Dissecting Diddy’s Verdict: The ‘Lawyer Barbies’ Vs. The Bad Boy & The Jury That Chose The Middle Ground

When the decision got here down on Wednesday, after simply two days of deliberation, that Sean “Diddy” Combs had been convicted of solely two Mann Act violations, I had instantaneous déjà vu. It was giving Marcia Clark syndrome once more.

Let’s speak about why this case didn’t land the best way many thought it might. Bear in mind Marcia Clark? Now image six white “Lawyer Barbies,” as MSNBC’s Lisa Rubin put it, going head-to-head with Combs’ racially various, elite authorized dream staff. The jury? Eight males, 4 ladies, ages 30 to 74, from Manhattan, the Bronx, and Westchester. Racially and generationally combined. In different phrases, not Barbie women, and so they undoubtedly don’t stay in a Barbie world.

And right here’s the uncomfortable reality: information alone don’t win trials. Jurors learn vitality, tone, and relatability. And attorneys who replicate the jury’s lived expertise? They’ll plant doubt even when the receipts are burning.

Prosecutor Maurene Comey painted Combs as a person of wealth, violence, and brazenness. However let’s maintain it actual: what New Yorker isn’t slightly brazen? That audacious, no-apologies swagger is a part of what made America fall for Diddy within the first place. The identical story of rags to riches that made him a mogul could have helped protect him in court docket.

Whether or not you imagine grownup, consensual intercourse work must be criminalized or not, from a authorized standpoint, this was the prosecution’s case to lose—and so they misplaced.

So What Did Occur?

The jury acquitted Combs of probably the most severe costs: racketeering conspiracy and intercourse trafficking. He was convicted on two counts underneath the Mann Act—particularly, transporting people throughout state traces for prostitution.

Now, let’s pause on that.

The Mann Act isn’t simply any outdated statute. Handed in 1910 because the “White-Slave Site visitors Act,” it has infamously been used to criminalize interracial relationships, punish polygamists, and implement a puritanical, whitewashed imaginative and prescient of sexual morality. It bought some PR updates in 1978 and 1986—“debauchery” and “immorality” had been changed with the extra sanitized “any sexual exercise for which any individual may be charged with a prison offense.”That being stated, it’s been used to take down cultural giants and predators alike who seemingly danced within the face of regulation enforcement, reminiscent of Chuck Berry, Ghislaine Maxwell, Tony Alamo, or R. Kelly.

Combs now faces as much as 20 years—10 per rely—with no obligatory minimal. Realistically, based mostly on federal sentencing tips and a clear(ish) prison report, he’s in all probability 50–70 months. Credit score will, after all, be given for time served since his arrest in September 2024.

The Sample Repeats

The Diddy verdict took me proper again to the O.J. trial. I used to be one of many few Black youngsters at my predominantly white prep faculty, and I keep in mind the joys of watching Johnny Cochran beat Marcia Clark at her personal recreation. For as soon as, it felt like we gained. A robust Black man walked free. An excellent Black lawyer bested the “evil white girl” prosecutor. It was private.

Flash ahead just a few years to varsity: folks had been passing across the bootleg VHS of R. Kelly sexually abusing a minor like the gathering plate on Sunday. After which got here the 2008 acquittal—and a full-blown celebration. Doves launched. Jokes cracked. A cultural second. (And sure, Kelly would later be convicted underneath the identical Mann Act that caught Diddy.)

However that was earlier than #MeToo. Earlier than video clips went viral in hours. Earlier than we had the language and receipts to confront energy in another way. The surveillance video of Combs violently assaulting his then-girlfriend (and alleged co-conspirator) wasn’t handed round as a sick joke; it sparked outrage. This wasn’t 2008. And that’s why this verdict stings in another way.

From an proof standpoint, it appeared like a slam dunk. Particularly after protection lawyer Marc Agnifilo, in what Choose Arun Subramanian referred to as a “full-throated” admission, acknowledged Combs’ lengthy historical past of violence. And nonetheless, the prosecution fumbled.

What Occurs Now?

Choose Subramanian denied Combs’ request for bail pending sentencing. So, within the jungle, we wait till the cube reads 5 or eight.

And right here I’m—like so many Black ladies—torn. Wrestling with my core perception that Black ladies have to be protected in any respect prices, whereas additionally reckoning with the intuition, ingrained from childhood, that any win towards a authorities constructed on systemic racism deserves celebration.

The publish Dissecting Diddy’s Verdict: The ‘Lawyer Barbies’ Vs. The Unhealthy Boy & The Jury That Selected The Center Floor appeared first on Bossip.

Source link