds there is a real possibility the accused is innocent, they must acquit.' Nathwani said while the phrase remains in use in Victoria, in other jurisdictions it's sometimes simplified as: 'Are you sure?' If jurors are not sure, based on the evidence presented in court, then the verdict must be not guilty. Why is this important in the Patterson case? The Crown has alleged Erin Patterson deliberately served a meal containing death cap mushrooms that killed three of her relatives and left a fourth man fighting for life. But prosecutors have explicitly told jurors not to focus on motive. 'You don't need to find a motive to find someone guilty of murder,' the prosecution has said. Instead, they argue that Patterson's behaviour - including her shifting explanations, deleted data and acquisition of a food dehydrator point to intent. ADVERTISEMENT Defence: Beware the danger of hindsight In closing arguments, Patterson's barrister Colin Mandy SC warned the jury not to judge her through the lens of hindsight. 'This trial isn't about what might have happened. It's about what the evidence shows.' He said much of the Crown's argument is based on 'speculation' and assumptions that don't amount to proof. So what is the jury considering? Under Victorian law, jurors must decide whether Erin Patterson: Intended to kill or cause serious injury to her lunch guests And whether the prosecution has proven this beyond reasonable doubt ADVERTISEMENT That's it. Even without a clear motive, even with odd behaviour - Nathwani said if there's a reasonable explanation that fits the evidence, Patterson must be acquitted. What has the prosecution said? Over the course of the trial, the Crown argued: Patterson lied about where the mushrooms came from She deliberately misled health officials and police Her phone was factory reset to hide evidence She visited areas where wild death caps were known to grow The prosecution also suggested the sixth beef Wellington - prepared for her estranged husband - was kept separate and potentially safe, though he did not attend the lunch. Crown prosecutor Nanette Rogers and Erin Patterson. Montage by Crystal Choi. (Source: 1News) ADVERTISEMENT What has the defence said? The defence has said: Patterson panicked and lied, but that doesn't mean she's guilty She had no motive to harm her family Scientific and forensic evidence is inconclusive Death cap residue in the dehydrator does not prove intent or timing They also say surviving guest Ian Wilkinson - who testified the accused used different coloured plates - was 'honestly mistaken'. They raised the possibility a third, unknown mushroom species may have been present in the leftovers, citing expert testimony from a virologist. What happens if the jury can't agree? In Victoria, murder charges require a unanimous verdict. Justice Beale will try to avoid a hung jury by directing the jury to continue deliberating and try to reach agreement. But it is possible it could result in a mistrial if all options have been "exhausted". ADVERTISEMENT As Nathwani explained: 'The judge would, if [the jury] made it aware they were struggling to reach a unanimous verdict, direct them... There's a direction he can give of law, which says, you know, you've got to listen to each other... But if they can't, then it's a retrial, and they do it all again in many months' time.' Recap: What's happened so far in the trial? Week 1–2: Opening arguments and early witnesses, including police and hospital staff. Week 3: Toxicology and forensic experts testified on the symptoms of death cap poisoning. Week 4: Phone and tech evidence, including the factory reset, was presented. Week 5: Botanical and mushroom experts, including Dr Tom May, confirmed death cap DNA in cooking equipment. Week 6: Testimony from Patterson's children and others about her behaviour. ADVERTISEMENT Week 7: Erin Patterson testified across eight days. She denied intent and maintained it was a tragic accident. Week 8: Closing arguments. Prosecution accused her of inventing key parts of her story. Defence said speculation and hindsight are not proof. What next? Judge Christopher Beale is expected to give final directions to the jury next week. Deliberations could begin by the end of June.
1News
4 days ago
- 1News
'No direction' to lower standards for police recruits
The Police Commissioner says there was "no direction or order" to drop standards in order to fulfil a coalition promise and recruit 500 more police officers. Richard Chambers said, once he knew "discretion" had been applied, he made it clear that graduating police officers must still meet standards. Both Chambers and Police Minister Mark Mitchell fronted a scrutiny hearing today – a chance for MPs to grill ministers on this year's Budget decisions. Findings from an audit into recruitment standards at the Royal New Zealand Police College found a significant number of applicants were allowed into the college, despite failing preliminary tests. The Police College sometimes gives discretion to recruits who fall short of certain standards, although they must still pass the tests before graduating, but the audit found this had become increasingly common. ADVERTISEMENT The findings prompted Police Commissioner Richard Chambers to instruct the college not to accept anyone who hasn't met all mandatory recruitment standards. Critics say the Govt is behind on its target of 500 new officers as gang numbers and illicit drugs continue to surge. (Source: 1News) Just last month, a review found more than 300 police officers were not assessed on their swimming abilities before graduating, leading to the audit. Those recent recruits had undergone assessments retrospectively, and it was announced that police would review the swimming training policy. Another issue was a failure by some to meet the literacy standard required before entering Police College. Labour police spokesperson Ginny Andersen asked Mitchell in the hearing: "Who gave the order to drop standards at the Police College in order to try deliver the 500 [new police] quicker?" Mitchell described it as an operational matter, but as minister, his view was that there were no specific orders "ever" to drop standards. He blamed the previous government and had previously said: "There is no doubt in my mind that the priorities set by the previous government around recruiting contributed to this." ADVERTISEMENT He said there may have been a change in the approach taken, but under this government, "we've been very clear what our expectations are, and that is that there will be no reduction or change in standards". Police Commissioner Richard Chambers (Source: 1News) Mitchell added that, when it came to recruiting, the Commissioner and his statements had been "unambiguous" about his expectations. Chambers added the minister was correct - "there was no direction or order" - but once he was made aware that "discretion" had been applied on different standards and expectations, he made it clear those standards needed to be met. "I've been very clear about under my commissionership, we have standards that we will meet and, if some people need to do some extra work before they join New Zealand Police, then that's up to them to do." Going forward, he said he was very clear "we do have expectations of standards". Mitchell emphasised the recruits who failed preliminary tests did so before attending police college and, under the commissioner's direction, that would no longer happen. ADVERTISEMENT "Now there is no discretion around those standards," he said. "They'll meet the standard before they go to the college, but once they're at the college, they have to meet the standard before they graduate."
