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):
Opening arguments were set to begin today in a highly
anticipated federal trial for hip hop mogul Sean Diddy Combs.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Colmbs has been accused.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Of sex trafficking by force, transportation to engage in prostitution,
and racketeering conspiracy as part of a federal indictment originally
filed in September of last year. The Feds later added
two more superseding indictments. Combs and his legal team have
pleaded not guilty to all of the chargers.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Joining me now to break this all down.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
As a friend of the program, He's an outstanding attorney
who moonlights as a sports center anchor for ESPN.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
He's also a legal analyst for ABC News.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
All over the Disney family, the one and only Ryan
Smith is right here with yours, truly. Ryan, always good
to see you, my brother, always good to see you.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
The trial started today with six female prosecutors presenting the
case against Colmebs.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
What impact, if any, could that have on a jury.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Well, that has a big impact, And the goal of
that is not only to use some of the top
prosecutors in the land to prosecute the case, but it's
also to show that this case is not just about
Seawan Didy Combs, but it's about what he did to
primarily women. And when you show that kind of front
in the prosecution all women prosecution team prosecuting this case,
(01:23):
it focuses the jury for prosecutors on what they want
them to be focused on. This was a man who
might not have done every single elements of the crime,
but racketeering is not about that. This kind of charge
of conspiracy is not about that. It's about a man
who used his power to force women into sexual situations.
And so that is part of what they're trying to show.
(01:44):
But I don't want it to be missed in all
of this. Stephen A that these are some of the
top prosecutors in the land. So I think sometimes in
a tendency to say, oh, it's all women, they're doing
that to put on a show. No, they're using some
of the best prosecutors in the land to make the
case by their presence that this is about holding someone accountable.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Okay, Ryan, you said top prosecutors in the land. That
resonated with me, because is that to imply these ain't
just the top prosecutors in New York.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
This is not a local thing. They went all over
the country and.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Got six of the best prosecutors in the country who
happen to be female.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Is that what you're saying, No, it's more like the
top the prosecutors in New York. The New York Office
is one of the best in the world, and so
these are their best. These are their top These are
people who have handled cases like just Lady Maxwell connected
to the Epstein case. That's the lead.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Prosecutor in this case, handle that case.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
So these are some of the best women in some
of the best office in the world.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Break down the demographics, the dynamics and the demographics of
this jury. How many females, how many males, how many blacks,
how many whites? What can you tell us about the
actual jury and the alternates that have been assigned to
this case.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Yeah, you've got a full jury. You've got six alternates.
There are all over the map, and I think that's
what you want in a case like this. Men and
women different hues, different colors, different races, but they also
come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Some come from different higher
level jobs. Other there's one juror who's a clerk at
a store in New York. So I think that's what
(03:17):
prosecutors wanted to paint here, a broad swath of New
York society, of people who are there to try to
judge this case. It can be an advantage for prosecutors.
It can also be an advantage for the defense, because
the defense can look at this and say, we are
going to try in many ways to show you that
Shawn Combs might not be a great guy, might be
a dirk, might be angry, might have committed domestic violence,
(03:38):
But was he a racketeer? Was he someone who we
should hold accountable for what the prosecution is saying. So
this jury is a diverse, broad swath of people in
New York. But we will see how that plays out
on either side.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
One of the things I'm looking at right now, this
is called the fresh CNN update. I wanted to know
what you could validate, what you can elaborate upon, if
at all it says the jury was shown additional footage
from the hotel hallway.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
The jury is.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Being shown footage from the north hallway of the sixth
floor of the Intercontinental Hotel. This is where p Diddy
ran around, ran out in the hallway with just a
towel wrapped around himself, naked up top going after cast inventury,
trying to prevent her from getting on the elevator. He
grabbed her, he shoved her down, he kicked her, et cetera,
et cetera. He acknowledged, you know how hainus the video
(04:28):
was in his own social media posting in the aftermath
of this being publicized. Could you tell us what happened
today inside that courtroom as it pertains to evidence that
was shown to the jury and any testimony that was given.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Yeah, that evidence that that video right there, that is
the most powerful piece of evidence the prosecution has, and
they put it right up front. First witness in the trial,
they called they put that on full display. You talk
about the extended view of this. What they're trying to
show is the defense will try to say, hey, this
was an argument, This was an argument between a couple
that went awry. Yes there was domestic violence here, but
(05:02):
this isn't any evidence of racketeering or conspiracy. So the
prosecution year is trying to show an expanded view. What
that does is it kind of undercuts any defense argument
that says, you're not showing the whole context of what happened.
You're not showing what really happened. And there was so
much more that went on that tells a story of
more of some a couple that got into an argument,
rather than something that builds more into a criminal racketeering
(05:25):
conspiracy or something that is a broader issue that comes
from it. So that's what they're showing there, Steven.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
The big part of today Gough was opening statements.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
The prosecution gets up first and lays out their case,
and their case is essentially this Son Comb's big music mogul,
committed these crimes, had these freak costs, had coerce women
into force sex, all as a part of a criminal enterprise,
and others were involved to facilitate that enterprise. But the
defense part of this they come second. And how they
(05:55):
contrasted it, I think is very interesting. They didn't try
to say on Colmes did none of this. They said, look,
he's a bad guy, he's a jerk, he has anger issues,
he took drugs, and they even took the step of
saying that he had some domestic violence in his past.
That is important because in a way you put to
the jury, hey, if he had these things, doesn't that
(06:17):
build into what the prosecution's saying. What the defense is
going to try to do here is say, just because
he is a bad person doesn't mean he is a
person who did illegal things.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
We commit.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
We do not convict people for being bad people. We
convict people for doing illegal activities. So was what we're
seeing here in this case? Jury? Is what the defense
is trying to say, was what we're seeing here evidence
of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy things like that? Or was
this a person with anger issues that you or I
might have septual proclivities that we may not understand or
(06:49):
agree with.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
But are these things that should lead to a conviction
in this case?
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And I think that's a risky thing to do in
some ways, but it's what they have to do because
they've got a very imperfect client.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
That that word risky that you just threw out there,
I would imagine you've surmised and deduced that this is
risky because of the times that we're living in. This
is not the nineties, this is not the eighties, This
is not even the early two thousands. This is a
time where domestic violence has really really come to the
forefront of the mind's eye of American citizens and beyond
(07:20):
because of the heinous behavior of a lot of people,
most of them being men against women, the Me Too movement,
the aftermath of all of that, and what have you.
You're looking at those kind of things, and I find
myself saying, why in God's name with the defense team
believe that that's a strategy to employ in light of
(07:41):
how sensitive we are to those things in these times
compared to how we were in years past.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Is that why you use the word risky?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
It is? It is because we are in a time
where we are believing people who are accusing big titans
of industry like Sean Combs. So in the past, a
lot of times you could undercut that in so many
ways as the defense team. You could try to dismiss
a victim, You could try to attack people who are
accusing people of other things. That is a much tougher
(08:12):
thing to do today. That's why it's risky. And in
a way it's risky because you're painting part of the
prosecutor's picture. The prosecution is trying to show this was
a man who had these freak offs, did all these
coerced women into sexual, horrendous sexual engagements, all because he's
trying to further this enterprise. And then you're getting up
(08:34):
and saying, yeah, you're seeing a video. He did do
some domestic violence, he did have angers whose he did
take drugs for example, even the drugs part if he
took drugs part of the prosecution cases he drugged women
to do some of these things. That helps a jury
build into the prosecution's case. But you do this because
in some ways you don't have another choice. You do
this because you know there's a video out there that
(08:55):
jurors are seeing today in that courtroom that shows what
he did. You see that there is information they're gonna
see evidence in that jury of these freak offs and
things like that. So you know this is the situation.
The way you can paint this is to try to
humanize Shawn Combs to this jury and say.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Look, I know you might not engage in these things.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
I know he might live a different life. But just
because he lives a different life, would you want someone
coming in and saying, hey, you live a different life,
so now we're gonna prosecute you. I think that's what
they're trying to do. But you make the great point,
stephen A. In this day and age. Doing that is
a tough needle to thread, because when you do that,
you open the door of well, are we not supposed
(09:38):
to believe these women?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Are we not supposed to believe what they say Shawn
Combs did?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Are we not supposed to believe what we're seeing on
video and how Shawn Combs in our minds?
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Yes, he could have paid off.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
People at the hotel or done certain things to try
to cover some of this off. And isn't that part
of the criminal enterprise they're trying to prove? So that's
where it becomes risky.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Define for our audience the word racket hearing and the
word enterprise, because those words are thrown out obviously as
a part of this indictment, of course, but I don't
think people understand those two words when you say criminal
and they understand it where criminal, criminal enterprise, racketeering, explain enterprise,
(10:18):
explain racketeering for the purposes of these specific charges against
Sean Diddy Goombs.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
Okay, that racketeering and criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
I think people can look at it as where it
started from years and years ago, when the government was
trying to go after organizations like the mob. It was
so tough because in that kind of situation, the person
you're trying to accuse of the crime didn't do every
part of the crime. So let's say a mob boss
ordered to hit on somebody, They might not have done
(10:47):
the actual hit, So how do you connect them to
that racketeering?
Speaker 4 (10:51):
And when you talk about criminal.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Enterprises is where the government tries to set up a
scenario where they say and enterprise was set up to.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Do the crime.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
In order to do the crime, must people had to
be involved, but there was somebody at the top who
started the whole thing. So we're going to try to
get all of those people to paint the picture of
the enterprise and convict the person who started the thing.
So when Shawn Combs' case, the way it breaks down
is to say he set up a criminal enterprise. He
wanted to do things like freak offs and this coersion
(11:19):
of women and these abusive things that they're accusing him of,
So he set up an enterprise. That enterprise had people
going to get the women, had people procuring the drugs,
had people paying off people. When evidence got out, and
then prosecutors can take all that information and paint a
picture of an enterprise that was all set up to
further Sean Colmes's freek coffs or proclivities sexually. So that's
(11:42):
how it breaks down. It's almost helpful to look at
it like the person you're trying to convict didn't touch
every element of the crime that you're trying to convict
him of. So you're trying to show that he set
up an organization all in furtherance of that criminal purpose,
and when you do that, you can get him on
that racketeering charge.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
We've heard about him being charged, we haven't heard about
anybody else being charged. Is that because they can't find
these other people they can't find enough evidence against these
other people, or is it because they're utilizing those people
to make the case against him.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
I would say it's probably part of the latter, which
is using people to make the case against him. I
would say in some ways, they're probably speaking all these
people who are involved in what they see as the enterprise.
They got these people in they try to see who
could flip in different areas, and that's why in this case,
everybody should be watching the witnesses that testify and look
(12:39):
at the witnesses if they have any that relate to
people who are incomes as organization. Those are the people
that you're talking about, the people.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
That in some way might have been involved with.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
What they're saying is this criminal enterprise who are in
a sense flipping on Diddy. Now, the other side of
it is not being able to find people. I always
like to say when you talk about prosecutors and government cases,
the key for them is patience. They need to have
evidence to win a case if they believe there's a
good faith basis in which a crime has been committed.
(13:10):
That takes time, like even in Ditty's case, it took
years to try to iron this thing out. So I
think sometimes when you think of Ditty's case, you think, well,
is there gonna be another start coming next month or
the month after. I think for them, it's about let's
prosecute this case and what we learn here, if we
can use that for other people, we will do that.
But we need to preach patience because, just like in
(13:32):
Ditty's case, if we do not have all our ducks
in a row, then you are not going to get
a conviction. And if you don't get a conviction, it
becomes harder to bring other cases like this where you
think crimes have been committed.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Any idea how long you anticipate this struggle.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I think weeks. It could be anywhere from six to
eight weeks, and it could be a little bit shorter.
But the key is the prosecute is going to take
all the time they need to lay out all their evidence.
I think one thing you can look for is the
defense is not going to need nearly as much time
as the prosecution because their idea is going to be
a try to shoot down a lot of what what
the prosecution has. But I think this is going to
be a week's long trial. You are going to see
(14:07):
a lot of evidence come out because what the prosecution
has to do is, like what we talked about, tain't
this entire picture of an enterprise, But here are the
key Stephen, And they got to do it in a
way that makes it simple for the jury. It can't
be so complicated that jurors sit back and say, I
can't really get what they're trying to do here. I mean,
what are you trying to say to me? What prosecutors
(14:27):
are trying to say is here's a broad picture of
an enterprise, all the further into of a crime. They've
got to be able to focus on that every step
of the way and not make it too complicated. And
for the defense, the key is going to be poke holes.
They want to show a man who was maybe mean,
maybe angry, maybe had unconventional sexual proclivities. That would be
their way of wanting the jury to look at it,
(14:49):
but never force anybody to do anything. They're going to
poke holes. They're going to try to knock down a
lot of the witnesses by saying they willingly participated in
a lot of the conduct, maybe even in some ways
try to facilitate some of the conduct if Combs asked
for it, And they're going to try to paint the
picture of he may be a bad guy, but he's
not a criminal.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Last couple of questions.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
We know how eccentric showan p Diddy Combs was, and
particularly with his wardrobe, how fly he liked to look,
et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Yet he shows up the.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Court today he's dressed down, wearing a white dress shirt,
a light colored pullover and khaki pants. Is not how
the public is used to seeing the music mogul, what
do you make of that?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
That's by designs and it's always by design I don't
want people to think that, oh, he's doing that, That's
not what we would see with other people.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
This happens in every single case.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
The defense is trying to humanize him, and in order
to humanize him, they got to make him look like
other humans. And other humans don't come in look and
fly wearing ten thousand.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Dollars watches or more.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
You know, other humans are wearing regular clothing, a suit,
a tie, just there to be humble. And one of
the pictures that the defense is trying to paint with
Ditty is to say, and you saw this in Diddy's video,
I know I did something wrong. I know I was
not always my best. And so what they're trying to
do is in his appearance, haint a man who is humble,
who is just there. I will sit through this case,
(16:06):
but I did not do what prosecutors said, and that's
the image they want to show. So I think when
people say, well, where's all that flyiness that we used
to see him, you would never want to have that
in court because that would make him look less human
to the jury. You want the jury to almost look
at him and say, even though we know he's a billionaire,
he's a music mogul. When I look at that man
in that defense chair, he looks like a man who
(16:27):
did the wrong thing, but isn't a criminal.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
That's what the defense wants to show in his appearance.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
The jury opted to choose the jury.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
The judge rather, I'm sorry, opted to choose the jury
today out of concern that if given the weekend to
think about it, jurors may have second thoughts about serving
could move on a part of the judge.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yeah, excellent move on the part of the judge. You
want to get this thing underway fast. And I know
a lot of people actually said to me today, wowy,
just see to the jury and now we're getting going
right away. That happens all the time. This is a
big commitment for jurors. And I know the jurors' names
won't be revealed. That's a big part of this. That's
a big part of our justice system. But think of
the pressure these men and women face. Think of the
(17:05):
fact that they have to sit through six to eight
weeks of a trial, pay attention to every detail of
perhaps the biggest trial.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
In the world right now.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
And so for them there might be feelings of I
don't want to be a part of this. You know
what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go home and I'm
not gonna come back. Let him say something about that.
Use one of the alternates. No, this judge is looking
at this saying, we have a jury. Let's get this
thing going. And at every stage you will see this
judge trying to move this case along. If he has
to stop it, he will, but his key is not
(17:34):
to elongate it because the longer it goes, the more
a chance that you might lose a juror, and that's
the last thing you want. Yes, you have the alternates,
but the people sitting on that jury right now, they
are focused on making a decision, and you don't want
to lose one of those decision makers.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Bring in an AlterNet or worse, have.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
It happen to multiple people, and then you start opening
this case up to questioning. So the faster you go,
the better off you are. And this judge is handling
that right.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Last question, we've heard about character witnesses for showing Didny
combs A have you heard of any B If you
haven't heard, what kind of effect could that potentially have
on a case of this magnitude and sensitivity.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I have not heard yet, but I think it could
have a huge effect. The question is who are those
witnesses and what do they say? Now? If they use
a character witnesses, the defense decides go that way and
use a character witness that's a member of his family.
You have a jury looking at that person and you
say many juries might think, well, that's self serving. You
know him, you want to get him off, You're gonna
(18:37):
say nice things. Of course, the question would be do
you have character witness who in some way could transcend
that for curves and make them think, hey, this is
somebody who I wouldn't expect to say this about him,
or somebody who I believe and support everything they say.
And here they are saying that Diddy is not guilty
of the things that the prosecutor is trying to prove here.
So it's always a little bit of a risky proposition
(18:59):
with character witnesses because if it just seems self serving,
then the jurors are starting to hear witness after witness,
especially if you have multiple ones, and they're saying, well,
what are you doing here? You're just telling me like
what I expected you to tell me, which is the
great guy shouldn't be convicted, and the more you hear that,
the less you believe the defense's case. So I think
in many ways it's going to be a tough road
(19:19):
to hoe for these defense attorneys because you want somebody
to bolster Diddy. But at the same time, the more
you have somebody who's in his corner, the more you
open yourself up.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
To jurors saying, can I really believe these witnesses?
Speaker 1 (19:31):
One of the best in the business, leg the Landalysts, extraordinary,
Ryan Smith right here with Steven A.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Smith and Steven Ny Smith. Shall appreciate you, buddy man.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
You know I'm going to call you back because I
want to hear more of what you have to say
as you continue to monitor this drial.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Anytime, man, I'll hop my island you go right
Opening arguments were set to begin today in a highly
anticipated federal trial for hip hop mogul Sean Diddy Combs.
Speaker 2 (00:10):
Colmbs has been accused.
Speaker 1 (00:11):
Of sex trafficking by force, transportation to engage in prostitution,
and racketeering conspiracy as part of a federal indictment originally
filed in September of last year. The Feds later added
two more superseding indictments. Combs and his legal team have
pleaded not guilty to all of the chargers.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
Joining me now to break this all down.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
As a friend of the program, He's an outstanding attorney
who moonlights as a sports center anchor for ESPN.
Speaker 2 (00:40):
He's also a legal analyst for ABC News.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
All over the Disney family, the one and only Ryan
Smith is right here with yours, truly. Ryan, always good
to see you, my brother, always good to see you.
Speaker 2 (00:50):
Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1 (00:51):
The trial started today with six female prosecutors presenting the
case against Colmebs.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
What impact, if any, could that have on a jury.
Speaker 3 (01:01):
Well, that has a big impact, And the goal of
that is not only to use some of the top
prosecutors in the land to prosecute the case, but it's
also to show that this case is not just about
Seawan Didy Combs, but it's about what he did to
primarily women. And when you show that kind of front
in the prosecution all women prosecution team prosecuting this case,
(01:23):
it focuses the jury for prosecutors on what they want
them to be focused on. This was a man who
might not have done every single elements of the crime,
but racketeering is not about that. This kind of charge
of conspiracy is not about that. It's about a man
who used his power to force women into sexual situations.
And so that is part of what they're trying to show.
(01:44):
But I don't want it to be missed in all
of this. Stephen A that these are some of the
top prosecutors in the land. So I think sometimes in
a tendency to say, oh, it's all women, they're doing
that to put on a show. No, they're using some
of the best prosecutors in the land to make the
case by their presence that this is about holding someone accountable.
Speaker 1 (02:03):
Okay, Ryan, you said top prosecutors in the land. That
resonated with me, because is that to imply these ain't
just the top prosecutors in New York.
Speaker 2 (02:12):
This is not a local thing. They went all over
the country and.
Speaker 1 (02:14):
Got six of the best prosecutors in the country who
happen to be female.
Speaker 3 (02:19):
Is that what you're saying, No, it's more like the
top the prosecutors in New York. The New York Office
is one of the best in the world, and so
these are their best. These are their top These are
people who have handled cases like just Lady Maxwell connected
to the Epstein case. That's the lead.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Prosecutor in this case, handle that case.
Speaker 3 (02:38):
So these are some of the best women in some
of the best office in the world.
Speaker 1 (02:42):
Break down the demographics, the dynamics and the demographics of
this jury. How many females, how many males, how many blacks,
how many whites? What can you tell us about the
actual jury and the alternates that have been assigned to
this case.
Speaker 3 (02:56):
Yeah, you've got a full jury. You've got six alternates.
There are all over the map, and I think that's
what you want in a case like this. Men and
women different hues, different colors, different races, but they also
come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Some come from different higher
level jobs. Other there's one juror who's a clerk at
a store in New York. So I think that's what
(03:17):
prosecutors wanted to paint here, a broad swath of New
York society, of people who are there to try to
judge this case. It can be an advantage for prosecutors.
It can also be an advantage for the defense, because
the defense can look at this and say, we are
going to try in many ways to show you that
Shawn Combs might not be a great guy, might be
a dirk, might be angry, might have committed domestic violence,
(03:38):
But was he a racketeer? Was he someone who we
should hold accountable for what the prosecution is saying. So
this jury is a diverse, broad swath of people in
New York. But we will see how that plays out
on either side.
Speaker 1 (03:53):
One of the things I'm looking at right now, this
is called the fresh CNN update. I wanted to know
what you could validate, what you can elaborate upon, if
at all it says the jury was shown additional footage
from the hotel hallway.
Speaker 2 (04:06):
The jury is.
Speaker 1 (04:07):
Being shown footage from the north hallway of the sixth
floor of the Intercontinental Hotel. This is where p Diddy
ran around, ran out in the hallway with just a
towel wrapped around himself, naked up top going after cast inventury,
trying to prevent her from getting on the elevator. He
grabbed her, he shoved her down, he kicked her, et cetera,
et cetera. He acknowledged, you know how hainus the video
(04:28):
was in his own social media posting in the aftermath
of this being publicized. Could you tell us what happened
today inside that courtroom as it pertains to evidence that
was shown to the jury and any testimony that was given.
Speaker 3 (04:42):
Yeah, that evidence that that video right there, that is
the most powerful piece of evidence the prosecution has, and
they put it right up front. First witness in the trial,
they called they put that on full display. You talk
about the extended view of this. What they're trying to
show is the defense will try to say, hey, this
was an argument, This was an argument between a couple
that went awry. Yes there was domestic violence here, but
(05:02):
this isn't any evidence of racketeering or conspiracy. So the
prosecution year is trying to show an expanded view. What
that does is it kind of undercuts any defense argument
that says, you're not showing the whole context of what happened.
You're not showing what really happened. And there was so
much more that went on that tells a story of
more of some a couple that got into an argument,
rather than something that builds more into a criminal racketeering
(05:25):
conspiracy or something that is a broader issue that comes
from it. So that's what they're showing there, Steven.
Speaker 4 (05:31):
The big part of today Gough was opening statements.
Speaker 3 (05:33):
The prosecution gets up first and lays out their case,
and their case is essentially this Son Comb's big music mogul,
committed these crimes, had these freak costs, had coerce women
into force sex, all as a part of a criminal enterprise,
and others were involved to facilitate that enterprise. But the
defense part of this they come second. And how they
(05:55):
contrasted it, I think is very interesting. They didn't try
to say on Colmes did none of this. They said, look,
he's a bad guy, he's a jerk, he has anger issues,
he took drugs, and they even took the step of
saying that he had some domestic violence in his past.
That is important because in a way you put to
the jury, hey, if he had these things, doesn't that
(06:17):
build into what the prosecution's saying. What the defense is
going to try to do here is say, just because
he is a bad person doesn't mean he is a
person who did illegal things.
Speaker 2 (06:27):
We commit.
Speaker 3 (06:28):
We do not convict people for being bad people. We
convict people for doing illegal activities. So was what we're
seeing here in this case? Jury? Is what the defense
is trying to say, was what we're seeing here evidence
of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy things like that? Or was
this a person with anger issues that you or I
might have septual proclivities that we may not understand or
(06:49):
agree with.
Speaker 4 (06:50):
But are these things that should lead to a conviction
in this case?
Speaker 3 (06:53):
And I think that's a risky thing to do in
some ways, but it's what they have to do because
they've got a very imperfect client.
Speaker 1 (06:59):
That that word risky that you just threw out there,
I would imagine you've surmised and deduced that this is
risky because of the times that we're living in. This
is not the nineties, this is not the eighties, This
is not even the early two thousands. This is a
time where domestic violence has really really come to the
forefront of the mind's eye of American citizens and beyond
(07:20):
because of the heinous behavior of a lot of people,
most of them being men against women, the Me Too movement,
the aftermath of all of that, and what have you.
You're looking at those kind of things, and I find
myself saying, why in God's name with the defense team
believe that that's a strategy to employ in light of
(07:41):
how sensitive we are to those things in these times
compared to how we were in years past.
Speaker 2 (07:47):
Is that why you use the word risky?
Speaker 3 (07:50):
It is? It is because we are in a time
where we are believing people who are accusing big titans
of industry like Sean Combs. So in the past, a
lot of times you could undercut that in so many
ways as the defense team. You could try to dismiss
a victim, You could try to attack people who are
accusing people of other things. That is a much tougher
(08:12):
thing to do today. That's why it's risky. And in
a way it's risky because you're painting part of the
prosecutor's picture. The prosecution is trying to show this was
a man who had these freak offs, did all these
coerced women into sexual, horrendous sexual engagements, all because he's
trying to further this enterprise. And then you're getting up
(08:34):
and saying, yeah, you're seeing a video. He did do
some domestic violence, he did have angers whose he did
take drugs for example, even the drugs part if he
took drugs part of the prosecution cases he drugged women
to do some of these things. That helps a jury
build into the prosecution's case. But you do this because
in some ways you don't have another choice. You do
this because you know there's a video out there that
(08:55):
jurors are seeing today in that courtroom that shows what
he did. You see that there is information they're gonna
see evidence in that jury of these freak offs and
things like that. So you know this is the situation.
The way you can paint this is to try to
humanize Shawn Combs to this jury and say.
Speaker 4 (09:15):
Look, I know you might not engage in these things.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
I know he might live a different life. But just
because he lives a different life, would you want someone
coming in and saying, hey, you live a different life,
so now we're gonna prosecute you. I think that's what
they're trying to do. But you make the great point,
stephen A. In this day and age. Doing that is
a tough needle to thread, because when you do that,
you open the door of well, are we not supposed
(09:38):
to believe these women?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Are we not supposed to believe what they say Shawn
Combs did?
Speaker 3 (09:42):
Are we not supposed to believe what we're seeing on
video and how Shawn Combs in our minds?
Speaker 4 (09:46):
Yes, he could have paid off.
Speaker 3 (09:47):
People at the hotel or done certain things to try
to cover some of this off. And isn't that part
of the criminal enterprise they're trying to prove? So that's
where it becomes risky.
Speaker 1 (09:56):
Define for our audience the word racket hearing and the
word enterprise, because those words are thrown out obviously as
a part of this indictment, of course, but I don't
think people understand those two words when you say criminal
and they understand it where criminal, criminal enterprise, racketeering, explain enterprise,
(10:18):
explain racketeering for the purposes of these specific charges against
Sean Diddy Goombs.
Speaker 4 (10:24):
Okay, that racketeering and criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3 (10:27):
I think people can look at it as where it
started from years and years ago, when the government was
trying to go after organizations like the mob. It was
so tough because in that kind of situation, the person
you're trying to accuse of the crime didn't do every
part of the crime. So let's say a mob boss
ordered to hit on somebody, They might not have done
(10:47):
the actual hit, So how do you connect them to
that racketeering?
Speaker 4 (10:51):
And when you talk about criminal.
Speaker 3 (10:52):
Enterprises is where the government tries to set up a
scenario where they say and enterprise was set up to.
Speaker 4 (10:57):
Do the crime.
Speaker 3 (10:58):
In order to do the crime, must people had to
be involved, but there was somebody at the top who
started the whole thing. So we're going to try to
get all of those people to paint the picture of
the enterprise and convict the person who started the thing.
So when Shawn Combs' case, the way it breaks down
is to say he set up a criminal enterprise. He
wanted to do things like freak offs and this coersion
(11:19):
of women and these abusive things that they're accusing him of,
So he set up an enterprise. That enterprise had people
going to get the women, had people procuring the drugs,
had people paying off people. When evidence got out, and
then prosecutors can take all that information and paint a
picture of an enterprise that was all set up to
further Sean Colmes's freek coffs or proclivities sexually. So that's
(11:42):
how it breaks down. It's almost helpful to look at
it like the person you're trying to convict didn't touch
every element of the crime that you're trying to convict
him of. So you're trying to show that he set
up an organization all in furtherance of that criminal purpose,
and when you do that, you can get him on
that racketeering charge.
Speaker 1 (12:00):
We've heard about him being charged, we haven't heard about
anybody else being charged. Is that because they can't find
these other people they can't find enough evidence against these
other people, or is it because they're utilizing those people
to make the case against him.
Speaker 3 (12:18):
I would say it's probably part of the latter, which
is using people to make the case against him. I
would say in some ways, they're probably speaking all these
people who are involved in what they see as the enterprise.
They got these people in they try to see who
could flip in different areas, and that's why in this case,
everybody should be watching the witnesses that testify and look
(12:39):
at the witnesses if they have any that relate to
people who are incomes as organization. Those are the people
that you're talking about, the people.
Speaker 4 (12:45):
That in some way might have been involved with.
Speaker 3 (12:47):
What they're saying is this criminal enterprise who are in
a sense flipping on Diddy. Now, the other side of
it is not being able to find people. I always
like to say when you talk about prosecutors and government cases,
the key for them is patience. They need to have
evidence to win a case if they believe there's a
good faith basis in which a crime has been committed.
(13:10):
That takes time, like even in Ditty's case, it took
years to try to iron this thing out. So I
think sometimes when you think of Ditty's case, you think, well,
is there gonna be another start coming next month or
the month after. I think for them, it's about let's
prosecute this case and what we learn here, if we
can use that for other people, we will do that.
But we need to preach patience because, just like in
(13:32):
Ditty's case, if we do not have all our ducks
in a row, then you are not going to get
a conviction. And if you don't get a conviction, it
becomes harder to bring other cases like this where you
think crimes have been committed.
Speaker 2 (13:42):
Any idea how long you anticipate this struggle.
Speaker 3 (13:45):
I think weeks. It could be anywhere from six to
eight weeks, and it could be a little bit shorter.
But the key is the prosecute is going to take
all the time they need to lay out all their evidence.
I think one thing you can look for is the
defense is not going to need nearly as much time
as the prosecution because their idea is going to be
a try to shoot down a lot of what what
the prosecution has. But I think this is going to
be a week's long trial. You are going to see
(14:07):
a lot of evidence come out because what the prosecution
has to do is, like what we talked about, tain't
this entire picture of an enterprise, But here are the
key Stephen, And they got to do it in a
way that makes it simple for the jury. It can't
be so complicated that jurors sit back and say, I
can't really get what they're trying to do here. I mean,
what are you trying to say to me? What prosecutors
(14:27):
are trying to say is here's a broad picture of
an enterprise, all the further into of a crime. They've
got to be able to focus on that every step
of the way and not make it too complicated. And
for the defense, the key is going to be poke holes.
They want to show a man who was maybe mean,
maybe angry, maybe had unconventional sexual proclivities. That would be
their way of wanting the jury to look at it,
(14:49):
but never force anybody to do anything. They're going to
poke holes. They're going to try to knock down a
lot of the witnesses by saying they willingly participated in
a lot of the conduct, maybe even in some ways
try to facilitate some of the conduct if Combs asked
for it, And they're going to try to paint the
picture of he may be a bad guy, but he's
not a criminal.
Speaker 2 (15:07):
Last couple of questions.
Speaker 1 (15:08):
We know how eccentric showan p Diddy Combs was, and
particularly with his wardrobe, how fly he liked to look,
et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2 (15:15):
Yet he shows up the.
Speaker 1 (15:16):
Court today he's dressed down, wearing a white dress shirt,
a light colored pullover and khaki pants. Is not how
the public is used to seeing the music mogul, what
do you make of that?
Speaker 3 (15:26):
That's by designs and it's always by design I don't
want people to think that, oh, he's doing that, That's
not what we would see with other people.
Speaker 4 (15:33):
This happens in every single case.
Speaker 3 (15:34):
The defense is trying to humanize him, and in order
to humanize him, they got to make him look like
other humans. And other humans don't come in look and
fly wearing ten thousand.
Speaker 4 (15:42):
Dollars watches or more.
Speaker 3 (15:44):
You know, other humans are wearing regular clothing, a suit,
a tie, just there to be humble. And one of
the pictures that the defense is trying to paint with
Ditty is to say, and you saw this in Diddy's video,
I know I did something wrong. I know I was
not always my best. And so what they're trying to
do is in his appearance, haint a man who is humble,
who is just there. I will sit through this case,
(16:06):
but I did not do what prosecutors said, and that's
the image they want to show. So I think when
people say, well, where's all that flyiness that we used
to see him, you would never want to have that
in court because that would make him look less human
to the jury. You want the jury to almost look
at him and say, even though we know he's a billionaire,
he's a music mogul. When I look at that man
in that defense chair, he looks like a man who
(16:27):
did the wrong thing, but isn't a criminal.
Speaker 4 (16:29):
That's what the defense wants to show in his appearance.
Speaker 2 (16:32):
The jury opted to choose the jury.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
The judge rather, I'm sorry, opted to choose the jury
today out of concern that if given the weekend to
think about it, jurors may have second thoughts about serving
could move on a part of the judge.
Speaker 3 (16:44):
Yeah, excellent move on the part of the judge. You
want to get this thing underway fast. And I know
a lot of people actually said to me today, wowy,
just see to the jury and now we're getting going
right away. That happens all the time. This is a
big commitment for jurors. And I know the jurors' names
won't be revealed. That's a big part of this. That's
a big part of our justice system. But think of
the pressure these men and women face. Think of the
(17:05):
fact that they have to sit through six to eight
weeks of a trial, pay attention to every detail of
perhaps the biggest trial.
Speaker 4 (17:12):
In the world right now.
Speaker 3 (17:13):
And so for them there might be feelings of I
don't want to be a part of this. You know
what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go home and I'm
not gonna come back. Let him say something about that.
Use one of the alternates. No, this judge is looking
at this saying, we have a jury. Let's get this
thing going. And at every stage you will see this
judge trying to move this case along. If he has
to stop it, he will, but his key is not
(17:34):
to elongate it because the longer it goes, the more
a chance that you might lose a juror, and that's
the last thing you want. Yes, you have the alternates,
but the people sitting on that jury right now, they
are focused on making a decision, and you don't want
to lose one of those decision makers.
Speaker 4 (17:48):
Bring in an AlterNet or worse, have.
Speaker 3 (17:50):
It happen to multiple people, and then you start opening
this case up to questioning. So the faster you go,
the better off you are. And this judge is handling
that right.
Speaker 1 (17:58):
Last question, we've heard about character witnesses for showing Didny
combs A have you heard of any B If you
haven't heard, what kind of effect could that potentially have
on a case of this magnitude and sensitivity.
Speaker 3 (18:17):
I have not heard yet, but I think it could
have a huge effect. The question is who are those
witnesses and what do they say? Now? If they use
a character witnesses, the defense decides go that way and
use a character witness that's a member of his family.
You have a jury looking at that person and you
say many juries might think, well, that's self serving. You
know him, you want to get him off, You're gonna
(18:37):
say nice things. Of course, the question would be do
you have character witness who in some way could transcend
that for curves and make them think, hey, this is
somebody who I wouldn't expect to say this about him,
or somebody who I believe and support everything they say.
And here they are saying that Diddy is not guilty
of the things that the prosecutor is trying to prove here.
So it's always a little bit of a risky proposition
(18:59):
with character witnesses because if it just seems self serving,
then the jurors are starting to hear witness after witness,
especially if you have multiple ones, and they're saying, well,
what are you doing here? You're just telling me like
what I expected you to tell me, which is the
great guy shouldn't be convicted, and the more you hear that,
the less you believe the defense's case. So I think
in many ways it's going to be a tough road
(19:19):
to hoe for these defense attorneys because you want somebody
to bolster Diddy. But at the same time, the more
you have somebody who's in his corner, the more you
open yourself up.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
To jurors saying, can I really believe these witnesses?
Speaker 1 (19:31):
One of the best in the business, leg the Landalysts, extraordinary,
Ryan Smith right here with Steven A.
Speaker 2 (19:35):
Smith and Steven Ny Smith. Shall appreciate you, buddy man.
Thank you so much.
Speaker 1 (19:38):
You know I'm going to call you back because I
want to hear more of what you have to say
as you continue to monitor this drial.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 4 (19:44):
Anytime, man, I'll hop my island you go right
Host
Stephen A. Smith
Popular Podcasts
Amy Robach & T.J. Holmes present: Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial
Introducing… Aubrey O’Day Diddy’s former protege, television personality, platinum selling music artist, Danity Kane alum Aubrey O’Day joins veteran journalists Amy Robach and TJ Holmes to provide a unique perspective on the trial that has captivated the attention of the nation. Join them throughout the trial as they discuss, debate, and dissect every detail, every aspect of the proceedings. Aubrey will offer her opinions and expertise, as only she is qualified to do given her first-hand knowledge. From her days on Making the Band, as she emerged as the breakout star, the truth of the situation would be the opposite of the glitz and glamour. Listen throughout every minute of the trial, for this exclusive coverage. Amy Robach and TJ Holmes present Aubrey O’Day, Covering the Diddy Trial, an iHeartRadio podcast.
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
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!