More on Mann Act Issues (Conviction with Respect to Jane).
I previously discussed the possibility of reversal of that conviction with respect to Cassie. The reasoning I used in that discussion can be applied to Jane as well. According to the verdict slip, Diddy was convicted of transporting Jane across state lines with intent that Jane engage in prostitution. The transportation of escorts and the intent for that transportation is irrelevant to the issue of whether Diddy transported Jane and Diddy's intent for that transportation.
In order for the conviction to stand, Diddy must know that he is transporting Jane (or causing Jane to be transported) across state lines. Diddy's intent for transporting Jane must be for Jane to engage in prostitution.
As I discussed with respect to Cassie, one must define prostitution in order to assess Diddy's intent. Prostitution entails person "A" engaging (or offering to engage) in a sexual act with person "B" in exchange for person "A" (or her principal or agent or pimp) receiving money or its equivalent.
It is also important to differentiate between prostitution and patronizing a prostitute. Prostitution in the act of providing the sexual "service." Patronizing a prostitute is the act of receiving or engaging the "services" of a prostitute. It is the difference between a prostitute and a "John".
In the present case, the pertinent questions are: Did Diddy knowingly transport or cause Jane to be transported across state lines? For that transportation, did Diddy intend for Jane to provide sexual service in exchange for money or its equivalent to be paid to Jane or Diddy? If the answers to both questions are "yes", then the conviction stands. If the answer to ANY of those questions is "no", then the conviction cannot stand.
By my recollection of the evidence, there was some evidence of Jane travelling across state lines to meet with Diddy. I don't remember whether the govt presented evidence that Diddy paid for the transportation, used his private jet, or used his travel agents to cause the transportation. If the govt presented such evidence and Diddy knew that Jane was in another state when he was making the travel arrangements, then the knowing interstate transportation element has been met. If not, the conviction cannot stand.
The next point is intent. By my recollection, the govt did not present direct or circumstantial evidence showing that Diddy's intent for transporting Jane across state lines was for Jane to engage in sexual acts in exchange for Jane or Diddy receiving money or its equivalent. I don't think Diddy received money in exchange for Jane engaging in sexual acts (not a pimp situation). The fact that Diddy enjoyed watching Jane have sex with the escorts does not mean that Diddy received money or its equivalent.
I don't think Jane received money or its equivalent specifically in exchange for engaging in sexual with the escorts. This may be a closer call because an argument could be made that her rent which Diddy was paying was in exchange for her performance of sexual acts during the hotel nights. However, the counter argument is that Diddy gave her money and gifts and bought her furniture without any connection to the hotel nights. Additionally, Diddy continued to pay her rent while he is in detention - even though Jane was not performing any hotel night sexual acts.
Thus, it is arguable that the Mann Act conviction should be overturned with respect to Jane.
**Another view, which is unique to me, is that the sole purpose of the transportation must be prostitution. Given the language of the statute any other additional purpose should negate a finding of guilt under the statute. Courts have disagreed with me on this issue of sole purpose, but I think in the proper case, it should be pursued all the way to SCOTUS.
***As it stands right now, some courts have held that the main or primary purpose or intent of the transportation must be for the alleged victim to engage in prostitution. With this understanding, did the govt present evidence that Diddy's main or primary purpose or intent for transporting Cassie and Jane was for them to engage in prostitution - as opposed to patronizing prostitutes.
I don't think the government provided such evidence directly or circumstantially. You are free to agree or disagree.
