I'm Laura Coates, and this is Trial by Jury. We are on verdict watch, and we could have more answers very soon, but at least we know something. This jury has reached a verdict. In fact, they've reached four verdicts already, but they have not reached the five out of five. They have finalized a verdict when it comes to the sex trafficking charges. There's two of those. We also know that they have two verdicts when it comes to the transportation to engage in prostitution charges. Again, there are two of those. What we don't know is one of the most complex and significant felony charges. I'm talking about, of course, racketeering conspiracy, otherwise known as RICO. This is very significant because remember, this is the charge that carries up to life in prison. They said in a note to the judge this afternoon, and the jurors wrote, quote, we have jurors with unpersuadeable opinions on both sides. Now hold on, let me read that again. We have jurors with unpursuadeble opinions on both sides. And let me tell you, can you imagine what must be going through the minds of the prosecution, of the defense? Because what could have happened when that judge heard that they had four of the five, the judge could have said, you know what, give me the four and go back and deliberate on that final one. They could have also said, which he did, go back in deliberate. And when you're done deliberating for the day, let me know. Well, that's what happened. They went back and they deliberated longer. At around 5:15 or so, they came back in and said, yeah, we're done for the day. We'll be back at 9 o'clock in the morning, which means Sean Diddy Combs, which means the witnesses, which means alleged victims, and which means, the prosecution team as well, dare I say the entire nation, left this evening without knowing what their verdict was on any of the counts. Tomorrow, the judge has a choice. He's gonna figure out whether or not he's going to insist even further about their deliberation. Are they really hopelessly deadlocked or is this something like, you know what, we can't really agree and we're tired? Which is it? If it's, we can't really agree right now, we're tired, keep on deliberating. If it, no, no. You could give us the next 72 years, you could give all the food and snacks and beverages, you could us time away on deserted islands. We could be the best of friends and we will never see eye to eye on this. Well, that is a horse of a different color. So now the question for everyone tomorrow will be, how long will it take them to reach the verdict on that last count? CNN's Kara Scannell was on verdict watch with me today. I couldn't even wait to talk to her. We were outside the courthouse together, standing in the rain with all of the traffic behind us, waiting to see what would happen next. We were there this afternoon, just after the jury passed a note to the judge that they were going to resume deliberations tomorrow. And so she came running out to give me the lowdown on what was happening and describe exactly what she saw.

It was just a little after 4 p.m. And it was pretty quiet and casual in the courtroom when the marshal came out with an envelope in his hand so we knew that there was a note. Now Mark Agnifilo, Combs' lead attorney, had just walked into the courtroom. Unaware that there was a note, he then left to get the rest of the team. We then started to see the lawyers come in and then Combs was brought out of the holding cell because he's not allowed to stay in the courtroom since he's in custody. His lawyers surrounded him and they were standing around him and he had a very confused, a very serious look on his face as they were talking to him, as though he was trying to grapple with what they were saying. Then they all sat down and they made a tight circle around Combs as they were discussing different topics and lawyers were fairly animated, then Agnifilo got up, walked to the courtroom deputy, got the actual note, a handwritten note in his hand, walked it back to Combs and gave it to Combs so he was able to read it himself. At this point, all of us in the room did not yet know what was going on. It was then that the judge got on the bench and that he then stood up and said that the jury had reached a partial verdict. He said that they were unable to make a verdict on the count one, the RICO conspiracy saying that there were jurors were unpersuadeable in their opinions on both sides, and at that point the judge asked what they wanted to do. Now again, Combs' team was huddling with him as they're trying to come up with their response but both the government and Combs' lawyers wanted the jury to continue to deliberate. It was just a matter of how that message was going to be delivered. The judge then brought the jury back in, the jurors walked in, resumed their seats, no one looked over at Combs, they all just had that face looking straight ahead. The judge told them he wanted them to continue to deliberate, and the jury then sent another note back saying they were done for the day and they would return at 9 a.m. tomorrow.

'I know what you're thinking. Because believe me, I have the same thoughts myself. What happens now? Where do we go from here? Well, listen, let's take a step back, if we can. Indulge me for a second. Because there are five felony counts at stake here. Number one is the racketeering by conspiracy, otherwise known as RICO. Then there are two counts of sex trafficking. Then there two counts for transportation to engage in prostitution. Otherwise these so-called man acts. But in order to find Rico, it's not simply a matter of saying guilty or not guilty. That verdict form is a doozy. Let me tell you what it looks like. Picture it as they say, Sicily, 1922. Well, picture it, Manhattan, 2025. Here is what the verdict form looks like, yes, of course, not guilty or guilty. But then the work begins, almost like a flow chart of sorts that the jurors have to investigate and deliberate. So they'll say, if and only if you find the defendant guilty of count one, that's the RICO charge, which types of racketeering acts do you unanimously find were involved in the offense? And then they list out the various, what are known as predicate acts, and of course, you know you've been following along throughout the duration of the trial, the different predicate acts that could constitute racketeering activity. And they list them. And for each one, they ask something like this, acts involving kidnapping, with a line that says not proved or proved, and they're supposed to check the appropriate one. The same thing for acts involving arson, not proved or proved. The same thing, for acts, involving bribery, not proved or proved. And it goes on down the line to include witness tampering, forced labor, sex trafficking, and then also transportation for purposes of prostitution, and finally, drug distribution. Then, here comes a next flowchart. If and only if you find the defendant guilty of count one, again, that's the racketeering by conspiracy, otherwise known as RICO, then they ask him, did the pattern of racketeering activity include sex trafficking of Cassandra Ventura? Yes or no? It also asks the following, if and only if you find the defendant guilty of count one, did the pattern of racketeering activity include sex trafficking of Jane? Now, try to visualize all that I have just said and imagine that verdict form. This is the count where the jurors are hung as of right now. So everyone's trying to get into the machinations of what this could look like. Could it be that they did not? Find that any of these acts, whether it's kidnapping or arson or bribery, had been proved? Is it that they found one but not a pattern? This is all swirling around. And so we're gonna try to figure out, through hearing from the jurors, through the notes or the verdict they ultimately reach or do not reach, what it is they meant. But here is the thing. And this is really interesting because the defense and the prosecution both wanted them to continue deliberating. Now, I get why the prosecution wants them to keep deliberating, right? It makes sense. They have the burden of proof. They want to be able to confirm a conviction or just the finality of the answer. They want these jurors to keep going and come to a conclusion. The defense, they also want that. Now, while you might be scratching your heads and saying, hold on, isn't a hung jury good? It means not guilty for him. I see where you're going with that, and I understand. There's a couple reasons why a defendant would want to have a final answer. One of that is just probably peace of mind, just finality, yay or nay. The other, though, is because of a thing called double jeopardy. Now, you know what double jeopardry is. It's when the government can no longer prosecute you for the same offense or alleged crime twice. They don't get two bites of the apple, dot dot dot, unless you're talking about a hung jury. On that particular count, that there is a hung jury, the prosecution could conceivably decide to retry a defendant because there was no final outcome. See why the defense wants that? Nipped in the bud and concluded, preferably, of course, they want it to be an acquittal. They also want the finality because they want to be able to go through their appellate process if there is a conviction. And so on this, they were both on the same page. But what neither wants, prosecution or defense, neither wants a juror or any juror is to be so pressured as to be almost brow beaten into submission. In fact, let me tell you what the judge said about that, because that was clearly on his mind. He recited some of the lines about deliberations from his instructions, about their duty, of course, and how each of you must decide the case for himself or herself. He goes on to say, but you should do so only after consideration of the case with your fellow jurors, and you should not hesitate to change an opinion when convinced that it is erroneous. Then he says, discuss and weigh your respective opinions dispassionately, without regard to sympathy, without regard prejudice or favor for either party, and follow my instructions on the law. Now here's the part that makes it really interesting. Again, your verdict must be unanimous, but you are not bound to surrender your honest convictions concerning the effect or weight of the evidence for the mere purpose of returning a verdict or solely because of the opinion of other jurors. Each of you must make your own decision about the proper outcome of this case based on your consideration of the evidence and your discussions with your fellow jurors. No juror should surrender his or her conscientious beliefs for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict. Now that is the long form judicial instruction way of saying, if your friends jump off a bridge, are you going with them? It's essentially you're gonna have to decide for yourself. And you can't be brow-beaten into submission, which is why I tell you, neither the defense nor the prosecution wants anyone to be so tired or pressured to say, fine, whatever, fine. However you see it is how I see it. And frankly, that doesn't really serve justice. We do believe in, collectively as a society, a jury of one's peers, being able to make the ultimate decision. So, here we are. Waiting to see what's going to happen next. Well, that's a recipe for a very sleepless night. There's a lot at stake, as you can imagine. And we are waiting for the moment that we hear what this jury says about all five counts.

This episode was produced by Emily Williams, Sofia Sanchez, Eryn Mathewson, Dan Bloom, Graelyn Brashear, Alexandra Saddler, and Rachid Haoues. Our technical director is Dan Dzula, and the executive producer of CNN Audio is Steve Lickteig. With support from Andrea Lewis, Mike Figliola, Hank Butler, Robert Mathers, Alex Manasseri, and Lisa Namerow. I'm Laura Coates, and I'm here for it.