Judge's new ruling could have big impact on trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs

Show Caption

NEW YORK − Was Sean "Diddy" Combs' ex-girlfriend forced into having sex with male escorts while he made videos, or was she a willing participant?

Which version a jury believes could be key for prosecutors in the wake of a ruling by U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian over expert testimony earlier in Combs' criminal trial, which began in May in federal court in Manhattan and is expected to last through at least the first week of July.

The expert testified about some of the dynamics of abusive relationships, but the judge didn't let her talk about “coercive control,” in which abusers use physical, sexual and psychological abuse to maintain power over victims.

Prosecutors asked the judge to reconsider his earlier decision, but on June 10 he ruled he would not allow the additional testimony.

Combs is facing charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution, and ex-girlfriend Casandra "Cassie" Ventura Fine also testified that he coerced her into sex with other men. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges.

In the latest testimony, an ex-girlfriend testifying under the pseudonym Jane told jurors that the music mogul's fantasy of watching her have sex with another man became reality almost before she could understand it was happening.

After that first time, the woman testified she felt exhilarated by the taboo experience they had shared. She didn’t think it would ever happen again.

But throughout more than three years together, the same series of events unfolded so often she couldn’t remember how many sex workers she’d been with. Fueled by ecstasy and molly, she performed sex acts with other men for a minimum of 12 drug-fueled hours at a time as Combs watched, masturbated and made videos.

According to prosecutors, the woman was a victim of sex trafficking by Combs, who used coercion and control to ensure she continued to participate in the encounters, referred to during the trial as “freak offs” or “hotel nights.” But in their May 12 opening statement, the defense painted Jane as a willing participant.

Jane says Sean Combs forced her to have sex with escorts

Jane’s testimony began June 5. From the witness stand, she described the “hamster wheel” she couldn’t get off of: Combs would promise her date nights and intimate time alone, but it never came to be. On her birthday, Combs arranged for Jane to have sex with three different men. On a trip to Turks and Caicos, where she thought she and Combs would rekindle their romance, he flew in a male escort.

In conversations and in texts while they were apart, Jane told Combs she didn’t want to have sex with other men. But in the moment, she never told him no. Sometimes, she even contacted the escorts herself.

Why?

“I don’t know,” she said from the stand.

And also:

“I loved him very deeply.”

“I wanted to turn my lover on.”

“I couldn’t get away from the dynamic.”

Combs was also paying Jane’s rent: $10,000 per month on a home for herself and her child in Los Angeles. From the stand, she said he still is. Other than child support, Jane had no other income. After one of her friends made $4 million in a single year doing suggestive videos on OnlyFans, Jane told Combs she wanted to try making her own money. He said they should "give it time," so she didn’t do it.

Who is 'Jane'? Witness faces battle for anonymity in Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial

“I don’t want to lose the roof over my head,” she testified.

So how do prosecutors explain all this to jurors?

Research has shown that sexual assault, trafficking and trauma can re-wire the human brain, affecting a victim’s memories and actions. During criminal trials, prosecutors often retain expert witnesses who can explain the science and put victims’ responses in context for the jurors. Earlier in Combs’ trial, clinical psychologist Dawn Hughes testified for the prosecution about some of these issues.

Over defense objections, the judge allowed Hughes to talk about why victims may stay in abusive relationships. But he prohibited her from talking about coercive control, which can result in victims becoming dependent on their abusers and keeping the abuse a secret.

Prosecutors had wanted to bolster their case with the additional expert testimony. The cross-examination of another woman who said she was sexually abused by Combs and a June 2 decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals prompted prosecutors to ask the judge to reconsider.

Mia says Sean 'Diddy' Combs raped and abused her

Before Jane took the stand, jurors heard three days of testimony from a woman using the pseudonym Mia, who was Combs’ assistant from 2009 to 2017. Mia testified that Combs repeatedly sexually assaulted her. She also said he threatened her, emotionally abused her and forced her to work long hours without sleep.

But sometimes he treated her like a best friend and they had great times together.

Related: Who is 'Mia'? Why you won't see photos of Diddy's ex-personal assistant during trial

“The highs were really high and the lows were really low,” she said from the witness stand.

The tactics defense attorney Brian Steel used during Mia’s cross-examination warrant Subramanian’s reconsideration of further testimony from the expert psychologist, prosecutors wrote in a letter to the judge.

As an example, they cited an exchange in which Steel asked Mia, “How were you best friends with a person who has treated you the way that you said to the jury?”

“I mean, I guess we can ask my therapist,” she answered. “… And he was vulnerable with me quite a bit, so I would feel responsible for helping him, and then I would feel bad for him, and I don’t know how to − I mean, I can describe it, but I’m not a psychiatrist or a therapist, I don’t think I’m allowed to.”

The defense line of questioning was misleading, prosecutors argued, because Mia’s reactions were normal for victims of abuse. Additional testimony from Hughes, the expert, is necessary to help jurors understand “how different forms of abuse combine, the ‘environment of fear and obedience’ that impacts a victim’s decision-making and emotions, and how abuse is ‘interspersed with rewards, positivity, affection, and normalcy’ to create attachment and dependency,” prosecutors wrote.

Prosecutors want more expert testimony at Combs' trial

The recent decision by the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals dealt with a similar case and prosecutors hoped it would bolster their arguments. Not only was the decision handed down in the same circuit as Combs’ trial, it specifically references testimony from Hughes herself.

The appeal was filed by a man convicted in 2022 of racketeering and sex trafficking, some of the same charges faced by Combs. The man, Lawrence Ray, argued that Hughes’ testimony about coercive control was improper. The law only allows expert testimony if it addresses something the average juror wouldn’t be able to understand. Ray’s lawyer argued Hughes’ testimony didn’t meet the standard because most people already know about the dynamics of sexual abuse.

The appeals court disagreed, saying such testimony could be “particularly important” to put “the seemingly counterintuitive behavior of the victims” into context.

In earlier filings, Combs’ attorneys used the same arguments put forth by Ray in his appeal. They also wrote that “Hughes’s use of broad generalizations about typical behaviors, divorced from any examination of the alleged victims in this case, is contrary to guidelines regulating Hughes’s profession.”

But in his June 10 ruling in the Combs case, Subramanian said the court decision in the Ray case focused on contextualizing a victim’s behavior, which was a topic Hughes already testified about.

The judge highlighted an exchange between Hughes and the prosecutor in which the prosecutor asked: “Can Victims still love their abusers?”

”Yes and often they do," Hughes answered. "That’s back to the trauma bond.”

The judge said the 2nd Circuit ruling left it up to the judge’s discretion to decide whether the expert can testify and on which topics. He noted that prosecutors had the opportunity to ask Hughes about non-romantic relationships, but they did not.

Jane’s testimony will likely last at least through June 11.

Gina Barton is an investigative reporter at Paste BN. She can be reached at (262) 757-8640 or gbarton@gannett.com. Follow her on X @writerbarton or on Bluesky @writerbarton.bsky.social.

This story has been updated to include a judge's June 10 ruling on expert testimony in the case.