Diddy admits abuse – but will it be enough to convict him?

Prosecutors in New York are set to rest their case in the weeks-long federal sex-trafficking and racketeering trial of rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs.

The 55-year-old music mogul is accused of using his power as the leader of a business empire to facilitate the sex trafficking of women and conceal his crimes.

Mr Combs has admitted to domestic violence – but has pleaded not guilty to the prosecution’s charges, some of which rely on laws once aimed at mob bosses to try and bring him down.

The defence has yet to make its case – which Mr Combs’ attorneys have said will only take a couple days.

Prosecutors, meanwhile, called more than 30 witnesses, including Mr Combs’s ex-girlfriend and musician Casandra Ventura, and rapper Kid Cudi, who once dated Ms Ventura – as well as former assistants, hotel security guards and others who say they witnessed Mr Combs’ abuse.

Legal experts say their testimony has helped prosecutors present a compelling case to a panel of 12 jurors – but a conviction on all counts remains far from assured.

Here are some key aspects of the case – and the potential vulnerabilities in the prosecution’s arguments.

A key witness for the prosecutors was Ms Ventura, a musician and model known as Cassie. She testified for days about her abusive, on-and-off 11-year relationship with Mr Combs.

Eight months pregnant and often speaking through tears, Ms Ventura testified that Mr Combs beat and coerced her into so-called freak-offs, during which she would have sex with male escorts as he watched and filmed.

Prosecutors allege Mr Combs used drugs, violence and manipulation to pressure several women into unwanted sexual encounters with male escorts.

Ms Ventura’s testimony – delivered when she was weeks away from giving birth – was critical to prosecutors’ case that Mr Combs committed sex trafficking, a charge that carries a maximum sentence of life in prison.

Some of the strongest evidence was a surveillance video of Mr Combs beating Ms Ventura in the hallway of a hotel during a freak-off, and the testimony of a hotel security guard who said Mr Combs offered him money to get rid of the tape. Prosecutors also displayed photos of Ms Ventura’s many injuries, allegedly from the rapper’s abuse.

Ms Ventura was not the only former girlfriend to testify. Lawyers also called “Jane”, who testified under a pseudonym and shared similar stories about how she, too, was pressured into freak-offs, or what she called “hotel nights”.

But jurors were also shown loving text messages that Ms Ventura and “Jane” sent to Mr Combs, including some in which the women expressed interest in participating in the sex acts.

The public is becoming more knowledgeable about domestic violence and the fact that women may feel compelled to stay in abusive relationships, said Jennifer Biedel, a former prosecutor with the Southern District of New York.

But a mix of loving messages and allegations of coercion could sometimes be difficult for a jury to put together, Ms Biedel suggested.

Mr Combs’s case “might not be one that’s as clean as the jury might like it to be”, she said.

Further complicating their case, prosecutors lost a third alleged victim who they had hoped would testify, after they were no longer able to contact her.

Neama Rahmani, a former federal prosecutor, said losing an alleged victim could hurt the case, because a prosecution benefitted from having multiple testimonies.

“Jurors may disbelieve one victim, but it’s really hard for them to disbelieve many,” he explained.

Mr Combs is facing an equally serious charge of racketeering, with prosecutors alleging he relied on loyal employees to run a “criminal enterprise” to facilitate his sexual abuse of women and hide his conduct.

The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (Rico) statute was originally created to take on mob bosses, but has since been used in other cases, including the sex-trafficking trial of disgraced singer R Kelly, who was convicted.

During the trial, prosecutors have elicited testimony from Mr Combs’ employees about setting up freak-offs and cleaning up, as well as bringing him drugs during the encounters.

The government also accused Mr Combs of using his criminal enterprise to commit arson. Rapper Kid Cudi testified that Mr Combs set fire to his Porsche because the singer was angry about him dating Ms Ventura.

It may be easier for prosecutors to prove the elements of sex trafficking than racketeering because of the many technical parts of the racketeering statute, including the involvement of other people and entities, Ms Biedel said.

“It is hard to simplify complex legal concepts into language that lay-people from all different backgrounds understand,” the former prosecutor added.

But if jurors had already concluded Mr Combs is a “bad guy”, they may be less likely to acquit him just because of one particular element of a complicated legal charge, a criminal defence lawyer, Mitchell Epner, said.

“In my experience, jurors tend to fix upon a story and then align the facts to fit with that story,” Mr Epner said.

It is now Mr Combs’ lawyers who will take their place at the podium.

They faced a dilemma: whether to let their own client take the stand. This week, his lawyers said they would call no witnesses, meaning the music mogul will not be testifying.

If he had, the entire case could have come down to his remarks, legal experts said.

Such a situation would be risky for the rapper, as he would have to address many allegations of violence, some incidents of which have been filmed, Mr Rahmani said.

High-profile defendants in criminal trials typically do not take the stand, in order to avoid opening themselves up to cross-examination.

During cross-examinations of government witnesses, Mr Combs’s lawyers already scored some wins, lawyers said.

During Jane’s testimony, for example, they attempted to paint the witness as someone who at times appeared to be acting with agency in her relationship with Mr Combs, Mr Epner said.

Ultimately, Ms Biedel said, Mr Combs’s lawyers would be unlikely to try to discredit the many individual witnesses who had testified over the rapper’s alleged misconduct – after all, he has already admitted to some of that misconduct.

Instead, the lawyers would try and chip away at the case for a broader racketeering and sex trafficking conspiracy, Ms Biedel suggested.

“The prosecution has put on a really compelling set of facts that will be hard for the defence to contest,” she said. “So I think the defence is going to be around whether those facts meet the legal elements.”