How to Get Out of Diddy Jury Duty

ABLUpdated 4 days Ago3 Mins read3

Photo: Photo by Kevin Winter/Getty Images

Sean “Diddy” Combs kept up his professorial attire for the second day of jury selection in his sex-trafficking trial on Tuesday, wearing what appeared to be the same navy sweater, white button-down shirt, and dark slacks combo that he wore Monday in Manhattan Federal Court. A new cohort of prospective jurors is being questioned individually about answers on questionnaires. This process is meant to weed out any potential jurors with biases.

Some jurors’ comments made for courtroom comedy. The first potential juror up for questioning this morning said that even though they were the victim of an attempted rape, they could have a clean slate while weighing Diddy’s case. Moments later, Judge Arun Subramanian asked the juror what they meant in regard to an answer on the written questionnaire: “P. Diddy has a lot of money to use at his discretion, possibly buy his way out of jail.” This would-be juror said: “I don’t know how to explain it.” Asked if this would influence their opinion in this case, “Yes,” they replied. This juror was excused.

One dismissed male juror seemed uncertain about judging the case apart from what he’d seen outside court. The defense team didn’t want him to make the next round of selection because he had also seen the video of Diddy allegedly beating Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and seemed uncertain about whether this would impact him. “We all know that the exact video that the juror saw is not going to be played at the trial, but a very close variance of it will be played at the trial, and I think we saw a juror struggling,” Diddy’s lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo, said. “I think he wants to be fair and I think that long pause where he said ‘wow’ in the middle — he’s trying to think [it] through.” He was then dismissed.

A woman who described a history of stomach problems was asked about her answer on a questionnaire where said she struggled with guilt as a “Catholic.” The response said: “Although I am an open-minded person I really do not do well with guilt.” The judge asked her to explain. “We feel guilty of everything,” she replied. Did anything in her belief system make her biased one way or another? She said no.

“I personally think that because I am Catholic, I’m very tolerant … I think we are very tolerant,” she concluded. While the woman was ultimately dismissed, it was because of her health issues, not her Catholic guilt.

While some had solemn reasons for being excused — such as concern whether past trauma could impact listening to disturbing testimony — others’ comments made for courtroom comedy. “If you have law enforcement testify in this case, I’ll take it with a grain of salt,” said a day-one prospect who was ultimately excused. “I have nothing against the government, but it’s the law enforcement.” This man was also wary of people who were granted immunity to testify. “If you’re granting someone immunity to testify, he or she may have an agenda.”

One man provided confusing answers about whether he had heard about the case in the media. “I’m not sure. I’m not sure,” he said on Monday, adding that he “could not judge a man for anything” just by what was out there. “You’re saying you’re unsure — you don’t have an opinion based on what you’ve seen?” Subramanian pressed. “Have you seen anything or heard anything about this case?” The man said “no.” Subramanian pushed to get to the bottom of this circularity. “Why are you so unsure?” The man said, “Because I don’t know. It’s: How [do] I know it’s true if I don’t see it?” He then said, “I’m not, like, 100 percent English.” Subramanian excused him.

The majority of would-be jurors on the first day of selections did not seem like they were trying to get excused, nor were they angling for spots on the panel. Except, maybe, one guy.

This prospect seemed so enthusiastic about answering questions accurately that one wondered if he wanted to be a juror. The man told Subramanian that he wanted to be as “transparent” as possible after disclosing he had sought psychology and psychiatry treatment. This man said, “I have an objection to the imposition of capital punishment,” but that he did not think this would make him unfair. And despite having seen the footage of Diddy allegedly attacking Cassie, the man described himself as a “blank slate entering this courtroom.” (This reporter wrote “thirst” on a Post-It strip next to her notes about him, on account of all this verve.)

Thirty-two people will be called in for one-on-one questioning for today’s session. Just like on day one, this morning’s prospective jurors did not have any visible reaction to seeing Diddy as they walked into Subramanian’s courtroom.

This is a developing story and will be updated.