June 26, 2025 • 17 mins
The Prosecution took nearly 5 hours to make its closing arguments in the Diddy Trial. Amy and T.J. go over the afternoon session where Christy Slavic told jurors “It’s time to hold him accountable, it is time for justice and it’s time to find him guilty.”
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hey, folks, it is Thursday, June twenty sixth, and the
prosecution just took four hours and fifty minutes to give
its closing argument in the Diddy trial. And welcome to
this second Ditty Update edition of Amy and TJ. Rose.
Let me ask you first about that, just the timing
on They said they were going to need maybe four hours.
(00:26):
It's almost five. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
No, And that is a big difference when you're a
juror sitting there listening to one prosecutor, Christy Slavic, go
through painstakingly detailed evidence and can you imagine what that
would be like. They did get a lunch break, so
that I'm sure was helpful, but then you get a
little sleepy with all the food you just ate.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Oh here, I'm just saying to.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Go four hours seemed long to me already. And then
to say so she announced, and it was written all
the court reporters, you know, put out in a start
saying the prosecution says it needs another hour. Can you
imagine what the jurors felt when they heard that?
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Wait, do I have it right? It was so they
started at ten this morning, so she got two hours
lunch break, two hours they took a little break, and
that's when she came back and.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Said, I need another hour.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
That's tough. That was a tough one to see. And look,
we don't have the advantage here. I am not familiar
with this prosecutor. I think most people in the country
are not so Christy Slavic. I mean, I don't know.
How does she deliver? Does she speak like a quiet librarian?
Is she very loud? Is she very entertaining a lot
of historyonics? And how she presents That's.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Interesting because you're right, we don't get to watch it.
We don't get to hear it. We can only read
her written words, so we don't know if she's animated
and engaged and interesting and a good storyteller. I think
most lawyers at that level, if you have that position,
have to have some performance capabilities to them. You know,
people say you should have been a court room lawyer,
like you could have been a court room lawyer. TJ.
(01:57):
What now, Oh, I've always thought.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
That, Yeah you could.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
I actually think you would have been a good prosecutor
really on that side of things, Yes, I do know.
I think you would have been an excellent prosecutor going.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
After the bad guys. Doesn't feel like something I would do.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Oh see, I thought you said that feels good. Oh no,
after the bad guys, but you would be great. No,
but there I think there is an always in a
good prosecutor, in a good attorney, there is some theatrics.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
So we have no idea how this went about. And
again it can if you listened to one voice for
five hours a lot, and also going through things and
not necessarily interesting. Well, it's all the stuff supposed to
be interesting, but telling a weaving a story, and hey,
this goes with this, and make sure you put this
together here and then you must find I don't know,
that's uh. I am curious to know how the I
(02:47):
didn't get a good reading from any of the reporters.
Maybe you did of how the jury seem to be doing.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
I did not. And I maybe they're not allowed to
talk about the jurors reaction and their faces while listening
to an attorney, because then we would get a read
on what they were thinking or feeling about the prosecution
versus the defense. I don't know, because I haven't seen
one report.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
See I think back now, and the times they've refer
to the jurors have been about someone had to turn
their eyes away from a screen, or they didn't look
at a video, or they turned they have meant right,
they have.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
But I did not see any reporting about how the
jury was handling or reacting to this long delivery of
a yes, a closing argument by the prosecution. Now, Christie
Slovic took the jury through each charge that Ditty is facing.
One count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking
(03:40):
demanding that both Cassie and Jane had to have sex,
and then two counts of transportation to engage in prosecution.
And we know the Ditty is facing with all of
these charges life in prison.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
So Christie Slavic, the prosecutor, spent most of the first
part of the day. We did that in part one,
kind of went over that the racketeering conspiracy, going through
what it takes to convict him on that. But the
sex trafficking roll she spent the last part of the day.
So this had a lot to do with Cazie, had
a lot to do with Jane. So you have to
prove this point sex trafficking. You point this out. I
(04:13):
missed it in the earlier note, but made the point
to the jury like confess to the jury. Yes, not
every freak off was sex trafficking. That was important to note.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
I didn't realize that. So yeah, she said, some of
them they were happy to be there, and there was uh,
there was no coersion, and so she said, but there
were specific instances. One of them, of course, was where
we saw that tape in the hotel. Correct. Yes, so
that night specifically, she said, was absolutely sex trafficking.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
The point there, and this is now, this is a
very simple way to put it. Sex trafficking is forcing
someone through it could be through violence, it could be
through any other coersion to participate in a sex act.
We I saw her being beaten and dragged to go back,
we're told now to a sex party. And that is
the textbook definition laid out for is for sex trafficks.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
She also named the moment or the instance of Cassie's
birthday when she, in front of all of her friends,
wanted to go and stay at her birthday party. Instead,
he forced her to go and leave her own birthday
party to go and then have a freak out. So
that was another time. And then there was a third
time where there was a male escort Daniel I think
was his name, and he said Daniel Phillips.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
I believe why do we know mail As?
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I actually just can't believe that just rolled right. We
know Daniel Phillips. Sorry, So he said that amazing. Did
he wanted to go again? She said no. He pulled
her into the other room, he heard slapping and screaming
and punching, and said go back and do it again.
And the only reason why it didn't happen again is
because after Daniel Phillip witnessed that, he well, he couldn't
(05:55):
get it up. But the prosecutor said, hey, just because
it was cut short, you still had a witness seeing.
Did he force Cathy to do something against her will
with the threat and the actual experience of violence.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
That we all saw, Yes, and they did. They played that.
You shouldn't be surprised, but yes, they played that video
that's surveillance video from the hotel for the jury again
today is a part of the closing argument. So that
is something again they're going to have in their minds,
seried in their mind I don't know how they get
it out of their minds at any point during this
during this trial. But that's like go into the jury
(06:32):
room with that, and again they've gotten five hours. I
don't know if there's a limit to how much they'll
have for a rebuttal in this case.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I don't know. I know, I don't think there is
a limit. I think that the prosecution can know that
if they actually pushed too much, perhaps that might upset
the jury. So yeah, I'm sure they know what they're doing.
But who knows exactly how long they'll meet. But I
think it might depend on what they feel they need
to rebut what they hear from the defense. The other
issue that Christye Slovok focused on what transportation to engage
(07:02):
in prostitution he's facing did. He is facing two counts
of those, but they have to prove that he knowingly
transported an individual in interstate or foreign commerce intending for
that person to engage in prosecution.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
That's the actual legal yes, that's the actual legally yes
for it. But again, piecing all that together, that seems okay.
It seems simple to a late person, right, you are
not permitted to pay someone to cross state lines or
to travel for the purpose of having sex for money, correct,
and not allowed to do that. So it seems that
(07:37):
they do have a long list of receipts. Yes, thou
him doing just that. So how is that not a
no brainer?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It seems like it would be. And she also pointed
out Christy Slavic to the jurors that just because even
in some of these instances, if Cassie or if if
Jane were totally willing to participate, if the male escorts
were totally willing to participate, their willingness to perform the
sexual acts does not change the illegality of Ditty paying.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
For the acts. And so that was kind of.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Like a oh an aha moment that she pointed out
to the jury. So even in some of those freak
offs where everybody was there because they wanted to be there,
it still didn't make Ditty not culpable for the illegality
of it.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Okay, So if that seems again, layperson, and I'm sure
tomorrow we're gonna hear from their defense attorney and they're like, duh,
that's not prostitution at all.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
No. I can't wait to hear that though, because I've
still yet to hear how that isn't prostitution.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
But you remember, we had a point at the trial
where we were going through all this stuff and we
were like, wow, Wow, Wow, the prosecution, prosecution, prostitution is
nailing it. Then we got into some cross examinations like
wait a.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Minute, right, I mean what makes watching a trial so
fascinating because you find yourself I mean absolutely, For the
first few weeks of this trial, I was like, Oh,
did he is going to prison for the rest of
his life? Oh?
Speaker 1 (09:10):
My god.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I couldn't believe
what I was reading. And then all of a sudden,
when the events really started going, I really think from
that Perry Mason moment on, I started to go.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Hmmm, I don't know this trial. I don't know how
and oh, look at that sweet text. So oh she
planned that freak call. Yeah, it's just it. It's the top,
the highest form, and this is reality drama. This is
real stuff. We are following a reality show. We can't
even see, right, That's how he could have.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Like a fireside chat back in the day. We have, no,
we have some courtroom sketches, but that's it.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
The other thing that we heard the prosecutor bring up
with was this notion we heard this through the trial
that Diddy attempted to obstruct justice so once Cassie then
Toura Fine had her civil lawsuit out there, they claim
he panicked, he got his boy d it's a d Rock. Yes,
I knew that, and I hesitated.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
I'm his real name.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I don't know Amy, and I think that's a hard
one to forget.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
But now d Rock and KK, how are they not
all a part of the same trial. They make it
sound like they should be co defended.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I need to actually, yes, it's weird that they aren't
charged if they're a part of all of this. But anyway,
d Rock calls, according to the prosecution, calls Mia and
basically it's like, hey, you know, puff was always like
that with cass you know, like they just fought like
normal couples. And she immediately thought what is going on?
And the prosecution said, hey, just remember they were calling
(10:42):
people who they knew might be called in any form
or fashion to be a witness to testify, and they
were trying to placate them, they were trying to manipulate them,
they were trying to obstruct justice. So that was another
big point she wanted to make for the jurors.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
You know, they're they're making him sound in that instance,
I guess it's important talk about that because an innocent
person doesn't do.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
That correct exactly. It's the cover up sometimes that get
you more than the crime itself. And so just to
show that they were trying to go ahead and clean
everything up and cover all of their bases, showed that
they knew they had done something wrong or he had
done something right.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
They've been focused in today as well, And I was
you and I were going back and forth on this
about can you have a criminal this enterprise and have
this free co charge if the people who also are
around you aren't also willing participants, knowing participants in the crime. Right,
he has somebody go get him baby oil. That doesn't
mean that person is a part of a criminal enterprise.
(11:38):
He doesn't know what the baby oil is for, and
he doesn't know that or some of the drug running.
But they focused a lot today on KK and d Rock.
KK and d Rock these are folks of his inner
circle who are part of keeping people quiet, planning a
freak off. So they're built. They've made more of a
case today why d Rock and KK are certainly maybe
(11:59):
those are the only who we need now to be well, yes,
co conspirators.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
So they were co conspirators. But then you remember earlier
in the day in the morning session, Christie Slavic did say,
even though the other folks you just described as foot soldiers,
even though they didn't know a crime was being committed,
when they were doing these tasks that they were supposed
to do, and for fear out of losing their jobs,
they did them anyway. They said that still was a
part of the enterprise that they were discussing. Some people knew,
(12:25):
but some people didn't, and that didn't mean that it
still wasn't all a part of this enterprise.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
This is incredible that we've gotten now to this point
of the trial. It's been seven so they've had seven
weeks and now five hours. The defense took thirty minutes
to present its case, and now we'll see how long
they decided to take with And I don't know that
of his the lead attorney, his lead attorney is doing
(12:51):
the close.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
I believe Mark, it's an Angelou. It's an Italian last
name that I can't say Mark, but.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
We can't remember right exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
But they too said that they need about four hours,
and of course that obviously is not something that's black
and white we'll see how far they go and how
long they go. And I'm sure they might be recrafting
what they're going to say after they heard from the prosecution.
But this was a note I read court reporters describing
once everyone left the courtroom, did he stayed back with
his attorneys, and they described they were watching the defense
(13:25):
team after hearing the prosecution give their last final push
to the jurors. They said the mood was light, there
was even some laughter, and it seemed as though they
were in good spirits after they heard what the prosecution
had to give for their closing arguments. I thought that
was really interesting because they weren't performing. The jury was gone,
(13:48):
the public was gone. Just one reporter said, they kind
of stood around and was just kind of watching to
see how the team was reacting and just interacting, and
so it didn't seem as though it was a performance.
They it seemed as though they were pleased with how
things went today.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
What was it did you see as well? I was
surprised yesterday at the jury charge conference where the attorneys
and the judge were going through jury instructions, jury wasn't
in the room, said he. At one point he was
so chill. He took his shoes off, Yes, I read
that under the table and Hisses was playing with his
feet and he was just so relaxed at the table.
(14:24):
What is happening right now?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
So that was what happened yesterday. And then I saw
this morning, and I had talked about this in part one,
but this morning, when the jury first came in, they
said he looked very different than that guy who had
his shoes off, chilling in the court when he was
rubbing his palms. But perhaps it seems as if they
or as they watched the prosecution give their closing arguments,
(14:47):
his mood shifted back to maybe where it was yesterday.
He seemed chill, relaxed, and light was the word they used.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
I'm curious to see if the defense pulls another I
don't know they've had time. They will probably make a
major presentation. I would be surprised that they get up
and say, you know what, we're good. We don't need
any time for this. Oh no, nobody.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
They need to have this is there, This jury is there,
like this is them talking directly to the jurors. Do
not convict our client. He didn't do anything illegal, or
he didn't do anything what he's being charged with. They're
not saying he didn't do anything illegal. They're actually saying
they're copying to the fact that he was by bad
he was a bad guy, that he was using drugs,
(15:33):
that he was addicted to drugs, all of those things.
So they're saying, yeah, he made some bad choices and
he did some illegal things, but he didn't do what
the prosecution says he did.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
This case is fascinating. He has confessed to several crimes,
none of them he's been chuged with. That's wild. That
is wild in some variation. I guess they say it
falls under all day it's just oh yeah, yeah. And
again what we just talked about the and a reminder
the the Prostitution Show, We're I keep getting this mixed
(16:03):
up roads in front of us transportation to engage in prostitution.
That is the one that only goes a maximum ten
years in prison. Correct, So two counts transportation to engage
in prostitution a maximum of ten is he gonna get
a max?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Who knows? And he'll get credit for time served with
whatever charges. If he's convicted of any of these charges,
he'll get yeah, probably around that A year sex trafficking.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Isn't that the one that one's the minimum to fifteen for.
So there's two counts the minimum of fifteen years, and
then the racketeering conspiracy that's the one could get up.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
To life in prison. So it is interesting again to
note that the mood was light at the defense table
after the prosecution prosecution finished its closing argument.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Hey, look, quote, this is why we usually don't do
too did the update today because at this point of
the day we have been up since two three in
the morning. Sorry about that.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yes, if you actually we probably will end up in
the same boat tomorrow on Friday and at the end
of the week, getting up that early and then staying
up all day following this, it actually might be a
comedy podcast hearing us try to speak at the end
of that very long day of this very long week.
But if you've made it to the end, thank you
(17:25):
for listening to us, and we will be back with
you tomorrow and we'll do our best not to mess
up how to pronounce things and stuff like that. Bye.
Hey, folks, it is Thursday, June twenty sixth, and the
prosecution just took four hours and fifty minutes to give
its closing argument in the Diddy trial. And welcome to
this second Ditty Update edition of Amy and TJ. Rose.
Let me ask you first about that, just the timing
on They said they were going to need maybe four hours.
(00:26):
It's almost five. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (00:28):
No, And that is a big difference when you're a
juror sitting there listening to one prosecutor, Christy Slavic, go
through painstakingly detailed evidence and can you imagine what that
would be like. They did get a lunch break, so
that I'm sure was helpful, but then you get a
little sleepy with all the food you just ate.
Speaker 1 (00:49):
Oh here, I'm just saying to.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Go four hours seemed long to me already. And then
to say so she announced, and it was written all
the court reporters, you know, put out in a start
saying the prosecution says it needs another hour. Can you
imagine what the jurors felt when they heard that?
Speaker 1 (01:06):
Wait, do I have it right? It was so they
started at ten this morning, so she got two hours
lunch break, two hours they took a little break, and
that's when she came back and.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Said, I need another hour.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
That's tough. That was a tough one to see. And look,
we don't have the advantage here. I am not familiar
with this prosecutor. I think most people in the country
are not so Christy Slavic. I mean, I don't know.
How does she deliver? Does she speak like a quiet librarian?
Is she very loud? Is she very entertaining a lot
of historyonics? And how she presents That's.
Speaker 2 (01:35):
Interesting because you're right, we don't get to watch it.
We don't get to hear it. We can only read
her written words, so we don't know if she's animated
and engaged and interesting and a good storyteller. I think
most lawyers at that level, if you have that position,
have to have some performance capabilities to them. You know,
people say you should have been a court room lawyer,
like you could have been a court room lawyer. TJ.
(01:57):
What now, Oh, I've always thought.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
That, Yeah you could.
Speaker 2 (02:00):
I actually think you would have been a good prosecutor
really on that side of things, Yes, I do know.
I think you would have been an excellent prosecutor going.
Speaker 1 (02:09):
After the bad guys. Doesn't feel like something I would do.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
Oh see, I thought you said that feels good. Oh no,
after the bad guys, but you would be great. No,
but there I think there is an always in a
good prosecutor, in a good attorney, there is some theatrics.
Speaker 1 (02:24):
So we have no idea how this went about. And
again it can if you listened to one voice for
five hours a lot, and also going through things and
not necessarily interesting. Well, it's all the stuff supposed to
be interesting, but telling a weaving a story, and hey,
this goes with this, and make sure you put this
together here and then you must find I don't know,
that's uh. I am curious to know how the I
(02:47):
didn't get a good reading from any of the reporters.
Maybe you did of how the jury seem to be doing.
Speaker 2 (02:51):
I did not. And I maybe they're not allowed to
talk about the jurors reaction and their faces while listening
to an attorney, because then we would get a read
on what they were thinking or feeling about the prosecution
versus the defense. I don't know, because I haven't seen
one report.
Speaker 1 (03:06):
See I think back now, and the times they've refer
to the jurors have been about someone had to turn
their eyes away from a screen, or they didn't look
at a video, or they turned they have meant right,
they have.
Speaker 2 (03:19):
But I did not see any reporting about how the
jury was handling or reacting to this long delivery of
a yes, a closing argument by the prosecution. Now, Christie
Slovic took the jury through each charge that Ditty is facing.
One count of racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking
(03:40):
demanding that both Cassie and Jane had to have sex,
and then two counts of transportation to engage in prosecution.
And we know the Ditty is facing with all of
these charges life in prison.
Speaker 1 (03:51):
So Christie Slavic, the prosecutor, spent most of the first
part of the day. We did that in part one,
kind of went over that the racketeering conspiracy, going through
what it takes to convict him on that. But the
sex trafficking roll she spent the last part of the day.
So this had a lot to do with Cazie, had
a lot to do with Jane. So you have to
prove this point sex trafficking. You point this out. I
(04:13):
missed it in the earlier note, but made the point
to the jury like confess to the jury. Yes, not
every freak off was sex trafficking. That was important to note.
Speaker 2 (04:24):
I didn't realize that. So yeah, she said, some of
them they were happy to be there, and there was uh,
there was no coersion, and so she said, but there
were specific instances. One of them, of course, was where
we saw that tape in the hotel. Correct. Yes, so
that night specifically, she said, was absolutely sex trafficking.
Speaker 1 (04:48):
The point there, and this is now, this is a
very simple way to put it. Sex trafficking is forcing
someone through it could be through violence, it could be
through any other coersion to participate in a sex act.
We I saw her being beaten and dragged to go back,
we're told now to a sex party. And that is
the textbook definition laid out for is for sex trafficks.
Speaker 2 (05:08):
She also named the moment or the instance of Cassie's
birthday when she, in front of all of her friends,
wanted to go and stay at her birthday party. Instead,
he forced her to go and leave her own birthday
party to go and then have a freak out. So
that was another time. And then there was a third
time where there was a male escort Daniel I think
was his name, and he said Daniel Phillips.
Speaker 1 (05:31):
I believe why do we know mail As?
Speaker 2 (05:34):
I actually just can't believe that just rolled right. We
know Daniel Phillips. Sorry, So he said that amazing. Did
he wanted to go again? She said no. He pulled
her into the other room, he heard slapping and screaming
and punching, and said go back and do it again.
And the only reason why it didn't happen again is
because after Daniel Phillip witnessed that, he well, he couldn't
(05:55):
get it up. But the prosecutor said, hey, just because
it was cut short, you still had a witness seeing.
Did he force Cathy to do something against her will
with the threat and the actual experience of violence.
Speaker 1 (06:11):
That we all saw, Yes, and they did. They played that.
You shouldn't be surprised, but yes, they played that video
that's surveillance video from the hotel for the jury again
today is a part of the closing argument. So that
is something again they're going to have in their minds,
seried in their mind I don't know how they get
it out of their minds at any point during this
during this trial. But that's like go into the jury
(06:32):
room with that, and again they've gotten five hours. I
don't know if there's a limit to how much they'll
have for a rebuttal in this case.
Speaker 2 (06:40):
I don't know. I know, I don't think there is
a limit. I think that the prosecution can know that
if they actually pushed too much, perhaps that might upset
the jury. So yeah, I'm sure they know what they're doing.
But who knows exactly how long they'll meet. But I
think it might depend on what they feel they need
to rebut what they hear from the defense. The other
issue that Christye Slovok focused on what transportation to engage
(07:02):
in prostitution he's facing did. He is facing two counts
of those, but they have to prove that he knowingly
transported an individual in interstate or foreign commerce intending for
that person to engage in prosecution.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
That's the actual legal yes, that's the actual legally yes
for it. But again, piecing all that together, that seems okay.
It seems simple to a late person, right, you are
not permitted to pay someone to cross state lines or
to travel for the purpose of having sex for money, correct,
and not allowed to do that. So it seems that
(07:37):
they do have a long list of receipts. Yes, thou
him doing just that. So how is that not a
no brainer?
Speaker 2 (07:43):
It seems like it would be. And she also pointed
out Christy Slavic to the jurors that just because even
in some of these instances, if Cassie or if if
Jane were totally willing to participate, if the male escorts
were totally willing to participate, their willingness to perform the
sexual acts does not change the illegality of Ditty paying.
Speaker 1 (08:07):
For the acts. And so that was kind of.
Speaker 2 (08:09):
Like a oh an aha moment that she pointed out
to the jury. So even in some of those freak
offs where everybody was there because they wanted to be there,
it still didn't make Ditty not culpable for the illegality
of it.
Speaker 1 (08:23):
Okay, So if that seems again, layperson, and I'm sure
tomorrow we're gonna hear from their defense attorney and they're like, duh,
that's not prostitution at all.
Speaker 2 (08:34):
No. I can't wait to hear that though, because I've
still yet to hear how that isn't prostitution.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
But you remember, we had a point at the trial
where we were going through all this stuff and we
were like, wow, Wow, Wow, the prosecution, prosecution, prostitution is
nailing it. Then we got into some cross examinations like
wait a.
Speaker 2 (08:58):
Minute, right, I mean what makes watching a trial so
fascinating because you find yourself I mean absolutely, For the
first few weeks of this trial, I was like, Oh,
did he is going to prison for the rest of
his life? Oh?
Speaker 1 (09:10):
My god.
Speaker 2 (09:11):
I couldn't believe what I was hearing. I couldn't believe
what I was reading. And then all of a sudden,
when the events really started going, I really think from
that Perry Mason moment on, I started to go.
Speaker 1 (09:21):
Hmmm, I don't know this trial. I don't know how
and oh, look at that sweet text. So oh she
planned that freak call. Yeah, it's just it. It's the top,
the highest form, and this is reality drama. This is
real stuff. We are following a reality show. We can't
even see, right, That's how he could have.
Speaker 2 (09:43):
Like a fireside chat back in the day. We have, no,
we have some courtroom sketches, but that's it.
Speaker 1 (09:48):
Now.
Speaker 2 (09:48):
The other thing that we heard the prosecutor bring up
with was this notion we heard this through the trial
that Diddy attempted to obstruct justice so once Cassie then
Toura Fine had her civil lawsuit out there, they claim
he panicked, he got his boy d it's a d Rock. Yes,
I knew that, and I hesitated.
Speaker 1 (10:09):
I'm his real name.
Speaker 2 (10:10):
I don't know Amy, and I think that's a hard
one to forget.
Speaker 1 (10:13):
But now d Rock and KK, how are they not
all a part of the same trial. They make it
sound like they should be co defended.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
I need to actually, yes, it's weird that they aren't
charged if they're a part of all of this. But anyway,
d Rock calls, according to the prosecution, calls Mia and
basically it's like, hey, you know, puff was always like
that with cass you know, like they just fought like
normal couples. And she immediately thought what is going on?
And the prosecution said, hey, just remember they were calling
(10:42):
people who they knew might be called in any form
or fashion to be a witness to testify, and they
were trying to placate them, they were trying to manipulate them,
they were trying to obstruct justice. So that was another
big point she wanted to make for the jurors.
Speaker 1 (10:55):
You know, they're they're making him sound in that instance,
I guess it's important talk about that because an innocent
person doesn't do.
Speaker 2 (11:03):
That correct exactly. It's the cover up sometimes that get
you more than the crime itself. And so just to
show that they were trying to go ahead and clean
everything up and cover all of their bases, showed that
they knew they had done something wrong or he had
done something right.
Speaker 1 (11:16):
They've been focused in today as well, And I was
you and I were going back and forth on this
about can you have a criminal this enterprise and have
this free co charge if the people who also are
around you aren't also willing participants, knowing participants in the crime. Right,
he has somebody go get him baby oil. That doesn't
mean that person is a part of a criminal enterprise.
(11:38):
He doesn't know what the baby oil is for, and
he doesn't know that or some of the drug running.
But they focused a lot today on KK and d Rock.
KK and d Rock these are folks of his inner
circle who are part of keeping people quiet, planning a
freak off. So they're built. They've made more of a
case today why d Rock and KK are certainly maybe
(11:59):
those are the only who we need now to be well, yes,
co conspirators.
Speaker 2 (12:02):
So they were co conspirators. But then you remember earlier
in the day in the morning session, Christie Slavic did say,
even though the other folks you just described as foot soldiers,
even though they didn't know a crime was being committed,
when they were doing these tasks that they were supposed
to do, and for fear out of losing their jobs,
they did them anyway. They said that still was a
part of the enterprise that they were discussing. Some people knew,
(12:25):
but some people didn't, and that didn't mean that it
still wasn't all a part of this enterprise.
Speaker 1 (12:30):
This is incredible that we've gotten now to this point
of the trial. It's been seven so they've had seven
weeks and now five hours. The defense took thirty minutes
to present its case, and now we'll see how long
they decided to take with And I don't know that
of his the lead attorney, his lead attorney is doing
(12:51):
the close.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
I believe Mark, it's an Angelou. It's an Italian last
name that I can't say Mark, but.
Speaker 1 (13:01):
We can't remember right exactly.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
But they too said that they need about four hours,
and of course that obviously is not something that's black
and white we'll see how far they go and how
long they go. And I'm sure they might be recrafting
what they're going to say after they heard from the prosecution.
But this was a note I read court reporters describing
once everyone left the courtroom, did he stayed back with
his attorneys, and they described they were watching the defense
(13:25):
team after hearing the prosecution give their last final push
to the jurors. They said the mood was light, there
was even some laughter, and it seemed as though they
were in good spirits after they heard what the prosecution
had to give for their closing arguments. I thought that
was really interesting because they weren't performing. The jury was gone,
(13:48):
the public was gone. Just one reporter said, they kind
of stood around and was just kind of watching to
see how the team was reacting and just interacting, and
so it didn't seem as though it was a performance.
They it seemed as though they were pleased with how
things went today.
Speaker 1 (14:02):
What was it did you see as well? I was
surprised yesterday at the jury charge conference where the attorneys
and the judge were going through jury instructions, jury wasn't
in the room, said he. At one point he was
so chill. He took his shoes off, Yes, I read
that under the table and Hisses was playing with his
feet and he was just so relaxed at the table.
(14:24):
What is happening right now?
Speaker 2 (14:25):
So that was what happened yesterday. And then I saw
this morning, and I had talked about this in part one,
but this morning, when the jury first came in, they
said he looked very different than that guy who had
his shoes off, chilling in the court when he was
rubbing his palms. But perhaps it seems as if they
or as they watched the prosecution give their closing arguments,
(14:47):
his mood shifted back to maybe where it was yesterday.
He seemed chill, relaxed, and light was the word they used.
Speaker 1 (14:55):
I'm curious to see if the defense pulls another I
don't know they've had time. They will probably make a
major presentation. I would be surprised that they get up
and say, you know what, we're good. We don't need
any time for this. Oh no, nobody.
Speaker 2 (15:12):
They need to have this is there, This jury is there,
like this is them talking directly to the jurors. Do
not convict our client. He didn't do anything illegal, or
he didn't do anything what he's being charged with. They're
not saying he didn't do anything illegal. They're actually saying
they're copying to the fact that he was by bad
he was a bad guy, that he was using drugs,
(15:33):
that he was addicted to drugs, all of those things.
So they're saying, yeah, he made some bad choices and
he did some illegal things, but he didn't do what
the prosecution says he did.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
This case is fascinating. He has confessed to several crimes,
none of them he's been chuged with. That's wild. That
is wild in some variation. I guess they say it
falls under all day it's just oh yeah, yeah. And
again what we just talked about the and a reminder
the the Prostitution Show, We're I keep getting this mixed
(16:03):
up roads in front of us transportation to engage in prostitution.
That is the one that only goes a maximum ten
years in prison. Correct, So two counts transportation to engage
in prostitution a maximum of ten is he gonna get
a max?
Speaker 2 (16:21):
Who knows? And he'll get credit for time served with
whatever charges. If he's convicted of any of these charges,
he'll get yeah, probably around that A year sex trafficking.
Speaker 1 (16:29):
Isn't that the one that one's the minimum to fifteen for.
So there's two counts the minimum of fifteen years, and
then the racketeering conspiracy that's the one could get up.
Speaker 2 (16:38):
To life in prison. So it is interesting again to
note that the mood was light at the defense table
after the prosecution prosecution finished its closing argument.
Speaker 1 (16:52):
Hey, look, quote, this is why we usually don't do
too did the update today because at this point of
the day we have been up since two three in
the morning. Sorry about that.
Speaker 2 (17:05):
Yes, if you actually we probably will end up in
the same boat tomorrow on Friday and at the end
of the week, getting up that early and then staying
up all day following this, it actually might be a
comedy podcast hearing us try to speak at the end
of that very long day of this very long week.
But if you've made it to the end, thank you
(17:25):
for listening to us, and we will be back with
you tomorrow and we'll do our best not to mess
up how to pronounce things and stuff like that. Bye.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.