Jury

NEW YORK — A federal judge who presided over the sex trafficking case against financier Jeffrey Epstein has rejected the government’s request to unseal grand jury transcripts.

The ruling Wednesday by Judge Richard Berman in Manhattan came after the judge presiding over the case against British socialite Ghislaine Maxwell, Epstein’s former girlfriend, also turned down the government’s request.

Barring reversal on appeal, Berman’s decision forecloses the possibility of grand jury testimony being released now that three judges have reached the same conclusion. A federal judge in Florida declined to release grand jury documents from an investigation there in 2005 and 2007.

The rulings are a collective repudiation of the Justice Department’s effort to divert attention away from its stated refusal to release a massive trove of records in its possession and make clear that the still-sealed court documents contain none of the answers likely to satisfy the immense public interest in the case.

President Trump had called for the release of transcripts amid rumors and criticism about his long-ago involvement with Epstein. During last year’s presidential campaign, Trump promised to release files related to Epstein, but he was met with criticism — including from many of his own supporters — when the small number of records released by his Justice Department lacked new revelations.

A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment on Wednesday.

Berman said the information contained in the Epstein grand jury transcripts “pales in comparison to the Epstein investigative information and materials in the hands of the Department of Justice.”

The Justice Department had informed Berman that the only witness to testify before the Epstein grand jury was an FBI agent who, the judge noted, “had no direct knowledge of the facts of the case and whose testimony was mostly hearsay.”

The agent testified over two days, on June 18, 2019, and July 2, 2019. The entire transcript was 70 pages. The rest of the grand jury presentation consisted of a PowerPoint slideshow shown during the June 18 session and a call log shown during the July 2 session, which ended with grand jurors voting to indict Epstein. Both of those will also remain sealed, Berman ruled.

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her conviction on sex trafficking charges for helping Epstein sexually abuse girls and young women. She was recently transferred from a prison in Florida to a prison camp in Texas. Epstein died in jail awaiting trial.

Maxwell’s case has been the subject of heightened public focus since an outcry over the Justice Department’s statement last month saying that it would not be releasing any additional documents from the Epstein sex trafficking investigation. The decision infuriated online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of Trump’s base who had hoped to see proof of a government cover-up.

Since then, officials in Trump’s Republican administration have tried to cast themselves as promoting transparency in the case, including by requesting from courts the unsealing of grand jury transcripts.

“The government is the logical party to make comprehensive disclosure to the public of the Epstein file,” Berman wrote in an apparent reference to the Justice Department’s refusal to release additional records on its own while simultaneously moving to unseal grand jury transcripts.

“By comparison,” Berman added, “the instant grand jury motion appears to be a ‘diversion’ from the breadth and scope of the Epstein files in the Government’s possession. The grand jury testimony is merely a hearsay snippet of Jeffrey Epstein’s alleged conduct.”

Meanwhile, Maxwell was interviewed at a Florida courthouse weeks ago by Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche, and the House Oversight Committee had also said that it wanted to speak with Maxwell. Her lawyers said they would be open to an interview but only if the panel were to ensure immunity from prosecution.

In a letter to Maxwell’s lawyers, Rep. James Comer, the committee chair, wrote that the committee was willing to delay the deposition until after the resolution of Maxwell’s appeal to the Supreme Court. That appeal is expected to be resolved in late September.

Comer wrote that although Maxwell’s testimony was “vital” to the Republican-led investigation into Epstein, the committee would not provide immunity or any questions in advance of her testimony, as was requested by her team.

Neumeister and Sisak write for the Associated Press. AP writer Eric Tucker in Washington contributed to this report.

L.A. County prosecutors tried to force City Councilman Curren Price’s wife to testify before a grand jury and served subpoenas on several members of his City Hall staff earlier this year, three sources told The Times.

The grand jury was convened in March, according to three sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity because grand jury proceedings are secret under California law. Price’s attorney, Michael Schafler, also confirmed the existence of a grand jury proceeding in a new court filing on Thursday.

The convening of a grand jury, coupled with news that prosecutors filed additional charges against Price earlier this week, marks a significant uptick in the district attorney’s office’s focus on the veteran councilman. Price was first charged in 2023 after voting in favor of multiple measures that prosecutors allege would financially benefit his wife, real estate consultant Del Richardson.

Documents made public Thursday also show the district attorney’s office considered Richardson a “suspect” in the criminal investigation into her husband as recently as 2022.

The councilman has denied all wrongdoing and pleaded not guilty.

Richardson ultimately did not testify before the grand jury, though it was not clear why, according to two of the sources. No criminal charges were filed against Richardson. The district attorney’s office did not immediately respond to questions about that decision Thursday.

“I would not expect Del Richardson to be charged because she has done nothing wrong,” said Richardson’s attorney, Adam Kamenstein. “She is also completely confident that her husband, Councilman Price, will soon be fully vindicated, and she looks forward to being able to put this matter behind them.”

Price now faces 12 criminal counts in total accusing him of grand theft by embezzlement, perjury and violating state conflict of interest laws. Prosecutors allege Price repeatedly voted in favor of measures to sell buildings or support grants for developers or agencies that had previously contracted with his wife’s consulting firm, Del Richardson & Associates.

Price has also been accused of bilking the city out of $33,000 in medical premiums by listing his wife as a beneficiary of his city-issued healthcare plan between 2013 and 2017, before they were legally married.

In documents made public Thursday morning, a summary of the district attorney’s office’s investigation written in 2022 described Richardson as a “suspect” in the case.

An investigator wrote that Richardson committed perjury and aided and abetted in Price’s alleged embezzlement by seeking to recoup healthcare costs from the city of Inglewood, where Price formerly served as a councilman, between 2015 and 2017, according to the summary document. Price and Richardson were not legally married at the time as Price did not divorce his first wife until 2018, prosecutors allege.

Prosecutors served subpoenas on several members of Price’s City Hall staff and several former employees of Del Richardson & Associates, which Richardson sold to the Greenwood Seneca Foundation several years ago, the sources said.

The purpose of the grand jury was also unclear, as two of the sources said questions asked by prosecutors were not focused on the charges already filed against Price.

In a motion seeking to dismiss all charges filed Thursday morning, Schafler questioned the legality of the grand jury proceedings.

Schafler said the grand jury hearings “appear to impermissibly have been for the primary purpose of discovery and preparing for the preliminary hearing and trial in this action, which had already been pending since June 2023.”

Grand juries are held in secret and transcripts of such proceedings only become public if an indictment is returned against the target of the hearing. Price has not been indicted.

The district attorney’s office said it could not comment on grand jury proceedings without court authorization.

“The Grand Jury process involves two types of Grand Juries: Investigative and Indicting. An Investigative Grand Jury investigates and does not seek an Indictment,” the office said in a statement.

It was not clear which type of grand jury was convened in Price’s case. It is rare for prosecutors to fail to convince a grand jury to return an indictment.

In a motion seeking to dismiss charges in 2023, Price’s attorney argued prosecutors could not prove that past payments to Richardson’s company had any influence on the councilman’s voting record. Many of the votes that prosecutors zeroed in on passed easily, with Price’s vote making no difference to their success or failure.

Under California law, criminal cases can proceed from the filing of charges to a trial by two pathways. More often than not, defendants face a preliminary hearing where a judge must decide if prosecutors have enough evidence to prove there is probable cause for a defendant to stand trial.

Prosecutors can also seek an indictment before a grand jury, a move that limits what counterarguments defense attorneys can put forth and protects witnesses from cross-examination. In recent years, L.A. County prosecutors have convened grand juries to indict disgraced porn star Ron Jeremy on a litany of rape allegations and to review manslaughter charges against Torrance police officers.

Price appeared in court on Thursday morning to answer the two new charges filed against him earlier this week. On Tuesday, Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Nathan Hochman said that between 2019 and 2021, Price voted in support of grants and funding for L.A. Metro and the city’s housing authority after Richardson’s firm was paid more than $800,000 combined by both agencies.

Joined by about two dozen supporters who sat in the back rows of the courtroom, Price pleaded not guilty to the new charges. His attorney said he would file a motion to dismiss those charges later on Thursday.

Prosecutors said the councilman’s staff “flagged the conflict of interest prior to the votes” that prompted the new charges.

Price’s spokeswoman, Angelina Valencia, did not respond directly to that allegation. But she said the councilman’s office has always “carried out a multi-layered process to identify and address potential conflicts of interests, work that is highly complex and requires thorough review.”

“Each month, our legislative team reviews hundreds of Council and Committee votes, cross-checking for potential conflicts,” she said.

Schafler has repeatedly argued that Price did not knowingly violate conflict of interest laws.

Aug. 11 (UPI) — A New York judge on Monday rejected a request by the federal government to unseal grand jury records in the federal case of sex offender Jeffrey Epstein‘s longtime associate Ghislaine Maxwell after the Trump administration signed off on her prison transfer.

“The court’s review confirmed that unsealing the grand jury materials would not reveal new information of any consequence,” U.S. Judge Paul Engelmayer of New York’s Southern District wrote in his 31-page ruling denying a request by the U.S. Department of Justice to unseal the grand jury material.

Late last week, the Justice Department asked to unseal further evidence in the case, saying it wanted to shield “personal identifying information” but argued that the circumstances of Maxwell’s case had warranted the unusual legal maneuver.

A grand jury’s proceedings and its corresponding evidence typically stay secret.

Maxwell is serving a 20-year prison sentence after her December 2021 conviction on sex-trafficking charges, but has since appealed her guilty verdict.

Engelmayer, an Obama appointee, said the government’s invocation of the special circumstances surrounding the case engulfing the White House “fails at the threshold” to explain a need to release the docs.

“A member of the public, appreciating that the Maxwell grand jury materials do not contribute anything to public knowledge, might conclude that the government’s motion for their unsealing was aimed not at ‘transparency’ but at diversion — aimed not at full disclosure but at the illusion of such.”

Maxwell was transferred in early August from her Tallahassee prison in Florida to a cushy low-security prison camp in Bryan, Texas, with little reason in another unusual legal move.

“It’s entire premise — that the Maxwell grand jury materials would bring to light meaningful new information about Epstein’s and Maxwell’s crimes, or the government’s investigation into them — is demonstrably false,” the judge said Monday.

Sean “Diddy” Combs will remain in federal custody until he faces sentencing later this year, a judge has ruled.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian on Monday denied the disgraced rapper and music producer’s motion requesting release prior to his sentencing on Oct. 3, The Times has confirmed. Combs has been in federal custody in the Brooklyn Metropolitan Detention Center since his arrest in September. The facility is reportedly notorious for incidents of violence as well as staffing shortages, inmate overcrowding and even power outages.

“Combs fails to satisfy his burden to demonstrate an entitlement to release,” Subramanian said in the order, reviewed by The Times. “The motion for bail is denied.”

A legal representative for Combs, 55, did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.

In his order, Subramanian was unswayed by lawyers’ arguments for Combs’ release including that he shouldn’t be punished for his “swinger” lifestyle; that he’s the target of “ongoing threats of violence” at the MDC; and explanations for his violence against ex-girlfriends Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and Jane, who went by a pseudonym. The two women testified about the musician’s orgies known as “freak-offs” and made allegations about his violent behavior.

Combs’ attorneys urged the release, insisting their client is not a flight risk. The judge, however, didn’t see “clear and convincing evidence” of this or the danger that his lawyers said Combs faced at the prison. Regarding the “squalor and danger” at the facility, Subramanian acknowledged that “public outcry concerning these conditions has come from all corners,” according to the order.

Yet, he wrote, Combs has said that MDC staff have “been able to keep him safe and attend to his needs, even during an incident of threatened violence from an inmate.”

Though Combs was cleared in July of racketeering and sex trafficking, the jury convicted him on two counts of prostitution-related charges. The jury’s split verdict leaves Combs facing up to 10 years in prison for each of the two counts of prostitution.

The denial of bail comes after Combs’ legal team on Sunday submitted a letter from a woman who identified herself as “Victim 3” from the trial. Virginia Huynh wrote in support of the rapper’s release, claiming he had “made visible efforts to become a better person,” according to the letter reviewed by The Times.

She added: “I want to assure the Court that if released, I believe Mr. Combs will adhere to all conditions imposed and will not jeopardize his freedom or the well-being of his family. Allowing him to be at home will also support the healing process for all involved.”

A judge on Wednesday rejected a Trump administration request to unseal transcripts from grand jury investigations of Jeffrey Epstein years ago in Florida, though a similar request for the work of a different grand jury is pending in New York.

U.S. District Judge Robin Rosenberg in West Palm Beach said the request to release grand jury documents from 2005 and 2007 did not meet any of the extraordinary exceptions under federal law that could make them public.

The Justice Department last week asked the judge to release records to quell a storm among supporters of President Trump who believe there was a conspiracy to protect Epstein’s clients and conceal videos of crimes being committed and other evidence.

In 2008, Epstein cut a deal with federal prosecutors in Florida that allowed him to escape more severe federal charges and instead plead guilty to state charges of procuring a person under 18 for prostitution and solicitation of prostitution.

Deputy Atty. Gen. Todd Blanche had asked judges in Florida and New York to unseal transcripts from grand jury proceedings that resulted in indictments against Epstein and former girlfriend Ghislaine Maxwell, saying “transparency to the American public is of the utmost importance to this Administration.”

Federal grand juries hear evidence in secret and then decide whether there is enough for an indictment. Experts say the transcripts probably would not reveal much because prosecutors typically try to present only enough material to get charges and don’t introduce the entire investigation.

Epstein, a wealthy financier, years later was arrested in 2019 on federal sex trafficking charges, and Maxwell was charged with helping him abuse teenage girls.

Epstein was found dead in his cell at a federal jail in New York City about a month after he was arrested. Investigators concluded he killed himself. Maxwell later was convicted at trial and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

The case attracted attention because of Epstein and Maxwell’s links to famous people, including royals, presidents and billionaires. It also led to some of the biggest conspiracy theories animating Trump’s base.

The furor over records has been stoked by the Justice Department. In February, far-right influencers were invited to the White House and provided with binders marked “The Epstein Files: Phase 1” and “Declassified.” The binders contained documents that had largely already been in the public domain.

The department on July 7 acknowledged that Epstein did not have a list of clients. It also said no more files related to his case would be made public.

A two-page memo that bore the logos of the FBI and Justice Department, but that was not signed by any individual, said the department determined that no “further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted.”

White writes for the Associated Press.

A federal judge in the United States has rejected a request from the Department of Justice to release transcripts from a grand jury investigation into the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.

On Wednesday, US District Judge Robin Rosenberg of Florida indicated her hands were “tied” in the matter.

The unsealing of grand jury testimony is relatively rare, given the need for secrecy in such sensitive criminal investigations.

There are only narrow exceptions to federal criminal procedure that would allow for the transcripts to be released, and Judge Rosenberg indicated that those were not met by the Justice Department’s requests.

The request Judge Rosenberg received was one of three issued by the Justice Department, as it seeks to tamp down outrage from President Donald Trump’s base about the lack of recent revelations in the Epstein scandal.

Epstein scandal fuels conspiracy theories

In February, Attorney General Pam Bondi played up the impending release of a trove of documents related to Epstein, a disgraced financier and convicted sex offender whose entourage included high-profile figures.

Epstein died by suicide in 2019 while awaiting trial in New York, fuelling conspiracy theories that his death might have been a cover-up orchestrated by powerful, shadowy figures.

But the nearly 200 pages Bondi and the Justice Department ultimately published failed to produce any major new revelations. It also notably lacked the “client list” that Bondi told Fox News was “sitting on my desk right now to review”.

Some of President Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) supporters had pushed the idea that paedophiles had infiltrated the highest levels of government and popular media, and that Epstein kept a client list in order to blackmail those power brokers.

Even Trump’s appointee to lead the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), Kash Patel, and his second-in-command Dan Bongino had promoted the conspiracy theories, claiming there was a “black book” or “list” in the government’s possession that would prove the Epstein rumours.

But the FBI and the Justice Department have since attempted to quash that speculation. In July, the agencies released a joint memorandum denying the existence of such a list.

“This systematic review revealed no incriminating ‘client list.’ There was also no credible evidence found that Epstein blackmailed prominent individuals as part of his actions,” it read.

Scrutiny on Trump

That, however, did little to abate the outrage, and scrutiny has since turned to President Trump’s own relationship with Epstein.

The Wall Street Journal this month published a report alleging that Trump had signed a birthday note to Epstein featuring a suggestive message, alongside a doodle of a naked woman. Trump denied ever writing or drawing such a birthday message, and he has since sued the newspaper and its parent company.

But on Wednesday, The Wall Street Journal continued its coverage of the Epstein scandal with an article that alleged the Justice Department knew Trump’s name appeared multiple times in files related to the sex offender.

Steven Cheung, the White House communications director, called the latest report “another fake news story”.

Trump has called for all the Epstein transcripts to be released, calling the ongoing scandal a “scam” and a “hoax”. He also repudiated any of his supporters who believed the rumours.

“My PAST supporters have bought into this ‘bull****,’ hook, line, and sinker,” Trump wrote on social media on July 16. “Let these weaklings continue forward and do the Democrats work.”

While the Justice Department has argued there is “extensive public interest” in releasing the grand jury transcripts, experts say those testimonies are unlikely to contain the full extent of the evidence in the Epstein case.

Federal grand jury testimonies are usually brief, supplying only enough information to secure an indictment.

One former federal prosecutor, Sarah Krissoff, told The Associated Press the transcripts are likely to be a “distraction”.

“The president is trying to present himself as if he’s doing something here, and it really is nothing,” Krissoff said in an interview published earlier this week.

Democrats seek advantage

Democrats, meanwhile, have sought to highlight the lingering questions about Epstein in a bid to damage Trump’s reputation with his supporters.

In the House of Representatives, for instance, Democrats on the Committee for Oversight launched a bid to subpoena the Justice Department for all its Epstein files.

Rather than risk a vote to push for further Epstein records, Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson adjourned the chamber early for its six-week August recess.

Democrats like Representative Summer Lee seized upon that manouevre as evidence of complicity.

“They’re fleeing our work, our job and sending us back home because they don’t want to vote to release these files,” Lee said.

But Johnson defended the move this week, saying Trump officials were “already doing everything within their power to release them”.

The city of Los Angeles must pay nearly $50 million to a man who has been in a coma since he was hit by a sanitation truck while crossing a street in Encino, a jury decided Thursday.

Kamran Hakimi, now 61, was in a crosswalk at Hayvenhurst Avenue and Ventura Boulevard last August when the sanitation truck struck him. Hakimi had a green light, and the driver made an “unsafe right turn,” according to Hakimi’s attorneys.

A handlebar on the front of the truck hit Hakimi’s head and flung him to the asphalt, where he hit his head, the attorneys said. Hakimi briefly stood and flashed a thumbs up before losing consciousness.

“Mr. Hakimi’s life, and the lives of his family, are forever changed due to the negligence of a City of Los Angeles employee,” said Rahul Ravipudi, one of Hakimi’s attorneys. “This verdict upholds the dignity of the life Mr. Hakimi enjoyed before this tragedy and we are grateful to the jury who carefully considered all the evidence and provided Mr. Hakimi with the means necessary to get the higher level of care he so desperately needs.”

Hakimi is a father of five and worked in real estate before the crash. In October, his attorneys filed a lawsuit against the city in Los Angeles Superior Court.

The city admitted that the driver failed to yield to Hakimi, according to Hakimi’s attorneys. But at trial, the city “disputed the damages suffered by Mr. Hakimi, arguing that his life expectancy was limited and that the value of his non-economic damages, including pain and suffering, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life, was minimized because he was in a comatose state,” Hakimi’s attorneys said.

The jury ordered the city to pay Hakimi $48.8 million, including $25 million for future pain and suffering and $10 million for future medical expenses.

The verdict, which comes as the city continues to struggle with escalating legal liability payouts, was larger than any single payout by the city in the last two fiscal years, according to data provided by the City Attorney’s Office. The city can still appeal.

Another Hakimi attorney, Brian Panish, said the case never should have gone to trial, blaming City Attorney Hydee Feldstein Soto for refusing to settle the case.

“The city attorney chose to force this case to trial, rejected all reasonable settlement proposals … There were many reasonable proposals made by an independent mediator chosen by the city,” Panish said.

Feldstein Soto, through her press office, did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Panish echoed arguments made by plaintiffs’ attorneys who have said that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies have contributed to rising legal liability costs. They claim that Feldstein Soto has taken cases to trial that she should have settled, resulting in bigger verdicts if the city is found liable.

The city paid out a total of $289 million, its highest liability costs ever, in the fiscal year 2025.

US president threatens to sue US newspaper for publishing details of lurid letter he allegedly wrote to deceased sex offender in 2003.

United States President Donald Trump has asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to request a court release grand jury testimony in the Jeffrey Epstein case, as uproar over the controversy widens.

The case of deceased high-profile sex offender Epstein has dominated news recently after the Trump administration reversed course last week on its pledge to release documents it had suggested contained damning revelations about Epstein and his alleged elite clientele.

That reversal enraged many of Trump’s most loyal followers and prompted allegations that his administration is covering up lurid details of Epstein’s crimes to protect rich and powerful figures.

Trump himself had been associated with Epstein and once called him a friend.

“Based on the ridiculous amount of publicity given to Jeffrey Epstein, I have asked Attorney General Pam Bondi to produce any and all pertinent Grand Jury testimony, subject to Court approval. This SCAM, perpetuated by the Democrats, should end, right now!” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late on Thursday.

Shortly after Trump’s statement, Attorney General Bondi said on social media that the Justice Department was ready to ask the court on Friday to unseal the grand jury transcripts.

“President Trump – we are ready to move the court tomorrow to unseal the grand jury transcripts,” Bondi wrote.

The latest development comes just hours after Trump threatened to sue The Wall Street Journal after it published a story about an alleged risque letter he wrote to Epstein that featured a drawing of a naked woman. The WSJ story, which quickly reverberated around the US capital, says the note to Epstein bearing Trump’s signature was part of a collection assembled for Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.

The newspaper said it reviewed the letter but did not print an image.

“The Editor of The Wall Street Journal… was told directly by [White House Press Secretary] Karoline Leavitt, and by President Trump, that the letter was a FAKE,” Trump wrote on his social media platform.

“Instead, they are going with a false, malicious, and defamatory story anyway,” he said.

“President Trump will be suing The Wall Street Journal, NewsCorp, and Mr. [Rupert] Murdoch, shortly. The Press has to learn to be truthful, and not rely on sources that probably don’t even exist,” he added.

The alleged letter, which Trump denies writing, involves several lines of typewritten text, contained in an outline of a naked woman drawn with a marker.

“The future president’s signature is a squiggly ‘Donald’ below her waist, mimicking pubic hair,” the Journal reported.

“The letter concludes: ‘Happy Birthday — and may every day be another wonderful secret.’”

Trump told the WSJ: “This is not me. This is a fake thing.”

“I don’t draw pictures of women,” he said. “It’s not my language. It’s not my words.”

Epstein took his own life in a New York prison in 2019 – during Trump’s first term – after being charged with sex trafficking in a scheme where he allegedly groomed young and underage women for sexual abuse by the rich and powerful.

The Trump-supporting far-right has long latched onto the scandal, claiming the existence of a still-secret list of Epstein’s powerful clients and that the late financier was, in fact, murdered in his cell as part of a cover-up.

PA Media

PA Media

PA Media

‘Quite aggressive’

‘Not a complicated case’

Jurors have reached a verdict on four of five counts against music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, who is on trial in a New York federal courtroom, accused of racketeering, sex trafficking and transportation for prostitution.

The jury sent a note to the trial judge Tuesday afternoon stating they’d reached a verdict on several counts but were unable to reach a consensus on count one — racketeering. They will continue deliberating on that count in Manhattan starting Wednesday at 9 a.m.

Combs, 55, is charged under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, commonly referred to as RICO, which requires a defendant to be part of an enterprise involved in at least two overt criminal acts out of 35 offenses listed by the government.

He is also charged on two counts each of sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion and transportation to engage in prostitution in connection with two women — his former girlfriend Casandra “Cassie” Ventura and a woman identified in court only as Jane, also a former girlfriend.

The jury has reached a unanimous verdict on the four counts tied to Ventura and Jane but not on the racketeering count. Their verdict is not yet known. As Tuesday’s deliberations concluded, Combs was seen praying in the courtroom and looking morose, according to the Associated Press.

The impending verdicts are the culmination of a celebrity legal drama that has generated global attention and offered a graphic and often violent glimpse into the life of one of the nation’s most powerful music figures and his near billion-dollar enterprise. Jurors heard from three women, two former girlfriends and a personal assistant, who described mob-family-style racketeering with coercion, kidnapping, threats and beatings done to cover up a pattern of sexual assaults, sex trafficking and prostitution over decades.

During the seven-week trial, prosecutors portrayed Combs and his associates as luring female victims, often under the pretense of a romantic relationship. Once he had gained their interest, Combs allegedly used force, threats of force, coercion and controlled substances to get them to engage in sex acts with male prostitutes while he occasionally watched in gatherings that Combs referred to as “freak-offs.”

On the stand, witnesses testified that Combs gave the women ketamine, ecstasy and GHB to “keep them obedient and compliant” during the performances.

Jurors deliberated for more than 12 hours before reaching verdicts on several of the counts against Combs.

The racketeering charge alleged Combs’ Bad Boy Entertainment was like a mob family and criminal enterprise that threatened and abused women and utilized members of his enterprise to engage in a litany of crimes over the years including kidnapping, sex trafficking, bribery, arson, forced labor and obstruction of justice.

Though RICO cases are more typically associated with the mafia, street gangs or drug cartels, any loose association of two or more people is enough, like Combs’ entourage, said former federal prosecutor Neama Rahami. Prosecutors during the trial aimed to demonstrate a pattern of racketeering or two or more RICO predicate acts that occurred over 10 years. That’s why the evidence of bribery, kidnapping, obstruction, witness tampering and prostitution became key to the case.

Key to the government’s case was the testimony of three women: Combs’ onetime lover Ventura, whose 2023 lawsuit set off the unraveling of Combs’ enterprise and reputation; his most recent ex-girfriend, Jane; and his former assistant, only identified in court as Mia.

In the trial, Ventura testified she felt “trapped” in a cycle of physical and sexual abuse by Combs, and that the relationship involved years of beatings, sexual blackmail and a rape.

She claimed Combs threatened to leak videos of her sexual encounters with numerous male sex workers while drug-intoxicated and covered with baby oil as he watched and orchestrated the freak-offs.

One of those freak-offs led to an infamous hotel beating that was captured on hotel security cameras. Video footage from that March 2016 night shows Combs punching and kicking Ventura as she cowers and tries to protect herself in front of an L.A. hotel elevator bank. He then drags her down the hall by her hooded sweatshirt toward their hotel room.

A second angle from another camera captures Combs throwing a vase toward her. She suffered bruising to her eye, a fat lip and a bruise that prosecutors showed was still visible during a movie premiere two days later, where she wore sunglasses and heavy makeup on the red carpet.

In closing arguments, Assistant U.S. Atty. Christy Slavik told jurors Combs “counted on silence and shame” to enable and prolong his abuse and used a “small army” of employees to harm women and cover it up, according to the Associated Press.

Combs, he said, “doesn’t take no for an answer.”

When it came time for Combs’ defense team to present their case, they opted to move straight to closing arguments without presenting a witness. Rahami, the former federal prosecutor, said the defense expected jurors would question why those on the stand did not report the behavior to authorities at the time it was occurring and, in some cases, chose to stay in Combs’ orbit.

Marc Agnifilo, one of Combs’ lawyers, told jurors in closing that federal prosecutors “exaggerated” their case and sought to turn the hip-hop mogul’s swinger lifestyle into the most serious of federal offenses — racketeering and sex trafficking, without the evidence to back it up. In reality, Combs has a drug problem and his relationship with Ventura was a “modern love story” where the mogul “owns the domestic violence” that was revealed in the trial, Agnifilo said.

The amount of money that the city of Los Angeles pays annually for police misconduct, trip and falls, and other lawsuits has ballooned, rising from $64 million a decade ago to $254 million last year and $289 million this fiscal year.

The reasons are complicated, ranging from aging sidewalks to juries’ tendency to award larger judgments to possible shifts in legal strategy at the city attorney’s office to an increase in the sheer number of lawsuits against the city.

The biggest chunk of payouts over the past five years were for “dangerous conditions” — lawsuits singling out faulty city infrastructure, such as broken elevators — at 32%, followed by civil rights violations and unlawful uses of force at 18%, and traffic collisions involving city vehicles also at 18%.

City officials have cited the legal payouts as a significant factor in a nearly $1-billion budget shortfall for fiscal year 2025-26 that was closed with layoffs and other spending cuts.

City Atty. Hydee Feldstein Soto, who took office in December 2022, heads the office that defends the city against lawsuits.

In an interview with The Times and public appearances throughout the city, Feldstein Soto cited a backlog of cases from the COVID-19 pandemic, when courts were barely moving, that were settled or went to trial in recent years.

“Structured settlements” negotiated by her predecessor, Mike Feuer, which are paid out annually rather than in one lump sum, have also contributed to the tab, she said.

Feldstein Soto also said she believes juries are increasingly antagonistic to city governments, resulting in larger verdicts.

Feuer said in an interview that the city was entering into structured settlements before he took office, and he does not believe he increased their use.

To explain the rise in legal liability payouts during his tenure — from about $40 million in 2013 to about $91 million in 2022 — Feuer cited a lack of investment in city infrastructure like streets and sidewalks during the 2008 financial crisis.

In public appearances, Feldstein Soto has sometimes blamed plaintiffs for trying to get financial compensation for what she characterized as risky behavior or interpersonal disputes.

Speaking to the Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association earlier this year, she said that two types of lawsuits — “dangerous conditions” lawsuits and those brought by city employees over working conditions — are ripe for abuse. Some employees who sue the city simply don’t like their bosses, Feldstein Soto said, citing a lawsuit by an LAPD captain, Stacey Vince, who alleged that higher-ups retaliated against her after she complained about her boss. Vince was awarded $10.1 million by a jury, and the city subsequently settled the case for just under $6 million.

Feldstein Soto also described one man who sued the city as an “idiot.” The man was riding his electric scooter without a helmet, Feldstein Soto said, when he crashed on an uneven sidewalk and into a nearby tree, suffering a traumatic brain injury.

According to Feldstein Soto, taxpayers ultimately pay the price for these lawsuits.

“Please understand that every dollar you award is your money,” she said.

The number of lawsuits filed against the city has risen each year since the pandemic, from 1,131 in 2021 to 1,560 in 2024.

At the same time, the average amount the city pays per case has increased dramatically, from under $50,000 in 2022 to $132,180 in 2024. A contributing factor is the increase in payouts of least $1 million, with 17 such cases in 2022 and 39 in 2024. (The city counts settlements or jury verdicts in the fiscal year they are paid out, not when the dollar amount is decided.)

From July 2024 to March 2025, the city paid $1 million or more in 51 lawsuits.

Feldstein Soto said these “nuclear verdicts” cut deep into the city budget and could raise payouts for similar cases in the future.

Total annual payouts in police misconduct cases jumped from $15 million in 2020 to $50 million in 2024. Dangerous conditions cases rose from around $41 million in 2020 to about $84 million in 2024.

Earlier this year, the city paid $21 million to plaintiffs in a series of lawsuits related to a botched LAPD bomb squad fireworks detonation that injured more than 20 people and displaced many residents.

Also this year, the city paid out a $17.7-million verdict to the family of a man with mental health issues killed by an off-duty LAPD officer.

This coming fiscal year, the city increased its allocation for liability payouts from about $87 million to $187 million — far less than what it has been paying in recent years — out of a $14-billion budget.

City Councilmember Eunisses Hernandez, who chairs the council’s public works committee, said the rising payouts stem in part from the city’s long-term lack of investment in infrastructure. The city spent about 10% of its overall budget on streets and other public works last year — substantially less than it spent on police, said Hernandez, who favors a smaller LAPD.

“As a city, we don’t invest in the maintenance of our city,” she said. “I have felt like I’ve been screaming into the void about some of these things.”

In one lawsuit paid out this year, the city agreed to give $3 million to a man who tripped over a slightly uneven sidewalk and suffered a traumatic brain injury.

Last April, the city reached a $21-million settlement with a man whose skull was broken by a street lamp part that fell on him. The city had gone to trial, with a jury awarding the man $22 million, but the parties eventually settled for the slightly lower amount.

“I believe the driving force is the delays and lack of maintenance of the city that has caused an increase in such incidents,” said Arash Zabetian, a lawyer for the man hit by the streetlight.

Some plaintiffs’ attorneys say that Feldstein Soto’s legal strategies are contributing to the rising liability costs. They assert that she is taking more cases to trial, resulting in larger verdicts than if she had settled.

Matthew McNicholas, an attorney who often sues the city on behalf of police officers, said he recently went to trial in five cases and won all of them, for a total payout of more than $40 million.

He would have been happy to settle all five cases for a total of less than $10 million, he said.

One of the lawsuits, which ended with a $13-million verdict, was filed by two male officers accused of drawing a penis on a suspect’s abdomen. The officers alleged that higher-ups did not cast the same suspicion on their female colleagues.

In another of the lawsuits, a whistleblower alleged that he was punished for highlighting problems in the LAPD Bomb Detection K-9 Section. A jury also awarded him $13 million.

“It’s not a tactic to say we’re going to play hardball. It’s just stupid,” McNicholas said. “I am frustrated because she goes and blames my clients and runaway juries for her problems.”

Greg Smith, another plaintiffs’ attorney, said he has also noticed a tendency at Feldstein Soto’s office to push cases to trial.

“Everything is a fight,” Smith said. “I have been suing the city for 30 years, and this has been the worst administration with respect to trying to settle cases.”

Feldstein Soto said her office settles “every case we can.”

“It’s in nobody’s interest to go to trial. It’s a waste of resources,” she said. “But we will not settle cases where we don’t think we’re liable or where the demand is unreasonable.”

To stem the flood of large payouts, Feldstein Soto is looking to Sacramento for help, proposing a bill that would cap lawsuits against California cities at $1 million or three times the economic losses caused by an incident, whichever is greater. Caps on damages exist already in 38 states, according to Feldstein Soto’s office.

She has yet to find a state legislator to sponsor the bill.

Orange County Dist. Atty. Todd Spitzer harassed and retaliated against a high-ranking female prosecutor in his office after she raised concerns about his conduct and tried to protect other prosecutors who were sexually harassed by another superior, according to a jury verdict Thursday.

The jury, which heard the case in San Diego County to avoid potential conflicts, found Spitzer acted with malice against Tracy Miller, who was at one point the highest-ranking woman in the prosecutor’s office.

The jury also found that the county did not take reasonable steps to prevent workplace harassment, and took “adverse employment action” against Miller.

“Tracy Miller had the fortitude to resist the most powerful law enforcement person in the county, and she prevailed,” John Barnett, Miller’s attorney, said after the verdict was read. “It took a lot of courage, and the jury saw that she was right.”

The county declined to comment on the verdict.

The jury found the county, Spitzer and former Chief Assistant Dist. Atty. Shawn Nelson liable for $3 million in damages, including $1.5 million for past emotional distress.

Late Thursday, the jury also ruled Spitzer would be liable for an additional $25,000 in punitive damages.

In a statement to The Times, Spitzer said he accepted “full responsibility for any and all actions which occur in my administration, including my own actions and the actions of my former Chief Assistant District Attorney Shawn Nelson.”

Spitzer, in the statement, made no mention of the allegations of retaliation or harassment made by Miller in the lawsuit but said he had “set a very high standard which I expected all my employees to meet, and Ms. Miller was overseeing extremely important assignments.”

“It is no secret that there was a lot of frustration on my part with her lack of performance in handling these very serious matters,” Spitzer said in the statement after the jury returned with their verdict. “I respect the jury’s decision, and I am heartbroken over the fact that any of my actions could have been interpreted as anything other than a good faith effort to clean up the public corruption in the Orange County District Attorney’s Office, and to create a work ethic that adheres to what Orange County residents demand of its District Attorney.”

Unlike criminal trials, civil trials in California do not require a unanimous verdict. In this civil case, juror decisions ranged from 12 to 0 to 9 to 3 for the various claims upheld against the defendants. The jury voted 10 to 2 to award punitive damages against Spitzer.

Miller accused Orange County, Spitzer and Nelson of retaliation and forcing Miller out after she objected to Spitzer’s actions while heading the office. Miller alleged she tried to protect female prosecutors from being retaliated against after they alleged they were sexually harassed by Gary LoGalbo, a former supervisor who was also friends with Spitzer.

Former and current prosecutors in the office described a “challenging” and “demanding” environment inside the prosecutors office, but some said they faced threats of being fired or demoted.

In her testimony, Miller said Spitzer and Nelson used “gender-based slurs,” disrespected her and undermined her authority in the office.

According to her suit, Miller alleged she had raised concerns that Spitzer had violated the Racial Justice Act by bringing up questions about race while determining whether to seek the death penalty against a Black defendant, and that Spitzer used race in case assignments.

Miller said in court that Spitzer, in retaliation, had threatened to fire her close friends in the office and dismantle programs she had spearheaded.

But much of the trial centered on what occurred shortly after several female prosecutors alleged they were sexually harassed by LoGalbo, a former police officer and the best man at Spitzer’s wedding.

When an internal county investigation confirmed the women were harassed, the report identified Miller and her testimony by describing her position and gender. Afterward, Miller testified, Spitzer targeted her and criticized her for writing notes during executive meetings.

“You could see anytime a subject came up, Tracy was taking notes about our meetings,” Spitzer testified. “There was a point of time where it was very curious to me, why do you seem to be memorializing everything we’re doing?”

Spitzer, who testified on multiple days during the trial, denied the accusations of harassment and retaliation. He acknowledged deep tensions within the office after he assumed the role in 2018 but attributed the opposition to employees who supported the previous district attorney, Tony Rackauckas.

“I knew it was going to be miserable, and it was miserable,” Spitzer said in testimony, at one point wiping away tears.

He said that was part of the reason he chose Nelson, now a county Superior Court judge, as chief assistant district attorney when he first took office.

“I picked him because I was going into battle, in the lions’ den,” Spitzer said.

But Miller testified Nelson’s actions also raised problems in the district attorney’s office after the allegations of sexual harassment were made. For example, prosecutors testified that during a sexual harassment training session for managers, Nelson stood up and said there were “no victims.”

On Thursday, one of the attorneys representing Miller urged jurors to seek punitive damages against Spitzer, arguing that the acts of retaliation and harassment against Miller were not isolated events.

“This wasn’t just a single incident,” he told jurors. “It wasn’t negligence. This was intentional. It was a long-term, long series of events.”

In his statement Thursday, Spitzer apologized while also criticizing Miller’s work performance during her time in the office.

“In hindsight, I realize that I was not as sensitive to the issues Ms. Miller was facing at the time as I should have been, and for that I am truly sorry,” the statement read.

Tracy Kennedy, an attorney representing the county, told jurors that there was no need to seek additional punitive damages against Spitzer, and that the $3 million sent a message to the district attorney about his behavior in office.

“He’s heard it, he understands,” she said. “He has been punished.”

The county still faces eight sexual harassment lawsuits involving allegations that were made against LoGalbo.

“It’s very important for the public to know what happened,” said Barnett, Miller’s attorney. “I was confident that our case was strong and we were right.”

June 4 (UPI) — A jury is deciding whether former movie mogul Harvey Weinstein likely will spend the rest of his life in prison after beginning deliberations in his rape retrial on Wednesday.

The New York jury of seven women and five men heard closing arguments on Tuesday and Wednesday as the six-week trial concluded in a lower Manhattan courtroom.

Weinstein, 73, is charged with two counts of first-degree criminal sexual act and one count of third-degree rape.

Prosecutors argued Weinstein used his position in the film industry as co-founder and studio boss at Miramax to control three women who accused him of criminal sexual conduct at different times from 2006 to 2013.

Weinstein’s attorneys argued the acts were consensual.

Prosecutors had 24 witnesses testify against Weinstein, who has pleaded not guilty to all charges and did not take the stand.

He was tried and convicted of rape and criminal sexual assault by a New York jury and sentenced to 23 years in prison five years ago.

An appellate court last year ruled 4-3 in favor of Weinstein, whose attorneys argued the judge in his prior trial allowed “irrelevant” and “prejudicial” testimony and evidence that was unrelated to the alleged crimes.

Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg immediately announced his office would retry the case after the appellate court overturned the prior conviction.

Even if found innocent, Weinstein still would stay imprisoned due to a conviction on similar charges in California. Weinstein has appealed that ruling.

He is being held at Rikers Island until a verdict is entered in his retrial.