June 26, 2025 • 22 mins
Today the prosecution has just begun its closing arguments against Sean “Diddy” Combs and it’s already explosive! Amy and T.J. walk you through the intense presentation the government is making to the jury, claiming Diddy used his fame, wealth and power to wield a methodical pattern of violence and coercion.
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 (00:01):
Hey, folks, it is Thursday, June twenty sixth and closing
arguments are underway in the Ditty Trial. Welcome to this
Ditty Update edition of Amy and TJ First robes. Can
you just believe it? Closing arguments? Seven weeks of this trial,
this has been going on for which has been engulfed
(00:23):
in this for so long. It's almost over.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
In a weird way, because we've been following it so
closely for these past seven weeks, time has flown by.
I actually can't believe it's almost been two months.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
And yes, to your.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Point, it feels crazy that it's over or it's about
to be over.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
And as we speak, folks, says this recording, closing arguments
are underway. The prosecution is going first. Christy Slavic is
handling handling it for the prosecution. But Rose, we got
a better idea this morning. It seemed like every day
there's a new update to the schedule that is a
little surprising to us. But we I think this is
it now, This is going to be the schedule.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yes, so the prosecution is going to finish its closing
arguments today. The defense is not going to begin its
closing arguments until Friday, and after the defense gives its
closing arguments, the prosecution will have a chance for rebuttal,
and then of course the judge has to give the
jury instructures, instructions that they hammered out yesterday. So for sure,
(01:21):
I think we can say we thought we were sure
of but now we're one hundred percent surew Okay, ninety
nine point nine percent sure that the jury won't even
begin to start their deliberations until Monday at the earliest.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Okay, So going with that schedule again, both sides said
they needed four hours, So help me with this ropes.
They said they needed four hours, But were they thinking
two for the closing and then two for a rebuttal?
Or is this closing going to be four? Then the
defense is going to do four and then the rebuttal
could be how long?
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:54):
See, I'm confused now about because now Friday could be
a hell of a day for the jury if they
have to listen to four hours of the defense and
then another hour two hours prosecution and then jury instruction.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
So according to court reporters from what I have been
able to deduce, they say that today will be a
shorter day Thursday and Tomorrow will be what they described
as a long day, so I think it'll be what
they can get in.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
And I don't know how long.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
It seems as though the prosecution is going to or
expects to take four hours today and then who knows
how long the rebuttal will be. It might be dependent
upon what they hear from the defense, so they might
that might be fluid, that might not even be set
in stone right now in terms of because how would
you know what to rebut until you hear what the
defense actually presents?
Speaker 1 (02:41):
And what do we make of this? With the judge
of saying about the deliberation schedule, he said he's going
to kind of leave it in the hands of the
jury for what their deliberation schedule is going to be.
I mean, how much leeway do they exactly get? They
can't have full control. But what did he mean? I
didn't fully understand.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I imagine that, you know, they have given up so
much of their time.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Perhaps if some members of the.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Jury need to be home by three or some you know,
some jury members need to be able to get their
kids off to school, they might be able to deliberate
among themselves to pick the hours that work best. For
the group, and maybe the foreman decides that it might
be the first chance that they all have to actually
collectively make a decision on something. Before they actually make
a decision on the verdict, they'll make a decision collectively
(03:25):
on their timeline.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
They used to hearing that, I'm not either.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
No. Usually they say jury reports at this time and
court is out, or at least deliberations will end at
this time.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
So sometimes the judge will ask the jury, do you
all want to go a little later today? Sometimes I've
seen that, but I've never seen I can imagine. I mean,
if you're if you're a juror, right now, they say,
how what would you like your hours to be? What
would you ask for?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
I would like to have as long of a day
as possible to get it done as quickly as I could.
I wouldn't want to keep coming back each day, So
give me a nine hour day and a quick lunch
instead of having to come back day after day after day.
Especially if some of these folks, they have jobs, they
have lives, they're missing. What do they get fifty bucks
a day? You know, and some folks are our wages,
(04:09):
hourly wages.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
They don't have salaries.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
They're not getting paid by their work, so I would
think there would be a motivation to go ahead and
put in the work each day instead of extending the
days that you have to laborate.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Would you work through the weekend?
Speaker 3 (04:24):
No, No, I don't think so. No, everybody needs a break.
Everybody break.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
That's a good point. So we're still waiting on that
part to fill in about the schedule, but it looks
like we do have a better idea of how this
thing is going to go. Now, how this is going
to go with the with the prosecution, the case they're
trying to make, We've gotten a little insight. We've listened
to the first least hour plus now of the prosecution
doing its clothes, and they are using this word over
and over and over enterprise, enterprise, enterprise. He was the
(04:51):
head of an enterprise, enterprise enterprise. They first started with robes,
this racketeering conspiracy charge, which is the one that has
the highest possible sentence. He could life in prison for
this thing. And they're trying to build and explain to
them piece by piece why he was the head of
a criminal enterprise. This is why this is kidnapping, this
(05:11):
is drug distribution, So they're really piecing this thing together,
and it's, to be honest with you, it's kind of
some of the legalities of his hart to follow.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Exactly, so right when they're getting specific about it, and
they've really been focusing right now at least on the
racketeering charge, because that is, of course, as you point out,
the most serious one. So apparently they're giving the jurors
this instruction. The prosecution is there are four elements to
convict on a racketeering charge. Those elements are a conspiracy
(05:43):
to participate in criminal enterprise having an impact on state
and foreign commerce, they say, did he was knowingly part
of that enterprise, and then the enterprise agreed to commit
at least two crimes.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
So I'm already confused.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
So basically, someone Diddy would have had to have commit
committed two individual acts in any of these categories kidnapping, arson, bribery, bribery,
drug distribution, sex trafficking, interstate transport for prostitution.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Forced labor, witness tampering, and obstruction. My head's already spinning.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
And we put this in here, folks, not to say
it so you would understand it, but for you to
understand why it's so confusing and what these jurors now
have to deal with. That's just one little example we
gave you. There's tons of this stuff in there trying
to piece through. And what was the thing they did?
The prosecution took out part of the jury instruction? What
was it? They wanted the attempted kidnapping taken out? They
(06:38):
just wanted the word attempted taken out because if you
have attempted in there, it's such a confusing bit of
our legal code that they have to figure out if
you use the word attempted. They just said, the hell
would it take attempted out? And we just want to
say kidnapping? He was kidnapping? Folks, Well, it's mine. How
can they get through this quickly?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
I so, I don't know's that's the number one thing
I'd like to impart to everyone listening.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
I don't know. I feel for the jury. They again,
they've been sitting.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
And listening to this testimony, some of it fascinating, some
of it gripping and even maybe a little entertaining. But
this is heavy stuff because someone's life is on the line,
and it is so technical, and there are so many
categories that you have to say yes or no to
(07:29):
or maybe I don't know, but I cannot imagine this
deliberation is going to be quick. Even if you have
a feeling about what you think, you still have to
go through each charge, and you have to go through
the legalities of each charge.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
And what it takes.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Did the prosecution prove these specific things beyond a reasonable doubt?
And this is again, like you said, this is just
the conspiracy. Sorry, this is just the racketeering charge.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
So to that point, again, they're talking about, let's say
the kidnapping charge. We've been here about kidnapping. Was he
kidnapped someone kit We all know what kidnapping and we
think we know what kidnapping is. Well, kidnapping here is
just restricting Cassie's movements because he didn't want her to
leave a hotel room because he wanted her wounds to
(08:16):
heal first. Okay, that could sound like a stretch like kidnapping.
I know what kidnapping is, but that's a very technical
term and a technical definition of kidnapping. But they might
have to figure out that kind of stuff. I do
not know how they. I would be deliberating for weeks.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
I mean that has happened before.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
It's not often, but this is that complicated. And then
of course you have Capricorn Clark, who claims she was
kidnapped by one of Ditty's bodyguards and held against her will,
she says, for five days, and she says with a
light detector test because his jewelry witnessing and she didn't
have an explanation as to why his diamond duel where
he went missing. She said she was threatened by his
(09:02):
bodyguard that they were going to throw her in the
Hudson River. So we do have that direct testimony, but
is it provable. It's her word against his word.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Yeah, but she also he kidnapped her because he came
to her house and said come with me, and she came.
So that's kidnapping, right That those kinds of legal questions.
If the guy is I mean, charge him with kidnapping
is one thing, But is he running a criminal enterprise
because he's a drug addict, maniac, madman, terrible boss and
(09:35):
domestic abuser.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Yeah, I mean, it's it is a lot. It's a
huge mountain of evidence and it's a huge mountain to
climb to prove because what the prosecution has already started
to tell the jurors is he had an enterprise of
people working for him. He couldn't do this all on
his own. He couldn't have done what they say he
did to these women if he didn't have people helping him.
(09:58):
And that created more of a a force. So these
women felt like they couldn't say no because they weren't
just going up against one person, they were going up
against all of his employees. And they said, even if
the lower level employees didn't know crimes for being committed,
they were still being used as I think they said
the term foot soldiers see.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
And then I wanted, I thought a big part of
proving this case had to be that the folks had
to be willing, had to be knowing participants in that enterprise,
in that crime taking place.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I thought, that's so no, they're saying, as long as
it was just Diddy using people to enforce what he
was trying to control and what he was trying to get,
and within what he wanted to get involved criminality, it
didn't matter if the people who were doing his bidding
knew it was criminal or not, or knew what was
going on behind those closed doors in those hotel rooms.
(10:52):
So yes, their participation wasn't necessary for them to know
that it was a criminal act.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
We've been covering this or watching this closer than anybody
probably listening, and we still are trying to piece this together.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
And this was interesting to me too because the drug distribution.
They're saying, that's a huge part of their argument that
did he and his inner circle participated in what they
say are hundreds of acts of drug distribution? But they said,
(11:28):
if did he only did it twice, just twice where
he was asking his staff to get drugs and bring
them to him, that would meet the criteria for racketeering
conspiracy under the law.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
If he just twice did that. And I didn't realize
that either.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
I mean, this is I don't know what the lesser punishment.
It's up to life in prison for that charge. Yes,
I don't know what the statutes are. I don't know
what it says with the guide are of what lesser charge?
Is there a minimum on that? When? What does the
charge or what does sentence have to be? But that's
when we Yes, it's technically tech, it could technically legally
(12:11):
be true, but you said it. This is a guy
we talk about emotion involved and you just human beings
on that stand, I'm sending him to life because he
might have been a super freak and because he might
have been a bad guy because he had a drug
at it. And then you could look at that and go, yeah, technically,
by the law, he should be going to prison for
the rest of his life. And maybe that's it, But
(12:32):
there's so much, there's so many mitigating and complicated factors here.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Well, I was gonna say something else that they were
trying to impart to the jury, this idea that did
he didn't take no for an answer, that he never
took no for an answer, You couldn't tell him no,
and that was part of his enterprise, that he had
so much control over all of his employees, and then
who they claim are his sex traffic victims as well,
(13:01):
that he was a man who you had to say
yes to.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
They also flat out sett also, she said a short
time ago in court that of course he blew up
kid cut his car. I mean the prosecute she just
flat out set as of the jury and the closing,
which nobody now can object and now the way it
can come back and necessarily rebutt it in real time.
She said no he didn't cut the hole out in
(13:27):
the top of the car, but she is asking the
jury to essentially use common sense. Of course he was
behind it. Of course he was. This is gonna be
a fascinating day. For four hours they get to make
their case once again, and they're taking folks through a
piece by piece by piece. We do have a few
quotes here, at least from the court room as well,
and again this was very early on started this out.
(13:48):
This might have been in the first sentence or two.
He's the leader of a criminal enterprise, right, this is
the guy we all watched. What do we think we
were watching of medium mogul, a music souper, superstar, producer
of music genius. I don't know what do we think
we were watching? They say we were watching a guy
who was the head of a He was a mob boss.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
They described someone who spent most of his time, at
least in the later years, organizing and fulfilling his deviant
sexual fantasy. Said it was literally almost his full time
job at a certain point, and then getting other people
because he couldn't have done it all the way he
did it unless he had people working for him and
organizing it all and making it happen, and so yeah,
(14:29):
he said, excuse me. The prosecution said, I thought this
was really interesting. These are not separate stories. They're all
chapters in the same book. The prosecutor said, the story
of Sean Combs and the criminal enterprise he led it
is the same book.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
And so that's what they're trying to say.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
This is all a part of a larger grand scheme,
and that's where you get this racketeering charge.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
It's just wild to think that the purpose isn't the
argument here that the purpose of Bad Boy Entertainment was
really to run sex trafficking? Is that what we're is
that the argument.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It's what it sounds like, and that we heard and
yet we heard Brandon Paul say it was one percent
of his job.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
So I'm sure the.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Defense is going to have plenty to say to counter
what the prosecution is.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
The picture the prosecution is.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Trying to paint right now that this was basically what
did he did all the time, and he got his
employees to make it happen pretty much at least weekly,
but sometimes multiple times within the week.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
This is incredible. They called it a methodical pattern of
violence and coercion and manipulation said did he thought that
his fame, wealth and power put him above the law.
But over the course of his trial, his crimes have
been exposed. And that's it, right. The brutal crimes at
the heart of this case sex trafficking. That's what they're saying.
(15:51):
The brutal crimes at the heart of this case, sex trafficking.
That's what's the sex trafficking charge. Two of them, those
are the ones that are fifteen years minimum, yes, yes,
and then it's ten years maximum on the prostitution charge.
So the sax trafficking cases are very serious.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You know, this is this is overwhelming, and the fact
that they came out with a bang, I have to say,
she just the prose prosecutor, Christie Slavic, has come out
with a bang. Just listing, listening, listening, So I wonder
now they'll go through methodically. It was described as like
the most intense and complex PowerPoint presentation you've probably ever
(16:32):
witnessed in your life. And that's what these jurors are
witnessing right now in court today.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
And it's just begun. That's the crazy thing.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Let me give you through all this, it's not a
lot of every once in a while, we usually find
a way to just have a laugh or a smile,
you know, a little levity in some of these things
that've been brutal. This is at least one quote from
Slavic that I think most people will find a little funny.
Talking about Kid Cutty and saying that Diddy, yes was
behind the bombing of the man's car. She says, quote,
(17:03):
of course the defendant was behind this. Now, it shouldn't
come as a surprise to you that we're not suggesting
the defendant personally cut the hole in Kid cut his Porsche.
You heard the audio notes the defendant didn't even buy
his own soup. Wow, that's okay. I'll give her that one.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
That might not be a Perry Mason moment like we
saw with the defense, but that certainly was something that
landed right like, Okay, that okay, fair.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Fair point.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
You can't make the argument, yeah, he would have he
had nothing to do with that. Well, yeah, of course
he wouldn't. He didn't even buy his own soup.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
And you know, to get more specific about what Slavic
said about this racketeering conspiracy, and I was talking about
how all of the folks who got his soup and
did his other bidding in terms of getting him drugs
and everything else he needed. She said that the law
recognizes when someone commits a crime as part of a group,
they're more powerful and more dangerous, and she said that
(18:00):
is what happened in this instant instance with Diddy. She said,
obviously Didty was already a very powerful man, but he
became more powerful and more dangerous because of the support
of his inner circle and his businesses. And that is
the enterprise that they're talking about that he created. And
she acknowledged that, yes, this does sound like and is
(18:22):
more often associated with the mafia or with organized crime,
and that's where a lot of folks have been like,
come on, she did. She acknowledged that because people have
been saying that from the start of this trial that
maybe the prosecution is overreached. They're trying too hard to
put him behind bars for too long. They could have
just charged him with domestic abuse. I don't know if
there's a federal charge for that, but at least the
(18:44):
state could have. But there could have been lesser charges
that would have been easily provable, including drug charges, But
they went for the big charge of racketeering, and she acknowledged, yes,
that's usually where it is applied to, but in this
case it also applies.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
I missed that note, So yeah, I mean whatever, but yeah,
she's just kind of acknowledging the oh wow, I miss that.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yes, she said the defendant used power, violence and fear
to get what he wanted. And that does sound like
a boss.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
But that is hard to think of the Five Families
of New York right to think of what they operated,
what they did, and tossing people in the river and
taking out hits, and there's drugs and there's all this
kind of racketeering and running. All that stuff going on
is one thing. The dude was feeding his sexual desires.
(19:39):
That was his ultimate aim, right.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
And it didn't matter, according to the prosecution, who he hurt,
what he had to do, and he used physical violence
as a form of intimidation to make sure that he
kept people where he wanted them, including yes, Cassie and
Jane and the other women who we heard from during
this trial. It's interesting, while all of this picture is
(20:03):
being painted of Diddy as this mob boss like man,
he's wearing this light blue sweater and a white collared shirt,
he's pouring water from a craft. But they said he's
so This was interesting to me too.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
The court reporter said.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Throughout the trial, he's been intense, he's been involved, he's
been listening.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
But he seemed confident.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
And you know, we even heard him with the judge jovially,
you know, saying.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Thank you and you're doing a good job. Just really confident.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
They said today his body language suggested that he was nervous.
They said he was rubbing his palms together when the
jury walked in, that he was shifting his weight from
foot to foot. And that makes a lot of sense
because this is it, this is it, and this is
the last word the prosecution, Well, the prosecution gets to
(20:50):
have a rebuttal, but coming up, this is his last
chance at defending himself and his last chance to make
the jury believe that he is not responsible for these
heinous crimes.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Well, at least he's not a mob boss. I guess
he's trying.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
To make the they're kind of saying he was a
mob boss.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yes, mob bosses. Last thing on this, because I love
there's a lot of mob history I do follow. But
the purpose of the enterprise was to make money, right, yes,
and the crimes were all committed for the sake of
making money for that enterprise.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Did he had an enterprise that was making money through music, correct?
And then that enterprise was used for the sex parties.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
It almost seems like the money was his side hustle
to fund what his main goal was, which was to
satisfy his sexual needs.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
But he is funding the criminal behavior versus the criminal
behavior funding the enterprise. That's the opposite. I am blown away.
They treat him like Fattonian, right.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Yes, yes, and it's I think a lot of people
that that was kind of a crazy notion. But the
prosecution is leaning in and doubling down on that theory
and whatever the money was there to make it happen,
and they're saying that he used illegal means to get
what he wanted.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
It's fascinating, fascinating, fascinating. Well, folks, we're going to hop
back on again later today because you have the second
half of the prosecution's closing argument is going to be today.
We're going to hop back on and let you know
how they close up, how they finish up today. But
we always appreciate you listening.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
I'm TJ. Holmes, along time, my partner Amy Robot will
talk to YUSS
Hey, folks, it is Thursday, June twenty sixth and closing
arguments are underway in the Ditty Trial. Welcome to this
Ditty Update edition of Amy and TJ First robes. Can
you just believe it? Closing arguments? Seven weeks of this trial,
this has been going on for which has been engulfed
(00:23):
in this for so long. It's almost over.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
In a weird way, because we've been following it so
closely for these past seven weeks, time has flown by.
I actually can't believe it's almost been two months.
Speaker 3 (00:32):
And yes, to your.
Speaker 2 (00:33):
Point, it feels crazy that it's over or it's about
to be over.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
And as we speak, folks, says this recording, closing arguments
are underway. The prosecution is going first. Christy Slavic is
handling handling it for the prosecution. But Rose, we got
a better idea this morning. It seemed like every day
there's a new update to the schedule that is a
little surprising to us. But we I think this is
it now, This is going to be the schedule.
Speaker 2 (01:00):
Yes, so the prosecution is going to finish its closing
arguments today. The defense is not going to begin its
closing arguments until Friday, and after the defense gives its
closing arguments, the prosecution will have a chance for rebuttal,
and then of course the judge has to give the
jury instructures, instructions that they hammered out yesterday. So for sure,
(01:21):
I think we can say we thought we were sure
of but now we're one hundred percent surew Okay, ninety
nine point nine percent sure that the jury won't even
begin to start their deliberations until Monday at the earliest.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
Okay, So going with that schedule again, both sides said
they needed four hours, So help me with this ropes.
They said they needed four hours, But were they thinking
two for the closing and then two for a rebuttal?
Or is this closing going to be four? Then the
defense is going to do four and then the rebuttal
could be how long?
Speaker 3 (01:54):
Yeah?
Speaker 1 (01:54):
See, I'm confused now about because now Friday could be
a hell of a day for the jury if they
have to listen to four hours of the defense and
then another hour two hours prosecution and then jury instruction.
Speaker 2 (02:04):
So according to court reporters from what I have been
able to deduce, they say that today will be a
shorter day Thursday and Tomorrow will be what they described
as a long day, so I think it'll be what
they can get in.
Speaker 3 (02:20):
And I don't know how long.
Speaker 2 (02:22):
It seems as though the prosecution is going to or
expects to take four hours today and then who knows
how long the rebuttal will be. It might be dependent
upon what they hear from the defense, so they might
that might be fluid, that might not even be set
in stone right now in terms of because how would
you know what to rebut until you hear what the
defense actually presents?
Speaker 1 (02:41):
And what do we make of this? With the judge
of saying about the deliberation schedule, he said he's going
to kind of leave it in the hands of the
jury for what their deliberation schedule is going to be.
I mean, how much leeway do they exactly get? They
can't have full control. But what did he mean? I
didn't fully understand.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
I imagine that, you know, they have given up so
much of their time.
Speaker 3 (03:01):
Perhaps if some members of the.
Speaker 2 (03:04):
Jury need to be home by three or some you know,
some jury members need to be able to get their
kids off to school, they might be able to deliberate
among themselves to pick the hours that work best. For
the group, and maybe the foreman decides that it might
be the first chance that they all have to actually
collectively make a decision on something. Before they actually make
a decision on the verdict, they'll make a decision collectively
(03:25):
on their timeline.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
They used to hearing that, I'm not either.
Speaker 2 (03:28):
No. Usually they say jury reports at this time and
court is out, or at least deliberations will end at
this time.
Speaker 1 (03:35):
So sometimes the judge will ask the jury, do you
all want to go a little later today? Sometimes I've
seen that, but I've never seen I can imagine. I mean,
if you're if you're a juror, right now, they say,
how what would you like your hours to be? What
would you ask for?
Speaker 2 (03:47):
I would like to have as long of a day
as possible to get it done as quickly as I could.
I wouldn't want to keep coming back each day, So
give me a nine hour day and a quick lunch
instead of having to come back day after day after day.
Especially if some of these folks, they have jobs, they
have lives, they're missing. What do they get fifty bucks
a day? You know, and some folks are our wages,
(04:09):
hourly wages.
Speaker 3 (04:09):
They don't have salaries.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
They're not getting paid by their work, so I would
think there would be a motivation to go ahead and
put in the work each day instead of extending the
days that you have to laborate.
Speaker 1 (04:22):
Would you work through the weekend?
Speaker 3 (04:24):
No, No, I don't think so. No, everybody needs a break.
Everybody break.
Speaker 1 (04:29):
That's a good point. So we're still waiting on that
part to fill in about the schedule, but it looks
like we do have a better idea of how this
thing is going to go. Now, how this is going
to go with the with the prosecution, the case they're
trying to make, We've gotten a little insight. We've listened
to the first least hour plus now of the prosecution
doing its clothes, and they are using this word over
and over and over enterprise, enterprise, enterprise. He was the
(04:51):
head of an enterprise, enterprise enterprise. They first started with robes,
this racketeering conspiracy charge, which is the one that has
the highest possible sentence. He could life in prison for
this thing. And they're trying to build and explain to
them piece by piece why he was the head of
a criminal enterprise. This is why this is kidnapping, this
(05:11):
is drug distribution, So they're really piecing this thing together,
and it's, to be honest with you, it's kind of
some of the legalities of his hart to follow.
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Exactly, so right when they're getting specific about it, and
they've really been focusing right now at least on the
racketeering charge, because that is, of course, as you point out,
the most serious one. So apparently they're giving the jurors
this instruction. The prosecution is there are four elements to
convict on a racketeering charge. Those elements are a conspiracy
(05:43):
to participate in criminal enterprise having an impact on state
and foreign commerce, they say, did he was knowingly part
of that enterprise, and then the enterprise agreed to commit
at least two crimes.
Speaker 3 (05:55):
So I'm already confused.
Speaker 2 (05:57):
So basically, someone Diddy would have had to have commit
committed two individual acts in any of these categories kidnapping, arson, bribery, bribery,
drug distribution, sex trafficking, interstate transport for prostitution.
Speaker 3 (06:13):
Forced labor, witness tampering, and obstruction. My head's already spinning.
Speaker 1 (06:17):
And we put this in here, folks, not to say
it so you would understand it, but for you to
understand why it's so confusing and what these jurors now
have to deal with. That's just one little example we
gave you. There's tons of this stuff in there trying
to piece through. And what was the thing they did?
The prosecution took out part of the jury instruction? What
was it? They wanted the attempted kidnapping taken out? They
(06:38):
just wanted the word attempted taken out because if you
have attempted in there, it's such a confusing bit of
our legal code that they have to figure out if
you use the word attempted. They just said, the hell
would it take attempted out? And we just want to
say kidnapping? He was kidnapping? Folks, Well, it's mine. How
can they get through this quickly?
Speaker 2 (06:57):
I so, I don't know's that's the number one thing
I'd like to impart to everyone listening.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
I don't know. I feel for the jury. They again,
they've been sitting.
Speaker 2 (07:08):
And listening to this testimony, some of it fascinating, some
of it gripping and even maybe a little entertaining. But
this is heavy stuff because someone's life is on the line,
and it is so technical, and there are so many
categories that you have to say yes or no to
(07:29):
or maybe I don't know, but I cannot imagine this
deliberation is going to be quick. Even if you have
a feeling about what you think, you still have to
go through each charge, and you have to go through
the legalities of each charge.
Speaker 3 (07:42):
And what it takes.
Speaker 2 (07:43):
Did the prosecution prove these specific things beyond a reasonable doubt?
And this is again, like you said, this is just
the conspiracy. Sorry, this is just the racketeering charge.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
So to that point, again, they're talking about, let's say
the kidnapping charge. We've been here about kidnapping. Was he
kidnapped someone kit We all know what kidnapping and we
think we know what kidnapping is. Well, kidnapping here is
just restricting Cassie's movements because he didn't want her to
leave a hotel room because he wanted her wounds to
(08:16):
heal first. Okay, that could sound like a stretch like kidnapping.
I know what kidnapping is, but that's a very technical
term and a technical definition of kidnapping. But they might
have to figure out that kind of stuff. I do
not know how they. I would be deliberating for weeks.
Speaker 3 (08:38):
I mean that has happened before.
Speaker 2 (08:40):
It's not often, but this is that complicated. And then
of course you have Capricorn Clark, who claims she was
kidnapped by one of Ditty's bodyguards and held against her will,
she says, for five days, and she says with a
light detector test because his jewelry witnessing and she didn't
have an explanation as to why his diamond duel where
he went missing. She said she was threatened by his
(09:02):
bodyguard that they were going to throw her in the
Hudson River. So we do have that direct testimony, but
is it provable. It's her word against his word.
Speaker 1 (09:11):
Yeah, but she also he kidnapped her because he came
to her house and said come with me, and she came.
So that's kidnapping, right That those kinds of legal questions.
If the guy is I mean, charge him with kidnapping
is one thing, But is he running a criminal enterprise
because he's a drug addict, maniac, madman, terrible boss and
(09:35):
domestic abuser.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
Yeah, I mean, it's it is a lot. It's a
huge mountain of evidence and it's a huge mountain to
climb to prove because what the prosecution has already started
to tell the jurors is he had an enterprise of
people working for him. He couldn't do this all on
his own. He couldn't have done what they say he
did to these women if he didn't have people helping him.
(09:58):
And that created more of a a force. So these
women felt like they couldn't say no because they weren't
just going up against one person, they were going up
against all of his employees. And they said, even if
the lower level employees didn't know crimes for being committed,
they were still being used as I think they said
the term foot soldiers see.
Speaker 1 (10:16):
And then I wanted, I thought a big part of
proving this case had to be that the folks had
to be willing, had to be knowing participants in that enterprise,
in that crime taking place.
Speaker 2 (10:29):
I thought, that's so no, they're saying, as long as
it was just Diddy using people to enforce what he
was trying to control and what he was trying to get,
and within what he wanted to get involved criminality, it
didn't matter if the people who were doing his bidding
knew it was criminal or not, or knew what was
going on behind those closed doors in those hotel rooms.
(10:52):
So yes, their participation wasn't necessary for them to know
that it was a criminal act.
Speaker 1 (10:59):
We've been covering this or watching this closer than anybody
probably listening, and we still are trying to piece this together.
Speaker 2 (11:06):
And this was interesting to me too because the drug distribution.
They're saying, that's a huge part of their argument that
did he and his inner circle participated in what they
say are hundreds of acts of drug distribution? But they said,
(11:28):
if did he only did it twice, just twice where
he was asking his staff to get drugs and bring
them to him, that would meet the criteria for racketeering
conspiracy under the law.
Speaker 3 (11:41):
If he just twice did that. And I didn't realize
that either.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
I mean, this is I don't know what the lesser punishment.
It's up to life in prison for that charge. Yes,
I don't know what the statutes are. I don't know
what it says with the guide are of what lesser charge?
Is there a minimum on that? When? What does the
charge or what does sentence have to be? But that's
when we Yes, it's technically tech, it could technically legally
(12:11):
be true, but you said it. This is a guy
we talk about emotion involved and you just human beings
on that stand, I'm sending him to life because he
might have been a super freak and because he might
have been a bad guy because he had a drug
at it. And then you could look at that and go, yeah, technically,
by the law, he should be going to prison for
the rest of his life. And maybe that's it, But
(12:32):
there's so much, there's so many mitigating and complicated factors here.
Speaker 2 (12:38):
Well, I was gonna say something else that they were
trying to impart to the jury, this idea that did
he didn't take no for an answer, that he never
took no for an answer, You couldn't tell him no,
and that was part of his enterprise, that he had
so much control over all of his employees, and then
who they claim are his sex traffic victims as well,
(13:01):
that he was a man who you had to say
yes to.
Speaker 1 (13:06):
They also flat out sett also, she said a short
time ago in court that of course he blew up
kid cut his car. I mean the prosecute she just
flat out set as of the jury and the closing,
which nobody now can object and now the way it
can come back and necessarily rebutt it in real time.
She said no he didn't cut the hole out in
(13:27):
the top of the car, but she is asking the
jury to essentially use common sense. Of course he was
behind it. Of course he was. This is gonna be
a fascinating day. For four hours they get to make
their case once again, and they're taking folks through a
piece by piece by piece. We do have a few
quotes here, at least from the court room as well,
and again this was very early on started this out.
(13:48):
This might have been in the first sentence or two.
He's the leader of a criminal enterprise, right, this is
the guy we all watched. What do we think we
were watching of medium mogul, a music souper, superstar, producer
of music genius. I don't know what do we think
we were watching? They say we were watching a guy
who was the head of a He was a mob boss.
Speaker 3 (14:07):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
They described someone who spent most of his time, at
least in the later years, organizing and fulfilling his deviant
sexual fantasy. Said it was literally almost his full time
job at a certain point, and then getting other people
because he couldn't have done it all the way he
did it unless he had people working for him and
organizing it all and making it happen, and so yeah,
(14:29):
he said, excuse me. The prosecution said, I thought this
was really interesting. These are not separate stories. They're all
chapters in the same book. The prosecutor said, the story
of Sean Combs and the criminal enterprise he led it
is the same book.
Speaker 3 (14:46):
And so that's what they're trying to say.
Speaker 2 (14:47):
This is all a part of a larger grand scheme,
and that's where you get this racketeering charge.
Speaker 1 (14:52):
It's just wild to think that the purpose isn't the
argument here that the purpose of Bad Boy Entertainment was
really to run sex trafficking? Is that what we're is
that the argument.
Speaker 2 (15:05):
It's what it sounds like, and that we heard and
yet we heard Brandon Paul say it was one percent
of his job.
Speaker 3 (15:10):
So I'm sure the.
Speaker 2 (15:10):
Defense is going to have plenty to say to counter
what the prosecution is.
Speaker 3 (15:15):
The picture the prosecution is.
Speaker 2 (15:16):
Trying to paint right now that this was basically what
did he did all the time, and he got his
employees to make it happen pretty much at least weekly,
but sometimes multiple times within the week.
Speaker 1 (15:27):
This is incredible. They called it a methodical pattern of
violence and coercion and manipulation said did he thought that
his fame, wealth and power put him above the law.
But over the course of his trial, his crimes have
been exposed. And that's it, right. The brutal crimes at
the heart of this case sex trafficking. That's what they're saying.
(15:51):
The brutal crimes at the heart of this case, sex trafficking.
That's what's the sex trafficking charge. Two of them, those
are the ones that are fifteen years minimum, yes, yes,
and then it's ten years maximum on the prostitution charge.
So the sax trafficking cases are very serious.
Speaker 2 (16:11):
You know, this is this is overwhelming, and the fact
that they came out with a bang, I have to say,
she just the prose prosecutor, Christie Slavic, has come out
with a bang. Just listing, listening, listening, So I wonder
now they'll go through methodically. It was described as like
the most intense and complex PowerPoint presentation you've probably ever
(16:32):
witnessed in your life. And that's what these jurors are
witnessing right now in court today.
Speaker 3 (16:36):
And it's just begun. That's the crazy thing.
Speaker 1 (16:40):
Let me give you through all this, it's not a
lot of every once in a while, we usually find
a way to just have a laugh or a smile,
you know, a little levity in some of these things
that've been brutal. This is at least one quote from
Slavic that I think most people will find a little funny.
Talking about Kid Cutty and saying that Diddy, yes was
behind the bombing of the man's car. She says, quote,
(17:03):
of course the defendant was behind this. Now, it shouldn't
come as a surprise to you that we're not suggesting
the defendant personally cut the hole in Kid cut his Porsche.
You heard the audio notes the defendant didn't even buy
his own soup. Wow, that's okay. I'll give her that one.
Speaker 3 (17:21):
Okay, okay.
Speaker 2 (17:22):
That might not be a Perry Mason moment like we
saw with the defense, but that certainly was something that
landed right like, Okay, that okay, fair.
Speaker 3 (17:30):
Fair point.
Speaker 1 (17:31):
You can't make the argument, yeah, he would have he
had nothing to do with that. Well, yeah, of course
he wouldn't. He didn't even buy his own soup.
Speaker 3 (17:37):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (17:37):
And you know, to get more specific about what Slavic
said about this racketeering conspiracy, and I was talking about
how all of the folks who got his soup and
did his other bidding in terms of getting him drugs
and everything else he needed. She said that the law
recognizes when someone commits a crime as part of a group,
they're more powerful and more dangerous, and she said that
(18:00):
is what happened in this instant instance with Diddy. She said,
obviously Didty was already a very powerful man, but he
became more powerful and more dangerous because of the support
of his inner circle and his businesses. And that is
the enterprise that they're talking about that he created. And
she acknowledged that, yes, this does sound like and is
(18:22):
more often associated with the mafia or with organized crime,
and that's where a lot of folks have been like,
come on, she did. She acknowledged that because people have
been saying that from the start of this trial that
maybe the prosecution is overreached. They're trying too hard to
put him behind bars for too long. They could have
just charged him with domestic abuse. I don't know if
there's a federal charge for that, but at least the
(18:44):
state could have. But there could have been lesser charges
that would have been easily provable, including drug charges, But
they went for the big charge of racketeering, and she acknowledged, yes,
that's usually where it is applied to, but in this
case it also applies.
Speaker 1 (19:01):
I missed that note, So yeah, I mean whatever, but yeah,
she's just kind of acknowledging the oh wow, I miss that.
Speaker 2 (19:07):
Yes, she said the defendant used power, violence and fear
to get what he wanted. And that does sound like
a boss.
Speaker 1 (19:16):
But that is hard to think of the Five Families
of New York right to think of what they operated,
what they did, and tossing people in the river and
taking out hits, and there's drugs and there's all this
kind of racketeering and running. All that stuff going on
is one thing. The dude was feeding his sexual desires.
(19:39):
That was his ultimate aim, right.
Speaker 2 (19:43):
And it didn't matter, according to the prosecution, who he hurt,
what he had to do, and he used physical violence
as a form of intimidation to make sure that he
kept people where he wanted them, including yes, Cassie and
Jane and the other women who we heard from during
this trial. It's interesting, while all of this picture is
(20:03):
being painted of Diddy as this mob boss like man,
he's wearing this light blue sweater and a white collared shirt,
he's pouring water from a craft. But they said he's
so This was interesting to me too.
Speaker 3 (20:16):
The court reporter said.
Speaker 2 (20:17):
Throughout the trial, he's been intense, he's been involved, he's
been listening.
Speaker 3 (20:21):
But he seemed confident.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
And you know, we even heard him with the judge jovially,
you know, saying.
Speaker 3 (20:27):
Thank you and you're doing a good job. Just really confident.
Speaker 2 (20:30):
They said today his body language suggested that he was nervous.
They said he was rubbing his palms together when the
jury walked in, that he was shifting his weight from
foot to foot. And that makes a lot of sense
because this is it, this is it, and this is
the last word the prosecution, Well, the prosecution gets to
(20:50):
have a rebuttal, but coming up, this is his last
chance at defending himself and his last chance to make
the jury believe that he is not responsible for these
heinous crimes.
Speaker 1 (21:00):
Well, at least he's not a mob boss. I guess
he's trying.
Speaker 2 (21:03):
To make the they're kind of saying he was a
mob boss.
Speaker 1 (21:07):
Yes, mob bosses. Last thing on this, because I love
there's a lot of mob history I do follow. But
the purpose of the enterprise was to make money, right, yes,
and the crimes were all committed for the sake of
making money for that enterprise.
Speaker 3 (21:23):
Correct.
Speaker 1 (21:24):
Did he had an enterprise that was making money through music, correct?
And then that enterprise was used for the sex parties.
Speaker 2 (21:35):
It almost seems like the money was his side hustle
to fund what his main goal was, which was to
satisfy his sexual needs.
Speaker 1 (21:44):
But he is funding the criminal behavior versus the criminal
behavior funding the enterprise. That's the opposite. I am blown away.
They treat him like Fattonian, right.
Speaker 2 (21:56):
Yes, yes, and it's I think a lot of people
that that was kind of a crazy notion. But the
prosecution is leaning in and doubling down on that theory
and whatever the money was there to make it happen,
and they're saying that he used illegal means to get
what he wanted.
Speaker 1 (22:14):
It's fascinating, fascinating, fascinating. Well, folks, we're going to hop
back on again later today because you have the second
half of the prosecution's closing argument is going to be today.
We're going to hop back on and let you know
how they close up, how they finish up today. But
we always appreciate you listening.
Speaker 2 (22:31):
Now.
Speaker 1 (22:32):
I'm TJ. Holmes, along time, my partner Amy Robot will
talk to YUSS
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.