Stephen A. Smith is a New York Times Bestselling Author, Executive Producer, host of ESPN's First Take, and co-host of NBA Countdown.
A detailed legal analysis of the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, with legal expert Ryan Smith joining Stephen A. Smith to break it all down. Here's a structured summary of the key points:
⚖️ Case Overview
-
Charges: Diddy faces multiple federal charges including:
- Sex trafficking
- Racketeering (RICO)
- Kidnapping
- Arson
- Forced labor
- Bribery
-
Prosecution’s Framing: Combs is alleged to be the leader of a criminal enterprise that used violence, coercion, and manipulation to serve his personal desires.
-
Potential Sentence: If convicted on all counts, he could face life in prison.
🧑 ⚖️ Legal Strategy & Developments 🔹 Prosecution
- Dropped Charges: Attempted arson and kidnapping were dropped to “streamline” jury instructions and avoid confusion.
- Focus: Now emphasizing bribery, drug use, and the arson of Kid Cudi’s car as part of the RICO case.
- RICO Challenge: Must prove that Combs and others committed at least two crimes over a 10-year period in furtherance of a criminal enterprise.
🔹 Defense
- No Witnesses Called: The defense rested without presenting any witnesses, signaling confidence or a strategy to avoid giving the prosecution more ammunition.
- Main Argument: Consent. They argue that all acts were consensual, including the “freak offs” involving Cassie and Jane.
- Evidence Used: Loving text messages between Cassie and Diddy to support the claim of consensual relationships.
🔍 Key Legal Questions
-
Can one act of coercion constitute sex trafficking?
- Yes, according to the prosecution. Even if most acts were consensual, one coerced act is enough for a conviction.
-
Does the wide age range of the jury (30–74) help the defense?
- Possibly. All it takes is one juror to have reasonable doubt, and a diverse jury may interpret evidence differently.
-
Is the RICO case strong?
- Ryan Smith says it’s not a slam dunk. The prosecution must clearly tie Combs to a broader criminal enterprise involving others, which may be difficult without testimony from key alleged co-conspirators.
🧠 Jury Deliberation & Verdict Outlook
- Timeline: Could take several days, especially if the judge delays deliberations until Monday to avoid a rushed Friday verdict.
- Verdict Scenarios:
- A conviction on lesser charges (e.g., transportation for prostitution) but not on RICO or sex trafficking would be a major loss for the prosecution.
- A full acquittal on major charges would be a significant blow to efforts to hold powerful figures accountable.
🎯 Final Takeaway
Ryan Smith emphasizes that while Diddy may be seen as morally questionable, the legal question is whether his actions meet the threshold for criminal conviction under RICO and sex trafficking laws. The case hinges on how well the prosecution connects the dots and whether the jury sees beyond reasonable doubt.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Now, let's get to the latest Son of Sean Diddy
Combs federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York City.
After six weeks of testimony, the government today has started
to present closing arguments in their case against the music mogul.
The Fed's characterized Combs as the leader of a criminal
enterprise and that enterprise service to Combs's personal desires through
a pattern of quote, violence, coercion, and manipulation end quote.
(00:27):
In addition to that, the Fed's alleged Combs committed several
crimes that include kidnapping, arson, forced labor, bribery, and sex trafficking.
Combs is pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted
on all counts, he could face up to life in prison.
Joining me now to break it all down. As an
attorney in Legal Analysts Extraordinaire for ABC News. You can
(00:49):
also catch him on Sports Center hosting Sports Center on ESPN.
Please welcome back to the show to one and only
Ryan Smith. What's going on?
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Ryan?
Speaker 1 (00:56):
How are you doing?
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Man? Man?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
I'm good. Steven A. Hoi Jones, I'm todd as.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Hell, but it's always good talking to you, my brother.
I've been working like crazy for the last three months.
But I'm here. Let's get started with the news yesterday
that the fedes were withdrawing some of the criminal allegations
against Colmbs ahead of closing arguments today. The move was
made as part of an effort to quote unquote streamline
instructions to the jury. Break this down for us. Please
what exactly happened there and what does it mean?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
They are saying they're not going to argue the attempted
arson and the attempted kidnapping parts of this case.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Now I want to specify this does not.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Apply to the arson that's being alleged against Kid Cutty's car.
So that's one that I think a lot of people
know about, that they've heard about, that's attracted a lot
of attention.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
That's still going to be part of what they're arguing.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
But what they're trying to do this kind of to me,
relates more to the Rico case than anything else. In
a Rico case, which is the big charge against Sean
Ditty Combs, you get to bring in all this evidence,
all this information, you're trying to basically say Diddy and
somebody else or other people, maybe his orthoraged other people
in his orbit together committed two crimes, at least two
(02:02):
crimes in a ten year period in furtherance of the
criminal enterprise. But the problem is they've offered so much
information in this thing that they have to try to
streamline things for the jury.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
They have to.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
This is why in this kind of case, closing argument
becomes everything, because you have to think, all this evidence,
all this information, all these witnesses, and you've got to
show that Rico, You've got to show that he others
got together they did these two crimes.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Or more in this period of time.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
But after you start throwing in attempted arson, attempted kidnapping
and you don't think you have a good case against that,
you run the risk of the jury saying, well, I
don't believe those things, so I don't believe the whole thing. Instead,
they're focusing a lot on bribery as some of the
crimes committed. They're going to probably talk about kid Cutty's car.
They're talking about things like drugs and things like that.
(02:50):
All these things are the crimes they're saying are part
of Rico, are part of the sex trafficking, and they're
doing this.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
So that jury of eight men.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
And four women ages thirty to seventy four, or don't
get confused in all this information.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah, but you say they're doing it not to get confused.
What about those who would argue that they're trying to
modify the allegations and the accusations against Joan Dinnikones because
they didn't make a strong enough case and now they're
trying to cover themselves. What about those who believe.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
That, you know, it's not a bad argument, because in
some ways you got to wonder if somebody on that
it only takes one. I always want to say that
it only takes one because this didn't have to be unanimous.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
It only takes one juror to say I'm not buying
something here.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I don't believe this. I see reasonable doubt. And you
could argue that maybe a juror will look at this
and say, well, what about this thing that I thought
I heard about an attempted arson or kidnapping. Now, what
the prosecution of trying to do is trying to say
that's not going to be part of the instruction. So
you're not even supposed to think about that stuff. But
we can't control human nature of what they might have heard.
(03:50):
I do understand people saying, Hey, they didn't prove something here,
so they're trying to cover themselves.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
But this does happen in cases.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Sometimes you present a lot in a case you're trying
to determine what is part of the case, especially as
you're trying to tie it up in closing arguments, and
you try to get in the instructions, Hey, tell the
jury not to consider these things because this is not
part of what we're trying to do.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
And stephen A.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
The flip side of I think people trying to criticize
the prosecution on this is the fact that the prosecution
is in there right now saying there are a whole
host of crimes that we're part of the criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
We don't need those two because we got scores of
others that did he did here.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
And so that to me says the prosecutor is just
trying to say, we don't have to consider everything we've
talked about, but we have a lot of stuff that
he did wrong that's criminal that we can still convict
him on, and jury, you should look at that.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
But Ryan, what really really resonates with me, Man, is
that it's been six weeks of testimony, and then the
defence has its turn and they don't put on a
single witness. It's almost like this saying, we ain't worried
about this. This is nothing. They have no case against us,
Why should we even waste that time. That's how it
come across right now.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Ryan. It's not a good sign of prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And in some ways this is something I love talking
about when you talk about juris. I think sometimes people
look at that and they say, well, that's a problem
for the defense. They got to put somebody on. They
put Ditty on first of all. The last thing you
want to do is put him on the stand. That's
a last ditch effort.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
We have no chance.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
We got to go for this, and that's not where
they are right now. But more than that, you're right,
stephen A. They're trying to portray to the jury we
got this. There's nothing to see here, and we're going
to show you that in our closing arguments.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
You know what I've found interesting.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
The thing they did present in the twenty three or
so minutes they had was the loving text messages between
Cassie and Diddy. That's the defense trying to restate one
very important thing, all of it, in all of this consent.
That's the defense's whole case consent. Yes, he might be
a bad man. Yes, you might think the freak COFs
are terrible. Yes, you might even think he's an abusive man.
(05:55):
But are these consensual relationships, say, for example, the sex trafficking,
the whole idea that Jane and Cassie were compelled to
engage in commercial sex acts under fear.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Of horse or coersion.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
They're gonna undermine that, the defense will by saying, look
at these loving text messages, look at how these women
wanted to do this.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Gohad, It's not just the loving text messages. Ryan, Am
I wrong when I say I could have sworn I've
seen where there were freak offs that occurred without him
by those two Jane and Cassie. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm wrong about Cassie or Jane, please correct me
right here on camera. My understanding is that every freak
off didn't involve Pee Diddy. It involved them doing it
(06:39):
on their own with others, of their own volition, not
forced at all.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Am I correct? I think you're right about that. But
here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
The prosecution even tried to touch on that in their
closing arguments by saying, you don't have to believe that
he orchestrated and did something wrong in every free cough.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
All you gotta believe is it happened once. That's it.
For the sex trafficking, all you gotta believe it happened. No,
it's true. So what's on? Hold a on, excuse me
for interrupted.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
So you're trying to tell me that if on their
own they engaged in several freak offs, but then there
was one that he was involved in that they could
literally try to instruct the jury pay attention to the one,
not the others that you did of your own volition.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
No, they're saying this. I get what you're saying. And
here's what I'm saying. They're trying to show the jury.
They're trying to show the jury that this happened over
and over again, these women were forced in some ways
to be a part of this, and that all of
these things show what he was doing all along. And
what they're trying to show to the jury, though, is
maybe something that you're reflecting, a good thing you're effecting
(07:48):
the point of somebody might look at one of these
freak offs and say where's did he and all this?
They even in their closing arguments, said, you don't have
to believe that every single freak off was him threatening
violence or coercion just once, just once, either to Cassie
or Jane. That is sex trafficking because it's an act
of sex trafficking.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
It's an act of the predicate offensive sex trackings. They're
trying to forward.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Here, So I get your point, but they're trying to
battle that point as we speak in the courtroom by saying,
we offered all this evidence. We offered all this evidence
to show you the world that he created in this
criminal enterprise that he was in charge of. But you
don't have to believe that every single moment he was
threatening violence, every single moment he was threatening coercion. It
(08:30):
can be once, it can be twice. And if you
see that, you have to convict him. But your point is,
what about.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
The ones the twice?
Speaker 1 (08:37):
What about the once or twice or five times or
ten times they did it on there? Oh listen, I'm
not trying to get him off. I got no I
got no nothing in this game.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
If he's guilty, he's guilty.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
If he's innocent, he's incid.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I know what I saw on that video with him
hitting Cassie and no getting around that he can't come
back from that. But anything else involved in sex trafficking
and racketeering I'm in no position to. But what I'm
saying is, not only have we heard testimony about them
having freak offfs without him, we even saw or heard
of them having their preference about who was going to
(09:13):
be involved in the freak offfs. So all of that
points to consensual more so than anything else, would it.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
You say, right, the problem is in some way yes,
and let me touch on reasonable doubt in that. But
what they're saying is, think about the rest of the
testimony with Cassie, the rest of the testimony with Jane,
because that was part of what the defense pushed back
on when they were both on the stand and they
both mentioned I felt like this would happen if I
didn't do these things.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
I thought.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Jane even mentioned the point of, hey, if I didn't
get to choose the escorts, If I'm going to be
put in this horrible situation that I'm coerced to being,
at least I want to have a say on who
I have to have sex with and so that's the
situation they're trying to build out here. But what I
like about what you're saying, stephen As is you are
channeling one of those eight men and four women possibly
in that rebox. And I say this again, the ages
(10:02):
are thirty to seventy four. I say that because you
never can really account for how that wide range of
ages might look at this thing. They might look at
that and say exactly what you're saying. Well, wait a second,
they were setting up some of these things. Well wait
a second, I didn't see Diddy in all of this.
And if just one has reasonable doubt, you lose that conviction.
I think that's the risks that the prosecution ran in
(10:23):
a case like this, and I think it's the problem
with a Rico case. You bringing all this evidence, but
if all the evidence doesn't necessarily point to what you're
trying to prove, it can be a problem.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
As it pertains to jury selection. When you talk about
the wide range thirty to seventy four, Who does that
favor the defense of the prosecution having a wide range
in a jury, because again, all it takes is one right,
So chances are from thirty to seventy four cats are
going to think differently. And if they're going to think differently,
and all it takes is one, it would seem to
(10:54):
me that a jury saw, you know, ranging with that
ranging that wide would be a fit the defense.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
I always say this, if the prosecution can't do a
fantastic job of time all this together and making it
crystal clear to everybody in that courtroom, Yes he ran
this enterprise.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Yes he and others got together.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
And did these criminal arts over this ten year period,
and further into the enterprise for Rico at least the
sex trafficking, the transportation of prostitution. That seems like they
can get a conviction there. But unless they can do
that clearly, it favors the defense. Why because the defense
looks at this jury and they see one person they
think might be favorable, and they actually they just talk
(11:35):
to that person, or talk to those two people, or
talk to those three people. You don't look at a
closing argument in a case like this with that wide range.
And the wide range isn't uncommon for cases like this,
But what I'm saying is for defense attorneys, you look
at a case like this and you say I only
got to convince one. I don't have to convince all
of them. All I gotta do is convince one strongly.
Who can go in that jury room and say, you, guys,
(11:57):
I see what you're.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Saying, but I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
And if you can get somebody to do that, then
you win. I think that favors of defense unlet's prosecution,
you could do a stellar job.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Let's get down to it when it comes to you,
Ryan Smith, based on what you've heard, did defense make
their case on all the charges facing Diddy?
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Transportation of individuals to engage in prostitution?
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yes, sex, because there's definitely evidence of there's witnesses who
come forward talk about calling this person. They come across
state lines that I think is easier to solve. That
is not the biggest charge though, in terms of RICO.
In terms of sex trafficking, I don't know, and I'm
not I wouldn't say no because we're not in that courtroom,
(12:40):
and so much is relying on them tying everything together
today right now with what they're saying in those clothing arguments.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
But here's my problem.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
They talk about Diddy getting together with all these people
they talk about that leaders, one of his assistants, people
like Krista Korum, Christina Quorum, who's one of these people
who sets these things up. People were talking about alot
in the courtroom. I had a little bit of a
problem that I didn't hear from all of these people
because you're saying Diddy, and in order to do Rico,
(13:10):
you have to say Diddy and others did these things
in furtherance of the enterprise.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Where are the others? Some of the others came forward.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
But if you're that jury and you don't believe that
all these others have the are part of this enterprise,
then you're searching for the other people.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Then doubt comes in.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
So right now, I would say, based on what we've seen,
I think the prosecution has a strong case, but it
is definitely not a slam dunk.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
It is definitely not clear.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
There's big differences between this and our Kelly case and Rico,
for example, and this is not something that I think
is an easy one to prove for them.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
So I think it's fifty to fifty jury deliberations.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
How long you anticipate this could This could go because
the trial could end whether it's tomorrow or it could
end by Monday, and then jury deliberations kick in. How
long do you anticipate that'll take and go days?
Speaker 2 (13:55):
But I'll say one thing what's gonna be interesting to
me and what I think people should keep an eye on.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Will the judge give the jury this case on Friday.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
It's a very small point, but sometimes when juris have
a case on Fridays and they really want to go
home and they really want to be done, they rush
it and you could have a verdict on Friday. My
sense here is the judge might have them start on Monday,
so they're really thinking it through and being thorough. And
if that's the case, I think it could go on
for days. And it's mostly because of that rico charge.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
I think it is a.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Very complicated thing the prosecutors have to do here to
try it all together to prove that case. And I
think we see clearly, Look Steve and I, we can
look at this case no matter.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
What you think. We see that Diddy is a bad guy.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
We see that he did bad things, but are they
criminal things? Are they criminal things? And I don't know
if we see that here, And I think that's going
to take the jury a long time to sort out.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Very last question. I know this trial hasn't been televised.
The judge didn't want that. That's why we see, you know,
the drawings and all of this other stuff. Is it
possible that the judge may allow a verdict to be televised.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Oh no, I don't think so. I think this is
going to be shut down the whole way through. I
think one thing that people can look for though, even
as they hear about the decision, is he convicted on
one thing and not on others.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
And I will say this stephen A.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
If he's convicted, say for example, on the transportation to
commit prostitution, but not on the other two, that is
a loss for the prosecution, a huge loss, because you
want to get him on that top charge. You mentioned
it at the very beginning. He faces life in prison.
That's for those things like sex trafficking, for rico, conspiracy,
and if they don't get convictions on that, that is
(15:33):
a huge loss, not only for this case, but for
a prosecutor's office that is trying really hard to hold
powerful people accountable for what they consider to be criminal
acts created by an enterprise.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
If they can't get a conviction here. That's a problem
on those big two charges.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Wow, the one and only Ryan Smith, ABC News, ESPN
right here with your boy, Steven.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
I appreciate you as always, my man. Take care of yourself.
We'll talk sooner. Right yeah, man, you too, get some rest.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
My best will do my best.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Mhm.
Now, let's get to the latest Son of Sean Diddy
Combs federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York City.
After six weeks of testimony, the government today has started
to present closing arguments in their case against the music mogul.
The Fed's characterized Combs as the leader of a criminal
enterprise and that enterprise service to Combs's personal desires through
a pattern of quote, violence, coercion, and manipulation end quote.
(00:27):
In addition to that, the Fed's alleged Combs committed several
crimes that include kidnapping, arson, forced labor, bribery, and sex trafficking.
Combs is pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted
on all counts, he could face up to life in prison.
Joining me now to break it all down. As an
attorney in Legal Analysts Extraordinaire for ABC News. You can
(00:49):
also catch him on Sports Center hosting Sports Center on ESPN.
Please welcome back to the show to one and only
Ryan Smith. What's going on?
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Ryan?
Speaker 1 (00:56):
How are you doing?
Speaker 2 (00:56):
Man? Man?
Speaker 3 (00:57):
I'm good. Steven A. Hoi Jones, I'm todd as.
Speaker 1 (01:01):
Hell, but it's always good talking to you, my brother.
I've been working like crazy for the last three months.
But I'm here. Let's get started with the news yesterday
that the fedes were withdrawing some of the criminal allegations
against Colmbs ahead of closing arguments today. The move was
made as part of an effort to quote unquote streamline
instructions to the jury. Break this down for us. Please
what exactly happened there and what does it mean?
Speaker 2 (01:23):
They are saying they're not going to argue the attempted
arson and the attempted kidnapping parts of this case.
Speaker 3 (01:28):
Now I want to specify this does not.
Speaker 2 (01:30):
Apply to the arson that's being alleged against Kid Cutty's car.
So that's one that I think a lot of people
know about, that they've heard about, that's attracted a lot
of attention.
Speaker 3 (01:39):
That's still going to be part of what they're arguing.
Speaker 2 (01:41):
But what they're trying to do this kind of to me,
relates more to the Rico case than anything else. In
a Rico case, which is the big charge against Sean
Ditty Combs, you get to bring in all this evidence,
all this information, you're trying to basically say Diddy and
somebody else or other people, maybe his orthoraged other people
in his orbit together committed two crimes, at least two
(02:02):
crimes in a ten year period in furtherance of the
criminal enterprise. But the problem is they've offered so much
information in this thing that they have to try to
streamline things for the jury.
Speaker 3 (02:12):
They have to.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
This is why in this kind of case, closing argument
becomes everything, because you have to think, all this evidence,
all this information, all these witnesses, and you've got to
show that Rico, You've got to show that he others
got together they did these two crimes.
Speaker 3 (02:28):
Or more in this period of time.
Speaker 2 (02:29):
But after you start throwing in attempted arson, attempted kidnapping
and you don't think you have a good case against that,
you run the risk of the jury saying, well, I
don't believe those things, so I don't believe the whole thing. Instead,
they're focusing a lot on bribery as some of the
crimes committed. They're going to probably talk about kid Cutty's car.
They're talking about things like drugs and things like that.
(02:50):
All these things are the crimes they're saying are part
of Rico, are part of the sex trafficking, and they're
doing this.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
So that jury of eight men.
Speaker 2 (02:58):
And four women ages thirty to seventy four, or don't
get confused in all this information.
Speaker 1 (03:03):
Yeah, but you say they're doing it not to get confused.
What about those who would argue that they're trying to
modify the allegations and the accusations against Joan Dinnikones because
they didn't make a strong enough case and now they're
trying to cover themselves. What about those who believe.
Speaker 2 (03:16):
That, you know, it's not a bad argument, because in
some ways you got to wonder if somebody on that
it only takes one. I always want to say that
it only takes one because this didn't have to be unanimous.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
It only takes one juror to say I'm not buying
something here.
Speaker 2 (03:29):
I don't believe this. I see reasonable doubt. And you
could argue that maybe a juror will look at this
and say, well, what about this thing that I thought
I heard about an attempted arson or kidnapping. Now, what
the prosecution of trying to do is trying to say
that's not going to be part of the instruction. So
you're not even supposed to think about that stuff. But
we can't control human nature of what they might have heard.
(03:50):
I do understand people saying, Hey, they didn't prove something here,
so they're trying to cover themselves.
Speaker 3 (03:55):
But this does happen in cases.
Speaker 2 (03:57):
Sometimes you present a lot in a case you're trying
to determine what is part of the case, especially as
you're trying to tie it up in closing arguments, and
you try to get in the instructions, Hey, tell the
jury not to consider these things because this is not
part of what we're trying to do.
Speaker 3 (04:11):
And stephen A.
Speaker 2 (04:11):
The flip side of I think people trying to criticize
the prosecution on this is the fact that the prosecution
is in there right now saying there are a whole
host of crimes that we're part of the criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3 (04:22):
We don't need those two because we got scores of
others that did he did here.
Speaker 2 (04:27):
And so that to me says the prosecutor is just
trying to say, we don't have to consider everything we've
talked about, but we have a lot of stuff that
he did wrong that's criminal that we can still convict
him on, and jury, you should look at that.
Speaker 1 (04:40):
But Ryan, what really really resonates with me, Man, is
that it's been six weeks of testimony, and then the
defence has its turn and they don't put on a
single witness. It's almost like this saying, we ain't worried
about this. This is nothing. They have no case against us,
Why should we even waste that time. That's how it
come across right now.
Speaker 3 (05:01):
Ryan. It's not a good sign of prosecutors.
Speaker 2 (05:04):
And in some ways this is something I love talking
about when you talk about juris. I think sometimes people
look at that and they say, well, that's a problem
for the defense. They got to put somebody on. They
put Ditty on first of all. The last thing you
want to do is put him on the stand. That's
a last ditch effort.
Speaker 3 (05:18):
We have no chance.
Speaker 2 (05:19):
We got to go for this, and that's not where
they are right now. But more than that, you're right,
stephen A. They're trying to portray to the jury we
got this. There's nothing to see here, and we're going
to show you that in our closing arguments.
Speaker 3 (05:30):
You know what I've found interesting.
Speaker 2 (05:32):
The thing they did present in the twenty three or
so minutes they had was the loving text messages between
Cassie and Diddy. That's the defense trying to restate one
very important thing, all of it, in all of this consent.
That's the defense's whole case consent. Yes, he might be
a bad man. Yes, you might think the freak COFs
are terrible. Yes, you might even think he's an abusive man.
(05:55):
But are these consensual relationships, say, for example, the sex trafficking,
the whole idea that Jane and Cassie were compelled to
engage in commercial sex acts under fear.
Speaker 3 (06:06):
Of horse or coersion.
Speaker 2 (06:08):
They're gonna undermine that, the defense will by saying, look
at these loving text messages, look at how these women
wanted to do this.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Gohad, It's not just the loving text messages. Ryan, Am
I wrong when I say I could have sworn I've
seen where there were freak offs that occurred without him
by those two Jane and Cassie. Correct me if I'm wrong.
If I'm wrong about Cassie or Jane, please correct me
right here on camera. My understanding is that every freak
off didn't involve Pee Diddy. It involved them doing it
(06:39):
on their own with others, of their own volition, not
forced at all.
Speaker 3 (06:43):
Am I correct? I think you're right about that. But
here's the thing.
Speaker 2 (06:46):
The prosecution even tried to touch on that in their
closing arguments by saying, you don't have to believe that
he orchestrated and did something wrong in every free cough.
Speaker 3 (06:55):
All you gotta believe is it happened once. That's it.
For the sex trafficking, all you gotta believe it happened. No,
it's true. So what's on? Hold a on, excuse me
for interrupted.
Speaker 1 (07:06):
So you're trying to tell me that if on their
own they engaged in several freak offs, but then there
was one that he was involved in that they could
literally try to instruct the jury pay attention to the one,
not the others that you did of your own volition.
Speaker 2 (07:25):
No, they're saying this. I get what you're saying. And
here's what I'm saying. They're trying to show the jury.
They're trying to show the jury that this happened over
and over again, these women were forced in some ways
to be a part of this, and that all of
these things show what he was doing all along. And
what they're trying to show to the jury, though, is
maybe something that you're reflecting, a good thing you're effecting
(07:48):
the point of somebody might look at one of these
freak offs and say where's did he and all this?
They even in their closing arguments, said, you don't have
to believe that every single freak off was him threatening
violence or coercion just once, just once, either to Cassie
or Jane. That is sex trafficking because it's an act
of sex trafficking.
Speaker 3 (08:06):
It's an act of the predicate offensive sex trackings. They're
trying to forward.
Speaker 2 (08:10):
Here, So I get your point, but they're trying to
battle that point as we speak in the courtroom by saying,
we offered all this evidence. We offered all this evidence
to show you the world that he created in this
criminal enterprise that he was in charge of. But you
don't have to believe that every single moment he was
threatening violence, every single moment he was threatening coercion. It
(08:30):
can be once, it can be twice. And if you
see that, you have to convict him. But your point is,
what about.
Speaker 3 (08:36):
The ones the twice?
Speaker 1 (08:37):
What about the once or twice or five times or
ten times they did it on there? Oh listen, I'm
not trying to get him off. I got no I
got no nothing in this game.
Speaker 3 (08:46):
If he's guilty, he's guilty.
Speaker 1 (08:48):
If he's innocent, he's incid.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
I don't know.
Speaker 1 (08:50):
I know what I saw on that video with him
hitting Cassie and no getting around that he can't come
back from that. But anything else involved in sex trafficking
and racketeering I'm in no position to. But what I'm
saying is, not only have we heard testimony about them
having freak offfs without him, we even saw or heard
of them having their preference about who was going to
(09:13):
be involved in the freak offfs. So all of that
points to consensual more so than anything else, would it.
Speaker 2 (09:20):
You say, right, the problem is in some way yes,
and let me touch on reasonable doubt in that. But
what they're saying is, think about the rest of the
testimony with Cassie, the rest of the testimony with Jane,
because that was part of what the defense pushed back
on when they were both on the stand and they
both mentioned I felt like this would happen if I
didn't do these things.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
I thought.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
Jane even mentioned the point of, hey, if I didn't
get to choose the escorts, If I'm going to be
put in this horrible situation that I'm coerced to being,
at least I want to have a say on who
I have to have sex with and so that's the
situation they're trying to build out here. But what I
like about what you're saying, stephen As is you are
channeling one of those eight men and four women possibly
in that rebox. And I say this again, the ages
(10:02):
are thirty to seventy four. I say that because you
never can really account for how that wide range of
ages might look at this thing. They might look at
that and say exactly what you're saying. Well, wait a second,
they were setting up some of these things. Well wait
a second, I didn't see Diddy in all of this.
And if just one has reasonable doubt, you lose that conviction.
I think that's the risks that the prosecution ran in
(10:23):
a case like this, and I think it's the problem
with a Rico case. You bringing all this evidence, but
if all the evidence doesn't necessarily point to what you're
trying to prove, it can be a problem.
Speaker 1 (10:33):
As it pertains to jury selection. When you talk about
the wide range thirty to seventy four, Who does that
favor the defense of the prosecution having a wide range
in a jury, because again, all it takes is one right,
So chances are from thirty to seventy four cats are
going to think differently. And if they're going to think differently,
and all it takes is one, it would seem to
(10:54):
me that a jury saw, you know, ranging with that
ranging that wide would be a fit the defense.
Speaker 2 (11:01):
I always say this, if the prosecution can't do a
fantastic job of time all this together and making it
crystal clear to everybody in that courtroom, Yes he ran
this enterprise.
Speaker 3 (11:12):
Yes he and others got together.
Speaker 2 (11:14):
And did these criminal arts over this ten year period,
and further into the enterprise for Rico at least the
sex trafficking, the transportation of prostitution. That seems like they
can get a conviction there. But unless they can do
that clearly, it favors the defense. Why because the defense
looks at this jury and they see one person they
think might be favorable, and they actually they just talk
(11:35):
to that person, or talk to those two people, or
talk to those three people. You don't look at a
closing argument in a case like this with that wide range.
And the wide range isn't uncommon for cases like this,
But what I'm saying is for defense attorneys, you look
at a case like this and you say I only
got to convince one. I don't have to convince all
of them. All I gotta do is convince one strongly.
Who can go in that jury room and say, you, guys,
(11:57):
I see what you're.
Speaker 3 (11:57):
Saying, but I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it.
Speaker 2 (12:00):
And if you can get somebody to do that, then
you win. I think that favors of defense unlet's prosecution,
you could do a stellar job.
Speaker 1 (12:05):
Let's get down to it when it comes to you,
Ryan Smith, based on what you've heard, did defense make
their case on all the charges facing Diddy?
Speaker 3 (12:13):
Transportation of individuals to engage in prostitution?
Speaker 2 (12:16):
Yes, sex, because there's definitely evidence of there's witnesses who
come forward talk about calling this person. They come across
state lines that I think is easier to solve. That
is not the biggest charge though, in terms of RICO.
In terms of sex trafficking, I don't know, and I'm
not I wouldn't say no because we're not in that courtroom,
(12:40):
and so much is relying on them tying everything together
today right now with what they're saying in those clothing arguments.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
But here's my problem.
Speaker 2 (12:49):
They talk about Diddy getting together with all these people
they talk about that leaders, one of his assistants, people
like Krista Korum, Christina Quorum, who's one of these people
who sets these things up. People were talking about alot
in the courtroom. I had a little bit of a
problem that I didn't hear from all of these people
because you're saying Diddy, and in order to do Rico,
(13:10):
you have to say Diddy and others did these things
in furtherance of the enterprise.
Speaker 3 (13:14):
Where are the others? Some of the others came forward.
Speaker 2 (13:17):
But if you're that jury and you don't believe that
all these others have the are part of this enterprise,
then you're searching for the other people.
Speaker 3 (13:24):
Then doubt comes in.
Speaker 2 (13:25):
So right now, I would say, based on what we've seen,
I think the prosecution has a strong case, but it
is definitely not a slam dunk.
Speaker 3 (13:33):
It is definitely not clear.
Speaker 2 (13:35):
There's big differences between this and our Kelly case and Rico,
for example, and this is not something that I think
is an easy one to prove for them.
Speaker 3 (13:42):
So I think it's fifty to fifty jury deliberations.
Speaker 1 (13:44):
How long you anticipate this could This could go because
the trial could end whether it's tomorrow or it could
end by Monday, and then jury deliberations kick in. How
long do you anticipate that'll take and go days?
Speaker 2 (13:55):
But I'll say one thing what's gonna be interesting to
me and what I think people should keep an eye on.
Speaker 3 (13:58):
Will the judge give the jury this case on Friday.
Speaker 2 (14:01):
It's a very small point, but sometimes when juris have
a case on Fridays and they really want to go
home and they really want to be done, they rush
it and you could have a verdict on Friday. My
sense here is the judge might have them start on Monday,
so they're really thinking it through and being thorough. And
if that's the case, I think it could go on
for days. And it's mostly because of that rico charge.
Speaker 3 (14:22):
I think it is a.
Speaker 2 (14:23):
Very complicated thing the prosecutors have to do here to
try it all together to prove that case. And I
think we see clearly, Look Steve and I, we can
look at this case no matter.
Speaker 3 (14:32):
What you think. We see that Diddy is a bad guy.
Speaker 2 (14:35):
We see that he did bad things, but are they
criminal things? Are they criminal things? And I don't know
if we see that here, And I think that's going
to take the jury a long time to sort out.
Speaker 1 (14:45):
Very last question. I know this trial hasn't been televised.
The judge didn't want that. That's why we see, you know,
the drawings and all of this other stuff. Is it
possible that the judge may allow a verdict to be televised.
Speaker 2 (14:58):
Oh no, I don't think so. I think this is
going to be shut down the whole way through. I
think one thing that people can look for though, even
as they hear about the decision, is he convicted on
one thing and not on others.
Speaker 3 (15:09):
And I will say this stephen A.
Speaker 2 (15:11):
If he's convicted, say for example, on the transportation to
commit prostitution, but not on the other two, that is
a loss for the prosecution, a huge loss, because you
want to get him on that top charge. You mentioned
it at the very beginning. He faces life in prison.
That's for those things like sex trafficking, for rico, conspiracy,
and if they don't get convictions on that, that is
(15:33):
a huge loss, not only for this case, but for
a prosecutor's office that is trying really hard to hold
powerful people accountable for what they consider to be criminal
acts created by an enterprise.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
If they can't get a conviction here. That's a problem
on those big two charges.
Speaker 1 (15:50):
Wow, the one and only Ryan Smith, ABC News, ESPN
right here with your boy, Steven.
Speaker 3 (15:54):
I appreciate you as always, my man. Take care of yourself.
We'll talk sooner. Right yeah, man, you too, get some rest.
Speaker 1 (16:00):
My best will do my best.
Speaker 2 (16:06):
Mhm.
Host
Stephen A. Smith
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