July 2, 2025 • 38 mins
Rapper, music producer, entrepreneur Sean 'Diddy' Combs was found guilty of two of the five charges he faced in his racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking trial. The jury found Combs guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. However, Combs was found not guilty of the most serious charge, which was racketeering conspiracy, as well as both sex trafficking counts, each of which carried a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison. Criminal defense attorney Jeremy Rosenthal joined Dan to discuss the case and verdict.
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Now you can leave feedback as you listen to WBZ NewsRadio on the FREE iHeart Radio app! Just click on the microphone icon in the app, and be sure to set WBZ NewsRadio as your #1 preset!
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Belgium vs. Boston's
News radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Big story out of New York City today was the
trial of Sean Diddy Combs. This was a federal court trial,
which is the big leagues, and Combs was fortunate enough
(00:30):
to basically win be acquitted on some of the more
serious charges, but convicted nonetheless in federal court. And late
today the judge in the case denied Combs any bail,
so he will have to remain in a Brooklyn jail cell,
(00:50):
facing now two criminal charges for which he could spend
some significant time in jail. He has been in jail
since last September. With us is attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. Attorney Rosenthal,
Welcome to the Nightside.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
How are you, thanks, Dan? How are you? I'm doing great,
doing great.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I know that you practice in federal court in several
federal court districts. When I say it's the big leagues,
it's it's it's tough to get acquittals in federal court
because they generally try to have all the ducts in
a row. Are you surprised at the verdict today. We'll
get to the specifics of the case, but I just
(01:30):
want to ask you that overarching question, are you surprised
that sort of a kind of got a compromise verdict today?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
A little bit, anytime the FED lose, you kind of
scratch your head and you sort of wonder what went
wrong on the bigger cases like this, on the on
the more high profile cases, maybe there's a little more
impetus for them to overreach a bit, and and maybe
that's what happened here. When I'm when I'm eyeballing this
(02:00):
case and I'm looking at it just from the outset,
when they start off with the raids and the warrants,
and I'm like, and I'm thinking, Okay, we've got a
guy who is that they're accusing of a whole lot
of trash. They're accusing this guy of everything under the sun.
That's fine, But hiring prostitutes, sex assault, spousal domestic abuse,
(02:26):
or or or intimate partner violence. These types of things
are crimes, but they're usually not federal crimes. And so
you've got to have a trigger. You've got to have
something that crosses the threshold that makes him federal. That's
going to be business enterprises, that's going to be interstate commerce.
And I kept waiting to see that develop. I kept
(02:49):
waiting to see those types of connections kind of come
to fruition, and they just never did. So. In some ways,
I am and.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I'm not a council. He did move, if I'm not mistaken,
some other participants, whether they were all cooperating voluntarily or
under some level of duress, moved them across state lines.
He flew people from different point A to point b. Uh.
And that is technically the hook that that that got
(03:20):
him into indicted in federal in federal.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Court under the Man Act. Yes, which that's that's ultimately
what he got convicted of. And anytime anytime you move
somebody from from one state to another for an illegal
sexual purpose, regardless of gender, you're gonna be guilty of
a Man Act violation. And that's ultimately what they got
him on. But they didn't get him on the racketeering,
(03:44):
they didn't get him on the rico and uh and
those were some of the bigger charges that they were
hoping for. Uh So, so they got some of the
lower hanging stuff. And I anybody who thinks that this
is a win for Diddy Combs in a year he
sentenced his they set his sentencing in October. They're not
(04:06):
they're in no hurry to do this, and he's waiting
in jail for this in a year, in two years
and three years, when he's still in jail, this is
not going to feel like that big of a victory
for him.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Right, And by the way, let's make it very clear.
The Man Act is m a and not named after
a particular agender, but named after a form a congressman
from Illinois whose last name was.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Made And they're targeting they're targeting all of us, right,
it's the Man.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Yeah, so he want to clarify that, Okay, it's just
just for sure. Yeah, you're pretty sure. I guess in
theory he faces up to twenty years. He's not going
to get twenty years here.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
I don't think he gets well, I don't think he
gets twenty. I don't think he gets two. We'll see
where this where they hit him on the federal sentencing
guidelines that that's going to be the big fight.
Speaker 5 (05:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, the other question is he's already served nine months
or ten months. He was arrested last September. So whatever
he gets sentenced, I assume that his incarceration pre trial
incarceration is going to is going to offset whatever that
sentence is he gets.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Yeah, he'll definitely get credit for the time that he
is spent in And and for those who don't know
kind of talking about the federal sense, let's let's talk
about the federal sensing guidelines per minute. Do you want
the long story or the short story for everybody? I
know you know it, Dan, but yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Coming up, we're coming up on a break. We'll take
the abbreviated version and then we can amplify on it
after the break.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
If you like a right head, sure thing that the
federal sentencing guidelines are a matrix and it's a it's
like an Excel spreadsheet that that that everybody's crime in
federal court. They're going to put you into a box
somewhere on that and that's going to dictate a range
of punishment, usually in months, and it's going to be
(06:07):
the level of severity of the crime. It's going to
be your criminal history that gets factored into it. Uh,
if you are an organizer of the criminal enterprise, you
get more points, If you cooperate with the Feds, you
get less points. And the judge determines where you fit
in that and that's that's your sentence.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah. Uh, and his there's a lot of video. He's
got videotape in this case, pretty brutal videotape. And there's
probably videotapes that the jurors saw that you and I
will never say. But the videotape of him throwing the
woman on the ground in the hotel while he's wearing
(06:48):
a bath towel around his waist and kicking her, that
has to come in as a factor.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
I think that's going to come in as relevant conduct.
That's one of the things when lawyers are fighting in
federal court most of the time, what they're fighting over
are the federal sentencing guidelines, and they're and they're debating
things like relevant conduct and relevant conduct doesn't necessarily have
(07:14):
to be a conviction, and that that's a really contentious
point because we have due process rights. We have the
right to confront our accusers. We have the right to
have allegations proven against us beyond a reasonable doubt, and
to some degree not to to to kind of put
it way out there, Uh, can you bring in my
(07:37):
fourth grade dental records and and and enhance my my
my sentence for that well, in theory, you kind of could.
So that's where a lot of the lawyering happens. That
that that's where the fight's gonna go from here.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
But in but in this case, I mean that that
videotape of him pursuing the woman by the elevator who's
trying to leave who who, then he decided that it
would be a good idea to toss her to the ground. Uh,
and then dragger attempt a kicker and then Dragger and
he's a big guy, you know, complete to her. There's
(08:13):
there's no criminal conduct for which there's a conviction there.
But this is plain and plain at day and uh, yeah,
you know, I don't know how the judge can ignore
that or minimize that.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
No, yeah, and it's something that that that the judge
can absolutely take into consideration. Exactly to your point, Dan,
there's no conviction necessarily for that, but that doesn't mean
that the judge can't hit him for.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
It, right, And I believe that that took place several
years ago, so I'm sure that the statue limitations has
long since transplanted on that. If people are saying, well,
why didn't they charge him with that? And that would
not have been a federal crime. Either way, we will
take a break. My guest is Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. We're
talking about the Sean Diddy case. There was a verdict
(09:01):
that was announced today number one, and the judge decided
post verdict, after a break in court that John Dittycombs
would remain in jail. Obviously, that can be appealed, and
I'm sure that his lawyers will be working on an
appeal on that, but he should he is. Sentencing date
(09:22):
is October third, so he's going to spend at least
a year in jail and then see what the sentence is.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the case,
this is pretty freaky stuff. And Jeremy and I have
kind of tiptoed around the substance of the crimes that
have been alleged and in many cases the crimes for
which he was acquitted, but the underlying fact pattern is
(09:46):
pretty interesting. Will again try to deal with it as
best we can. Your comments, your questions would be appreciated.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty. My name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside
on a Wednesday night. Feels like a Friday to me,
because I'm off for the rest of the week. Coming
back right after this brief commercial break.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
My guess is Attorney Jeremy rosehal before we go to
phone calls councilor how tough the case was this to defend?
I mean, this involved some pretty bizarre behavior. These were
sex parties that went on for days. They were called
freak offs, and it involved, according to the indictment, Sean
(10:37):
Diddy Combs spending money on male prostitutes to have sex
with some of his girlfriends. It was in terms of weird,
I get eleven off the chart on a scale of
zero to ten. Nobody should be questioning other people's private behavior,
(10:58):
but this was pretty weird.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
A trial is, in my mind, it's an emotional battlefield.
We are in America in the world.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
We make our.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Decision first, and then we make the facts to fit it.
I wish it was the other way around. This is
why AI will never take my job, because I might
be able to fast talk a jury out of convicting
somebody who was on a police chase and wound up
in a swimming pool, you know, with their car and
in AI listens to facts, but people don't. The big
(11:38):
challenge in defending this case is the title wave of
negative towards p. Diddy. If he's your client and he
is thoroughly unlikable, he has committed atrocity after atrocity, and
the state this case is one giant mud sling against him,
(12:01):
and it's very hard to get a jury to relate
to that. It's very hard to get a jury to
understand that. And if you if you wanted to prove,
if you wanted to convict somebody who is that loathesome,
if you want to convict him of anything, you could
do it or or or or that's the worry of
(12:22):
his lawyers, and and so it's always hard to redirect
juries to facts, and it's hard to get that counterbalance
to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is
too much right at some point, at some point, this
is just too aggressive. That's a hard argument to make.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Uh, too aggressive, counselor from from the perspective of whom the.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Prosecution you from, right from from the government, and to say, listen,
uh an analogy that that that I that that you
can use in a trial, as you can say, look, uh,
at some point you got a bad kid in the
store and you see mom or dad disciplining him. Okay,
(13:10):
maybe the kid opened a candy bar in the middle
of store or or something did something bad. Okay, but
at some point you beat the kid too hard, right,
at some point enough uh, and and and so uh
for we all. I'm a big believer in the scales
of justice, and I really do think that juries go
back there when they deliberate, and they they will always
(13:34):
kind of come up with the right balance or or
or what in their mind is the right balance, and
the punishment has to fit the crime. If I were
to suggest, and this is we have a we have
an old you know my my practice is we're not
in the country, but we have an old probate judge
who was as bonkers as he could be. And he
had the perfect analogy for this. He says, if you
(13:56):
made drinking alcohol a crime punishable by death, and then
you caught somebody on video with alcohol in their breath,
with the can in their hand, and then you fingerprint
that and you just prove it a waste till Sunday
a jury will acquit them because they do not agree
that death is appropriate for that. Fine, if it was
(14:17):
a five dollars fine, they're gonna convict them, right, So
at some point it's got to balance out.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
So there's the modicum what you're saying, you have faith
in the jury system, and there's a modicum a public
of common sense amongst Yeah, any twelve twelve Americans. All right,
let's go to some phone call see what people have
to say. We'll start it off with Joe Is in Belmont, Massachusetts.
Show you're on with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal talking about the
(14:45):
Sean Diddy Comb's case. Dan, I just called to wish
you a happy birthday July eighth, and God bless you
and all you loved ones. Well, thank you very much. Show.
That's very kind of you. But do you have a
comment on Sean Diddy Combs. I just want to tell
you Jesus love you, Dan.
Speaker 5 (15:02):
Bye, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
John great nice. Well. I guess that that's a happy birthday,
wish that's happy birthday.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Happy birthday coming up here?
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah, oh yeah, July eighth. Let me tell you me
and Nelson Rockefeller. Of course Rockefeller had all the money.
Let me let me go to Carol and Randolph. Hey, Carol,
how are you tonight?
Speaker 6 (15:21):
I'm great, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
You're ready, You're welcome, and you're with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal.
We're talking about the Sean Dinny Coombs case. Your comment.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
My comment is, you know, I wasn't surprised that he
got off because, I mean, Rico is a really hard
case to prove, and one guy with a Rico case
didn't see it. But I am just so happy that
he got convicted at least two charges. I mean, to
(15:54):
expose the debauchery and what these people do. I mean,
I raised two boys that are in their thirties now
when this rap music was coming up and with all
the derogatory terms and everything, and it disturbed me. But
I was like, okay, open mind, it's your music. But
(16:17):
the lifestyle and all of this, I'm like, thank god
my kids got through it and didn't fall into this.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
I'm just yeah, well, you know, I think I think
what you're referring to there was there were a lot
of misogynistic lyrics.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
Yes, yes, no, I.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Mean, and he in that videotape sort of became the
personification of that misogynistic action when he beat that woman.
Speaker 6 (16:44):
Uh yeah, I'm just glad that he's exposed for what
he is. And I mean, yeah, these women were young
and they wanted to make a career and he abused them. Yeah,
everybody knows that. And but is a criminal. I mean,
the whole industry should be. I mean, they're they're like
(17:07):
the next thing to the porn industry. I mean, my god,
it's I mean both.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Both of which you're protected by our First Amendment in
many respects.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
I know they are, I know they are, But I mean,
let him, let him spend I don't know what he's
going to be sentenced to. I hope it's at least
a few years. But you can't have young kids glorifying
these rap stars.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
And jet Truny Rosenthal's reaction, Jeremy, this is I think
someone who would have been a pretty fair juror on
this case. I don't know if you agree or not. Well,
I think that she is pretty typical of I think
what most where most people land on this topic.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
She was alluding to is kind of the whole point
of the prosecution, which is that it's the structure, right,
It's the it's the organized we're going to pay people,
We're going to move people, We're going to have these parties.
It it it it tried to the prosecution tried to
(18:21):
put more form, if you will, or to give a
shape to.
Speaker 6 (18:27):
P.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Diddy and his entities or his organization and and essentially
label the mafia.
Speaker 7 (18:34):
Right, look at what you did, Carol, Carolis finish his
comment that I want to hear what you I want
you to.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Ca Yeah, Carol, don't don't give me your address because
I'll send you my bill and you don't want that,
you know, I'm kidding. I'm kidding, okay, but uh, you know,
And to your point, Carol, I think you make a
very valid point, which is that that that the government here,
what they tried to do is they tried to essentially
label what he did he did as an organization, as
(19:07):
an entity, as sort of a movement. Now, obviously you
can't label an entire industry that way, and and and
and just as and I'm sure uh as as you know,
there are there are wonderful artists and wonderful musicians that
that performed in that genre he did. He's obviously not
one of them. Uh, But but I think that that's
(19:30):
sort of what the government's point was was that this
is a that this that there that that it is
beyond a bad man. It is a bad man who
is using other people to do bad things and to
hurt people. And that was sort of where this case broke. Yes,
he's going to face justice for for the people that
(19:53):
he hurt and a lot of what he did, but
he's not gonna he's not going to be punished for
things that I don't think. I think we are a
lot more controversial. Is he this arch criminal or is
he just a jerk?
Speaker 6 (20:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Yeah, we definitely a jerk. No dog, Go ahead, Carrol,
final word, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (20:12):
Well, no, I hope he does some time for it.
And I'm just thankful that there are people out there
that understand that this is not normal. And you know,
you can idolize singers or rap stores or anything, but
don't idolize the lifestyle. Don't say I enter that as
(20:35):
a kid.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Well said Carol. That sounds to be like you raised
two good sons. Thank you so much for your call.
Speaker 6 (20:41):
Thank you, Dan, love talking to you.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
And we'll take a break. Here's the news at the
bottom of the hour. My guest is attorney Jeremy Rosenthal
talking about the Sean Diddy Comb's case, which today resulted
in two convictions. He faced five indictments, two convictions essentially
Man Act divisions convictions dealing with two separate women. As
I understand that I did not follow this case with
(21:04):
any much close it. It was really one of those
cases that I didn't have a lot of interest. I
know a lot of people felt to allured aspects of it,
which there certainly were. I get it. I was more
interested in the Karen Reid case. Frankly, we will be
back with Attorney Rosenthal and some good callers. We have
(21:28):
three really good callers lined up, including Attorney Harvey Silvergway
from Cambridge, my friend and someone who I respect immensely.
We got Steven Cambridge, one of our top callers, and
Alex from Millis is always excellent. We'll be back on Nightside, ladies.
I hope some of you will follow Carol's example and
give us a call. Six one seven, four thirty, six
(21:48):
one seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Thank you, madisonciate it. We are talking with Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal,
veteran defense attorney, talking about the Sean Diddy Combs convictions.
Aniquittal that came back today. He was convicted on two
or five accounts in this pretty bizarre trial in New
York Federal Court. And we are going to get right
to the calls. And I'm going to go to Harvey Silverglade,
(22:22):
who was a well known to this program, an excellent attorney,
a civil libertarian. Harvey Say had to a Council Rosenthal.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
Jeremy Rosenthal even ain't councilor Rosenthal.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Good morning at evening, How are you.
Speaker 5 (22:42):
Fine? I have my comment about the cases as follows.
My comment is about the Rico statue. That statute was
acted by Converse in order to fight the mafia, you
will call, and it has since been used and abused
(23:05):
to the point where now it was it was brought
in a in a case of a guy who was
over sexed and who abused some of the people who
were working for him or with him.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
That is an improper use of a Rico statute. And
I was delighted that the jury, as the jury verdict
that they convicted him but the sexual abuse, but they
acquitted him of the racketeering. It was a perfect verdict,
(23:48):
showing again the the the genius of the jury system.
The juris got it exactly right.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
I don't think that Council of Roosevelt would necessarily disagree
with the Hoby And for the record, you were never
involved in any of these Sean Diddycomb's freak off. So
let's make that very.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
Claire, Okay, right, No, I would not. I would expect
Coster Rosenhold to agree with me.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Yeah, no, I do.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
I do.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
I think that. Yeah, the jury where the government overreached,
where they tried to kind of make something that wasn't there, uh,
and they tried to grab at it. The more questions
one of the things, one of the kind of the
comments Dan Uh. The more, in my mind, the more
(24:35):
decisions you give to a jury, the more they're gonna split.
Speaker 5 (24:38):
Like this.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Sometimes we sort of get in this mindset that these
juries run away, right, we see the million billion dollar
verdict or we see you know, some other crazy jury thing,
and we think, oh, you're all jurors are crazy, and
and many are. Okay, right, It's still a very scop
very scary proposition. But I'm a big believer in juris
splitting the baby. Being a juror is not easy. They
(25:02):
want to they they want to make everybody that they
want everybody to win, and they want everybody to not lose.
And and they're afraid, I think, in my mind, of
coming back out and and and upsetting somebody with their verdict.
And so what they do is they really grasp for
that middle ground. So the more questions you put to
a jury, the more charges you throw out to a jury,
(25:25):
the more likely it is, in my mind, uh, that
that you get to a split decision. I've I've heard
a lawyer one one lawyer argument. I've heard I've heard
both defense lawyers and prosecutors make this argument. They say,
ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Uh, whatever you decide,
come back and look us in the eye. The right
(25:46):
decision is the one that you can look at me
at and you can look at those guys at and
you can look everybody in the eye when you come back. Uh,
and and you and you, and you give your verdict. Now,
I don't I don't know that that gets you anywhere
as a defense lawyer, but I I do think that
this jury, again, and if there's a surprise to that.
It's that it was a month or five week long
(26:07):
trial and they a twelve or thirteen hour deliberation with
five charges is quick. That's a quick verdict for forgiven,
given everything that they've seen. But yeah, no, I'm with him.
I think they nailed it all right.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
Harvey, thank you as always for your comments. Appreciate it,
my friend. We'll talk soon. Happy for July, Harvey will
celebrate the Constitution.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
My favorite document.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Absolutely, no question question mine as well. Thanks Harvey, talk
to you soon. Let's keep rolling here. We are going
to go next to Alex in Millis. Alex, you were
next on Nightside. Welcome you with on with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
Go ahead, Alex, Hi founsel Hi, Jan. I have a
couple of comments, councilor.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Too, Alex. You don't don't give don't shut change me here,
go ahead. I'm only kidding you.
Speaker 8 (27:01):
So, first off, it seemed like this trial was weak
compared to the Karen Reid trial as far as uh,
you know, like coverage and whatever. So I don't know
why that was.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
And I think this trial got a lot of coverage.
His arrest was uh was videotape lot was It was
almost I had to add o J. Simpson.
Speaker 8 (27:25):
Uh cents right, But there were no there were no
like fans for this guy because even in court he
to show you a type of person. This for you know,
Sean Diddy Combs is he had no supporters in court
other than his family. And the other thing is do
you think that the defense tried to use the race
(27:46):
card saying he's a successful black person? Uh, and you
know they're trying to the government's trying to take him down.
How much that played into it? And also for my
I would say that he you know, he got off easy,
you know, although he's going to serve some time, but
you know, there he was facing some serious charges.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Okay, do you have a question in there, Alex that
I can divine?
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Uh? Well, actually, uh, you know what if he would
would he have gotten you know, uh you know the
other charges found guilty on had you know if it
were a different jury.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
I don't know, No one will ever know that that
that's an impossible question. I think that Council Rosahal can
speak for himself, but I think that he feels this
jury got it right and hope that every jury gets
it right.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Jeremy Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and first off, they only
call us counselor when they're really.
Speaker 6 (28:40):
Pissed off at us.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
Okay, So so there's so there's that. And I tell people,
I didn't go to counseling school. I went to law school.
I don't have a dental practice on the side.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
I don't do anything like that. But you did bring
up an interesting point. Uh, when it comes to the
federal government and prosecuted and talking about the race card,
there are I've been to criminal defense seminars where we
where the topic is defending rappers or defending people in
(29:13):
in in this in the hip hop culture because they
get they do get targeted, that they get targeted more.
And and is that race I don't know. I've I've again,
I don't uh uh uh. There's a lawyer.
Speaker 5 (29:28):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
The person who was lecturing was a criminal defense lawyer
does federal practice in Atlanta. Uh And and he he
if you asked him, he would definitely tell you that
he felt like the African American community like that, the
hip hop community. He would tell you that they definitely
get targeted more. Now, when you take that in front
of a jury, to me, you have to be extremely
(29:51):
careful with it because you've always got to make sure
there's a trial lawyer that you are on par with
the jury, that you're not out in front of them,
and that you're not lagging too far behind them, but
that you are that you're in step with them, because
that argument can turn off a lot of people, even
if you believe it. There's arguments that feel good, and
(30:13):
there's arguments that win. And another thing I'll tell you too,
because Karen Karen Reid too, that's in Massachusetts. Yes, yes, yeah,
I'll tell you this much. I got more Diddy coverage
in North Texas than I did Karen Reid, so so
I think that's probably a function of that being in
your neck of the woods.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yeah, Jeography wins on that one. Alex appreciate the call.
Thank you much, Thank you, appreciate it. Happy for the
July Alex.
Speaker 8 (30:39):
Thank you also.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
All right, we'll taking quick break. Stephen Cambridge comes up
on the other side. We got also Rick up and
Merrimack back on night Side with my guest Jeremy Rosenthal.
It sounds to me like my audience feels this is
a fairly even conclusion. I think they're in agreement with you.
I'm not gonna say counsel Jeremy okay, Uh No, councilor.
(31:01):
We use counselor up here as a as an absolute
sign of respect. I know the judges can use it
when they're about to battering.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
I get that as a battering ram.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Back on Nightside, UH, if you want
to try to get in six one seven nine ten
thirty or six one seven, two five four ten thirty,
we will change topics at the top of the hour
and talk about an event that happened in nineteen seventy nine.
It was a horrific fire that killed marines. UH. Never
(31:34):
should have happened. Uh, near Mountfuji in Japan, nineteen seventy nine.
Huge story that basically was eclipsed a few days later
by the hostage taking at the US embassy in Tehran.
We'll talk with the author, Chaz Henry, who's a reporter
or a journalist who has written a book that has
received some really positive reviews. Back after this one night.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Side Night Side with Dan Y I'm Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
Okay, will you have three callers, Let's see if we
can get people in here quickly. Let me start off
with Steve and Cambridge. Steve, normally I give you a
lot of time.
Speaker 9 (32:12):
I'm gonna ar me two quick questions and then I'd
like to make a quick comment. Number one, you didn't
You didn't answer the question did the defense use race,
bring up race as a defense or as a sticking
point in the trial?
Speaker 5 (32:27):
Well?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Kind of you're you're a lawyer, man, What kind of
lawyer are you putting me on the spot like that?
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Uh No, Steve is not a lawyer. Steve is Stevens lawyer.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
You you you you speak is one? I love it,
It's good. No, thank you.
Speaker 9 (32:41):
Take that as a compliment.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
By the way, there was no reporting that suggested that
race was a factor in this case I watched. I
wasn't in the court obviously, federal court, I mean Boston.
There's there's no feed. But all the reporting I saw Steve,
there's no reference to race beyond the fact that he's
(33:03):
a rapper.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
And and yeah, and Dan, I'll tell you this. There's
using race, and then there's using race. And to answer
the question that there's using race and then there's using race,
it's one way to go in and argue it and
just flat out play the race card. The other way
that you see that's a lot more common is that
it's insinuated that you that you use what what you
(33:25):
might call code words, that that you make some veiled arguments,
that that that sort of dip the toe in the water,
if you will, and and that that that sort of
may resonate with some people and not necessarily others. So
so using the race card is by.
Speaker 9 (33:43):
Degree it was such done in this case.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
I'm not aware. I'm not aware that it was in
any measurable way.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Okay.
Speaker 9 (33:52):
My second question is I get the feeling that the
Man Act is kind of a nebulous, vague catch all
type of rhyme. Uh and somewhat like the Rico Act.
Would you agree.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Don't drive a prostitute over a statement?
Speaker 6 (34:08):
Right?
Speaker 5 (34:09):
It is?
Speaker 3 (34:09):
No, You're right, it is. It is a vague act
because because it specifically talks about taking people from one
state to another for immoral, immoral sexual acts, Okay, And
and that that's that's that's pretty vague, right, And and
is taking your taking the girls, you know, taking taking
taking a woman to Atlantic City to do whatever is
(34:32):
that we were going to go and do you know,
get into whatever that you hear me.
Speaker 9 (34:37):
My comment, my quick comment is yeah, you know, the
state was trying him because they were using him as
escapegoat for the what is considered the depravity of this
whole scene. And anybody who gets mixed up in this scene,
be they male or female, pretty much knows what he
(34:58):
or she is getting in too. So I think P.
Diddy was kind of a scapegoat. This is outside the
purview of the law. This is a social illa, all right,
fair enoughside the purpose of the law.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Fair enough, Steve, you got it in. Thank you, my friend.
We'll talk soon.
Speaker 9 (35:13):
Happy and you gentlemen, all right, let me go.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
To Dennis in Arizona. Dennis, whereabouts in Arizona? You call
it from?
Speaker 8 (35:23):
I mean Abindale, Arizona, Abindale.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
Okay, you're on with Jeremy Rosenthal. What's your commented question.
We got a couple of minutes, go right ahead.
Speaker 8 (35:30):
Oh you know what I guess I called in early.
I'm on the wrong show.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
You want so you want to? Okay, fair enough, I'll
hold you over into the next time, into the next hour.
Not a problem, not a problem, Dennis. My apologies, not
at all, No apologies necessary. Thank you very much, Rick
and Merrimack. Rick, go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
Sure, I don't like to apologize for myself, but he
did a good job of it. I don't know what
you guys are talking about, but anyways, well.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Thanks for calling in, Reck, I appreciate. I appreciate the
fact that you call in, whether you knew what we
were talking about or not. Thanks again, appreciate the call.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
For the record, Dan, I don't either, so we're good.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
No no, no, no, no, no, no, Well apologize. Dennis
has called in for this next next guest, which is fine,
that sometimes happens. Thank you very much. And Dennis, you
stay there. You'll be first up on the other side
with the guest. Jeremy, appreciate your time. It's it's always,
you know, difficult to to report or react to a
(36:38):
federal case because again, no cameras, no microphones were allowed,
which the Burger rule from many many years ago stays
in effect even after Chief Justice Burger's passing. But maybe someday,
maybe someday we'll have an opportunity to play and actually
listen to what happens. But I thank you, sir, I
(36:59):
thank you so much, Jeremy, for.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
I have to drop this one. Thing because I've been
sitting on this line that I've not been able to
go ride this whole time. So the defense in this
case batted four hundred. Right, that's the Carl Yastremsky line.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
There you go, Well four well, four hundred gets you
in the Hall of Fame. But oh yeah, yeah, I
think about it. Yeah they two out of five. Yeah yeah,
well actually when you think about it, they hit six hundred.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Technically they oh, you're right, the government hit four hundred. Yeah, okay,
you're right. A good call.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Good six and uh yeah, that's that's getting close to
Ted Williams territory. I appreciate it very very much. Thank you, thanks,
thank you much. Joining Jeremy Rosaal Jeremy, is there any
way we can any book you've recently written or anything
you'd like to plug him? You can?
Speaker 3 (37:52):
You can. You can follow me at Briefing Attorney on
YouTube or Instagram. Uh, and you can see my my
handiwork at Texas Defense Firm dot com where we where
we have a reasonable doubt for a reasonable fee.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
That's that's one of the I've never heard that slogan before,
but that particularly when you're Cromal Defense lawyer. It works perfectly. Jeremy,
appreciate the time. We'll do it again. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7 (38:17):
Thank you, Dan.
Speaker 6 (38:18):
Have a good night.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
All right, good night. We will take a quick break here.
When we come back, we will be talking with Chas
Henry about his book of Fujifire. This was a tragedy
that took the live of lives of innocent marines. We'll
be back on Nightside right after the ten o'clock news here.
As we really begin the fourth of July weekend, I
(38:39):
kind of feel like we're easing into the weekend here
on a Wednesday night, coming back on Nightside,
It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Belgium vs. Boston's
News radio.
Speaker 2 (00:08):
Big story out of New York City today was the
trial of Sean Diddy Combs. This was a federal court trial,
which is the big leagues, and Combs was fortunate enough
(00:30):
to basically win be acquitted on some of the more
serious charges, but convicted nonetheless in federal court. And late
today the judge in the case denied Combs any bail,
so he will have to remain in a Brooklyn jail cell,
(00:50):
facing now two criminal charges for which he could spend
some significant time in jail. He has been in jail
since last September. With us is attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. Attorney Rosenthal,
Welcome to the Nightside.
Speaker 3 (01:06):
How are you, thanks, Dan? How are you? I'm doing great,
doing great.
Speaker 4 (01:09):
Now.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
I know that you practice in federal court in several
federal court districts. When I say it's the big leagues,
it's it's it's tough to get acquittals in federal court
because they generally try to have all the ducts in
a row. Are you surprised at the verdict today. We'll
get to the specifics of the case, but I just
(01:30):
want to ask you that overarching question, are you surprised
that sort of a kind of got a compromise verdict today?
Speaker 3 (01:38):
A little bit, anytime the FED lose, you kind of
scratch your head and you sort of wonder what went
wrong on the bigger cases like this, on the on
the more high profile cases, maybe there's a little more
impetus for them to overreach a bit, and and maybe
that's what happened here. When I'm when I'm eyeballing this
(02:00):
case and I'm looking at it just from the outset,
when they start off with the raids and the warrants,
and I'm like, and I'm thinking, Okay, we've got a
guy who is that they're accusing of a whole lot
of trash. They're accusing this guy of everything under the sun.
That's fine, But hiring prostitutes, sex assault, spousal domestic abuse,
(02:26):
or or or intimate partner violence. These types of things
are crimes, but they're usually not federal crimes. And so
you've got to have a trigger. You've got to have
something that crosses the threshold that makes him federal. That's
going to be business enterprises, that's going to be interstate commerce.
And I kept waiting to see that develop. I kept
(02:49):
waiting to see those types of connections kind of come
to fruition, and they just never did. So. In some ways,
I am and.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I'm not a council. He did move, if I'm not mistaken,
some other participants, whether they were all cooperating voluntarily or
under some level of duress, moved them across state lines.
He flew people from different point A to point b. Uh.
And that is technically the hook that that that got
(03:20):
him into indicted in federal in federal.
Speaker 3 (03:22):
Court under the Man Act. Yes, which that's that's ultimately
what he got convicted of. And anytime anytime you move
somebody from from one state to another for an illegal
sexual purpose, regardless of gender, you're gonna be guilty of
a Man Act violation. And that's ultimately what they got
him on. But they didn't get him on the racketeering,
(03:44):
they didn't get him on the rico and uh and
those were some of the bigger charges that they were
hoping for. Uh So, so they got some of the
lower hanging stuff. And I anybody who thinks that this
is a win for Diddy Combs in a year he
sentenced his they set his sentencing in October. They're not
(04:06):
they're in no hurry to do this, and he's waiting
in jail for this in a year, in two years
and three years, when he's still in jail, this is
not going to feel like that big of a victory
for him.
Speaker 2 (04:16):
Right, And by the way, let's make it very clear.
The Man Act is m a and not named after
a particular agender, but named after a form a congressman
from Illinois whose last name was.
Speaker 3 (04:27):
Made And they're targeting they're targeting all of us, right,
it's the Man.
Speaker 2 (04:31):
Yeah, so he want to clarify that, Okay, it's just
just for sure. Yeah, you're pretty sure. I guess in
theory he faces up to twenty years. He's not going
to get twenty years here.
Speaker 3 (04:49):
I don't think he gets well, I don't think he
gets twenty. I don't think he gets two. We'll see
where this where they hit him on the federal sentencing
guidelines that that's going to be the big fight.
Speaker 5 (05:02):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
Well, the other question is he's already served nine months
or ten months. He was arrested last September. So whatever
he gets sentenced, I assume that his incarceration pre trial
incarceration is going to is going to offset whatever that
sentence is he gets.
Speaker 3 (05:23):
Yeah, he'll definitely get credit for the time that he
is spent in And and for those who don't know
kind of talking about the federal sense, let's let's talk
about the federal sensing guidelines per minute. Do you want
the long story or the short story for everybody? I
know you know it, Dan, but yeah.
Speaker 2 (05:39):
Coming up, we're coming up on a break. We'll take
the abbreviated version and then we can amplify on it
after the break.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
If you like a right head, sure thing that the
federal sentencing guidelines are a matrix and it's a it's
like an Excel spreadsheet that that that everybody's crime in
federal court. They're going to put you into a box
somewhere on that and that's going to dictate a range
of punishment, usually in months, and it's going to be
(06:07):
the level of severity of the crime. It's going to
be your criminal history that gets factored into it. Uh,
if you are an organizer of the criminal enterprise, you
get more points, If you cooperate with the Feds, you
get less points. And the judge determines where you fit
in that and that's that's your sentence.
Speaker 2 (06:26):
Yeah. Uh, and his there's a lot of video. He's
got videotape in this case, pretty brutal videotape. And there's
probably videotapes that the jurors saw that you and I
will never say. But the videotape of him throwing the
woman on the ground in the hotel while he's wearing
(06:48):
a bath towel around his waist and kicking her, that
has to come in as a factor.
Speaker 3 (06:54):
I think that's going to come in as relevant conduct.
That's one of the things when lawyers are fighting in
federal court most of the time, what they're fighting over
are the federal sentencing guidelines, and they're and they're debating
things like relevant conduct and relevant conduct doesn't necessarily have
(07:14):
to be a conviction, and that that's a really contentious
point because we have due process rights. We have the
right to confront our accusers. We have the right to
have allegations proven against us beyond a reasonable doubt, and
to some degree not to to to kind of put
it way out there, Uh, can you bring in my
(07:37):
fourth grade dental records and and and enhance my my
my sentence for that well, in theory, you kind of could.
So that's where a lot of the lawyering happens. That
that that's where the fight's gonna go from here.
Speaker 2 (07:51):
But in but in this case, I mean that that
videotape of him pursuing the woman by the elevator who's
trying to leave who who, then he decided that it
would be a good idea to toss her to the ground. Uh,
and then dragger attempt a kicker and then Dragger and
he's a big guy, you know, complete to her. There's
(08:13):
there's no criminal conduct for which there's a conviction there.
But this is plain and plain at day and uh, yeah,
you know, I don't know how the judge can ignore
that or minimize that.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
No, yeah, and it's something that that that the judge
can absolutely take into consideration. Exactly to your point, Dan,
there's no conviction necessarily for that, but that doesn't mean
that the judge can't hit him for.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
It, right, And I believe that that took place several
years ago, so I'm sure that the statue limitations has
long since transplanted on that. If people are saying, well,
why didn't they charge him with that? And that would
not have been a federal crime. Either way, we will
take a break. My guest is Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. We're
talking about the Sean Diddy case. There was a verdict
(09:01):
that was announced today number one, and the judge decided
post verdict, after a break in court that John Dittycombs
would remain in jail. Obviously, that can be appealed, and
I'm sure that his lawyers will be working on an
appeal on that, but he should he is. Sentencing date
(09:22):
is October third, so he's going to spend at least
a year in jail and then see what the sentence is.
For those of you who aren't familiar with the case,
this is pretty freaky stuff. And Jeremy and I have
kind of tiptoed around the substance of the crimes that
have been alleged and in many cases the crimes for
which he was acquitted, but the underlying fact pattern is
(09:46):
pretty interesting. Will again try to deal with it as
best we can. Your comments, your questions would be appreciated.
Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
one ten thirty. My name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside
on a Wednesday night. Feels like a Friday to me,
because I'm off for the rest of the week. Coming
back right after this brief commercial break.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
news radio.
Speaker 2 (10:15):
My guess is Attorney Jeremy rosehal before we go to
phone calls councilor how tough the case was this to defend?
I mean, this involved some pretty bizarre behavior. These were
sex parties that went on for days. They were called
freak offs, and it involved, according to the indictment, Sean
(10:37):
Diddy Combs spending money on male prostitutes to have sex
with some of his girlfriends. It was in terms of weird,
I get eleven off the chart on a scale of
zero to ten. Nobody should be questioning other people's private behavior,
(10:58):
but this was pretty weird.
Speaker 3 (11:02):
A trial is, in my mind, it's an emotional battlefield.
We are in America in the world.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
We make our.
Speaker 3 (11:15):
Decision first, and then we make the facts to fit it.
I wish it was the other way around. This is
why AI will never take my job, because I might
be able to fast talk a jury out of convicting
somebody who was on a police chase and wound up
in a swimming pool, you know, with their car and
in AI listens to facts, but people don't. The big
(11:38):
challenge in defending this case is the title wave of
negative towards p. Diddy. If he's your client and he
is thoroughly unlikable, he has committed atrocity after atrocity, and
the state this case is one giant mud sling against him,
(12:01):
and it's very hard to get a jury to relate
to that. It's very hard to get a jury to
understand that. And if you if you wanted to prove,
if you wanted to convict somebody who is that loathesome,
if you want to convict him of anything, you could
do it or or or or that's the worry of
(12:22):
his lawyers, and and so it's always hard to redirect
juries to facts, and it's hard to get that counterbalance
to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is
too much right at some point, at some point, this
is just too aggressive. That's a hard argument to make.
Speaker 2 (12:41):
Uh, too aggressive, counselor from from the perspective of whom the.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
Prosecution you from, right from from the government, and to say, listen,
uh an analogy that that that I that that you
can use in a trial, as you can say, look, uh,
at some point you got a bad kid in the
store and you see mom or dad disciplining him. Okay,
(13:10):
maybe the kid opened a candy bar in the middle
of store or or something did something bad. Okay, but
at some point you beat the kid too hard, right,
at some point enough uh, and and and so uh
for we all. I'm a big believer in the scales
of justice, and I really do think that juries go
back there when they deliberate, and they they will always
(13:34):
kind of come up with the right balance or or
or what in their mind is the right balance, and
the punishment has to fit the crime. If I were
to suggest, and this is we have a we have
an old you know my my practice is we're not
in the country, but we have an old probate judge
who was as bonkers as he could be. And he
had the perfect analogy for this. He says, if you
(13:56):
made drinking alcohol a crime punishable by death, and then
you caught somebody on video with alcohol in their breath,
with the can in their hand, and then you fingerprint
that and you just prove it a waste till Sunday
a jury will acquit them because they do not agree
that death is appropriate for that. Fine, if it was
(14:17):
a five dollars fine, they're gonna convict them, right, So
at some point it's got to balance out.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
So there's the modicum what you're saying, you have faith
in the jury system, and there's a modicum a public
of common sense amongst Yeah, any twelve twelve Americans. All right,
let's go to some phone call see what people have
to say. We'll start it off with Joe Is in Belmont, Massachusetts.
Show you're on with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal talking about the
(14:45):
Sean Diddy Comb's case. Dan, I just called to wish
you a happy birthday July eighth, and God bless you
and all you loved ones. Well, thank you very much. Show.
That's very kind of you. But do you have a
comment on Sean Diddy Combs. I just want to tell
you Jesus love you, Dan.
Speaker 5 (15:02):
Bye, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2 (15:04):
John great nice. Well. I guess that that's a happy birthday,
wish that's happy birthday.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
Happy birthday coming up here?
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Yeah, oh yeah, July eighth. Let me tell you me
and Nelson Rockefeller. Of course Rockefeller had all the money.
Let me let me go to Carol and Randolph. Hey, Carol,
how are you tonight?
Speaker 6 (15:21):
I'm great, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2 (15:24):
You're ready, You're welcome, and you're with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal.
We're talking about the Sean Dinny Coombs case. Your comment.
Speaker 6 (15:31):
My comment is, you know, I wasn't surprised that he
got off because, I mean, Rico is a really hard
case to prove, and one guy with a Rico case
didn't see it. But I am just so happy that
he got convicted at least two charges. I mean, to
(15:54):
expose the debauchery and what these people do. I mean,
I raised two boys that are in their thirties now
when this rap music was coming up and with all
the derogatory terms and everything, and it disturbed me. But
I was like, okay, open mind, it's your music. But
(16:17):
the lifestyle and all of this, I'm like, thank god
my kids got through it and didn't fall into this.
Speaker 2 (16:25):
I'm just yeah, well, you know, I think I think
what you're referring to there was there were a lot
of misogynistic lyrics.
Speaker 6 (16:32):
Yes, yes, no, I.
Speaker 2 (16:34):
Mean, and he in that videotape sort of became the
personification of that misogynistic action when he beat that woman.
Speaker 6 (16:44):
Uh yeah, I'm just glad that he's exposed for what
he is. And I mean, yeah, these women were young
and they wanted to make a career and he abused them. Yeah,
everybody knows that. And but is a criminal. I mean,
the whole industry should be. I mean, they're they're like
(17:07):
the next thing to the porn industry. I mean, my god,
it's I mean both.
Speaker 2 (17:15):
Both of which you're protected by our First Amendment in
many respects.
Speaker 6 (17:19):
I know they are, I know they are, But I mean,
let him, let him spend I don't know what he's
going to be sentenced to. I hope it's at least
a few years. But you can't have young kids glorifying
these rap stars.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
And jet Truny Rosenthal's reaction, Jeremy, this is I think
someone who would have been a pretty fair juror on
this case. I don't know if you agree or not. Well,
I think that she is pretty typical of I think
what most where most people land on this topic.
Speaker 3 (18:00):
She was alluding to is kind of the whole point
of the prosecution, which is that it's the structure, right,
It's the it's the organized we're going to pay people,
We're going to move people, We're going to have these parties.
It it it it tried to the prosecution tried to
(18:21):
put more form, if you will, or to give a
shape to.
Speaker 6 (18:27):
P.
Speaker 3 (18:27):
Diddy and his entities or his organization and and essentially
label the mafia.
Speaker 7 (18:34):
Right, look at what you did, Carol, Carolis finish his
comment that I want to hear what you I want
you to.
Speaker 3 (18:46):
Ca Yeah, Carol, don't don't give me your address because
I'll send you my bill and you don't want that,
you know, I'm kidding. I'm kidding, okay, but uh, you know,
And to your point, Carol, I think you make a
very valid point, which is that that that the government here,
what they tried to do is they tried to essentially
label what he did he did as an organization, as
(19:07):
an entity, as sort of a movement. Now, obviously you
can't label an entire industry that way, and and and
and just as and I'm sure uh as as you know,
there are there are wonderful artists and wonderful musicians that
that performed in that genre he did. He's obviously not
one of them. Uh, But but I think that that's
(19:30):
sort of what the government's point was was that this
is a that this that there that that it is
beyond a bad man. It is a bad man who
is using other people to do bad things and to
hurt people. And that was sort of where this case broke. Yes,
he's going to face justice for for the people that
(19:53):
he hurt and a lot of what he did, but
he's not gonna he's not going to be punished for
things that I don't think. I think we are a
lot more controversial. Is he this arch criminal or is
he just a jerk?
Speaker 6 (20:05):
I don't know.
Speaker 2 (20:07):
Yeah, we definitely a jerk. No dog, Go ahead, Carrol,
final word, go ahead.
Speaker 6 (20:12):
Well, no, I hope he does some time for it.
And I'm just thankful that there are people out there
that understand that this is not normal. And you know,
you can idolize singers or rap stores or anything, but
don't idolize the lifestyle. Don't say I enter that as
(20:35):
a kid.
Speaker 2 (20:36):
Well said Carol. That sounds to be like you raised
two good sons. Thank you so much for your call.
Speaker 6 (20:41):
Thank you, Dan, love talking to you.
Speaker 2 (20:44):
And we'll take a break. Here's the news at the
bottom of the hour. My guest is attorney Jeremy Rosenthal
talking about the Sean Diddy Comb's case, which today resulted
in two convictions. He faced five indictments, two convictions essentially
Man Act divisions convictions dealing with two separate women. As
I understand that I did not follow this case with
(21:04):
any much close it. It was really one of those
cases that I didn't have a lot of interest. I
know a lot of people felt to allured aspects of it,
which there certainly were. I get it. I was more
interested in the Karen Reid case. Frankly, we will be
back with Attorney Rosenthal and some good callers. We have
(21:28):
three really good callers lined up, including Attorney Harvey Silvergway
from Cambridge, my friend and someone who I respect immensely.
We got Steven Cambridge, one of our top callers, and
Alex from Millis is always excellent. We'll be back on Nightside, ladies.
I hope some of you will follow Carol's example and
give us a call. Six one seven, four thirty, six
(21:48):
one seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
Speaker 1 (21:52):
You're on Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2 (21:58):
Thank you, madisonciate it. We are talking with Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal,
veteran defense attorney, talking about the Sean Diddy Combs convictions.
Aniquittal that came back today. He was convicted on two
or five accounts in this pretty bizarre trial in New
York Federal Court. And we are going to get right
to the calls. And I'm going to go to Harvey Silverglade,
(22:22):
who was a well known to this program, an excellent attorney,
a civil libertarian. Harvey Say had to a Council Rosenthal.
Speaker 5 (22:33):
Jeremy Rosenthal even ain't councilor Rosenthal.
Speaker 3 (22:38):
Good morning at evening, How are you.
Speaker 5 (22:42):
Fine? I have my comment about the cases as follows.
My comment is about the Rico statue. That statute was
acted by Converse in order to fight the mafia, you
will call, and it has since been used and abused
(23:05):
to the point where now it was it was brought
in a in a case of a guy who was
over sexed and who abused some of the people who
were working for him or with him.
Speaker 3 (23:25):
Mm hmm.
Speaker 5 (23:26):
That is an improper use of a Rico statute. And
I was delighted that the jury, as the jury verdict
that they convicted him but the sexual abuse, but they
acquitted him of the racketeering. It was a perfect verdict,
(23:48):
showing again the the the genius of the jury system.
The juris got it exactly right.
Speaker 2 (23:57):
I don't think that Council of Roosevelt would necessarily disagree
with the Hoby And for the record, you were never
involved in any of these Sean Diddycomb's freak off. So
let's make that very.
Speaker 5 (24:06):
Claire, Okay, right, No, I would not. I would expect
Coster Rosenhold to agree with me.
Speaker 3 (24:12):
Yeah, no, I do.
Speaker 2 (24:14):
I do.
Speaker 3 (24:14):
I think that. Yeah, the jury where the government overreached,
where they tried to kind of make something that wasn't there, uh,
and they tried to grab at it. The more questions
one of the things, one of the kind of the
comments Dan Uh. The more, in my mind, the more
(24:35):
decisions you give to a jury, the more they're gonna split.
Speaker 5 (24:38):
Like this.
Speaker 3 (24:39):
Sometimes we sort of get in this mindset that these
juries run away, right, we see the million billion dollar
verdict or we see you know, some other crazy jury thing,
and we think, oh, you're all jurors are crazy, and
and many are. Okay, right, It's still a very scop
very scary proposition. But I'm a big believer in juris
splitting the baby. Being a juror is not easy. They
(25:02):
want to they they want to make everybody that they
want everybody to win, and they want everybody to not lose.
And and they're afraid, I think, in my mind, of
coming back out and and and upsetting somebody with their verdict.
And so what they do is they really grasp for
that middle ground. So the more questions you put to
a jury, the more charges you throw out to a jury,
(25:25):
the more likely it is, in my mind, uh, that
that you get to a split decision. I've I've heard
a lawyer one one lawyer argument. I've heard I've heard
both defense lawyers and prosecutors make this argument. They say,
ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Uh, whatever you decide,
come back and look us in the eye. The right
(25:46):
decision is the one that you can look at me
at and you can look at those guys at and
you can look everybody in the eye when you come back. Uh,
and and you and you, and you give your verdict. Now,
I don't I don't know that that gets you anywhere
as a defense lawyer, but I I do think that
this jury, again, and if there's a surprise to that.
It's that it was a month or five week long
(26:07):
trial and they a twelve or thirteen hour deliberation with
five charges is quick. That's a quick verdict for forgiven,
given everything that they've seen. But yeah, no, I'm with him.
I think they nailed it all right.
Speaker 2 (26:21):
Harvey, thank you as always for your comments. Appreciate it,
my friend. We'll talk soon. Happy for July, Harvey will
celebrate the Constitution.
Speaker 5 (26:31):
My favorite document.
Speaker 2 (26:33):
Absolutely, no question question mine as well. Thanks Harvey, talk
to you soon. Let's keep rolling here. We are going
to go next to Alex in Millis. Alex, you were
next on Nightside. Welcome you with on with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal.
Speaker 8 (26:48):
Go ahead, Alex, Hi founsel Hi, Jan. I have a
couple of comments, councilor.
Speaker 2 (26:54):
Too, Alex. You don't don't give don't shut change me here,
go ahead. I'm only kidding you.
Speaker 8 (27:01):
So, first off, it seemed like this trial was weak
compared to the Karen Reid trial as far as uh,
you know, like coverage and whatever. So I don't know
why that was.
Speaker 2 (27:14):
And I think this trial got a lot of coverage.
His arrest was uh was videotape lot was It was
almost I had to add o J. Simpson.
Speaker 8 (27:25):
Uh cents right, But there were no there were no
like fans for this guy because even in court he
to show you a type of person. This for you know,
Sean Diddy Combs is he had no supporters in court
other than his family. And the other thing is do
you think that the defense tried to use the race
(27:46):
card saying he's a successful black person? Uh, and you
know they're trying to the government's trying to take him down.
How much that played into it? And also for my
I would say that he you know, he got off easy,
you know, although he's going to serve some time, but
you know, there he was facing some serious charges.
Speaker 2 (28:06):
Okay, do you have a question in there, Alex that
I can divine?
Speaker 8 (28:09):
Uh? Well, actually, uh, you know what if he would
would he have gotten you know, uh you know the
other charges found guilty on had you know if it
were a different jury.
Speaker 2 (28:25):
I don't know, No one will ever know that that
that's an impossible question. I think that Council Rosahal can
speak for himself, but I think that he feels this
jury got it right and hope that every jury gets
it right.
Speaker 3 (28:35):
Jeremy Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and first off, they only
call us counselor when they're really.
Speaker 6 (28:40):
Pissed off at us.
Speaker 3 (28:41):
Okay, So so there's so there's that. And I tell people,
I didn't go to counseling school. I went to law school.
I don't have a dental practice on the side.
Speaker 2 (28:50):
I don't.
Speaker 3 (28:51):
I don't do anything like that. But you did bring
up an interesting point. Uh, when it comes to the
federal government and prosecuted and talking about the race card,
there are I've been to criminal defense seminars where we
where the topic is defending rappers or defending people in
(29:13):
in in this in the hip hop culture because they
get they do get targeted, that they get targeted more.
And and is that race I don't know. I've I've again,
I don't uh uh uh. There's a lawyer.
Speaker 5 (29:28):
Uh.
Speaker 3 (29:29):
The person who was lecturing was a criminal defense lawyer
does federal practice in Atlanta. Uh And and he he
if you asked him, he would definitely tell you that
he felt like the African American community like that, the
hip hop community. He would tell you that they definitely
get targeted more. Now, when you take that in front
of a jury, to me, you have to be extremely
(29:51):
careful with it because you've always got to make sure
there's a trial lawyer that you are on par with
the jury, that you're not out in front of them,
and that you're not lagging too far behind them, but
that you are that you're in step with them, because
that argument can turn off a lot of people, even
if you believe it. There's arguments that feel good, and
(30:13):
there's arguments that win. And another thing I'll tell you too,
because Karen Karen Reid too, that's in Massachusetts. Yes, yes, yeah,
I'll tell you this much. I got more Diddy coverage
in North Texas than I did Karen Reid, so so
I think that's probably a function of that being in
your neck of the woods.
Speaker 2 (30:32):
Yeah, Jeography wins on that one. Alex appreciate the call.
Thank you much, Thank you, appreciate it. Happy for the
July Alex.
Speaker 8 (30:39):
Thank you also.
Speaker 2 (30:40):
All right, we'll taking quick break. Stephen Cambridge comes up
on the other side. We got also Rick up and
Merrimack back on night Side with my guest Jeremy Rosenthal.
It sounds to me like my audience feels this is
a fairly even conclusion. I think they're in agreement with you.
I'm not gonna say counsel Jeremy okay, Uh No, councilor.
(31:01):
We use counselor up here as a as an absolute
sign of respect. I know the judges can use it
when they're about to battering.
Speaker 3 (31:10):
I get that as a battering ram.
Speaker 2 (31:11):
Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Back on Nightside, UH, if you want
to try to get in six one seven nine ten
thirty or six one seven, two five four ten thirty,
we will change topics at the top of the hour
and talk about an event that happened in nineteen seventy nine.
It was a horrific fire that killed marines. UH. Never
(31:34):
should have happened. Uh, near Mountfuji in Japan, nineteen seventy nine.
Huge story that basically was eclipsed a few days later
by the hostage taking at the US embassy in Tehran.
We'll talk with the author, Chaz Henry, who's a reporter
or a journalist who has written a book that has
received some really positive reviews. Back after this one night.
Speaker 1 (31:56):
Side Night Side with Dan Y I'm Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2 (32:04):
Okay, will you have three callers, Let's see if we
can get people in here quickly. Let me start off
with Steve and Cambridge. Steve, normally I give you a
lot of time.
Speaker 9 (32:12):
I'm gonna ar me two quick questions and then I'd
like to make a quick comment. Number one, you didn't
You didn't answer the question did the defense use race,
bring up race as a defense or as a sticking
point in the trial?
Speaker 5 (32:27):
Well?
Speaker 3 (32:27):
Kind of you're you're a lawyer, man, What kind of
lawyer are you putting me on the spot like that?
Speaker 2 (32:31):
Uh No, Steve is not a lawyer. Steve is Stevens lawyer.
Speaker 3 (32:36):
You you you you speak is one? I love it,
It's good. No, thank you.
Speaker 9 (32:41):
Take that as a compliment.
Speaker 2 (32:42):
By the way, there was no reporting that suggested that
race was a factor in this case I watched. I
wasn't in the court obviously, federal court, I mean Boston.
There's there's no feed. But all the reporting I saw Steve,
there's no reference to race beyond the fact that he's
(33:03):
a rapper.
Speaker 3 (33:04):
And and yeah, and Dan, I'll tell you this. There's
using race, and then there's using race. And to answer
the question that there's using race and then there's using race,
it's one way to go in and argue it and
just flat out play the race card. The other way
that you see that's a lot more common is that
it's insinuated that you that you use what what you
(33:25):
might call code words, that that you make some veiled arguments,
that that that sort of dip the toe in the water,
if you will, and and that that that sort of
may resonate with some people and not necessarily others. So
so using the race card is by.
Speaker 9 (33:43):
Degree it was such done in this case.
Speaker 3 (33:46):
I'm not aware. I'm not aware that it was in
any measurable way.
Speaker 2 (33:51):
Okay.
Speaker 9 (33:52):
My second question is I get the feeling that the
Man Act is kind of a nebulous, vague catch all
type of rhyme. Uh and somewhat like the Rico Act.
Would you agree.
Speaker 2 (34:05):
Don't drive a prostitute over a statement?
Speaker 6 (34:08):
Right?
Speaker 5 (34:09):
It is?
Speaker 3 (34:09):
No, You're right, it is. It is a vague act
because because it specifically talks about taking people from one
state to another for immoral, immoral sexual acts, Okay, And
and that that's that's that's pretty vague, right, And and
is taking your taking the girls, you know, taking taking
taking a woman to Atlantic City to do whatever is
(34:32):
that we were going to go and do you know,
get into whatever that you hear me.
Speaker 9 (34:37):
My comment, my quick comment is yeah, you know, the
state was trying him because they were using him as
escapegoat for the what is considered the depravity of this
whole scene. And anybody who gets mixed up in this scene,
be they male or female, pretty much knows what he
(34:58):
or she is getting in too. So I think P.
Diddy was kind of a scapegoat. This is outside the
purview of the law. This is a social illa, all right,
fair enoughside the purpose of the law.
Speaker 2 (35:10):
Fair enough, Steve, you got it in. Thank you, my friend.
We'll talk soon.
Speaker 9 (35:13):
Happy and you gentlemen, all right, let me go.
Speaker 2 (35:16):
To Dennis in Arizona. Dennis, whereabouts in Arizona? You call
it from?
Speaker 8 (35:23):
I mean Abindale, Arizona, Abindale.
Speaker 2 (35:25):
Okay, you're on with Jeremy Rosenthal. What's your commented question.
We got a couple of minutes, go right ahead.
Speaker 8 (35:30):
Oh you know what I guess I called in early.
I'm on the wrong show.
Speaker 2 (35:36):
You want so you want to? Okay, fair enough, I'll
hold you over into the next time, into the next hour.
Not a problem, not a problem, Dennis. My apologies, not
at all, No apologies necessary. Thank you very much, Rick
and Merrimack. Rick, go right ahead.
Speaker 4 (35:51):
Sure, I don't like to apologize for myself, but he
did a good job of it. I don't know what
you guys are talking about, but anyways, well.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
Thanks for calling in, Reck, I appreciate. I appreciate the
fact that you call in, whether you knew what we
were talking about or not. Thanks again, appreciate the call.
Speaker 3 (36:10):
For the record, Dan, I don't either, so we're good.
Speaker 2 (36:13):
No no, no, no, no, no, no, Well apologize. Dennis
has called in for this next next guest, which is fine,
that sometimes happens. Thank you very much. And Dennis, you
stay there. You'll be first up on the other side
with the guest. Jeremy, appreciate your time. It's it's always,
you know, difficult to to report or react to a
(36:38):
federal case because again, no cameras, no microphones were allowed,
which the Burger rule from many many years ago stays
in effect even after Chief Justice Burger's passing. But maybe someday,
maybe someday we'll have an opportunity to play and actually
listen to what happens. But I thank you, sir, I
(36:59):
thank you so much, Jeremy, for.
Speaker 3 (37:02):
I have to drop this one. Thing because I've been
sitting on this line that I've not been able to
go ride this whole time. So the defense in this
case batted four hundred. Right, that's the Carl Yastremsky line.
Speaker 2 (37:14):
There you go, Well four well, four hundred gets you
in the Hall of Fame. But oh yeah, yeah, I
think about it. Yeah they two out of five. Yeah yeah,
well actually when you think about it, they hit six hundred.
Speaker 3 (37:26):
Technically they oh, you're right, the government hit four hundred. Yeah, okay,
you're right. A good call.
Speaker 2 (37:32):
Good six and uh yeah, that's that's getting close to
Ted Williams territory. I appreciate it very very much. Thank you, thanks,
thank you much. Joining Jeremy Rosaal Jeremy, is there any
way we can any book you've recently written or anything
you'd like to plug him? You can?
Speaker 3 (37:52):
You can. You can follow me at Briefing Attorney on
YouTube or Instagram. Uh, and you can see my my
handiwork at Texas Defense Firm dot com where we where
we have a reasonable doubt for a reasonable fee.
Speaker 2 (38:08):
That's that's one of the I've never heard that slogan before,
but that particularly when you're Cromal Defense lawyer. It works perfectly. Jeremy,
appreciate the time. We'll do it again. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7 (38:17):
Thank you, Dan.
Speaker 6 (38:18):
Have a good night.
Speaker 2 (38:18):
All right, good night. We will take a quick break here.
When we come back, we will be talking with Chas
Henry about his book of Fujifire. This was a tragedy
that took the live of lives of innocent marines. We'll
be back on Nightside right after the ten o'clock news here.
As we really begin the fourth of July weekend, I
(38:39):
kind of feel like we're easing into the weekend here
on a Wednesday night, coming back on Nightside,
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com