The highly publicized federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs has ended in a stinging defeat for prosecutors, after a jury acquitted the music mogul of the most serious charges—racketeering and sex trafficking—while convicting him only on two lesser prostitution counts. The outcome has sparked sharp criticism of the prosecution’s approach, with legal analysts calling it an overreach driven more by spectacle than statute.
Combs, 55, faced a sweeping indictment that invoked the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO)—a powerful tool once used to dismantle mafia operations. Prosecutors from the Southern District of New York (SDNY) alleged that Combs used his entertainment empire as a front for coercing women into sex acts, operating under what they called a criminal “enterprise.” But the jury wasn’t convinced.
Former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani called the trial “the most expensive prostitution trial in American history,” estimating that Combs spent over $10 million on his legal defense. Ironically, Rahmani noted, Combs might have avoided trial entirely had he simply settled earlier allegations—like the lawsuit filed by ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura—for a comparable sum.
The prosecution, experts say, was built on shaky legal ground. David S. Seltzer, a veteran defense attorney, described it as trying to “put a square peg in a round hole,” arguing that what prosecutors framed as racketeering was essentially a state-level prostitution case, sensationalized into federal court.
Much of the trial hinged on testimony from Combs’ former partners, including Ventura and a woman referred to only as “Jane.” Both detailed deeply disturbing accounts of abuse, degradation, and coercion, including so-called “freak-offs” with hired male escorts. But the lack of clear evidence of an organized criminal structure—combined with what some experts called “voluntary participation”—undermined the government’s core RICO claim.
Nicole Brenecki, a New York trial attorney, said the prosecution suffered from “too much spectacle, too little structure.” Without clear proof of a hierarchy, coordinated activity, or financial organization behind the acts, the jury had little choice but to acquit on the racketeering and trafficking charges.
Even so, Combs’ legal team didn’t pretend their client was innocent of misconduct. They “owned the bad facts,” according to New York Law School Professor Anna Cominsky, including the viral hotel surveillance footage showing Combs dragging Ventura by her hair. Instead of denying abuse, his lawyers reframed it—successfully—as personal misconduct, not federal crime.
The case is also a reputational blow to SDNY, long regarded as the nation’s most formidable U.S. Attorney’s office. Once nicknamed the “Sovereign District” for its independence and courtroom dominance, SDNY has seen a series of recent missteps—including the collapse of its corruption case against NYC Mayor Eric Adams. This latest setback only deepens questions about prosecutorial discretion and political pressure.
Taxpayers are also left holding the bill. Brenecki estimates the multi-agency investigation—including surveillance, raids, and cross-agency cooperation between FBI and Homeland Security—ran into the seven- to eight-figure range, all for two misdemeanor-level convictions.
Women’s rights advocates, including Ann Olivarius, blasted the outcome as a systemic failure. “This trial told women that brutal abuse and humiliation can still be spun as ‘love stories,’” she said, condemning what she viewed as defense strategy rewarded by a jury unprepared for the cultural implications.
