On June 27, 2025, the federal courtroom in lower Manhattan crackled with intensity as Sean “Diddy” Combs’ defense attorney, Marc Agnifilo, delivered a bold, four-hour closing argument, slamming the prosecution’s case as a “fake trial” that mischaracterized a consensual “swingers lifestyle” as a criminal enterprise.
As the jury prepares to deliberate starting Monday, June 30, following Judge Arun Subramanian’s instructions, Agnifilo’s provocative defense has ignited fierce debate about consent, celebrity power dynamics, and the legal system’s handling of high-profile figures. With Combs facing life in prison if convicted on charges of sex trafficking, racketeering, and transportation for prostitution, the trial’s outcome could reshape how justice navigates fame and influence.
Sean Combs, 55, faces five federal charges: one count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Prosecutors allege Combs orchestrated a decades-long scheme, coercing women, including ex-girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and a woman known as “Jane,” into drug-fueled sexual encounters called “Freak Offs” with male escorts, using violence, threats, and financial control to ensure compliance.
The defense, however, insists these were consensual acts within a “swingers lifestyle,” not federal crimes. Over seven weeks, the prosecution called 34 witnesses, presenting graphic testimony and evidence. At the same time, the defense rested after minimal presentation, relying on cross-examinations and no witnesses, echoing strategies seen in high-profile cases like Harvey Weinstein’s.
Marc Agnifilo’s closing was a theatrical blend of defiance and cultural critique, portraying Combs as a “self-made, successful Black entrepreneur” with human flaws—admitting to drug use and domestic violence—but not a criminal mastermind. He argued the sex trafficking charges were misapplied, stating,
“This is his girlfriend … there is no suggestion that he is making money from this, this is their personal life, they are swingers”.
Agnifilo emphasized that Combs didn’t profit from prostitution, a key component of the trafficking charge, and framed the “Freak Offs” as consensual threesomes. He mocked the prosecution’s seizure of over 1,000 bottles of baby oil and Astroglide, quipping,
“The streets are safer with all that baby oil HSI seized,”
to downplay their significance.
Agnifilo systematically challenged the credibility of key accusers:
Cassie Ventura: He described their relationship as a “great modern love story,” admitting to physical abuse but denying coercion in sexual activities. Text messages showing Ventura’s enthusiasm for “Freak Offs” were highlighted, and Agnifilo mocked her use of a burner phone to contact Kid Cudi, saying,
“Cassie is keeping it gangsta!”
to suggest she acted freely.
Jane: Agnifilo claimed Jane willingly participated in hotel nights, noting she lived in a Combs-paid residence, asking,
“Is that coercion?”
He argued a 2024 incident involving alleged violence was unrelated to trafficking.
Capricorn Clark: The defense dismissed her kidnapping allegations as a
“door-to-door kidnap,”
pointing out she slept at home and was driven by Combs’ security, undermining claims of captivity.
Mia: Agnifilo accused Mia of fabricating non-consensual sex claims, citing a birthday video as evidence of her consent.
The defense’s argument took a unique turn by framing the trial as a cultural referendum on alternative lifestyles, suggesting the prosecution was unfairly criminalizing consensual, unconventional relationships. This approach risks alienating jurors but could appeal to those wary of overreach by authorities, especially given Combs’ status as a Black cultural icon. Agnifilo’s claim that the case stemmed from Ventura’s 2023 civil lawsuit drew two curative instructions from Judge Subramanian, who warned jurors to ignore suggestions of government targeting as irrelevant.
Assistant U.S. Attorney Maurene Comey’s 90-minute rebuttal accused the defense of victim-blaming, asserting that in Combs’ world, “no was never an option.” She cited a 2024 incident where Combs allegedly beat Jane before forcing her into a sexual act with an escort, calling it a textbook case of sex trafficking. Comey revisited the 2016 InterContinental Hotel assault on Ventura, captured on video, tying it to a “Freak Off” and arguing Combs used force to ensure compliance.
She described these events as grueling, drug-fueled ordeals, not consensual “date nights,” and highlighted Combs’ staff facilitating travel and drugs, contradicting claims of their ignorance. Comey urged the jury to find Combs guilty, stating,
“For 20 years, the defendant got away with his crimes. That ends in this courtroom”.
The jury of eight men and four women will begin deliberating on June 30 at 9 a.m. ET, following Judge Subramanian’s instructions. Given the case’s complexity—five charges, conflicting testimonies, and graphic evidence—deliberations may extend several days, potentially past July 4. The outcome is uncertain, with social media on X revealing a split: some users back the defense’s consensual lifestyle argument, while others see the prosecution’s evidence, like Special Agent Penland’s testimony on logistics, as damning for charges like transportation for prostitution.
Beyond the courtroom, the defense’s strategy subtly positions the trial as a clash between societal norms and personal freedom, a narrative less explored by mainstream outlets. By framing Combs as a victim of cultural misunderstanding, Agnifilo taps into broader debates about privacy, race, and the criminalization of Black success. This could sway jurors who view the case as prosecutorial overreach but risks trivializing serious allegations of coercion.
The trial also raises questions about how digital evidence—like texts and videos—shapes modern consent narratives, potentially setting a precedent for future celebrity cases. The emotional toll on Combs’ family, including his daughter’s distress during graphic testimony, adds a human dimension rarely highlighted, underscoring the personal stakes behind the legal battle.
A conviction could land Combs in prison for life, dismantling his legacy as a music and cultural titan. An acquittal, however, might fuel criticism of the justice system’s handling of powerful figures, especially given the prosecution’s decision to drop certain racketeering claims like arson and kidnapping, which some see as a sign of a weaker case.
Either way, the trial’s focus on power dynamics and consent will likely influence how similar cases are prosecuted, particularly in defining coercion in relationships marked by wealth and fame.
It’s kind of clear that the defense’s closing has framed this as more than a criminal case—a referendum on personal freedom versus accountability.