The judge presiding over the sex trafficking trial of the rapper Sean “Diddy” Combs is considering removing Juror Number Six from the jury panel because the man gave inconsistent answers as to where he lives. The judge said he would make a final decision after the weekend. 

“The changing answers and inconsistency give the court worry about deception and lying,” the district judge, Arun Subramanian, said in federal court on Friday. “The juror is unable to answer simple questions… There are serious questions about the juror’s candor and ability to follow instructions.”  

The issue was first raised by federal prosecutors on Tuesday in a conversation that took place in the judge’s chambers. The transcript of that conversation has been sealed. 

On Wednesday, the matter was brought up in open court. 

An Assistant U.S. Attorney, Maurene Comey, the daughter for former FBI Director James Comey, told the judge that there “appeared to be a lack of candor with the court” from Juror Number Six. 

Juror Number Six is a black man, who sits in the front row on the far right. During the trial, the Sun observed the juror taking notes, and it appears that he is listening attentively.   

Defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro told the judge that the defense not only opposed the request but believed it was a “thinly veiled effort, to dismiss a black juror.”

“It’s essentially a pretext… there’s no substance there,” Ms. Shapiro said, and asked the judge to file a written response. 

Ms. Comey said that prosecutors had been “very reluctant” to put in their letter asking for the dismissal of the juror, and that it was not something they were “hoping to do or wanting to do.” But rather, she said, it was something they felt “compelled to do.” 

On Friday morning, after having read the defense’s response, the judge appeared hesitant to remove the juror. But in the afternoon, after he had reread different transcripts from what appeared to have been two different conversations he and the attorneys had with the juror, he was inclined to dismiss the man.    

According to the judge, Juror Number Six had first indicated to a court official, responsible for dealing with jurors in “an offhand conversation” that he had “recently moved to New Jersey.” 

But during jury selection, the man, who is 41 years old, told the court that he was living in the Bronx with his fiancée and “baby daughter.” 

According to the judge, when asked in the judge’s chambers, the juror said that the New Jersey situation “may not be permanent” because he was living there with his girlfriend, but “that is where he was staying for the last couple of weeks.” He further said that is where he now spends most of his time. 

But then, in another conversation the man told the judge he actually spends most of his time in New York City, staying four to five nights of the week in an apartment with his aunt.

“Then he said his daughter was born in New Jersey, and has been living there,” the judge said as he tried to untangle the various statements. The man also told the judge that his girlfriend had an apartment in New Jersey, where she lived with his daughter. 

Federal courts jurisdiction is set by Congress. The jurisdiction of the Southern District, where the trial is being held, extends only to Manhattan, the Bronx, and the six New York State counties north of the Bronx. 

If the juror does not live in the Bronx, and lives in New Jersey, then he is not legally eligible to serve on the jury because he lives outside the court’s jurisdiction.    

At the end of the day, the judge felt that “removal of the juror is required,” adding that “the juror will be dismissed.” 

Though it may seem like “a trivial matter,” the judge reasoned, it “goes to a juror’s basic criteria to serve.” Because of the “changing answers and inconsistency,” he believed the issue raised concerns whether the juror was truthful in responding to other questions related to the case.

Defender attorney Xavier Donaldson fiercely disagreed. 

“I’m concerned that the Court is equating inconsistencies with lying. I’m concerned the Court is equating inconsistencies with the possibility of being untruthful or shading the truth.  I don’t think that this is the case,” Mr. Donaldson argued.      

The attorney said he didn’t believe it mattered “where we reside, New York versus New Jersey, and how persons sometimes have fiancees, girlfriends, boyfriends, whoever, who live in New Jersey, and then they go back and forth.” The attorney added that traveling between New York and New Jersey to see “his fiancée or girlfriend” is “a very, very, very, very, very common thing, particularly in New York and New Jersey.” 

“Very often people have loved ones or girlfriends or boyfriends who live in New York, they go there,” Mr. Donaldson said.    

During jury selection Juror Number 6 told the court he lives in the Bronx with his fiancée and child, and works for the New York City Department of Corrections as an account clerk. He said he does not deal with inmates because, as an official dealing with payroll, he spends his time in the office.

“I don’t deal with people who are incarcerated,” the juror had said during the voir dire.   

When asked if he had ever had any encounters with the law, he said he filed a lawsuit against Port Authority, because one time he was going up an escalator at the notorious New York bus station, and when the escalator jolted, he hurt his back. The man said he sued and received money.  

There was another time, he said, when he was in an accident, and his lawyer told him to see a certain physical therapist, which he did. But after the office of the physical therapist was “raided” and the juror, who appeared to have been linked to some sort of insurance or disability fraud, but did not provide many details, pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor fraud charge.

Having a misdemeanor conviction on one’s record is not a disqualification from federal jury service. And these admissions made by Juror Number 6 were made during voir dire and he still was picked for the jury. But the revelations about the juror’s shifting place of residence put his voir dire statements under a different light.

Earlier on Friday, the lead defense attorney Marc Agnifilo said that he saw the juror’s contradicting answers as “harmless, non-deceitful responses.”    

“He doesn’t speak for a living,” Mr. Agnifilo said. “We’re held, we’re tossed on our own petard with the way we say things in court, because we speak for a living. I don’t know that this juror is held to the point of precision and things like that.”
The judge told the defense attorneys that he would review the matter over the weekend and make a final decision on Monday, when the trial resumes.