The Diddy trial: How the jury reached its verdict

Summary

Post Reports Podcast Summary: "The Diddy Trial: How the Jury Reached Its Verdict"

Published on July 2, 2025 by The Washington Post

---

Introduction to the Verdict

On July 2, 2025, the high-profile criminal trial of Sean Combs, also known as Diddy, concluded with a mixed verdict. After 13 hours of jury deliberation, Combs was found guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution but was acquitted of the more severe charges of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy.

Courtroom Reactions

Eli opens the discussion by detailing the tense atmosphere in the courtroom:

"Sean Combs entered a federal courtroom on Wednesday morning... by 9:52am the jury sent a note to the court that it had reached a verdict in his criminal trial."
(00:34)

Anne Brannigan, a style reporter present during the trial, describes Combs' demeanor:

"Combs appeared quite nervous... he was, you know, locking eyes with the jury. He was putting his hands together in prayer and kind of shaking his hands and mouthing the words thank you to them over and over again."
(04:16)

The courtroom erupted in supportive reactions once the verdict was announced:

"There was clapping for the defense, clapping for Combs... it was pretty loud in there, actually, and it was a very pro Combs courtroom."
(05:07)

Outside Reactions

Outside the courthouse, emotions ran high with a chaotic and celebratory scene:

"I saw a woman in a bikini top just being doused with baby oil. And she was just kind of bouncing around in celebration."
(05:50)

Trial Overview

Eli provides a comprehensive overview of the trial's background:

"Almost a decade after the height of the MeToo movement, Combs, also known as Diddy, Puff, Puff Daddy, is a music mogul who's had an outsized role in entertainment... changed when people came forward with allegations of sex abuse against him."
(02:45)

Verdict on Charges

Transportation to Engage in Prostitution

Combs was convicted on two counts deemed "straightforward" by the prosecution. These charges involved the hiring of male escorts for sexual acts with his partners, supported by substantial evidence such as text exchanges and flight records.

"These were the most straightforward and really felt like a slam dunk for the prosecution."
(08:33)

Each count carries a maximum sentence of 10 years, which can be served concurrently or consecutively.

Not Guilty on Sex Trafficking

The jury acquitted Combs of the two more serious sex trafficking charges involving his former girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and a woman using the alias Jane. Despite extensive and emotional testimonies detailing alleged coercion and abuse, the jury found insufficient evidence to convict on these counts.

"The jury had to believe that these women were forced or coerced to participate... if they believe that these women consented, then it follows that perhaps there was not the coercion there."
(15:23)

Not Guilty on Racketeering Conspiracy

Combs was also found not guilty of racketeering conspiracy, a charge that could have resulted in a life sentence. The jury struggled with this charge, ultimately deciding against it after deliberations.

"They may not have believed that Combs was conspiring with these other members... there is an outstanding question there."
(22:15)

Implications of the Verdict

The mixed verdict represents a significant both legal and cultural moment:

• For Combs: The guilty verdict on transportation charges is a partial setback, but the acquittals on more severe charges are viewed as substantial victories. His legal team has not indicated plans to appeal these convictions.

• For the Government: The outcome is seen as a setback, given the extensive resources invested in the prosecution. Anne Brannigan notes:

  "It's a really substantial victory for Combs because the government did make a big show of this case."
  (24:37)

Impact on Civil Lawsuits

Combs remains subject to multiple civil lawsuits. The criminal acquittals, particularly on sex trafficking charges, do not directly affect these civil cases but may influence public perception and legal strategies.

Legal Community Responses

The legal community has observed that the government may have overreached with the racketeering conspiracy charge, highlighting complexities in proving conspiracy and the high standards required for criminal convictions.

"RICO requires the belief that there was a conspiracy here. They may not have believed that Combs was conspiring with these other members."
(22:15)

Implications for the MeToo Movement

The trial serves as a reflection on the current state of the MeToo movement. Anne Brannigan emphasizes the nuanced challenges jurors faced in defining consent and coercion within the context of a high-profile, affluent setting.

"This case demanded a lot of nuance... it required a really fine understanding of coercion."
(28:11)

Conclusion

The trial's outcome presents a complex narrative of partial convictions and significant acquittals, raising questions about legal standards, societal perceptions of consent, and the ongoing impact of the MeToo movement on high-profile cases.

Notable Quotes:

• Anne Brannigan on Combs' Reaction:

  "He expressed a lot of gratitude in his body language, but also in this very, I think, explicit way."
  (04:16)

• Cleve Wootson on Government Efforts:

  "If people just have more insight into how all of this stuff is working, it's a good day for me."
  (17:50)

• Eli on the Verdict's Meaning:

  "That is a really big question... this jury felt that the bar was not cleared."
  (15:23)

---

This summary is based on the podcast transcript provided and aims to encapsulate all key discussions, insights, and conclusions from the episode.

Transcript

[Oregon Lottery Representative]

In the summer, all of Oregon is our playground thanks to our incredible park system. That's why it's so cool that Oregon Lottery gameplay, like video lottery or cash Pop, helps support tons of parks projects statewide like accessible trails at Silver Falls State park or upgrades to your favorite dog park in Newburgh. It's just one way a little lottery play for many Oregonians can add up to a lot of good the Oregon Lottery. Together we do good things. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only. Must be 18 or older to play.

[Eli]

Sean Combs entered a federal courtroom on Wednesday morning. He was wearing a yellow sweater and a white collared shirt. It was around 9:45am he then stood in front of his children and mother, bowed his head and led his family in prayer. By 9:52am the jury sent a note to the court that it had reached a verdict in his criminal trial. Style reporter Anne Brannigan was there.

[Anne Brannigan]

Combs appeared quite nervous. You know, he kept turning to his family. He raised his hands in prayer. It was a very tense scene up until the verdict was read.

[Eli]

After 13 hours of deliberation, the jury found Combs guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. That's a charge that carries a maximum sentence of 10 years. But the jury found Combs not guilty of the more serious charges he faced sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges that could have carried a life sentence.

[Anne Brannigan]

This is a huge victory for Combs to go up against the federal government in this way and to beat the most serious charges. It is an incredible win for him.

[Eli]

Inside the courtroom, Combs looked at the jury and mouthed the words thank you. Outside the courtroom, a large crowd had gathered and people there had a lot of different opinions on this verdict.

[Anne Brannigan]

I'm just so heartbroken over this. For all the women and children that are in this country, I think we failed. I think the system failed. You know, so many people out there today, my perspective is that I think that these charges were overblown, but I agree that men have to be more gentle with women. Yes. But I don't think it warrants 10.

[Cleve Wootson]

Years, 15 years in prison or nothing like that.

[Anne Brannigan]

So this is bigger than Diddy. People are tired of being exploited for their, you know, for their looks, for their talents being chewed up and spit out. So this is going to set a precedent.

[Eli]

From the newsroom of the Washington Post, this is Post reports. Eli I'm Elahe izadi. It's Wednesday, July 2nd. Today, the verdict in the trial of Sean Combs. For two Months now, we've been bringing you weekly conversations about this high profile trial. It's been closely watched by people fascinated by the celebrity at the center of it, and also by people wondering how the criminal justice system deals with cases like this. Almost a decade after the height of the MeToo movement, combs, also known as Diddy, Puff, Puff Daddy, is a music mogul who's had an outsized role in entertainment, in the world of celebrity, all of that changed when people came forward with allegations of sex abuse against him. Federal prosecutors brought serious charges against Combs and took him to trial. Today, Ann explains how the jury decided this mixed verdict. We'll also talk about whether the government overreached in its case and the messages this outcome sends. Hi, Ann. Thanks for taking time. One more time to talk to me today about this huge trial.

[Anne Brannigan]

Hi there, Alahi.

[Eli]

First of all, Anne, when you were there and this verdict was read, what happened inside of the courtroom?

[Anne Brannigan]

How.

[Eli]

How did Combs react?

[Anne Brannigan]

So Combs was expressive. So while the verdict was being read, while the not guilty verdicts were being read, he sort of covered his eyes with his hand. Like, he kind of held his hand up to his temple, right? Just kind of taking it in. And it was afterward where we really saw him. You know, he was, you know, locking eyes with the jury. He was putting his hands together in prayer and kind of shaking his hands and mouthing the words thank you to them over and over again. He expressed a lot of gratitude in his body language, but also in this very, I think, explicit way.

[Eli]

It sounds like he was really relieved. What about, among other people, inside of the courtroom?

[Anne Brannigan]

The judge told everybody in the courtroom to, you know, kind of hold their reactions as the jury delivered its verdict. There was a little bit of. Of sound when the verdict was being read, but they really saved a lot of their reaction for when the jury left and when the judge left. And that's when there was clapping for the defense, clapping for Combs. You know, some whoops, some cheering. It was pretty loud in there, actually, and it was a very pro Combs courtroom. A lot of his supporters and of course, his family were there.

[Eli]

And so, Anne, what was the reaction like outside of the courtroom? You know, I'm thinking elsewhere in the courthouse and also outside of the courthouse.

[Anne Brannigan]

So outside of the courthouse, it was intense and chaotic. At one point, you know, very big crowds gathered pretty quickly once they heard the verdict was in. And at one point, I looked outside and saw a woman in a bikini top just being doused with baby oil. And she was just Kind of bouncing around in celebration. A very chaotic scene.

[Eli]

So, Anne, we'll get deeper into the verdict in a moment, but first, let's just remind everyone what Sean Diddy Combs was on trial for.

[Anne Brannigan]

He was on trial for racketeering, conspiracy, as well as two counts of sex trafficking and then two more counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. This trial revolved around two women. It was Cassie Ventura, primarily, and then another woman who went by the court alias of Jane to protect her privacy. Now, both of these women accused Combs of sex trafficking them. And so that's the basis of the two sex trafficking counts against him. It's also the basis of the transportation for prostitution counts. And another layer on top of that was this racketeering conspiracy, which is really about how Combs. And this is what the government argued. The government argued that Combs used his staff to facilitate these sex parties with these women called freak offs, which they said that they did not want to participate in, but felt compelled to by force and by coercion. And part of that racketeering conspiracy charge, there was also a lot of other crimes wrapped in that. So a lot of there were allegations of arson and kidnapping relating to about 20 years of activity there.

[Eli]

And, Ann, remind me of the makeup of this jury.

[Anne Brannigan]

The jury comprised eight men and four women. A diversity of ages. So five of them were under the age of 55, more were 60 and older. They came from Westchester, Manhattan, and the Bronx, and were relatively racially diverse as well.

[Eli]

Okay, so now we finally have a verdict. I want to walk through each of the charges and how the jury ultimately decided based on what they saw and heard and read during this trial. So let's start with the two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs was found guilty on those two counts. That's the only thing he was found guilty of at the conclusion of this trial. And tell me about these two counts and the verdict here.

[Anne Brannigan]

Right. So these were the most straightforward and really felt like a slam dunk for the prosecution. So this charge is also known as the man act. It does have a very racialized history. It used to be called the White Slave Traffic Act. It had been used against a few famous black men for charges that the government brought against them. Now here, what the government alleged was that Combs hired male escorts to participate in these sex acts with Cassie Ventura and with Jane. This charge is really about the commercial sex acts, paying for these male escorts to have sex with his partners.

[Eli]

And so is it fair to say that this was pretty clear and it was easy for the jury to determine that he was guilty on this.

[Anne Brannigan]

Yeah, it felt pretty straightforward. You know, the government had text exchanges showing them sort of negotiating who they were going to pick. There were flight records. You know, this was clearly. They were clearly recruiting them from other cities to take part in freak offs in different cities. And so that there was a lot of evidence supporting these charges in particular.

[Eli]

And what is the sentence that these two counts carry?

[Anne Brannigan]

So there's no minimum here, but there is a maximum sentence of 10 years. Now, that could either be served concurrently or consecutively, which that means like at.

[Eli]

The same time versus, like, back to back.

[Anne Brannigan]

Exactly. Okay. So potentially it could go up to 20 years, but consecutive sentences are a bit unusual.

[Eli]

And who sets the sentence?

[Anne Brannigan]

It will be the judge. And it's a pretty complicated formula. There will be an entire process kind of connected to the sentencing. So there's this complex kind of formula that comes into play that looks at the person's history, it looks at the charge, and then both sides are going to argue for what they think the sentence should be. And so this will be another process that we're going to have to go through before Combs sentence. And the judge who presided over this trial is Arun Subramanian.

[Eli]

Yeah, yeah, we talked about him at the beginning of this series of conversations. And now let's talk about the charges that Combs was not found guilty of. I wanna start with the two counts of sex trafficking, as you said, those related to allegations from these two women, Ventura and Jane, who were both his former girlfriends. Can you talk to me about the not guilty verdict on those counts?

[Anne Brannigan]

Right. So these were really substantial charges. If he was found guilty of either one of these, it could have. He faced a life sentence if he was convicted. Now, to return to sort of like the substance of these allegations with Cassie Ventura. This was allegations that go back to when they dated, which was between 2007 and 2018. So it covered an 11 year span that goes quite a ways back. And what Ventura alleged was that Combs, who's quite a bit older than her, groomed her. And as they began a relationship, he would be physically abusive, but he also convinced her to participate in what they called freak offs. Combs would direct Ventura, as in the escort, as to what to do. And these were acts that she said were primarily for his pleasure and that she felt compelled to do because of the physical abuse, because he essentially controlled her career since she was an artist signed to his label, and also because she loved him. And so we heard really riveting and emotional Testimony about a really complicated and abusive relationship at the start of this trial. Now, the second sex trafficking count relates around a woman who we'll be referring to as Jane. Now, what's striking about these allegations is how recent they are. So Jane and Combs got together around 20, 21 and were together, were seeing each other until last year, up until his arrest, more or less. And what she alleged was that he too made her participate in these sex acts with male escorts. And we saw during her testimony that she did communicate to him quite a bit that she felt used. She felt, you know, she told him she wasn't a porn star or an animal, that she felt exploited by this arrangement, but that she continued to participate in these acts because, again, of the love that she felt for him, but also because the fact that he was paying for her home, which was about $10,000 a month in rent, they had entered into this so called love contract. So she painted this picture of feeling coerced by Combs, who would promise her, you know, these luxurious trips and designer bags. But then when she would ultimately meet him, the substance of their relationship, she said, was solely sex trafficking. So she felt a bit duped, you know, by his offers there. The most significant part of her testimony, though, related to an event that took place in June 2024. So this is after, you know, Combs was aware that the government was investigating him. The intercontinental video showing him beating Cassie had already come out. And what she alleged was that in June they had this physical altercation. She started it, but he significantly escalated it. And afterward he ordered her to do a freak off. Now, according to prosecutors, this was a very clear cut example of sex trafficking. But as we can see, ultimately the jury did not agree with that.

[Eli]

So, Anne, what does it mean that the jury has decided that what these women experienced does not constitute sex trafficking?

[Anne Brannigan]

That is a really big question. I think we're, in a lot of ways are going to be making sense of it for a little while. So there's a few things here that come to mind. Right. One thing that the defense did was they pointed to a lot of communications between Combs and these women, where the women show a bit of enthusiasm for these freak offs. They talk about how much they love him and how they love being with him and how eager they are to please him. A few of them even planned freak offs. And so that could very well have undercut this idea that they were coerced, because that's a very important part of the. It's a very important part of the charges. Against him, the jury had to believe that these women were forced or coerced to participate. You know, so consent plays into this. You know, if they believe that these women consented, then it follows that perhaps there was not the coercion there that prosecutors argued that there was. Now, something significant here is that in order to find him guilty, the jury only had to decide that a sex trafficking act happened once, that they were coerced or forced once. And what this verdict tells us is that they don't believe that that happened or that they had enough doubt that that happened that they couldn't ultimately find him guilty of that.

[Eli]

Wow, that's so fascinating because of just how much testimony took place in this trial about many incidents and that this jury decided in the end they could not be, on a reasonable doubt, determined that at least one of those for each women constituted sex trafficking.

[Anne Brannigan]

Right. We're talking about dozens, possibly even hundreds of these encounters.

[Eli]

Yeah. Okay. Let's take a break there, and when we come back, Ann will explain why the government failed to convict on the other big charge here, racketeering conspiracy. We'll be right back.

[Cleve Wootson]

My name is Cleve Wootson. I'm a White House reporter for the Washington Post. In addition to generally breaking news about whatever the president and the administration are doing, I also write about the impact of policies and politics across the country. I think a lot of Washington reporting is based on the most powerful people, but the impacts of all of that stuff happens to people that grew up very similar to the way that I grew up. We grew up lower middle class a lot of our lives, you know, whether it be free lunch or public housing or whatever was impacted by decisions that are made in Washington. So if people just have more insight into how all of this stuff is working, it's a good day for me. Subscribers support this work and the people behind it. Learn [e-mail] subscribe I'm Cleve Wootson, and I'm one of the people behind the Post.

[Eli]

Okay. And now let's turn to the third charge here. That is racketeering conspiracy, also sometimes referred to as RICO or a RICO charge. The jury found Combs not guilty of racketeering conspiracy. But this charge to me felt like the most sprawling one because it required the government to prove that Combs used his businesses to commit crime. So it's like painting this picture of like a web of a business, business enterprise here supporting a criminal enterprise. You sat in the courthouse most days during this trial. What's your takeaway on this not guilty verdict on The RICO charge, did the government overreach here with that one?

[Anne Brannigan]

So there was a lot of debate within the legal community about this that I found really interesting. And there were not insignificant amount of lawyers who believe that the government had, in fact, overreached with the racketeering conspiracy charge. So to clarify a little bit about what the government's argument here was, they weren't arguing that, you know, the bad boy record label was involved in these crimes or that, you know, Revolt TV was involved in these crimes.

[Eli]

And those are businesses that Combs has had at some point.

[Anne Brannigan]

Exactly. What they argued was that it was a much smaller group. And really, we could think of them as more sort of personal staff, like his chief of staff, Christina Karam, or members of his security detail who conspired and had agreed to either commit racketeering acts. So when I say racketeering acts, I mean, you know, this sort of laundry list of crimes that the government alleged took place. They agreed to do them, commit them, or to cover them up. And that laundry list included acts of arson, sex trafficking, as we mentioned, transportation to engage in prostitution was also, interestingly, one of those predicates there, as well as narcotics distribution, which seemed like a fairly straightforward charge in the sense that we did have a lot of evidence that Combs procured drugs over the course of these 20 years.

[Eli]

So then how did the jury not return a guilty verdict on this?

[Anne Brannigan]

So this was something that they had previously, on Tuesday night, appeared to be deadlocked on. So on Tuesday afternoon, they sent a note to the court saying that they had reached a verdict on all the other counts except this one, and that they felt that they had unpersuadable people on both sides. Now, they'd only been deliberating for two days, and there is no court that wants to do that, is eager to do a retrial. Right. They don't want this to end in a mistrial. And so they were told to come back, continue deliberating, see if you can reach a decision. So this was something that they struggled with, but they ultimately came back on Wednesday morning and took less than an hour to decide that Combs was not guilty of racketeering. And there's a few reasons why they could have come to that decision.

[Eli]

What could be those reasons? That they returned a not guilty verdict on rico.

[Anne Brannigan]

So RICO requires the belief that there was a conspiracy here. So they may not have believed that Combs was conspiring with these other members. They might not have believed that that part was met. You know, the defense also argued that with the case of narcotics distribution, that that was for personal use. Right. And so when it comes to personal use, that does not count as distribution. What's interesting here is that they did find him guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution. And the jury only needed to find Combs guilty of two racketeering acts in order, to the letter of the law, return that guilty verdict. But they didn't. So, you know, there is a sort of outstanding question there. So it could go to either the belief in the conspiracy or another option here being that there was so much doubt within that panel. They could have said, look, there's clearly doubt here. We cannot return a guilty verdict.

[Eli]

Yeah. And also that they were a little bit tortured about it and that there were people entrenched on both sides before they came to a decision. But it is fascinating to wonder and at this point that they did find him guilty on. On transportation to engage in prostitution, but there wasn't a second criminal act that they were confident about that would have then triggered this, potentially this racketeering conspiracy, or they just didn't think that there was a conspiracy at all.

[Anne Brannigan]

Right. It seems like it might be more of the second because it's two individual acts. It didn't need to be two kinds of acts, just two individual acts. Yeah. So that's a really interesting tension there.

[Eli]

And so he was found guilty of these two charges, which you've already describe the transportation to engage in prostitution. Has his team indicated that they're planning to appeal that?

[Anne Brannigan]

There was no indication that they're planning to appeal that. And in many ways, this is a victory for him. Now, remember that these charges, there's not any minimum sentencing requirement here. So this was a really substantial victory for Combs because the government did make a big show of this case.

[Elahe Izadi]

Yeah.

[Eli]

Let's talk about what this verdict means for the government. The Southern District of New York prosecuted the case. The government spent considerable time and resources in investigating Combs and bringing this case to trial. I mean, it's not a small thing to have a two month long trial. Is this outcome a failure for them?

[Anne Brannigan]

It certainly is not a win. I think we can safely say that in the sense that, you know, we saw leading up to the trial, we saw, you know, these dramatic scenes, scenes of Homeland Security agents raiding Combs homes. Right. They were very, very adamant that they believed him to be a violent man and that they believed he had obstructed justice. You know, they were very dogged in their pursuit of Combs on these charges here. So, yes, it's not A win. Even though they did get a couple guilty verdicts here.

[Eli]

I want to ask about the alleged victims here before I do. Combs is still facing a bunch of civil lawsuits. So what does this verdict mean for those lawsuits?

[Anne Brannigan]

So the belief, well, the conventional thinking here is that had there been guilty verdicts on the more serious counts, that that would have favored the litigants in their lawsuits against him because they could have mentioned the fact that he had been convicted of sex trafficking in this criminal case, and it might have also encouraged other people to come forward. Now, being that that did not happen, you know, it doesn't add any more fuel to the litigants fire here. But those are still going to be separate processes that have to play out in civil court.

[Eli]

So now let's talk about the alleged victims here. Ventura and Jane. I mean, these women shared really harrowing testimony. They now are looking at this verdict. What does this verdict mean for them going forward? Have we heard anything from them or their lawyers?

[Anne Brannigan]

So we have heard from Ventura's lawyer, Douglas Wigdor. He released a statement and he acknowledged the disappointing verdict. But what he did was he congratulated Ventura on her strength. You know, she was the reason why the government brought forward this case, this criminal case, to begin with. And so he lauded her unquestionable strength and noted that this could be part of some long overdue change.

[Eli]

So, Anne, stepping back, if we really think about how we even got to this point, that Sean Diddy Combs, this really powerful music mogul who shaped so much of culture and entertainment, was on trial for so long, a lot of it was started with Ventura bringing this civil lawsuit against Combs in 2023. We now know it was settled for $20 million. But that lawsuit triggered a flood of others against Combs. The government investigated him, took him to trial. But that lawsuit from Ventura, it came out of a law passed during the height of the MeToo movement, and that led a lot of people to bring forward older sex abuse claims, Ventura among them. So you and I, we've before about how this trial will serve as a sort of temperature check on the status of the MeToo movement. What's your take on it now that we have a verdict?

[Anne Brannigan]

It feels like we're in a really tricky place right now, I would say. I think, you know, previously we Talked about the MeToo fatigue that seemed to be sort of in the public discourse. I think that very much holds true. Something that comes to mind for me here is that these in a lot of ways, like what made this case so complicated and potentially so challenging is because of how much it defied sort of the more conventional notions of what sex trafficking looks like. Right. These images of vulnerable women, perhaps impoverished women being taken from their homes, maybe taken to other countries was not the case here. Right. This was a really rarefied world involving, you know, a pop star, involving, you know, trips to Turks and Caicos. And so there was a lot of ways where, even though there were some. There were elements here that were true of what we see in sex trafficking cases. You know, there were a lot of other parts that I think just didn't jibe with these kind of stereotypes of what sex trafficking is. Right. So I think it was always going to be challenging, not only for jurors but for the general public to think of these women in that way, because these were women who seemingly had means and power to leave this relationship. And I think that's something that I'm thinking a lot about, is this case demanded, I think, a lot of nuance. It demanded this understanding of consent being something that isn't given once but has to be reaffirmed over and over. It required a really fine understanding of coercion. And here's the thing. This is a criminal case. Right. The way our system is set up is that there was a high bar to clear, and that's what we saw. We saw that there was a high bar to clear with the evidence here, and this jury felt that that bar was not cleared.

[Eli]

Well, Ann, thank you so much for taking the time to join me today and for joining us every week in talking about this trial. We really appreciate it.

[Anne Brannigan]

Thank you, Elahi.

[Eli]

Ann Brannigan is a style reporter for the Post. Combs has been in jail since his September 2024 arrest. After I spoke with Ann, the judge denied Combs request to leave jail until his sentencing. Combs lawyers had proposed releasing combs on a $1 million bail, arguing he did not pose a flight risk or a danger to the public. But the judge disagreed, citing Combs admitted history of domestic violence during the trial itself. The government had also asked for Combs to be held in jail until his sentencing. So did a lawyer for Ventura who wrote in a letter that Combs is, quote, likely to pose a danger to the victims who testified in this case, including Ventura. Sentencing is months away. Prosecutors said Combs should get more than four years. That's it for Post Reports. Thanks for listening. We've been covering the Combs trial for the last two months on our show. We hope that you found the information insightful and a way to make sense of what the jury decided today. If you want to show your support for coverage like this on our show, consider subscribing to the Washington Post. Not only is it a great way to help us continue to do this work, but you can get access to Washington Post podcasts ad free in Apple Podcasts, subscribe in Apple Podcasts or by following the link in our show Notes. Today's show was produced by Peter Bresnan, Tadeo Ruiz Sandoval and Thomas Lu. It was mixed by Shawn Carter and edited by Rena Flores with fact checking help from Ariel Plotnick. Thanks to Carlos Bardo. I'm Elahe Izadi. We'll be back tomorrow with more stories from the Washington Post.

[Elahe Izadi]

You listen because you know the power of good journalism and the Washington Post is there for you 24 7. When you become a Washington Post subscriber, you get excited exclusive reporting you can't find anywhere else. You also get sharp advice, columns, delicious recipes, TV and music reviews, and so much more. Right now, you can get all of that for just $4 every four weeks. That's for an entire year. After that, it's just $12 every four weeks and you can cancel anytime. Add to your knowledge and discover all the Post has to offer. Go to washingtonpost. Com subscribe. That's washingtonpost. Com Subscribe.