June 30, 2025 • 26 mins
After nearly 7 weeks of jaw dropping and complicated testimony, Diddy’s fate is now in the hands of 8 men and 4 women. Amy and T.J. go over the final instructions the judge gave the jury this morning and all the latest color coming from the Manhattan courthouse!
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 (00:02):
Hey, there're folks. It is Monday, June thirtieth, and jury
deliberations are officially underway in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs.
Welcome to this Diddy Update episode of Amy and TJ Robed.
It's a little bizarre to think it's kind of over
after we've been watching this thing so closely for two months.
Things started on May fifth with these jurors not even
(00:23):
knowing if they would be picked for the jury. They
just showed up for jury select jurwy selection two months ago.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
And that's so wild to think. Yeah, twelve people, eight men,
four women right now are deciding the fate of Diddy
after hearing six plus weeks of testimony. Was it thirty
five witnesses total? Four thirty four witnesses total?
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Another one who was the extra you threw?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Kanye did not.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Test He didn't count. But then too, They all sat
for what two hours this morning listening to the judge
go over in detail how they are expected to deliberate
on these five charges that Ditty is facing. And it
is complex, and it was even tedious hearing and at
(01:10):
least reading what the judge was explaining to the jurors.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
So as we're recording those folks with this is the
jury just got the case. We'll get into the jury
instructions in a sect, but they officially do have the
case now. In the meantime, Diddy is not going back
and forth. This is interesting. As we speak, Ditty is
not going back and forth from the jail in Brooklyn
to the courthouse in Manhattan while this is going on.
(01:34):
He has to stay at the courthouse. I thought that
was interesting. Then it's okay, you can take some light reading.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yeah, he asked for some books to take with him
in the holding cell with him as he waits. I mean,
it's funny. Well, it's not funny, but it's interesting. I'm
feeling nervous just waiting or anticipating what the jury is
going to do and what they're going to think and
how they're going to begin. Can you imagine what he's
going to be doing. Light reading, maybe heavy reading. I'd
like to know what books he's he's reading to distract
(02:02):
himself or maybe try to take himself to another place
while his fate is being determined.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
But to consider that, folks, as we speak, Diddy is
in a holding cell. A couple of blocks from where
we are recording with his books and waiting to find
out if he is going to spend the rest of
his life in prison, or maybe a few years in prison,
or maybe be home by the fourth of July. That
is not outside the realm of possibilities at all. But
(02:28):
this morning, Robes we're so used to. We were in
the We were actually in the car this morning when
court first started, and I was asking for you to
look at the updates since I was driving and I
was so ready for there to be a two hour delay.
A juror has a transportation issue, a childcare issue. I
was waiting for something. This is one of the few days,
it seems, in recent weeks that you know, they just
(02:52):
got started like they.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Were supposed to be. Yeah, the judge started addressing the jury,
I believe at nine to twenty. Beforehand, we got a
little bit of color from reporters who were there in
the courtroom saying that did he came in and hugged
his defense team, his entire family. His six adult children
are there in court behind him, or were there in
court behind him, along with his mother, and people just
(03:14):
described he was kind of seemed active, seemed engaged. But gosh,
I just can't imagine.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
That's always been the report, like the whole time. They say,
this is a very involved client. Yes, but looking at
juror sometimes we're not supposed to it, but certainly engaged,
looking at the juror, looking at jurors, engaged with his
own I mean his family members at time, members of
his defense team. They say he takes notes, he passes notes,
he fidgets sometimes, so he is obviously all that's on
(03:44):
the line. You want to sit up and pay attention.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
That is not surprising at all.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
But about his family, I was surprised to hear I
can't remember which reporter did said the family has been
passing notes. Yes, I saw that too, on a notepad.
I don't know. This is the first time I've seen
that's been going on. I don't know if it's been
going on all trial, and that's.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
The first I heard. Maybe they had questions for the
attorney they were passing up or at least what was
to be expected today. Maybe they had questions about timing
all of that as they were waiting for the jury
to come in and the judge to come in. But
this morning was not an exciting event. It wasn't something
where we were expecting anything other than real specific language
(04:25):
from the judge that had already been determined and agreed
upon between both sides on Thursday of last week. So
all of this that the judge read had already been preordained,
so to speak, by both sides fought over.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
It's fair. They fought over every single bit of language,
and as we talk about some of it here, you'll
see why they had to get so specific. But I
was surprised. I think I always want to give them credit.
But the BBC report, I believe, was talking about what
was going on in this non exciting event in the
overflow room today. This is how uneventful it was. People
(04:59):
were falling asleep.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
She said that there was audible snoring in the overflow rooms,
and I didn't realize this, but starting I believe last
week they actually had to open up more overflow rooms.
There are four overflow rooms now, I believe, in addition
to the actual courthouse, and that particular reporter from the
VBC described this morning outside of the Lower Manhattan Court
House as exceptionally busy. That people are starting to get
(05:23):
excited or at least anticipate a potential verdict, and so
there was. It was just a lot of buzzing and
a lot of activity, a lot of folks wanting to
get into that courthouse to be a part of it.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Was it did you say already one was knitting?
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Did you? I didn't say that someone was knitting too? Yes,
so you know, did he has light reading. One of
the folks who wants to watch the uh, at least
watch the jury come back or not today is knitting?
Other people are sleeping, your choice.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But the reason they were knitting and sleeping and audibly
snoring is because the official term is called a jury charge.
That's what happened today. Jury charge. You'll see that a
few places. All that means is that the jury officially
got their instructions, instructions that Robes was just talking about
that were kind of fought over by the attorneys. And
he does Robes, He's come in. I've been a part
I've seen these before. I've been a part of like
(06:12):
I'm the defendant, but I have seen these and he
is lit to relate. It is as if you were
reading the instruction pamphlet from a TV or an electronic
He is reading every single line about what they have
to do, and it does. It takes a while. You
have to pay attention. I think some of the they
were take well, they'll have a copy of the instructions
(06:33):
back there with them. But you have to sit and
pay attention because he goes through what legally some of
these standards you have to meet to find somebody guilty.
And that is the part that gets complicated, and especially
when you talk about racketeering, and I think that is
the one they spend a lot of time on in court.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Today, racketeering. He actually the judge went through the eight
different potential crimes that could be a part of the
racketeering and made it clear that did he had to
have committed or they had to believe he committed at
least two of them with a co conspirator within a
ten year period of time. Say it again for the
(07:11):
people in the exactly really did he had to have committed?
According to the jurors had to decide that he committed
two of these ten crimes with someone within the last
ten years or within ten years of each other. We see,
it's so amusing, but here the eight they have to
find that he was guilty of at least two of
(07:33):
these crimes with another person, kidnapping, arson, bribery, forced labor,
transportation to engage in prostitution, sex trafficking, witness tampering, and
possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances. And he
got very specific about that last one about the drugs,
because he said it didn't matter how much drugs we
(07:53):
were talking about, or which drugs were talking about, It's
just had to have happened with a second person and
an intent to distribute. I mean, it's I'm telling you
my mind. Every time I was listening to him reiterate
or at least reading what he was charging the jurors with,
it got more and more confusing. That's why this is
all written down and the jurors will each have a
copy with them in the deliberation room, because I imagine
(08:15):
you would have to refer I'm having to refer back
to it. I'm having to say, wait, now, which ones
in what time frame?
Speaker 1 (08:21):
With whom so he used that phrase a lot today,
the Comb's enterprise, because it needs to be an enterprise
in order for them to find him guilty of racketeering. Again,
this is the one he spent most of the time
on today. Was explaining racketeering, so Rotes. So much of
the debate was did they even establish that there was
(08:42):
a Comb's enterprise, meaning all this stuff he was doing
was personal, So there had to be one other person,
So the other it could be his drug mule, quote unquote,
could it be Kkstad, Could it be his security guy.
They had to somebody at least one of those people
had to agree to commit two of these crimes with him, did.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
They That'll be for the jury to decide.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
To think you have to go. Okay, so think about
the jerom. How long is this going to take?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
All?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Right? Kidnapping, did he commit kidnapping? You have to say
yes or no. They say yes, he committed kidnapping. But
did somebody else in his circle agree to do that
kidnapping with him?
Speaker 2 (09:29):
The prosecution would say d Rock did when he took.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Capricorn after kid cut it. Correct, Okay, So if that's
the case, that's just one. Yeah, Now we got to
go through all the others. And then and only then
can you say he is guilty of racketeering. If they
decide Robes, that's the case that two of these were
committed with did he he's going to doil for the
rest of his life.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Correct, because that and that is the reason it's the
most complex of them all, and it's the one that
carries the longest prison sentence, so up to life in prison.
It's that.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
If he is found guilty, he is going to prison
for the rest of his life. Quite oh my goodness. So, yes,
it gets complicated. They spend time with that. Yes, rhades
to your point. They're going to have the jury instructions.
They got laptop with them that has all the evidence
on that. They have a list of all the exhibits,
and they have a verdict sheet in there with them,
and that's kind of it that they go in again.
(10:21):
And you mentioned as well, So he go on the
drugs for a second before we move on to this
next thing about that we're getting into about disregarding a
witness's testimony. The drugs thing. Both of us I think
when it happened the testimony was it Brandon Paul, I
think we both were like, wait a minute, drug distribution?
Is the jury really going to say this dude was
(10:44):
distributing drugs? Did he as a drug distributor? Because he
told his assistant to come get him some drugs and
then he gave one pill to Cassie for the for
the freak off. Is that drug distribution?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Well, yes, according to the judge, he said, the amount
of drugs is irrelevant. That if at least two people
agreed to distribute a drug from one person to another,
then that falls into Yeah, that's the burden.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Of proof if two people. If you and I take
go to who I want to name somebody rigue, I
don't name a real person. But then oh, Joe shmok.
Let's say you and I go buy drugs from Joe. No,
you go buy drugs from Joe because I asked you to.
And then you bring those drugs to me and I
(11:37):
say thank you, Robock. And then I go give one
pill to a friend of mine because they asked for it.
I am now a drug distributor.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Yep, according to the way the judge laid it out,
that actually is the case. And so when we were
listening to the prosecution, when we were listening to people
the assistants describe what they did for Diddy, that seemed
like a slam dunk. I don't know now.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Is that the place where you go into some common
sense that a juror thinks, Wait, a minute. It was
personal use drugs, which is what the defense said. Is
a juror gonna sit there and say, I am I
going to send Sean Combs to prison for the rest
of his life because he wanted to use personal drugs.
That goes beyond a legal definition. And that's where you
(12:24):
talk about what you were saying. His attorney put on
such a show.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
So here's the other little cybar that I noticed. Did
you see or did you read? I'm sure you did.
What the judge said to the jurors, A got intoxication
because this is what I think is very interesting when
it comes to the drug use. So the judge specifically
told the jurors before they went away for deliberations that
being intoxicated is not a defense for committing a crime,
(12:50):
but it can impact your intent to commit a certain
crime like racketeering. So this has been a huge part
of the defense saying, hey, he was a drug addict,
he needed to go to rehab. He knew not what
he was doing because he was so messed up. He
was out of his mind on drugs, he was out
of his mind on alcohol, and so it's not a
(13:11):
defense for the crime, but it could absolutely impact whether
or not they believe he was a part of this racketeering. I.
I thought that was huge as well. That's why I
wanted to bring it up now when we're talking about
the drugs, because it's not it's not just about distributing
the drugs. He was taking the drugs.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
I thought that. Look, I don't know for sure, and
I don't know if the judge, if it legally has
to be in there, but I'm pretty sure his defense
team was I'm sure rooting for that.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
It was very happy to hear. That was one of
the last things the judge told the Jersey.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
That's interesting to hear. So this is why I never heard.
Does intent to commit racketeering matter? Do you have to
have the intent to be a mob boss?
Speaker 2 (13:58):
It seems like the answer is ye.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
To that, then all this is out the window. Then
isn't it to suggest that Diddy was running a enterprise
for the purpose of committing I am a huge music
star and the purpose of all this is so I
can have drug fueled sex nights.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Yeah, it's for pleasure. Well, he was doing what he
did for pleasure, personal pleasure, sexual pleasure, drugs. You could say, yes,
he wants to be high. He wants to numb, So
that's very different. So that intent seems to be very different.
I don't, you know, I don't know how the story
is going to figure this out. I really don't because
(14:39):
even when you hear the judge clearly say what this is,
what that is, there's still so much room for what
you think, what you feel, what your experience is, what
you would put on someone else, what you know you've
personally done in your life, and would that be racketeering?
And by the way, the judge just spoke, most people
in this country would be guilty of racketeering then with
drug use, I mean, even if it's just like a
(15:01):
prescription pill somebody needs anti depressed and somebody needs a xani,
how many people have just passed that stuff out, you
know what I mean? Like, it's just I think people
bring in their own real life experiences to this too
when they're judging, and this seems ah, this seems so
there's so many gray areas. That's the issue.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
And another key point the judge had today was if
a witness lied about one thing, then hey, you can
assume they lied about everything. We continue here on this Monday,
(15:43):
June thirtieth, the first day of deliberations. Now in the
Diddy trial, as we speak, the jury deliberations have officially begun,
and before they went in robes, of course, the judge
gave them their instructions and a key part of the instruction,
and this is something we heard his defense attorney talking
about yesterday. But look, if you think one witness, if
a witness lied about one thing, you can assume they
(16:07):
lied about everything if you want to.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
That was a key point and that was something yes,
that the defense was trying to hammer home on their
closing arguments. Yes, but the judge made it very very clear,
if you find that any witness willfully testified falsely, you
have the right to reject the testimony if that witness
in its entirety, even if you find them truthful or
(16:30):
credible in other parts, the judge is still instructing the
jury that they have the right to then disregard every
single thing that witness testified to. And so, because especially
with that big Perry Mason moment the defense had when
it came to the timeline that Mia was giving about
whether or not did you actually dangled her over that
(16:52):
sixteenth floor balcony on said date once.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
That was you know what, Wow, that.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Was Brianna Bongoland. But that witness, it seems specifically, if
you are taking the judge what he instructed you to disregard,
certainly in that moment, that was not a true statement
and it was proven not to be true that he
dangled Brianna from that balcony on that very specific date.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Did you're speaking of me? Why do I think Capricorn
Clark had something? I thought she got hung up or
got caught in something that wasn't quite clear. Brianna Bonglan
obviously was the big one. But the defense attorney Mark Agniphillo, Yes,
finally got that right. Agniphillo. Yeah, the trial is wrapping up.
I finally got his last name right. But he made
that point in closing, he made sure he got that
(17:43):
in there. He said, the judge is going to instruct
you on this tomorrow but or on Monday. But let
me tell you, but absolutely so, Brianna Bongley was a
key a key witness, not only because of what happened
to her, but because of what she allegedly saw, Because
of what she saw did he allegedly do, and how
he behaved and even suggested he assaulted her. And then
(18:05):
was she smoking a marijuana cigarette or was this a
regular cigarette? Like there were little things in there. The days,
How many days is she spilling the stand?
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Multiple days?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Multiple days, that key prosecution witness. They might take all
of her testimony and scrap it up and throw it
out because they just say, ah, don't believe me. In
the justice, I got the right to disregard all of it.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
And you know that the defense wanted that in there
as well. It seems as though with the judges instructions,
the defense got a lot of what they wanted the
jury to remember or at least told they were capable
of doing when they went into that deliberation room, when
they started to look at the evidence and really go
they have the transcripts, they can go back and actually
see those moments where some of the witnesses might have
(18:52):
been caught up in ambiguous testimony or at least testimony
that maybe they later had to amend or change. And yeah,
you just need what win is to say, nep, I
don't believe I don't believe that, and it goes Oh,
it all goes away.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Next, So what's the next Now for the next I
mean we wait. We literally this is okay, and now
we wait.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
We are waiting, but the clock is ticking. Yeah. The
first thing that the jurors are supposed to do is
to pick a four person. So they're supposed we're waiting,
I guess for a message. They will when they vote
and they pick out their four person, they will then
send that message to the judge, and I believe the
judge will then let the courtroom know who the four
person is, or at least that they've found or picked
(19:37):
chosen a four person and are going forward from there.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Yeah, and after that, we are waiting for them to decide,
for them to let us. Yeah, two notes he asked for.
He says, send me a note, let me know who
the four person is, and what was the second one?
Let me know what your schedule is going to be.
He's asking them, when do you all want to stop deliberating?
He said they can go until five every day.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
He said, they can go past five pm. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
I had to say, I've certainly seen judges. I've seen
juries like get us the hell out of here. I
still till eight o'clock, nine o'clock. Sometimes, don't know. This
jury could go into three, because they've been going nine
to three has been what the court's been. I don't
even know how to guess that.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
No, because it depends on those jurors individual lives and
what their lives are like schools out here in New
York Finally, for the first time since they started deliberating.
Not sure if any of these folks or parents, but
that could have a huge impact because up until Thursday,
if they had kids, their kids were in school. Now
those kids are out of school here in the New
York City area. It's a late time to get out.
But yeah, it is crazy timing. And also of note,
(20:35):
the judge sent the five alternates home and said you
can go home. However you need to keep They have
to have a phone number, they have to be able
to be reached at a moment's notice. They kind of
have to be on standby, so to speak. And he
actually did apologize to them. He said, I'm so sorry
most of you will not be able to see this
through to the deliberation process. And can you imagine you
(20:56):
spent that much time of your life watching, witnessing, probably
forming your own opinions, and then not actually getting to contribute.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I was waiting on you to say that out loud,
and then I figured you'd come to the same conclusion
I did. That's the best place to be. I got
a front row seat. I got to experience history and
see this and it is It'll go down in history
this trial, and then I get to go home and
I don't actually have to vote and figure this out.
This is just too heavy. It's just jurys, jurors, God
(21:28):
love you. I've been called of some jury duties, never
had to serve on a jury. This is just to
have somebody's life in your hands. This civic duty is
what we're all supposed to do. It's just it's a
lot of robes because you can see sympathy with so
many people. What do people deserve? What is fairness? What
is the law say? What is my common sense tell me?
What does my eyes tell me? What does my heart
(21:50):
tell me? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
And then the dynamic of those other folks in the
room with all of their different life experiences coming in,
and then everyone has to find a compromise because at
the end of the day, this has to be a
unanimous decision on all five of these charges. So you know,
some some cases are more complicated than others. And obviously
murder trials, someone's life is truly on the life. But
(22:15):
sometimes it's as simple as a murder charge or you know,
a first degree or second degree charge. This is so complicated,
with so many different types of charges that carry very
different punishments. It's it's exceptionally confusing. That's why I you know, look,
this could they could come back at any point, but
it seems like it's going to take some time.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Be shocked if we get anything, you know what, I
if I were a betting man, I would put it
through fourth of julyne if I were a betting man,
I would put it through that unless they do some
longer hours or if they want to get out of
their fine. But it is so step by step, twelve
people we have to go through and listen to twelve
people on eight different counts that only lead to the
(23:00):
one racketeering count. I mean, it's it's I don't know.
I don't know how they do it.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
I don't either. I was trying to think about it
as a parent, like just having a couple of kids,
trying to figure out what you want to do for
today or what food you want to order. It's that's
hard to get twelve people to agree on something this
serious and this complex, with the world watching, knowing you're
gonna be questioned and knowing you're gonna have to sleep
at night.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Which one takes less time? Which charge? Which one you
think they would get through fairly quickly?
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Well hmmm, I mean I feel like the drug charge,
But that's a part of the racketeering. That's part of
the rector see, that's part of the.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
Racketeer's actually charged with kidnapthel and charged with arson, not
charged with drugs, but those underlying crimes go into the racketeering.
That's crazy tell to think about. But the prostitution one
is the one that because yes, he paid those guys
flew to where he was and they ended up having
sex with his girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Would have to buy the defense's argument that he was
paying for their experience and their time and not for
their sex. And I think that's a hard one to
believe because the video shows differently.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
And let's litigate the case. Yes, that's second. Yes, this argument, well,
why don't you just shut down all escort services? Was
the Yes, we hired an escort. They're online cowboys for angels. Okay,
I'm just hiring an escort. Why is that business legal?
And I'm supposed to put this man in jail for
(24:33):
the rest of his way?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
No, And I think that could be a human reaction.
It's not necessarily the legal one, because I think if
you look at the legal part of this, it seems
like it's a fairly cut and dry issue that he
absolutely paid for male escorts and Cassie and Jane to
cross state lines to participate in sex parties, and he
(24:57):
paid them for it, So that does But he's claiming
he will paid for their experience in time and the
sex just happened to happen.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Everybody else who hires an escort, right, correct, you're hiring
and escort. What happens after that? Hey, it's up to you.
I'm just saying that I see that. So the prostitution
one seems to be, well, he paid, they can't have
sex five But this is the one that is up
to ten years in prison.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
So it's the lesser of all the right, I think
the one. Yes that so that one seems like the
most obvious one that they could come to a conclusion on.
But who knows, because look, again, every juror brings their
life experience into that deliberating room.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Hope no guys in there.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Well, there's eight men and four women.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Hope none of them are frequent visitors to Cowboys for
Angels or well, no, they wouldn't be. I guess right.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Well, the boys for Angels, yes, but cowboys for angels,
Angels for cowboys, cowboys for angels yes. So anyway, we
will continue to wait along with all of you in
any odes anything interesting that comes out of the courtroom
we'll pop back on. So take a look at your phone,
keep your eye on it, because we will absolutely be
updating our Amy and TJ podcast speed with any new
(26:12):
developments that will happen throughout the day to day and
for the days to come. But in the meantime, thank
you for listening to us here on this Monday afternoon.
Hopefully all have a good one.
Hey, there're folks. It is Monday, June thirtieth, and jury
deliberations are officially underway in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs.
Welcome to this Diddy Update episode of Amy and TJ Robed.
It's a little bizarre to think it's kind of over
after we've been watching this thing so closely for two months.
Things started on May fifth with these jurors not even
(00:23):
knowing if they would be picked for the jury. They
just showed up for jury select jurwy selection two months ago.
Speaker 2 (00:29):
And that's so wild to think. Yeah, twelve people, eight men,
four women right now are deciding the fate of Diddy
after hearing six plus weeks of testimony. Was it thirty
five witnesses total? Four thirty four witnesses total?
Speaker 1 (00:45):
Another one who was the extra you threw?
Speaker 2 (00:47):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (00:48):
Kanye did not.
Speaker 2 (00:48):
Test He didn't count. But then too, They all sat
for what two hours this morning listening to the judge
go over in detail how they are expected to deliberate
on these five charges that Ditty is facing. And it
is complex, and it was even tedious hearing and at
(01:10):
least reading what the judge was explaining to the jurors.
Speaker 1 (01:13):
So as we're recording those folks with this is the
jury just got the case. We'll get into the jury
instructions in a sect, but they officially do have the
case now. In the meantime, Diddy is not going back
and forth. This is interesting. As we speak, Ditty is
not going back and forth from the jail in Brooklyn
to the courthouse in Manhattan while this is going on.
(01:34):
He has to stay at the courthouse. I thought that
was interesting. Then it's okay, you can take some light reading.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yeah, he asked for some books to take with him
in the holding cell with him as he waits. I mean,
it's funny. Well, it's not funny, but it's interesting. I'm
feeling nervous just waiting or anticipating what the jury is
going to do and what they're going to think and
how they're going to begin. Can you imagine what he's
going to be doing. Light reading, maybe heavy reading. I'd
like to know what books he's he's reading to distract
(02:02):
himself or maybe try to take himself to another place
while his fate is being determined.
Speaker 1 (02:07):
But to consider that, folks, as we speak, Diddy is
in a holding cell. A couple of blocks from where
we are recording with his books and waiting to find
out if he is going to spend the rest of
his life in prison, or maybe a few years in prison,
or maybe be home by the fourth of July. That
is not outside the realm of possibilities at all. But
(02:28):
this morning, Robes we're so used to. We were in
the We were actually in the car this morning when
court first started, and I was asking for you to
look at the updates since I was driving and I
was so ready for there to be a two hour delay.
A juror has a transportation issue, a childcare issue. I
was waiting for something. This is one of the few days,
it seems, in recent weeks that you know, they just
(02:52):
got started like they.
Speaker 2 (02:53):
Were supposed to be. Yeah, the judge started addressing the jury,
I believe at nine to twenty. Beforehand, we got a
little bit of color from reporters who were there in
the courtroom saying that did he came in and hugged
his defense team, his entire family. His six adult children
are there in court behind him, or were there in
court behind him, along with his mother, and people just
(03:14):
described he was kind of seemed active, seemed engaged. But gosh,
I just can't imagine.
Speaker 1 (03:21):
That's always been the report, like the whole time. They say,
this is a very involved client. Yes, but looking at
juror sometimes we're not supposed to it, but certainly engaged,
looking at the juror, looking at jurors, engaged with his
own I mean his family members at time, members of
his defense team. They say he takes notes, he passes notes,
he fidgets sometimes, so he is obviously all that's on
(03:44):
the line. You want to sit up and pay attention.
Speaker 2 (03:46):
That is not surprising at all.
Speaker 1 (03:48):
But about his family, I was surprised to hear I
can't remember which reporter did said the family has been
passing notes. Yes, I saw that too, on a notepad.
I don't know. This is the first time I've seen
that's been going on. I don't know if it's been
going on all trial, and that's.
Speaker 2 (04:01):
The first I heard. Maybe they had questions for the
attorney they were passing up or at least what was
to be expected today. Maybe they had questions about timing
all of that as they were waiting for the jury
to come in and the judge to come in. But
this morning was not an exciting event. It wasn't something
where we were expecting anything other than real specific language
(04:25):
from the judge that had already been determined and agreed
upon between both sides on Thursday of last week. So
all of this that the judge read had already been preordained,
so to speak, by both sides fought over.
Speaker 1 (04:39):
It's fair. They fought over every single bit of language,
and as we talk about some of it here, you'll
see why they had to get so specific. But I
was surprised. I think I always want to give them credit.
But the BBC report, I believe, was talking about what
was going on in this non exciting event in the
overflow room today. This is how uneventful it was. People
(04:59):
were falling asleep.
Speaker 2 (05:00):
She said that there was audible snoring in the overflow rooms,
and I didn't realize this, but starting I believe last
week they actually had to open up more overflow rooms.
There are four overflow rooms now, I believe, in addition
to the actual courthouse, and that particular reporter from the
VBC described this morning outside of the Lower Manhattan Court
House as exceptionally busy. That people are starting to get
(05:23):
excited or at least anticipate a potential verdict, and so
there was. It was just a lot of buzzing and
a lot of activity, a lot of folks wanting to
get into that courthouse to be a part of it.
Speaker 1 (05:33):
Was it did you say already one was knitting?
Speaker 2 (05:35):
Did you? I didn't say that someone was knitting too? Yes,
so you know, did he has light reading. One of
the folks who wants to watch the uh, at least
watch the jury come back or not today is knitting?
Other people are sleeping, your choice.
Speaker 1 (05:50):
But the reason they were knitting and sleeping and audibly
snoring is because the official term is called a jury charge.
That's what happened today. Jury charge. You'll see that a
few places. All that means is that the jury officially
got their instructions, instructions that Robes was just talking about
that were kind of fought over by the attorneys. And
he does Robes, He's come in. I've been a part
I've seen these before. I've been a part of like
(06:12):
I'm the defendant, but I have seen these and he
is lit to relate. It is as if you were
reading the instruction pamphlet from a TV or an electronic
He is reading every single line about what they have
to do, and it does. It takes a while. You
have to pay attention. I think some of the they
were take well, they'll have a copy of the instructions
(06:33):
back there with them. But you have to sit and
pay attention because he goes through what legally some of
these standards you have to meet to find somebody guilty.
And that is the part that gets complicated, and especially
when you talk about racketeering, and I think that is
the one they spend a lot of time on in court.
Speaker 2 (06:50):
Today, racketeering. He actually the judge went through the eight
different potential crimes that could be a part of the
racketeering and made it clear that did he had to
have committed or they had to believe he committed at
least two of them with a co conspirator within a
ten year period of time. Say it again for the
(07:11):
people in the exactly really did he had to have committed?
According to the jurors had to decide that he committed
two of these ten crimes with someone within the last
ten years or within ten years of each other. We see,
it's so amusing, but here the eight they have to
find that he was guilty of at least two of
(07:33):
these crimes with another person, kidnapping, arson, bribery, forced labor,
transportation to engage in prostitution, sex trafficking, witness tampering, and
possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances. And he
got very specific about that last one about the drugs,
because he said it didn't matter how much drugs we
(07:53):
were talking about, or which drugs were talking about, It's
just had to have happened with a second person and
an intent to distribute. I mean, it's I'm telling you
my mind. Every time I was listening to him reiterate
or at least reading what he was charging the jurors with,
it got more and more confusing. That's why this is
all written down and the jurors will each have a
copy with them in the deliberation room, because I imagine
(08:15):
you would have to refer I'm having to refer back
to it. I'm having to say, wait, now, which ones
in what time frame?
Speaker 1 (08:21):
With whom so he used that phrase a lot today,
the Comb's enterprise, because it needs to be an enterprise
in order for them to find him guilty of racketeering. Again,
this is the one he spent most of the time
on today. Was explaining racketeering, so Rotes. So much of
the debate was did they even establish that there was
(08:42):
a Comb's enterprise, meaning all this stuff he was doing
was personal, So there had to be one other person,
So the other it could be his drug mule, quote unquote,
could it be Kkstad, Could it be his security guy.
They had to somebody at least one of those people
had to agree to commit two of these crimes with him, did.
Speaker 2 (09:09):
They That'll be for the jury to decide.
Speaker 1 (09:12):
To think you have to go. Okay, so think about
the jerom. How long is this going to take?
Speaker 2 (09:15):
All?
Speaker 1 (09:15):
Right? Kidnapping, did he commit kidnapping? You have to say
yes or no. They say yes, he committed kidnapping. But
did somebody else in his circle agree to do that
kidnapping with him?
Speaker 2 (09:29):
The prosecution would say d Rock did when he took.
Speaker 1 (09:34):
Capricorn after kid cut it. Correct, Okay, So if that's
the case, that's just one. Yeah, Now we got to
go through all the others. And then and only then
can you say he is guilty of racketeering. If they
decide Robes, that's the case that two of these were
committed with did he he's going to doil for the
rest of his life.
Speaker 2 (09:51):
Correct, because that and that is the reason it's the
most complex of them all, and it's the one that
carries the longest prison sentence, so up to life in prison.
It's that.
Speaker 1 (10:01):
If he is found guilty, he is going to prison
for the rest of his life. Quite oh my goodness. So, yes,
it gets complicated. They spend time with that. Yes, rhades
to your point. They're going to have the jury instructions.
They got laptop with them that has all the evidence
on that. They have a list of all the exhibits,
and they have a verdict sheet in there with them,
and that's kind of it that they go in again.
(10:21):
And you mentioned as well, So he go on the
drugs for a second before we move on to this
next thing about that we're getting into about disregarding a
witness's testimony. The drugs thing. Both of us I think
when it happened the testimony was it Brandon Paul, I
think we both were like, wait a minute, drug distribution?
Is the jury really going to say this dude was
(10:44):
distributing drugs? Did he as a drug distributor? Because he
told his assistant to come get him some drugs and
then he gave one pill to Cassie for the for
the freak off. Is that drug distribution?
Speaker 2 (10:58):
Well, yes, according to the judge, he said, the amount
of drugs is irrelevant. That if at least two people
agreed to distribute a drug from one person to another,
then that falls into Yeah, that's the burden.
Speaker 1 (11:14):
Of proof if two people. If you and I take
go to who I want to name somebody rigue, I
don't name a real person. But then oh, Joe shmok.
Let's say you and I go buy drugs from Joe. No,
you go buy drugs from Joe because I asked you to.
And then you bring those drugs to me and I
(11:37):
say thank you, Robock. And then I go give one
pill to a friend of mine because they asked for it.
I am now a drug distributor.
Speaker 2 (11:46):
Yep, according to the way the judge laid it out,
that actually is the case. And so when we were
listening to the prosecution, when we were listening to people
the assistants describe what they did for Diddy, that seemed
like a slam dunk. I don't know now.
Speaker 1 (12:03):
Is that the place where you go into some common
sense that a juror thinks, Wait, a minute. It was
personal use drugs, which is what the defense said. Is
a juror gonna sit there and say, I am I
going to send Sean Combs to prison for the rest
of his life because he wanted to use personal drugs.
That goes beyond a legal definition. And that's where you
(12:24):
talk about what you were saying. His attorney put on
such a show.
Speaker 2 (12:28):
So here's the other little cybar that I noticed. Did
you see or did you read? I'm sure you did.
What the judge said to the jurors, A got intoxication
because this is what I think is very interesting when
it comes to the drug use. So the judge specifically
told the jurors before they went away for deliberations that
being intoxicated is not a defense for committing a crime,
(12:50):
but it can impact your intent to commit a certain
crime like racketeering. So this has been a huge part
of the defense saying, hey, he was a drug addict,
he needed to go to rehab. He knew not what
he was doing because he was so messed up. He
was out of his mind on drugs, he was out
of his mind on alcohol, and so it's not a
(13:11):
defense for the crime, but it could absolutely impact whether
or not they believe he was a part of this racketeering. I.
I thought that was huge as well. That's why I
wanted to bring it up now when we're talking about
the drugs, because it's not it's not just about distributing
the drugs. He was taking the drugs.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
I thought that. Look, I don't know for sure, and
I don't know if the judge, if it legally has
to be in there, but I'm pretty sure his defense
team was I'm sure rooting for that.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
It was very happy to hear. That was one of
the last things the judge told the Jersey.
Speaker 1 (13:47):
That's interesting to hear. So this is why I never heard.
Does intent to commit racketeering matter? Do you have to
have the intent to be a mob boss?
Speaker 2 (13:58):
It seems like the answer is ye.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
To that, then all this is out the window. Then
isn't it to suggest that Diddy was running a enterprise
for the purpose of committing I am a huge music
star and the purpose of all this is so I
can have drug fueled sex nights.
Speaker 2 (14:18):
Yeah, it's for pleasure. Well, he was doing what he
did for pleasure, personal pleasure, sexual pleasure, drugs. You could say, yes,
he wants to be high. He wants to numb, So
that's very different. So that intent seems to be very different.
I don't, you know, I don't know how the story
is going to figure this out. I really don't because
(14:39):
even when you hear the judge clearly say what this is,
what that is, there's still so much room for what
you think, what you feel, what your experience is, what
you would put on someone else, what you know you've
personally done in your life, and would that be racketeering?
And by the way, the judge just spoke, most people
in this country would be guilty of racketeering then with
drug use, I mean, even if it's just like a
(15:01):
prescription pill somebody needs anti depressed and somebody needs a xani,
how many people have just passed that stuff out, you
know what I mean? Like, it's just I think people
bring in their own real life experiences to this too
when they're judging, and this seems ah, this seems so
there's so many gray areas. That's the issue.
Speaker 1 (15:19):
And another key point the judge had today was if
a witness lied about one thing, then hey, you can
assume they lied about everything. We continue here on this Monday,
(15:43):
June thirtieth, the first day of deliberations. Now in the
Diddy trial, as we speak, the jury deliberations have officially begun,
and before they went in robes, of course, the judge
gave them their instructions and a key part of the instruction,
and this is something we heard his defense attorney talking
about yesterday. But look, if you think one witness, if
a witness lied about one thing, you can assume they
(16:07):
lied about everything if you want to.
Speaker 2 (16:09):
That was a key point and that was something yes,
that the defense was trying to hammer home on their
closing arguments. Yes, but the judge made it very very clear,
if you find that any witness willfully testified falsely, you
have the right to reject the testimony if that witness
in its entirety, even if you find them truthful or
(16:30):
credible in other parts, the judge is still instructing the
jury that they have the right to then disregard every
single thing that witness testified to. And so, because especially
with that big Perry Mason moment the defense had when
it came to the timeline that Mia was giving about
whether or not did you actually dangled her over that
(16:52):
sixteenth floor balcony on said date once.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
That was you know what, Wow, that.
Speaker 2 (17:00):
Was Brianna Bongoland. But that witness, it seems specifically, if
you are taking the judge what he instructed you to disregard,
certainly in that moment, that was not a true statement
and it was proven not to be true that he
dangled Brianna from that balcony on that very specific date.
Speaker 1 (17:21):
Did you're speaking of me? Why do I think Capricorn
Clark had something? I thought she got hung up or
got caught in something that wasn't quite clear. Brianna Bonglan
obviously was the big one. But the defense attorney Mark Agniphillo, Yes,
finally got that right. Agniphillo. Yeah, the trial is wrapping up.
I finally got his last name right. But he made
that point in closing, he made sure he got that
(17:43):
in there. He said, the judge is going to instruct
you on this tomorrow but or on Monday. But let
me tell you, but absolutely so, Brianna Bongley was a
key a key witness, not only because of what happened
to her, but because of what she allegedly saw, Because
of what she saw did he allegedly do, and how
he behaved and even suggested he assaulted her. And then
(18:05):
was she smoking a marijuana cigarette or was this a
regular cigarette? Like there were little things in there. The days,
How many days is she spilling the stand?
Speaker 2 (18:14):
Multiple days?
Speaker 1 (18:15):
Multiple days, that key prosecution witness. They might take all
of her testimony and scrap it up and throw it
out because they just say, ah, don't believe me. In
the justice, I got the right to disregard all of it.
Speaker 2 (18:30):
And you know that the defense wanted that in there
as well. It seems as though with the judges instructions,
the defense got a lot of what they wanted the
jury to remember or at least told they were capable
of doing when they went into that deliberation room, when
they started to look at the evidence and really go
they have the transcripts, they can go back and actually
see those moments where some of the witnesses might have
(18:52):
been caught up in ambiguous testimony or at least testimony
that maybe they later had to amend or change. And yeah,
you just need what win is to say, nep, I
don't believe I don't believe that, and it goes Oh,
it all goes away.
Speaker 1 (19:09):
Next, So what's the next Now for the next I
mean we wait. We literally this is okay, and now
we wait.
Speaker 2 (19:15):
We are waiting, but the clock is ticking. Yeah. The
first thing that the jurors are supposed to do is
to pick a four person. So they're supposed we're waiting,
I guess for a message. They will when they vote
and they pick out their four person, they will then
send that message to the judge, and I believe the
judge will then let the courtroom know who the four
person is, or at least that they've found or picked
(19:37):
chosen a four person and are going forward from there.
Speaker 1 (19:40):
Yeah, and after that, we are waiting for them to decide,
for them to let us. Yeah, two notes he asked for.
He says, send me a note, let me know who
the four person is, and what was the second one?
Let me know what your schedule is going to be.
He's asking them, when do you all want to stop deliberating?
He said they can go until five every day.
Speaker 2 (19:58):
He said, they can go past five pm. Yeah.
Speaker 1 (20:00):
I had to say, I've certainly seen judges. I've seen
juries like get us the hell out of here. I
still till eight o'clock, nine o'clock. Sometimes, don't know. This
jury could go into three, because they've been going nine
to three has been what the court's been. I don't
even know how to guess that.
Speaker 2 (20:13):
No, because it depends on those jurors individual lives and
what their lives are like schools out here in New
York Finally, for the first time since they started deliberating.
Not sure if any of these folks or parents, but
that could have a huge impact because up until Thursday,
if they had kids, their kids were in school. Now
those kids are out of school here in the New
York City area. It's a late time to get out.
But yeah, it is crazy timing. And also of note,
(20:35):
the judge sent the five alternates home and said you
can go home. However you need to keep They have
to have a phone number, they have to be able
to be reached at a moment's notice. They kind of
have to be on standby, so to speak. And he
actually did apologize to them. He said, I'm so sorry
most of you will not be able to see this
through to the deliberation process. And can you imagine you
(20:56):
spent that much time of your life watching, witnessing, probably
forming your own opinions, and then not actually getting to contribute.
Speaker 1 (21:05):
I was waiting on you to say that out loud,
and then I figured you'd come to the same conclusion
I did. That's the best place to be. I got
a front row seat. I got to experience history and
see this and it is It'll go down in history
this trial, and then I get to go home and
I don't actually have to vote and figure this out.
This is just too heavy. It's just jurys, jurors, God
(21:28):
love you. I've been called of some jury duties, never
had to serve on a jury. This is just to
have somebody's life in your hands. This civic duty is
what we're all supposed to do. It's just it's a
lot of robes because you can see sympathy with so
many people. What do people deserve? What is fairness? What
is the law say? What is my common sense tell me?
What does my eyes tell me? What does my heart
(21:50):
tell me? I don't know.
Speaker 2 (21:53):
And then the dynamic of those other folks in the
room with all of their different life experiences coming in,
and then everyone has to find a compromise because at
the end of the day, this has to be a
unanimous decision on all five of these charges. So you know,
some some cases are more complicated than others. And obviously
murder trials, someone's life is truly on the life. But
(22:15):
sometimes it's as simple as a murder charge or you know,
a first degree or second degree charge. This is so complicated,
with so many different types of charges that carry very
different punishments. It's it's exceptionally confusing. That's why I you know, look,
this could they could come back at any point, but
it seems like it's going to take some time.
Speaker 1 (22:35):
Be shocked if we get anything, you know what, I
if I were a betting man, I would put it
through fourth of julyne if I were a betting man,
I would put it through that unless they do some
longer hours or if they want to get out of
their fine. But it is so step by step, twelve
people we have to go through and listen to twelve
people on eight different counts that only lead to the
(23:00):
one racketeering count. I mean, it's it's I don't know.
I don't know how they do it.
Speaker 2 (23:04):
I don't either. I was trying to think about it
as a parent, like just having a couple of kids,
trying to figure out what you want to do for
today or what food you want to order. It's that's
hard to get twelve people to agree on something this
serious and this complex, with the world watching, knowing you're
gonna be questioned and knowing you're gonna have to sleep
at night.
Speaker 1 (23:23):
Which one takes less time? Which charge? Which one you
think they would get through fairly quickly?
Speaker 2 (23:32):
Well hmmm, I mean I feel like the drug charge,
But that's a part of the racketeering. That's part of
the rector see, that's part of the.
Speaker 1 (23:40):
Racketeer's actually charged with kidnapthel and charged with arson, not
charged with drugs, but those underlying crimes go into the racketeering.
That's crazy tell to think about. But the prostitution one
is the one that because yes, he paid those guys
flew to where he was and they ended up having
sex with his girlfriend.
Speaker 2 (24:00):
Would have to buy the defense's argument that he was
paying for their experience and their time and not for
their sex. And I think that's a hard one to
believe because the video shows differently.
Speaker 1 (24:12):
And let's litigate the case. Yes, that's second. Yes, this argument, well,
why don't you just shut down all escort services? Was
the Yes, we hired an escort. They're online cowboys for angels. Okay,
I'm just hiring an escort. Why is that business legal?
And I'm supposed to put this man in jail for
(24:33):
the rest of his way?
Speaker 2 (24:34):
No, And I think that could be a human reaction.
It's not necessarily the legal one, because I think if
you look at the legal part of this, it seems
like it's a fairly cut and dry issue that he
absolutely paid for male escorts and Cassie and Jane to
cross state lines to participate in sex parties, and he
(24:57):
paid them for it, So that does But he's claiming
he will paid for their experience in time and the
sex just happened to happen.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Everybody else who hires an escort, right, correct, you're hiring
and escort. What happens after that? Hey, it's up to you.
I'm just saying that I see that. So the prostitution
one seems to be, well, he paid, they can't have
sex five But this is the one that is up
to ten years in prison.
Speaker 2 (25:21):
So it's the lesser of all the right, I think
the one. Yes that so that one seems like the
most obvious one that they could come to a conclusion on.
But who knows, because look, again, every juror brings their
life experience into that deliberating room.
Speaker 1 (25:38):
Hope no guys in there.
Speaker 2 (25:40):
Well, there's eight men and four women.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
Hope none of them are frequent visitors to Cowboys for
Angels or well, no, they wouldn't be. I guess right.
Speaker 2 (25:48):
Well, the boys for Angels, yes, but cowboys for angels,
Angels for cowboys, cowboys for angels yes. So anyway, we
will continue to wait along with all of you in
any odes anything interesting that comes out of the courtroom
we'll pop back on. So take a look at your phone,
keep your eye on it, because we will absolutely be
updating our Amy and TJ podcast speed with any new
(26:12):
developments that will happen throughout the day to day and
for the days to come. But in the meantime, thank
you for listening to us here on this Monday afternoon.
Hopefully all have a good one.
Popular Podcasts
United States of Kennedy
United States of Kennedy is a podcast about our cultural fascination with the Kennedy dynasty. Every week, hosts Lyra Smith and George Civeris go into one aspect of the Kennedy story.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com