For weekly updates on all the most pivotal and dramatic moments from Diddy’s trial, sign up for our newsletter: Court Appearances: United States v. Diddy, and check out the rest of our trial coverage here.
Sean “Diddy” Combs’s sex-trafficking trial in Manhattan federal court resumed on June 16 with a bit of early morning drama, when a juror was booted for making inconsistent statements about where he lives. Juror No. 6 said during the voir dire part of selection — when prospects are asked questions — that he lived in the Bronx with his fiancée and daughter. During a recent conversation with someone in the court’s jury department, however, Juror No. 6 said he recently moved to New Jersey. This jury department employee, in turn, told the court. Judge Arun Subramanian then asked Juror No. 6 about these statements during a conference in his robing room. While Subramanian said early on June 13 he was leaning toward keeping Juror No. 6 on the panel, his tune had changed come the afternoon. Subramanian said that he used the lunch break to look over transcripts from the selection process and robing-room chat and was not happy with what he saw.
“When the juror was asked in the robing room where his daughter lives, he indicated that his daughter lived in New Jersey with his — he said girlfriend, but the court assumes that the fiancée is the girlfriend. And so there’s an inconsistency between the voir dire transcript and the robing-room transcript on that particular issue,” Subramanian said. “In the voir dire transcript when asked about who he lived with, he identified his fiancée and daughter, who the robing-room transcript indicated lived in New Jersey, not in New York, but omitted the aunt who did live in New York.”
“The issue here is that where there is some suggestion that either the juror was unable to follow simple instructions and answer simple questions, or if there was any effort to be — to shade the truth or be deceptive,” Subramanian said last week. “There are serious questions about the juror’s candor and the juror’s ability to follow the court’s instructions; and when we get to the point of the case later, the ability of the juror to apply the law to the facts clearly given the discrepancies in the record thus far.” Subramanian also said “the changing answers and inconsistency give the court worry about deception and lying, which further implicates the veracity of other answers that the juror answered during the voir dire process, including about the myriad questions that go to the heart of the case.”
Subramanian officially decided on Juror No. 6 Monday morning, reiterating what he said last week. “The record raises serious concerns about the juror’s candor and whether he shaded answers to get on, and stay on, the jury,” Subramanian said. The inconsistencies pose a “threat” to the judicial process. “Even if the juror had an excuse or explanation … that would be yet another set of shifting answers,” Subramanian said. “There’s nothing the juror could say at this point to put the genie back in the bottle.” Subramanian also pushed back about defense claims that kicking Juror No. 6, who is Black, off the panel would make this panel less diverse, saying it would be “improper” for Juror No. 6’s race to factor into his decision. Diddy, who was wearing a powder-blue sweater in court, leaned back in his chair around this point of the proceeding to stretch. “Juror No. 6 is excused.” The wayward panelist was replaced with an alternate juror who is white. While No. 6 is gone, there might be more jury drama. The court is asking another juror to stay after testimony wraps this afternoon, to address some sort of potential issue.
“There’s nothing the juror could say at this point to put the genie back in the bottle.”
