You are probably familiar with the tale: a well-known singer, plagued by allegations of misconduct, is eventually hit with a broad federal criminal prosecution, accusing him of operating a criminal organization based on his own erotic impulses.
However, are we discussing R. Kelly or Sean “Diddy” Combs?
The accusations made against Combs this month are similar to those made against Kelly in 2019, the hit R&B artist who was given a 30-year prison sentence in 2022 after a jury found him guilty of decades of abuse. Although there are some significant distinctions—most notably, Combs is not charged with abusing minors—the themes and allegations are similar to those in the first case.
We thus went to the greatest specialists we could find in order to learn more: lead prosecutors Nadia Shihata and Maria Cruz Melendez, who tried the case against Kelly. Shihata and Cruz Melendez, who are currently in private practice, spoke with Billboard separately about the Combs case. They talked about how a case like this is put together, who else might be charged, and how the battle ahead will play out.
“While each case is unique, there are undoubtedly similarities,” Shihata states.
What accusations does Diddy face?
Similar to Kelly, Combs’ prosecution has been based on the federal “RICO” statute known as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is frequently used in crime dramas and television shows. In addition, he is accused of breaking two separate federal statutes pertaining to sex trafficking. However, the main thrust of the story is that Combs established a vast criminal network with the primary goal of aiding his own sexual abuse rather than engaging in illicit gambling or drug trafficking.
“The statute’s reach is not limited to what many may think of as traditional crime syndicates, despite the fact that most people associate racketeering with the mafia,” explains Cruz Melendez, who is currently a private practitioner at the prestigious Skadden law firm.
RICO, which was passed in the 1970s, gives prosecutors the ability to go after a whole criminal organization by prosecuting several, ostensibly unconnected offenses that were committed over a long period of time by different individuals as a single criminal conspiracy. It was intended to support prosecutors in their efforts to prosecute organized crime, as bosses there sometimes try to disassociate themselves from the actual crimes.
It should come as no surprise that the legislation has been used frequently over the years to target mob figures, including members of the Gambino family such as John Gotti. It has also been used against terrorist organizations, white nationalist organizations, drug cartels, financial fraudsters, and corrupt judges such as those responsible for the “kids for cash” affair.
However, in the years following the #MeToo movement’s inception, federal prosecutors in New York have started to refocus RICO against powerful individuals who are accused of organizing such criminal enterprises around widespread sexual assault.
Keith Raniere, the head of the upstate New York cult known as Nxivm, was found guilty by a federal jury in Brooklyn in 2019 of breaking the RICO law by using weak women as sexual “slaves.” A few weeks later, Kelly was charged by the same authorities, which said that the celebrity and his accomplices had colluded to “recruit women and girls to engage in illegal sexual activity with Kelly.”
Shihata claims that while this kind of RICO case is new, it is not wholly unexpected because more people are becoming aware of “how powerful men at the height of their success often commit and conceal these crimes.”
According to Shihata, who currently owns her own company, Shihata & Geddes LLP, “They don’t do it alone.” “Frequently with the assistance of a group of workers, acolytes, and yes men who are prepared to follow their instructions and turn a blind eye.”
When compared to more conventional methods of sexual abuse prosecution, RICO offers the government significant advantages in situations such as the ones involving Kelly and Combs. It enables prosecutors to present juries with a more complete picture that is less vulnerable to a defense of “he said, she said” based on discrete episodes, as well as to mention actions that occurred years ago but would not normally be allowed by statutes of limitations.
According to Shihata, it’s comparable to viewing an entire TV show as opposed to a single scene from an episode.
What argument will the prosecution present?
Prosecutors must demonstrate the existence of a criminal enterprise and Combs’ involvement in it by pointing to at least two of the numerous discrete offenses that comprise the overall pattern of illegal behavior, or “predicate acts,” that they have included in their indictment in order to establish a RICO case.
Of course, the central allegations of abusive sexual behavior—such as the elaborate “freak off” sex parties that are repeatedly described in the indictment—are included in those alleged predicates. However, they also encompass everything else that made such behavior possible and kept it from being discovered, such as claims of bribery, kidnapping, and arson, as well as obstruction of justice through coercion of witnesses to keep quiet.
Prosecutors assert that in order to bolster their allegations, they have already conducted over 50 witness interviews, during which they obtained “detailed, credible, and corroborated information” against Combs, many of whom “saw or experienced the defendant’s abuse.”And now that the case is public, the officials say they anticipate the witness list will “continue to grow.”
The government will support that testimony with tangible evidence, such as the famed thousand bottles of baby oil that made headlines last month, as well as digital evidence, which it claims it has already retrieved from over 120 cellphones, laptops, and other electronic devices. Prosecutors notably reference the 2016 footage of Combs abusing his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura in court documents.
The Kelly trial, where jurors heard testimony from 45 witnesses over the course of 20 days—including eight of his former employees and eleven of his alleged victims—and was supported by a wealth of evidence, including letters that the prosecution claimed Kelly had coerced his victims into writing, proved that the same strategy was effective.
Shihata, who was at the center of that prosecution, says she anticipates Diddy’s attorneys concentrating on presenting “the story of everything that happened leading up to the sexual activity,” which includes alleged coercion, threats, isolation, financial reliance, blackmail, and other acts that forced women to engage in sexual activity against their will.
Shihata states, “These are the instruments of coercive control.” “We referred to the R. Kelly case as the ‘Predator’s Playbook.'”
In what way will Combs present his case?
The government will have the burden of establishing, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Combs committed the several crimes for which he has been charged, just as in any other criminal case in the United States. His attorneys only need to create enough gaps in the prosecution’s case so that the jury isn’t convinced he is guilty, without having to offer their own grand narrative or establish his innocence.
They could try to achieve that, in part, by claiming that, despite being strange and unsightly, his sexual behavior was ultimately voluntary. Diddy’s lawyer Marc Agnifilo alluded to that dispute during a bail hearing held last month, telling the judge that the celebrity and his former girlfriend Cassie had included sex workers in their relationship because “that was the way these two adults chose to be intimate.”
Cruz Melendez states that “whether the alleged victims engaged in some of the conduct at issue consensually with Combs and others” will be one of the case’s key questions. “Counsel’s remarks imply that they want to introduce their own witnesses to refute victim testimonials claiming coercion or force.”
In fact, one of the main differences between the current prosecution against Combs and the previous one against Kelly is the question of consent. Considering that the majority of Kelly’s allegations were having sex with children, which is prohibited in all situations, this kind of defense would have failed.
Shihata believes that since consent is a factor in the Combs case, his defense lawyers would probably attempt to focus the case on particular instances that contradict the prosecution’s more general thesis. She predicts that the defense will attempt to narrow the jury’s focus by claiming that a specific victim gave their consent to sexual intercourse on a given day.
Additionally, Combs’ lawyers will probably claim that the prosecution is misusing RICO to support their case and that the alleged wrongdoing does not fit the definition of racketeering. For example, Kelly’s counsel have claimed in their appeal of his conviction that the government is applying the federal legislation “to the point of absurdity” in these situations, possibly transforming college fraternities into unlawful RICO conspiracies.
A fundamental inquiry preceding any criminal trial is whether the accused individual intends to testify on their own behalf. It’s frequently a bad decision since taking the stand can expose a defendant to prosecutors’ merciless cross-examination and cause serious problems if jurors don’t agree with what they see and hear. R. Kelly was not called as a witness in any of his two federal criminal trials, most likely for this reason.
However, Agnifilo claims that Combs intends to make the statement personally right now. The lawyer stated that he is “very eager to tell his story” and that “I don’t know that I could keep him off the stand” in a TMZ interview.
In the interview, the lawyer made a comment that seemed to allude to his relationship with Cassie: “He has a story that I think only he can tell in the way he can tell it in real time.” It’s a human narrative, too. This tale combines elements of love, hurt, and heartbreak.
Will there be charges against others?
A RICO case typically revolves around charges involving many parties by definition. Additionally, prosecutors in Combs’ case frequently bring up unidentified co-conspirators who they claim assisted the music tycoon in committing his crimes.
In one such instance, the prosecution writes, “The defendant arranged freak offs with the assistance of members and associates of the enterprise, including employees of his business.” “The defendant and other members and associates of the enterprise coerced witnesses and victims when they realized that their violent and illegal behavior might be made public.”
But in spite of all those allusions, Combs is the only one who faces criminal charges. That bears more resemblance to the Kelly case, in which the prosecution described years of purported assistance from members of his entourage, but they only brought charges of RICO violations against the man. (Two Kelly associates were charged with distinct felonies in a different Chicago case.)
The absence of co-defendants in a case that depicts a large number of wrongdoers may seem odd, but Cruz Melendez claims it’s not all that unusual: “It is not unheard of to prosecute a single person for racketeering, especially if the defendant is the accused leader or a high-ranking member of the charged enterprise,” the spokesperson adds.
Crucially, the absence of co-defendants in the original indictment does not preclude the possibility of more charges down the road. U.S. Attorney Damian Williams cautioned that the investigation was “very active and ongoing” and that as the case progressed, “we can’t take anything off the table” at a press conference announcing the allegations against Combs.
According to Shihata, “there’s a good chance that additional members of the enterprise have already been charged under seal, entered guilty pleas in accordance with cooperation agreements, and are assisting prosecutors in developing their case.” “It’s also possible that more charges will be brought against individuals in the future as the government continues to gather information and evidence and the investigation is ongoing.”
When is the trial scheduled to occur? What follows then?
A jury trial must begin in federal cases within 70 days in order to fulfill the constitutional right to a timely trial for anybody accused of a crime in the United States. Agnifilo has so far declined to relinquish this right, stating that he is “going to do everything I can to move his case as quickly as possible,” despite the fact that defendants frequently do so in order to give their attorneys more time to prepare a defense.
However, there are a number of exclusions to the seventy-day time restriction that can still cause a trial to be postponed, such as pre-trial petitions, appeals, or the judge’s determination that the case is too complicated. Prosecutors may potentially add new accusations against Combs or file charges against other individuals, which would postpone the trial.
Judge Andrew L. Carter has already “excluded” a few weeks from the expedited trial clock, and according to Cruz Melendez and Shihata, there is little likelihood that Combs’ trial will take place in the upcoming months.
Shihata states, “I don’t think a case like this will actually go to trial in 70 days or anywhere near that.” The trial process for routine federal matters typically takes a year, provided that no superseding charges are issued. However, this case might take longer than expected, especially because there seems to be a lot of electronic discovery involved.
Both parties will get ready for trial till then. The government will carry out its investigation and may use the results to add new defendants, witnesses, or evidence to the case. Additionally, Shihata anticipates that the prosecution will submit a petition, similar to what happened in the Kelly case, allowing jurors to remain anonymous and allowing victims and witnesses to testify under fictitious names.
While he waits for his trial, Combs’ team will keep pushing for his release on bond; this motion has already been turned down twice by lower court judges. The matter is still pending in a federal appeals court, where they have filed an appeal. The decision made there might have a significant impact on how quickly his attorneys try to get the case tried.
Diddy’s lawyers will sort through the evidence that the prosecution intends to present at the trial in the interim. They will probably file pre-trial petitions requesting that the judge reject certain parts of the case and exclude particular witnesses and evidence. They will carry out their own inquiry in addition, looking for information and witnesses to refute the government’s claims.
Twelve jurors will finally determine if they can succeed in doing so, or whether Combs will suffer the same fate as Kelly, in a federal courtroom in Manhattan.
Cruz Melendez asserts, “In the end, the indictment is just the government’s allegations.” “At trial, the government must establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt.”
