The last arguments have now been made in the federal case against Sean Combs.

Though her rebuttal struck a more intense, emotional tone than her prosecution’s closing arguments yesterday, Maurene Comey ended in much the same way: telling the jury that even a celebrity isn’t above the law.

“For 20 years, the defendant got away with his crimes,” she said.

“That ends in this courtroom.”

When we come back next week, the case will be in the hands of the jury. On Monday, Judge Arun Subramanian will explain the law and the charges to the jury.

Then, the twelve New Yorkers will go to deliberate. It’s uncertain when they will have a verdict, but we'll bring you updates from inside the courtroom.

We'll be closing our live coverage now, but you can read a full recap of the day in our story here.

Image source, Jane Rosenberg/Reuters

A short wihle ago, Combs' defence team finished their closing arguments. Defence attorney Marc Agnifilo struck an at times sarcastic tone in the court - here are the takeaways from his argument:

'Badly exaggerated': Agnifilo argued that the prosecutors' case is "badly, badly exaggerated" - and visibly animated, he said the trial isn't about criminal acts, but about persecuting Combs for a swinger's "lifestyle".

A fake trial?: The defence attorney argued that the jury is considering two trials - a "fake" trial created by the prosecution, and the real version that the jury can see based on the evidence. He sometimes struck a sarcastic tone.

Objections: Agnifilo's arguments were at times met with objections from the prosecution - Judge Arun Subramanian sided with the prosecutors about the defence's "grossly improper" claims.

As a reminder: Combs is charged with sex trafficking, racketeering conspiracy and transportation to engage in prostitution - he denies all the charges.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

During his closer, Agnifilo tried to sow doubt in the jury by begging the question: if the women consented to some of the freak offs, how do we know where sex trafficking begins?

Comey attempted to answer that question.

“It only matters if there was one,” she said.

She focused on what she called the “most clear cut example of sex trafficking in this case”: a June 2024 freak off at Jane’s house.

Jane said on the stand that leading up to that sexual encounter, she started a physical fight and Combs ended up beating her, leaving her with welts, sores and bruises.

She says she told Combs no, while the escort waited in the other room.

Combs then allegedly got in her face and said, “Is this coercion?” which Comey says is a reflection of the federal case he knew was ongoing.

“Jane may have started that fight, but he finished it with a vengeance,” Comey said.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

In more of her fiery rebuttal, Comey angrily refutes Agnifilo’s suggestion that all the sex acts in the freak offs were consensual.

She recalls one part of Cassie’s testimony when the singer recalls having a freakoff after overdosing on drugs, with an open wound on her forehead that Combs allegedly caused.

She also called back to the video at the Intercontinental hotel, when Combs appears to beat Cassie, and Cassie lies on the ground motionless.

“This is someone who has a lot of practice getting beat,” she said. “There is no separating the violence from the sex.”

Beyond violence, they were coerced with threats that he would take away everything, she said. “They were trapped emotionally, physically and financially,” she said.

Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court

Comey is making a few other points to jurors throughout her rebuttal.

She reminds them that uncalled witnesses were equally available to both sides.

Suggestions by the defence that key people in Diddy’s inner circle weren’t called to testify is just a distraction, she says.

Diddy’s argument that drugs were for personal use doesn’t get him out of the drug distribution crime under the racketeering count, she adds. She says all that’s required is that he did in fact distribute the drugs to others.

Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court

Comey then tells jurors that the women do not get anything out of lying.

Starting with Cassie, she points out that “she already got paid” in settlements from Combs, a day after she filed her lawsuit.

“Why risk it all by perjuring herself at a federal trial?”

She says Cassie could’ve ridden the wave of positive coverage about her civil suit, but instead she sat through four gruelling days of testimony about the most humiliating and traumatic details of her life.

Cassie wanted to do what’s right, Comey says, adding it would’ve actually been in Jane’s financial interest to help Combs since he is still paying for her house, if all she was worried about was money.

Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court

Warning: This post contains details some readers may find distressing

Whereas Assistant US Attorney Christy Slavik was methodical and measured in her closing arguments, Comey is showing far more emotion and anger when rebutting the defence.

She slams Diddy’s lawyers for suggesting the women were lying “because they wanted it.”

She says it’s ridiculous on its face that they did, or that they would go along with it like they’re being offered lemonade.

As if Cassie would want an escort to pee in her mouth, that Jane would want to have sex with an escort after being badly beaten by Diddy, she says.

Comey said the freakoffs meant these women were in dark hotel rooms, covered in baby oil, awake for days with their pelvic area sore and being forced to sleep with escort after escort.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

The prosecution’s Maurene Comey is now up giving the rebuttal to Agnifilo’s closer.

“The defence just spent a whole lot of energy blaming the victims and the US government,” she says.

“He’s tossing out excuse after excuse for his criminal behaviour.”

The suggestion that Combs paid for the escorts’ time, not sex, something that the defence raised in its closing arguments, “doesn’t even pass the laugh test” Comey says.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

Ending his closing arguments, defence lawyer Mark Agnifilo tells the jury that the case against one of hip-hop’s biggest moguls is a sham.

"The government targeted Sean Combs," he claims.

He asks the jurors to have "courage" and acquit Combs on all counts.

The prosecution took immediate issue with this, and after Agnifilo stepped away from the podium and the jury went on a 15-minute break, they raised an objection.

Combs could be seen hugging Agnifilo during the break, speaking to his other lawyers, and shifting in his seat.

When the jury returned, the judge sided with the government. He told the jury to disregard Agnifilo’s comments that Combs was targeted.

Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court

At the end of his closing argument, Agnifilo takes on the largest part of the prosecutors’ case, racketeering. It's the allegation that Combs relied on his loyal employees to commit sex trafficking and other crimes, and to cover them up.

Agnifilo shows the definition of the charge, which points to an enterprise as "a group of people". Yet Combs was indicted by himself, he argues.

He says there is a "gaping lack of evidence" that Combs and his employees ran some sort of criminal enterprise. There are no co-conspirators, he tells the jury.

Combs’ former chief-of-staff, Kristina Khorram, whom prosecutors have pointed to as a co-conspirator, is a "helpful" woman who everyone loved, Agnifilo says.

A real co-conspirator would have come and helped kick the door down when Combs was trying to get into his girlfriend’s home, Agnifilo says.

Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court

The end of Agnifilo’s arguments are designed to sow doubt in jurors' minds.

Prosecutors need to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Combs is guilty, and Agnifilo hopes to plant those seeds of doubt.

He asks why no firearm charges were brought against Combs if prosecutors say his girlfriends were scared of them.

If a racketeering case is so complicated, he says, it may be that it’s just not there.

"At what point do you stop trusting the government?" He asks jurors.

Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court

Image source, Reuters

Agnifilo says he is about five minutes from finishing his much longer than expected closing arguments.

He spends most of the remaining portion going over two of the charges Combs is facing: transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering.

The defence lawyer notes that the prosecutors showed a slide of more than 30 male escorts they say were involved in the so-called "freak-offs" - but they only called two of the men as witness, both of whom do not identify as prostitutes.

The men, Agnifilo argues, were paid "for their time" and not for sex, he claims.

And he adds that Combs is innocent on this charge because there is no evidence pointing to "negotiation" for sex for money.

Legal experts say this argument may be one of the defence’s weaker points.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

Agnifilo is also trying to pick apart the prosecution’s argument that Combs paying for Jane’s home was one of the ways he pressured her into so-called "hotel nights".

"No good deed goes unpunished,” the defence attorney says.

He claims that Combs was doing a good deed and picking up the slack of the father of Jane’s child, another famous rapper, Agnifilo says left her in a "crappy" apartment.

As a reminder, Jane is the pseudonym used by a witness who testified in this trial, to protect her identity.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

Combs’ attorney has now moved on to talking about Jane, a witness who testified under a pseudonym to protect her identity.

Agnifilo tells the jury that Jane was attracted to luxury and wealth. She was comfortable being in proximity to fame, he says.

"You guys know who her baby’s father is, you guys know who she was with in Vegas," he tells the jurors, making reference to two famous rappers Jane was previously associated with.

Jane made her choice to participate in the so-called "hotel nights", and now she regrets it, Agnifilo tells the jury.

Warning: This page contains details some readers may find distressing.

Throughout the trial, we have heard about the so-called "freak offs", where prosecutors allege Sean "Diddy" Combs coerced women into performing sex acts.

The prosecution says "freak offs" were drug-fuelled encounters during which Combs allegedly coerced his former girlfriend Cassie Ventura into sex acts with paid male escorts while he directed them, and filmed.

One of Combs' former girlfriends, who testified under the pseudonym Jane, detailed being involved in what she called "hotel nights", as these encounters often happened in hotels.

Prosecutors allege Combs often threatened to release the recorded videos if the women didn't do what he wanted.

Defence attorneys have said the women were willing participants. We will hear more from the defence team when they give their closing arguments on Friday.

Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court

Agnifilo has spent several minutes talking about how nice the so-called "freak offs" or "hotel nights" were, noting that jurors have seen several videos of them that they probably think they were "not meant to see".

The freak offs were "a date night", he says. "The hotel rooms are beautiful. The music is nice."

Overall they were "beautiful evenings", he continues.

He also concedes that Combs may have threatened the women to release the videos of the freak offs - but he says that is like someone saying "I’ll kill you" - in other words, an empty threat.

Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court

Agnifilo is continuing to focus on Cassie Ventura, as well as the so-called "freak-offs".

He says Ventura’s career was not hampered by Combs, and she did not really have talent "like Beyoncé", citing testimony from ex-Combs employee Capricorn Clark.

Agnifilo also claims that "there’s nothing really" to the argument from the defence that Ventura felt compelled to participate in "freak offs" because of Combs’ violence.

He does not go into much detail as to why.

Madeline Halpert
Reporting from court

We’ve just returned from lunch, with Combs' lawyer back at the podium.

Things are moving a bit slower than expected today, and as a result, the judge will no longer instruct the jury on how to deliberate over the case.

That will be Monday when the jurors come in fresh from the weekend, and after that, they’ll deliberate.

This afternoon, we have about an hour of argument left from attorney Agnifilo, and then about 90 minutes of rebuttal from prosecutors.

Inner life of one of hip hop's biggest stars on display in this trialpublished at 18:49 British Summer Time 27 June

18:49 BST 27 June

Nada Tawfik
Reporting from court

Image source, Jane Rosenberg/Reuters

This Manhattan courthouse has pulled back the curtain on the private life of one of hip hop’s biggest icons.

The mogul and producer admits that he beat his partners - had a drug problem - and that he enjoyed so-called "freak offs" - or prolonged sexual encounters between his girlfriends and male prostitutes.

But Sean "Diddy" Combs insists the sex was consensual. So is he guilty of running a criminal enterprise and sex trafficking?

The jury will need to weigh the evidence to decide if he’s just a flawed individual being unfairly targeted by overzealous prosecutors and women after money. Or if he’s someone who used his vast wealth, power and influence to manipulate, trap and force women to fulfil his sexual desires.

There’s video and photo evidence - text messages - hotel and financial records - flight logs. But ultimately this case hinges on who the jury believes.

Cassie Ventura and Jane spoke in harrowing detail about the physical toll the "freak offs" and drugs took on their bodies - how Diddy controlled every aspect of their life - and his threats including blackmail.

Diddy didn’t testify and jurors can’t hold that against him, because the burden is on the government to prove its case. But his lawyers said the women were free to leave at any time - and when they did - nothing happened.

The defence claimed the women were just as enthusiastic about the “swinger” lifestyle. So - was there a power imbalance? Was every "freak off" consensual - or did they eventually turn into sex trafficking when the women told him they didn’t want to do them anymore?

Those are all important questions in this case.

Sakshi Venkatraman
Reporting from court

The defence has long argued that Ventura’s allegation that Combs raped her is unfounded.

Agnifilo has put forward the same narrative today that the defence has maintained through the trial: he says that Ventura cheated on her current husband, Alex Fine, with Combs and made up the rape allegation to cover up her cheating.

The court is still on lunch - but when we return, we're expecting about another hour of argument from Agnifilo.