The federal criminal trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs is drawing to a close, and the defense team has made a bold strategic move: resting their case without calling a single witness, including Combs himself.
After six-and-a-half weeks of intense courtroom proceedings in Manhattan, the government wrapped its sex trafficking and racketeering case against Combs on Tuesday, having called 34 witnesses — among them his ex-girlfriend, R&B singer Cassie Ventura. The defense responded with a remarkably brief case that lasted just 30 minutes, relying solely on a few stipulated facts and excerpts from texts, with no live testimony presented.
Defense Strategy: Confidence or Caution?
Legal observers say the decision not to present a traditional defense suggests a calculated confidence that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof. According to attorney Michael Bachner, who helped secure Combs’ acquittal in a 2001 gun trial, the defense likely believes its cross-examinations successfully undermined the prosecution’s narrative.
“In high-stakes cases like this, sometimes the best move is no move at all,” Bachner said. “If the defense feels they’ve already seeded reasonable doubt, calling more witnesses may only complicate things.”
That sentiment was echoed by former federal prosecutor Sarah Krissoff, who noted that the defense had already conveyed their narrative clearly during cross-examinations and opening arguments. “They’ve stuck with a less-is-more strategy,” she said.
No Testimony from Combs
Outside the presence of the jury, Judge Michael Andrews confirmed that Combs was voluntarily choosing not to testify. Standing at the defense table, Combs told the judge, “It’s my decision,” and even complimented the court, saying, “I think you are doing an excellent job.”
The move closes the door on any possibility that jurors will hear directly from the hip-hop icon, who has denied all charges and maintained that his relationships were consensual and lawful.
Charges and Testimony
Combs faces serious allegations of running a decades-long criminal enterprise that prosecutors say involved sex trafficking, drug distribution, bribery, arson, forced labor, and witness intimidation. Prosecutors allege he weaponized his wealth, power, and inner circle to create a system of exploitation.
At the center of the trial were deeply emotional testimonies from two women: Ventura and a second accuser known only as “Jane.” Both testified to being coerced into participating in drug-fueled group sex acts — described as “freak offs” — that Combs allegedly organized, recorded, and derived pleasure from watching. These encounters, which reportedly occurred over multiple days, were said to have been carried out under duress, with the women citing Combs’ physical violence and psychological control.
Jurors were shown texts, emails, photos of bruises, and private videos that were not made available to the public. While prosecutors framed these as clear evidence of abuse and manipulation, defense attorneys focused on exchanges where the women appeared cooperative and at times even enthusiastic. The defense argued those messages were examples of the accusers telling Combs what he wanted to hear out of fear or pressure.
Legal Implications
Defense attorney Spencer Kuvin, who has represented victims of Jeffrey Epstein, said the approach suggests Diddy’s team is betting on a jury deadlock at minimum. “They’re positioning to argue that the government hasn’t proven guilt beyond a reasonable doubt — which is all they need to secure a not-guilty verdict or a hung jury,” Kuvin explained.
Judge Andrews has set closing arguments for later this week, after which the 12-person jury — composed of eight men and four women — will begin deliberations.
What Comes Next
The trial has drawn intense media attention, not only because of Combs’ celebrity status but also due to the serious nature of the charges. Once a near-billionaire and one of hip-hop’s most influential figures, Combs could face life-altering consequences if convicted.
As the trial nears its end, Combs’ legal team is hoping that their decision to rest without a full defense will pay off — not just as a show of confidence, but as a clear message to jurors: the prosecution’s case, despite its drama and detail, may not be enough to erase reasonable doubt.