Jury deliberating in Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ sex trafficking trial

After hearing seven weeks of testimony from 34 witnesses, jurors in the sex trafficking trial of American music mogul, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs are weighing up the allegations against him.

But barely an hour into their deliberations, the jury sent a note to presiding Judge Arun Subramanian saying they were concerned that one of the jurors could not follow his instructions.

The note did not elaborate on which instructions the juror could not follow.

After discussions with prosecutors and defence lawyers, Subramanian sent a message reminding them of their obligations.

The jurors are anonymous, which is not the norm in criminal trials in the United States, but is common in high-profile cases in which they could face harassment or threats.

They are sifting through the sometimes graphic and emotional testimony about Combs’ propensity for violence and his sexual predilections.

He is charged with five counts — one of racketeering conspiracy and two counts each of sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution.

Prosecutors say he coerced women over two decades to take part in drug-fuelled sexual performances with male sex workers.

The witnesses were headlined by Combs’ former girlfriends Cassie — the R&B singer born Casandra Ventura — and “Jane” who testified under a pseudonym.

Both women said he often was violent towards them.

Cassie said he forced her into hundreds of sexual encounters with paid male sex workers while Jane recounted numerous “hotel nights” – or orchestrated sexual encounters.

Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted on the more serious racketeering charge, he faces up to life in prison.

He chose not to testify, and his lawyers did not call any witnesses in their defence case. They elected instead to challenge the accusers' credibility during lengthy cross-examination.

His attorneys acknowledged that Combs veered into violence, but maintain that the sex acts were consensual.

They contend that prosecutors are intruding in his personal life and that he has done nothing to warrant the charges against him.