In the Diddy prosecution, allegations of obstruction and cover-up could be key
Federal prosecutors in New York unveiled a shocking indictment against Sean “Diddy” Combs on Tuesday, alleging three counts: racketeering conspiracy; sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and transportation to engage in prostitution. While no one knows how this criminal case will end, one of the key types of evidence against the music mogul could involve any alleged instances of obstruction, cover-up and related behavior.
The graphic and depraved nature of the allegations stand out in the 14-page indictment, but any evidence that a defendant sought to conceal their acts or engage in other surreptitious behavior can help prosecutors prove guilt at trial, whatever the underlying charges might be.
Combs’ lawyer said his client is going to plead not guilty to the charges and will “fight this with all of his energy and all of his might and the full confidence of his lawyers.” Criminal defendants are presumed innocent.
In laying out the alleged racketeering conspiracy, prosecutors wrote that Combs created a criminal enterprise “whose members and associates engaged in, and attempted to engage in, among other crimes, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice.” While the last item on that sordid list — obstruction — might seem like the relatively most mundane, prosecutors could present related evidence that helps them tie together their broader allegation that Combs was knowingly engaged in criminality such that there would be reason for him and/or his associates to engage in obstruction.
That is, prosecutors might wonder aloud at trial: Why would a defendant seek to cover up his conduct if he wasn’t doing anything wrong?
On that note, prosecutors allege that Combs used his business to, among other things, “cover up his abuse and commercial sex.” Elsewhere in the indictment, a paragraph alleging various crimes also alleges “concealing the commission of such acts.” While concealment can seem less significant than the alleged acts themselves, to the extent that there is any conflicting evidence at trial, prosecutors can point to any concealment activity as further proof that a defendant was knowingly engaged in wrongdoing.
Along those lines, prosecutors may likewise emphasize that authorities allegedly recovered guns from Combs’ homes with defaced serial numbers. As I noted in connection with the gun charges in Florida in the apparent assassination attempt on Donald Trump, that can indicate an attempt to avoid detection by law enforcement.
Notably, in seeking Combs’ detention pretrial, prosecutors wrote to the court that the hip-hop star “poses a significant risk of obstructing justice,” adding that he “has attempted to bribe security staff and threatened and interfered with witnesses to his criminal conduct. He has already tried to obstruct the Government’s investigation of this case, repeatedly contacting victims and witnesses and feeding them false narratives of events.”
On top of everything else in the sweeping indictment — and there’s a lot there — to the extent that prosecutors can demonstrate to a jury that Combs engaged in cover-up activity, that can help the government prove its case.
Subscribe to the Deadline: Legal Newsletter for updates and expert analysis on the top legal stories. The newsletter will return to its regular weekly schedule when the Supreme Court’s next term kicks off in October.
