July 1, 2025 • 19 mins
A rollercoaster of an afternoon with the Jury announcing they have unanimously reached verdicts on counts 2 through 5! Amy and T.J. go over the latest as jurors say they remain deadlocked on the most serious racketeering conspiracy charge!
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, the folks. It is Tuesday, July first, and the
jury has reached verdicts in the Diddy trial. But we
don't know what the verdicts are yet, and we might
not know for several days. Why more jury drama, folks,
Welcome to this episode, this second Diddy update episode of
(00:22):
Amy and TJ for the day Robes. What was your reaction?
I had to give you the updates in real time
via text because you happen to be out at the time.
But what were was your reaction to hearing what we
know now?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Oh, my heart was pounding.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I was running around New York City in the rain
and trying to get some errands done, but like hearing
from you that there were verdicts in Bam, my heart stopped,
and so I tried to start looking at my phone,
reading the reporters who were in the room, trying to
read the tea leaves, because we first just started getting
anecdotal observations about how Diddy was reacting and how his
(00:59):
defense team was reacting, and I was trying to figure
out what that meant. It was confusing, exciting, and I
don't know. So much is on the line, and we've
all been following this everyone who's been listening with us,
but those of us who are covering it, it just
it's overwhelming, all.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Right, So folks, we'll let you know where we are
right now as of this recording, early evening here on
July first, the jury has gone home. They've gone home
for the day, but they sent a note to the
judge at about four fifteen this afternoon, that note telling
him that they had reached verdicts on four of the
five counts against Sean Diddy Combs. The one count robes
(01:38):
they're hung up on. We should not be surprised, and
we are not legal experts, but I guess we kind
of saw this coming.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yes, they are stuck on the racketeering conspiracy charge. That,
of course, is the one that was the most confusing
and complex and the one that would send Diddy to
prison for the rest of his life. So that is
the one that they were asking questions about. We kind
of figured that out. But what we hadn't realized is
(02:05):
it sounds like perhaps they had already pretty quickly made
decisions on count two, three, four, and five.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Hey, that's tough to's that is what is that? I mean,
any legal expert will tell you something and what that means.
But they started sending notes, and it's giving an indication
that they were debating about the racketeering charge really really
early in the process. So to think that counts two, three,
four five they were unanimous on in a matter of
(02:36):
it had to be an hour.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
I know so. And look, I am no legal expert,
but a lot of folks will believe if you get
a verdict back quickly or decision is made quickly, oftentimes
it is guilty. That is just typically what you see.
It's not always the case. But to add to that,
the defense team, who knows what they're telling Diddy, what
they're telling their client. But from the folks who were
(03:00):
in the room, they said his face looked despondent, and
there were a lot of hugs, There was a lot
of pats on the backs. The mood seemed serious, I believe,
is how they described it.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
I think you saw as well. We read again, folks,
We read all of the commentary from the reporters who
are in the room, so they're feverishly typing their observations
and then we take it in. Now we from Sky News, BBC,
the Independent.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Of CNN, ABC.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
NBC, we look at all of these things ropes. I
saw a few initially talking about hugs and almost smiles
and even laughter on Ditty's side. I saw some follow
ups that said after the note came that there were hugs,
very serious looks on their faces, and to your point, desponded.
So some of the scenes they're describing were different. But
(03:47):
I think what you just said was more consistent and
what everybody was observing, like something's up, something serious. Why
are they hugging?
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Yes, And because they don't know, obviously, no one knows
what the verdict is if it's not guilty or guilty,
but most attorneys know in these types of situations. Just
they're reading between the lines in terms of the notes
that the jurors have been sending over the last day
and a half and the fact that they are stuck
(04:16):
on the most serious charge. But seemingly came pretty quickly
to their decision on count two, which is sex trafficking
by force, fraud or coersion that was about Cassie Ventur.
They had a unanimous decision on count three, that's transportation
to engage in prostitution that also pertains to Cassie Ventura
and the sex workers that we've heard about. They're unanimous
(04:39):
on the count four charge, which is also sex trafficking
by force, fraud or corrosion, this is in reference to Jane,
and then unanimous on their decision for count five, which
is transportation to engage in prostitution that is involving Jane
and the sex workers that also a part of that
(05:00):
that testified as well.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
So you know, look, it's settled right now. They have
settled and they have made a decision about the fate
of Sean Didtycomb's on four of five counts, the most
serious one is left, sure, but the fact that he
is potentially looking and again robes on two of those
counts we're talking about sex trafficking. Those carry a minimum
(05:26):
of fifteen years each, correct a minimum, yes, a minimum
of fifteen years. He has the other two, the prostitution
counts have a maximum of ten years. But he is
looking at some serious, serious prison time if in fact
these are guilty. I mean, I was going back and
forth before we started recording with you, like, how do
(05:46):
you possibly look at this? How could you lean not guilty?
How could you look at this and lean and possibly
think well, they did it that quickly how could you
lean not guilty.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
See, I just feel like if there's stuck on the racketeering,
which is the most serious of the crimes and involved
some of these counts in that you just had to
have a co conspirator involved as well. So it just
seems to me that the count two through five are guilty. Okay,
it just seems like that has to be what it is.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
I don't know what happened, looking at your face right then,
and you just for whatever reason, it just clicked. It
clicked if you again, I don't think I said this
point clear enough. At the top the jury note that
they sent said that we've reached verdicts on four or
five counts. We on one. We have people who are unpersuadable,
who are unmovable on both sides. So that means there's
(06:43):
somebody on that jury who is so sure that he's
guilty of racketeering that they refuse to move. Yeah, that
person is probably voted.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
That person has not voted not guilty on counts two
through five.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
That is a hunt, that's a done deal.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
So that's why, Okay, that's why the despondent looks.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
And I think that's why the hugging, because I think
they know at the very least did he is going
to prison, is going to stay in prison for quite
some time with these verdicts.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Now I can understand the racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Someone might think he was guilty of counts two through five,
But did it really rise to the level of racketeering?
Did he actually have an empire? Did he actually have
an enterprise? Did he actually have a co conspirator? And
so I can see why someone said could say who
thought he was guilty on counts two through five still say,
you know what, I don't.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Think he's guilty of racketeering.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Also, that's putting him away for the rest of his life,
and that might feel a little bit more ominous.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
But their note suggests somebody is sure, unpersuadable and unmovable
on the racketeering charge of him being guilty. I'm glad
we talked this out because I was trying to find
a way, like, how is it? Is it any way
at the Nope, there's no way.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
I don't think there's any way that sure he.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Was guilty of racketeering.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
There's no way say.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
He's not guilty of something else.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Here's the deal. Here's a question.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
He could be he could be not guilty on the
sex trafficking charges, and he they could have unanimously decided that,
And then they could have unanimously decided that he's guilty
of the transportation to engage in prostitution. So he might
they might have unanimously It might be split.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
You make another good points.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
So maybe he is only facing ten years each.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
I mean, if there's a myriad of possibilities, they're not
necessarily all guilty or all not guilty.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
It could be a mix.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
You know what I am Again, I'm not being curt
with this or because of the seriousness of what we're
talking about here, But if I were a betting man,
I would take that scenario you just laid out. Yeah,
meaning there's some difficulty with the sex trafficking. People have
a difficulty understanding why, Like, wait a minute, she could
have left any time she wanted to be kind of
(08:53):
a thing. And even if you're not okay with the
sex trafficking, maybe it's easier to say, okay, he paid
for these guys came and had sex.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
When we heard the prosecution give their closing arguments and
throughout the testimony, we kind of really felt like that
was a slam dunk. While we were listening to the
evidence as it was happening, we said, kind of feels
like they totally proved that by the law that it
seems yes, right, So that wouldn't be shocking. Now here's
another scenario, babe. They could have believed Cassie.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Ventura and not believed Jane. There could be it could
split on that as well, a myriad of guilty and
not guilty.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
But there are definitely there are definitely some guilties in there.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
They got to be some gilis in there. So which
ones are they? Yeah, it's wild. So after all of
that scene, they had to figure out Okay, the jury
sent a note they have a question about what to
do next. So then the lawyers came back into the courtroom.
This is the part that's been fascinating and this took
hours today. They had to argue, fight over what's the
(09:59):
right language to give back to the jury right.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
And both the This was interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Both the defense and the prosecution wanted the jury to
go back and to continue to deliberate, and the defense
wanted to use even stronger language like go back, And
then the prosecution wanted to give an Allen charge, which
rises to a whole other level, and.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So it's very controversial. Some people think it shouldn't be
used at all. Alan charge is essentially a stronger and
amended jury instruction, essentially telling them in more forceful terms,
you have an obligation to go back there and get
us a verdict, and almost encourages them to re examine
their own opinion and not be afraid to change their minds.
(10:42):
And some people say that's almost like some psychological influence
you're having on.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
The jury, like are you sure you're right? Are you
sure that's this decision you want?
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Essentially asking them to question the decision they've already made
and why it's in the interests of the court and
the system to get a verdict instead of doing what
you believe me you are That's what the argument sometimes is.
But they didn't go that.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Far, No, And the judge did make a point and
to the juror saying, you know, if you strongly believe something,
no one is asking you to go against what you
believe is right and true. And that was certainly an
important part of the.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Instructions to the jury.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
But yeah, the judge could have just sent them back.
He could have given them an all in charge. He
could have allowed for a partial verdict. Some folks were
thinking that maybe we might hear what the verdicts were
on counts two through five, but the judge didn't ask
the jury to do any of that.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
I mean, I don't know what you we get those verdicts.
They do not want a hung jury. Neither side wants
a hung jury on account because that means we have
to go reach trie over again, and at that point
he's going to be I mean, at this point it
seems like he's guilty on some count. Are you going
(11:58):
to go through and do all of this over again?
Nobody wants that, So yeah, to your point, both sides
wanted them to go back in and keep talking the options.
You just laid out what they could do. But the
judge eventually did decide what he wanted to do, and
he brought the jury late in the day back into
the courtroom. And we're going to tell you exactly what
(12:20):
he told them to do. All right, we have verdicts
in the Didy trial. We have verdicts on four of
five counts. We don't know what the four verdicts are yet,
(12:41):
because the jury sent the judge to the jury back
in to continue deliberating. But Ropes, he had options for
what he could tell them to do. He could tell
them to keep deliberating, give this new instructions, kind of
a harsher instruction about what to do. Or he could
allow a partial verdict. But he kind of split the baby,
kind of made everybody happy and gave them some instructions.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
So after the prosecution weighed in the defense weight in,
the judge decided to tell the jury this when he
brought them back into the courtroom just a short while ago,
he said this, I received your note that you have
reached verdicts on count two through five, but not on
count one. I ask at this time that you keep deliberating.
(13:23):
And so that is what he told the jury. The
jury went back out of the room and shortly thereafter
they sent a note back to the judge saying, hey,
we're done for the day. And so it was determined
that they will come back tomorrow morning at nine am
to keep deliberating on count one and who.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Knows how long that will go.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Who knows how long the judge will ask them to
keep deliberating. Until they come back with a either a
unanimous decision, or once again, if they already have people
who say, I will not budge, I will not move.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
I don't know what the cutoff. At some point he
has to use discretion, But at some point you have
to if they say absolutely not and keep saying absolutely not,
and I've seen a judge keep throwing it back and
back and back at jurors, and eventually they just have
to convince him that this isn't going to happen. I
don't know if the judge has in his mind a deadline,
a timeline on it. They might come back tomorrow and
(14:21):
have more legal questions, be asking for more things, and
maybe negotiations start anew to a certain degree, I do
not know. But if I were a betting man, once again,
I always bet tomorrow's in that Tomorrow, on Wednesday, we
would get a verdict or at least a decision and
hear what's going.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
On here, you know.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
And there's been so much discussion about what the mood
has been like outside the courthouse. Inside the courtroom, it's
been described as tense and certainly building. I can't even
imagine tomorrow morning what that scene is going to be
like as folks are expecting. Hey, the verdict is almost
certainly coming down tomorrow and Diddy, you know, his mother
(15:03):
was in court with him today, one of his daughters,
his children have all been there throughout this trial. And
just to now have to sit and wait and know
that the verdicts are in recounts two through five and
you're waiting to hear about what they think on that
most serious charge.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
That's tough. Your fate has been sided on four or
five counts and you have to sit and still wait
to hear that. You're not waiting on a decision to
be made, you're waiting for them to tell you your decision.
That just hits a little different. But wow, we shouldn't
be surprised more drama with this jury from the start
day one, day two.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yeah, they've kept it interesting.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
It hasn't ever actually gotten to the point where I
was born. It seems like every time I had a
moment to do something else, another note came in and
another question or another note came back from the jurors.
But I thought it was interesting the prosecutors when they
first learned of this split, that they haven't decided or
they can't come to an agreement on count one.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
They initially wanted.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
The judge to tell the jurors this is one of
their suggestions that the case could be retried if they
don't reach a verdict. I wonder what that was about.
Would they have preferred a hung jury on the racketeering
charts so that they could retriumph rather than try and
get them to come to a unanimous decision, fearful that
(16:28):
perhaps that unanimous decision would ultimately be not guilty.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Give him an offer, give him an offram. Oh, that
would have I should say, given him an off ram,
Like this is heavy, this is very difficult and emotional,
and we've all had some kind of emotional reaction to it.
But they're the ones in charge of this man's fate,
and so yeah, to give them somewhat of an off ram.
I could see why they might have wanted to put
it in there and take the pressure off of them
(16:53):
to make a decision because of the decision maybe the
prosecutor thinks they do not want to make. Is that
one to have to put him in prison for the
rest of his life?
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Wow? Yes, because just the pressure on the jury members
who don't want to change their mind. But pure pressure
is certainly powerful, and isn't that part of how a
jury works.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
I want to go back and watch the people versus
OJ Simpson for somewhere you remember all that.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
It's been a while, but it goes so.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Much insight into that particular jury as well. It's just
I can't imagine what's going on. We will hear the
stories later.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
But and well, I was gonna say there is some
interest because okay, we think there's going to be in
terms of what may happen if the jury somehow doesn't
reach a verdict tomorrow and say they continue to deliberate.
They actually had to discuss the judges and the attorneys
whether or not court could even convene on Thursday, July third,
(17:49):
because typically the court is closed because of the fourth
of July holiday. So the judge did say that they
could keep the court open if it's necessary for the
jurors to continue to deliberate on Thursday, July third, But
it doesn't seem like that's in anyone's interest. And they're close,
You're like, that's never happened.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
I mean, some of these guys are telling the family
what charcoal bye? I mean they're they're cooking out, they're
they're getting ready for the fourth of July. This is
I can't imagine.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Yes, well I think so the defense lawyer Marca and uh, okay,
you think I know. Agnet Pillow actually said he didn't
want the judge to ask dureors what they want to
do until the end of the day tomorrow because he
doesn't want them to feel rushed into a decision.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
You can understand that.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
And they're saying, hey, we'll wait till Monday if we
have to just let them take their time. They didn't
want anyone to feel pressured or rushed to make a decision.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
To just get out of there. By end of the
day tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
We'll only got one thing to talk about.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Now.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
It's a big thing to talk about, racketeering, but they
are down to only one decision to make. Folks, we
appreciate you. I'll continuing to listen to us. It has
been a ride, but we are it's coming around the
corner in the next couple of days or might go
into next week, but either way, we appreciate you being
along with us. But for now, I'm TJ. Holmes along
with Combard to Amy Robach we'll talk to us soon.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
H
Hey, the folks. It is Tuesday, July first, and the
jury has reached verdicts in the Diddy trial. But we
don't know what the verdicts are yet, and we might
not know for several days. Why more jury drama, folks,
Welcome to this episode, this second Diddy update episode of
(00:22):
Amy and TJ for the day Robes. What was your reaction?
I had to give you the updates in real time
via text because you happen to be out at the time.
But what were was your reaction to hearing what we
know now?
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Oh, my heart was pounding.
Speaker 3 (00:36):
I was running around New York City in the rain
and trying to get some errands done, but like hearing
from you that there were verdicts in Bam, my heart stopped,
and so I tried to start looking at my phone,
reading the reporters who were in the room, trying to
read the tea leaves, because we first just started getting
anecdotal observations about how Diddy was reacting and how his
(00:59):
defense team was reacting, and I was trying to figure
out what that meant. It was confusing, exciting, and I
don't know. So much is on the line, and we've
all been following this everyone who's been listening with us,
but those of us who are covering it, it just
it's overwhelming, all.
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Right, So folks, we'll let you know where we are
right now as of this recording, early evening here on
July first, the jury has gone home. They've gone home
for the day, but they sent a note to the
judge at about four fifteen this afternoon, that note telling
him that they had reached verdicts on four of the
five counts against Sean Diddy Combs. The one count robes
(01:38):
they're hung up on. We should not be surprised, and
we are not legal experts, but I guess we kind
of saw this coming.
Speaker 3 (01:45):
Yes, they are stuck on the racketeering conspiracy charge. That,
of course, is the one that was the most confusing
and complex and the one that would send Diddy to
prison for the rest of his life. So that is
the one that they were asking questions about. We kind
of figured that out. But what we hadn't realized is
(02:05):
it sounds like perhaps they had already pretty quickly made
decisions on count two, three, four, and five.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
Hey, that's tough to's that is what is that? I mean,
any legal expert will tell you something and what that means.
But they started sending notes, and it's giving an indication
that they were debating about the racketeering charge really really
early in the process. So to think that counts two, three,
four five they were unanimous on in a matter of
(02:36):
it had to be an hour.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
I know so. And look, I am no legal expert,
but a lot of folks will believe if you get
a verdict back quickly or decision is made quickly, oftentimes
it is guilty. That is just typically what you see.
It's not always the case. But to add to that,
the defense team, who knows what they're telling Diddy, what
they're telling their client. But from the folks who were
(03:00):
in the room, they said his face looked despondent, and
there were a lot of hugs, There was a lot
of pats on the backs. The mood seemed serious, I believe,
is how they described it.
Speaker 1 (03:10):
I think you saw as well. We read again, folks,
We read all of the commentary from the reporters who
are in the room, so they're feverishly typing their observations
and then we take it in. Now we from Sky News, BBC,
the Independent.
Speaker 2 (03:24):
Of CNN, ABC.
Speaker 1 (03:26):
NBC, we look at all of these things ropes. I
saw a few initially talking about hugs and almost smiles
and even laughter on Ditty's side. I saw some follow
ups that said after the note came that there were hugs,
very serious looks on their faces, and to your point, desponded.
So some of the scenes they're describing were different. But
(03:47):
I think what you just said was more consistent and
what everybody was observing, like something's up, something serious. Why
are they hugging?
Speaker 3 (03:56):
Yes, And because they don't know, obviously, no one knows
what the verdict is if it's not guilty or guilty,
but most attorneys know in these types of situations. Just
they're reading between the lines in terms of the notes
that the jurors have been sending over the last day
and a half and the fact that they are stuck
(04:16):
on the most serious charge. But seemingly came pretty quickly
to their decision on count two, which is sex trafficking
by force, fraud or coersion that was about Cassie Ventur.
They had a unanimous decision on count three, that's transportation
to engage in prostitution that also pertains to Cassie Ventura
and the sex workers that we've heard about. They're unanimous
(04:39):
on the count four charge, which is also sex trafficking
by force, fraud or corrosion, this is in reference to Jane,
and then unanimous on their decision for count five, which
is transportation to engage in prostitution that is involving Jane
and the sex workers that also a part of that
(05:00):
that testified as well.
Speaker 1 (05:02):
So you know, look, it's settled right now. They have
settled and they have made a decision about the fate
of Sean Didtycomb's on four of five counts, the most
serious one is left, sure, but the fact that he
is potentially looking and again robes on two of those
counts we're talking about sex trafficking. Those carry a minimum
(05:26):
of fifteen years each, correct a minimum, yes, a minimum
of fifteen years. He has the other two, the prostitution
counts have a maximum of ten years. But he is
looking at some serious, serious prison time if in fact
these are guilty. I mean, I was going back and
forth before we started recording with you, like, how do
(05:46):
you possibly look at this? How could you lean not guilty?
How could you look at this and lean and possibly
think well, they did it that quickly how could you
lean not guilty.
Speaker 3 (05:58):
See, I just feel like if there's stuck on the racketeering,
which is the most serious of the crimes and involved
some of these counts in that you just had to
have a co conspirator involved as well. So it just
seems to me that the count two through five are guilty. Okay,
it just seems like that has to be what it is.
Speaker 1 (06:19):
I don't know what happened, looking at your face right then,
and you just for whatever reason, it just clicked. It
clicked if you again, I don't think I said this
point clear enough. At the top the jury note that
they sent said that we've reached verdicts on four or
five counts. We on one. We have people who are unpersuadable,
who are unmovable on both sides. So that means there's
(06:43):
somebody on that jury who is so sure that he's
guilty of racketeering that they refuse to move. Yeah, that
person is probably voted.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
That person has not voted not guilty on counts two
through five.
Speaker 1 (06:58):
That is a hunt, that's a done deal.
Speaker 2 (07:00):
So that's why, Okay, that's why the despondent looks.
Speaker 3 (07:03):
And I think that's why the hugging, because I think
they know at the very least did he is going
to prison, is going to stay in prison for quite
some time with these verdicts.
Speaker 2 (07:11):
Now I can understand the racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 3 (07:14):
Someone might think he was guilty of counts two through five,
But did it really rise to the level of racketeering?
Did he actually have an empire? Did he actually have
an enterprise? Did he actually have a co conspirator? And
so I can see why someone said could say who
thought he was guilty on counts two through five still say,
you know what, I don't.
Speaker 2 (07:33):
Think he's guilty of racketeering.
Speaker 3 (07:34):
Also, that's putting him away for the rest of his life,
and that might feel a little bit more ominous.
Speaker 1 (07:38):
But their note suggests somebody is sure, unpersuadable and unmovable
on the racketeering charge of him being guilty. I'm glad
we talked this out because I was trying to find
a way, like, how is it? Is it any way
at the Nope, there's no way.
Speaker 2 (07:53):
I don't think there's any way that sure he.
Speaker 1 (07:55):
Was guilty of racketeering.
Speaker 2 (07:57):
There's no way say.
Speaker 1 (07:58):
He's not guilty of something else.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
Here's the deal. Here's a question.
Speaker 3 (08:02):
He could be he could be not guilty on the
sex trafficking charges, and he they could have unanimously decided that,
And then they could have unanimously decided that he's guilty
of the transportation to engage in prostitution. So he might
they might have unanimously It might be split.
Speaker 1 (08:20):
You make another good points.
Speaker 2 (08:21):
So maybe he is only facing ten years each.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
I mean, if there's a myriad of possibilities, they're not
necessarily all guilty or all not guilty.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
It could be a mix.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
You know what I am Again, I'm not being curt
with this or because of the seriousness of what we're
talking about here, But if I were a betting man,
I would take that scenario you just laid out. Yeah,
meaning there's some difficulty with the sex trafficking. People have
a difficulty understanding why, Like, wait a minute, she could
have left any time she wanted to be kind of
(08:53):
a thing. And even if you're not okay with the
sex trafficking, maybe it's easier to say, okay, he paid
for these guys came and had sex.
Speaker 3 (09:01):
When we heard the prosecution give their closing arguments and
throughout the testimony, we kind of really felt like that
was a slam dunk. While we were listening to the
evidence as it was happening, we said, kind of feels
like they totally proved that by the law that it
seems yes, right, So that wouldn't be shocking. Now here's
another scenario, babe. They could have believed Cassie.
Speaker 2 (09:22):
Ventura and not believed Jane. There could be it could
split on that as well, a myriad of guilty and
not guilty.
Speaker 3 (09:32):
But there are definitely there are definitely some guilties in there.
Speaker 1 (09:35):
They got to be some gilis in there. So which
ones are they? Yeah, it's wild. So after all of
that scene, they had to figure out Okay, the jury
sent a note they have a question about what to
do next. So then the lawyers came back into the courtroom.
This is the part that's been fascinating and this took
hours today. They had to argue, fight over what's the
(09:59):
right language to give back to the jury right.
Speaker 2 (10:03):
And both the This was interesting.
Speaker 3 (10:05):
Both the defense and the prosecution wanted the jury to
go back and to continue to deliberate, and the defense
wanted to use even stronger language like go back, And
then the prosecution wanted to give an Allen charge, which
rises to a whole other level, and.
Speaker 1 (10:22):
So it's very controversial. Some people think it shouldn't be
used at all. Alan charge is essentially a stronger and
amended jury instruction, essentially telling them in more forceful terms,
you have an obligation to go back there and get
us a verdict, and almost encourages them to re examine
their own opinion and not be afraid to change their minds.
(10:42):
And some people say that's almost like some psychological influence
you're having on.
Speaker 2 (10:47):
The jury, like are you sure you're right? Are you
sure that's this decision you want?
Speaker 1 (10:51):
Essentially asking them to question the decision they've already made
and why it's in the interests of the court and
the system to get a verdict instead of doing what
you believe me you are That's what the argument sometimes is.
But they didn't go that.
Speaker 3 (11:05):
Far, No, And the judge did make a point and
to the juror saying, you know, if you strongly believe something,
no one is asking you to go against what you
believe is right and true. And that was certainly an
important part of the.
Speaker 2 (11:22):
Instructions to the jury.
Speaker 3 (11:23):
But yeah, the judge could have just sent them back.
He could have given them an all in charge. He
could have allowed for a partial verdict. Some folks were
thinking that maybe we might hear what the verdicts were
on counts two through five, but the judge didn't ask
the jury to do any of that.
Speaker 1 (11:38):
I mean, I don't know what you we get those verdicts.
They do not want a hung jury. Neither side wants
a hung jury on account because that means we have
to go reach trie over again, and at that point
he's going to be I mean, at this point it
seems like he's guilty on some count. Are you going
(11:58):
to go through and do all of this over again?
Nobody wants that, So yeah, to your point, both sides
wanted them to go back in and keep talking the options.
You just laid out what they could do. But the
judge eventually did decide what he wanted to do, and
he brought the jury late in the day back into
the courtroom. And we're going to tell you exactly what
(12:20):
he told them to do. All right, we have verdicts
in the Didy trial. We have verdicts on four of
five counts. We don't know what the four verdicts are yet,
(12:41):
because the jury sent the judge to the jury back
in to continue deliberating. But Ropes, he had options for
what he could tell them to do. He could tell
them to keep deliberating, give this new instructions, kind of
a harsher instruction about what to do. Or he could
allow a partial verdict. But he kind of split the baby,
kind of made everybody happy and gave them some instructions.
Speaker 2 (13:03):
Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
So after the prosecution weighed in the defense weight in,
the judge decided to tell the jury this when he
brought them back into the courtroom just a short while ago,
he said this, I received your note that you have
reached verdicts on count two through five, but not on
count one. I ask at this time that you keep deliberating.
(13:23):
And so that is what he told the jury. The
jury went back out of the room and shortly thereafter
they sent a note back to the judge saying, hey,
we're done for the day. And so it was determined
that they will come back tomorrow morning at nine am
to keep deliberating on count one and who.
Speaker 2 (13:43):
Knows how long that will go.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
Who knows how long the judge will ask them to
keep deliberating. Until they come back with a either a
unanimous decision, or once again, if they already have people
who say, I will not budge, I will not move.
Speaker 1 (14:00):
I don't know what the cutoff. At some point he
has to use discretion, But at some point you have
to if they say absolutely not and keep saying absolutely not,
and I've seen a judge keep throwing it back and
back and back at jurors, and eventually they just have
to convince him that this isn't going to happen. I
don't know if the judge has in his mind a deadline,
a timeline on it. They might come back tomorrow and
(14:21):
have more legal questions, be asking for more things, and
maybe negotiations start anew to a certain degree, I do
not know. But if I were a betting man, once again,
I always bet tomorrow's in that Tomorrow, on Wednesday, we
would get a verdict or at least a decision and
hear what's going.
Speaker 2 (14:40):
On here, you know.
Speaker 3 (14:41):
And there's been so much discussion about what the mood
has been like outside the courthouse. Inside the courtroom, it's
been described as tense and certainly building. I can't even
imagine tomorrow morning what that scene is going to be
like as folks are expecting. Hey, the verdict is almost
certainly coming down tomorrow and Diddy, you know, his mother
(15:03):
was in court with him today, one of his daughters,
his children have all been there throughout this trial. And
just to now have to sit and wait and know
that the verdicts are in recounts two through five and
you're waiting to hear about what they think on that
most serious charge.
Speaker 1 (15:21):
That's tough. Your fate has been sided on four or
five counts and you have to sit and still wait
to hear that. You're not waiting on a decision to
be made, you're waiting for them to tell you your decision.
That just hits a little different. But wow, we shouldn't
be surprised more drama with this jury from the start
day one, day two.
Speaker 2 (15:40):
Yeah, they've kept it interesting.
Speaker 3 (15:42):
It hasn't ever actually gotten to the point where I
was born. It seems like every time I had a
moment to do something else, another note came in and
another question or another note came back from the jurors.
But I thought it was interesting the prosecutors when they
first learned of this split, that they haven't decided or
they can't come to an agreement on count one.
Speaker 2 (16:04):
They initially wanted.
Speaker 3 (16:06):
The judge to tell the jurors this is one of
their suggestions that the case could be retried if they
don't reach a verdict. I wonder what that was about.
Would they have preferred a hung jury on the racketeering
charts so that they could retriumph rather than try and
get them to come to a unanimous decision, fearful that
(16:28):
perhaps that unanimous decision would ultimately be not guilty.
Speaker 1 (16:31):
Give him an offer, give him an offram. Oh, that
would have I should say, given him an off ram,
Like this is heavy, this is very difficult and emotional,
and we've all had some kind of emotional reaction to it.
But they're the ones in charge of this man's fate,
and so yeah, to give them somewhat of an off ram.
I could see why they might have wanted to put
it in there and take the pressure off of them
(16:53):
to make a decision because of the decision maybe the
prosecutor thinks they do not want to make. Is that
one to have to put him in prison for the
rest of his life?
Speaker 3 (17:01):
Wow? Yes, because just the pressure on the jury members
who don't want to change their mind. But pure pressure
is certainly powerful, and isn't that part of how a
jury works.
Speaker 1 (17:15):
I want to go back and watch the people versus
OJ Simpson for somewhere you remember all that.
Speaker 2 (17:20):
It's been a while, but it goes so.
Speaker 1 (17:22):
Much insight into that particular jury as well. It's just
I can't imagine what's going on. We will hear the
stories later.
Speaker 3 (17:28):
But and well, I was gonna say there is some
interest because okay, we think there's going to be in
terms of what may happen if the jury somehow doesn't
reach a verdict tomorrow and say they continue to deliberate.
They actually had to discuss the judges and the attorneys
whether or not court could even convene on Thursday, July third,
(17:49):
because typically the court is closed because of the fourth
of July holiday. So the judge did say that they
could keep the court open if it's necessary for the
jurors to continue to deliberate on Thursday, July third, But
it doesn't seem like that's in anyone's interest. And they're close,
You're like, that's never happened.
Speaker 1 (18:08):
I mean, some of these guys are telling the family
what charcoal bye? I mean they're they're cooking out, they're
they're getting ready for the fourth of July. This is
I can't imagine.
Speaker 3 (18:18):
Yes, well I think so the defense lawyer Marca and uh, okay,
you think I know. Agnet Pillow actually said he didn't
want the judge to ask dureors what they want to
do until the end of the day tomorrow because he
doesn't want them to feel rushed into a decision.
Speaker 2 (18:32):
You can understand that.
Speaker 3 (18:34):
And they're saying, hey, we'll wait till Monday if we
have to just let them take their time. They didn't
want anyone to feel pressured or rushed to make a decision.
Speaker 2 (18:41):
To just get out of there. By end of the
day tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (18:45):
We'll only got one thing to talk about.
Speaker 2 (18:46):
Now.
Speaker 1 (18:46):
It's a big thing to talk about, racketeering, but they
are down to only one decision to make. Folks, we
appreciate you. I'll continuing to listen to us. It has
been a ride, but we are it's coming around the
corner in the next couple of days or might go
into next week, but either way, we appreciate you being
along with us. But for now, I'm TJ. Holmes along
with Combard to Amy Robach we'll talk to us soon.
Speaker 3 (19:08):
H
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