Why Prosecutors Dropped the Attempted Arson and Kidnapping Theories in the Diddy Trial

By Trinity Barnette

As the prosecution rested its case in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, headlines lit up with an unexpected development: prosecutors announced they’re no longer pursuing two major theories—attempted arson and attempted kidnapping.

Let’s break down what that actually means, why it happened, and whether this weakens the case against Combs (spoiler: it doesn’t—at least not how you think).

What the Government Said—And What It Means

On June 25, 2025, federal prosecutors submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian stating that they would not proceed with attempting to prove Diddy’s involvement in:

• Attempted arson

• Attempted kidnapping

These two acts were originally part of the broader racketeering conspiracy charge (Count 1 in the indictment), meaning the government was alleging they were pieces of a larger criminal operation.

Now? They’re off the table.

But not because the prosecution thinks they didn’t happen.

So Why Drop Them?

1. Not Enough to Convict Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

Even though Kid Cudi (Scott Mescudi) testified that Combs broke into his home and his Porsche was mysteriously set on fire soon after…

Even though a former assistant, Capricorn Clark, testified she was kidnapped at gunpoint by Combs and driven to Cudi’s house…

There was no forensic proof linking Diddy directly to the fire. No arrest. No arson charge. No surveillance tape of him lighting the match.

In other words:

Too much smoke, not enough fire.

The prosecution likely knew these allegations would be easy for the defense to spin as emotional or exaggerated—especially since no one was ever formally charged with arson or kidnapping from those events.

2. It Cleans Up the Jury Instructions

When you’re trying a RICO case, jury instructions can get messy real fast. Prosecutors have to lay out all the possible criminal acts tied to the alleged enterprise, then ask the jury to decide whether those acts were committed to further the criminal organization.

Removing the weakest links before closing arguments =

Cleaner presentation

Less confusion for the jury

Stronger focus on acts that are easier to prove

And for the record, there’s still plenty left for the jury to consider.

3. This Doesn’t Change the Bigger Picture

Let’s be very clear here:

The racketeering charge still includes:

• Sex trafficking

• Forced labor

• Drug distribution

• Transportation for prostitution

• Witness tampering

• Bribery

Under federal law, the jury only needs to unanimously agree on two acts to convict on the RICO charge. That’s it. Two.

Dropping two alleged acts out of a list of nearly a dozen?

That’s strategy—not surrender.

What About the Kid Cudi Testimony?

Cudi testified that Combs broke into his house after learning about his relationship with Cassie Ventura. He later found his Porsche burned in the driveway. Former assistant Clark said she was forcibly brought to the scene with a gun and that she warned Cassie to tell Cudi he was in danger.

It’s a compelling and dramatic moment. But the government’s job is to present evidence that can hold up in a courtroom, not just on social media. And without charges or physical evidence to back the fire or kidnapping claims? It risks becoming a distraction.

Final Thoughts: Don’t Let This Fool You

Dropping these two theories doesn’t mean Diddy is “off the hook.”

It means the government is tightening its aim.

They’ve already called 34 witnesses, introduced explicit videos, text messages, photos, drugs, surveillance footage, and outlined a pattern of abuse, coercion, and control.

This move is surgical. Not desperate.

Now we head into closing arguments, where both sides will make their final case. And it’s up to the jury to decide if what’s left is enough to convict.

Spoiler alert: it just might be.