CBS News Correspondent and CBS Weekend anchor Jericka Duncan was recently given the assignment 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 fo the courtroom.
This week, Jericka brings on a prominent defense attorney, Steven Greenberg. Steven has many years of experience as a defense attorney, most prominently when he represented R. Kelly in his state and federal case. Greenberg would eventually leave Kelly’s team at the start of his RICO case in New York.
Their conversation delves into what happened in the courtroom during the second week in the trial of the US v Sean Combs. They dive into the implications of Kid Cudi's testimony and the strategies employed by both the prosecution and defense. They discuss the complexities of RICO cases, the challenges faced by the prosecution in proving their case, and the dynamics of celebrity trials. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal standards and the potential impact of the testimonies on the jury's perception.
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 (00:00):
I'm in the courtroom, right?
I'm in the overflow and I'mwatching this hearing,
SPEAKER_02 (00:08):
this trial go down in real time.
What was the state of his dog?
He said his dog was jittery.
Kid
SPEAKER_01 (00:17):
Cudi, man, he passed it in 2008 when he was nobody.
This is the first trial I'm eversitting on.
Ever.
Like, ever.
And it's the most intense thingI've ever experienced in my
life.
SPEAKER_02 (00:36):
Those are just some of the voices from people
following the story alongside ofme in week two of the United
States government versus SeanCombs.
All of the people you just heardfrom use social media as their
way to reach the masses.
As someone who works for alegacy media company, I have to
say I am truly impressed by theamount of folks using things
(00:57):
like Instagram and TikTok aswell as YouTube to discuss this
case.
I've never seen anything like itbefore.
And we did all of this in thecold rain this past week.
(01:27):
he is convicted on all charges.
Now, Combs, as you know, hasdenied the charges and the
allegations.
And just to recap, according tothe government, Combs abused,
threatened, and coerced womenand others around him for
decades to fulfill his sexualdesires, protect his reputation,
and conceal his conduct.
(01:47):
The government says Combs reliedon employees, resources, and
influence of his multifacetedbusiness empire that he led and
controlled, creating a criminalenterprise whose members and
associates engaged in andattempted to engage in, among
other crimes, sex trafficking,forced labor, kidnapping, arson,
(02:08):
bribery, and obstruction ofjustice.
In their opening statements, thedefense said this case is about
money, love, and infidelity.
The prosecution has interviewedmore than a dozen witnesses so
far.
Thursday's testimony wrapped upwith a forensics agent who works
for Homeland Security.
He discussed how information wastaken from three of Ventura's
(02:32):
laptops.
We heard from a general managerfrom a hotel in Beverly Hills
who said Combs, a frequent guestunder the name Jack Starr, made
cleanup for housekeepersdifficult by, quote, always
spilling candle wax oneverything.
And that journal manager notedthere was always an excessive
use of oil.
We also heard from Myla Morales.
(02:54):
She's a former makeup artist forCombs and Ventura.
Morales talked about staying ina hotel with Ventura back in
2010, the weekend of theGrammys.
She testified that she heard afight between Combs and Ventura.
And right after Combs left, shesaid she saw that Ventura had
bruises to her face,specifically a swollen eye,
(03:14):
busted lip, and not, she said,on Ventura's head.
She has been public about someof this already, appearing on
CNN back in May of last year.
But the testimony many peoplehad been anticipating this week
is the one given by rapper andactor Kid Cudi, his actual name,
Scott Meskety.
(03:35):
When Judge Arun Submaranian saidthe government may call its next
witness, the prosecutor said thegovernment calls Scott Meskety,
and everyone turned around.
including combs.
I'll call him Kid Cudi for thispodcast, but he walked in very
casually wearing jeans, at-shirt, and a black leather
(03:55):
jacket.
Within a couple of minutes, theprosecution really zones in on
2011.
Here's what the prosecutor said.
I want to direct your attentionto December, 2011.
Did there come a time when lawenforcement responded to your
home in December of 2011?
Yes, Kid Cudi says.
Why did law enforcement respondin December of 2011?
(04:19):
Because I had a break-in.
I'd like to start at thebeginning of the day of the
break-in.
How did the day start?
Well, he says, I got a call fromCassie around 5.30, 6 a.m.
And she told me that Sean Combshad found out about us.
I was really confused, but sheasked me to pick her up.
She sounded really stressed onthe phone, nervous, scared.
(04:40):
So I went to go pick her up.
And yeah, a few follow-upquestions for you.
When Ms.
Ventura said that Mr.
Combs had found out about us, asyou said, what was your
understanding of what Ms.
Ventura was saying?
There was an objection.
It was overruled.
So he answers.
She says, you testified Ms.
(05:00):
Ventura told you Ms.
Combs found out about us.
What was your understanding ofwhat Mr.
Combs had found out?
That me and her were dating.
And you also testified that youwere confused when you heard
that.
Yes.
Why were you confused?
He says, because I didn't thinkshe was still dealing with him.
So as the testimony goes on, KidCudi says, I called Sean Combs,
(05:26):
prosecutor.
How did you have Sean Combs'phone number?
I just had it for years.
Did Mr.
Combs pick up your call?
Yes.
Can you describe theconversation that you had with
Mr.
Combs on the drive to your home?
Yeah, I'm going to be verycandid.
I said, mother effer, you in myhouse?
And he was like, what's up?
I was like, mother effer, areyou in my house?
(05:48):
And he said, I just want to talkto you.
I was like, I'm on my way overthere right now.
He was like, I'm here.
The prosecutor says, what didyou see inside your home?
Kid Cudi says, some gifts that Ibrought from my family were
opened, some stuff I got fromChanel, and then my dog was
locked up in my bathroom.
(06:08):
So what's interesting about thisdog being locked up in the
bathroom, there was aconversation before Kid Cudi
took the stand about whether ornot there would be testimony
given about the dog's demeanorand how it changed after being
locked up.
It was a lot of back and forth.
(06:30):
Funny moments at times becausewe're obviously not here about a
dog, but there was so muchconversation about it.
Even someone that I noticed whowas doing a podcast, a stream, I
should say, outside mentionedthat the dog was jittery.
So he testifies about that andthey move on.
By New Year's of 2012, Cuddysays that he and Ventura were
(06:52):
not really hanging out anymore.
The prosecutor then says,directing your attention to
January of 2012.
So remember, we started inDecember of 2011.
Now we're in January of 2012.
The prosecutor says, did therecome a time when you learned
that your car had caught fire?
Kid Cudi answers, yes.
How did you learn that your carcaught on fire?
(07:13):
My dog's babysitter called me inthe morning.
Approximately what time did youreceive that phone call?
6.30, 7.30 a.m.
What was your understanding ofof where your dog's babysitter
was located when she called youat my house.
So the jurors are shown sixpictures of the damage from the
car.
The prosecutor asks Kid Cudi,what was your reaction to your
(07:36):
car being set on fire?
And he says, quote, what the F.
Then there was an objection.
It was overruled.
And then they took a quick fiveminute break.
So the court begins and theprosecution picks up And ask Kid
Cuddy if he thought the car firewas an accident or intentional.
He says it was intentional.
(07:57):
And this part gets interestingbecause Cuddy basically
implicates Sean Combs in the carfire.
And he tells the court, Ireached out to Sean Combs after
my car had caught fire and, youknow, finally told him that we
needed to meet up to talk, youknow.
He had been wanting to talk tome.
So after the fire, I was like,this is getting out of hand.
(08:20):
I need to talk to him.
The prosecution says, why was itMr.
Combs you reached out to afterthe fire?
And he says, because I knew hehad something to do with it.
Then Mr.
Steele, one of the defenseattorneys, says, your honor, we
have to have a sidebar.
The judge says, is that anobjection?
The defense says, objection.
The court says the objection issustained.
(08:41):
The jury should disregard thewitnesses.
Last answer, says the judge.
And then Ms.
Johnson proceeds, theprosecutor.
To help break down theimportance and relevance of Kid
(09:03):
Cudi's testimony is StevenGreenberg.
We go way back.
Listen to this.
Do you really believe that allof these women are looking for
their 15 minutes of fame, as youput it?
SPEAKER_00 (09:14):
I believe that all of these women did exactly what
they wanted to do That, again,is...
SPEAKER_02 (09:38):
Steven Greenberg.
When I say we go back, we go wayback.
He represented R.
Kelly in his state and federalcase and would eventually lead
Kelly's team at the start of theRICO case, the federal case here
in New York.
Steve, welcome and thank you forjoining me.
SPEAKER_00 (09:55):
Morning.
SPEAKER_02 (09:56):
You still feel that way?
SPEAKER_00 (09:58):
About that case?
Yes, I do.
I think that that case was anoverreach and never belonged in
federal court.
Many people have a misconceptionthat that case was about
underage sex, and it wasn't.
His first case that he beatyears ago in state court, that
case he was very guilty of.
The case in Chicago, probablyguilty of.
(10:20):
But the case in New York, Ithink, was an overreach.
SPEAKER_02 (10:24):
Why did you leave the R.
Kelly team?
SPEAKER_00 (10:27):
We ended up leaving the R.
Kelly team because,unfortunately, the people who
got in...
Robert's ear were people who heshouldn't have been listening
to.
And I don't want to get too farinto the weeds, but the people
who ended up trying his case hadno experience trying cases, but
(10:50):
they got very close to him.
And I think if someone readsabout what went on at that
trial, it speaks for itself.
I absolutely believe that if wehad tried that case, that case
would have been one of thosecases that would have been in
the 10% of cases that theprosecutors lose.
SPEAKER_02 (11:08):
Okay.
So we'll get to your experiencewith RICO cases and why you feel
the way you feel.
But I thought because of thecases that you've covered, your
more than 30 years of experiencein the legal field, you were the
right person to call.
And I know you've been followingthis a little bit, but first and
(11:31):
foremost, was Kid Cudi morehelpful to the prosecution or
the defense?
SPEAKER_00 (11:37):
Well, Kid Cudi was helpful to the prosecution
because he was able to be asecond person who was able to
say that Sean Combs wasessentially a...
a thug, for lack of a betterterm.
He has him in his housethreatening him.
And then he was able to givethis testimony where he said
(12:00):
that Sean Combs had thrown aMolotov cocktail, or someone on
Combs' behalf had thrown aMolotov cocktail in his car.
You mentioned the objection thatcame from his attorneys, which
was way late.
It was after an answer wasgiven, and while it was
sustained by a judge, thetestimony had already been
heard.
I have no idea why he was ableto say that, because from my
(12:24):
reading of the testimony, thereis zero proof that Sean Combs
actually threw a Molotovcocktail in his car or had
anyone throw a Molotov cocktailin his car.
That was as much a guess asanything is a guess in this
world.
SPEAKER_02 (12:42):
The defense mentioned that DNA from a female
was found in that car and theprosecution objected and it was
sustained.
How difficult is it for jurorsto really ignore that type of
information or those statementsmade supporting one side or the
other?
SPEAKER_00 (12:59):
Well, look, the DNA was found in in a car from
somebody else is not unusual.
You know, it's a car.
A female was in your car.
And so she left DNA behind.
That's a weak blow.
The defense couldn't get it inthe way they wanted to get it in
because it was hearsay.
(13:20):
And that's why the objection wassustained.
You would need to call a witnessto testify about the scientific
testing and where it was foundand so forth.
They just wanted the jurors tohear it.
I was surprised.
that the testimony came in atall in the first place without
any sort of connection to Combs.
Now, maybe there's a witnesscoming later in the case who's
(13:42):
going to say that Combs hired meto do this or that Combs
admitted to me that he had itdone or something like that.
But at this point, I was verysurprised that that came in at
all.
And that's one of the acts inthe racketeering conspiracy is
arson.
UNKNOWN (14:00):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (14:01):
Did that surprise you, I guess?
Because sometimes I wonder ifthese attorneys may say
something that they know thatthe jurors will have to strike
in terms of what they're able toconsider, the information,
whether they can use that whenthey decide whether or not to
convict someone of a crime.
(14:21):
But just the fact that the seedhas been planted, and even
though you say that he was agreat witness for the
prosecution, because there wasno forensic proof, does that
matter?
Or is it more aboutcorroborating the story that
Cassie Ventura originally toldabout Kid Cudi.
(14:42):
And then you saw the email thatcame out from 2011 around that
time where Cassie Ventura isbasically writing Capricorn
Clark, an associate and employeeof Combs, and her mother saying
that Combs threatened her andthat he also threatened harm on
Kid Cudi.
And then this happens.
SPEAKER_00 (15:01):
Right.
Well, that's what it is.
It's cooperation.
So they're saying he makes thesethreats And then something
happens and they'll say it wascircumstantial.
It's too coincidental to notcome back to Sean Combs.
And that'll be the argument thatthe government will make.
But to your larger question, andI hate to say this where
(15:22):
there'll be a recording of itbecause some government
prosecutor will play it one dayat a trial in front of the
judge, is attorneys There arethings we know we can do, and
there are things we know weshouldn't do.
And of course, we do the thingswe shouldn't do sometimes
because we want the jurors tohear them.
So you'll see all the time, justas you see on TV, people will
(15:43):
make comments and say thingsjust knowing an objection is
going to come, like with thisDNA evidence.
I'm sure they knew that theobjection was going to be
sustained, but they said itthree or four times, knowing
that they wanted the jurors tohear that there was this other
DNA evidence.
The issue that I have through alot of this so far is, from the
(16:07):
defense perspective, they've hada lot of places where I think
they could strike hard blows butthey're doing it in a very
genteel way.
And I feel like this is a streetbrawl.
This is not really a federalcase.
It's in federal court, but it'snot really a federal case.
(16:27):
So far, what we're hearing isessentially a state court
domestic violence case.
That's basically what it is.
You're hearing about someone whobeats women.
That's been 90% of what they'vepresented so far.
And I think the defenseattorneys have to get more down
and dirty as if they're trying acase in the building next door
(16:49):
in state court and not be sogenteel where they're trying
like they're trying a whitecollar case.
SPEAKER_02 (16:57):
The prosecution said very early on, listeners, we're
going to jump around.
Things will not be inchronological order.
But their focus is using thiscriminal enterprise that they
say was run by Combs to feed hissexual desires, using employees
to acquiesce and to do thingsthat speak to what he wanted
(17:19):
when it comes to his sexualdesires.
And you say, Steve, that youdon't feel they've done anything
to really prove this.
that, but they have broughtabout a number of people who've
already worked with Combs whotalk about having to make
arrangements, clean up things,and just know that that he was
(17:39):
someone that needed this bagfull of medicine, as they called
it, the medicine bag, but it wasfull of narcotics.
The assistant who testified, theformer executive assistant, the
only one, by the way, who's hadimmunity and said that he would
set up the rooms.
He would buy certain things forthese sort of events or alleged
(18:01):
freak offs that he was having.
So I honestly think it's just alot for the jurors to have to
consider.
And we're only two weeks in, youknow, this week was a short week
because of Memorial Day weekend.
So they had four days ofwitnesses that they heard from.
So when you say you haven'theard anything, I just, I'm
pushing back on that having beenin the courtroom because there
(18:23):
are some things that we haveheard that speak to sort of this
big picture idea of what theprosecution claims Sean Combs
did.
SPEAKER_00 (18:32):
So when I'm saying I haven't heard anything, I
haven't heard anything thatmakes this what should be a
federal case.
The indictment in this case,it's a very strange indictment
because normally in a RICOindictment, you've got an
enterprise and no one's ever wona RICO case by saying that an
enterprise didn't exist.
An enterprise is...
(18:53):
just a collection of people,more than two people, so three
or more people that has a commonpurpose.
It can be legal, it can beillegal.
The enterprise itself doesn'thave to be an illegal entity.
SPEAKER_02 (19:07):
So you're saying that's just the name?
SPEAKER_00 (19:08):
It's just a way of categorizing something.
So your podcast would fit thedefinition of an enterprise
because right now- Don't try
SPEAKER_02 (19:17):
to put me into anything federal, sir.
SPEAKER_00 (19:19):
Well, it's you, me, and it's a producer.
So we would fit the definition.
of an enterprise if we had acommon purpose.
So where you have to attackthese cases is on the various
acts.
And in this indictment, what thegovernment has done is they've
said that he committed multipleacts of kidnapping and multiple
(19:41):
acts of attempt and multipleacts of conspiracy.
And they've listed it violatedCalifornia law or violated New
York law.
And they've cited some statutes.
But in every RICO case I've everseen, and I've seen dozens of
them, they've set forth whatthose specific acts are.
(20:01):
And in this case, they haven't.
So what we're seeing is we'reseeing them present to the jury
just bad thing after bad thingafter bad thing.
And one of the things, and Iknow I'm speaking as a defense
attorney here, but one of thethings that the law is not
supposed to allow a jury to dois to convict somebody because
(20:24):
they're a bad person, because wedon't like them.
We try and keep out of trialsbad conduct that's not really
relevant.
And so you have to ask yourself,okay, he had this really kind of
crazy, bizarre sex life.
Was it consensual or wasn't itconsensual?
(20:46):
Because if it was consensual,then what does it have to do
with anything so far?
And when Cassie Venturatestified, was she testifying to
something that she acquiesced inbecause she wanted to please
Sean Combs?
And if you look at the totalityof what she said, And the way
(21:10):
that the relationship ended whenKim Porter, when he said that
Kim Porter was actually hissoulmate, and it really struck
Cassie Ventura that she wasnever going to be the one.
She wanted to marry Sean Combs,and she was never going to be
the one that Sean Combs wasgoing to marry.
And she was never going to bethe number one woman in his
(21:33):
life.
And that was the last they sawof each other.
Was she really going along withall of this to just please him
or to try and win him over?
And are we just bringing a caseabout a consensual relationship
with domestic violence in it,certainly?
And domestic violence is never agood thing, but a consensual
(21:57):
relationship.
And are we asking the jurors tobe the judges of morality here?
SPEAKER_02 (22:02):
So in your opinion, based on the information that
you have looked at, thoseopening statements and some of
the witness testimony, what doyou think the prosecution needs
to do or needs to prove for thisto be a stronger case on behalf
of the government?
SPEAKER_00 (22:20):
Well, I think the prosecution is trying to say
that these things were notvoluntary.
So again, Cassie Ventura saidthat I didn't want to do these
things.
He forced me to do these thingsdown the road.
I
SPEAKER_02 (22:35):
mean, and if I could really quick in her closing
statement, she said, I wouldgive back the 20 million if it
meant I never had to do a freakoff in my life.
I'm generalizing what she saidhere, but I mean, she was on
that stand, as you know, do anyday now.
By the time this podcast airs,she may have had her baby boy,
but four days going back, Almost20 years, because she's 38 or 39
(23:02):
years old now, and she is sortof recounting 19.
She signs with Bad Boy in 21,around the time that her and
Sean Combs start seeing eachother.
SPEAKER_00 (23:11):
Yeah, I wouldn't believe for a second that she
would give back the$20 million.
That's what she said.
That's what she said, right.
And the other one who filed thelawsuit...
Don Rashard?
Donna Shard said that she wasjust there for justice and she
didn't care about the money.
And, you know, people say allsorts of stuff.
(23:32):
And I'm here only to tell thetruth, even though I told 50
lies when I testified.
They say whatever people saythat stuff, but it's not really
credible.
Do you think she'd give back themoney?
I'm putting you on the spot.
SPEAKER_02 (23:46):
I don't know.
I'm listening to what people aresaying in the courtroom.
I have no idea what that womanhad to go through over the
course of, you know, 11 yearswith Sean Combs.
We know what she's able to tellus.
We know that Sean Combs is notlikely to take the stand, so we
won't hear specifically fromhim.
But I can tell you in thatcourtroom, there are many times
(24:09):
where he is, was, I should saywhen Cassie Ventura was on the
stand, either sort of shakinghis head in agreement with
certain things or disagreementwhen it came to those things
that had to do with himcommitting a crime.
So, and I think, honestly, thisis what's so fascinating about
any type of court case is thissort of back and forth.
(24:32):
There are some things that seemmore clear in some cases that
I've covered, but there is thissort of, as someone else put it,
a tug of war between of whatthis person said, but then maybe
the defense says something thatcalls into question someone's
credibility.
But I don't doubt, and I mean, Iknow you weren't in the
(24:52):
courtroom, but you've readenough to know that what Cassie
Ventura describes is beyonddisturbing in terms of what she
said she went through.
SPEAKER_00 (25:01):
It's very disturbing, but they're...
What I was leading up to beforeis in these cases, the
government is going to call anexpert down the road who is
going to testify how people likeCassie Ventura, how they are
psychologically affected, howthey become controlled by their
(25:22):
abuser.
And and how to those of us whosay, well, why don't you just
walk away?
You know, they find it difficultto walk away.
And it's not as easy as we wouldjust think, because you would
say, call your mother.
You know, she was talking to hermother.
Why don't you just go on yourown?
I mean, some people say there'sbeen some testimony.
(25:43):
Well, he paid her rent and hepaid her car payment and stuff
like that.
Well, a lot of people strugglein life.
to get away from a badsituation.
So why didn't she?
SPEAKER_02 (25:55):
Steve, we did hear from an expert like that this
week who did speak on this sortof generalization of what people
in those types of relationships,how they react, how they
respond, how it's not abnormalfor people to come forward with
these allegations later.
SPEAKER_00 (26:12):
For the prosecutors, a RICO case becomes very easy to
prove because, again, in thissituation, case here they have
multiple acts is all they'velisted and under each section
where they say multiple actsthey've got four or five
different subcategories and soif you look at the indictment
(26:35):
they might have 40 differentwhat we call predicate acts that
could be in there if Each ofthese references is to just one
incident, and they only have toprove two for the jury to find
racketeering.
Some of them, a couple of them,are distributing drugs.
(26:58):
So if they find, if the jurorsfind that on two occasions Combs
gave drugs to people, which Ithink the jurors will find very
easy to find, he could lose thecase.
It's that easy for theprosecutors when you have a RICO
case.
If they find some of them aretampering with a witness, there
(27:22):
are some allegations that afterhe knew this was happening, that
he tried to reach out towitnesses.
That's easy for the prosecutionto prove the case.
because they've got some lowhanging fruit and they only need
to prove two predicate acts.
So even though I think that theprosecution doesn't really have
(27:45):
an easy case on sort of the moresalacious allegations, and I
don't think they're going ingreat for them, there's all this
low hanging fruit in a RICO casethat makes it very easy.
If you look at the law ofaverages, They only have to
convince the jurors on 5% or 10%of the allegations that they've
(28:09):
got in their indictment.
Whereas in the normal criminalcase, you've got one crime.
He shot somebody.
He robbed a bank.
The prosecution has to prove100% of what they've alleged.
Here, they have to prove a verysmall percentage of what they've
alleged.
SPEAKER_02 (28:29):
The Southern District of New York and most
federal jurisdictions have areally high conviction rate.
So how much is on the line ifprosecutors don't get a
conviction?
SPEAKER_00 (28:39):
Well, anytime prosecutors lose a high profile
case like this, they've got eggon their face, of course.
It rarely happens.
It certainly happens more oftennow than it used to.
Jurors are more skeptical.
(28:59):
on cases than they used to be.
But I don't think you can lookat what the overall conviction
rate is anywhere because mostfederal criminal cases end up in
guilty pleas.
Of the cases that go to trial,the statistics are a little bit
(29:21):
different.
And then on those cases, thestatistics on White collar cases
are different than thestatistics on street crime sort
of cases, cases where they haveto rely on, for instance, in
that district, on the New YorkCity cops for where they've got
(29:41):
their conviction rate is lowerthan cases where they're relying
on the FBI.
Right.
So it depends on a lot ofdifferent factors.
SPEAKER_02 (29:49):
Where do you think things stand in this particular
case right now?
the U.S.
government versus Sean Combs?
SPEAKER_00 (29:56):
Well, I think his attorneys have to get a little
bit more down in the trenchesand treat it a little bit more
like a state case, get more downand dirty and start fighting
back a little bit harder.
Try and keep some of this stuffout.
Try and keep all of this sort ofbad acts evidence.
(30:17):
They can't have a client whojust week after week The
government is saying you're aterrible person, terrible
person, terrible person.
They need to get some clarity asto what exactly they're saying
he did wrong.
That's really a federal crime.
That's really these predicateacts.
And I don't think that'shappened yet.
(30:40):
But as I said, the law ofaverages, unfortunately, when
you've got a RICO case, is notvery good.
SPEAKER_02 (30:46):
Steve Greenberg, everyone.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
We really appreciate your time.
And one more thing.
I find myself running intopeople who covered combs
extensively over the years andare really struggling with what
they are reading and hearingabout in the news, on social
media, et cetera.
This case is a reminder that weonly know people based on how
(31:10):
they present to us.
We don't know people intimatelyas husbands, as wives, partners,
mothers, fathers.
And jurors have the hardest jobwhen it comes down to it.
They have to make sense of theallegations that go back 20
years while also following juryinstructions at the end.
After hearing from six to eightweeks worth of witnesses, there
(31:34):
is so much that happens in thespan of a week.
And this podcast gives us achance to explore that a little
bit more.
I thank you so much forlistening.
Please follow me on Instagramand TikTok.
I am that reporter JD.
Again, I am that reporter JD.
DM me if you have any questionsand maybe we can address them on
(31:55):
the next one.
Until then, have a blessed day.
Hopefully we'll see you backhere once again.
If you enjoy this podcast andwant to help, please, please,
please spread the word.
Tell your friends, tell yourfamily, encourage them to
(32:16):
listen.
You can also follow Rate andReview on Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.
And just like Uber, five starreviews are very much
appreciated.
I'm in the courtroom, right?
I'm in the overflow and I'mwatching this hearing,
SPEAKER_02 (00:08):
this trial go down in real time.
What was the state of his dog?
He said his dog was jittery.
Kid
SPEAKER_01 (00:17):
Cudi, man, he passed it in 2008 when he was nobody.
This is the first trial I'm eversitting on.
Ever.
Like, ever.
And it's the most intense thingI've ever experienced in my
life.
SPEAKER_02 (00:36):
Those are just some of the voices from people
following the story alongside ofme in week two of the United
States government versus SeanCombs.
All of the people you just heardfrom use social media as their
way to reach the masses.
As someone who works for alegacy media company, I have to
say I am truly impressed by theamount of folks using things
(00:57):
like Instagram and TikTok aswell as YouTube to discuss this
case.
I've never seen anything like itbefore.
And we did all of this in thecold rain this past week.
(01:27):
he is convicted on all charges.
Now, Combs, as you know, hasdenied the charges and the
allegations.
And just to recap, according tothe government, Combs abused,
threatened, and coerced womenand others around him for
decades to fulfill his sexualdesires, protect his reputation,
and conceal his conduct.
(01:47):
The government says Combs reliedon employees, resources, and
influence of his multifacetedbusiness empire that he led and
controlled, creating a criminalenterprise whose members and
associates engaged in andattempted to engage in, among
other crimes, sex trafficking,forced labor, kidnapping, arson,
(02:08):
bribery, and obstruction ofjustice.
In their opening statements, thedefense said this case is about
money, love, and infidelity.
The prosecution has interviewedmore than a dozen witnesses so
far.
Thursday's testimony wrapped upwith a forensics agent who works
for Homeland Security.
He discussed how information wastaken from three of Ventura's
(02:32):
laptops.
We heard from a general managerfrom a hotel in Beverly Hills
who said Combs, a frequent guestunder the name Jack Starr, made
cleanup for housekeepersdifficult by, quote, always
spilling candle wax oneverything.
And that journal manager notedthere was always an excessive
use of oil.
We also heard from Myla Morales.
(02:54):
She's a former makeup artist forCombs and Ventura.
Morales talked about staying ina hotel with Ventura back in
2010, the weekend of theGrammys.
She testified that she heard afight between Combs and Ventura.
And right after Combs left, shesaid she saw that Ventura had
bruises to her face,specifically a swollen eye,
(03:14):
busted lip, and not, she said,on Ventura's head.
She has been public about someof this already, appearing on
CNN back in May of last year.
But the testimony many peoplehad been anticipating this week
is the one given by rapper andactor Kid Cudi, his actual name,
Scott Meskety.
(03:35):
When Judge Arun Submaranian saidthe government may call its next
witness, the prosecutor said thegovernment calls Scott Meskety,
and everyone turned around.
including combs.
I'll call him Kid Cudi for thispodcast, but he walked in very
casually wearing jeans, at-shirt, and a black leather
(03:55):
jacket.
Within a couple of minutes, theprosecution really zones in on
2011.
Here's what the prosecutor said.
I want to direct your attentionto December, 2011.
Did there come a time when lawenforcement responded to your
home in December of 2011?
Yes, Kid Cudi says.
Why did law enforcement respondin December of 2011?
(04:19):
Because I had a break-in.
I'd like to start at thebeginning of the day of the
break-in.
How did the day start?
Well, he says, I got a call fromCassie around 5.30, 6 a.m.
And she told me that Sean Combshad found out about us.
I was really confused, but sheasked me to pick her up.
She sounded really stressed onthe phone, nervous, scared.
(04:40):
So I went to go pick her up.
And yeah, a few follow-upquestions for you.
When Ms.
Ventura said that Mr.
Combs had found out about us, asyou said, what was your
understanding of what Ms.
Ventura was saying?
There was an objection.
It was overruled.
So he answers.
She says, you testified Ms.
(05:00):
Ventura told you Ms.
Combs found out about us.
What was your understanding ofwhat Mr.
Combs had found out?
That me and her were dating.
And you also testified that youwere confused when you heard
that.
Yes.
Why were you confused?
He says, because I didn't thinkshe was still dealing with him.
So as the testimony goes on, KidCudi says, I called Sean Combs,
(05:26):
prosecutor.
How did you have Sean Combs'phone number?
I just had it for years.
Did Mr.
Combs pick up your call?
Yes.
Can you describe theconversation that you had with
Mr.
Combs on the drive to your home?
Yeah, I'm going to be verycandid.
I said, mother effer, you in myhouse?
And he was like, what's up?
I was like, mother effer, areyou in my house?
(05:48):
And he said, I just want to talkto you.
I was like, I'm on my way overthere right now.
He was like, I'm here.
The prosecutor says, what didyou see inside your home?
Kid Cudi says, some gifts that Ibrought from my family were
opened, some stuff I got fromChanel, and then my dog was
locked up in my bathroom.
(06:08):
So what's interesting about thisdog being locked up in the
bathroom, there was aconversation before Kid Cudi
took the stand about whether ornot there would be testimony
given about the dog's demeanorand how it changed after being
locked up.
It was a lot of back and forth.
(06:30):
Funny moments at times becausewe're obviously not here about a
dog, but there was so muchconversation about it.
Even someone that I noticed whowas doing a podcast, a stream, I
should say, outside mentionedthat the dog was jittery.
So he testifies about that andthey move on.
By New Year's of 2012, Cuddysays that he and Ventura were
(06:52):
not really hanging out anymore.
The prosecutor then says,directing your attention to
January of 2012.
So remember, we started inDecember of 2011.
Now we're in January of 2012.
The prosecutor says, did therecome a time when you learned
that your car had caught fire?
Kid Cudi answers, yes.
How did you learn that your carcaught on fire?
(07:13):
My dog's babysitter called me inthe morning.
Approximately what time did youreceive that phone call?
6.30, 7.30 a.m.
What was your understanding ofof where your dog's babysitter
was located when she called youat my house.
So the jurors are shown sixpictures of the damage from the
car.
The prosecutor asks Kid Cudi,what was your reaction to your
(07:36):
car being set on fire?
And he says, quote, what the F.
Then there was an objection.
It was overruled.
And then they took a quick fiveminute break.
So the court begins and theprosecution picks up And ask Kid
Cuddy if he thought the car firewas an accident or intentional.
He says it was intentional.
(07:57):
And this part gets interestingbecause Cuddy basically
implicates Sean Combs in the carfire.
And he tells the court, Ireached out to Sean Combs after
my car had caught fire and, youknow, finally told him that we
needed to meet up to talk, youknow.
He had been wanting to talk tome.
So after the fire, I was like,this is getting out of hand.
(08:20):
I need to talk to him.
The prosecution says, why was itMr.
Combs you reached out to afterthe fire?
And he says, because I knew hehad something to do with it.
Then Mr.
Steele, one of the defenseattorneys, says, your honor, we
have to have a sidebar.
The judge says, is that anobjection?
The defense says, objection.
The court says the objection issustained.
(08:41):
The jury should disregard thewitnesses.
Last answer, says the judge.
And then Ms.
Johnson proceeds, theprosecutor.
To help break down theimportance and relevance of Kid
(09:03):
Cudi's testimony is StevenGreenberg.
We go way back.
Listen to this.
Do you really believe that allof these women are looking for
their 15 minutes of fame, as youput it?
SPEAKER_00 (09:14):
I believe that all of these women did exactly what
they wanted to do That, again,is...
SPEAKER_02 (09:38):
Steven Greenberg.
When I say we go back, we go wayback.
He represented R.
Kelly in his state and federalcase and would eventually lead
Kelly's team at the start of theRICO case, the federal case here
in New York.
Steve, welcome and thank you forjoining me.
SPEAKER_00 (09:55):
Morning.
SPEAKER_02 (09:56):
You still feel that way?
SPEAKER_00 (09:58):
About that case?
Yes, I do.
I think that that case was anoverreach and never belonged in
federal court.
Many people have a misconceptionthat that case was about
underage sex, and it wasn't.
His first case that he beatyears ago in state court, that
case he was very guilty of.
The case in Chicago, probablyguilty of.
(10:20):
But the case in New York, Ithink, was an overreach.
SPEAKER_02 (10:24):
Why did you leave the R.
Kelly team?
SPEAKER_00 (10:27):
We ended up leaving the R.
Kelly team because,unfortunately, the people who
got in...
Robert's ear were people who heshouldn't have been listening
to.
And I don't want to get too farinto the weeds, but the people
who ended up trying his case hadno experience trying cases, but
(10:50):
they got very close to him.
And I think if someone readsabout what went on at that
trial, it speaks for itself.
I absolutely believe that if wehad tried that case, that case
would have been one of thosecases that would have been in
the 10% of cases that theprosecutors lose.
SPEAKER_02 (11:08):
Okay.
So we'll get to your experiencewith RICO cases and why you feel
the way you feel.
But I thought because of thecases that you've covered, your
more than 30 years of experiencein the legal field, you were the
right person to call.
And I know you've been followingthis a little bit, but first and
(11:31):
foremost, was Kid Cudi morehelpful to the prosecution or
the defense?
SPEAKER_00 (11:37):
Well, Kid Cudi was helpful to the prosecution
because he was able to be asecond person who was able to
say that Sean Combs wasessentially a...
a thug, for lack of a betterterm.
He has him in his housethreatening him.
And then he was able to givethis testimony where he said
(12:00):
that Sean Combs had thrown aMolotov cocktail, or someone on
Combs' behalf had thrown aMolotov cocktail in his car.
You mentioned the objection thatcame from his attorneys, which
was way late.
It was after an answer wasgiven, and while it was
sustained by a judge, thetestimony had already been
heard.
I have no idea why he was ableto say that, because from my
(12:24):
reading of the testimony, thereis zero proof that Sean Combs
actually threw a Molotovcocktail in his car or had
anyone throw a Molotov cocktailin his car.
That was as much a guess asanything is a guess in this
world.
SPEAKER_02 (12:42):
The defense mentioned that DNA from a female
was found in that car and theprosecution objected and it was
sustained.
How difficult is it for jurorsto really ignore that type of
information or those statementsmade supporting one side or the
other?
SPEAKER_00 (12:59):
Well, look, the DNA was found in in a car from
somebody else is not unusual.
You know, it's a car.
A female was in your car.
And so she left DNA behind.
That's a weak blow.
The defense couldn't get it inthe way they wanted to get it in
because it was hearsay.
(13:20):
And that's why the objection wassustained.
You would need to call a witnessto testify about the scientific
testing and where it was foundand so forth.
They just wanted the jurors tohear it.
I was surprised.
that the testimony came in atall in the first place without
any sort of connection to Combs.
Now, maybe there's a witnesscoming later in the case who's
(13:42):
going to say that Combs hired meto do this or that Combs
admitted to me that he had itdone or something like that.
But at this point, I was verysurprised that that came in at
all.
And that's one of the acts inthe racketeering conspiracy is
arson.
UNKNOWN (14:00):
Right.
SPEAKER_02 (14:01):
Did that surprise you, I guess?
Because sometimes I wonder ifthese attorneys may say
something that they know thatthe jurors will have to strike
in terms of what they're able toconsider, the information,
whether they can use that whenthey decide whether or not to
convict someone of a crime.
(14:21):
But just the fact that the seedhas been planted, and even
though you say that he was agreat witness for the
prosecution, because there wasno forensic proof, does that
matter?
Or is it more aboutcorroborating the story that
Cassie Ventura originally toldabout Kid Cudi.
(14:42):
And then you saw the email thatcame out from 2011 around that
time where Cassie Ventura isbasically writing Capricorn
Clark, an associate and employeeof Combs, and her mother saying
that Combs threatened her andthat he also threatened harm on
Kid Cudi.
And then this happens.
SPEAKER_00 (15:01):
Right.
Well, that's what it is.
It's cooperation.
So they're saying he makes thesethreats And then something
happens and they'll say it wascircumstantial.
It's too coincidental to notcome back to Sean Combs.
And that'll be the argument thatthe government will make.
But to your larger question, andI hate to say this where
(15:22):
there'll be a recording of itbecause some government
prosecutor will play it one dayat a trial in front of the
judge, is attorneys There arethings we know we can do, and
there are things we know weshouldn't do.
And of course, we do the thingswe shouldn't do sometimes
because we want the jurors tohear them.
So you'll see all the time, justas you see on TV, people will
(15:43):
make comments and say thingsjust knowing an objection is
going to come, like with thisDNA evidence.
I'm sure they knew that theobjection was going to be
sustained, but they said itthree or four times, knowing
that they wanted the jurors tohear that there was this other
DNA evidence.
The issue that I have through alot of this so far is, from the
(16:07):
defense perspective, they've hada lot of places where I think
they could strike hard blows butthey're doing it in a very
genteel way.
And I feel like this is a streetbrawl.
This is not really a federalcase.
It's in federal court, but it'snot really a federal case.
(16:27):
So far, what we're hearing isessentially a state court
domestic violence case.
That's basically what it is.
You're hearing about someone whobeats women.
That's been 90% of what they'vepresented so far.
And I think the defenseattorneys have to get more down
and dirty as if they're trying acase in the building next door
(16:49):
in state court and not be sogenteel where they're trying
like they're trying a whitecollar case.
SPEAKER_02 (16:57):
The prosecution said very early on, listeners, we're
going to jump around.
Things will not be inchronological order.
But their focus is using thiscriminal enterprise that they
say was run by Combs to feed hissexual desires, using employees
to acquiesce and to do thingsthat speak to what he wanted
(17:19):
when it comes to his sexualdesires.
And you say, Steve, that youdon't feel they've done anything
to really prove this.
that, but they have broughtabout a number of people who've
already worked with Combs whotalk about having to make
arrangements, clean up things,and just know that that he was
(17:39):
someone that needed this bagfull of medicine, as they called
it, the medicine bag, but it wasfull of narcotics.
The assistant who testified, theformer executive assistant, the
only one, by the way, who's hadimmunity and said that he would
set up the rooms.
He would buy certain things forthese sort of events or alleged
(18:01):
freak offs that he was having.
So I honestly think it's just alot for the jurors to have to
consider.
And we're only two weeks in, youknow, this week was a short week
because of Memorial Day weekend.
So they had four days ofwitnesses that they heard from.
So when you say you haven'theard anything, I just, I'm
pushing back on that having beenin the courtroom because there
(18:23):
are some things that we haveheard that speak to sort of this
big picture idea of what theprosecution claims Sean Combs
did.
SPEAKER_00 (18:32):
So when I'm saying I haven't heard anything, I
haven't heard anything thatmakes this what should be a
federal case.
The indictment in this case,it's a very strange indictment
because normally in a RICOindictment, you've got an
enterprise and no one's ever wona RICO case by saying that an
enterprise didn't exist.
An enterprise is...
(18:53):
just a collection of people,more than two people, so three
or more people that has a commonpurpose.
It can be legal, it can beillegal.
The enterprise itself doesn'thave to be an illegal entity.
SPEAKER_02 (19:07):
So you're saying that's just the name?
SPEAKER_00 (19:08):
It's just a way of categorizing something.
So your podcast would fit thedefinition of an enterprise
because right now- Don't try
SPEAKER_02 (19:17):
to put me into anything federal, sir.
SPEAKER_00 (19:19):
Well, it's you, me, and it's a producer.
So we would fit the definition.
of an enterprise if we had acommon purpose.
So where you have to attackthese cases is on the various
acts.
And in this indictment, what thegovernment has done is they've
said that he committed multipleacts of kidnapping and multiple
(19:41):
acts of attempt and multipleacts of conspiracy.
And they've listed it violatedCalifornia law or violated New
York law.
And they've cited some statutes.
But in every RICO case I've everseen, and I've seen dozens of
them, they've set forth whatthose specific acts are.
(20:01):
And in this case, they haven't.
So what we're seeing is we'reseeing them present to the jury
just bad thing after bad thingafter bad thing.
And one of the things, and Iknow I'm speaking as a defense
attorney here, but one of thethings that the law is not
supposed to allow a jury to dois to convict somebody because
(20:24):
they're a bad person, because wedon't like them.
We try and keep out of trialsbad conduct that's not really
relevant.
And so you have to ask yourself,okay, he had this really kind of
crazy, bizarre sex life.
Was it consensual or wasn't itconsensual?
(20:46):
Because if it was consensual,then what does it have to do
with anything so far?
And when Cassie Venturatestified, was she testifying to
something that she acquiesced inbecause she wanted to please
Sean Combs?
And if you look at the totalityof what she said, And the way
(21:10):
that the relationship ended whenKim Porter, when he said that
Kim Porter was actually hissoulmate, and it really struck
Cassie Ventura that she wasnever going to be the one.
She wanted to marry Sean Combs,and she was never going to be
the one that Sean Combs wasgoing to marry.
And she was never going to bethe number one woman in his
(21:33):
life.
And that was the last they sawof each other.
Was she really going along withall of this to just please him
or to try and win him over?
And are we just bringing a caseabout a consensual relationship
with domestic violence in it,certainly?
And domestic violence is never agood thing, but a consensual
(21:57):
relationship.
And are we asking the jurors tobe the judges of morality here?
SPEAKER_02 (22:02):
So in your opinion, based on the information that
you have looked at, thoseopening statements and some of
the witness testimony, what doyou think the prosecution needs
to do or needs to prove for thisto be a stronger case on behalf
of the government?
SPEAKER_00 (22:20):
Well, I think the prosecution is trying to say
that these things were notvoluntary.
So again, Cassie Ventura saidthat I didn't want to do these
things.
He forced me to do these thingsdown the road.
I
SPEAKER_02 (22:35):
mean, and if I could really quick in her closing
statement, she said, I wouldgive back the 20 million if it
meant I never had to do a freakoff in my life.
I'm generalizing what she saidhere, but I mean, she was on
that stand, as you know, do anyday now.
By the time this podcast airs,she may have had her baby boy,
but four days going back, Almost20 years, because she's 38 or 39
(23:02):
years old now, and she is sortof recounting 19.
She signs with Bad Boy in 21,around the time that her and
Sean Combs start seeing eachother.
SPEAKER_00 (23:11):
Yeah, I wouldn't believe for a second that she
would give back the$20 million.
That's what she said.
That's what she said, right.
And the other one who filed thelawsuit...
Don Rashard?
Donna Shard said that she wasjust there for justice and she
didn't care about the money.
And, you know, people say allsorts of stuff.
(23:32):
And I'm here only to tell thetruth, even though I told 50
lies when I testified.
They say whatever people saythat stuff, but it's not really
credible.
Do you think she'd give back themoney?
I'm putting you on the spot.
SPEAKER_02 (23:46):
I don't know.
I'm listening to what people aresaying in the courtroom.
I have no idea what that womanhad to go through over the
course of, you know, 11 yearswith Sean Combs.
We know what she's able to tellus.
We know that Sean Combs is notlikely to take the stand, so we
won't hear specifically fromhim.
But I can tell you in thatcourtroom, there are many times
(24:09):
where he is, was, I should saywhen Cassie Ventura was on the
stand, either sort of shakinghis head in agreement with
certain things or disagreementwhen it came to those things
that had to do with himcommitting a crime.
So, and I think, honestly, thisis what's so fascinating about
any type of court case is thissort of back and forth.
(24:32):
There are some things that seemmore clear in some cases that
I've covered, but there is thissort of, as someone else put it,
a tug of war between of whatthis person said, but then maybe
the defense says something thatcalls into question someone's
credibility.
But I don't doubt, and I mean, Iknow you weren't in the
(24:52):
courtroom, but you've readenough to know that what Cassie
Ventura describes is beyonddisturbing in terms of what she
said she went through.
SPEAKER_00 (25:01):
It's very disturbing, but they're...
What I was leading up to beforeis in these cases, the
government is going to call anexpert down the road who is
going to testify how people likeCassie Ventura, how they are
psychologically affected, howthey become controlled by their
(25:22):
abuser.
And and how to those of us whosay, well, why don't you just
walk away?
You know, they find it difficultto walk away.
And it's not as easy as we wouldjust think, because you would
say, call your mother.
You know, she was talking to hermother.
Why don't you just go on yourown?
I mean, some people say there'sbeen some testimony.
(25:43):
Well, he paid her rent and hepaid her car payment and stuff
like that.
Well, a lot of people strugglein life.
to get away from a badsituation.
So why didn't she?
SPEAKER_02 (25:55):
Steve, we did hear from an expert like that this
week who did speak on this sortof generalization of what people
in those types of relationships,how they react, how they
respond, how it's not abnormalfor people to come forward with
these allegations later.
SPEAKER_00 (26:12):
For the prosecutors, a RICO case becomes very easy to
prove because, again, in thissituation, case here they have
multiple acts is all they'velisted and under each section
where they say multiple actsthey've got four or five
different subcategories and soif you look at the indictment
(26:35):
they might have 40 differentwhat we call predicate acts that
could be in there if Each ofthese references is to just one
incident, and they only have toprove two for the jury to find
racketeering.
Some of them, a couple of them,are distributing drugs.
(26:58):
So if they find, if the jurorsfind that on two occasions Combs
gave drugs to people, which Ithink the jurors will find very
easy to find, he could lose thecase.
It's that easy for theprosecutors when you have a RICO
case.
If they find some of them aretampering with a witness, there
(27:22):
are some allegations that afterhe knew this was happening, that
he tried to reach out towitnesses.
That's easy for the prosecutionto prove the case.
because they've got some lowhanging fruit and they only need
to prove two predicate acts.
So even though I think that theprosecution doesn't really have
(27:45):
an easy case on sort of the moresalacious allegations, and I
don't think they're going ingreat for them, there's all this
low hanging fruit in a RICO casethat makes it very easy.
If you look at the law ofaverages, They only have to
convince the jurors on 5% or 10%of the allegations that they've
(28:09):
got in their indictment.
Whereas in the normal criminalcase, you've got one crime.
He shot somebody.
He robbed a bank.
The prosecution has to prove100% of what they've alleged.
Here, they have to prove a verysmall percentage of what they've
alleged.
SPEAKER_02 (28:29):
The Southern District of New York and most
federal jurisdictions have areally high conviction rate.
So how much is on the line ifprosecutors don't get a
conviction?
SPEAKER_00 (28:39):
Well, anytime prosecutors lose a high profile
case like this, they've got eggon their face, of course.
It rarely happens.
It certainly happens more oftennow than it used to.
Jurors are more skeptical.
(28:59):
on cases than they used to be.
But I don't think you can lookat what the overall conviction
rate is anywhere because mostfederal criminal cases end up in
guilty pleas.
Of the cases that go to trial,the statistics are a little bit
(29:21):
different.
And then on those cases, thestatistics on White collar cases
are different than thestatistics on street crime sort
of cases, cases where they haveto rely on, for instance, in
that district, on the New YorkCity cops for where they've got
(29:41):
their conviction rate is lowerthan cases where they're relying
on the FBI.
Right.
So it depends on a lot ofdifferent factors.
SPEAKER_02 (29:49):
Where do you think things stand in this particular
case right now?
the U.S.
government versus Sean Combs?
SPEAKER_00 (29:56):
Well, I think his attorneys have to get a little
bit more down in the trenchesand treat it a little bit more
like a state case, get more downand dirty and start fighting
back a little bit harder.
Try and keep some of this stuffout.
Try and keep all of this sort ofbad acts evidence.
(30:17):
They can't have a client whojust week after week The
government is saying you're aterrible person, terrible
person, terrible person.
They need to get some clarity asto what exactly they're saying
he did wrong.
That's really a federal crime.
That's really these predicateacts.
And I don't think that'shappened yet.
(30:40):
But as I said, the law ofaverages, unfortunately, when
you've got a RICO case, is notvery good.
SPEAKER_02 (30:46):
Steve Greenberg, everyone.
Thank you so much for joiningus.
We really appreciate your time.
And one more thing.
I find myself running intopeople who covered combs
extensively over the years andare really struggling with what
they are reading and hearingabout in the news, on social
media, et cetera.
This case is a reminder that weonly know people based on how
(31:10):
they present to us.
We don't know people intimatelyas husbands, as wives, partners,
mothers, fathers.
And jurors have the hardest jobwhen it comes down to it.
They have to make sense of theallegations that go back 20
years while also following juryinstructions at the end.
After hearing from six to eightweeks worth of witnesses, there
(31:34):
is so much that happens in thespan of a week.
And this podcast gives us achance to explore that a little
bit more.
I thank you so much forlistening.
Please follow me on Instagramand TikTok.
I am that reporter JD.
Again, I am that reporter JD.
DM me if you have any questionsand maybe we can address them on
(31:55):
the next one.
Until then, have a blessed day.
Hopefully we'll see you backhere once again.
If you enjoy this podcast andwant to help, please, please,
please spread the word.
Tell your friends, tell yourfamily, encourage them to
(32:16):
listen.
You can also follow Rate andReview on Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.
And just like Uber, five starreviews are very much
appreciated.
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.