arson and all those other charges are still on there actually

prosecution just simplified everything for the jury

Did Cudi snitched for no reason?

Edit: ok, so it was simplified not removed

The reality of it lmaooo

Damn this nigga about to get off?

Hell naw LMAO

There was a charge conference 4 hours ago that provided details about the dropped charges of the RICO

[[This charge conference was supposed to be at noon, then moved to 2 pm, not still not begun as of 2:20 pm. Sean Combs is sitting at the defense table.

Next to him, his lawyer Xavier Donaldson speaks to Judge's courtroom deputy. There's talk of more delay.]]

OK - 3:07 pm - they start up
Judge: Sorry for the delays, but there was a full on Constitutional challenge

Combs' Alexandra Shapiro: Could we have another hour?
Judge: I'm happy to give you that time.
Shapiro: I'm sorry. Half an hour would be sufficient.

Break [to 3:45]

3:49 pm they're back
Judge Subramanian: Be seated. OK, so we've resolved the verdict form, so let's go through the charge. On page 1, any objections?
AUSA: No
Combs' lawyer: No.

Judge: Page 2, I'm going to take out of the references to the jury being the judge of the facts, we say that three times.
Combs' Shapiro: We don't have anything until page 13
AUSA: Same here.
AUSA: On 13 on the conspiracy, a person need not know everyone else

AUSA: They don't have to have full knowledge of the RICO conspiracy. Only that they agree to two predicate acts.
Judge: Response?
Combs' Shapiro: We object. That's not the argument I was making in the Rule 29, as to Ms. Khorram, did she know of the hotel rooms?

Judge: I overrule the Government's objection. I added language from the Sands treatise after the Government's letter of last evening.

Combs' Shapiro: We propose in line 21 you add that "actions should be considered as well." In this made this argument to Judge Liman last year in the Bruce Garelick trial [which Inner City Press also covered:]

Judge: I think this instruction is clear enough for the jury. That being said, the defense can made arguments about this in summation to make their point. I reject the defense suggestion on that point. Anything more on page 13?
AUSA Smyser: I have one on page 12

Combs' Shapiro: What Ms. Smyser has referred to is the nature of the agreement
Judge: I think that's right. I overrule the objection of the Government. Let's move to page 14. Combs' Shapiro: On line 9, the Government's mark-up of last night

Judge: Page 15?
AUSA Smyser: We have an objection to line 2 at the very top, it says the enterprise has to be the same throughout.

We think it's confusing in this particular case, where we speak of the inner circle versus the core: the chief of staff and security

AUSA Smyser: For example, R Doc was security at the beginning, Faheem at the end. The same person doesn't have to stay in the position.
Judge; What do you propose?
AUSA: "some of the core of the enterprise has to be the same throughout."
Judge: People are not core

Judge: "This does not mean that every person has to be the same but the core aspects have to be the same"
Combs' Driscoll: That might be inconsistent with Boyle, the Supreme Court case
AUSA Smyser: We could say, the members of the organization can change

Judge: The danger is that the jury think that have to make findings under each racketeeting act
Combs's Shapiro: Can you give me a minute

Judge: Page 20? I have one thing to raise.
Combs' Shapiro: Mr. Driscoll has reminded me of another suggestion we have. This comes from Ocasio v US, you have to blame the Supreme Court.
Driscoll: They have to prove the conspirators agreed to commit each element

Judge: Give me the full sentence.
Combs' Driscoll: On page 19, line four, after the words "actually occurred," you could add that each conspirator must be aware of each substantial racketeering offense

AUSA Smyser: We are not required to show that there was an ongoing Federal investigation

Judge: The statute has its elements - using thread to hinder complaint to law enforcement or a judge

Combs' Shapiro: There has to be a showing the victim intended to approach Federal law enforcement, had knowledge of the Federal aspect of the offense

[Finally something on the swirling questions]
AUSA Smyser: The Government is not going to proceed on 1512(c)(2) and we ask you not instruct the jury on that.
Judge: I assume there is no objection?
Combs' Shapiro: Certainly not.

AUSA Smyser: On the forced labor, the Government will be arguing that certain s***acts can be labor, we will be building off the R.Kelly case. The defense argues that the victims are well off - so we need to make this clear to the jury.
Shapiro: We object

Combs' Shapiro: We are not arguing that sexual acts cannot be labor, rather that the victims here were not particularly vulnerable, like from other countries, without immigration status-
AUSA: In R. Kelly the 2d Circuit said sexual labor falls within the statute