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 friends of the pod Judie Saunders and Steve Greenberg.
Saunders leads sexual abuse and human trafficking department of the law firm, Ask LLP. She has more than twenty years of experience litigating cases involving sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and discrimination. She delves into the verdict of the case against Sean Combs, exploring the complexities of the case, the reactions from various stakeholders, and the implications for future legal proceedings. Saunders provides insights into the challenges of proving sex trafficking, the role of evidence, and the community's response to the trial, the potential impact of the verdict on the justice system and the future of Combs himself.
Greenberg is a defense attorney with many years of experience of experience in high-profile cases, 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. Greenberg explores the implications of the jury's decision, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the complexities of relationships within legal contexts. He also reflects on the trial experience, the expectations for sentencing, and the broader implications for the justice system.
This may the end of the Diddy Trial, but, the I Am That Reporter podcast will be back with more in-depth stories and news coverage, so stay subscribed and stay tuned. We'll see you soon!
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_04 (00:00):
Welcome to the I Am That Reporter podcast.
I'm Jerika Duncan, CBS Newsnational correspondent and
anchor of the CBS Weekend News.
This is the final episodecovering the Diddy trial.
You know why?
Because the verdict is in.
(00:22):
Sean Combs was found guilty ontwo counts of transportation to
engage in prostitution as itrelates to his ex-girlfriend's
Cassie Ventura and a woman whotestified under the pseudonym of
Jane.
Combs was found not guilty onthe most serious charges of
racketeering conspiracy and sextrafficking.
The day before we got the newsthat there was a unanimous
(00:44):
verdict, we were told the jurorshad reached a partial verdict in
every count with the exceptionof count one.
racketeering conspiracy the mostserious.
The next day, Wednesday, July2nd, I remember thinking, today
could be the day.
I had a piece airing on the CBSmorning show in the eight
o'clock hour, unrelated to theDiddy trial.
(01:06):
And it was about Philadelphia'smural arts project.
If you don't know about it, lookit up.
It's amazing.
It was a story that we shot backin April.
And I was super excited aboutfeaturing something positive
after covering a trial that wasvery heavy and very dark.
So after leaving the morningshow, which is about a 20 minute
car ride, I got to thecourthouse area around 930.
(01:28):
I thought, you know what?
Let me get something to eat.
before all hell breaks loose.
So I got some turkey and mashedpotatoes from this deli that
literally has everything, hencewhy I got turkey and mashed
potatoes that early.
But anyway, at about 9.43, no,not at about, because I checked
my phone to make sure this wasaccurate.
At 9.43 in the morning, I got acall from Nia.
(01:49):
She's a field producer for CBSNews.
And she said, listen, somethingis happening.
I'm not sure yet what's goingon, but you need to get here
now.
So I take my purple roll-awaybag, my black purse, and I start
walking, and I pass LaurenHonemeyer.
She's our lead booker for CBSMorning Show, but she also works
on CBS Evening News, et cetera.
So I see her through the windowof a Starbucks, and I gesture,
(02:12):
you know, hey, I'm heading tothe courthouse.
So I get there at 9.50, andwithin 10 minutes, there was a
note from the jury, and the notesays that we have reached a
verdict on all counts.
I quickly mic up.
I put the IFB in my ear.
That's the thing that I put inso I can hear what's going on in
New York.
In this case, I wanted to beable to hear from the anchor who
(02:34):
was doing our breaking newscoverage, Tony DeCoppo, for a
special report.
This is part of it.
SPEAKER_00 (02:41):
For now, though, Jerika Duncan is outside the
court.
She's been following this casefor all of those seven weeks
that it's been ongoing.
Jerika, good to see you.
What's the mood?
What are you hearing from whereyou are?
SPEAKER_04 (02:52):
There are people yelling out a potential verdict.
The result, we are not going toreport that just yet.
The last note that I got fromAlice Gaynor, who was inside the
courtroom, was at 10.15, thejudge said, all rise, and that
the jury was being let in.
Let's talk about the jury therefor a moment.
Eight men and four women, atleast five people of color.
(03:14):
This is a very diverse jury, andthey have been listening to
testimony for the last eightweeks, seven weeks of testimony
from And obviously deliberatingin this last week here, the
eighth week.
But they have heard from 34witnesses and two key witnesses
that are part of thisindictment.
Part of the charges were Jane, apseudonym that was used for an
(03:36):
ex-girlfriend that he dated from2021 to 2024.
And Cassie Ventura, truly thestar witness in all of this.
She was with Combs for about 11years.
She said that she met him whenshe was 19 years old, was signed
to his record label, but talkedSHE WAS ON THE STAND FOR FOUR
(04:06):
DAYS AND JANE WAS ON THE STANDFOR SIX DAYS.
SO THE JURORS GOT A LOT OFINFORMATION.
THEY SAW VIDEOS OF BOTH WOMENENGAGED IN SEX ACTS THAT WERE
NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY SAW IMAGES OF CASSIE, HERBRUISED BODY.
THEY SAW VIDEOS OF CASSIE, HERBRUISED BODY.
E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES THATTHE DEFENSE WOULD SAY TELL TWO
(04:27):
DIFFERENT STORIES AND THEYMAINTAINED THAT THERE WERE TWO
TRIALS HAPPENING.
AGNIFILO, MARK AGNIFILO, THELEAD DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING
THIS WAS A MODERN-DAY LOVESTORY, BUT THE GOVERNMENT
BEGGING TO DIFFER AND SAY THISISN'T EVEN ABOUT A LOVE STORY,
THIS IS ABOUT A CRIME.
WE'RE JUST GETTING WORD NOTGUILTY ON COUNT ONE, NOT GUILTY
(04:47):
on count two, is that correct?
SPEAKER_05 (04:49):
Guilty
SPEAKER_04 (04:50):
on count three.
Guilty on count three.
Stay with me, Tony.
Not guilty on count four.
Not guilty on count four.
And guilty on count five.
And guilty on count five.
This is just coming into usright now.
Could you repeat that for me,Nia?
She's our field producer.
You said not guilty on countone.
That is the racketeeringconspiracy.
(05:11):
The second count.
Not guilty.
Not guilty on count two.
Is that correct?
Not guilty.
SPEAKER_05 (05:20):
Guilty on count three.
SPEAKER_04 (05:22):
Guilty on count three.
That would be the Mann Acttransportation of Cassie
Ventura.
And if you could, it looks likeI have the note as well, so I'm
just going to read it.
Count one, racketeeringconspiracy, not guilty.
Count two, not guilty.
Count three, guilty.
Count four, not guilty.
(05:43):
Count five, guilty.
So essentially, the jurors foundthat he was guilty of the Mann
Act.
That is the transportation toengage in prostitution, but they
found him not guilty on sextrafficking, very serious charge
there where he could have spenta minimum of 15 years in prison,
and not guilty on thatRACKETEARING CONSPIRACY WHICH HE
(06:05):
COULD HAVE SPENT UP TO LIFE INPRISON FOR.
SO THAT IS THE VERY LATEST.
WE'RE GOING TO GET MOREINFORMATION AS THINGS ARE COMING
OUT IN TERMS OF THE MOOD INSIDETHAT COURTROOM.
WHAT IS SEAN COMBS DOING?
WHAT IS HIS FAMILY DOING?
WHAT ARE THE JURORS DOING?
HOW ARE THEY REACTING?
ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE COMING TOUS MOMENTARILY.
BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'RE JUST TUNINGIN, SEAN COMBS NOT GUILTY ON THE
(06:28):
MOST SERIOUS OF CHARGES, THERACKETEARING CONSPIRACY AND SEX
TRAFFICKING.
Now, this case has been verydivisive.
After the verdict was announced,there were people cheering
outside the courthouse.
There were people arguing aboutthe merits of the case.
And by now you've probably heardthere were literally people
putting baby oil on theirbodies.
(06:49):
Anyway, clearly there are peoplethat are happy about the
verdict.
That would be Combs, his family,his defense team.
And then there are those whowere shocked and those who
believe that the governmentproved its case on sex
trafficking of Cassie.
One of those people is JudySaunders, an attorney at Ask
LLP.
She leads the firm's sexualabuse and human trafficking
(07:11):
department.
Judy, thank you for joining ustoday.
What was your reaction?
I
SPEAKER_05 (07:18):
was not entirely shocked at the verdict.
Having followed cases similar tothis, it was expected.
Sadly, in this area dealing withsex trafficking and sexual
(07:38):
abuse, you tend to temper youropinions and anticipations on
verdicts, especially highlypublic celebrated trials such as
this.
So, you know, I wasn't entirelyshocked.
I think that going in I actuallybelieved and I did a little bit
(08:04):
of research into the history ofthis RICO charge.
And I think that it is adifficult count to prove.
The government was going to havea high bar for that charge.
So, you know, I was I wasn'tlike I said, I wasn't shocked.
(08:27):
I thought that was going to beone of the more difficult cases.
And Especially because thisdefendant, and I wish every
defendant, and I'm saying thisfrom someone who represents
survivors of sexual abuse, everydefendant deserves a
(08:48):
well-funded, brilliant minds inthe defense of their rights.
And Mr.
Combs had that in this defenseteam.
So I knew that going in, thegovernment was going to have to
really be fastidious on provingthis racketeering charge.
SPEAKER_04 (09:07):
Why did you think sex trafficking of Cassie
Ventura was proven by thegovernment?
SPEAKER_05 (09:14):
The video.
That video was pivotal to thegovernment proving its charge.
You were always going to have anissue in cases where the parties
know each other.
And in this case, you have anintimate, at one point, romantic
relationship.
You're always going to have thatquestion in your mind.
(09:38):
At what point was there nolonger consent?
At what point did it turn intoforce?
At what point did it turn intoviolence?
And without that video, you werereally going to be left with a
kind of a His, her narrative.
But that video was a bright lineshowing the jury that there was
(09:59):
not consent at that point.
There was a dragging.
There was a pulling.
There was threats.
There was violence used.
So I think that that video waspivotal.
SPEAKER_04 (10:08):
And for people who were not in the courtroom, the
jury was told you only need tofind one instance where this
happened.
I wonder if that was hard forjurors to even wrap their heads
around after seeing days, weeksof testimony where there's a
narrative that contradicts thisidea that this was consensual,
(10:32):
that people were notmanipulated, that there wasn't
just force involved on oneparty, but force involved when
we talk about the incidentinvolving Jane, where she says
in the beginning, well, listen,I took the first blow by
knocking his head up against thetable.
And then the fight continuedafter that.
So without having spoken to anyjurors, and that's something we
(10:53):
obviously want to do, what doyou think was it for them that
they just were like, nope, wedon't see sex trafficking even
once on Cassie or Jane?
SPEAKER_05 (11:05):
It takes a lot to try to get This, you know, these
observers to now look at thelength of these long
relationships when you haveviolence, this intimate partner
violence.
And the jury had before them,you know, not only the visual of
(11:27):
Miss Ventura.
seeing her now pregnant,watching her testify.
But then you had the cross, Mr.
Combs' attorneys get up andreally kind of paint a totally
separate picture.
And I think that, you know,chipped away at that whole idea
(11:47):
of, well, sex trafficking, is itreally sex trafficking?
There's so many other thingsthat cloud that.
Just by way of one example, I'vebeen involved in cases where
they're a little bit lessclouded.
So for example, you haveinstances where the parties
(12:07):
don't know each other, orthere's some type of
employer-employee relationship,They don't they're not seen on
in photos together.
They're not seen, you know,smiling together for several
years to that.
That that that I think reallytakes down the volume, so to
(12:29):
speak, on this whole idea of sextrafficking.
Just those two words of itself,sex trafficking, you know, that
makes ears perk up that wholetrafficking idea.
So, you know, in.
The common parlance of thatword, when we hear trafficking,
we expect this type of, youknow, dark, hooded, you know,
(12:51):
unknown to each other.
You don't want to hear about...
I think of the
SPEAKER_04 (12:53):
movie Taken.
Exactly.
Someone grabbing you off thestreet without really knowing
the law.
I think you're right.
That is the first thought.
It's not necessarily someonethat you loved, cared about, was
in a relationship with.
Exactly.
What are you hearing in terms offrom people that you represent?
(13:17):
I mean, what is the community ofadvocates of, you know, people
again in your lane who coverhuman trafficking?
What are they saying and whatdoes this case mean for you?
SPEAKER_05 (13:27):
It's layered.
I think that there's certainsubgroups or subsets in the
world and the universe that Ioperate in.
So you'll have the initialreaction.
And I did have actuallyunsolicited, you know, clients
that I've worked with.
It was only a small number.
They were just talking about howthey were watching the trial and
(13:47):
how it had triggered some oftheir past trauma, especially
that visual of the video that weall have seen.
I think that was really hard forsurvivors to see and then kind
of learn more about the contextthat that video was in.
So that's kind of the initialreaction from survivors.
(14:07):
When I speak to otherpractitioners like myself, other
attorneys there's a sense that,yes, this trial was impactful,
but did it really, when we thinkabout some of the cases that we
deal with, they're notnecessarily going to involve
(14:29):
celebrated figures and all ofthem being idols.
A lot of the cases that most ofus deal with have to do with
whether it's church abuse,whether it's institutional
abuse.
So that's a difference.
And within those circles, youthink about how much is this
media coverage and what wasbrought out, how much will it
(14:51):
really impact this area of law?
So it was a varying range ofopinions.
Do I think that what happened Asfar as ruling and what we call,
you know, making law andprocedure, I think that some of
what happened, some of therulings, some I think it will
impact how we the laws will beinterpreted going forward when
(15:14):
you deal with especially thesecharges in the criminal realm.
SPEAKER_04 (15:18):
How do you think this will impact the
government's movement on otherpotential federal charges as it
pertains to racketeeringconspiracy?
Because while there was aconviction with R.
Kelly, This is a moment I wouldimagine for them to reflect and
ask themselves if maybe thiswasn't the appropriate charge.
I mean, what do you think thoseconversations are like?
SPEAKER_05 (15:40):
This is definitely an opportunity to educate
themselves when they're lookingback over, and I'm sure they're
doing this, but when they'relooking back over this RICO
charge, when they're lookingover the evidence that they'll
use to support it, you know,Some of us, and I would say, you
(16:00):
know, colleagues, we've talkedabout this is an overcharge.
And that's always, as aprosecutor, you're always
thinking about, you know, areyou hurting your case by
overcharging it?
And I think that that could havebeen an issue here for them.
That in and of itself.
And this also being such ahighly, you know, publicized
trial, you know, seeing thesearch warrants that were
(16:21):
executed.
So you'd have to think aboutmaybe going forward and being a
little bit more deliberate andslow to charge something like
this RICO going forward.
SPEAKER_04 (16:31):
Tomorrow, and hopefully our episode will drop
tomorrow, but Tuesday, July 9th,8th.
Combs is expected to appear incourt because his attorneys
would like them to move up thesentencing day.
I mean, initially, as you know,there were questions about
(16:52):
whether or not he would go homeon the day that the jurors found
him guilty on just the Mann Act,two counts.
Do you think that's likely tohappen?
No.
SPEAKER_05 (17:09):
And I know that his attorneys, they make a very
persuasive argument.
I put the footnote and thereason why I think that it's
unlikely, I guess it's notimpossible.
The reason why I think it'sunlikely is because...
The very real reality is this isan African-American defendant in
(17:34):
the American criminal justicesystem.
And I think that regardless ofthe resources, I think that
that's a very real reality.
So, you know, I think thatthat's impactful and, you know,
will.
So
SPEAKER_04 (17:48):
are you saying that if Sean Combs was a white man in
the same situation, he wouldhave a either gone home or be.
Sentencing would
SPEAKER_05 (17:57):
be moved up.
I think that it would be morelikely.
Now, I could stand to becorrected.
You know, we'll find out.
But I I just when you look backand I am a student of history,
when you look back over the thehistorical context of the
criminal justice system, I thinkthat it's unlikely.
SPEAKER_04 (18:20):
So and again, sentencing also not moved up and
he doesn't go home.
SPEAKER_05 (18:25):
Right, that's what I think will, I think that's more
probable than that will happen.
SPEAKER_04 (18:32):
If you could speak to a juror, what would you ask
them?
What
SPEAKER_05 (18:37):
witnesses did you need to hear from to return a
verdict of guilty on theracketeering charges?
I would be interested inlearning more What was the gap?
I'd also be, I'd want to findout about the charges and also,
(19:02):
well, the sex traffickingcharge.
What other witnesses, what otherevidence that was needed?
Which witnesses that they heardfrom that they didn't find
credible?
that they didn't findbelievable.
Those are also things, you know,and those are things that you
learn from and you think abouton your, you know, the next case
(19:23):
that you're going to bring inthis kind, of this kind.
SPEAKER_04 (19:27):
Predictions for what happens to Sean Combs after
this?
SPEAKER_05 (19:31):
If I remember correctly, I think that he's,
you know, he can get anywherefrom 10 to 20, depending how
they run these sentences, runthe sentence.
I'm going to predict somewhere,in the span of five to 10.
There is a small part of me thatthinks it will be less than
(19:57):
five.
I won't be surprised at all ifit's less than five.
SPEAKER_04 (20:02):
In terms of his legacy, do you see him getting
in trouble again with the law?
Do you feel like at this momentin time after he serves his
time, we don't hear about him?
Ever?
Like, does he come out with analbum?
Does he, is there, I mean,there's a lot of civil cases.
So he has that also.
There's one that I'm watchingclosely involving a guy by the
(20:26):
name of Little Rod.
He is a producer who helpedCombs with the Love album and
said that he lived with Combsfor about 13 months.
What do you see for him afterPrison?
A redemption album.
SPEAKER_05 (20:41):
A...
a story, a rebranding that onceagain, I've been tried and this
is now speaking and, you know,potential combs, you know, they
tried to take me down.
They tried to take me out verymuch a vilification of the
government and its case, if notalso a vilification of, um, you
(21:06):
know, the individuals thattestified against him.
But I anticipate very much aredemption story.
Does he deserve thatopportunity?
Not in my opinion.
Absolutely not.
The reason why this, you know,this criminal case was essential
(21:28):
is because up until this point,you didn't have a survivor that
felt free from retaliation, freefrom violence enough to speak
out and disclose what washappening.
It seems to me from the evidencethat was brought out, this
individual had a reign of terrorfor decades.
(21:53):
For decades, he was on a rip.
And whether it was men, men orwomen, they lived in constant
terror.
So, you know, Is someone thatbehaves like that deserving?
Absolutely not.
Are they deserving of aredemption story?
No.
One would think and hope thatmaybe he would take up life in a
(22:17):
very quiet way, allow for thesesurvivors to heal and to
process.
But I know better than that tothink that an individual that
appears to have this type of egois going to go quietly.
SPEAKER_04 (22:35):
Judy Saunders, thank you so much for your insight and
going through this process withus.
The last eight weeks have beenpretty heavy and you've been
great at just breaking down theother side of this.
So we appreciate you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
(23:03):
As for Sean Combs' defense team,this was a win.
Here are some of what they hadto say after the verdict.
SPEAKER_02 (23:09):
Thank you all for being patient.
Am I speaking loud enough?
You all can hear me okay?
All right.
Today's a great victory.
It's a great victory for SeanCombs.
It's a great victory for thejury system.
You saw that the SouthernDistrict of New York prosecutors
came at him with all that theyhad.
(23:29):
They're not stopping But onething stands between all of us
and a prison, and that is a juryof 12 citizens.
And we had a wonderful jury.
They listened to every word, andthey got the situation right, or
certainly right enough.
(23:50):
They acquitted him of the sextrafficking, which he was
absolutely innocent of.
They acquitted him of theracketeering conspiracy that he
was absolutely innocent of andall of the components to it.
The kidnapping, he was innocentof that.
The arson, he was innocent ofthat.
The obstructing justice, he wasinnocent of that.
(24:11):
And that is no longer just mesaying that.
That is the verdict of our jury.
So today is a great day.
Today is a win.
Today is a victory of allvictories for Sean Combs and our
legal team.
And I want to say one thing.
There are very few people aroundwhom a legal team could coalesce
(24:34):
and become one.
And Sean Combs is that person,and we are all blessed to be
part of it.
And I am now done speaking toyou, and I'm going to turn it
over to Ms.
Garagos.
SPEAKER_01 (24:46):
All right, I first want to thank my client, Sean
Combs, for trusting us, myselfand everybody here, this
incredible dream team that heput together.
Without him, we would not havebeen able to do this.
He is incredible and I want tothank him.
I want to thank the jury forputting such great care into
(25:07):
this case.
They came early every single dayand I want to thank them.
As I said in my opening,standing between all of us and
the drastic consequences of thecriminal convictions of sex
trafficking, Enrico is a jury ofour peers and I thank them.
I want to thank the judge and Iwant to thank I want to thank,
(25:28):
despite the terrible conditionsat the MDC, I want to thank the
good people who work there, whoensured that we had sufficient
amount of time to prepare fortrial.
It is extremely difficult toprepare for a federal case in
the conditions at the MDC, andthey did everything they could
to make that happen.
I want to thank them.
(25:49):
I also have been saying thissince the beginning of this
case.
Sean Combs has not sexuallyassaulted anybody.
I've been saying this formonths.
We've said it with each lawsuitthat came out, and today that
was proven true.
The media got it wrong aboutSean Combs every single day for
nearly two years.
(26:10):
I ask that for every time youguys see a civil lawsuit,
criminal complaints or criminalindictments, you actually take a
look and analyze these and seewhether or not these are
actually going to stand up So aswe just heard
SPEAKER_04 (26:35):
from Judy Saunders, who is a victim's advocate, I
thought it was important to alsobring on a defense attorney.
And today we're going to speakto the one and only Steve
Greenberg, who you may know hisname because he represented R.
Kelly in the beginning of thefederal trial in which he also,
Kelly, faced racketeering.
charges and was convicted ofthem.
(26:55):
Steven Greenberg, thank you forjoining us.
So what were your thoughts aboutthe outcome?
SPEAKER_03 (27:01):
Well, I think what I said early on was I thought that
the government was overreachinghere, that I thought that they
were invading a relationship.
It may have been a toxicrelationship, but it wasn't
something that should be acrime.
And I think that the jurors sawit the same way.
The jurors said, look, He hiredprostitutes.
(27:24):
He took those prostitutes acrossstate lines.
He paid for them to go acrossstate lines.
They convicted him of doingthat.
But as far as the rest of it, itwas a bad relationship.
Did he beat her?
Yes.
Did he give her drugs?
Yes.
But are we going to say thatthis was some sort of a criminal
enterprise?
No, it wasn't a criminalenterprise.
(27:45):
It was a bad relationship.
And that's what the jurors sawit as, not a criminal
enterprise.
SPEAKER_04 (27:52):
The attorneys for Combs obviously say this was a
win for them.
They were all smiles after theverdict.
They spoke and they said,listen, look at those civil
cases that he's facing.
If you really look at themclosely and carefully, you'll
see that he has not done thesethings that he's accused of.
(28:13):
While we were able to help himin this criminal trial.
And I'm paraphrasing from thedefense team.
They believe in Sean Combs andthat he is innocent of not only
the crimes that he was allegedto have done against Cassie
Ventura and the woman we'll callJane, but there was a challenge
to some of those civil casesthat still exist.
(28:34):
Where do you expect things to gofrom here?
SPEAKER_03 (28:37):
Well, the civil cases have a different burden.
So those are just apreponderance.
And a lot of times we see peoplewin in criminal court and lose
in civil court.
He may very well lose thosecivil cases.
I don't know enough about thefacts of those cases.
And of course, those aredifferent theories in the civil
cases.
But it's much the same.
I think in a lot of those cases,we have people who were in
(29:00):
consensual relationships orconsensual acts.
And now later on, I think a lotof them are money grabs.
They weren't forced to dothings.
I don't think you're gonna see alot of evidence of people being
forced to do things.
These are situations wherepeople years later claim they
were mentally coerced to dothings.
And when the law starts to getinto criminalizing or assigning
(29:24):
liability to mental coercion,we're sort of asking people to
almost be fortune tellers, toget into people's thought
process and go back in time andsay, was this person in someone
else's mind?
And could they twist their mindto get them to act in a way that
(29:47):
they wouldn't have otherwiseacted?
That's a very big stretch.
SPEAKER_04 (29:53):
As a defense attorney, and I asked Judy
Saunders the same question,what's the conversation like
among people that you speakwith, other defense lawyers, who
are looking at this case, asmany people are, including the
government, and they'rethinking, where did we go wrong?
Others are going, wow, what ateam.
And how did they get this tothis point in terms of
(30:15):
representing Combs in a waywhere he is not facing that life
in prison that he was facing hadhe been convicted on
racketeering conspiracy?
SPEAKER_03 (30:24):
Look, he had great resources.
He had great lawyers.
Unfortunately, you said I hadrepresented R.
Kelly.
R.
Kelly, You know, we didn'tactually represent him at trial.
He unfortunately made some badchoices.
SPEAKER_04 (30:37):
In the beginning, though, you were still with him
at the federal, at the verybeginning.
SPEAKER_03 (30:41):
We were with him at the beginning in the federal
level.
We weren't with him at trial.
I think if we had representedhim at trial, I think you would
have seen the same outcome.
These laws...
Really?
Because it was such a differentcase.
But it wasn't that muchdifferent.
The prosecutors in these casesare taking...
discrete acts and small acts,and they're blowing them up.
(31:02):
This is not what the laws wereintended for.
Now, I know everyone says RICOwas intended originally for
mobsters, but it's used ongangs, and it is intended to be
used on more than mobsters.
But when you've got things likesex trafficking, sex trafficking
was not intended to be used forrelationships.
Sex trafficking was intended tobe used when people are getting
(31:27):
the sex workers and they'retaking these women and they're
holding them hostage and they'remaking them work and they're
transporting them across statelines and they're holding them
and forcing them to engage inlabor.
And I think what we're seeinghere is we're seeing that the
prosecutors are pushing the lawsbeyond what they're intended to
(31:49):
use them for.
The government lawyers said thatthey're going to keep pressing
forward I think they need toreassess and really decide if
they're taking the Me Toomovement a little bit too far
and trying to be the moralitypolice.
SPEAKER_04 (32:05):
You say it was meant for sex workers and people being
forced to go across state lines,but we know more about the
dynamics of abusiverelationships and the psychology
involved.
Even though he was not foundguilty of sex trafficking, some
have argued that that that videoof her leaving what appeared to
(32:27):
have been a freak off wherethere was an escort in the room
is a form of being forced orcoerced into something that she
did not want to do.
So for the people out there, andI'm just, I want to get
perspective who are looking atthis and thinking, here we go,
can't be believed because inthis case, oh, she was in a
relationship or, oh, she didconsent to this other times.
(32:49):
And the government kept saying,you only need to prove that
there was one time within aracketeering conspiracy statute
that you were sex trafficked.
How do you answer, I guess,those folks?
SPEAKER_03 (33:01):
Well, and that's where I'm saying that they have
to exercise some discretionhere.
It was obviously a badrelationship.
Should he have been prosecutedfor beating her up back then?
Yes, but we have statutes oflimitations.
And the statute of limitationson that unfortunately expired.
(33:22):
Whether he paid off the peopleor whatever happened, she didn't
come forward back then.
And sometimes things can't beprosecuted.
And what they're doing isthey're taking laws that weren't
intended to be used in theseways to get around incidents
like that.
And they're only using them oncertain people.
They're using them oncelebrities.
(33:44):
They're using them on highprofile people.
to sort of get these trophyprosecutions.
That's what we're seeing.
And I think that's just an abuseof the law, and that's not what
the law was intended for.
So they're creatively goingafter certain people.
If it had been Joe Truck Driver,you wouldn't see them do that.
SPEAKER_04 (34:06):
What should we take away from this case?
SPEAKER_03 (34:09):
Well, I think there's a few takeaways.
Sean Combs is a bad guy, and heshould be absolutely canceled.
And you see some people say, oh,is he going to make a great
comeback?
He should never make a greatcomeback because he's an awful
human being.
I think the government shouldreassess what they're doing with
these prosecutions.
Maybe they should pass somedifferent laws if they think
(34:30):
that these prosecutions shouldgo forward and prosecutions that
fit this kind of behaviorinstead of trying to abuse the
laws that are already on thebooks.
And I think that...
that everyone should just moveforward from here.
I
SPEAKER_04 (34:51):
know it's tough to predict, but would always like
to get perspective from thosewho've been in this field for a
while.
What do you think he'll besentenced to?
He's already served about 10months behind bars, and we know
that he'll get time served interms of his sentence, which is
slated for October.
Of course, that could change.
(35:12):
How much time do you think he'llface?
SPEAKER_03 (35:15):
Well, in federal court, they have a point system,
which is called the federalsentencing guidelines.
And it was interesting to seehow diverse the two sides
thought the guidelines fellhere.
He doesn't have any criminalhistory, so he's what they call
a first-time offender.
The defense think that hisguidelines come in somewhere
around two years, give or take afew months.
(35:38):
The government thinks that theycome in somewhere around four
years, give or take a fewmonths.
There's a lot of differentfactors.
that go into play.
The judge, when he was asking tobe released on bond, said, your
lawyer admitted that you're aviolent person.
That sort of flags what thejudge thinks.
So that makes me think that thejudge is leaning more towards
(35:59):
the government's view becausethe government's view took into
account some of the violence,even though he was acquitted of
those charges.
And a judge can take intoaccount its sentencing conduct
that you were found not guiltyof, even though you were found
not guilty of it.
I think the judge is going tocome in seeing it more in the
(36:22):
government's view, so morearound the four-year range.
Now, the government also saidthat they're going to ask that
he be sentenced to consecutiveterms, and the judge can do
that, but I don't think he'sgoing to do that because it
would have to be an awfullyegregious case to do that, and
he was found not guilty of theconduct So the judge is unlikely
(36:44):
to do that.
I think he's going to getsomething around 40 to 44 months
in jail.
SPEAKER_04 (36:50):
Steve, it's always a pleasure to speak with you.
I guess we'll see you on thenext one because I feel like
there probably will be a nextone.
SPEAKER_03 (36:56):
I'm sure there will be and I look forward to it.
SPEAKER_04 (37:00):
Thanks so much.
Thanks.
And one more thing, and we'llsee if you get to the end of
this episode to find out whatthe one more thing is, but I
have a question for you.
As a listener, did you enjoythis podcast series?
And would you like to hear more?
And if we were to continue onthe path of offering podcasts on
(37:20):
a specific subject matter, whatdo you want to hear about?
Send me your answers onInstagram by searching I am that
reporter JD.
And this may be the end of thispart of my coverage on the Diddy
Trial, but it is not the end ofthis podcast.
There's more to come, so staytuned.
(37:41):
Until then, I thank you so muchfor your love and support.
Thank you for listening.
If you enjoy this podcast andwant to help, please, please,
please spread the word.
Tell your friends, tell yourfamily, encourage them to
listen.
(38:02):
You can also follow Rate andReview on Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.
And just like Uber, five-starreviews are very much
appreciated.
Welcome to the I Am That Reporter podcast.
I'm Jerika Duncan, CBS Newsnational correspondent and
anchor of the CBS Weekend News.
This is the final episodecovering the Diddy trial.
You know why?
Because the verdict is in.
(00:22):
Sean Combs was found guilty ontwo counts of transportation to
engage in prostitution as itrelates to his ex-girlfriend's
Cassie Ventura and a woman whotestified under the pseudonym of
Jane.
Combs was found not guilty onthe most serious charges of
racketeering conspiracy and sextrafficking.
The day before we got the newsthat there was a unanimous
(00:44):
verdict, we were told the jurorshad reached a partial verdict in
every count with the exceptionof count one.
racketeering conspiracy the mostserious.
The next day, Wednesday, July2nd, I remember thinking, today
could be the day.
I had a piece airing on the CBSmorning show in the eight
o'clock hour, unrelated to theDiddy trial.
(01:06):
And it was about Philadelphia'smural arts project.
If you don't know about it, lookit up.
It's amazing.
It was a story that we shot backin April.
And I was super excited aboutfeaturing something positive
after covering a trial that wasvery heavy and very dark.
So after leaving the morningshow, which is about a 20 minute
car ride, I got to thecourthouse area around 930.
(01:28):
I thought, you know what?
Let me get something to eat.
before all hell breaks loose.
So I got some turkey and mashedpotatoes from this deli that
literally has everything, hencewhy I got turkey and mashed
potatoes that early.
But anyway, at about 9.43, no,not at about, because I checked
my phone to make sure this wasaccurate.
At 9.43 in the morning, I got acall from Nia.
(01:49):
She's a field producer for CBSNews.
And she said, listen, somethingis happening.
I'm not sure yet what's goingon, but you need to get here
now.
So I take my purple roll-awaybag, my black purse, and I start
walking, and I pass LaurenHonemeyer.
She's our lead booker for CBSMorning Show, but she also works
on CBS Evening News, et cetera.
So I see her through the windowof a Starbucks, and I gesture,
(02:12):
you know, hey, I'm heading tothe courthouse.
So I get there at 9.50, andwithin 10 minutes, there was a
note from the jury, and the notesays that we have reached a
verdict on all counts.
I quickly mic up.
I put the IFB in my ear.
That's the thing that I put inso I can hear what's going on in
New York.
In this case, I wanted to beable to hear from the anchor who
(02:34):
was doing our breaking newscoverage, Tony DeCoppo, for a
special report.
This is part of it.
SPEAKER_00 (02:41):
For now, though, Jerika Duncan is outside the
court.
She's been following this casefor all of those seven weeks
that it's been ongoing.
Jerika, good to see you.
What's the mood?
What are you hearing from whereyou are?
SPEAKER_04 (02:52):
There are people yelling out a potential verdict.
The result, we are not going toreport that just yet.
The last note that I got fromAlice Gaynor, who was inside the
courtroom, was at 10.15, thejudge said, all rise, and that
the jury was being let in.
Let's talk about the jury therefor a moment.
Eight men and four women, atleast five people of color.
(03:14):
This is a very diverse jury, andthey have been listening to
testimony for the last eightweeks, seven weeks of testimony
from And obviously deliberatingin this last week here, the
eighth week.
But they have heard from 34witnesses and two key witnesses
that are part of thisindictment.
Part of the charges were Jane, apseudonym that was used for an
(03:36):
ex-girlfriend that he dated from2021 to 2024.
And Cassie Ventura, truly thestar witness in all of this.
She was with Combs for about 11years.
She said that she met him whenshe was 19 years old, was signed
to his record label, but talkedSHE WAS ON THE STAND FOR FOUR
(04:06):
DAYS AND JANE WAS ON THE STANDFOR SIX DAYS.
SO THE JURORS GOT A LOT OFINFORMATION.
THEY SAW VIDEOS OF BOTH WOMENENGAGED IN SEX ACTS THAT WERE
NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY SAW IMAGES OF CASSIE, HERBRUISED BODY.
THEY SAW VIDEOS OF CASSIE, HERBRUISED BODY.
E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES THATTHE DEFENSE WOULD SAY TELL TWO
(04:27):
DIFFERENT STORIES AND THEYMAINTAINED THAT THERE WERE TWO
TRIALS HAPPENING.
AGNIFILO, MARK AGNIFILO, THELEAD DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING
THIS WAS A MODERN-DAY LOVESTORY, BUT THE GOVERNMENT
BEGGING TO DIFFER AND SAY THISISN'T EVEN ABOUT A LOVE STORY,
THIS IS ABOUT A CRIME.
WE'RE JUST GETTING WORD NOTGUILTY ON COUNT ONE, NOT GUILTY
(04:47):
on count two, is that correct?
SPEAKER_05 (04:49):
Guilty
SPEAKER_04 (04:50):
on count three.
Guilty on count three.
Stay with me, Tony.
Not guilty on count four.
Not guilty on count four.
And guilty on count five.
And guilty on count five.
This is just coming into usright now.
Could you repeat that for me,Nia?
She's our field producer.
You said not guilty on countone.
That is the racketeeringconspiracy.
(05:11):
The second count.
Not guilty.
Not guilty on count two.
Is that correct?
Not guilty.
SPEAKER_05 (05:20):
Guilty on count three.
SPEAKER_04 (05:22):
Guilty on count three.
That would be the Mann Acttransportation of Cassie
Ventura.
And if you could, it looks likeI have the note as well, so I'm
just going to read it.
Count one, racketeeringconspiracy, not guilty.
Count two, not guilty.
Count three, guilty.
Count four, not guilty.
(05:43):
Count five, guilty.
So essentially, the jurors foundthat he was guilty of the Mann
Act.
That is the transportation toengage in prostitution, but they
found him not guilty on sextrafficking, very serious charge
there where he could have spenta minimum of 15 years in prison,
and not guilty on thatRACKETEARING CONSPIRACY WHICH HE
(06:05):
COULD HAVE SPENT UP TO LIFE INPRISON FOR.
SO THAT IS THE VERY LATEST.
WE'RE GOING TO GET MOREINFORMATION AS THINGS ARE COMING
OUT IN TERMS OF THE MOOD INSIDETHAT COURTROOM.
WHAT IS SEAN COMBS DOING?
WHAT IS HIS FAMILY DOING?
WHAT ARE THE JURORS DOING?
HOW ARE THEY REACTING?
ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE COMING TOUS MOMENTARILY.
BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'RE JUST TUNINGIN, SEAN COMBS NOT GUILTY ON THE
(06:28):
MOST SERIOUS OF CHARGES, THERACKETEARING CONSPIRACY AND SEX
TRAFFICKING.
Now, this case has been verydivisive.
After the verdict was announced,there were people cheering
outside the courthouse.
There were people arguing aboutthe merits of the case.
And by now you've probably heardthere were literally people
putting baby oil on theirbodies.
(06:49):
Anyway, clearly there are peoplethat are happy about the
verdict.
That would be Combs, his family,his defense team.
And then there are those whowere shocked and those who
believe that the governmentproved its case on sex
trafficking of Cassie.
One of those people is JudySaunders, an attorney at Ask
LLP.
She leads the firm's sexualabuse and human trafficking
(07:11):
department.
Judy, thank you for joining ustoday.
What was your reaction?
I
SPEAKER_05 (07:18):
was not entirely shocked at the verdict.
Having followed cases similar tothis, it was expected.
Sadly, in this area dealing withsex trafficking and sexual
(07:38):
abuse, you tend to temper youropinions and anticipations on
verdicts, especially highlypublic celebrated trials such as
this.
So, you know, I wasn't entirelyshocked.
I think that going in I actuallybelieved and I did a little bit
(08:04):
of research into the history ofthis RICO charge.
And I think that it is adifficult count to prove.
The government was going to havea high bar for that charge.
So, you know, I was I wasn'tlike I said, I wasn't shocked.
(08:27):
I thought that was going to beone of the more difficult cases.
And Especially because thisdefendant, and I wish every
defendant, and I'm saying thisfrom someone who represents
survivors of sexual abuse, everydefendant deserves a
(08:48):
well-funded, brilliant minds inthe defense of their rights.
And Mr.
Combs had that in this defenseteam.
So I knew that going in, thegovernment was going to have to
really be fastidious on provingthis racketeering charge.
SPEAKER_04 (09:07):
Why did you think sex trafficking of Cassie
Ventura was proven by thegovernment?
SPEAKER_05 (09:14):
The video.
That video was pivotal to thegovernment proving its charge.
You were always going to have anissue in cases where the parties
know each other.
And in this case, you have anintimate, at one point, romantic
relationship.
You're always going to have thatquestion in your mind.
(09:38):
At what point was there nolonger consent?
At what point did it turn intoforce?
At what point did it turn intoviolence?
And without that video, you werereally going to be left with a
kind of a His, her narrative.
But that video was a bright lineshowing the jury that there was
(09:59):
not consent at that point.
There was a dragging.
There was a pulling.
There was threats.
There was violence used.
So I think that that video waspivotal.
SPEAKER_04 (10:08):
And for people who were not in the courtroom, the
jury was told you only need tofind one instance where this
happened.
I wonder if that was hard forjurors to even wrap their heads
around after seeing days, weeksof testimony where there's a
narrative that contradicts thisidea that this was consensual,
(10:32):
that people were notmanipulated, that there wasn't
just force involved on oneparty, but force involved when
we talk about the incidentinvolving Jane, where she says
in the beginning, well, listen,I took the first blow by
knocking his head up against thetable.
And then the fight continuedafter that.
So without having spoken to anyjurors, and that's something we
(10:53):
obviously want to do, what doyou think was it for them that
they just were like, nope, wedon't see sex trafficking even
once on Cassie or Jane?
SPEAKER_05 (11:05):
It takes a lot to try to get This, you know, these
observers to now look at thelength of these long
relationships when you haveviolence, this intimate partner
violence.
And the jury had before them,you know, not only the visual of
(11:27):
Miss Ventura.
seeing her now pregnant,watching her testify.
But then you had the cross, Mr.
Combs' attorneys get up andreally kind of paint a totally
separate picture.
And I think that, you know,chipped away at that whole idea
(11:47):
of, well, sex trafficking, is itreally sex trafficking?
There's so many other thingsthat cloud that.
Just by way of one example, I'vebeen involved in cases where
they're a little bit lessclouded.
So for example, you haveinstances where the parties
(12:07):
don't know each other, orthere's some type of
employer-employee relationship,They don't they're not seen on
in photos together.
They're not seen, you know,smiling together for several
years to that.
That that that I think reallytakes down the volume, so to
(12:29):
speak, on this whole idea of sextrafficking.
Just those two words of itself,sex trafficking, you know, that
makes ears perk up that wholetrafficking idea.
So, you know, in.
The common parlance of thatword, when we hear trafficking,
we expect this type of, youknow, dark, hooded, you know,
(12:51):
unknown to each other.
You don't want to hear about...
I think of the
SPEAKER_04 (12:53):
movie Taken.
Exactly.
Someone grabbing you off thestreet without really knowing
the law.
I think you're right.
That is the first thought.
It's not necessarily someonethat you loved, cared about, was
in a relationship with.
Exactly.
What are you hearing in terms offrom people that you represent?
(13:17):
I mean, what is the community ofadvocates of, you know, people
again in your lane who coverhuman trafficking?
What are they saying and whatdoes this case mean for you?
SPEAKER_05 (13:27):
It's layered.
I think that there's certainsubgroups or subsets in the
world and the universe that Ioperate in.
So you'll have the initialreaction.
And I did have actuallyunsolicited, you know, clients
that I've worked with.
It was only a small number.
They were just talking about howthey were watching the trial and
(13:47):
how it had triggered some oftheir past trauma, especially
that visual of the video that weall have seen.
I think that was really hard forsurvivors to see and then kind
of learn more about the contextthat that video was in.
So that's kind of the initialreaction from survivors.
(14:07):
When I speak to otherpractitioners like myself, other
attorneys there's a sense that,yes, this trial was impactful,
but did it really, when we thinkabout some of the cases that we
deal with, they're notnecessarily going to involve
(14:29):
celebrated figures and all ofthem being idols.
A lot of the cases that most ofus deal with have to do with
whether it's church abuse,whether it's institutional
abuse.
So that's a difference.
And within those circles, youthink about how much is this
media coverage and what wasbrought out, how much will it
(14:51):
really impact this area of law?
So it was a varying range ofopinions.
Do I think that what happened Asfar as ruling and what we call,
you know, making law andprocedure, I think that some of
what happened, some of therulings, some I think it will
impact how we the laws will beinterpreted going forward when
(15:14):
you deal with especially thesecharges in the criminal realm.
SPEAKER_04 (15:18):
How do you think this will impact the
government's movement on otherpotential federal charges as it
pertains to racketeeringconspiracy?
Because while there was aconviction with R.
Kelly, This is a moment I wouldimagine for them to reflect and
ask themselves if maybe thiswasn't the appropriate charge.
I mean, what do you think thoseconversations are like?
SPEAKER_05 (15:40):
This is definitely an opportunity to educate
themselves when they're lookingback over, and I'm sure they're
doing this, but when they'relooking back over this RICO
charge, when they're lookingover the evidence that they'll
use to support it, you know,Some of us, and I would say, you
(16:00):
know, colleagues, we've talkedabout this is an overcharge.
And that's always, as aprosecutor, you're always
thinking about, you know, areyou hurting your case by
overcharging it?
And I think that that could havebeen an issue here for them.
That in and of itself.
And this also being such ahighly, you know, publicized
trial, you know, seeing thesearch warrants that were
(16:21):
executed.
So you'd have to think aboutmaybe going forward and being a
little bit more deliberate andslow to charge something like
this RICO going forward.
SPEAKER_04 (16:31):
Tomorrow, and hopefully our episode will drop
tomorrow, but Tuesday, July 9th,8th.
Combs is expected to appear incourt because his attorneys
would like them to move up thesentencing day.
I mean, initially, as you know,there were questions about
(16:52):
whether or not he would go homeon the day that the jurors found
him guilty on just the Mann Act,two counts.
Do you think that's likely tohappen?
No.
SPEAKER_05 (17:09):
And I know that his attorneys, they make a very
persuasive argument.
I put the footnote and thereason why I think that it's
unlikely, I guess it's notimpossible.
The reason why I think it'sunlikely is because...
The very real reality is this isan African-American defendant in
(17:34):
the American criminal justicesystem.
And I think that regardless ofthe resources, I think that
that's a very real reality.
So, you know, I think thatthat's impactful and, you know,
will.
So
SPEAKER_04 (17:48):
are you saying that if Sean Combs was a white man in
the same situation, he wouldhave a either gone home or be.
Sentencing would
SPEAKER_05 (17:57):
be moved up.
I think that it would be morelikely.
Now, I could stand to becorrected.
You know, we'll find out.
But I I just when you look backand I am a student of history,
when you look back over the thehistorical context of the
criminal justice system, I thinkthat it's unlikely.
SPEAKER_04 (18:20):
So and again, sentencing also not moved up and
he doesn't go home.
SPEAKER_05 (18:25):
Right, that's what I think will, I think that's more
probable than that will happen.
SPEAKER_04 (18:32):
If you could speak to a juror, what would you ask
them?
What
SPEAKER_05 (18:37):
witnesses did you need to hear from to return a
verdict of guilty on theracketeering charges?
I would be interested inlearning more What was the gap?
I'd also be, I'd want to findout about the charges and also,
(19:02):
well, the sex traffickingcharge.
What other witnesses, what otherevidence that was needed?
Which witnesses that they heardfrom that they didn't find
credible?
that they didn't findbelievable.
Those are also things, you know,and those are things that you
learn from and you think abouton your, you know, the next case
(19:23):
that you're going to bring inthis kind, of this kind.
SPEAKER_04 (19:27):
Predictions for what happens to Sean Combs after
this?
SPEAKER_05 (19:31):
If I remember correctly, I think that he's,
you know, he can get anywherefrom 10 to 20, depending how
they run these sentences, runthe sentence.
I'm going to predict somewhere,in the span of five to 10.
There is a small part of me thatthinks it will be less than
(19:57):
five.
I won't be surprised at all ifit's less than five.
SPEAKER_04 (20:02):
In terms of his legacy, do you see him getting
in trouble again with the law?
Do you feel like at this momentin time after he serves his
time, we don't hear about him?
Ever?
Like, does he come out with analbum?
Does he, is there, I mean,there's a lot of civil cases.
So he has that also.
There's one that I'm watchingclosely involving a guy by the
(20:26):
name of Little Rod.
He is a producer who helpedCombs with the Love album and
said that he lived with Combsfor about 13 months.
What do you see for him afterPrison?
A redemption album.
SPEAKER_05 (20:41):
A...
a story, a rebranding that onceagain, I've been tried and this
is now speaking and, you know,potential combs, you know, they
tried to take me down.
They tried to take me out verymuch a vilification of the
government and its case, if notalso a vilification of, um, you
(21:06):
know, the individuals thattestified against him.
But I anticipate very much aredemption story.
Does he deserve thatopportunity?
Not in my opinion.
Absolutely not.
The reason why this, you know,this criminal case was essential
(21:28):
is because up until this point,you didn't have a survivor that
felt free from retaliation, freefrom violence enough to speak
out and disclose what washappening.
It seems to me from the evidencethat was brought out, this
individual had a reign of terrorfor decades.
(21:53):
For decades, he was on a rip.
And whether it was men, men orwomen, they lived in constant
terror.
So, you know, Is someone thatbehaves like that deserving?
Absolutely not.
Are they deserving of aredemption story?
No.
One would think and hope thatmaybe he would take up life in a
(22:17):
very quiet way, allow for thesesurvivors to heal and to
process.
But I know better than that tothink that an individual that
appears to have this type of egois going to go quietly.
SPEAKER_04 (22:35):
Judy Saunders, thank you so much for your insight and
going through this process withus.
The last eight weeks have beenpretty heavy and you've been
great at just breaking down theother side of this.
So we appreciate you.
Thank you.
Thank you.
(23:03):
As for Sean Combs' defense team,this was a win.
Here are some of what they hadto say after the verdict.
SPEAKER_02 (23:09):
Thank you all for being patient.
Am I speaking loud enough?
You all can hear me okay?
All right.
Today's a great victory.
It's a great victory for SeanCombs.
It's a great victory for thejury system.
You saw that the SouthernDistrict of New York prosecutors
came at him with all that theyhad.
(23:29):
They're not stopping But onething stands between all of us
and a prison, and that is a juryof 12 citizens.
And we had a wonderful jury.
They listened to every word, andthey got the situation right, or
certainly right enough.
(23:50):
They acquitted him of the sextrafficking, which he was
absolutely innocent of.
They acquitted him of theracketeering conspiracy that he
was absolutely innocent of andall of the components to it.
The kidnapping, he was innocentof that.
The arson, he was innocent ofthat.
The obstructing justice, he wasinnocent of that.
(24:11):
And that is no longer just mesaying that.
That is the verdict of our jury.
So today is a great day.
Today is a win.
Today is a victory of allvictories for Sean Combs and our
legal team.
And I want to say one thing.
There are very few people aroundwhom a legal team could coalesce
(24:34):
and become one.
And Sean Combs is that person,and we are all blessed to be
part of it.
And I am now done speaking toyou, and I'm going to turn it
over to Ms.
Garagos.
SPEAKER_01 (24:46):
All right, I first want to thank my client, Sean
Combs, for trusting us, myselfand everybody here, this
incredible dream team that heput together.
Without him, we would not havebeen able to do this.
He is incredible and I want tothank him.
I want to thank the jury forputting such great care into
(25:07):
this case.
They came early every single dayand I want to thank them.
As I said in my opening,standing between all of us and
the drastic consequences of thecriminal convictions of sex
trafficking, Enrico is a jury ofour peers and I thank them.
I want to thank the judge and Iwant to thank I want to thank,
(25:28):
despite the terrible conditionsat the MDC, I want to thank the
good people who work there, whoensured that we had sufficient
amount of time to prepare fortrial.
It is extremely difficult toprepare for a federal case in
the conditions at the MDC, andthey did everything they could
to make that happen.
I want to thank them.
(25:49):
I also have been saying thissince the beginning of this
case.
Sean Combs has not sexuallyassaulted anybody.
I've been saying this formonths.
We've said it with each lawsuitthat came out, and today that
was proven true.
The media got it wrong aboutSean Combs every single day for
nearly two years.
(26:10):
I ask that for every time youguys see a civil lawsuit,
criminal complaints or criminalindictments, you actually take a
look and analyze these and seewhether or not these are
actually going to stand up So aswe just heard
SPEAKER_04 (26:35):
from Judy Saunders, who is a victim's advocate, I
thought it was important to alsobring on a defense attorney.
And today we're going to speakto the one and only Steve
Greenberg, who you may know hisname because he represented R.
Kelly in the beginning of thefederal trial in which he also,
Kelly, faced racketeering.
charges and was convicted ofthem.
(26:55):
Steven Greenberg, thank you forjoining us.
So what were your thoughts aboutthe outcome?
SPEAKER_03 (27:01):
Well, I think what I said early on was I thought that
the government was overreachinghere, that I thought that they
were invading a relationship.
It may have been a toxicrelationship, but it wasn't
something that should be acrime.
And I think that the jurors sawit the same way.
The jurors said, look, He hiredprostitutes.
(27:24):
He took those prostitutes acrossstate lines.
He paid for them to go acrossstate lines.
They convicted him of doingthat.
But as far as the rest of it, itwas a bad relationship.
Did he beat her?
Yes.
Did he give her drugs?
Yes.
But are we going to say thatthis was some sort of a criminal
enterprise?
No, it wasn't a criminalenterprise.
(27:45):
It was a bad relationship.
And that's what the jurors sawit as, not a criminal
enterprise.
SPEAKER_04 (27:52):
The attorneys for Combs obviously say this was a
win for them.
They were all smiles after theverdict.
They spoke and they said,listen, look at those civil
cases that he's facing.
If you really look at themclosely and carefully, you'll
see that he has not done thesethings that he's accused of.
(28:13):
While we were able to help himin this criminal trial.
And I'm paraphrasing from thedefense team.
They believe in Sean Combs andthat he is innocent of not only
the crimes that he was allegedto have done against Cassie
Ventura and the woman we'll callJane, but there was a challenge
to some of those civil casesthat still exist.
(28:34):
Where do you expect things to gofrom here?
SPEAKER_03 (28:37):
Well, the civil cases have a different burden.
So those are just apreponderance.
And a lot of times we see peoplewin in criminal court and lose
in civil court.
He may very well lose thosecivil cases.
I don't know enough about thefacts of those cases.
And of course, those aredifferent theories in the civil
cases.
But it's much the same.
I think in a lot of those cases,we have people who were in
(29:00):
consensual relationships orconsensual acts.
And now later on, I think a lotof them are money grabs.
They weren't forced to dothings.
I don't think you're gonna see alot of evidence of people being
forced to do things.
These are situations wherepeople years later claim they
were mentally coerced to dothings.
And when the law starts to getinto criminalizing or assigning
(29:24):
liability to mental coercion,we're sort of asking people to
almost be fortune tellers, toget into people's thought
process and go back in time andsay, was this person in someone
else's mind?
And could they twist their mindto get them to act in a way that
(29:47):
they wouldn't have otherwiseacted?
That's a very big stretch.
SPEAKER_04 (29:53):
As a defense attorney, and I asked Judy
Saunders the same question,what's the conversation like
among people that you speakwith, other defense lawyers, who
are looking at this case, asmany people are, including the
government, and they'rethinking, where did we go wrong?
Others are going, wow, what ateam.
And how did they get this tothis point in terms of
(30:15):
representing Combs in a waywhere he is not facing that life
in prison that he was facing hadhe been convicted on
racketeering conspiracy?
SPEAKER_03 (30:24):
Look, he had great resources.
He had great lawyers.
Unfortunately, you said I hadrepresented R.
Kelly.
R.
Kelly, You know, we didn'tactually represent him at trial.
He unfortunately made some badchoices.
SPEAKER_04 (30:37):
In the beginning, though, you were still with him
at the federal, at the verybeginning.
SPEAKER_03 (30:41):
We were with him at the beginning in the federal
level.
We weren't with him at trial.
I think if we had representedhim at trial, I think you would
have seen the same outcome.
These laws...
Really?
Because it was such a differentcase.
But it wasn't that muchdifferent.
The prosecutors in these casesare taking...
discrete acts and small acts,and they're blowing them up.
(31:02):
This is not what the laws wereintended for.
Now, I know everyone says RICOwas intended originally for
mobsters, but it's used ongangs, and it is intended to be
used on more than mobsters.
But when you've got things likesex trafficking, sex trafficking
was not intended to be used forrelationships.
Sex trafficking was intended tobe used when people are getting
(31:27):
the sex workers and they'retaking these women and they're
holding them hostage and they'remaking them work and they're
transporting them across statelines and they're holding them
and forcing them to engage inlabor.
And I think what we're seeinghere is we're seeing that the
prosecutors are pushing the lawsbeyond what they're intended to
(31:49):
use them for.
The government lawyers said thatthey're going to keep pressing
forward I think they need toreassess and really decide if
they're taking the Me Toomovement a little bit too far
and trying to be the moralitypolice.
SPEAKER_04 (32:05):
You say it was meant for sex workers and people being
forced to go across state lines,but we know more about the
dynamics of abusiverelationships and the psychology
involved.
Even though he was not foundguilty of sex trafficking, some
have argued that that that videoof her leaving what appeared to
(32:27):
have been a freak off wherethere was an escort in the room
is a form of being forced orcoerced into something that she
did not want to do.
So for the people out there, andI'm just, I want to get
perspective who are looking atthis and thinking, here we go,
can't be believed because inthis case, oh, she was in a
relationship or, oh, she didconsent to this other times.
(32:49):
And the government kept saying,you only need to prove that
there was one time within aracketeering conspiracy statute
that you were sex trafficked.
How do you answer, I guess,those folks?
SPEAKER_03 (33:01):
Well, and that's where I'm saying that they have
to exercise some discretionhere.
It was obviously a badrelationship.
Should he have been prosecutedfor beating her up back then?
Yes, but we have statutes oflimitations.
And the statute of limitationson that unfortunately expired.
(33:22):
Whether he paid off the peopleor whatever happened, she didn't
come forward back then.
And sometimes things can't beprosecuted.
And what they're doing isthey're taking laws that weren't
intended to be used in theseways to get around incidents
like that.
And they're only using them oncertain people.
They're using them oncelebrities.
(33:44):
They're using them on highprofile people.
to sort of get these trophyprosecutions.
That's what we're seeing.
And I think that's just an abuseof the law, and that's not what
the law was intended for.
So they're creatively goingafter certain people.
If it had been Joe Truck Driver,you wouldn't see them do that.
SPEAKER_04 (34:06):
What should we take away from this case?
SPEAKER_03 (34:09):
Well, I think there's a few takeaways.
Sean Combs is a bad guy, and heshould be absolutely canceled.
And you see some people say, oh,is he going to make a great
comeback?
He should never make a greatcomeback because he's an awful
human being.
I think the government shouldreassess what they're doing with
these prosecutions.
Maybe they should pass somedifferent laws if they think
(34:30):
that these prosecutions shouldgo forward and prosecutions that
fit this kind of behaviorinstead of trying to abuse the
laws that are already on thebooks.
And I think that...
that everyone should just moveforward from here.
I
SPEAKER_04 (34:51):
know it's tough to predict, but would always like
to get perspective from thosewho've been in this field for a
while.
What do you think he'll besentenced to?
He's already served about 10months behind bars, and we know
that he'll get time served interms of his sentence, which is
slated for October.
Of course, that could change.
(35:12):
How much time do you think he'llface?
SPEAKER_03 (35:15):
Well, in federal court, they have a point system,
which is called the federalsentencing guidelines.
And it was interesting to seehow diverse the two sides
thought the guidelines fellhere.
He doesn't have any criminalhistory, so he's what they call
a first-time offender.
The defense think that hisguidelines come in somewhere
around two years, give or take afew months.
(35:38):
The government thinks that theycome in somewhere around four
years, give or take a fewmonths.
There's a lot of differentfactors.
that go into play.
The judge, when he was asking tobe released on bond, said, your
lawyer admitted that you're aviolent person.
That sort of flags what thejudge thinks.
So that makes me think that thejudge is leaning more towards
(35:59):
the government's view becausethe government's view took into
account some of the violence,even though he was acquitted of
those charges.
And a judge can take intoaccount its sentencing conduct
that you were found not guiltyof, even though you were found
not guilty of it.
I think the judge is going tocome in seeing it more in the
(36:22):
government's view, so morearound the four-year range.
Now, the government also saidthat they're going to ask that
he be sentenced to consecutiveterms, and the judge can do
that, but I don't think he'sgoing to do that because it
would have to be an awfullyegregious case to do that, and
he was found not guilty of theconduct So the judge is unlikely
(36:44):
to do that.
I think he's going to getsomething around 40 to 44 months
in jail.
SPEAKER_04 (36:50):
Steve, it's always a pleasure to speak with you.
I guess we'll see you on thenext one because I feel like
there probably will be a nextone.
SPEAKER_03 (36:56):
I'm sure there will be and I look forward to it.
SPEAKER_04 (37:00):
Thanks so much.
Thanks.
And one more thing, and we'llsee if you get to the end of
this episode to find out whatthe one more thing is, but I
have a question for you.
As a listener, did you enjoythis podcast series?
And would you like to hear more?
And if we were to continue onthe path of offering podcasts on
(37:20):
a specific subject matter, whatdo you want to hear about?
Send me your answers onInstagram by searching I am that
reporter JD.
And this may be the end of thispart of my coverage on the Diddy
Trial, but it is not the end ofthis podcast.
There's more to come, so staytuned.
(37:41):
Until then, I thank you so muchfor your love and support.
Thank you for listening.
If you enjoy this podcast andwant to help, please, please,
please spread the word.
Tell your friends, tell yourfamily, encourage them to
listen.
(38:02):
You can also follow Rate andReview on Apple Podcasts and
Spotify.
And just like Uber, five-starreviews are very much
appreciated.
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Special Summer Offer: Exclusively on Apple Podcasts, try our Dateline Premium subscription completely free for one month! With Dateline Premium, you get every episode ad-free plus exclusive bonus content.
The Breakfast Club
The World's Most Dangerous Morning Show, The Breakfast Club, With DJ Envy, Jess Hilarious, And Charlamagne Tha God!
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.