In July 2025, Sean “Diddy” Combs was convicted on two counts of transporting individuals to engage in prostitution but acquitted of more serious charges, including racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. The split verdict drew widespread coverage, and legal analysts were called upon to interpret what it meant.
Among those providing commentary was Brett Rosen, a New Jersey criminal defense attorney, who spoke to both LiveNOW FOX and The Mirror US.
Commentary on LiveNOW FOX
In an interview with LiveNOW FOX, Rosen discussed how bail rulings, discovery disputes, and evidentiary challenges shaped the case before trial. He explained that the denial of bail earlier in the proceedings highlighted the seriousness with which the court viewed the allegations and the risks associated with release. He also emphasized that pre-trial motions — particularly those related to admissibility of evidence — were likely to determine the outcome of several charges.
Commentary in The Mirror US
Rosen provided more detailed analysis of constitutional and evidentiary issues in an interview with The Mirror US. He stated:
- “Sometimes the best evidence comes from the defendant themselves i.e. a confession. But if Miranda rights aren’t properly given, or if there is coercion during the interrogation, there may be grounds to suppress that evidence.”
- A violation of “a criminal’s rights can definitely tank a case.”
- “When a defendant is in jail awaiting trial, they have less of an expectation of privacy. However, that does not mean that law enforcement can seize any and everything from a defendant’s jail cell.”
- He explained that law enforcement is typically focused on contraband and not allowed to retrieve documents with attorney-client privilege, especially “notes and documents prepared for litigation, which fall under the Work Product Doctrine.”
- On privilege, Rosen noted: “Attorney-client privilege may be voided if the communication between the attorney and client was in furtherance of a crime or if the client shared the privileged documents with a third party.”
Broader Context
Rosen’s commentary reflects how evidentiary protections, constitutional safeguards, and privilege doctrines influenced the outcome of Combs’s trial. While the prosecution secured convictions on narrower charges, the defense successfully challenged the most serious allegations, which means that rights violations and evidentiary disputes can determine whether charges withstand scrutiny.