A juror in the sex trafficking trial of rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs has been removed after giving inconsistent answers about where he lives.
During jury selection, the juror indicated on a questionnaire that he lived in the Bronx area of New York. But more recently, he told a court staffer he had moved in with his girlfriend in New Jersey.
On Friday, Judge Arun Subramanian said he had found “several inconsistencies” between the juror’s answers in court transcripts, which he said could suggest a desire to “be deceptive” in an effort to get on the jury.
Lawyers for Combs had opposed the decision, saying that Combs would be “substantially prejudiced by the dismissal” of a black male from the jury.
The juror has been replaced by an alternative juror, a 57-year-old white father from Westchester.
Combs, 55, has pleaded not guilty to charges of sex trafficking, racketeering and transportation to engage in prostitution.
The possible dismissal of the juror has been discussed by lawyers for the past week.
Lead prosecutor Maurene Comey had asked that a juror be dismissed for what she described as “a lack of candour”.
The prosecution said the juror had disclosed that he recently moved to New Jersey with his girlfriend and had been staying there for most of the trial.
When he was questioned behind closed doors, the juror said he was staying in an apartment in the Bronx, New York, during the week, for four to five nights, when he was working and doing jury duty.
But the juror had said at an earlier stage, in a prospective juror interview several weeks ago, that he lived in the Bronx with his fiancée and daughter.
At one point, the juror had also mentioned living with an aunt, but later omitted her.
The judge said he had found “several inconsistencies” between the juror’s answers in the court transcripts.
The inconsistencies, the judge said, could point to a desire to “shade answers” and raised serious questions about the juror’s “candour” and his “ability to follow instructions”.
The judge noted that there were six alternative jurors to preserve the “integrity” of the court. “Removal of the juror is required, in this court’s view,” the judge said.
One of Combs’ lawyers, Xavier Donaldson, objected to the judge’s inclination, saying it is “very, very common” for New Yorkers to move between the city and New Jersey.
He said he believed the court is “equating inconsistencies with lying.”
“I do believe he will be able to follow instructions,” Donaldson said, adding that Juror No. 6 has been “awake – I can’t say they all have been awake”.
The defence’s main objection related to the juror’s race, with Donaldson noting that the trial’s jury was the most diverse he had seen in his three-decade career.
“That part is important to me and my client,” Donaldson said, adding that if the court were to dismiss the juror, it would be “a step backwards.”
“I don’t generally play the race card unless I have it in my hand,” Donaldson said.
Combs’s legal team had requested a mistrial should the juror be dismissed.
‘Wonderful thing’
Federal prosecutors rejected the implication that they were making decisions based on race, commenting that it was a “wonderful thing” that the jury was diverse.
The judge said the jury in the trial does not raise concerns about diversity, adding: “The court cannot and should not let race factor into what it should do.”
On Monday, the judge said: “There is nothing the juror can say at this point that can put the genie back in the bottle and repair his credibility.”
Eight men and four women were selected for the jury, along with six alternates. The trial is in its sixth week.
The prosecution plans to finish presenting its case this week, at which point the defence will have the chance to call its own witnesses.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
DISCLAIMER: The Views, Comments, Opinions, Contributions and Statements made by Readers and Contributors on this platform do not necessarily represent the views or policy of Multimedia Group Limited.
