By MICHAEL R. SISAK and LARRY NEUMEISTER

NEW YORK (AP) — The jury deliberating at Sean “Diddy” Combs ‘ sex trafficking trial asked Tuesday to review critical testimony from one of the prosecution’s most important witnesses: the hip-hop mogul’s former longtime girlfriend Cassie.

Jurors requested the testimony about 75 minutes into their second day of weighing charges that Combs used his fame, wealth and violence to force two girlfriends into drug-fueled sex marathons with male sex workers known as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.”

The panel of eight men and four women asked for Cassie’s account of Combs beating, kicking and dragging her at a Los Angeles hotel in 2016 — an assault captured on now-infamous security camera footage.

They also asked to see Cassie’s testimony about an incident in which she said Combs accused her of taking drugs from him and kicked her off of their yacht at the Cannes Film Festival in France in 2013. On their way back to the U.S., she said, he threatened to release explicit videos of her having sex.

In addition, the jury asked for Cassie and stripper Daniel Phillip’s testimony about her jumping into his lap at a New York City hotel after, as Phillip testified, he suspected Combs had been slapping and slamming her around an adjacent room.

“Her whole entire body was shaking, like she was terrified,” said Phillip, who was at the hotel for a sexual encounter with Cassie sometime between 2012 and 2014.

Phillip testified that he asked Cassie, the R&B singer whose real name is Casandra Ventura, why she was with Combs if he was hitting her and beating her. He said he told her she was in real danger. Cassie, he said, “basically tried to convince me that it was OK, it’s OK. I’m fine, I’ll be OK.”

Phillip and Cassie testified last week in the trial’s first week.

The jury’s testimony request came soon after Combs’ lawyers and prosecutors began the day haggling with Judge Arun Subramanian over a jury question left over from the end of the first day of deliberations on Monday.

Jurors wanted clarification about what qualifies as drug distribution, an aspect of the racketeering conspiracy charge that will help determine whether Combs can be convicted or exonerated on the count.

Subramanian said he would remind jurors of the instructions he gave them on that part of the case before they started deliberating on Monday. Combs’ lawyers had pushed for a more expansive response, but prosecutors argued — and Subramanian agreed — that doing so could end up confusing jurors more.

On Monday, the panel deliberated over five hours without reaching a verdict.

Defense lawyers contend prosecutors are trying to criminalize Combs’ swinger lifestyle. If anything, they say, Combs’ conduct amounted to domestic violence not federal felonies.

Combs, 55, could face 15 years in prison to life behind bars if he is convicted of all charges. Combs, as he has through the trial, conferred intently with his lawyers as they discussed responding to the jury’s request. Later, he leaned forward to scrutinize something on the computer screen that sits in front of him.

After pleading not guilty, Combs chose not to testify as his lawyers built their arguments for acquittal mostly through lengthy cross examinations of dozens of witnesses called by prosecutors, including some of Combs’ former employees who took the witness stand reluctantly only after being granted immunity.

When jurors first left the room to begin deliberating on Monday, Combs sat for a while slumped in his chair at the defense table before standing and turning toward three rows of spectators packed with his family and friends.

Those supporters held hands and lowered their heads in prayer, as did Combs, who was several feet from them in the well of the courtroom. After they finished, they together applauded, and so did Combs, still clapping as he turned back toward the front of the room.

Combs also showed off two books he’s reading: “The Power of Positive Thinking” by Norman Vincent Peale and “The Happiness Advantage” by Shawn Achor.

Barely an hour into deliberations, the jury foreperson sent a note to the judge, complaining that there was one juror “who we are concerned cannot follow your Honor’s instructions. May I please speak with your Honor or may you please interview him?”

The judge decided instead to send jurors a note reminding them of their duties to deliberate and obligation to follow his instructions on the law.

By day’s end, the jury seemed back on track, sending the note about drug distribution.