CBS News Correspondent and CBS Weekend anchor Jericka Duncan was recently given the task to cover the the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Her assignment puts her at the courthouse and in the courtroom every day of the trial so she has a front row seat to all of the action happening in and outside of the courtroom.
This week, Jericka shares a bit of what it's like covering the trial before bringing on her guest, Judie Saunders. Judie leads sexual abuse and human trafficking department of the law firm, Ask LLP. She has more than twenty years of experience litigating cases involving sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and discrimination. Judie has also represented survivors in cases against USA gymnastics, local and state governments, and clergy abuse survivors.
Their conversation delves into the ongoing trial of Sean Combs, exploring the complexities of the case, the strategies of both the prosecution and defense, and the emotional dynamics at play. Saunders provides insights into the implications of witness testimony, the nuances of consent and coercion, and the impact of public perception on the trial's proceedings. The discussion highlights the serious nature of the allegations and the challenges faced by both sides in presenting their cases effectively.
THE TEAM
Host: Jericka Duncan
Executive Producer/Editor: Scott Riggs
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
SPEAKER_01 (00:01):
This week was a tug of war.
The prosecutors came out strong.
The defense battled back.
Looking like they tried to makeCassie seem some ways.
So I think this is still a tugof war.
SPEAKER_03 (00:15):
I think I would say that both sides gave the jury a
lot to think about.
Both sides gave the jury a lotto think about.
SPEAKER_00 (00:23):
You got a boyfriend?
You're beautiful.
Look at this.
You see her?
Man, what are you doing afterthis?
SPEAKER_04 (00:37):
That is just a taste of the atmosphere outside the
federal courthouse for theSouthern District of New York.
The trial has started for theUnited States government versus
Sean Combs.
My name is Jerika Duncan.
I anchor the CBS Weekend Newsand report for CBS Mornings, CBS
Evening News, CBS 24-7, and youcan catch me on 48 Hours
(01:00):
sometimes.
In November of 2023, I rememberhearing those shocking details
from Cassie Ventura's civillawsuit.
She alleged physical abuse.
She said she was raped by Combsand forced to take part in
something she says Combsreferred to as freak-offs, where
Combs would allegedly watch herhave sex with other men, usually
(01:21):
male escorts.
Combs settled with Ventura for$20 million, less than 24 hours
after the civil suit was filed.
And then in May of 2024, aboutsix months later, CNN obtained
video of Combs assaultingVentura inside a California
hotel in 2016.
A few months after that,September of 2024, Sean Diddy
(01:46):
Combs was arrested and chargedwith racketeering conspiracy,
sex trafficking, andtransportation to engage in
prostitution.
The government argues that fromaround 2004 to 2024, Combs
trafficked three women,exercised complete control
through physical abuse andthreats while paying them and
(02:07):
others to keep quiet.
The government also says Combssupplied alleged victims with
drugs.
I have covered the trials ofBill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, R.
Kelly, and Ghislaine Maxwell,but Combs is different.
I grew up in an era in whichCombs, a rapper and producer,
blazed the trail for many of myfavorite artists.
(02:30):
He was different.
He stood out.
He inspired many and he built ahip hop empire proclaiming in
his 1997 Mo Money Mo Problemsong that in 10 years from now,
we'll still be on top.
Today, he's down bad.
I hope this podcast will informyou about what's happening
(02:50):
inside the courtroom.
Remember, there are no cameras.
I wanna be your eyes and ears.
There will be discussions onthis podcast that you won't find
anywhere else.
I know what doesn't getreported.
I know how it feels in thecourtroom.
I know how it feels on thestreets.
And I hope to bring you all ofthat, all of that perspective
(03:12):
and insight to you each andevery week.
And I wanna work hard to bringyou more frequent updates on
Instagram and TikTok.
So if you are interested, pleasefollow me at I am that reporter
JD on those platforms.
I thought we'd start the firstepisode discussing some of what
happened during the first weekof the trial because it was a
(03:32):
bombshell first week.
And to do that, I've invited anexperienced attorney and expert
in sexual abuse cases to offerus some perspective on the
strategies in the courtroom andhow it's going for both sides so
far.
My guest today is Judy Saunders,an attorney at Ask LLP Attorneys
at Law.
(03:53):
She leads the firm's sexualabuse and human trafficking
department.
She has more than 20 years ofexperience litigating cases
involving sexual abuse, sexualharassment, and discrimination.
Judy has represented survivorsin cases against USA Gymnastics,
local and state governments, andclergy abuse survivors.
(04:15):
Judy has extensive courtroomexperience, including conducting
administrative hearings and jurytrials.
And honestly, guys, I couldn'timagine anyone else that I would
want to have on the firstepisode of this dope podcast.
And fun fact, Judy is an avidrunner who has completed several
marathons, including the NewYork City and Marine Corps
(04:37):
Marathon.
So she knows what it means to gothe distance.
And we will be going thedistance because this trial is
expected to last nearly twomonths.
Judy, thank you so much forjoining us.
So I want to read some of theopening statement from the
prosecution, and then I want toread some of the opening from
(04:57):
the defense.
So the opening remarks weregiven by Ms.
Emily Johnson, Assistant USAAttorney.
She starts off by saying this.
This is Sean Combs.
To the public, he was Puff Daddyor Diddy, a cultural icon, a
(05:18):
businessman, larger than life.
But there was another side tohim, a side that ran a criminal
enterprise.
During this trial, you're goingto hear about 20 years of the
defendant's crimes.
But he didn't do it alone.
He had an inner circle ofbodyguards and high-ranking
employees who helped him commitcrimes and helped him cover them
up.
(05:38):
Kidnapping, arson, drugs, sexcrimes, bribery, and
obstruction.
These are just some of thecrimes that the defendant and
his inner circle committed againand again.
You are going to hear about allof them during this trial.
You'll also hear how thedefendant used his employees to
get and distribute drugs.
(06:00):
They delivered those drugswhenever the defendant asked,
including so he could give thosesame drugs to the women he was
forcing to have sex with maleescorts.
He transported those women andthose escorts across state lines
and even out of the country forthose sex acts.
And he used his inner circle andthe vast resources of his
business empire to help toarrange those trips and make the
(06:23):
women available to him.
So the prosecution goes on tosay he, being Combs, is charged
with transporting Cassie, Jane,and male escorts across state
lines for sexual encounters.
How will the government prove toyou beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty ofthese crimes?
(06:44):
You'll hear from witnesses,including Cassie and Jane, two
of the defendant's victims.
They will tell you how thedefendant tried to control their
lives from their homes to theircareers, how the defendant used
his control over them, his lies,his drugs, his threats, and his
violence to force and coercethem into having sex with male
(07:04):
escorts.
Cassie and Jane will describefreak-offs for you in
painstaking detail.
They will tell you some of themost personal and painful
experiences of their lives.
The days they spent awake inhotel rooms, high on drugs,
dressed as characters to performthe defendant's fantasy, just as
he directed them to do.
(07:24):
And the prosecution ends withthis.
Please use and trust your commonsense.
If you do all of that, you willreach the only verdict that is
consistent with the law and theevidence in this case, that the
defendant, Sean Combs, isguilty.
Judy, before I get into thedefense, they lay out a lot of
(07:48):
the language that we've beenhearing when it comes to
criminal enterprise, coercion,threats, sex abuse, drugs,
arson.
What do you make of thoseopening statements?
It was 20 pages.
I just read a portion.
SPEAKER_02 (08:07):
When I hear that opening statement and having
experience with doing trials, Ido think that the government
will have the evidence, they'llhave the witnesses to prove this
case.
Look, it's not going to be easy.
(08:27):
The one thing that...
if we were checking off a boxwith Ms.
Ventura's testimony, they havebeen very able to show violence,
threats, and coercion.
And they've done that throughthis witness.
(08:50):
The one thing that you alwayswant to be thinking about when
you're putting on a case, whenyou're prosecuting a case, is in
as much as possible, any witnessthat you put on that stand,
you're trying to use thatwitness to prove as many
elements of the case as you can.
(09:11):
So not only did we hear Ms.
Ventura talk about severalelements that they need to prove
the sexual trafficking, theracketeering, and the
transportation to engage inprostitution, not only did you
hear some of those elements comeout by way of the testimony of
(09:31):
Ms.
Ventura, you also heard about itwith the other witnesses that
the government has put on sofar.
I believe that there was onewitness who served as their
foundation.
He was a security guard at thehotel with the video that's so
widely known.
I believe that there was aportion of his testimony where
he was talking about that Mr.
(09:52):
Combs even used threats or sometype of force against him.
SPEAKER_04 (09:58):
Yeah, this would be Mr.
Flores, who addressed Combs thatday.
What's interesting, though, isthey didn't note everything in
their report in terms of thatother person in the room.
And they were questioned by thedefense about, hey, your
security...
You come upstairs, you realizewhat's going on.
(10:20):
You never made mention thatthere was a third individual in
the room.
And I think as someone that isnot a study of the law, but
obviously have covered trials,is I'm wondering as I'm watching
the jurors and I'm seeing theirreaction to some of the text
messages or that audio that cameout where she's threatening
(10:41):
someone because she's concernedabout a video getting out.
I'm wondering...
you know, again, as ajournalist, are they thinking of
her in the context of she didtake part in this sometimes in a
way that it was consensual, eventhough her testimony is, I only
did this to make him happy and Ifelt like I had to do it.
SPEAKER_02 (11:05):
Look, it gets extremely complicated for
sometimes the lay person toreally wrap their heads around
the intertwining and toxicityand the trauma that survivors
deal with.
(11:26):
It's going to be imperative forthe government, and I'm sure
that they are going to put on anexpert that is going to talk
about the different syndromesand the trauma that they go
through.
It is gonna be very easy for thedefense well, I wouldn't say
easy, but it's gonna be part oftheir strategy to show, to
(11:47):
weaponize the whole concept ofbeing a victim.
So
SPEAKER_04 (11:54):
to that point, Judy, if I could, when you say it's
gonna be important for theprosecution to make sure they
showcase a expert that can layout, this is not abnormal
behavior for someone who's insomething in which they feel
threatened or they're coerced.
(12:16):
And I guess what's the fine linebetween coercion and consent?
When you have text messages andmessages over email where
someone seems excited about afreak off, there was a message
they showed, the defense showedwhere she said, I'm going to go
get the supplies for the freakoff.
Oh, I forgot the iPad.
(12:37):
Should I go back and get it?
Some of the details feel sointentional.
How important will it be for anexpert to establish that a lot
of what we heard in reference toher, what appears to be consent
to freak offs, may not really beconsent?
SPEAKER_02 (12:58):
It's going to be very important.
An expert is going to talkabout, and I've worked,
consulted with, worked withexperts just for this particular
reason.
And it's to show that in thesetoxic relationships, it's not
always bad.
And we have these differentconcepts.
(13:18):
I'm not even gonna pretend to bea psychiatrist or a
psychologist, but we have suchbehaviors as tend and befriend.
You keep these individualshappy.
You know that if this personthat's constantly threatening
you, if they flip, if there'sanger, then your safety suffers.
(13:41):
So while it may seem that Ms.
Ventura is engaging in someforms of content, whether it's
by text message, it's not alwaysgoing to be violence every
minute of every day, but thereis trauma.
And there are things that Ms.
(14:03):
Ventura is likely doing tendingand befriending so that there
isn't violence.
She's trying to starve off thisbehavior that she knows may be
coming if she doesn't comply.
So
SPEAKER_04 (14:15):
I want to take a moment to read the opening
statements from the defense.
And the defense argument wasgiven by Tenny Garagos, the
daughter of Mark Garagos, thefamed attorney who's represented
a lot of celebrities.
And she starts off by saying,Sean Combs is a complicated man.
(14:35):
But this is not a complicatedcase.
This case is about love,jealousy, infidelity, and money.
This case is about voluntaryadult choices made by capable
adults and consensualrelationships.
This case is about those reallife relationships and the
government is trying to turnthose relationships into a
(14:56):
racketeering case, aprostitution case, and a sex
trafficking case.
It will not work.
Finally, The story about thiscase can finally come out.
Why do I say that?
I say that because this case isnot about what you've heard on
the news, read in the news, orhave seen on social media for
the past year and a half.
(15:17):
This case is not about whatcivil attorneys looking for a
payday are trying to make myclient out to be.
There has been a tremendousamount of noise around this case
for the past year and it is timeto cancel the noise and hear and
see the evidence that will bepresented in the courtroom.
This case is about Sean Combs'private personal sex life, which
(15:39):
has nothing to do with hislawful businesses.
The government has no place herein this man's private bedrooms.
The government can say over andover again that this is not
about his private sex life, butthe evidence will show you that
it is.
The prosecution will bring thosesame employees and others into
(15:59):
the courtroom and have themtestify that Sean Combs has a
temper and that when he drank orwhen he did wrong drugs, he
would get violent.
My client is not proud of that,but it is one of the many things
we are going to own and fullyadmit right up front at this
trial.
There was a name in criminal lawfor the violence that we will
(16:21):
hear about and we will see atthis trial.
It is called domestic violence.
It is called assault.
Domestic violence is a veryserious matter.
I want to say that now.
It is a bad, illegal problem andit is something the law
addresses.
We take full responsibility thatthere was domestic violence in
(16:42):
this case.
Domestic violence is not sextrafficking.
I want to say it again.
Domestic violence is not sextrafficking.
However, he has been chargedwith different crimes, sex
trafficking, prostitution,racketeering.
There are federal crimes withtheir different statues.
They charge different elements,and he is simply not guilty of
(17:04):
those crimes.
We are telling you right nowthat he is physical, that he is
a drug user, and I'm telling youhe had a bit of a different sex
life.
SPEAKER_02 (17:16):
It's a masterclass.
It's a masterclass on minimizingand controlling the narrative.
That's what that openingstatement was.
The government is going to haveto do what all attorneys do that
are prosecuting cases, whetherthey're criminal or civil, and
that is to stay laser focusedand not to be distracted.
(17:36):
What the defense needs you todo, the jury needs they need for
their adversary to do is to godown a rabbit hole and to get
caught on the minutia and thedetails.
During some points in thecross-examination of Miss
Ventura, I saw a little bit ofthat chasing the tail, so to
(17:58):
speak, going over and over againon details and you risk the
chance, either side does, riskthe chance of the jury losing
you, because a lot of times, youknow what happens when you're in
court trying a case?
Your ego pops up.
And if you don't keep your eyeon the bigger picture, and I
(18:19):
think that the government mayhave the evidence that it needs,
but if you get in the way of thecase, you could, you know, the
defense, you asked the questionearlier, who's winning, the
defense could continue to moveahead.
If the government's expertsdon't accurately define in real
(18:43):
layman's terms and talk to thisjury and get them to understand
such things as delayeddisclosure, why doesn't someone
immediately outcry when thesehorrible things are happening?
If you don't get them tounderstand a lot of the nuances
of trauma, then you'll have ajury that starts to sit back and
(19:05):
say, huh, Well, you know, thatis interesting.
You know, they were, you know,how come she didn't, you know,
hop on, get in a car and driveaway?
Why is it that she came back?
So they're going to have toreally be careful about not
going down the rabbit hole.
(19:25):
Stay the course, because atevery juncture and every point,
what you're going to hear is,The defense do, and they'll do
it on cross-examination andwhatever their case in chief is,
they are going to minimize.
And that opening is perfectlyit.
Look, all of us, a lot of usthat follow this case before the
(19:47):
trial started were caught up onsuch things, those buzzwords,
the baby oil, it's the butt ofjokes, the very word freak off,
and they're minimizing it.
Their whole point is, Yeah, thisis bad.
Yeah, it's awful.
It's not a federal crime though.
So that's what they need.
(20:08):
That's what they want to hearthat jury.
And I think that that, not Ithink, I know that word cancel
in that opening statement isintentional.
They also have to politicizethis a little bit.
Cancel the government.
Remember, anytime the governmentbrings a case against a powerful
(20:30):
person, and a powerfulAfrican-American, it is the
entire system that's on trial.
And they're going to use that.
That's also going to be part oftheir toolbox.
SPEAKER_04 (20:44):
So to delve more into and kind of focus on this
idea of credibility, becauseCassie played so big in this, in
the civil suit, obviously, andin this trial.
I'm just thinking back to herwalking in the courtroom and
(21:05):
them sort of being in the samespace for the first time since
2018.
He was looking at her, but Inoticed she was laser focused on
straight ahead.
I never once saw her look overat Combs, but there were a
couple of times that I noticedhim kind of looking her up and
(21:26):
down quickly and, uh, to seethese two people that were in
this relationship for almost 11years and see text messages
where they're sending each otherlove and light in 2020.
Congratulations on your baby.
Don't want to disrespect yourmarriage.
(21:47):
One day we'll be able to gettogether and talk things out.
And now they're in a federalcourthouse.
SPEAKER_02 (21:55):
When you survive that, and let me, I could just,
I could speak to My experiencein working with clients who have
gone through similar, maybe notas horrendous, I'm trying to
think, well, yes, actually, havegone through similar situations.
It took so much, courage isn'teven the right word.
(22:21):
It took so much to walk into thesame room with someone who has
had that type of influence, overyour person.
So her being able to walk intothat room and to not look at
him, I could assume that wasvery intentional.
(22:47):
He needs to control the spaceand the energy wherever she is.
A lot of that, their expert, thegovernment's expert may discuss,
but it does, it takes a lot.
I mean, even that text message,to call this a relationship is a
(23:18):
stretch.
To send a message after she'shad a baby, after she's made it
out, That's a power move on thepart of Mr.
Combs or on the part of anyalleged abuser to do that to an
individual.
(23:39):
So I've had, in my ownexperience, I've had cases where
the alleged perpetrator, well,in cases that I've had, the
actual perpetrator started togroom.
You know what, that's the wordthat is probably more accurate
She was targeted.
(23:59):
She was groomed.
So doing that whole groomingprocess, you know, starting in
her teens and now to continuethis and to reach out to her.
SPEAKER_04 (24:09):
And she was, I think one of the things the defense
brought up is that she wasdating Ryan Leslie, a producer
who introduced Cassie to Combsand that that gentleman was 10
years older than her when shewas 17, 18, 19, when they dated.
(24:30):
So again, they're trying to sortof twist the narrative that, not
twist, I shouldn't say that, butthey're trying to paint a
picture of someone who had beenused to dealing with an older
man and that at 19, she met himwhile they didn't.
And this is according to Cassie.
The first time they kissed wason her 21st birthday.
I believe she said it was in LasVegas.
(24:53):
But I don't think anybody woulddeny that 15 to 25, maybe even
older for some, is a veryvulnerable time in one's life,
men or women.
But I think a lot of people alsocan not relate to the details of
their sex life, but the idea ofwanting to be someone's
(25:18):
everything.
In this case, that meant goingTo places I don't think she
obviously is, according to her,did not expect to go to.
But in her messages to Judy, shesays things like, I only want to
share this side of myself withyou.
Or someone that's like myhusband.
(25:39):
I think she saw herself as awife.
I think she clearly did expressthat she wanted to have a child
with him one day.
So it is very complicated andcomplex, but I think for people
who are following it from thelegal part or just reminding
people, this is about a criminalenterprise.
(26:01):
So for all of the things peoplecan say about, I can't believe
they did that.
And I can't believe how manypeople they did it with.
And I can't believe they usedall this baby oil for Kitty
pools that they would fill upwith warm baby oil.
I mean, the details aresalacious, but the point is Sean
Combs is facing federal chargesfor leading a criminal
(26:22):
enterprise for transporting sexworkers across state lines.
But again, the defense remindedpeople when you read the website
of Cowboys for Angels, itdoesn't say anything about
prostitution.
It talks about an experience.
UNKNOWN (26:39):
Right.
SPEAKER_04 (26:40):
And what people, someone will say, well, what
people choose to do once theyget to said place, no one ever
said you have to have sex.
But I think the idea is anescort service.
I guess it's implied.
SPEAKER_02 (26:53):
Again, what they are going to do at every juncture
that whether it's, you know, adefense witness, whether it's on
cross-examination, is tonormalize this.
You know, hey, it wasn't thatbad or to reframe it.
(27:16):
And we're going to have tolisten to that.
But, you know, even if Ms.
Ventura, even if a sex worker atsome point may have agreed, you
were mentioning before, that herhopes that this would be some
type of relationship where shewould be his only, his
(27:40):
exclusive.
Even in that type ofrelationship, you can consent to
that.
And maybe this will be inclosing, but you don't consent
to the threats, you don'tconsent to the violence, you
don't consent to beingcontrolled.
That part of it will be thepieces that are pulled through
(28:02):
to show the criminal enterprise.
That yes, there may have beenaspects of this that seem to be
more traditional.
But when you look at the tape,the widely circulated and played
tape that CNN had in the hotelin California, that's cowering
(28:23):
And in a fetal position, becauseyou're being kicked, that's not
something that you're givingconsent to.
And I believe that Ms.
Ventura testified as much.
I anticipate that we'll hear inthe coming days that even the
sex workers that may have, thesex workers or the other
(28:46):
individuals, the otherindividuals that are part of the
prosecution's case, even if,there's this notion of withdrawn
consent.
And a lot of times individualsdo not think about that.
So you think about, it comesinto the context a lot where you
have cases of date rape, whereyou could start, you could agree
(29:07):
to one act, but then it eithergoes beyond or or there's other
acts or there's otherindividuals.
So you can agree to have anexclusive intimate relationship
with other individuals, but youdidn't agree to six or seven or
three or four other people.
So that is also rape.
(29:30):
That could also be parts of thecase that we'll see coming out
in the coming weeks.
SPEAKER_04 (29:35):
If his name wasn't Sean Combs, would the federal
government have gone after himfor this?
SPEAKER_02 (29:44):
Yes.
If it spanned the number ofyears and it included notable
victims, alleged victims.
(30:05):
So I can think of a scenariowhere if it was an individual,
just a, somebody that's runninga company, running a
corporation, but maybe didn'thave the brand that Mr.
Combs, I could see a world wherehe would still be prosecuted.
(30:27):
I could.
Now, you know, that is alwaysgoing to be an argument that
they went after him because ofwho he is.
And I'll be the first to admitthat a lot of times, you know,
I've seen situations where wewish certain individuals, either
they wouldn't be prosecuted,they shouldn't be prosecuted, or
(30:50):
you point and you're saying,well, why isn't anyone going
after these individuals?
But I think that when you have,as they're alleging, it includes
so many years, it includes suchviolence, so many people that
are in fear, so many threats, Icould see a world where the
(31:12):
government would still go afterthis type of alleged
perpetrator, even if he wasn'tknown as Sean Combs or P.
Diddy.
SPEAKER_04 (31:22):
Judy, if I could ask you this last question, who is
winning this case right now?
We still have several weeks, alot more witnesses to testify,
but based on what you'rehearing, who would you say has
the lead?
SPEAKER_02 (31:39):
Wow.
So, you know, the one point thatyou just brought out is several
more weeks and we can expect tosee a lot of pivot, a lot of
changing, a lot of strategy asthis case spans out over the
next couple of weeks.
Right now, I would say thatAfter the cross-examination of
(32:04):
Ms.
Ventura, you're having thatshock value.
For so long, for the past twodays or when the government was
doing their direct, youreally...
were able to relate to Ms.
Venture.
Now you have the defense comingin and they're painting a bigger
(32:26):
picture.
They're using what I would say,they're being very effective
with showing that maybe there'ssome doubt.
Maybe she wasn't a total victim.
Maybe she had some agency.
Maybe she was a willingparticipant.
And that is gonna play directlyinto their strategy of this was
(32:49):
consensual.
between two adults, albeit itmay have been a little rarefied
and unique in the patterns thatthey expressed the relationship.
So for right now, there's alittle bit of a, to answer your
question, I'd say if you were ina race, the defense may have
(33:10):
just a little bit, one stepahead.
All right,
SPEAKER_04 (33:15):
Judy Saunders, thank you so much.
Well, thank you.
And one more thing before we go,there is nothing easy about
covering this trial.
It is filled with graphicdescriptions of sexual acts,
pictures and videos of abuse anddetails, details you've heard by
now that are disturbing.
(33:35):
It's not easy for anyone to seeor for journalists to report on.
But there's another worldoutside the courtroom filled
with supporters, protesters,independent press, bloggers, and
just characters, honestly,wanting to be close to the
action.
And stepping outside of myreporter role for a moment, I
have to say it is quiteinspiring to see people so
(33:57):
passionate and fighting for achance to be more informed.
And that's exactly what I wannado for you.
If you have any questions aboutthis case or subjects you think
deserve more scrutiny, DM me onInstagram or TikTok.
And make sure to follow me onInstagram and TikTok for regular
updates on this case throughoutthe week.
Again, you can find me atIamThatReporterJD.
(34:22):
Until then, we thank you so muchfor listening and we'll see you
next time.
This week was a tug of war.
The prosecutors came out strong.
The defense battled back.
Looking like they tried to makeCassie seem some ways.
So I think this is still a tugof war.
SPEAKER_03 (00:15):
I think I would say that both sides gave the jury a
lot to think about.
Both sides gave the jury a lotto think about.
SPEAKER_00 (00:23):
You got a boyfriend?
You're beautiful.
Look at this.
You see her?
Man, what are you doing afterthis?
SPEAKER_04 (00:37):
That is just a taste of the atmosphere outside the
federal courthouse for theSouthern District of New York.
The trial has started for theUnited States government versus
Sean Combs.
My name is Jerika Duncan.
I anchor the CBS Weekend Newsand report for CBS Mornings, CBS
Evening News, CBS 24-7, and youcan catch me on 48 Hours
(01:00):
sometimes.
In November of 2023, I rememberhearing those shocking details
from Cassie Ventura's civillawsuit.
She alleged physical abuse.
She said she was raped by Combsand forced to take part in
something she says Combsreferred to as freak-offs, where
Combs would allegedly watch herhave sex with other men, usually
(01:21):
male escorts.
Combs settled with Ventura for$20 million, less than 24 hours
after the civil suit was filed.
And then in May of 2024, aboutsix months later, CNN obtained
video of Combs assaultingVentura inside a California
hotel in 2016.
A few months after that,September of 2024, Sean Diddy
(01:46):
Combs was arrested and chargedwith racketeering conspiracy,
sex trafficking, andtransportation to engage in
prostitution.
The government argues that fromaround 2004 to 2024, Combs
trafficked three women,exercised complete control
through physical abuse andthreats while paying them and
(02:07):
others to keep quiet.
The government also says Combssupplied alleged victims with
drugs.
I have covered the trials ofBill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, R.
Kelly, and Ghislaine Maxwell,but Combs is different.
I grew up in an era in whichCombs, a rapper and producer,
blazed the trail for many of myfavorite artists.
(02:30):
He was different.
He stood out.
He inspired many and he built ahip hop empire proclaiming in
his 1997 Mo Money Mo Problemsong that in 10 years from now,
we'll still be on top.
Today, he's down bad.
I hope this podcast will informyou about what's happening
(02:50):
inside the courtroom.
Remember, there are no cameras.
I wanna be your eyes and ears.
There will be discussions onthis podcast that you won't find
anywhere else.
I know what doesn't getreported.
I know how it feels in thecourtroom.
I know how it feels on thestreets.
And I hope to bring you all ofthat, all of that perspective
(03:12):
and insight to you each andevery week.
And I wanna work hard to bringyou more frequent updates on
Instagram and TikTok.
So if you are interested, pleasefollow me at I am that reporter
JD on those platforms.
I thought we'd start the firstepisode discussing some of what
happened during the first weekof the trial because it was a
(03:32):
bombshell first week.
And to do that, I've invited anexperienced attorney and expert
in sexual abuse cases to offerus some perspective on the
strategies in the courtroom andhow it's going for both sides so
far.
My guest today is Judy Saunders,an attorney at Ask LLP Attorneys
at Law.
(03:53):
She leads the firm's sexualabuse and human trafficking
department.
She has more than 20 years ofexperience litigating cases
involving sexual abuse, sexualharassment, and discrimination.
Judy has represented survivorsin cases against USA Gymnastics,
local and state governments, andclergy abuse survivors.
(04:15):
Judy has extensive courtroomexperience, including conducting
administrative hearings and jurytrials.
And honestly, guys, I couldn'timagine anyone else that I would
want to have on the firstepisode of this dope podcast.
And fun fact, Judy is an avidrunner who has completed several
marathons, including the NewYork City and Marine Corps
(04:37):
Marathon.
So she knows what it means to gothe distance.
And we will be going thedistance because this trial is
expected to last nearly twomonths.
Judy, thank you so much forjoining us.
So I want to read some of theopening statement from the
prosecution, and then I want toread some of the opening from
(04:57):
the defense.
So the opening remarks weregiven by Ms.
Emily Johnson, Assistant USAAttorney.
She starts off by saying this.
This is Sean Combs.
To the public, he was Puff Daddyor Diddy, a cultural icon, a
(05:18):
businessman, larger than life.
But there was another side tohim, a side that ran a criminal
enterprise.
During this trial, you're goingto hear about 20 years of the
defendant's crimes.
But he didn't do it alone.
He had an inner circle ofbodyguards and high-ranking
employees who helped him commitcrimes and helped him cover them
up.
(05:38):
Kidnapping, arson, drugs, sexcrimes, bribery, and
obstruction.
These are just some of thecrimes that the defendant and
his inner circle committed againand again.
You are going to hear about allof them during this trial.
You'll also hear how thedefendant used his employees to
get and distribute drugs.
(06:00):
They delivered those drugswhenever the defendant asked,
including so he could give thosesame drugs to the women he was
forcing to have sex with maleescorts.
He transported those women andthose escorts across state lines
and even out of the country forthose sex acts.
And he used his inner circle andthe vast resources of his
business empire to help toarrange those trips and make the
(06:23):
women available to him.
So the prosecution goes on tosay he, being Combs, is charged
with transporting Cassie, Jane,and male escorts across state
lines for sexual encounters.
How will the government prove toyou beyond a reasonable doubt
that the defendant is guilty ofthese crimes?
(06:44):
You'll hear from witnesses,including Cassie and Jane, two
of the defendant's victims.
They will tell you how thedefendant tried to control their
lives from their homes to theircareers, how the defendant used
his control over them, his lies,his drugs, his threats, and his
violence to force and coercethem into having sex with male
(07:04):
escorts.
Cassie and Jane will describefreak-offs for you in
painstaking detail.
They will tell you some of themost personal and painful
experiences of their lives.
The days they spent awake inhotel rooms, high on drugs,
dressed as characters to performthe defendant's fantasy, just as
he directed them to do.
(07:24):
And the prosecution ends withthis.
Please use and trust your commonsense.
If you do all of that, you willreach the only verdict that is
consistent with the law and theevidence in this case, that the
defendant, Sean Combs, isguilty.
Judy, before I get into thedefense, they lay out a lot of
(07:48):
the language that we've beenhearing when it comes to
criminal enterprise, coercion,threats, sex abuse, drugs,
arson.
What do you make of thoseopening statements?
It was 20 pages.
I just read a portion.
SPEAKER_02 (08:07):
When I hear that opening statement and having
experience with doing trials, Ido think that the government
will have the evidence, they'llhave the witnesses to prove this
case.
Look, it's not going to be easy.
(08:27):
The one thing that...
if we were checking off a boxwith Ms.
Ventura's testimony, they havebeen very able to show violence,
threats, and coercion.
And they've done that throughthis witness.
(08:50):
The one thing that you alwayswant to be thinking about when
you're putting on a case, whenyou're prosecuting a case, is in
as much as possible, any witnessthat you put on that stand,
you're trying to use thatwitness to prove as many
elements of the case as you can.
(09:11):
So not only did we hear Ms.
Ventura talk about severalelements that they need to prove
the sexual trafficking, theracketeering, and the
transportation to engage inprostitution, not only did you
hear some of those elements comeout by way of the testimony of
(09:31):
Ms.
Ventura, you also heard about itwith the other witnesses that
the government has put on sofar.
I believe that there was onewitness who served as their
foundation.
He was a security guard at thehotel with the video that's so
widely known.
I believe that there was aportion of his testimony where
he was talking about that Mr.
(09:52):
Combs even used threats or sometype of force against him.
SPEAKER_04 (09:58):
Yeah, this would be Mr.
Flores, who addressed Combs thatday.
What's interesting, though, isthey didn't note everything in
their report in terms of thatother person in the room.
And they were questioned by thedefense about, hey, your
security...
You come upstairs, you realizewhat's going on.
(10:20):
You never made mention thatthere was a third individual in
the room.
And I think as someone that isnot a study of the law, but
obviously have covered trials,is I'm wondering as I'm watching
the jurors and I'm seeing theirreaction to some of the text
messages or that audio that cameout where she's threatening
(10:41):
someone because she's concernedabout a video getting out.
I'm wondering...
you know, again, as ajournalist, are they thinking of
her in the context of she didtake part in this sometimes in a
way that it was consensual, eventhough her testimony is, I only
did this to make him happy and Ifelt like I had to do it.
SPEAKER_02 (11:05):
Look, it gets extremely complicated for
sometimes the lay person toreally wrap their heads around
the intertwining and toxicityand the trauma that survivors
deal with.
(11:26):
It's going to be imperative forthe government, and I'm sure
that they are going to put on anexpert that is going to talk
about the different syndromesand the trauma that they go
through.
It is gonna be very easy for thedefense well, I wouldn't say
easy, but it's gonna be part oftheir strategy to show, to
(11:47):
weaponize the whole concept ofbeing a victim.
So
SPEAKER_04 (11:54):
to that point, Judy, if I could, when you say it's
gonna be important for theprosecution to make sure they
showcase a expert that can layout, this is not abnormal
behavior for someone who's insomething in which they feel
threatened or they're coerced.
(12:16):
And I guess what's the fine linebetween coercion and consent?
When you have text messages andmessages over email where
someone seems excited about afreak off, there was a message
they showed, the defense showedwhere she said, I'm going to go
get the supplies for the freakoff.
Oh, I forgot the iPad.
(12:37):
Should I go back and get it?
Some of the details feel sointentional.
How important will it be for anexpert to establish that a lot
of what we heard in reference toher, what appears to be consent
to freak offs, may not really beconsent?
SPEAKER_02 (12:58):
It's going to be very important.
An expert is going to talkabout, and I've worked,
consulted with, worked withexperts just for this particular
reason.
And it's to show that in thesetoxic relationships, it's not
always bad.
And we have these differentconcepts.
(13:18):
I'm not even gonna pretend to bea psychiatrist or a
psychologist, but we have suchbehaviors as tend and befriend.
You keep these individualshappy.
You know that if this personthat's constantly threatening
you, if they flip, if there'sanger, then your safety suffers.
(13:41):
So while it may seem that Ms.
Ventura is engaging in someforms of content, whether it's
by text message, it's not alwaysgoing to be violence every
minute of every day, but thereis trauma.
And there are things that Ms.
(14:03):
Ventura is likely doing tendingand befriending so that there
isn't violence.
She's trying to starve off thisbehavior that she knows may be
coming if she doesn't comply.
So
SPEAKER_04 (14:15):
I want to take a moment to read the opening
statements from the defense.
And the defense argument wasgiven by Tenny Garagos, the
daughter of Mark Garagos, thefamed attorney who's represented
a lot of celebrities.
And she starts off by saying,Sean Combs is a complicated man.
(14:35):
But this is not a complicatedcase.
This case is about love,jealousy, infidelity, and money.
This case is about voluntaryadult choices made by capable
adults and consensualrelationships.
This case is about those reallife relationships and the
government is trying to turnthose relationships into a
(14:56):
racketeering case, aprostitution case, and a sex
trafficking case.
It will not work.
Finally, The story about thiscase can finally come out.
Why do I say that?
I say that because this case isnot about what you've heard on
the news, read in the news, orhave seen on social media for
the past year and a half.
(15:17):
This case is not about whatcivil attorneys looking for a
payday are trying to make myclient out to be.
There has been a tremendousamount of noise around this case
for the past year and it is timeto cancel the noise and hear and
see the evidence that will bepresented in the courtroom.
This case is about Sean Combs'private personal sex life, which
(15:39):
has nothing to do with hislawful businesses.
The government has no place herein this man's private bedrooms.
The government can say over andover again that this is not
about his private sex life, butthe evidence will show you that
it is.
The prosecution will bring thosesame employees and others into
(15:59):
the courtroom and have themtestify that Sean Combs has a
temper and that when he drank orwhen he did wrong drugs, he
would get violent.
My client is not proud of that,but it is one of the many things
we are going to own and fullyadmit right up front at this
trial.
There was a name in criminal lawfor the violence that we will
(16:21):
hear about and we will see atthis trial.
It is called domestic violence.
It is called assault.
Domestic violence is a veryserious matter.
I want to say that now.
It is a bad, illegal problem andit is something the law
addresses.
We take full responsibility thatthere was domestic violence in
(16:42):
this case.
Domestic violence is not sextrafficking.
I want to say it again.
Domestic violence is not sextrafficking.
However, he has been chargedwith different crimes, sex
trafficking, prostitution,racketeering.
There are federal crimes withtheir different statues.
They charge different elements,and he is simply not guilty of
(17:04):
those crimes.
We are telling you right nowthat he is physical, that he is
a drug user, and I'm telling youhe had a bit of a different sex
life.
SPEAKER_02 (17:16):
It's a masterclass.
It's a masterclass on minimizingand controlling the narrative.
That's what that openingstatement was.
The government is going to haveto do what all attorneys do that
are prosecuting cases, whetherthey're criminal or civil, and
that is to stay laser focusedand not to be distracted.
(17:36):
What the defense needs you todo, the jury needs they need for
their adversary to do is to godown a rabbit hole and to get
caught on the minutia and thedetails.
During some points in thecross-examination of Miss
Ventura, I saw a little bit ofthat chasing the tail, so to
(17:58):
speak, going over and over againon details and you risk the
chance, either side does, riskthe chance of the jury losing
you, because a lot of times, youknow what happens when you're in
court trying a case?
Your ego pops up.
And if you don't keep your eyeon the bigger picture, and I
(18:19):
think that the government mayhave the evidence that it needs,
but if you get in the way of thecase, you could, you know, the
defense, you asked the questionearlier, who's winning, the
defense could continue to moveahead.
If the government's expertsdon't accurately define in real
(18:43):
layman's terms and talk to thisjury and get them to understand
such things as delayeddisclosure, why doesn't someone
immediately outcry when thesehorrible things are happening?
If you don't get them tounderstand a lot of the nuances
of trauma, then you'll have ajury that starts to sit back and
(19:05):
say, huh, Well, you know, thatis interesting.
You know, they were, you know,how come she didn't, you know,
hop on, get in a car and driveaway?
Why is it that she came back?
So they're going to have toreally be careful about not
going down the rabbit hole.
(19:25):
Stay the course, because atevery juncture and every point,
what you're going to hear is,The defense do, and they'll do
it on cross-examination andwhatever their case in chief is,
they are going to minimize.
And that opening is perfectlyit.
Look, all of us, a lot of usthat follow this case before the
(19:47):
trial started were caught up onsuch things, those buzzwords,
the baby oil, it's the butt ofjokes, the very word freak off,
and they're minimizing it.
Their whole point is, Yeah, thisis bad.
Yeah, it's awful.
It's not a federal crime though.
So that's what they need.
(20:08):
That's what they want to hearthat jury.
And I think that that, not Ithink, I know that word cancel
in that opening statement isintentional.
They also have to politicizethis a little bit.
Cancel the government.
Remember, anytime the governmentbrings a case against a powerful
(20:30):
person, and a powerfulAfrican-American, it is the
entire system that's on trial.
And they're going to use that.
That's also going to be part oftheir toolbox.
SPEAKER_04 (20:44):
So to delve more into and kind of focus on this
idea of credibility, becauseCassie played so big in this, in
the civil suit, obviously, andin this trial.
I'm just thinking back to herwalking in the courtroom and
(21:05):
them sort of being in the samespace for the first time since
2018.
He was looking at her, but Inoticed she was laser focused on
straight ahead.
I never once saw her look overat Combs, but there were a
couple of times that I noticedhim kind of looking her up and
(21:26):
down quickly and, uh, to seethese two people that were in
this relationship for almost 11years and see text messages
where they're sending each otherlove and light in 2020.
Congratulations on your baby.
Don't want to disrespect yourmarriage.
(21:47):
One day we'll be able to gettogether and talk things out.
And now they're in a federalcourthouse.
SPEAKER_02 (21:55):
When you survive that, and let me, I could just,
I could speak to My experiencein working with clients who have
gone through similar, maybe notas horrendous, I'm trying to
think, well, yes, actually, havegone through similar situations.
It took so much, courage isn'teven the right word.
(22:21):
It took so much to walk into thesame room with someone who has
had that type of influence, overyour person.
So her being able to walk intothat room and to not look at
him, I could assume that wasvery intentional.
(22:47):
He needs to control the spaceand the energy wherever she is.
A lot of that, their expert, thegovernment's expert may discuss,
but it does, it takes a lot.
I mean, even that text message,to call this a relationship is a
(23:18):
stretch.
To send a message after she'shad a baby, after she's made it
out, That's a power move on thepart of Mr.
Combs or on the part of anyalleged abuser to do that to an
individual.
(23:39):
So I've had, in my ownexperience, I've had cases where
the alleged perpetrator, well,in cases that I've had, the
actual perpetrator started togroom.
You know what, that's the wordthat is probably more accurate
She was targeted.
(23:59):
She was groomed.
So doing that whole groomingprocess, you know, starting in
her teens and now to continuethis and to reach out to her.
SPEAKER_04 (24:09):
And she was, I think one of the things the defense
brought up is that she wasdating Ryan Leslie, a producer
who introduced Cassie to Combsand that that gentleman was 10
years older than her when shewas 17, 18, 19, when they dated.
(24:30):
So again, they're trying to sortof twist the narrative that, not
twist, I shouldn't say that, butthey're trying to paint a
picture of someone who had beenused to dealing with an older
man and that at 19, she met himwhile they didn't.
And this is according to Cassie.
The first time they kissed wason her 21st birthday.
I believe she said it was in LasVegas.
(24:53):
But I don't think anybody woulddeny that 15 to 25, maybe even
older for some, is a veryvulnerable time in one's life,
men or women.
But I think a lot of people alsocan not relate to the details of
their sex life, but the idea ofwanting to be someone's
(25:18):
everything.
In this case, that meant goingTo places I don't think she
obviously is, according to her,did not expect to go to.
But in her messages to Judy, shesays things like, I only want to
share this side of myself withyou.
Or someone that's like myhusband.
(25:39):
I think she saw herself as awife.
I think she clearly did expressthat she wanted to have a child
with him one day.
So it is very complicated andcomplex, but I think for people
who are following it from thelegal part or just reminding
people, this is about a criminalenterprise.
(26:01):
So for all of the things peoplecan say about, I can't believe
they did that.
And I can't believe how manypeople they did it with.
And I can't believe they usedall this baby oil for Kitty
pools that they would fill upwith warm baby oil.
I mean, the details aresalacious, but the point is Sean
Combs is facing federal chargesfor leading a criminal
(26:22):
enterprise for transporting sexworkers across state lines.
But again, the defense remindedpeople when you read the website
of Cowboys for Angels, itdoesn't say anything about
prostitution.
It talks about an experience.
UNKNOWN (26:39):
Right.
SPEAKER_04 (26:40):
And what people, someone will say, well, what
people choose to do once theyget to said place, no one ever
said you have to have sex.
But I think the idea is anescort service.
I guess it's implied.
SPEAKER_02 (26:53):
Again, what they are going to do at every juncture
that whether it's, you know, adefense witness, whether it's on
cross-examination, is tonormalize this.
You know, hey, it wasn't thatbad or to reframe it.
(27:16):
And we're going to have tolisten to that.
But, you know, even if Ms.
Ventura, even if a sex worker atsome point may have agreed, you
were mentioning before, that herhopes that this would be some
type of relationship where shewould be his only, his
(27:40):
exclusive.
Even in that type ofrelationship, you can consent to
that.
And maybe this will be inclosing, but you don't consent
to the threats, you don'tconsent to the violence, you
don't consent to beingcontrolled.
That part of it will be thepieces that are pulled through
(28:02):
to show the criminal enterprise.
That yes, there may have beenaspects of this that seem to be
more traditional.
But when you look at the tape,the widely circulated and played
tape that CNN had in the hotelin California, that's cowering
(28:23):
And in a fetal position, becauseyou're being kicked, that's not
something that you're givingconsent to.
And I believe that Ms.
Ventura testified as much.
I anticipate that we'll hear inthe coming days that even the
sex workers that may have, thesex workers or the other
(28:46):
individuals, the otherindividuals that are part of the
prosecution's case, even if,there's this notion of withdrawn
consent.
And a lot of times individualsdo not think about that.
So you think about, it comesinto the context a lot where you
have cases of date rape, whereyou could start, you could agree
(29:07):
to one act, but then it eithergoes beyond or or there's other
acts or there's otherindividuals.
So you can agree to have anexclusive intimate relationship
with other individuals, but youdidn't agree to six or seven or
three or four other people.
So that is also rape.
(29:30):
That could also be parts of thecase that we'll see coming out
in the coming weeks.
SPEAKER_04 (29:35):
If his name wasn't Sean Combs, would the federal
government have gone after himfor this?
SPEAKER_02 (29:44):
Yes.
If it spanned the number ofyears and it included notable
victims, alleged victims.
(30:05):
So I can think of a scenariowhere if it was an individual,
just a, somebody that's runninga company, running a
corporation, but maybe didn'thave the brand that Mr.
Combs, I could see a world wherehe would still be prosecuted.
(30:27):
I could.
Now, you know, that is alwaysgoing to be an argument that
they went after him because ofwho he is.
And I'll be the first to admitthat a lot of times, you know,
I've seen situations where wewish certain individuals, either
they wouldn't be prosecuted,they shouldn't be prosecuted, or
(30:50):
you point and you're saying,well, why isn't anyone going
after these individuals?
But I think that when you have,as they're alleging, it includes
so many years, it includes suchviolence, so many people that
are in fear, so many threats, Icould see a world where the
(31:12):
government would still go afterthis type of alleged
perpetrator, even if he wasn'tknown as Sean Combs or P.
Diddy.
SPEAKER_04 (31:22):
Judy, if I could ask you this last question, who is
winning this case right now?
We still have several weeks, alot more witnesses to testify,
but based on what you'rehearing, who would you say has
the lead?
SPEAKER_02 (31:39):
Wow.
So, you know, the one point thatyou just brought out is several
more weeks and we can expect tosee a lot of pivot, a lot of
changing, a lot of strategy asthis case spans out over the
next couple of weeks.
Right now, I would say thatAfter the cross-examination of
(32:04):
Ms.
Ventura, you're having thatshock value.
For so long, for the past twodays or when the government was
doing their direct, youreally...
were able to relate to Ms.
Venture.
Now you have the defense comingin and they're painting a bigger
(32:26):
picture.
They're using what I would say,they're being very effective
with showing that maybe there'ssome doubt.
Maybe she wasn't a total victim.
Maybe she had some agency.
Maybe she was a willingparticipant.
And that is gonna play directlyinto their strategy of this was
(32:49):
consensual.
between two adults, albeit itmay have been a little rarefied
and unique in the patterns thatthey expressed the relationship.
So for right now, there's alittle bit of a, to answer your
question, I'd say if you were ina race, the defense may have
(33:10):
just a little bit, one stepahead.
All right,
SPEAKER_04 (33:15):
Judy Saunders, thank you so much.
Well, thank you.
And one more thing before we go,there is nothing easy about
covering this trial.
It is filled with graphicdescriptions of sexual acts,
pictures and videos of abuse anddetails, details you've heard by
now that are disturbing.
(33:35):
It's not easy for anyone to seeor for journalists to report on.
But there's another worldoutside the courtroom filled
with supporters, protesters,independent press, bloggers, and
just characters, honestly,wanting to be close to the
action.
And stepping outside of myreporter role for a moment, I
have to say it is quiteinspiring to see people so
(33:57):
passionate and fighting for achance to be more informed.
And that's exactly what I wannado for you.
If you have any questions aboutthis case or subjects you think
deserve more scrutiny, DM me onInstagram or TikTok.
And make sure to follow me onInstagram and TikTok for regular
updates on this case throughoutthe week.
Again, you can find me atIamThatReporterJD.
(34:22):
Until then, we thank you so muchfor listening and we'll see you
next time.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy And Charlamagne Tha God!
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.