Stephen A. Smith is a New York Times Bestselling Author, Executive Producer, host of ESPN's First Take, and co-host of NBA Countdown.
Support the show: http://www.youtube.com/@stephenasmith
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 (00:03):
We're gonna get started right here in New York City
and a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial against Sean
Dede Combs. It was an emotional day in court as
Cassie Ventura, Combe's ex girlfriend and former bad boy protege,
took the stand and detailed their ten year relationship. It
was testimony filled with allegations of physical abuse and control
(00:25):
that included drug fueled sexual encounters called freak offs with
male escorts under Combe's direction.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Cassie told the jury.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
That Colmbs would often beat her, leaving her with black
eyes and bruises all over her body.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Her lawsuit, filed.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
In twenty twenty three, became the framework for the government's
case against p Diddy. Cassie testified that her career as
an artist ultimately became stifled because she spent most of
her time for filling Comb's sexual fantasies. Cassie is back
on the stand today with more details of their relationship.
Defense attorneys for did he maintain the sexual encounters between
(01:04):
he and Cassie were consensual? This is just my opinion.
I don't give it. I don't give it, not even
a little bit. When you hear the details that we heard.
Good luck with the defense deciphering the difference between sex
(01:26):
trafficking and racketeering as opposed to domestic abuse.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
And thinking that's going to win them a jury.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
I find it very difficult to believe that human beings
are going to be able to disassociate themselves from the
criminal kind of behavior she's alleged he has done. By
the way, there is video of it, and I don't
know what level of access is going to be given
to it, but it's spanning about fifteen minutes. Remember when
(01:58):
you saw on running down the hallway after have but
naked with a tower wrapped around him.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Remember that right there? Remember that?
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Remember when he dragged her and threw it to the
ground and kicked her. Apparently we only saw a couple
of minutes, but that scene took place for about fifteen minutes.
And now reportedly anyway it's going to be released if
it hasn't already for all to see.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
I don't know whether that's true or not. I just
know that's very.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Very bad as it pertains to domestic violence not being
a federal com.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
That's more of a state crime.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Good luck with convincing the jury of that see my
man Christen here, I see my man Galen here, I
see my man Rusting here. I got a bunch of
people there. Jennifer's in the control room. How are you
going to be able to.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Hear evidence.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Of black eyes, bruises over the body, in urination on
her and in her and disassociate that by saying, well,
that's not really sex trafficking, that's not really racketeering, that's
(03:12):
just domestic violence. So I'm gonna let him off. I
don't know about that job. I understand legally, if you're
on a jury, that's what you're supposed to do. I
don't know if you're going to convince jurors to do that.
So in my opinion, it looks very, very very bad
(03:38):
for Diddy. It really really does, especially since the defense
has all but said, hey, we understand his behavior was reprehensible,
but that doesn't mean he's guilty of these two.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Specific federal crimes. I don't know how you do that.
I just don't. But that's just me.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Better minds than me might be able to answer that question,
which is why I'm going to My next guest joining
me now to discuss the trial is CNN Legal analyst
Extordinaea the one and knowly Ellie Honing, a frequent contributed
to the show. Thank you so much, always good to
see you.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
I mean, I know Cassie is back on the stand today,
but let's talk about yesterday. What were your impressions of
what we heard in court from Cassie herself yesterday.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Well, I think she was doing what prosecutors need her
to do, which, first of all, Stephen, is to come
across as credible, to come across as sympathetic, to tell
her story, to put the jury in her shoes. Remember,
in a trial setting like this, the witness is sitting
feet away from the jury, five to ten feet. She
is right there. And it sounds to me from talking
to people in the courtroom and reading her testimony, that
(04:47):
what she talked about was clear. I think she detailed
some really horrific experiences she went through, and I think
she came off as credible. She didn't give the sense
that she was stretching or going out of her way
to say things that were damaging to Sean Comb. So
I think yesterday at the if I was the prosecutor
at the end of the day, yesterday I would have said, good,
good start.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
We got a long ways to go though.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
One of the things that and I hate bringing this up.
I certainly am not trying to to just harm heart
in any way. I mean, I just want to say
when she gave the details and then she talked about
being urinated in her mouth, I just I was so appalled,
so taken aback by it. I know most I can't
(05:30):
imagine most human beings would feel any differently than me.
That doesn't necessarily equate to sex trafficking and racketeering per se.
But how damaging is that in a case such of
this nature against P Diddy.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Well, it's obviously visceral and revolting testimony for the reasons
you said, Steven, And I think it actually does raise
that question, which is was this voluntary? Because that's ultimately
what the defense is going to be. And when you
talk about acts like that that are so stream, it
becomes harder and hard to agree that something like that
what you just talked about would be done voluntarily. But
(06:07):
you raise a really important point, and this is what
the defense argued in its opening statement. And by the way,
I thought this was an excellent opening statement by the defense.
Sometimes you'll see defense layers get up there and say
everything you'll hear from the prosecution is Bs, their star
witness is a liar, they have bad motives.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
That's not what the defense did here.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I think they very smartly said I'm paraphrasing here, but
they said he's not a good guy.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
He's done really bad things. He had a drug problem.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
He was domestically abusive of Cassie. However, the defense argued
that is not what he's charged with.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
And they're right.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
This is not a domestic violence case, this is not
an assault case. It is a federal racketeering, conspiracy, and
sex trafficking case. And so I think a big part
of the defense and we'll see this, I think when
Cassie gets cross examined, probably late in the day on Wednesday,
is you don't have to believe she's a full liar,
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Even if what she
(07:03):
says is true, this relationship, the defense will argue, was
consensual and it does not make Sean Combs a federal
racket Here.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
I thought they did a really effective job of articulating.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
But Ellie, what about the notion that it's twelve jurors, right,
it's twelve jurors, is six alternates.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
They're human beings.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
And there is such a thing as hearing about acts,
hearing about an.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Individual that's so repulsive, so.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Heinous, that you find yourself wanting to give him even
if the charges don't necessarily correlate with what you're hearing.
We're talking sex trafficking and racketeering. But you might have
people up there and says, I don't give a damn
about the specifics one hundred charges. His behind needs to
be in jail. How do you wore that off?
Speaker 4 (07:45):
If you're the defense one, that is a dynamic in
the court.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
You know, I practiced in that courthouse for much of
my career in the Southern District of New York. People
have this misconception that the jury is sort of this monolith.
All it is is twelve regular twelve people from Manhattan
and the Bronx, maybe Westchepter County. They are subject to
emotion like anyone else. And yeah, if you're the prosecution,
you do want to inflame the jury. There's limits, but
(08:10):
you want to show them that video. You want them
hating him, you want them being disgusted, And I think
what The trick is the difficulty for the defense layers
is you have to prevail upon the jury say, look,
you are not here to rule with.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Your emotions or your heart.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
You are not even here to rule on whether he's
a good person or a horrible person. You are here
to rule on whether the prosecution has proved the specific
federal crimes they've charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, by
the way, I don't think the prosecution is going to
be unable to prove its charges, but it is important
to note that the charges are more dramatic and sort
of more far flung than just domestic violence and just assault.
(08:49):
They have to show, essentially that Shawan Combs presided over
a criminal organization that had structures and procedures in order
to promote and protect his career.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Most of what was heard yesterday was about sex, drug use,
domestic violence, as you just reiterated, but all of those essentially,
especially the last. The latter is a state crime, by
the way, but this is a federal case. Has the
prosecution made the connection to the federal charges of sex
trafficking and racketeering yet?
Speaker 2 (09:17):
In your eyes?
Speaker 4 (09:18):
So no, not yet. I mean they're still early in
their case, but I think they'll get there.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
The racketeering laws that I used to use, these laws
charge these laws all the time, are very broad and
what they allow federal prosecutors to do, and again this
is a federal prosecucution, is to pull in certain things
that would otherwise be state crimes. So for example, domestic
violence or just an assault like we see on that video,
that would ordinarily not be a federal crime, but you
(09:43):
can bring it into a federal court as evidence of
the racketeering enterprise.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
And so yeah, the allegation here is.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
The racketeering enterprise committed a bunch of different crimes, including
not just sexual assault and interstate prostitution, but gun possession
and drug use and obstruction. And I'll tell you one
other interesting feeature of the charge here, Steven, racketeering definitionally
means an organization, a group of people. I used to
charge twenty five person racketeering cases. I was doing bob cases,
(10:11):
so it was more of a traditional setup. Sean Combs
is alleged to be a racketeering enterprise of one. There
are other participants alluded to, but he's the only person
who's ever indicted, is the only person sitting at that
defense table and look for his defense team to say,
they're overkilling this. They're telling you the man was a
one man criminal enterprise, and I think prosecutors are going
to respond saying, you bet, that is what we're saying.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
You know, Cassie Ventura is on the stand yesterday and today.
We've seen images footage of her being beat We've heard
about her being urinated on. She's an expectant mother, she's
about to give birth, she's nine months pregnant. What kind
of role, what imagery she provided with being pregnant do
(10:57):
you think that could potentially have on a jury ticularly
considering her testimony at this moment in time.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I think that absolutely matters. I take a very humanistic
view of trials. I think they're all about the people
and the personalities that are there in the courtroom. And
you know, it's interesting because the defense wanted to prohibit
her from walking in. Normally, the way it works is
the door opens at the back of the courthouse and
the witness walks right down the middle of the aisle,
right past the jurors, and the defense said, no, judge,
(11:24):
let's get her seated first, so she doesn't have to
do that so it's less obvious that she's pregnant, and
the judge denied that. The judge said, no, we're going
to treat her like any other witness. So they obviously
know she is very, you know, far along in her pregnancy.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
They can see it.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
She's sitting right in front of them, and of course
that elicits some degree of sympathy.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
It humanizes her. It reminds them that she is a
much She already is a mother, but she's a mother to.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Be, and you have to take that into consideration if
you're the defense cross examining her. Now, first of all,
it's going to be a female defense lawyer who cross
examines her. I mean, if they send a male to
cross examine her, that is malpractice. And you know, you
have to go after the prosecution's key witness. You have
to be pointed and aggressive, but you also don't want
(12:07):
to come across as being domineering or a bully. And
so I think the fact that she's in her third
trimester would also play in there.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Ellie helped me out here. I mean, just just play
with me for a little bit here. Why would it
be malpractice? I mean, for obvious, I know the answer,
but I want you to articulate it to the audience.
Why would it be malpracticed to send a male attorney
up there to question Cassie Ventur. What if it were
an absolutely brilliant attorney.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Who was suave, who know how to be very.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Very charming to a jury, etc. Why would it be
malpractice to send a male attorney up there? The question
of Cassie Venturer educate our audience A.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
Lot of it's just an appearance issue.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Look, this case is about a male abusing females, and
so look, cross examination could get pointed, and you don't
want to be in a position where the jury's watching
a male defense lawyer, you know, not literally, but figuratively
beat up on a very pregnant female witness slash victim.
So I think there's a sensitivity there. Also, Look, there
(13:11):
may need to be cross examination about some of the
nuances and details of the sexual activity, the freak offs. Look,
there was testimony, For example, Cassie Ventura testified that at
times she was made to do these freak offs while
she was menstruating. And so those are questions that are
much more comfortably asked by a female of a female
(13:32):
than a male of a female.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
And my room is saying this, Ellie, does this sound
even worse than R Kelly?
Speaker 3 (13:40):
It's you know, it's it's interesting how you look at it.
I mean, R Kelly, I think there was probably more violence.
I mean, I know we have the videotape in this case.
The number of victims I think was more with R.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Kelly. But boy, the the.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Sort of full core domination of these women mentally, physically, sexually,
career wise in the Sean Combs case, I think is
in a different category.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Last question for you, Elie, Cassie's husband.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
I'm being told he may be called to testify in
this trial, yet he was in court on Monday. First
of all, is that ordinary? Is that something that's typical?
I don't know whether or not that is. And what
do you think about the notion of him giving testimony
in all of this?
Speaker 3 (14:23):
So it's interesting because normally, if somebody is a potential witness,
they're supposed to be what we call sequestered, meaning they're
not supposed to be in the courtroom because you don't
want witness A seeing what witness B is saying, because
they might conform their testimony to be consistent or to
contradict that. So ordinarily, whichever side is thinking of calling
a witness should make sure that that witness is not
(14:45):
in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. If he
is called, look, you know, if either side needs him
to come to the stand, they will subpoena him.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
He will have to take the stand. I'm not sure
what his relevance would be.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
It could be that the defense thinks he undercuts some
aspects of Cassidy's testimony. Maybe she's had conversations with him
that contradict things she said on the stand. Or on
the other hand, maybe he supports some of the things
she said. Maybe he met her at a time when
she made certain statements to him that could be relevant now.
So that would be a risky move, I think for
either side. But you know, these are high stakes scenarios,
(15:22):
stephen A, and sometimes you have to make tricky calls.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
So we'll see this.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
This reminds me of being back there at the prosecutor's
office and are we happy with what we got or
do we need to roll the dice here on another witness.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Absolute last question, if you're the defense team, how are
you feeling today?
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I'm feeling okay thus far, because if I'm the defense team,
my strategy is, you can believe Cassie Ventura. Even if
you believe her though, this was a ten to eleven
year consensual relationship, and so I'm in a position on
the one hand where i don't have to convince the
jury that this eight months pregnant, likable, well spoken, sympathetic
(16:01):
woman is some kind of lunatic liar. On the other hand, though,
let me give the other side. I'd be worried though,
because that videotape is so bad, and the visceral nature
of her testimony and what she went through is so shocking.
I'd be worried about what you talked about a few
minutes ago, Steven, which is just is the overwhelming disgust
(16:21):
for this guy, for Diddy gonna just be so much
that overwhelms everything else in that.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Now, apologies, you just brought up something very very quickly,
the fact that the whole tape is the whole tape
has been released.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Yeah, so look, the I don't know whether we'll get
to see it in the public, but that tape is
a crucial piece of evidence you're gonna need. The jury's
gonna need to see and consider every.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
Bit of that.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
And they actually had Cassidy Ventura narrating it sort of
piece by piece, which I think is really important, a
because it bolsters Cassidy Ventura's testimony, but be it allows
a firsthand participant, the victim, to tell the jury exactly
what they're seeing there, what's happening each step of the way.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Kelly Honik, CNN Legal and list extraordin there right here
on the steven Ate.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Mike.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Sure, appreciate you, buddy, Thank you so much for your time. Man,
I know you right, thank you all right
Speaker 3 (17:08):
M hm
We're gonna get started right here in New York City
and a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial against Sean
Dede Combs. It was an emotional day in court as
Cassie Ventura, Combe's ex girlfriend and former bad boy protege,
took the stand and detailed their ten year relationship. It
was testimony filled with allegations of physical abuse and control
(00:25):
that included drug fueled sexual encounters called freak offs with
male escorts under Combe's direction.
Speaker 2 (00:34):
Cassie told the jury.
Speaker 1 (00:35):
That Colmbs would often beat her, leaving her with black
eyes and bruises all over her body.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
Her lawsuit, filed.
Speaker 1 (00:42):
In twenty twenty three, became the framework for the government's
case against p Diddy. Cassie testified that her career as
an artist ultimately became stifled because she spent most of
her time for filling Comb's sexual fantasies. Cassie is back
on the stand today with more details of their relationship.
Defense attorneys for did he maintain the sexual encounters between
(01:04):
he and Cassie were consensual? This is just my opinion.
I don't give it. I don't give it, not even
a little bit. When you hear the details that we heard.
Good luck with the defense deciphering the difference between sex
(01:26):
trafficking and racketeering as opposed to domestic abuse.
Speaker 2 (01:31):
And thinking that's going to win them a jury.
Speaker 1 (01:34):
I find it very difficult to believe that human beings
are going to be able to disassociate themselves from the
criminal kind of behavior she's alleged he has done. By
the way, there is video of it, and I don't
know what level of access is going to be given
to it, but it's spanning about fifteen minutes. Remember when
(01:58):
you saw on running down the hallway after have but
naked with a tower wrapped around him.
Speaker 2 (02:03):
Remember that right there? Remember that?
Speaker 1 (02:06):
Remember when he dragged her and threw it to the
ground and kicked her. Apparently we only saw a couple
of minutes, but that scene took place for about fifteen minutes.
And now reportedly anyway it's going to be released if
it hasn't already for all to see.
Speaker 2 (02:28):
I don't know whether that's true or not. I just
know that's very.
Speaker 1 (02:30):
Very bad as it pertains to domestic violence not being
a federal com.
Speaker 2 (02:35):
That's more of a state crime.
Speaker 1 (02:37):
Good luck with convincing the jury of that see my
man Christen here, I see my man Galen here, I
see my man Rusting here. I got a bunch of
people there. Jennifer's in the control room. How are you
going to be able to.
Speaker 2 (02:49):
Hear evidence.
Speaker 1 (02:51):
Of black eyes, bruises over the body, in urination on
her and in her and disassociate that by saying, well,
that's not really sex trafficking, that's not really racketeering, that's
(03:12):
just domestic violence. So I'm gonna let him off. I
don't know about that job. I understand legally, if you're
on a jury, that's what you're supposed to do. I
don't know if you're going to convince jurors to do that.
So in my opinion, it looks very, very very bad
(03:38):
for Diddy. It really really does, especially since the defense
has all but said, hey, we understand his behavior was reprehensible,
but that doesn't mean he's guilty of these two.
Speaker 2 (03:53):
Specific federal crimes. I don't know how you do that.
I just don't. But that's just me.
Speaker 1 (04:01):
Better minds than me might be able to answer that question,
which is why I'm going to My next guest joining
me now to discuss the trial is CNN Legal analyst
Extordinaea the one and knowly Ellie Honing, a frequent contributed
to the show. Thank you so much, always good to
see you.
Speaker 2 (04:15):
Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1 (04:17):
I mean, I know Cassie is back on the stand today,
but let's talk about yesterday. What were your impressions of
what we heard in court from Cassie herself yesterday.
Speaker 3 (04:26):
Well, I think she was doing what prosecutors need her
to do, which, first of all, Stephen, is to come
across as credible, to come across as sympathetic, to tell
her story, to put the jury in her shoes. Remember,
in a trial setting like this, the witness is sitting
feet away from the jury, five to ten feet. She
is right there. And it sounds to me from talking
to people in the courtroom and reading her testimony, that
(04:47):
what she talked about was clear. I think she detailed
some really horrific experiences she went through, and I think
she came off as credible. She didn't give the sense
that she was stretching or going out of her way
to say things that were damaging to Sean Comb. So
I think yesterday at the if I was the prosecutor
at the end of the day, yesterday I would have said, good,
good start.
Speaker 4 (05:07):
We got a long ways to go though.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
One of the things that and I hate bringing this up.
I certainly am not trying to to just harm heart
in any way. I mean, I just want to say
when she gave the details and then she talked about
being urinated in her mouth, I just I was so appalled,
so taken aback by it. I know most I can't
(05:30):
imagine most human beings would feel any differently than me.
That doesn't necessarily equate to sex trafficking and racketeering per se.
But how damaging is that in a case such of
this nature against P Diddy.
Speaker 3 (05:44):
Well, it's obviously visceral and revolting testimony for the reasons
you said, Steven, And I think it actually does raise
that question, which is was this voluntary? Because that's ultimately
what the defense is going to be. And when you
talk about acts like that that are so stream, it
becomes harder and hard to agree that something like that
what you just talked about would be done voluntarily. But
(06:07):
you raise a really important point, and this is what
the defense argued in its opening statement. And by the way,
I thought this was an excellent opening statement by the defense.
Sometimes you'll see defense layers get up there and say
everything you'll hear from the prosecution is Bs, their star
witness is a liar, they have bad motives.
Speaker 4 (06:24):
That's not what the defense did here.
Speaker 3 (06:25):
I think they very smartly said I'm paraphrasing here, but
they said he's not a good guy.
Speaker 4 (06:30):
He's done really bad things. He had a drug problem.
Speaker 3 (06:33):
He was domestically abusive of Cassie. However, the defense argued
that is not what he's charged with.
Speaker 4 (06:42):
And they're right.
Speaker 3 (06:42):
This is not a domestic violence case, this is not
an assault case. It is a federal racketeering, conspiracy, and
sex trafficking case. And so I think a big part
of the defense and we'll see this, I think when
Cassie gets cross examined, probably late in the day on Wednesday,
is you don't have to believe she's a full liar,
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Even if what she
(07:03):
says is true, this relationship, the defense will argue, was
consensual and it does not make Sean Combs a federal
racket Here.
Speaker 4 (07:10):
I thought they did a really effective job of articulating.
Speaker 1 (07:13):
But Ellie, what about the notion that it's twelve jurors, right,
it's twelve jurors, is six alternates.
Speaker 2 (07:18):
They're human beings.
Speaker 1 (07:19):
And there is such a thing as hearing about acts,
hearing about an.
Speaker 2 (07:23):
Individual that's so repulsive, so.
Speaker 1 (07:26):
Heinous, that you find yourself wanting to give him even
if the charges don't necessarily correlate with what you're hearing.
We're talking sex trafficking and racketeering. But you might have
people up there and says, I don't give a damn
about the specifics one hundred charges. His behind needs to
be in jail. How do you wore that off?
Speaker 4 (07:45):
If you're the defense one, that is a dynamic in
the court.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
You know, I practiced in that courthouse for much of
my career in the Southern District of New York. People
have this misconception that the jury is sort of this monolith.
All it is is twelve regular twelve people from Manhattan
and the Bronx, maybe Westchepter County. They are subject to
emotion like anyone else. And yeah, if you're the prosecution,
you do want to inflame the jury. There's limits, but
(08:10):
you want to show them that video. You want them
hating him, you want them being disgusted, And I think
what The trick is the difficulty for the defense layers
is you have to prevail upon the jury say, look,
you are not here to rule with.
Speaker 4 (08:24):
Your emotions or your heart.
Speaker 3 (08:26):
You are not even here to rule on whether he's
a good person or a horrible person. You are here
to rule on whether the prosecution has proved the specific
federal crimes they've charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, by
the way, I don't think the prosecution is going to
be unable to prove its charges, but it is important
to note that the charges are more dramatic and sort
of more far flung than just domestic violence and just assault.
(08:49):
They have to show, essentially that Shawan Combs presided over
a criminal organization that had structures and procedures in order
to promote and protect his career.
Speaker 1 (09:01):
Most of what was heard yesterday was about sex, drug use,
domestic violence, as you just reiterated, but all of those essentially,
especially the last. The latter is a state crime, by
the way, but this is a federal case. Has the
prosecution made the connection to the federal charges of sex
trafficking and racketeering yet?
Speaker 2 (09:17):
In your eyes?
Speaker 4 (09:18):
So no, not yet. I mean they're still early in
their case, but I think they'll get there.
Speaker 3 (09:21):
The racketeering laws that I used to use, these laws
charge these laws all the time, are very broad and
what they allow federal prosecutors to do, and again this
is a federal prosecucution, is to pull in certain things
that would otherwise be state crimes. So for example, domestic
violence or just an assault like we see on that video,
that would ordinarily not be a federal crime, but you
(09:43):
can bring it into a federal court as evidence of
the racketeering enterprise.
Speaker 4 (09:47):
And so yeah, the allegation here is.
Speaker 3 (09:49):
The racketeering enterprise committed a bunch of different crimes, including
not just sexual assault and interstate prostitution, but gun possession
and drug use and obstruction. And I'll tell you one
other interesting feeature of the charge here, Steven, racketeering definitionally
means an organization, a group of people. I used to
charge twenty five person racketeering cases. I was doing bob cases,
(10:11):
so it was more of a traditional setup. Sean Combs
is alleged to be a racketeering enterprise of one. There
are other participants alluded to, but he's the only person
who's ever indicted, is the only person sitting at that
defense table and look for his defense team to say,
they're overkilling this. They're telling you the man was a
one man criminal enterprise, and I think prosecutors are going
to respond saying, you bet, that is what we're saying.
Speaker 1 (10:34):
You know, Cassie Ventura is on the stand yesterday and today.
We've seen images footage of her being beat We've heard
about her being urinated on. She's an expectant mother, she's
about to give birth, she's nine months pregnant. What kind
of role, what imagery she provided with being pregnant do
(10:57):
you think that could potentially have on a jury ticularly
considering her testimony at this moment in time.
Speaker 3 (11:04):
I think that absolutely matters. I take a very humanistic
view of trials. I think they're all about the people
and the personalities that are there in the courtroom. And
you know, it's interesting because the defense wanted to prohibit
her from walking in. Normally, the way it works is
the door opens at the back of the courthouse and
the witness walks right down the middle of the aisle,
right past the jurors, and the defense said, no, judge,
(11:24):
let's get her seated first, so she doesn't have to
do that so it's less obvious that she's pregnant, and
the judge denied that. The judge said, no, we're going
to treat her like any other witness. So they obviously
know she is very, you know, far along in her pregnancy.
Speaker 4 (11:37):
They can see it.
Speaker 3 (11:37):
She's sitting right in front of them, and of course
that elicits some degree of sympathy.
Speaker 4 (11:42):
It humanizes her. It reminds them that she is a
much She already is a mother, but she's a mother to.
Speaker 3 (11:46):
Be, and you have to take that into consideration if
you're the defense cross examining her. Now, first of all,
it's going to be a female defense lawyer who cross
examines her. I mean, if they send a male to
cross examine her, that is malpractice. And you know, you
have to go after the prosecution's key witness. You have
to be pointed and aggressive, but you also don't want
(12:07):
to come across as being domineering or a bully. And
so I think the fact that she's in her third
trimester would also play in there.
Speaker 1 (12:15):
Ellie helped me out here. I mean, just just play
with me for a little bit here. Why would it
be malpractice? I mean, for obvious, I know the answer,
but I want you to articulate it to the audience.
Why would it be malpracticed to send a male attorney
up there to question Cassie Ventur. What if it were
an absolutely brilliant attorney.
Speaker 2 (12:37):
Who was suave, who know how to be very.
Speaker 1 (12:39):
Very charming to a jury, etc. Why would it be
malpractice to send a male attorney up there? The question
of Cassie Venturer educate our audience A.
Speaker 4 (12:47):
Lot of it's just an appearance issue.
Speaker 3 (12:48):
Look, this case is about a male abusing females, and
so look, cross examination could get pointed, and you don't
want to be in a position where the jury's watching
a male defense lawyer, you know, not literally, but figuratively
beat up on a very pregnant female witness slash victim.
So I think there's a sensitivity there. Also, Look, there
(13:11):
may need to be cross examination about some of the
nuances and details of the sexual activity, the freak offs. Look,
there was testimony, For example, Cassie Ventura testified that at
times she was made to do these freak offs while
she was menstruating. And so those are questions that are
much more comfortably asked by a female of a female
(13:32):
than a male of a female.
Speaker 1 (13:33):
And my room is saying this, Ellie, does this sound
even worse than R Kelly?
Speaker 3 (13:40):
It's you know, it's it's interesting how you look at it.
I mean, R Kelly, I think there was probably more violence.
I mean, I know we have the videotape in this case.
The number of victims I think was more with R.
Speaker 4 (13:52):
Kelly. But boy, the the.
Speaker 3 (13:55):
Sort of full core domination of these women mentally, physically, sexually,
career wise in the Sean Combs case, I think is
in a different category.
Speaker 2 (14:06):
Last question for you, Elie, Cassie's husband.
Speaker 1 (14:09):
I'm being told he may be called to testify in
this trial, yet he was in court on Monday. First
of all, is that ordinary? Is that something that's typical?
I don't know whether or not that is. And what
do you think about the notion of him giving testimony
in all of this?
Speaker 3 (14:23):
So it's interesting because normally, if somebody is a potential witness,
they're supposed to be what we call sequestered, meaning they're
not supposed to be in the courtroom because you don't
want witness A seeing what witness B is saying, because
they might conform their testimony to be consistent or to
contradict that. So ordinarily, whichever side is thinking of calling
a witness should make sure that that witness is not
(14:45):
in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. If he
is called, look, you know, if either side needs him
to come to the stand, they will subpoena him.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
He will have to take the stand. I'm not sure
what his relevance would be.
Speaker 3 (14:59):
It could be that the defense thinks he undercuts some
aspects of Cassidy's testimony. Maybe she's had conversations with him
that contradict things she said on the stand. Or on
the other hand, maybe he supports some of the things
she said. Maybe he met her at a time when
she made certain statements to him that could be relevant now.
So that would be a risky move, I think for
either side. But you know, these are high stakes scenarios,
(15:22):
stephen A, and sometimes you have to make tricky calls.
Speaker 4 (15:24):
So we'll see this.
Speaker 3 (15:25):
This reminds me of being back there at the prosecutor's
office and are we happy with what we got or
do we need to roll the dice here on another witness.
Speaker 1 (15:32):
Absolute last question, if you're the defense team, how are
you feeling today?
Speaker 3 (15:37):
I'm feeling okay thus far, because if I'm the defense team,
my strategy is, you can believe Cassie Ventura. Even if
you believe her though, this was a ten to eleven
year consensual relationship, and so I'm in a position on
the one hand where i don't have to convince the
jury that this eight months pregnant, likable, well spoken, sympathetic
(16:01):
woman is some kind of lunatic liar. On the other hand, though,
let me give the other side. I'd be worried though,
because that videotape is so bad, and the visceral nature
of her testimony and what she went through is so shocking.
I'd be worried about what you talked about a few
minutes ago, Steven, which is just is the overwhelming disgust
(16:21):
for this guy, for Diddy gonna just be so much
that overwhelms everything else in that.
Speaker 1 (16:25):
Now, apologies, you just brought up something very very quickly,
the fact that the whole tape is the whole tape
has been released.
Speaker 3 (16:31):
Yeah, so look, the I don't know whether we'll get
to see it in the public, but that tape is
a crucial piece of evidence you're gonna need. The jury's
gonna need to see and consider every.
Speaker 4 (16:41):
Bit of that.
Speaker 3 (16:41):
And they actually had Cassidy Ventura narrating it sort of
piece by piece, which I think is really important, a
because it bolsters Cassidy Ventura's testimony, but be it allows
a firsthand participant, the victim, to tell the jury exactly
what they're seeing there, what's happening each step of the way.
Speaker 1 (16:58):
Kelly Honik, CNN Legal and list extraordin there right here
on the steven Ate.
Speaker 2 (17:01):
Mike.
Speaker 1 (17:01):
Sure, appreciate you, buddy, Thank you so much for your time. Man,
I know you right, thank you all right
Speaker 3 (17:08):
M hm
Host
Stephen A. Smith
Popular Podcasts
Cold Case Files: Miami
Joyce Sapp, 76; Bryan Herrera, 16; and Laurance Webb, 32—three Miami residents whose lives were stolen in brutal, unsolved homicides. Cold Case Files: Miami follows award‑winning radio host and City of Miami Police reserve officer Enrique Santos as he partners with the department’s Cold Case Homicide Unit, determined family members, and the advocates who spend their lives fighting for justice for the victims who can no longer fight for themselves.
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
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.