Less than half a hour's drive from his Harlem birthplace and 20 minutes from the Brooklyn jail where he's been behind bars since September, the trial to decide the fate of Sean "Diddy" Combs has begun.
Warning: This story contains details of sexual abuse and domestic violence.
A jury of 12 New Yorkers was sworn in after committing to sit through what's expected to be an eight-week trial.
At the end, they will decide if the hip hop mogul, who was once a king and kingmaker of the music and entertainment industries, will walk free or die in jail.
The prosecution argues Mr Combs, 55, used his power to coerce victims into participating in marathon drug-fuelled orgies known as "freak-offs".
It describes him as a musician who created an empire of businesses that made him rich, built his reputation and allowed him to feed his every desire.
"Sometimes he called himself the king and he expected to be treated like one," the prosecution told the court during opening statements.
The defence says its client is merely a "swinger" with unconventional sexual proclivities.
Mr Combs has strenuously denied the allegations against him, pleading not guilty to racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution.
Here's some of what's happened so far on day one of the trial.
The defence raises the race factor
Before opening statements had even begun, lawyers for Mr Combs brought race into the conversation.
Both the prosecution and defence are allowed a number of no-questions-asked, pre-emptory strikes to knock out potential jurors they think may hurt their case.
Lead defence lawyer Marc Agnifilo questioned why seven of the jurors the government lawyers had struck out were Black, saying he believed it amounted to "a pattern".
But Assistant US Attorney Maureen Comey — daughter of former FBI director James Comey — argued the government had conducted itself neutrally and "without bias".
She then went through them individually to justify each strike.
One prospective juror had a fiance who'd been in prison on drug charges, another had gone to high school with Mr Combs, another had sleep apnoea and gave nonsensical answers, and yet another had language difficulties and when asked if he could be fair, had replied "not really" more than once.
Judge Arun Subramanian ultimately ruled there was no apparent case that jurors were struck on the basis of race and that the defence failed to show "purposeful discrimination".
But the defence's decision to raise the question hints at one tactic it may use throughout the trial.
Prosecutors highlight one night to show 'pattern'
Mr Combs' former long-term girlfriend, Cassandra Ventura, known as Cassie, will be central to the trial, as will video of Mr Combs beating Cassie at an LA hotel room back in 2015.
The prosecution began its opening statement with a single night it said was indicative of a pattern of behaviour.
On that night, it said, Mr Combs had vowed to kill the man Cassie was seeing and drove to find her, armed with a gun and a bodyguard.
When he finally found her, the prosecution said he beat her brutally, kicking her in the back and "flinging her around like a ragdoll".
It said he also threatened that if she defied him again, he'd publicly release video of her having sex with male escorts — "souvenirs of the most humiliating nights of her life" which he allegedly kept for blackmail.
According to the prosecution, Cassie had no choice but to agree to freak-offs because "her livelihood and safety defended on keeping him happy".
The defence has said the couple's relationship was complicated and at times violent, and that jealousy was a constant.
It has already conceded the video is "indefensible, horrible and dehumanising" and that it is evidence of domestic violence.
However, it argued it was not evidence of sex trafficking or the other offences he's charged with and note Cassie stayed with Mr Combs for a further two years after the incident, saying "she made a choice every single day for years to stay with him… because that was the better choice".
Jury may think Combs is a 'jerk', but consent and coercion are key
The prosecution argued "this case is not about a celebrity's private sexual preferences" but about a coercive and criminal enterprise that "threatened, drugged, lied and even used violence to make" people do what Mr Combs wanted.
The defence argued in its opening statement that "the government has no place in this man's private bedrooms".
It even told the jury "there may be points where you think he's a jerk or a bit mean but he's not charged with being a jerk or being mean".
It admitted he had "a bit of a different sex life". Referencing his love of baby oil, it said: "Is that a crime? No." to snickers from the packed overflow room.
It repeatedly painted the alleged victims as "capable, strong, adult women" who had the freedom to make their own choices.
Escorts, employees and freak-off videos form part of the evidence
As well as Cassie and another former girlfriend identified in court as "Jane", the jury will hear from a former employee, "Mia", who says she was sexually assaulted while working as a personal assistant for Mr Combs.
The jury will also hear from some of the escorts involved in so-called freak-offs, including one who will describe witnessing an assault on Cassie.
Other evidence presented to the court will include tickets and records, photographs of damage to hotel rooms, text messages and evidence of injuries to alleged victims.
The most explosive moments are likely to come when videos of the freak-offs are played to the court.
The prosecution says they will show victims high on drugs pretending to enjoy themselves.
The defence says they are intimate videos that were always meant to remain private and that the only videos of the freak-offs that will be shown are from the victims' devices, not Mr Combs'.
