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 sits down with jury consultant and attorney, Renato Stabile. They discuss the intricacies of jury consulting and selection, particularly in high-profile cases. Stabile highlights the unusual length of jury selection in the case of Sean Combs, the importance of diversity in juror makeup, and the potential impact of stealth jurors. They also explore the dynamics of jury deliberation in this case, the significance of a potential mistrial, and the possible outcomes and sentencing for Combs before wrapping things up with his expectation of when the jury deliberations will be complete.
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_00 (00:00):
Just came to support my brother, that's all, you know
what I mean?
Just give him the support andthe love he need, you know what
I mean?
Had he been put on, he need realpeople around him, you know what
I'm saying?
Real love.
SPEAKER_01 (00:14):
What do I think about the statements from the
ladies?
I would say that, okay, yeah,some of the things were
disgusting and wrong, but at theend of the day, I feel like they
still played a part in it.
It wasn't just him alone.
SPEAKER_02 (00:36):
Deliberation Day is finally here.
The eight men and four women whomake up the jury in the federal
case against Sean Diddy Combshave a decision to make.
Guilty or or not guilty?
That is the question.
Hello, everyone, and welcome tothe I Am That Reporter podcast,
the Diddy Trial edition.
(00:57):
My name is Jerika Duncan, andI'm a CBS News national
correspondent and anchor of theCBS Weekend News.
If you've been following thisstory, and I imagine you have
been if you're listening to thispodcast, then you know that 2023
was not a good year for Combs.
First of all, he went after theworld's most powerful liquor
brand that summer, accusingDiageo, who he had a partnership
(01:20):
with, of discrimination.
By November of 2023, he waspresented with a lawsuit from
his ex-girlfriend, CassieVentura.
He settled for$20 million.
In March of 2024, HomelandSecurity officials raided two of
his homes.
And by September of that sameyear, Sean Combs was arrested on
(01:41):
sex trafficking charges.
Here's one of the first reportsthat I filed about his arrest.
SPEAKER_03 (01:47):
The
SPEAKER_02 (01:49):
legal troubles for longtime entertainment mogul
Sean Diddy Combs have beenbuilding for months, including
allegations of sexualmisconduct, abuse and violence.
Now the iconic rapper andproducer is in custody in New
York City in connection to anongoing investigation by
Homeland Security.
The charges were not immediatelyknown, but the hip hop star has
(02:11):
been the subject of a monthslong federal probe led by HSI
since last year.
In March, we saw these dramaticscenes unfold where agents
raided his homes in L.A.
and Miami in connection to apossible sex trafficking probe.
CBS News legal contributorJessica Levinson.
SPEAKER_03 (02:28):
This type of months-long delay is not unheard
of.
So you execute a search warrantand then you spend a lot of time
going through all the evidenceto determine if there's enough
there to bring charges.
SPEAKER_02 (02:40):
The three-time Grammy winner became the subject
of disturbing accusationsstarting in November when his
Former girlfriend Cassie Venturafiled an explosive lawsuit
alleging Combs raped, physicallyabused, and sex trafficked her
during their relationship.
The two settled the next daywith Combs denying any
wrongdoing.
But in May, disturbingsurveillance video surfaced of
(03:03):
Combs violently assaultingVentura.
Since November, Combs has beenhit with several more lawsuits
with similar accusations, all ofwhich he has denied.
In a statement, Combs' attorneysaid in part, he is an imperfect
person but is not a criminal,adding he has been cooperative
with this investigation andvoluntarily relocated to New
(03:24):
York last week in anticipationof these charges.
SPEAKER_03 (03:28):
If there was, in fact, a conviction on federal
sex trafficking and orracketeering, you could see a
sentence that is in the doubledigits.
You wouldn't be looking atsomething like parole.
SPEAKER_02 (03:43):
So once again, we're waiting for that indictment to
be unsealed.
It could happen at any momentnow.
And something else important toknow, Anne-Marie, that we've
learned from sources is thatwhile there is no connection
between R.
Kelly and Sean Diddy Combs,Homeland Security Investigations
took the lead in that caseregarding R.
Kelly, also taking the lead inthis case.
(04:06):
There are some similarities whenyou look at sexual assault
accusations and racketeering,possibly.
We will, of course, know whenthat That document is unsealed
and bring it to you as soon aswe hear the very latest.
But again, no connection.
But it's interesting that bothof those cases headed up by the
Homeland SecurityInvestigations, we're just
learning that from sources.
SPEAKER_04 (04:26):
Yeah, that gives us a tiny little hint as to what he
might be facing.
Jerika, thank you so much.
Yeah, very serious.
SPEAKER_02 (04:33):
And because Combs was denied bail several times,
he remained behind bars.
And for the last seven weeks, Iand many others have sat through
hours and hours of testimony.
Over 30 people took the stand.
When it was the defense's turn,they decided not to call any
witnesses.
Well, this past week, both sidesmade their final plea to the men
(04:56):
and women who could have thefinal say.
So you can better understandeach side's arguments.
I want to read you a portion ofboth the government's and the
defense's closing remarks.
Assistant U.S.
Attorney Kristi Slavik speaks onbehalf of the government.
She starts her arguments offlike this.
(05:16):
Over the last several weeks,you've learned a lot about Sean
Combs.
He's the leader of a criminalenterprise.
He doesn't take no for ananswer.
And now you know about manycrimes the defendant committed
with members of his enterprise.
Kidnapping of one of thedefendant's employees.
Arson by trying to blow up acar.
forced labor, including of anemployee and the defendant
(05:37):
repeatedly sexually assaulted,bribery of a security officer to
keep damning evidence againstthe defendant buried, and of
course, the brutal crimes at theheart of this case, sex
trafficking.
You heard all about how thedefendant again and again
forced, threatened, andmanipulated Cassie and Jane into
having sex with escorts for hisown entertainment.
(06:00):
Across all these crimes, thesame thing was true.
The defendant used power,violence, and fear to get what
he wanted.
Dozens of witnesses agreed.
He doesn't take no for ananswer.
For now, I want to focus on twospecific moments that we're
going to come back to in detaillater.
Two moments eight years apart,but shockingly similar.
(06:22):
The first, March 16th, at theIntercontinental Hotel during a
freak-off with Cassie and anescort.
The defendant got violent withCassie.
Cassie tried to flee.
She ran out of the hotel roomwithout shoes on.
You saw what happened.
The defendant threw her to theground.
He dragged her back to thefreak-off.
The second, 2024, at Jane'shouse, the defendant and Jane
(06:46):
got into a fight.
It got physical.
The defendant kicked, choked,and slapped Jane.
She ran away from him into herbackyard.
She couldn't get away.
He dragged her back to the houseby her hair, and then he forced
her into a freak-off.
He wouldn't take no for ananswer.
These two incidents areseparated by eight years, but
(07:08):
they're not separate stories.
They're chapters in the samebook, the story of Sean Combs
and the criminal enterprise heled made up of his inner circle.
Again and again, that criminalenterprise serviced the
defendant's every desire througha methodical pattern of
violence, coercion, andmanipulation.
(07:28):
The defendant counted on silenceand shame to keep his crimes
hidden.
He thought that his fame,wealth, and power put him above
the law.
But over the course of thistrial, his crimes have been
exposed.
Over the last seven weeks,you've realized how he managed
to do this all.
The members of his close innercircle and a small army of
(07:49):
personal staff who made it theirmission to meet the defendant's
every desire, promote his power,and protect his reputation at
all costs.
No one could stop him, and hemanaged to do this for two
decades because he used hisinner circle, his money, and his
influence to cover up hiscrimes.
He wouldn't take no for ananswer.
(08:10):
So that is how the governmentstarts off their argument.
They're presenting slides to thejurors so they can see this on a
screen, and they start offexplaining that Combs is the
leader of a criminal enterprise.
But when you listen to how thedefense started their closing
arguments, as expected, very,very different.
(08:35):
Mark Agnifilo argued on behalfof the defense.
He starts off saying, Goodmorning, everybody.
This trial is a tale of twotrials.
It is a trial told from themouths of witnesses.
It is the trial told from thetext messages.
There's the trial told from thevideos.
In a word, there's a trialthat's told in the evidence.
(08:57):
That's one trial.
The second trial is a verydifferent trial.
The second trial is the trial astold from the mouths of the
prosecutors.
And the trial told from themouths of the prosecutors is
very different.
Nothing like the trial told fromthe evidence.
Now that you've heard theevidence, I'm going to ask you
to reach certain conclusions.
(09:19):
The first conclusion I'm goingto ask you to reach is that this
case is badly, badlyexaggerated.
It's made up in a word.
From the mouths of thewitnesses, from the evidence,
from the text messages, what doyou see?
What is that trial?
What's the trial of evidence?
It's personal use drugs.
(09:40):
That's what it is.
That's just what it is.
It's nothing else.
What's the trial of theevidence?
The trial of the evidence is alifestyle.
You want to call it swingers?
You want to call it threesomes?
Whatever you want to call it.
That's what it is.
That's what the evidence shows.
That is not what the prosecutorsare saying to you.
(10:02):
The prosecutors have charged oneof the most serious,
complicated, comprehensivestatutes on the books.
They have charged personal usedrugs and threesomes as
racketeering.
That is the other trial.
That, I submit to you, is thefalse trial.
That is the exaggerated trial.
That is not the real trial.
(10:25):
Let's talk for a second aboutwhat the evidence shows about
Sean Combs.
Sean Combs has become somethingthat is very, very hard to
become, very hard to be.
He is a self-made, successfulBlack entrepreneur.
I don't know how many there are.
I hope there are tens ofthousands.
I don't think there are, buthe's one of them.
(10:46):
He's one of them.
And he's done something that'svery, very hard to do.
He has built wonderful,sophisticated, real businesses.
that have stood the test oftime, businesses that are so
outstanding that other, larger,more established businesses
create business relationshipswith him.
This case is about five things.
(11:08):
I submit to you, none of whichis racketeering, none of which
is sex trafficking, none ofwhich is conspiracy.
Five things.
It's about love.
I know you guys are keeping likenotes in your pad.
If you're keeping really, reallygood notes, you will know that
the word love has been spoken atthis trial 881 times.
(11:30):
This trial is about love.
This trial is about jealousy, somuch jealousy.
It's about infidelity.
It's about money.
One of the things my colleague,Ms.
Garagos has said, she said it inthe opening and we own it, the
domestic violence.
We own it.
Again, that was the beginningportion of the government and
(11:53):
the defense's closing arguments.
As always, I like to recap whatCombs is facing.
And just a reminder, it's fivefelony counts, which include
racketeering conspiracy, twocounts of sex trafficking by
force, fraud, and coercion, andtwo counts of transportation to
engage in prostitution.
According to the government,Combs abused, threatened, and
(12:16):
coerced women and others aroundhim for decades, they say, to
fulfill his sexual desires,protect his reputation, and
conceal his conduct.
Combs has denied any wrongdoing,and as you probably know by now,
he has pleaded not guilty to allof the charges.
(12:44):
So we have a very special guesttoday, Renato Stabile.
He is an attorney based here inNew York, and he's also a jury
consultant.
So thank you so much for joiningus, Renato.
SPEAKER_05 (12:55):
Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_02 (12:57):
So first and foremost, for context, Linda
Moreno was part of the defenseteam during the process of
picking a jury.
Explain to our listeners who sheis and why these defense
attorneys rely sometimes on juryconsultants.
SPEAKER_05 (13:13):
Yeah, so Linda Moreno is a fairly well-known
and certainly highly experiencedjury consultant.
She's also a lawyer and not alljury consultants are, but she
is.
And so she tries her own cases,but she's also a jury
consultant.
As am I, I'm an attorney also,right?
So in these high profile cases,it is, I would say, almost
(13:37):
standard at this point.
to have a jury consultant.
So I think any high profilecases, you're gonna have that.
This jury selection, justbecause of who Sean Combs is,
was unusual.
And what I mean by that is thejury selection took two weeks.
They had an extensive writtenquestionnaire.
(13:57):
There was extensive individualquestioning of each juror.
That is highly unusual.
It's highly unusual.
It's so unusual.
You know, most defendants infederal court and people should
know this.
Your jury selection is a day ifyou're lucky.
I mean, sometimes it's over inthe morning and the lawyers are
(14:20):
giving opening statements afterlunch, which I think is terrible
and a disgrace considering thejury selection is arguably the
most important part of the case.
These people are going to decideyour fate.
And a lot of times it getsrushed in this case.
And in most high profile cases,because of the media attention,
because of the prominence of thedefendant, it's much longer.
(14:42):
So, you know, did he already gota jury selection that nobody
else really gets?
Good for him.
He deserves it.
But I just think more criminaldefense defendants deserve it.
SPEAKER_02 (14:56):
When I looked over at Moreno, I noticed during the
closing summation, she lookedvery pleased.
The two rows for the Combsfamily were filled with friends
and family, of course.
And one person, I noticed thatshaking her head and smiling,
like, see, it was clear thatthis was the moment they had
been waiting for in terms ofbeing able to argue the points
(15:18):
that the prosecution has laidout.
What does that tell us?
Because I feel like so much ofjury consulting is Not just
listening to the words, but alsolooking at people's body
language and how they react andhow they respond to different
things.
SPEAKER_05 (15:33):
Yeah.
So, I mean, there are someconsultants that believe a lot
in body language and trying toread facial expressions and sort
of pick up on little micro cues.
I don't do that.
I've never pretended that I'mgood at reading body language.
I'm not sure how many peoplereally are.
(15:53):
I think the real key in juryselection these days is doing
your research.
And what I mean by that is,yeah, you get the written
questionnaire and you get thevoir dire, but there's a lot of
background research that goes onon these people, especially when
you have two weeks.
So I think the defense,especially because they had a
jury consultant, but probablythe prosecution also have had
(16:15):
people doing backgroundresearch, trying to figure out.
You see, juror number six gotbooted, apparently because the
prosecution did some researchand started to question whether
he lived in the Bronx, which iswithin the Southern District of
New York, the federal districtwhere this case was.
And then he equivocated on hisanswers.
He said, well, I moved to Jerseyand New Jersey is not within the
(16:36):
Southern District of New York.
So he was out of venue and hewasn't allowed to sit on the
jury.
And he got booted from the caseand, you know, replaced by the
first alternate.
SPEAKER_02 (16:45):
Yeah.
And they said it was lack ofcandor in terms of his ability
to be truthful and honest.
And I mean, have you ever had towork on a trial that was that
high level that you wonder howmany of these jurors are looking
to write a book after this or bea consultant for a movie, things
(17:06):
like that?
SPEAKER_05 (17:06):
Yeah, we call them stealth jurors, people that come
in with an agenda.
And it could be one way or theother.
You know, it could be people whocome in, and I think the defense
is hoping that they have dittysupporters who or people that
maybe grew up with him in the90s and really like his music.
And maybe they're going toreally give him, of course,
(17:28):
every defendant is entitled tothe benefit of the doubt.
I think the presumption ofinnocence is, quite frankly, an
illusion.
I think most jurors presume thatif you're sitting in that chair,
you must have done something.
So I think the defense is reallyhoping that they have people
that are going to really GiveDiddy the presumption of
innocence.
(17:48):
But in any high profile case,you're worried about these
stealth jurors, people that comein with an agenda.
And like you said, maybe theywant to write a book.
Maybe they want to dointerviews.
Maybe they want to do all kindsof things.
And so both sides are on thelookout for that.
SPEAKER_02 (18:03):
You mentioned this briefly at the top, but describe
that process a little bit morein detail with each person, each
side getting these strikes orhaving various reasons as to why
they should not sit on the juryand even the judge sometimes
dismissing people.
I noticed there were languagebarriers for some of them.
There were concerns about theirmental health.
(18:26):
One woman said that, you know,she gets basically sick off of
the sight or sound of, you know,hearing sexual assault type of
thing.
She went back to something thathappened to her in middle
school.
She said she fainted.
I mean, there were some reallyinteresting sort of stories that
came out of that process, andthere were so many jurors that
they did question, and we werethere for part of that.
SPEAKER_05 (18:49):
Yeah, well, it's New York City, so you get a wide,
wide variety of people, but thisis typical.
In high profile criminal cases,especially criminal cases,
people get very nervous.
It is the pressure of the momentgets them.
I've seen jurors cry, you know,saying they just didn't think
that they could handle itmentally.
(19:09):
And people can get dismissed fortwo reasons.
One, for cause.
So either they say, I know toomuch about the case.
I can't be fair and impartial.
I've seen the video.
I'm disgusted by it.
I don't think I can give him afair shake here.
And of course, they have to bedismissed.
Some people will say, look, Idon't think my mental health
will survive this trial.
(19:29):
They can get dismissed.
And some people just havevacations, doctor's
appointments, surgeries,weddings, all kinds of things.
So those are all the causereasons, right, where people
might get dismissed.
But then you also have what arecalled peremptory challenges.
So Defense gets 10, prosecutiongets six.
And those are challenges thatcan be exercised for any reason,
(19:50):
including did he can turn to hislawyers and just say, I don't
like how that juror was lookingat me.
SPEAKER_02 (19:56):
Why does the defense get 10?
SPEAKER_05 (19:58):
Because the defense, you know, quite frankly, I don't
know why the defense gets them.
It's by rule.
So it's by statute.
I mean, that's what the statutegives.
SPEAKER_02 (20:09):
Is the idea that because the burden of proof is
on the prosecution, it sort ofgives the defense a little bit
more leeway when it comes topicking a jury that they think
would be fair and impartial?
SPEAKER_05 (20:19):
Yeah, it does.
I mean, but, you know, in civilcases, the burden of proof is on
the plaintiff and you get threeand three.
So it is by rule.
It is by statute that thedefense gets 10.
Also, you do have sometimesmultiple defendant cases.
And so when you haveco-defendants, you don't get
more than 10.
(20:40):
So if there were two defendants,three defendants, five
defendants, you would still onlyget 10.
The court has discretion to giveyou more.
But by rule, you are notentitled to more.
SPEAKER_02 (20:50):
Got it.
So the jury is made up of eightmen.
and four women, there are threeblack women, a woman that
appears to be of Latin descent.
Then there is a black man and aman who again, to me, looks
Indian, like Southeast Asian.
How important is that?
Because even when juror six wasdismissed and the defense argued
(21:14):
questions about having diversityand sort of acknowledging this
was probably one of the mostdiverse juries that they've
seen, How important is it tohave that makeup that I just
outlined?
SPEAKER_05 (21:27):
Well, look, I don't think that this case
fundamentally centers on race,right?
This is not a civil rights case.
This is not sort of a policebrutality case.
But the defense has certainlytried to insinuate that Diddy is
being prosecuted because he's ablack man and that there is some
racial overtones to this.
(21:47):
And so I do think it's importantto have that diversity on the
jury because it's It's probablybeen telegraphed enough.
(22:11):
You know, they've never heard ofa prosecution like this against
a celebrity.
And he's a black celebrity.
So I think it is a factor.
I mean, look, I represented IrvGotti many, many years ago in
his criminal case in Brooklyn.
He was fully acquitted.
But I do think the jurors therealso were thinking about why was
(22:34):
the government going after thesetwo brothers, Irvin Criscotti
from Money Laundering?
And I think it was a turnoff tothem because the evidence was
kind of weak.
And so I think that's what thedefense is hoping for here.
And the racial makeup will havesome of the jurors maybe
wondering, is there some sort ofracial motivation behind all of
(22:54):
this?
SPEAKER_02 (22:55):
All the defense needs is one juror to have
doubt.
For this to be a hung jury inwhich it would result in a
mistrial, which means we couldbe back here all over again,
correct?
SPEAKER_05 (23:08):
That could be.
We will be because I'm sure theprosecution will try this again
if there's a mistrial.
But yeah, that's exactly right.
You know, in a criminal defensecase, a mistrial is considered a
win because the conviction ratein federal court, especially
here in the Southern District ofNew York, it's probably 99%.
I mean, statistically speaking,he has about a 1% chance of
(23:31):
getting acquitted.
So the defense is definitelyhoping for that one holdout
juror who just says, you knowwhat, I'm not doing this, and
that's enough.
SPEAKER_02 (23:41):
I know you said you're not into paying attention
to body language, but I can tellyou that there was a juror that
myself and my colleagues havewatched look as though when
certain witnesses weretestifying, they had questions.
Again, if you could, just whenyou have that one person that
(24:05):
even people who are novices andthey're not experts, but you can
see that they seem frustrated orpossibly not believing
everything that they're hearing,what is it like for that juror
if they have already sort ofmade up their mind How likely is
it for them to be influenced bythe other jurors when they are
(24:25):
able to talk about the case,where they are able to go
through what the judge tellsthem?
This is the letter of the law.
This is how you follow and findsomeone guilty or not guilty of
said crime.
SPEAKER_05 (24:37):
What I would be looking for, if I detect that
there's one juror who reallyseems to be skeptical of the
government's case, one tip isthat you watch the jurors enter
the courtroom.
and you see who that juror isspeaking with as they walk in.
So when the jurors leave thecourtroom, they typically walk
(24:58):
out in the same order.
Like the first row will walk outfollowed by the second row.
When they walk back in, theyoften do not walk in in that
order.
They will walk in often infriend groups.
And so you will see which jurorsare chit chatting with each
other as they walk back into thecourtroom.
I'd be very curious to see ifthat one juror is bonding with
(25:20):
any of the other jurors.
Because if that juror seems tobe not ever speaking to anybody
and seems to be off on theirown, then I think it's more
likely that they will just be aholdout.
Whereas if they've bonded withother jurors, they may feel some
compulsion that, look, ifeverybody's voting guilty, I'm
not going to hold this up andI'm going to go along with it.
SPEAKER_02 (25:42):
When you look at the charges and the evidence, keep
in mind that RICO charge, whichyou know is the most serious,
it's very broad.
And jurors only have to findCombs committed two elements of
the larger racketeeringconspiracy to find him guilty.
And of course, that he wasleading a criminal enterprise.
Based on what you've read, basedon what you know, do you think
(26:04):
Combs will be convicted on thatracketeering conspiracy?
SPEAKER_05 (26:07):
So I think the racketeering conspiracy, if
there's any charge that he'sgoing to be acquitted on, it
would be that charge.
Why?
Well, because I just think thereare two other charges that are
much easier for the jurors toreach a conclusion on.
And I just think the RICOenterprise, I mean, RICO, as you
know, is typically a statutereserved for gangs, MS-13, the
(26:32):
Crips, the Bloods, the ItalianMafia.
Those are typically what you seeas RICO enterprises.
So it's pretty unusual to chargea legitimate business and his
record label, even theprosecution admits it's
basically a legitimate businessthat they claim he co-opted for
criminal purposes.
(26:54):
So I just think it's so unusual.
There's certainly enoughevidence there for them to
convict him on RICO.
But keep in mind, if somebodywants to compromise in the jury
room, That's the one where theycan say, well, look, I'll go
along with the sex trafficking,but I'm not convicting him on
RICO.
But as a practical matter, andthe jurors don't know this, as a
(27:14):
practical matter, it won't makeany difference.
Because if Diddy is convicted onany of the charges, I believe he
is facing a very long prisonsentence, possibly an effective
life sentence.
SPEAKER_02 (27:28):
Do you see him at all being convicted on the
prostitution, the transportationfor the purposes of
prostitution?
but then being acquitted on theother two or actually other four
counts?
SPEAKER_05 (27:39):
Yeah, I mean, I could see a compromise verdict
here.
That's what we would call acompromise verdict where the
jurors decided, you know, we'renot convinced on all these
charges and on the weakercharge, on the Rico charge, they
acquit him.
That's why as a criminal defenseattorney, when you have these
(28:00):
multiple charges, that's whatyou're really, really concerned
about.
Because again, the jurors mightthink that they're giving the
defense something by acquittinghim on some of the charges.
But practically speaking, from asentencing perspective, it does
not make any difference.
SPEAKER_02 (28:17):
So one of our legal experts, who's also a reporter,
Katrina Kaufman, broke down forme, the racketeering conspiracy,
she said, is a maximum sentenceof life in prison.
Sex trafficking by force, fraud,or coercion is a mandatory
minimum of 15 years in prison.
But that that transportation toengage in prostitution has a max
(28:38):
of 10 years in prison.
SPEAKER_05 (28:40):
Well, he could be, I mean, on any of the charges, he
could be sentenced to probation.
There's no mandatory minimumshere, but he will-
SPEAKER_02 (28:52):
Oh, really?
He could be sentenced toprobation on a racketeering
conspiracy charge?
SPEAKER_05 (28:56):
I mean, theoretically, he could be, but
that's not gonna happen.
He could be, so there aresentencing guidelines.
So his guidelines are gonna be,I don't know what they are, but
I'm sure they're gonna beabsolutely through the roof And
I don't see him getting lessthan 10 years, regardless if
he's
SPEAKER_02 (29:15):
convicted on any of these counts, even if it's just
one.
SPEAKER_05 (29:18):
Yeah, for sure.
I think I, you know, if I had aguess, I think he's looking at
at least 15 years, maybe 20years if he's convicted on
anything.
SPEAKER_02 (29:27):
Now that it's in the hands of the jury, what's
happening behind the scenes?
UNKNOWN (29:34):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_05 (29:34):
Um, right.
So I think, you know, just fromwatching and not real jurors,
but certainly we run a lot ofmock jury tests and I wouldn't
be surprised if the defense ransome sort of mock jury
simulation in this case.
But typically what happens isthey'll go into the room and
they'll take a baseline vote.
They'll, they'll probably justgo around and say, look, do
(29:56):
people know where they arealready?
And they'll just see like wherethey are right on day one.
I imagine that, you know, Idon't think 12 hands are going
to go up for guilty right away.
I think some people are going tosay, look, I'm a little bit, I
want to hear a little bit moreabout this or that.
I want to look at the juryinstructions.
SPEAKER_02 (30:14):
So you think it'll literally be that public?
Like people will announce howthey're feeling as opposed to
like writing it down and thensome leader of the group reads
what they think?
everybody's feeling in the room?
Because I think, don't you thinkpeople would be like a little
nervous at first?
Or is it a feeling of like,we're ready?
Look, we're in this together, soyou may as well know where
everybody stands?
SPEAKER_05 (30:34):
Well, they're not strangers to each other at this
point.
They have certainly formedbonds.
I wouldn't be surprised if someof these jurors are going to
stay in touch for years andyears after this experience.
So they're absolutely notstrangers.
They know each other pretty wellbecause of all the time they've
spent together.
So I think...
They are comfortable sayingwhere they are, and that's just
(30:56):
a practical way of starting offdeliberations that we see all
the time, that people will goaround.
Or maybe they'll just go aroundthe entire table.
They'll elect a foreperson.
So I don't know who thatforeperson is going to be.
I don't know who's the mostdominant personality in there,
but that person will be incharge of leading the
(31:17):
discussions.
They don't have any more powerthan anybody else, but that
person will typically write thenotes to the court if they need
readbacks or they want to seesome evidence.
They're going to have a laptop,so they're going to have all of
the evidence on a laptop if theywant to review it.
But they might seekclarification on some of the
legal instructions that they'vereceived.
(31:38):
But I do think they're going totake some sort of baseline and
then go from there.
SPEAKER_02 (31:42):
How influential is that foreperson in this trial?
SPEAKER_05 (31:46):
so the four person can be quite influential
depending on how strong theirpersonality is but i'll note
that you have a lot of highlyeducated people on this jury you
have a phd level molecularbiologist you have an investment
analyst now you have anarchitect so i would suspect
that it's going to be one ofthose people will be the four
(32:08):
person and if they have verystrong opinions even though
technically they don't have anymore power than any other juror,
they could rally the otherjurors around whatever position
they're taking.
SPEAKER_02 (32:22):
The deliberation is happening the week of July 4th.
We know a lot of folks are readyto get back to their lives,
ready to celebrate the holiday.
Does that at all affect howquickly they will come with a
decision, do you think?
SPEAKER_05 (32:36):
Absolutely.
You know, as a defense lawyer,you don't like jurors to start
deliberating on a Friday becausethey sort of have an incentive
to rush through it, to get outof there and go back to their
lives on Monday.
This has been a long trial.
They have put their lives onhold and done a service to the
(33:01):
courts for being there for weeksand weeks and weeks.
But you better believe this isnot going to go past tomorrow.
July 4th weekend.
I do not believe.
I think we will have a verdictby Thursday.
July 4th is on Friday.
I don't think anybody's lookingto come back after the July 4th
weekend.
So I'm pretty confident we'regoing to have either a verdict
(33:23):
or an indication that they areunable to reach a verdict,
certainly this week.
SPEAKER_02 (33:28):
Renato Stabile, thank you so much for breaking
down what these jurors are goingthrough right now and the
process.
Now we wait and see whathappens.
SPEAKER_05 (33:37):
Thanks a lot for
SPEAKER_02 (33:39):
having me.
And one more thing.
Thank you all for listening.
I truly appreciate it.
And thank you to my producer,Scott Riggs.
I called him eight weeks agowith a crazy idea to start a
podcast a week before the trialbecause I realized there was
much more content and nuance tothis story that cannot be
captured by quick social mediaclips or a one minute and 45
(34:01):
second story on the network.
And thank you to my father,Ronnie Andrew Duncan, who
connected me to the graphicdesigner, sports rap CEO for the
logo, which he said I could usein perpetuity.
Thank you to my brother, JoshuaDuncan, for picking out the
music.
And thank you to CBS, whichallowed me the freedom to try
(34:21):
something new.
And a special thank you to thepeople in my life who are always
supportive of my ideas, but alsohave the sense enough to tell me
when this is over, Sit your assdown and rest.
No, really, that's what peoplehave been saying.
And I will.
I thank you so much forlistening.
(34:42):
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
the next one.
Until then, have a blessed day.
Hopefully we'll see you backhere once again.
(35:03):
If you enjoy this podcast andwant to help, please, please,
please spread the word.
Tell your friends, tell yourfamily, encourage them to
listen.
You can also follow Rate andReview on Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.
And just like Uber, five starreviews are very much
(35:24):
appreciated.
Just came to support my brother, that's all, you know
what I mean?
Just give him the support andthe love he need, you know what
I mean?
Had he been put on, he need realpeople around him, you know what
I'm saying?
Real love.
SPEAKER_01 (00:14):
What do I think about the statements from the
ladies?
I would say that, okay, yeah,some of the things were
disgusting and wrong, but at theend of the day, I feel like they
still played a part in it.
It wasn't just him alone.
SPEAKER_02 (00:36):
Deliberation Day is finally here.
The eight men and four women whomake up the jury in the federal
case against Sean Diddy Combshave a decision to make.
Guilty or or not guilty?
That is the question.
Hello, everyone, and welcome tothe I Am That Reporter podcast,
the Diddy Trial edition.
(00:57):
My name is Jerika Duncan, andI'm a CBS News national
correspondent and anchor of theCBS Weekend News.
If you've been following thisstory, and I imagine you have
been if you're listening to thispodcast, then you know that 2023
was not a good year for Combs.
First of all, he went after theworld's most powerful liquor
brand that summer, accusingDiageo, who he had a partnership
(01:20):
with, of discrimination.
By November of 2023, he waspresented with a lawsuit from
his ex-girlfriend, CassieVentura.
He settled for$20 million.
In March of 2024, HomelandSecurity officials raided two of
his homes.
And by September of that sameyear, Sean Combs was arrested on
(01:41):
sex trafficking charges.
Here's one of the first reportsthat I filed about his arrest.
SPEAKER_03 (01:47):
The
SPEAKER_02 (01:49):
legal troubles for longtime entertainment mogul
Sean Diddy Combs have beenbuilding for months, including
allegations of sexualmisconduct, abuse and violence.
Now the iconic rapper andproducer is in custody in New
York City in connection to anongoing investigation by
Homeland Security.
The charges were not immediatelyknown, but the hip hop star has
(02:11):
been the subject of a monthslong federal probe led by HSI
since last year.
In March, we saw these dramaticscenes unfold where agents
raided his homes in L.A.
and Miami in connection to apossible sex trafficking probe.
CBS News legal contributorJessica Levinson.
SPEAKER_03 (02:28):
This type of months-long delay is not unheard
of.
So you execute a search warrantand then you spend a lot of time
going through all the evidenceto determine if there's enough
there to bring charges.
SPEAKER_02 (02:40):
The three-time Grammy winner became the subject
of disturbing accusationsstarting in November when his
Former girlfriend Cassie Venturafiled an explosive lawsuit
alleging Combs raped, physicallyabused, and sex trafficked her
during their relationship.
The two settled the next daywith Combs denying any
wrongdoing.
But in May, disturbingsurveillance video surfaced of
(03:03):
Combs violently assaultingVentura.
Since November, Combs has beenhit with several more lawsuits
with similar accusations, all ofwhich he has denied.
In a statement, Combs' attorneysaid in part, he is an imperfect
person but is not a criminal,adding he has been cooperative
with this investigation andvoluntarily relocated to New
(03:24):
York last week in anticipationof these charges.
SPEAKER_03 (03:28):
If there was, in fact, a conviction on federal
sex trafficking and orracketeering, you could see a
sentence that is in the doubledigits.
You wouldn't be looking atsomething like parole.
SPEAKER_02 (03:43):
So once again, we're waiting for that indictment to
be unsealed.
It could happen at any momentnow.
And something else important toknow, Anne-Marie, that we've
learned from sources is thatwhile there is no connection
between R.
Kelly and Sean Diddy Combs,Homeland Security Investigations
took the lead in that caseregarding R.
Kelly, also taking the lead inthis case.
(04:06):
There are some similarities whenyou look at sexual assault
accusations and racketeering,possibly.
We will, of course, know whenthat That document is unsealed
and bring it to you as soon aswe hear the very latest.
But again, no connection.
But it's interesting that bothof those cases headed up by the
Homeland SecurityInvestigations, we're just
learning that from sources.
SPEAKER_04 (04:26):
Yeah, that gives us a tiny little hint as to what he
might be facing.
Jerika, thank you so much.
Yeah, very serious.
SPEAKER_02 (04:33):
And because Combs was denied bail several times,
he remained behind bars.
And for the last seven weeks, Iand many others have sat through
hours and hours of testimony.
Over 30 people took the stand.
When it was the defense's turn,they decided not to call any
witnesses.
Well, this past week, both sidesmade their final plea to the men
(04:56):
and women who could have thefinal say.
So you can better understandeach side's arguments.
I want to read you a portion ofboth the government's and the
defense's closing remarks.
Assistant U.S.
Attorney Kristi Slavik speaks onbehalf of the government.
She starts her arguments offlike this.
(05:16):
Over the last several weeks,you've learned a lot about Sean
Combs.
He's the leader of a criminalenterprise.
He doesn't take no for ananswer.
And now you know about manycrimes the defendant committed
with members of his enterprise.
Kidnapping of one of thedefendant's employees.
Arson by trying to blow up acar.
forced labor, including of anemployee and the defendant
(05:37):
repeatedly sexually assaulted,bribery of a security officer to
keep damning evidence againstthe defendant buried, and of
course, the brutal crimes at theheart of this case, sex
trafficking.
You heard all about how thedefendant again and again
forced, threatened, andmanipulated Cassie and Jane into
having sex with escorts for hisown entertainment.
(06:00):
Across all these crimes, thesame thing was true.
The defendant used power,violence, and fear to get what
he wanted.
Dozens of witnesses agreed.
He doesn't take no for ananswer.
For now, I want to focus on twospecific moments that we're
going to come back to in detaillater.
Two moments eight years apart,but shockingly similar.
(06:22):
The first, March 16th, at theIntercontinental Hotel during a
freak-off with Cassie and anescort.
The defendant got violent withCassie.
Cassie tried to flee.
She ran out of the hotel roomwithout shoes on.
You saw what happened.
The defendant threw her to theground.
He dragged her back to thefreak-off.
The second, 2024, at Jane'shouse, the defendant and Jane
(06:46):
got into a fight.
It got physical.
The defendant kicked, choked,and slapped Jane.
She ran away from him into herbackyard.
She couldn't get away.
He dragged her back to the houseby her hair, and then he forced
her into a freak-off.
He wouldn't take no for ananswer.
These two incidents areseparated by eight years, but
(07:08):
they're not separate stories.
They're chapters in the samebook, the story of Sean Combs
and the criminal enterprise heled made up of his inner circle.
Again and again, that criminalenterprise serviced the
defendant's every desire througha methodical pattern of
violence, coercion, andmanipulation.
(07:28):
The defendant counted on silenceand shame to keep his crimes
hidden.
He thought that his fame,wealth, and power put him above
the law.
But over the course of thistrial, his crimes have been
exposed.
Over the last seven weeks,you've realized how he managed
to do this all.
The members of his close innercircle and a small army of
(07:49):
personal staff who made it theirmission to meet the defendant's
every desire, promote his power,and protect his reputation at
all costs.
No one could stop him, and hemanaged to do this for two
decades because he used hisinner circle, his money, and his
influence to cover up hiscrimes.
He wouldn't take no for ananswer.
(08:10):
So that is how the governmentstarts off their argument.
They're presenting slides to thejurors so they can see this on a
screen, and they start offexplaining that Combs is the
leader of a criminal enterprise.
But when you listen to how thedefense started their closing
arguments, as expected, very,very different.
(08:35):
Mark Agnifilo argued on behalfof the defense.
He starts off saying, Goodmorning, everybody.
This trial is a tale of twotrials.
It is a trial told from themouths of witnesses.
It is the trial told from thetext messages.
There's the trial told from thevideos.
In a word, there's a trialthat's told in the evidence.
(08:57):
That's one trial.
The second trial is a verydifferent trial.
The second trial is the trial astold from the mouths of the
prosecutors.
And the trial told from themouths of the prosecutors is
very different.
Nothing like the trial told fromthe evidence.
Now that you've heard theevidence, I'm going to ask you
to reach certain conclusions.
(09:19):
The first conclusion I'm goingto ask you to reach is that this
case is badly, badlyexaggerated.
It's made up in a word.
From the mouths of thewitnesses, from the evidence,
from the text messages, what doyou see?
What is that trial?
What's the trial of evidence?
It's personal use drugs.
(09:40):
That's what it is.
That's just what it is.
It's nothing else.
What's the trial of theevidence?
The trial of the evidence is alifestyle.
You want to call it swingers?
You want to call it threesomes?
Whatever you want to call it.
That's what it is.
That's what the evidence shows.
That is not what the prosecutorsare saying to you.
(10:02):
The prosecutors have charged oneof the most serious,
complicated, comprehensivestatutes on the books.
They have charged personal usedrugs and threesomes as
racketeering.
That is the other trial.
That, I submit to you, is thefalse trial.
That is the exaggerated trial.
That is not the real trial.
(10:25):
Let's talk for a second aboutwhat the evidence shows about
Sean Combs.
Sean Combs has become somethingthat is very, very hard to
become, very hard to be.
He is a self-made, successfulBlack entrepreneur.
I don't know how many there are.
I hope there are tens ofthousands.
I don't think there are, buthe's one of them.
(10:46):
He's one of them.
And he's done something that'svery, very hard to do.
He has built wonderful,sophisticated, real businesses.
that have stood the test oftime, businesses that are so
outstanding that other, larger,more established businesses
create business relationshipswith him.
This case is about five things.
(11:08):
I submit to you, none of whichis racketeering, none of which
is sex trafficking, none ofwhich is conspiracy.
Five things.
It's about love.
I know you guys are keeping likenotes in your pad.
If you're keeping really, reallygood notes, you will know that
the word love has been spoken atthis trial 881 times.
(11:30):
This trial is about love.
This trial is about jealousy, somuch jealousy.
It's about infidelity.
It's about money.
One of the things my colleague,Ms.
Garagos has said, she said it inthe opening and we own it, the
domestic violence.
We own it.
Again, that was the beginningportion of the government and
(11:53):
the defense's closing arguments.
As always, I like to recap whatCombs is facing.
And just a reminder, it's fivefelony counts, which include
racketeering conspiracy, twocounts of sex trafficking by
force, fraud, and coercion, andtwo counts of transportation to
engage in prostitution.
According to the government,Combs abused, threatened, and
(12:16):
coerced women and others aroundhim for decades, they say, to
fulfill his sexual desires,protect his reputation, and
conceal his conduct.
Combs has denied any wrongdoing,and as you probably know by now,
he has pleaded not guilty to allof the charges.
(12:44):
So we have a very special guesttoday, Renato Stabile.
He is an attorney based here inNew York, and he's also a jury
consultant.
So thank you so much for joiningus, Renato.
SPEAKER_05 (12:55):
Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_02 (12:57):
So first and foremost, for context, Linda
Moreno was part of the defenseteam during the process of
picking a jury.
Explain to our listeners who sheis and why these defense
attorneys rely sometimes on juryconsultants.
SPEAKER_05 (13:13):
Yeah, so Linda Moreno is a fairly well-known
and certainly highly experiencedjury consultant.
She's also a lawyer and not alljury consultants are, but she
is.
And so she tries her own cases,but she's also a jury
consultant.
As am I, I'm an attorney also,right?
So in these high profile cases,it is, I would say, almost
(13:37):
standard at this point.
to have a jury consultant.
So I think any high profilecases, you're gonna have that.
This jury selection, justbecause of who Sean Combs is,
was unusual.
And what I mean by that is thejury selection took two weeks.
They had an extensive writtenquestionnaire.
(13:57):
There was extensive individualquestioning of each juror.
That is highly unusual.
It's highly unusual.
It's so unusual.
You know, most defendants infederal court and people should
know this.
Your jury selection is a day ifyou're lucky.
I mean, sometimes it's over inthe morning and the lawyers are
(14:20):
giving opening statements afterlunch, which I think is terrible
and a disgrace considering thejury selection is arguably the
most important part of the case.
These people are going to decideyour fate.
And a lot of times it getsrushed in this case.
And in most high profile cases,because of the media attention,
because of the prominence of thedefendant, it's much longer.
(14:42):
So, you know, did he already gota jury selection that nobody
else really gets?
Good for him.
He deserves it.
But I just think more criminaldefense defendants deserve it.
SPEAKER_02 (14:56):
When I looked over at Moreno, I noticed during the
closing summation, she lookedvery pleased.
The two rows for the Combsfamily were filled with friends
and family, of course.
And one person, I noticed thatshaking her head and smiling,
like, see, it was clear thatthis was the moment they had
been waiting for in terms ofbeing able to argue the points
(15:18):
that the prosecution has laidout.
What does that tell us?
Because I feel like so much ofjury consulting is Not just
listening to the words, but alsolooking at people's body
language and how they react andhow they respond to different
things.
SPEAKER_05 (15:33):
Yeah.
So, I mean, there are someconsultants that believe a lot
in body language and trying toread facial expressions and sort
of pick up on little micro cues.
I don't do that.
I've never pretended that I'mgood at reading body language.
I'm not sure how many peoplereally are.
(15:53):
I think the real key in juryselection these days is doing
your research.
And what I mean by that is,yeah, you get the written
questionnaire and you get thevoir dire, but there's a lot of
background research that goes onon these people, especially when
you have two weeks.
So I think the defense,especially because they had a
jury consultant, but probablythe prosecution also have had
(16:15):
people doing backgroundresearch, trying to figure out.
You see, juror number six gotbooted, apparently because the
prosecution did some researchand started to question whether
he lived in the Bronx, which iswithin the Southern District of
New York, the federal districtwhere this case was.
And then he equivocated on hisanswers.
He said, well, I moved to Jerseyand New Jersey is not within the
(16:36):
Southern District of New York.
So he was out of venue and hewasn't allowed to sit on the
jury.
And he got booted from the caseand, you know, replaced by the
first alternate.
SPEAKER_02 (16:45):
Yeah.
And they said it was lack ofcandor in terms of his ability
to be truthful and honest.
And I mean, have you ever had towork on a trial that was that
high level that you wonder howmany of these jurors are looking
to write a book after this or bea consultant for a movie, things
(17:06):
like that?
SPEAKER_05 (17:06):
Yeah, we call them stealth jurors, people that come
in with an agenda.
And it could be one way or theother.
You know, it could be people whocome in, and I think the defense
is hoping that they have dittysupporters who or people that
maybe grew up with him in the90s and really like his music.
And maybe they're going toreally give him, of course,
(17:28):
every defendant is entitled tothe benefit of the doubt.
I think the presumption ofinnocence is, quite frankly, an
illusion.
I think most jurors presume thatif you're sitting in that chair,
you must have done something.
So I think the defense is reallyhoping that they have people
that are going to really GiveDiddy the presumption of
innocence.
(17:48):
But in any high profile case,you're worried about these
stealth jurors, people that comein with an agenda.
And like you said, maybe theywant to write a book.
Maybe they want to dointerviews.
Maybe they want to do all kindsof things.
And so both sides are on thelookout for that.
SPEAKER_02 (18:03):
You mentioned this briefly at the top, but describe
that process a little bit morein detail with each person, each
side getting these strikes orhaving various reasons as to why
they should not sit on the juryand even the judge sometimes
dismissing people.
I noticed there were languagebarriers for some of them.
There were concerns about theirmental health.
(18:26):
One woman said that, you know,she gets basically sick off of
the sight or sound of, you know,hearing sexual assault type of
thing.
She went back to something thathappened to her in middle
school.
She said she fainted.
I mean, there were some reallyinteresting sort of stories that
came out of that process, andthere were so many jurors that
they did question, and we werethere for part of that.
SPEAKER_05 (18:49):
Yeah, well, it's New York City, so you get a wide,
wide variety of people, but thisis typical.
In high profile criminal cases,especially criminal cases,
people get very nervous.
It is the pressure of the momentgets them.
I've seen jurors cry, you know,saying they just didn't think
that they could handle itmentally.
(19:09):
And people can get dismissed fortwo reasons.
One, for cause.
So either they say, I know toomuch about the case.
I can't be fair and impartial.
I've seen the video.
I'm disgusted by it.
I don't think I can give him afair shake here.
And of course, they have to bedismissed.
Some people will say, look, Idon't think my mental health
will survive this trial.
(19:29):
They can get dismissed.
And some people just havevacations, doctor's
appointments, surgeries,weddings, all kinds of things.
So those are all the causereasons, right, where people
might get dismissed.
But then you also have what arecalled peremptory challenges.
So Defense gets 10, prosecutiongets six.
And those are challenges thatcan be exercised for any reason,
(19:50):
including did he can turn to hislawyers and just say, I don't
like how that juror was lookingat me.
SPEAKER_02 (19:56):
Why does the defense get 10?
SPEAKER_05 (19:58):
Because the defense, you know, quite frankly, I don't
know why the defense gets them.
It's by rule.
So it's by statute.
I mean, that's what the statutegives.
SPEAKER_02 (20:09):
Is the idea that because the burden of proof is
on the prosecution, it sort ofgives the defense a little bit
more leeway when it comes topicking a jury that they think
would be fair and impartial?
SPEAKER_05 (20:19):
Yeah, it does.
I mean, but, you know, in civilcases, the burden of proof is on
the plaintiff and you get threeand three.
So it is by rule.
It is by statute that thedefense gets 10.
Also, you do have sometimesmultiple defendant cases.
And so when you haveco-defendants, you don't get
more than 10.
(20:40):
So if there were two defendants,three defendants, five
defendants, you would still onlyget 10.
The court has discretion to giveyou more.
But by rule, you are notentitled to more.
SPEAKER_02 (20:50):
Got it.
So the jury is made up of eightmen.
and four women, there are threeblack women, a woman that
appears to be of Latin descent.
Then there is a black man and aman who again, to me, looks
Indian, like Southeast Asian.
How important is that?
Because even when juror six wasdismissed and the defense argued
(21:14):
questions about having diversityand sort of acknowledging this
was probably one of the mostdiverse juries that they've
seen, How important is it tohave that makeup that I just
outlined?
SPEAKER_05 (21:27):
Well, look, I don't think that this case
fundamentally centers on race,right?
This is not a civil rights case.
This is not sort of a policebrutality case.
But the defense has certainlytried to insinuate that Diddy is
being prosecuted because he's ablack man and that there is some
racial overtones to this.
(21:47):
And so I do think it's importantto have that diversity on the
jury because it's It's probablybeen telegraphed enough.
(22:11):
You know, they've never heard ofa prosecution like this against
a celebrity.
And he's a black celebrity.
So I think it is a factor.
I mean, look, I represented IrvGotti many, many years ago in
his criminal case in Brooklyn.
He was fully acquitted.
But I do think the jurors therealso were thinking about why was
(22:34):
the government going after thesetwo brothers, Irvin Criscotti
from Money Laundering?
And I think it was a turnoff tothem because the evidence was
kind of weak.
And so I think that's what thedefense is hoping for here.
And the racial makeup will havesome of the jurors maybe
wondering, is there some sort ofracial motivation behind all of
(22:54):
this?
SPEAKER_02 (22:55):
All the defense needs is one juror to have
doubt.
For this to be a hung jury inwhich it would result in a
mistrial, which means we couldbe back here all over again,
correct?
SPEAKER_05 (23:08):
That could be.
We will be because I'm sure theprosecution will try this again
if there's a mistrial.
But yeah, that's exactly right.
You know, in a criminal defensecase, a mistrial is considered a
win because the conviction ratein federal court, especially
here in the Southern District ofNew York, it's probably 99%.
I mean, statistically speaking,he has about a 1% chance of
(23:31):
getting acquitted.
So the defense is definitelyhoping for that one holdout
juror who just says, you knowwhat, I'm not doing this, and
that's enough.
SPEAKER_02 (23:41):
I know you said you're not into paying attention
to body language, but I can tellyou that there was a juror that
myself and my colleagues havewatched look as though when
certain witnesses weretestifying, they had questions.
Again, if you could, just whenyou have that one person that
(24:05):
even people who are novices andthey're not experts, but you can
see that they seem frustrated orpossibly not believing
everything that they're hearing,what is it like for that juror
if they have already sort ofmade up their mind How likely is
it for them to be influenced bythe other jurors when they are
(24:25):
able to talk about the case,where they are able to go
through what the judge tellsthem?
This is the letter of the law.
This is how you follow and findsomeone guilty or not guilty of
said crime.
SPEAKER_05 (24:37):
What I would be looking for, if I detect that
there's one juror who reallyseems to be skeptical of the
government's case, one tip isthat you watch the jurors enter
the courtroom.
and you see who that juror isspeaking with as they walk in.
So when the jurors leave thecourtroom, they typically walk
(24:58):
out in the same order.
Like the first row will walk outfollowed by the second row.
When they walk back in, theyoften do not walk in in that
order.
They will walk in often infriend groups.
And so you will see which jurorsare chit chatting with each
other as they walk back into thecourtroom.
I'd be very curious to see ifthat one juror is bonding with
(25:20):
any of the other jurors.
Because if that juror seems tobe not ever speaking to anybody
and seems to be off on theirown, then I think it's more
likely that they will just be aholdout.
Whereas if they've bonded withother jurors, they may feel some
compulsion that, look, ifeverybody's voting guilty, I'm
not going to hold this up andI'm going to go along with it.
SPEAKER_02 (25:42):
When you look at the charges and the evidence, keep
in mind that RICO charge, whichyou know is the most serious,
it's very broad.
And jurors only have to findCombs committed two elements of
the larger racketeeringconspiracy to find him guilty.
And of course, that he wasleading a criminal enterprise.
Based on what you've read, basedon what you know, do you think
(26:04):
Combs will be convicted on thatracketeering conspiracy?
SPEAKER_05 (26:07):
So I think the racketeering conspiracy, if
there's any charge that he'sgoing to be acquitted on, it
would be that charge.
Why?
Well, because I just think thereare two other charges that are
much easier for the jurors toreach a conclusion on.
And I just think the RICOenterprise, I mean, RICO, as you
know, is typically a statutereserved for gangs, MS-13, the
(26:32):
Crips, the Bloods, the ItalianMafia.
Those are typically what you seeas RICO enterprises.
So it's pretty unusual to chargea legitimate business and his
record label, even theprosecution admits it's
basically a legitimate businessthat they claim he co-opted for
criminal purposes.
(26:54):
So I just think it's so unusual.
There's certainly enoughevidence there for them to
convict him on RICO.
But keep in mind, if somebodywants to compromise in the jury
room, That's the one where theycan say, well, look, I'll go
along with the sex trafficking,but I'm not convicting him on
RICO.
But as a practical matter, andthe jurors don't know this, as a
(27:14):
practical matter, it won't makeany difference.
Because if Diddy is convicted onany of the charges, I believe he
is facing a very long prisonsentence, possibly an effective
life sentence.
SPEAKER_02 (27:28):
Do you see him at all being convicted on the
prostitution, the transportationfor the purposes of
prostitution?
but then being acquitted on theother two or actually other four
counts?
SPEAKER_05 (27:39):
Yeah, I mean, I could see a compromise verdict
here.
That's what we would call acompromise verdict where the
jurors decided, you know, we'renot convinced on all these
charges and on the weakercharge, on the Rico charge, they
acquit him.
That's why as a criminal defenseattorney, when you have these
(28:00):
multiple charges, that's whatyou're really, really concerned
about.
Because again, the jurors mightthink that they're giving the
defense something by acquittinghim on some of the charges.
But practically speaking, from asentencing perspective, it does
not make any difference.
SPEAKER_02 (28:17):
So one of our legal experts, who's also a reporter,
Katrina Kaufman, broke down forme, the racketeering conspiracy,
she said, is a maximum sentenceof life in prison.
Sex trafficking by force, fraud,or coercion is a mandatory
minimum of 15 years in prison.
But that that transportation toengage in prostitution has a max
(28:38):
of 10 years in prison.
SPEAKER_05 (28:40):
Well, he could be, I mean, on any of the charges, he
could be sentenced to probation.
There's no mandatory minimumshere, but he will-
SPEAKER_02 (28:52):
Oh, really?
He could be sentenced toprobation on a racketeering
conspiracy charge?
SPEAKER_05 (28:56):
I mean, theoretically, he could be, but
that's not gonna happen.
He could be, so there aresentencing guidelines.
So his guidelines are gonna be,I don't know what they are, but
I'm sure they're gonna beabsolutely through the roof And
I don't see him getting lessthan 10 years, regardless if
he's
SPEAKER_02 (29:15):
convicted on any of these counts, even if it's just
one.
SPEAKER_05 (29:18):
Yeah, for sure.
I think I, you know, if I had aguess, I think he's looking at
at least 15 years, maybe 20years if he's convicted on
anything.
SPEAKER_02 (29:27):
Now that it's in the hands of the jury, what's
happening behind the scenes?
UNKNOWN (29:34):
Yeah.
SPEAKER_05 (29:34):
Um, right.
So I think, you know, just fromwatching and not real jurors,
but certainly we run a lot ofmock jury tests and I wouldn't
be surprised if the defense ransome sort of mock jury
simulation in this case.
But typically what happens isthey'll go into the room and
they'll take a baseline vote.
They'll, they'll probably justgo around and say, look, do
(29:56):
people know where they arealready?
And they'll just see like wherethey are right on day one.
I imagine that, you know, Idon't think 12 hands are going
to go up for guilty right away.
I think some people are going tosay, look, I'm a little bit, I
want to hear a little bit moreabout this or that.
I want to look at the juryinstructions.
SPEAKER_02 (30:14):
So you think it'll literally be that public?
Like people will announce howthey're feeling as opposed to
like writing it down and thensome leader of the group reads
what they think?
everybody's feeling in the room?
Because I think, don't you thinkpeople would be like a little
nervous at first?
Or is it a feeling of like,we're ready?
Look, we're in this together, soyou may as well know where
everybody stands?
SPEAKER_05 (30:34):
Well, they're not strangers to each other at this
point.
They have certainly formedbonds.
I wouldn't be surprised if someof these jurors are going to
stay in touch for years andyears after this experience.
So they're absolutely notstrangers.
They know each other pretty wellbecause of all the time they've
spent together.
So I think...
They are comfortable sayingwhere they are, and that's just
(30:56):
a practical way of starting offdeliberations that we see all
the time, that people will goaround.
Or maybe they'll just go aroundthe entire table.
They'll elect a foreperson.
So I don't know who thatforeperson is going to be.
I don't know who's the mostdominant personality in there,
but that person will be incharge of leading the
(31:17):
discussions.
They don't have any more powerthan anybody else, but that
person will typically write thenotes to the court if they need
readbacks or they want to seesome evidence.
They're going to have a laptop,so they're going to have all of
the evidence on a laptop if theywant to review it.
But they might seekclarification on some of the
legal instructions that they'vereceived.
(31:38):
But I do think they're going totake some sort of baseline and
then go from there.
SPEAKER_02 (31:42):
How influential is that foreperson in this trial?
SPEAKER_05 (31:46):
so the four person can be quite influential
depending on how strong theirpersonality is but i'll note
that you have a lot of highlyeducated people on this jury you
have a phd level molecularbiologist you have an investment
analyst now you have anarchitect so i would suspect
that it's going to be one ofthose people will be the four
(32:08):
person and if they have verystrong opinions even though
technically they don't have anymore power than any other juror,
they could rally the otherjurors around whatever position
they're taking.
SPEAKER_02 (32:22):
The deliberation is happening the week of July 4th.
We know a lot of folks are readyto get back to their lives,
ready to celebrate the holiday.
Does that at all affect howquickly they will come with a
decision, do you think?
SPEAKER_05 (32:36):
Absolutely.
You know, as a defense lawyer,you don't like jurors to start
deliberating on a Friday becausethey sort of have an incentive
to rush through it, to get outof there and go back to their
lives on Monday.
This has been a long trial.
They have put their lives onhold and done a service to the
(33:01):
courts for being there for weeksand weeks and weeks.
But you better believe this isnot going to go past tomorrow.
July 4th weekend.
I do not believe.
I think we will have a verdictby Thursday.
July 4th is on Friday.
I don't think anybody's lookingto come back after the July 4th
weekend.
So I'm pretty confident we'regoing to have either a verdict
(33:23):
or an indication that they areunable to reach a verdict,
certainly this week.
SPEAKER_02 (33:28):
Renato Stabile, thank you so much for breaking
down what these jurors are goingthrough right now and the
process.
Now we wait and see whathappens.
SPEAKER_05 (33:37):
Thanks a lot for
SPEAKER_02 (33:39):
having me.
And one more thing.
Thank you all for listening.
I truly appreciate it.
And thank you to my producer,Scott Riggs.
I called him eight weeks agowith a crazy idea to start a
podcast a week before the trialbecause I realized there was
much more content and nuance tothis story that cannot be
captured by quick social mediaclips or a one minute and 45
(34:01):
second story on the network.
And thank you to my father,Ronnie Andrew Duncan, who
connected me to the graphicdesigner, sports rap CEO for the
logo, which he said I could usein perpetuity.
Thank you to my brother, JoshuaDuncan, for picking out the
music.
And thank you to CBS, whichallowed me the freedom to try
(34:21):
something new.
And a special thank you to thepeople in my life who are always
supportive of my ideas, but alsohave the sense enough to tell me
when this is over, Sit your assdown and rest.
No, really, that's what peoplehave been saying.
And I will.
I thank you so much forlistening.
(34:42):
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
the next one.
Until then, have a blessed day.
Hopefully we'll see you backhere once again.
(35:03):
If you enjoy this podcast andwant to help, please, please,
please spread the word.
Tell your friends, tell yourfamily, encourage them to
listen.
You can also follow Rate andReview on Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.
And just like Uber, five starreviews are very much
(35:24):
appreciated.
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.