In a major shift in the federal case against the defendant in United States v. Combs, prosecutors have officially dropped three charges: attempted kidnapping, attempted arson, and aiding and abetting sex trafficking. The U.S. Attorney’s Office filed a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian on June 24, stating they would no longer pursue those theories of liability, focusing instead on the more central and complex charges tied to sex trafficking and forced labor.
The charges that remain? Still heavy.
According to the government, the streamlined approach is meant to simplify the jury’s role and cut down on confusion. But the feds also made it clear—they want no misunderstandings when it comes to the law behind the remaining allegations.
The Charges Still Standing
At the center of the case are multiple women, including Cassandra Ventura and Jane Doe, who prosecutors say were trafficked or forced into labor despite the appearance of consent or payment. Some, like Jane, were allegedly locked into “love contracts” where the defendant paid $10,000 a month in rent. Others, like Mia and Capricorn, were employed at the defendant’s company while enduring coercive, violent treatment.
Prosecutors argue that these situations amount to sex trafficking and forced labor, and they want the jury to understand five things very clearly:
-
Consent Doesn’t Erase Coercion: Even if a victim initially consented to sex or labor, it doesn’t mean what followed wasn’t forced or exploitative.
-
Getting Paid Doesn’t Mean It Was Voluntary: Compensation—like rent, gifts, or salaries—doesn’t rule out trafficking or forced labor.
-
You Don’t Need to Be Physically Trapped: The government says psychological manipulation and fear are just as powerful as physical restraint.
-
Defendant Doesn’t Have to Profit: Trafficking laws still apply even if the defendant didn’t personally receive money.
-
Look at the Big Picture: Jurors should consider the cumulative effect of threats, abuse, and manipulation—not just isolated incidents.
What’s Next
Prosecutors are urging Judge Subramanian to adopt a series of expanded jury instructions to cover these points. They argue that without these clarifications, jurors could easily misunderstand legal definitions, especially in a case where relationships, payments, and past consent muddy the waters.
The defense, meanwhile, has claimed the government’s proposed jury language is “unbalanced” and would unfairly tilt the case. But prosecutors fired back, saying the law entitles jurors to accurate definitions—even if those definitions make the defense uncomfortable.
With the charges now more narrowly defined and jury instructions under hot debate, the case is racing toward a pivotal phase. The next court conference is scheduled soon, where the judge is expected to rule on these critical instructions.
