Sean 'Diddy' Combs trial updates: Bail denied due to 'propensity for violence'

The jury sent its fifth note to Judge Arun Subramanian about an hour and 15 minutes into its first full day of deliberations.

The note was a request to to review the transcripts of Cassie Ventura’s testimony about the March 5, 2016 Los Angeles InterContinental Hotel incident in which Sean Combs was caught on security camera surveillance video physically attacking her.

The jury also asked for her testimony about a trip Ventura took with Combs to the Cannes Film Festival in France. Ventura testified that on the flight home, Combs showed her videos of her having sex during so-called "freak-off" encounters.

Ventura told the jury that she thought Combs “was going to embarrass me and release them.”

The jury also asked for a portion of Ventura’s testimony about "freak-offs" with Daniel Phillip, a male escort who was also a prosecution witness.

The jury further asked for Phillip’s testimony regarding an alleged "freak-off" at the Essex Hotel in New York. Phillip testified he saw Ventura "completely passed out" and “slumped over” at that time.

The lawyers are working through which portions of the transcript to send back to the jury room.

For the last 30 minutes, the lawyers have been hunched over their laptops in the courtroom following the latest, as-yet unspecified note from the jury. Combs is on a laptop with one of his lawyers.

The judge and jury have not yet entered the room.

The jury has sent back a note.

This is the jury's fifth note since deliberations began Monday, including the first note that named the foreperson.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said he plans to answer the jury’s question from yesterday about narcotics distribution by referring them to a section of their legal instructions.

“The word ‘distribution’ means actual, constructive, or attempted transfer. To distribute simply means to deliver, to pass over, or to hand over something to another person, or to cause it to be delivered, passed on, or handed over to another. Distribution does not require a sale,” the instructions state.

In their third note yesterday, the jury asked, “If a recipient wants, requests, or asks for controlled substances, and an individual hands over controlled substances to the requester, has the individual who hands over the controlled substances distributed?”

Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo objected to the judge's instruction, saying he doesn’t “believe it goes far enough” to answer the jury’s question.

“The court is about to make something that amounts to a mistake,” he argued. “Can I give your honor an example?”

“No,” Judge Subramanian replied. “Can you do what I am asking?”

Subramanian denied the defense’s request to modify the language in the response, saying it would “confuse” the jury further.

“This is an attempt to mislead the jury,” prosecutor Maurene Comey argued.

Combs stroked his chin and looked directly at the judge while the argument played out. When the judge denied his lawyer’s request, he stared at Agnifilo.

The structure of the verdict form instructs jurors to only consider the drug offenses and other underlying crimes “if and only if” they find Combs guilty of the racketeering conspiracy.