June 23, 2025 • 19 mins
No one! Diddy’s attorneys announced this morning they will not call any witnesses in their defense of Diddy. Amy and T.J. discuss whether that’s brilliant or baffling as the jury continues to hear evidence from the prosecution’s final witness connecting the dots between texts, receipts and explicit videos.
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, the Hopes.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
It is Monday, June twenty third. This is the seventh
and now we're told the final week of testimony in
the Didy trial. Welcome to this Didy Update episode of
Amy and TJ. We've been keeping you updated throughout. It
doesn't seem like roads. Now we have much longer to go.
We got a better idea of the timeline of this trial,
(00:23):
and your honor, the defense calls.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
No, no one right exactly. So that was the breaking
news this morning. We were all waiting in anticipation for
who the defense might call to the witness stand and
how long they might go. We had heard it could
take one or two days, so we didn't figure there'd
be many people who would be testifying.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
But it turns out no one is going to be testifying.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Yeah, the defense is said it will not call any
witnesses to this stand, and that means one can assume
or presume that they believe they have made their case.
They have made their defense of Sean Ditty Combs in
their cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I'm still blown away by what they're saying they're going
to do. So the witness is on the stand for
the prosecution. Their final one, this Homeland Security agent. He
is going to be up there until the end of
the day, and they expect him to go ropes into tomorrow.
The defense says they will then be done tomorrow. They're
not even taking a full day to defend Diddy. That
(01:30):
blows my mind.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
It's bold, It's really bold.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
It's super confident, and I can see how perhaps that
would send a message to the jury because everyone expects
someone at least to have one witness or a few
witnesses to testify in your defense. The fact that they're
not calling anyone actually could be a brilliant move in
terms of what the jury was expecting, because they're thinking, well, hell,
if they don't need to call anyone, they must have
(01:54):
proven their case. I mean, I can see how that
would create a certain mindset in a jury because it
is not I mean, it happens, It's not unprecedented by
any means. I mean, this is something that happens quite often,
but in a case this big, with the stakes so high,
I mean, we all remember, Diddy is facing life in prison.
This is not a couple of years, This isn't just
(02:17):
a few offenses. This is serious, significant stuff where his
life is on the line, So to not call any
witnesses is bold, and I you know, it could be brilliant.
We'll only know after the jury renders it's verdict.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Bold, brilliant, it could be the exact right move. Look,
we are we've watched a bunch of trials, but we
are not legal experts at all. These folks know what
they're doing, is what I generally find. And if somebody
like Diddy, who has his resources, he is he has
the best lawyers with.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
Names like Garrigos and Shapiro his.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I mean history makers in this country in a law
of legal and celebrity cases. They know what they're doing,
so they're making the right the best and you better
sure believe did he signs off on this defense? And
how this is going? But they said they're going to
present a defense of just a few items of evidence
and exhibits. I don't know how earth shattering those could be,
(03:15):
but that's their defense. Here you go, here's our homework,
and that's it.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
I mean they did spend days cross examining the star witnesses,
Cassie Ventura and Jane, so certainly they did. You could
say spend. They spent days presenting their case through the
cross examination of the prosecution's witness, and it may be
that they don't even have a witness to call to
refute any of the claims. And the people who know
the people who were there to testify were the people
(03:40):
that the prosecution already called. So who else would they
bring on the stand? I mean, people had wondered if
KK would be coming up, if one of his bodyguards
would be coming up. But many of them might feel like,
who knows the reasoning behind it? But they made the
choice not to bring anyone up to refute anything.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
They feel like they did their job.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
In showing and frankly, they did discredit quite a bit
of what Jane had to say or even Cassie. When
you at least it brings a question in the juror's
mind when you hear them say I didn't want to
do it, I was coerced to do it.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
I had a financial reason.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Why I had to do it, And then you have
text from them saying I can't wait to be with you,
I can't wait to do some freaky stuff with you.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
It's hard, and that certainly casts doubt in terms of
what the state are sorry. I always say the state.
In terms of what the Feds are trying to prove.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Do moments matter?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Do moments stand out for a jury that could possibly
sway them one way or another? And I say moments.
It seems like the defense had more than the prosecution.
The Perry Mason moment we will never forget. It seemed
like they made more headway sometimes.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Than the prosecution seems to have. Does that matter?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
You think if the margins are that slim, you're just
talking about the psychology, it might get into their brains.
They didn't present any witnesses, So in that same vein,
is it possible that moments matter throughout the trials.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Of the jury?
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Moments absolutely matter.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
The Perry Mason moment was pivotal, and there were several
slightly less perhaps like explosive moments in that, but there
were plenty of them. When they had witnesses go back
and read texts that were omitted, and the texts actually
showed a very different vein of motivation for why these
(05:31):
women might have participated. It was incredibly damning, I believed,
to the prosecution's case. When the defense had some of
these other texts read that frankly flew in the face
of what we heard in testimony from these women.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
So it's this.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Is you know what, and just the psychology of life.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Isn't confidence so powerful?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
And by not calling any witnesses that is so confident,
so confident?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
How did I forget you? I'm sitting here and I'm like,
oh my goodness, I forgot I had this. I've reached
out to a prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Friend of ours.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Okay, That's all I say, just because that was my question.
Why on guides Earth that please help me understand why
the defense in the Ditty trial would not call any witnesses.
The response and I quote because they think they have
one already and they may have wow.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
You know, the prosecution has called thirty four witnesses to
the stand and the final one is on the stand today.
Trying to connect the dots summarizing these freak offs, going
through explicit videos, going through the paid receipts that Diddy
has had purchased plane tickets for some of these women
(06:51):
and some of these male escorts to attend these parties.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
My question is, okay, so.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
He paid for these folks to participate in these freak
offs around the country, so crossing state lines. But if
they went there willingly, if they weren't coerced, if you
can even call into question that they may have wanted
to do it at the time and regretted it later,
(07:17):
any seat of doubt about any of that throws the
prosecution's argument out the window, because they need the jury
to believe that these women and maybe even these escorts
didn't really want to be there and felt they had to.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
What is the charge again, I have to look at
these house in here.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
I've got it.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Yeah, he's pleaded not guilty to racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
That's the big one. He could get life for that one.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Correct, two counts of sex trafficking by force, sex trap
that's what it is, by force. And the interesting thing
about that is the in fact what they were going
over today and on Friday with this home security agent.
He was actually going through the text messages of Cassie
(08:10):
and Jane where they at first told KK, his chief
of staff, I don't want to go.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
He's just using me.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I don't want to be there, But then after talking
to Diddy, they decided to come.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
They made the choice to come.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
So I'm just confused how that would be force, two
counts of sex trafficking by force, then fraud or oh
sorry I skipped it, two counts of sex trafficking by force,
fraud or coercion.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Now one of those do carry a fifteen year.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Minimum, Okay, so force, fraud or coercion. And then he's
also facing two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
And those are only those are a maximum of ten years,
So I guess that would be the lesser charge it
he gets convicted of that, But how is he not
for prostitution? To engage in prostitution? So they have evidence
that he paid to have a male escort come to.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
New York for a freak off?
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Is that that seems like that's a done deal to me?
The two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, just
from my non legal mind and what I've witnessed and
what I've read, it seems like they kind of nailed
that one. They have the receipts, they have the proof,
they have the videos, and clearly the male escorcords who
(09:30):
were engaged in sex that you could clearly see on
the videotape were clearly paid. So and many times yes,
they crossed state lines.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
So what was the name of the one the escort website.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Wait, oh, it was Cowboys for Angels Aloys eight or Angels.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
For Cowboys, Cowboys for Angel Voice Rangel.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
So that company came out in testimony today the same
day that he was such a long term customer that
he wanted a discount, that he was upset with him
for raising their rates, and they have the communication between
him and the Cowboys for Angels agency. His line is
stop raising my rate. I am a long timer. They
(10:24):
have that from him two Cowboys for Angel Cowboys for Angels.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Technically, I imagine to be a legal business would have
to just say, hey, these are just escorts.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
These are just people.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Who were there for your pleasure, not for sexual pleasure,
but just to be there and to accompany you and
wherever you want to go and whatever you want to do.
But clearly they're not acknowledging that this is for sex.
But clearly we have the videos that show that is
in fact what happens.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Okay, speaking of the legal part of that, So what
if all he was doing was hiring an escort to
come to New York and be and escort to escort
him or someone else around and lo and behold, sex
ended up happening.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Is that a legal argument?
Speaker 4 (11:07):
I think it could be.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Geez, now that you just said that, I thought maybe
that is possible, because they could say the escort decided,
after hanging out for a while that just, you know,
because he liked everybody, he just wow, maybe he was horny,
Maybe he just wanted to have sex, but the payment
was specifically for companionship, not for sex.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Possibly that just was a light bulb that went off
in your head. And then yes, I concur that does
sound reasonable in terms of a legal explanation to get
around the actual charge.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
I think, look, we're not gonna get a witness now for.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
The defense, but we will hear from the defense attorneys,
and we will hear. We now know closing arguments are
scheduled for Thursday. Correct, And so this case, this seven
week long case, with thirty four witnesses and lots of
graphic videos and a tremendous amount of jaw dropping testimony,
is all going to be in the hands of the
(12:05):
jury as early as Thursday afternoon, perhaps.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Even again, they have a conference on Wednesday. The judge says,
for the attorneys and the judge to go over the
jury instructions. I have been a part in seeing jury instructions.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
That go half a day.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
It does, it goes, it takes a while, so.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
And in this case, probably definitely going to take a
very long time. I have you know, we have as
much as we can sitting in our apartment monitoring everything.
Still I would need to be redirected and shown what
is what and what means this and what's the level
of proof.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
I mean, I it's mind blowing. You're right.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
The judge could have instructions for half a day, and
I don't know the defense and the prosecution, who knows
how long they'll take.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Yeah, they read though, Yeah, they make sure they read
every single line of the instructions. It's almost a manual
you get when you buy a new appliance and he's
reading through and you're trying to follow what all this
stuff means. Now, I have never robes And tell me
if you have been a part of jury instructions.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
That were quick.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
No, I have not.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
No, it's never a quick process.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
The jury.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
The truth is well, most of the trials, I would
imagine all of the trials. I know that I have
actually personal personally witnessed have been for murder. So people's
lives are on the line, and they want to make
sure that all the t'ser crossed, all the eyes are dotted.
They want to make sure the jury knows exactly what
they have to do and what.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
The burden of proof is.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
That that is the gray area, what is reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
And there's gonna be some fighting in between the attorneys
about the language that goes. They always are so so
particular about what types of language, type of language can
go into those things. Because after that that the defense
all the attorneys have no more say.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Nobody can do anything. It's over.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
You can't make any other case once they go into
that jury room. So this is their last chance to
have some kind of.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
An influence on the jury.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
The closing arguments, is it who goes first?
Speaker 1 (14:11):
I can't remember? Is it prosecution again?
Speaker 4 (14:14):
I think? See, I think I thought the defense had
the last word. I need to look this option?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Did?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
I cannot?
Speaker 3 (14:20):
You know what?
Speaker 1 (14:21):
This is embarrassing?
Speaker 4 (14:21):
One of us is correct.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
We should know why because I used to remember thinking
that it wasn't fair that whoever went last got to
go last.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Of course, that's like everyone would want to go last
in this sason.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I thought the prosecution got to go last.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
That's she's I'm looking this up right now.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
But in terms of the jury, we ended up only
losing one juror through we thought at one point we
might lose three jurors, but we only ended up losing
one juror.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
And the alternates are still there.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
But that's kind of moot, now, right do they get
to participate in the actual jury deliberations or be a
part of it if something were to happen?
Speaker 1 (14:57):
You know what, I actually don't know that. Why are
you over there Google and stuff? Look that up?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
To do alternates need to be in the deliberating room?
So I guess it's possible they could start deliberating and
something happens with a juror.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Isn't that possible? Did you get the answer?
Speaker 3 (15:14):
I got the answer for the court cases, and you're
always right? Why do I even try to pretend like
I might have something that is correct over you? All?
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
In court cases, the party with the burden of proof
generally gets the last word. This is usually the prosecution
in criminal cases and the plaintiff in civil cases. They
get the opportunity for a closing argument or rebuttal after
the opposing side has presented its case.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
And I always thought that was unfair. My life was
on the line. I should get the last word always,
That's why I remember it. I thought that was wild.
But yeah, so the prosecution will get the last word
before they all get to go in. I am reading
something here. I know you. Did you find it already?
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yes? Okay, Well about alternature Yes, so there were six
alternate jurors. I think we're down to five alternate jurors
because one of the alternate jurors became actually a member
of the jury, so no. Alternate jurors Generally do not
participate in jury deliberations unless a regular juror is unable
to continue serving. If an alternate juror replaces a regular
(16:18):
juror during deliberations, the court will then instruct the jury
to begin deliberations unnew So if anything happens during the
actual deliberation and some juror has to leave, they can
actually appoint an alternate to come step in, but then
they have to start all over again. So let's hope
that doesn't happen. But I'm so happy we were able
to answer our own questions in this podcast. I'm so
(16:41):
sure everybody was on the edge of their seats waiting
for the answer, or they're like, I already know that, dummy.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Everybody was waiting on the edge of the seat. You
know that is I only bring it up and it
shouldn't be a big deal. But the jury has been
a little weird. Been some wonky stuff going on with
this jury at times, and some questions. One got kicked off,
one was about to get kicked off, and of them
got sick. It's just some stuff. One of them was
nodding it, and a.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Black jur was replaced by a white jur. So you know,
there are all from Westchester, from the Bronx to.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Westchester, and so it's so that's why I just hold
my brether when it comes to this particular jury. But
I just can't believe this is it when I heard
they were only going to when they said there the
prose consecution is going to rest on Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
The defense is going to rest on Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
That's wild again, bold and possibly brilliant.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
The best in the business are defending him, so they
know what they're doing. He's not going to get a
better defense than this, or a better strategy. I turn
on a TV somewhere today and you'll have somebody criticizing this,
says ah, some legal expert.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Doing this, and that some legal analysts, da da da da.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
And you know what, when he is found not guilty
on something, they'll come back on and what will be
their excuse then.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Well, you know, perhaps they knew more than we did,
or they believed something that we didn't realize.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
Who knows, but it will be fascinating.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
And you know, in a weird way, it's we've been
so glued to every word, every bit of testimony to
think that it's all coming to an end kind of
feels strange and like, Okay, here it is. And I
wonder what Diddy is feeling right now, if he feels confident,
if he's you know, all of the folks or all
of the reporters in the courtroom have reported on him
being actively involved, leaning forward, watching the monitor, reading like
(18:29):
they get a testimony they have the words of.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
So he doesn't miss anything. I mean, he has been very, very,
very a huge part of this.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
And to your point, he obviously had to sign off
on not calling any witnesses.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Remember he has been in prison since last September. Wow,
and he could potentially either walk out of there in
the next week, you could even argue, or he's going
to find out he's going to prison for a long,
long time. We should have that answer soon. I even
thought about the possibility of miss trials and hunger.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
Yeah, who knows that.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I mean, there are there are a million different not
a million, but there are several different outcomes that could
take place here, including he gets convicted on a lesser
charge and gets credit for time served and isn't in prison.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
For that long, or maybe he has already done his time.
Who knows.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
But we will continue to watch everything that goes on
in that Lower Manhattan courtroom and bring you the very
latest and you know, the big bombshaw today. The defense
is not calling any witnesses. The defense will rest the same.
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Day the prosecution does. So thank you so much for
listening to us. Everyone.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
We'll keep the updated but in the meantime, hope you
have a wonderful day today.
Hey, the Hopes.
Speaker 2 (00:02):
It is Monday, June twenty third. This is the seventh
and now we're told the final week of testimony in
the Didy trial. Welcome to this Didy Update episode of
Amy and TJ. We've been keeping you updated throughout. It
doesn't seem like roads. Now we have much longer to go.
We got a better idea of the timeline of this trial,
(00:23):
and your honor, the defense calls.
Speaker 3 (00:27):
No, no one right exactly. So that was the breaking
news this morning. We were all waiting in anticipation for
who the defense might call to the witness stand and
how long they might go. We had heard it could
take one or two days, so we didn't figure there'd
be many people who would be testifying.
Speaker 4 (00:44):
But it turns out no one is going to be testifying.
Speaker 3 (00:46):
Yeah, the defense is said it will not call any
witnesses to this stand, and that means one can assume
or presume that they believe they have made their case.
They have made their defense of Sean Ditty Combs in
their cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses.
Speaker 2 (01:05):
I'm still blown away by what they're saying they're going
to do. So the witness is on the stand for
the prosecution. Their final one, this Homeland Security agent. He
is going to be up there until the end of
the day, and they expect him to go ropes into tomorrow.
The defense says they will then be done tomorrow. They're
not even taking a full day to defend Diddy. That
(01:30):
blows my mind.
Speaker 4 (01:31):
It's bold, It's really bold.
Speaker 3 (01:33):
It's super confident, and I can see how perhaps that
would send a message to the jury because everyone expects
someone at least to have one witness or a few
witnesses to testify in your defense. The fact that they're
not calling anyone actually could be a brilliant move in
terms of what the jury was expecting, because they're thinking, well, hell,
if they don't need to call anyone, they must have
(01:54):
proven their case. I mean, I can see how that
would create a certain mindset in a jury because it
is not I mean, it happens, It's not unprecedented by
any means. I mean, this is something that happens quite often,
but in a case this big, with the stakes so high,
I mean, we all remember, Diddy is facing life in prison.
This is not a couple of years, This isn't just
(02:17):
a few offenses. This is serious, significant stuff where his
life is on the line, So to not call any
witnesses is bold, and I you know, it could be brilliant.
We'll only know after the jury renders it's verdict.
Speaker 2 (02:31):
Bold, brilliant, it could be the exact right move. Look,
we are we've watched a bunch of trials, but we
are not legal experts at all. These folks know what
they're doing, is what I generally find. And if somebody
like Diddy, who has his resources, he is he has
the best lawyers with.
Speaker 4 (02:50):
Names like Garrigos and Shapiro his.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
I mean history makers in this country in a law
of legal and celebrity cases. They know what they're doing,
so they're making the right the best and you better
sure believe did he signs off on this defense? And
how this is going? But they said they're going to
present a defense of just a few items of evidence
and exhibits. I don't know how earth shattering those could be,
(03:15):
but that's their defense. Here you go, here's our homework,
and that's it.
Speaker 4 (03:19):
Yeah.
Speaker 3 (03:19):
I mean they did spend days cross examining the star witnesses,
Cassie Ventura and Jane, so certainly they did. You could
say spend. They spent days presenting their case through the
cross examination of the prosecution's witness, and it may be
that they don't even have a witness to call to
refute any of the claims. And the people who know
the people who were there to testify were the people
(03:40):
that the prosecution already called. So who else would they
bring on the stand? I mean, people had wondered if
KK would be coming up, if one of his bodyguards
would be coming up. But many of them might feel like,
who knows the reasoning behind it? But they made the
choice not to bring anyone up to refute anything.
Speaker 4 (03:58):
They feel like they did their job.
Speaker 3 (03:59):
In showing and frankly, they did discredit quite a bit
of what Jane had to say or even Cassie. When
you at least it brings a question in the juror's
mind when you hear them say I didn't want to
do it, I was coerced to do it.
Speaker 4 (04:14):
I had a financial reason.
Speaker 3 (04:15):
Why I had to do it, And then you have
text from them saying I can't wait to be with you,
I can't wait to do some freaky stuff with you.
Speaker 4 (04:23):
It's hard, and that certainly casts doubt in terms of
what the state are sorry. I always say the state.
In terms of what the Feds are trying to prove.
Speaker 1 (04:33):
Do moments matter?
Speaker 2 (04:34):
Do moments stand out for a jury that could possibly
sway them one way or another? And I say moments.
It seems like the defense had more than the prosecution.
The Perry Mason moment we will never forget. It seemed
like they made more headway sometimes.
Speaker 1 (04:51):
Than the prosecution seems to have. Does that matter?
Speaker 2 (04:53):
You think if the margins are that slim, you're just
talking about the psychology, it might get into their brains.
They didn't present any witnesses, So in that same vein,
is it possible that moments matter throughout the trials.
Speaker 1 (05:06):
Of the jury?
Speaker 4 (05:06):
Moments absolutely matter.
Speaker 3 (05:08):
The Perry Mason moment was pivotal, and there were several
slightly less perhaps like explosive moments in that, but there
were plenty of them. When they had witnesses go back
and read texts that were omitted, and the texts actually
showed a very different vein of motivation for why these
(05:31):
women might have participated. It was incredibly damning, I believed,
to the prosecution's case. When the defense had some of
these other texts read that frankly flew in the face
of what we heard in testimony from these women.
Speaker 4 (05:46):
So it's this.
Speaker 3 (05:48):
Is you know what, and just the psychology of life.
Speaker 4 (05:52):
Isn't confidence so powerful?
Speaker 3 (05:55):
And by not calling any witnesses that is so confident,
so confident?
Speaker 2 (06:01):
How did I forget you? I'm sitting here and I'm like,
oh my goodness, I forgot I had this. I've reached
out to a prosecutor.
Speaker 1 (06:07):
Friend of ours.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
Okay, That's all I say, just because that was my question.
Why on guides Earth that please help me understand why
the defense in the Ditty trial would not call any witnesses.
The response and I quote because they think they have
one already and they may have wow.
Speaker 4 (06:27):
Wow.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
You know, the prosecution has called thirty four witnesses to
the stand and the final one is on the stand today.
Trying to connect the dots summarizing these freak offs, going
through explicit videos, going through the paid receipts that Diddy
has had purchased plane tickets for some of these women
(06:51):
and some of these male escorts to attend these parties.
Speaker 4 (06:55):
My question is, okay, so.
Speaker 3 (06:56):
He paid for these folks to participate in these freak
offs around the country, so crossing state lines. But if
they went there willingly, if they weren't coerced, if you
can even call into question that they may have wanted
to do it at the time and regretted it later,
(07:17):
any seat of doubt about any of that throws the
prosecution's argument out the window, because they need the jury
to believe that these women and maybe even these escorts
didn't really want to be there and felt they had to.
Speaker 1 (07:35):
What is the charge again, I have to look at
these house in here.
Speaker 4 (07:39):
I've got it.
Speaker 3 (07:40):
Yeah, he's pleaded not guilty to racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 1 (07:42):
That's the big one. He could get life for that one.
Speaker 3 (07:44):
Correct, two counts of sex trafficking by force, sex trap
that's what it is, by force. And the interesting thing
about that is the in fact what they were going
over today and on Friday with this home security agent.
He was actually going through the text messages of Cassie
(08:10):
and Jane where they at first told KK, his chief
of staff, I don't want to go.
Speaker 4 (08:17):
He's just using me.
Speaker 3 (08:19):
I don't want to be there, But then after talking
to Diddy, they decided to come.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
They made the choice to come.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
So I'm just confused how that would be force, two
counts of sex trafficking by force, then fraud or oh
sorry I skipped it, two counts of sex trafficking by force,
fraud or coercion.
Speaker 1 (08:40):
Now one of those do carry a fifteen year.
Speaker 3 (08:43):
Minimum, Okay, so force, fraud or coercion. And then he's
also facing two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
Speaker 2 (08:52):
And those are only those are a maximum of ten years,
So I guess that would be the lesser charge it
he gets convicted of that, But how is he not
for prostitution? To engage in prostitution? So they have evidence
that he paid to have a male escort come to.
Speaker 1 (09:07):
New York for a freak off?
Speaker 3 (09:09):
Is that that seems like that's a done deal to me?
The two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, just
from my non legal mind and what I've witnessed and
what I've read, it seems like they kind of nailed
that one. They have the receipts, they have the proof,
they have the videos, and clearly the male escorcords who
(09:30):
were engaged in sex that you could clearly see on
the videotape were clearly paid. So and many times yes,
they crossed state lines.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
So what was the name of the one the escort website.
Speaker 4 (09:54):
Wait, oh, it was Cowboys for Angels Aloys eight or Angels.
Speaker 3 (10:00):
For Cowboys, Cowboys for Angel Voice Rangel.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
So that company came out in testimony today the same
day that he was such a long term customer that
he wanted a discount, that he was upset with him
for raising their rates, and they have the communication between
him and the Cowboys for Angels agency. His line is
stop raising my rate. I am a long timer. They
(10:24):
have that from him two Cowboys for Angel Cowboys for Angels.
Speaker 3 (10:29):
Technically, I imagine to be a legal business would have
to just say, hey, these are just escorts.
Speaker 4 (10:33):
These are just people.
Speaker 3 (10:34):
Who were there for your pleasure, not for sexual pleasure,
but just to be there and to accompany you and
wherever you want to go and whatever you want to do.
But clearly they're not acknowledging that this is for sex.
But clearly we have the videos that show that is
in fact what happens.
Speaker 2 (10:50):
Okay, speaking of the legal part of that, So what
if all he was doing was hiring an escort to
come to New York and be and escort to escort
him or someone else around and lo and behold, sex
ended up happening.
Speaker 1 (11:06):
Is that a legal argument?
Speaker 4 (11:07):
I think it could be.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
Geez, now that you just said that, I thought maybe
that is possible, because they could say the escort decided,
after hanging out for a while that just, you know,
because he liked everybody, he just wow, maybe he was horny,
Maybe he just wanted to have sex, but the payment
was specifically for companionship, not for sex.
Speaker 1 (11:31):
You know what.
Speaker 3 (11:31):
Possibly that just was a light bulb that went off
in your head. And then yes, I concur that does
sound reasonable in terms of a legal explanation to get
around the actual charge.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
I think, look, we're not gonna get a witness now for.
Speaker 3 (11:45):
The defense, but we will hear from the defense attorneys,
and we will hear. We now know closing arguments are
scheduled for Thursday. Correct, And so this case, this seven
week long case, with thirty four witnesses and lots of
graphic videos and a tremendous amount of jaw dropping testimony,
is all going to be in the hands of the
(12:05):
jury as early as Thursday afternoon, perhaps.
Speaker 2 (12:10):
Even again, they have a conference on Wednesday. The judge says,
for the attorneys and the judge to go over the
jury instructions. I have been a part in seeing jury instructions.
Speaker 1 (12:20):
That go half a day.
Speaker 4 (12:21):
Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2 (12:21):
It does, it goes, it takes a while, so.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
And in this case, probably definitely going to take a
very long time. I have you know, we have as
much as we can sitting in our apartment monitoring everything.
Still I would need to be redirected and shown what
is what and what means this and what's the level
of proof.
Speaker 4 (12:43):
I mean, I it's mind blowing. You're right.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
The judge could have instructions for half a day, and
I don't know the defense and the prosecution, who knows
how long they'll take.
Speaker 2 (12:54):
Yeah, they read though, Yeah, they make sure they read
every single line of the instructions. It's almost a manual
you get when you buy a new appliance and he's
reading through and you're trying to follow what all this
stuff means. Now, I have never robes And tell me
if you have been a part of jury instructions.
Speaker 1 (13:15):
That were quick.
Speaker 4 (13:16):
No, I have not.
Speaker 1 (13:17):
No, it's never a quick process.
Speaker 4 (13:19):
The jury.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
The truth is well, most of the trials, I would
imagine all of the trials. I know that I have
actually personal personally witnessed have been for murder. So people's
lives are on the line, and they want to make
sure that all the t'ser crossed, all the eyes are dotted.
They want to make sure the jury knows exactly what
they have to do and what.
Speaker 4 (13:39):
The burden of proof is.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
That that is the gray area, what is reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
And there's gonna be some fighting in between the attorneys
about the language that goes. They always are so so
particular about what types of language, type of language can
go into those things. Because after that that the defense
all the attorneys have no more say.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
Nobody can do anything. It's over.
Speaker 2 (14:02):
You can't make any other case once they go into
that jury room. So this is their last chance to
have some kind of.
Speaker 1 (14:07):
An influence on the jury.
Speaker 2 (14:08):
The closing arguments, is it who goes first?
Speaker 1 (14:11):
I can't remember? Is it prosecution again?
Speaker 4 (14:14):
I think? See, I think I thought the defense had
the last word. I need to look this option?
Speaker 3 (14:19):
Did?
Speaker 1 (14:20):
I cannot?
Speaker 3 (14:20):
You know what?
Speaker 1 (14:21):
This is embarrassing?
Speaker 4 (14:21):
One of us is correct.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
We should know why because I used to remember thinking
that it wasn't fair that whoever went last got to
go last.
Speaker 4 (14:30):
Of course, that's like everyone would want to go last
in this sason.
Speaker 1 (14:35):
I thought the prosecution got to go last.
Speaker 4 (14:38):
That's she's I'm looking this up right now.
Speaker 3 (14:39):
But in terms of the jury, we ended up only
losing one juror through we thought at one point we
might lose three jurors, but we only ended up losing
one juror.
Speaker 4 (14:48):
And the alternates are still there.
Speaker 3 (14:50):
But that's kind of moot, now, right do they get
to participate in the actual jury deliberations or be a
part of it if something were to happen?
Speaker 1 (14:57):
You know what, I actually don't know that. Why are
you over there Google and stuff? Look that up?
Speaker 2 (15:02):
To do alternates need to be in the deliberating room?
So I guess it's possible they could start deliberating and
something happens with a juror.
Speaker 1 (15:12):
Isn't that possible? Did you get the answer?
Speaker 3 (15:14):
I got the answer for the court cases, and you're
always right? Why do I even try to pretend like
I might have something that is correct over you? All?
Speaker 4 (15:24):
Right?
Speaker 3 (15:24):
In court cases, the party with the burden of proof
generally gets the last word. This is usually the prosecution
in criminal cases and the plaintiff in civil cases. They
get the opportunity for a closing argument or rebuttal after
the opposing side has presented its case.
Speaker 1 (15:42):
And I always thought that was unfair. My life was
on the line. I should get the last word always,
That's why I remember it. I thought that was wild.
But yeah, so the prosecution will get the last word
before they all get to go in. I am reading
something here. I know you. Did you find it already?
Speaker 3 (15:58):
Yes? Okay, Well about alternature Yes, so there were six
alternate jurors. I think we're down to five alternate jurors
because one of the alternate jurors became actually a member
of the jury, so no. Alternate jurors Generally do not
participate in jury deliberations unless a regular juror is unable
to continue serving. If an alternate juror replaces a regular
(16:18):
juror during deliberations, the court will then instruct the jury
to begin deliberations unnew So if anything happens during the
actual deliberation and some juror has to leave, they can
actually appoint an alternate to come step in, but then
they have to start all over again. So let's hope
that doesn't happen. But I'm so happy we were able
to answer our own questions in this podcast. I'm so
(16:41):
sure everybody was on the edge of their seats waiting
for the answer, or they're like, I already know that, dummy.
Speaker 2 (16:46):
Everybody was waiting on the edge of the seat. You
know that is I only bring it up and it
shouldn't be a big deal. But the jury has been
a little weird. Been some wonky stuff going on with
this jury at times, and some questions. One got kicked off,
one was about to get kicked off, and of them
got sick. It's just some stuff. One of them was
nodding it, and a.
Speaker 4 (17:06):
Black jur was replaced by a white jur. So you know,
there are all from Westchester, from the Bronx to.
Speaker 2 (17:12):
Westchester, and so it's so that's why I just hold
my brether when it comes to this particular jury. But
I just can't believe this is it when I heard
they were only going to when they said there the
prose consecution is going to rest on Tuesday.
Speaker 1 (17:27):
The defense is going to rest on Tuesday.
Speaker 4 (17:29):
That's wild again, bold and possibly brilliant.
Speaker 2 (17:34):
The best in the business are defending him, so they
know what they're doing. He's not going to get a
better defense than this, or a better strategy. I turn
on a TV somewhere today and you'll have somebody criticizing this,
says ah, some legal expert.
Speaker 1 (17:46):
Doing this, and that some legal analysts, da da da da.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
And you know what, when he is found not guilty
on something, they'll come back on and what will be
their excuse then.
Speaker 3 (17:57):
Well, you know, perhaps they knew more than we did,
or they believed something that we didn't realize.
Speaker 4 (18:02):
Who knows, but it will be fascinating.
Speaker 3 (18:05):
And you know, in a weird way, it's we've been
so glued to every word, every bit of testimony to
think that it's all coming to an end kind of
feels strange and like, Okay, here it is. And I
wonder what Diddy is feeling right now, if he feels confident,
if he's you know, all of the folks or all
of the reporters in the courtroom have reported on him
being actively involved, leaning forward, watching the monitor, reading like
(18:29):
they get a testimony they have the words of.
Speaker 4 (18:32):
So he doesn't miss anything. I mean, he has been very, very,
very a huge part of this.
Speaker 3 (18:37):
And to your point, he obviously had to sign off
on not calling any witnesses.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
Remember he has been in prison since last September. Wow,
and he could potentially either walk out of there in
the next week, you could even argue, or he's going
to find out he's going to prison for a long,
long time. We should have that answer soon. I even
thought about the possibility of miss trials and hunger.
Speaker 4 (19:01):
Yeah, who knows that.
Speaker 3 (19:02):
I mean, there are there are a million different not
a million, but there are several different outcomes that could
take place here, including he gets convicted on a lesser
charge and gets credit for time served and isn't in prison.
Speaker 4 (19:14):
For that long, or maybe he has already done his time.
Who knows.
Speaker 3 (19:18):
But we will continue to watch everything that goes on
in that Lower Manhattan courtroom and bring you the very
latest and you know, the big bombshaw today. The defense
is not calling any witnesses. The defense will rest the same.
Speaker 4 (19:32):
Day the prosecution does. So thank you so much for
listening to us. Everyone.
Speaker 3 (19:36):
We'll keep the updated but in the meantime, hope you
have a wonderful day today.
Popular Podcasts
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.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.