Bad Rap: “Power, Violence and Fear”—The Prosecution’s Closing Argument

Summary

20/20 Podcast Summary: "Bad Rap: 'Power, Violence and Fear'—The Prosecution’s Closing Argument"

Release Date: June 27, 2025
Host: Brian Buckmire, ABC News

---

Introduction

In the June 27, 2025 episode of ABC News' 20/20, titled "Bad Rap: 'Power, Violence and Fear'—The Prosecution’s Closing Argument", legal contributor and practicing attorney Brian Buckmire delves deep into the closing arguments of Sean Combs' high-profile trial. This episode offers listeners a comprehensive analysis of the prosecution's and defense's strategies, the complexities of RICO charges, and expert predictions on the trial's outcome.

---

Overview of the Closing Arguments

Prosecution's Case

The prosecution, led by Prosecutor Kristi Slavik, presented a nearly five-hour-long summation aimed at convincing the jury of Sean Combs' involvement in a criminal enterprise. The central thesis revolved around Combs' alleged use of power, violence, and fear to orchestrate and sustain illicit activities, including sex trafficking and transportation for prostitution.

Brian Buckmire [00:54]: "28 days of testimony, 34 witnesses for the prosecution, 0 witnesses for the defense, over a thousand pieces of evidence. All of it has brought us here, closing arguments and USA v' Shawn Combs."

Prosecutor Slavik meticulously reviewed key witnesses and pieces of evidence, emphasizing the scale and organization of the alleged criminal operations under Combs' leadership. A particularly striking visual was a photograph displaying 27 escorts, symbolizing the breadth of the alleged sex trafficking network.

Bernarda Villona [05:26]: "The prosecution put the picture up of 27 men, 27 escorts that were run through Cassie and Jane throughout these years of alleged sex trafficking that they engaged in at the hands of Sean Combs."

Defense's Approach

In contrast, the defense, represented by Bernarda Villona and Shawna Lloyd, chose not to present any witnesses during their closing argument. This strategic decision was aimed at highlighting the perceived weaknesses and holes in the prosecution's case without exposing the defense to cross-examination.

Shawna Lloyd [07:50]: "The defense is arguing that these individuals, these escorts and the entertainment were paid for their time and that all of the sexual activity was gratuitous."

---

In-Depth Analysis

RICO Charges and Predicate Acts

A significant portion of the episode focuses on the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) charges against Combs. RICO is one of the most complex charges in criminal law, carrying the potential for life imprisonment. The prosecution needed to demonstrate at least two predicate acts linked to a criminal enterprise led by Combs.

Brian Buckmire [17:04]: "So I think they have more than two predicate acts that will land with the jury."

Bernarda Villona outlines the prosecution's robust case, highlighting multiple instances of alleged wrongdoing, including bribery, drug distribution, and arson. She emphasizes that even singular acts, when connected to the broader criminal enterprise, suffice for RICO charges.

Conversely, Shawna Lloyd critiques the prosecution's definition of the criminal enterprise, arguing that the involvement of Combs' personal staff and security personnel creates a tenuous link rather than a cohesive criminal organization.

Shawna Lloyd [20:46]: "I have a bit of an issue with that. But that is what the prosecution is alleging is the enterprise."

Defense Strategies and Raising Doubts

The defense's strategy focused on undermining the prosecution's narrative by questioning the existence of a cohesive criminal enterprise and challenging the legitimacy of the predicate acts. By not presenting witnesses, the defense aimed to prevent the prosecution from discrediting their arguments through cross-examination.

Shawna Lloyd [23:55]: "What I saw is that they have enough places where they can insert reasonable doubt that there's no reason to introduce additional witnesses."

---

Jury Deliberation and Potential Outcomes

As the trial approached deliberation, hosts and guests speculated on possible verdicts. Bernarda Villona highlighted the uncertainty surrounding jury deliberations, especially with the looming Fourth of July holiday potentially impacting the timeline.

Bernarda Villona [25:30]: "It's quite possible if we do not get a jury verdict by July 2, that this jury's going to come back on July 7."

Shawna Lloyd provided a prognosis for the jury's decision, anticipating a mixed verdict with potential acquittals on certain charges and convictions on others. She particularly identified trafficking with Cassie as a likely point of contention that could result in a hung jury.

Shawna Lloyd [26:16]: "I think we're gonna get a mixed verdict. I think we're gonna get some guilty, some not guilty."

The discussion also touched upon sentencing, explaining the difference between consecutive and concurrent sentences and how they might apply to Combs if convicted.

Bernarda Villona [26:46]: "Sean Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy, where he faces up to life. ... he is facing consecutive time, meaning... 10 years on top of those 10."

Additionally, the defense could explore mitigation factors such as Combs' lack of prior convictions, mental health considerations, and evidence of therapy to potentially reduce any sentences handed down.

Shawna Lloyd [28:01]: "I think you're gonna see them talk a lot about that to get that sentence reduced."

---

Conclusion and Upcoming Insights

The episode concluded with Buckmire teasing the next steps in the trial, including the defense's imminent closing arguments and the prosecution's forthcoming rebuttal. Listeners were encouraged to stay tuned for detailed analyses post-verdict.

Brian Buckmire [28:50]: "The defense is scheduled to deliver its closing arguments today. Listen for full analysis of that and the prosecution's rebuttal on Burden of Proof, which will drop into the Bad Rap feed this evening."

---

Notable Quotes with Timestamps

• Brian Buckmire [00:54]: "28 days of testimony, 34 witnesses for the prosecution, 0 witnesses for the defense, over a thousand pieces of evidence."

• Bernarda Villona [05:26]: "The prosecution put the picture up of 27 men, 27 escorts..."

• Shawna Lloyd [07:50]: "The defense is arguing that these individuals were paid for their time and that all of the sexual activity was gratuitous."

• Shawna Lloyd [20:46]: "I have a bit of an issue with that. But that is what the prosecution is alleging is the enterprise."

• Shawna Lloyd [26:16]: "I think we're gonna get a mixed verdict. I think we're gonna get some guilty, some not guilty."

• Brian Buckmire [28:50]: "The defense is scheduled to deliver its closing arguments today. Listen for full analysis..."

---

Final Thoughts

This episode of 20/20 provides an in-depth examination of the critical phase in Sean Combs' trial, offering listeners expert insights into the legal strategies employed by both the prosecution and defense. The discussion on RICO charges, predicate acts, and potential jury outcomes underscores the complexity of high-stakes legal battles.

For those following the case, this summary encapsulates the essence of the closing arguments and sets the stage for the impending verdict, ensuring they are well-informed regardless of their ability to listen to the full episode.

Transcript

[Brian Buckmire]

Hi, I'm Brian Buchmire, an ABC News legal contributor and host of Bad the Case Against Diddy. You're about to hear our latest episode following everything going on in Sean Combs trial from the prosecution and the defense. Remember to hear all of our updates on this case follow Bad the Case Against Diddy. We're dropping two new episodes every week, including one that's not available anywhere else. Now, here's our episode. This episode is brought to you by Polestar. There's only one true way to experience the all electric luxury SUV Polestar 3, and that's to take a test drive. It can go from 0 to 60.

[Shawna Lloyd]

In as little as 4.8 seconds with.

[Brian Buckmire]

The dynamic handling of a sports car. But to truly understand how it commands the road, you need to be behind the wheel up to 350 miles of range. The 3D surround sound system by Bowers and Wilkins.

[Shawna Lloyd]

It's all something you have to experience to believe.

[Brian Buckmire]

So book your Test drive for Polestar 3 [e-mail] 28 days of testimony, 34 witnesses for the prosecution, 0 witnesses for the defense, over a thousand pieces of evidence. All of it has brought us here, closing arguments and USA v' Shawn Combs. This is Bad Rap the case Against Diddy. I'm Brian Buckmire, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney. Power, violence and fear. This is an important part of the trial for both sides. I like to describe closing arguments as the anchor of a 4x100 sprint. Yeah, you could trip up in the first leg, maybe not be as fast in the third, but that anchor, that attorney making closing arguments, they're sprinting to the finish line, sprinting to win it all. Thursday, the prosecution summarized a case they've spent over six weeks laying out for the jury. Prosecutor Kristi Slavik gave a nearly five hour long presentation. She recalled the witnesses and evidence they presented, all in the hopes of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Sean Combs ran a criminal enterprise, among other charges. We'll hear the defenses closing argument Friday where they'll likely remind the jury that Sean Combs might be a flawed man but reject any allegations of sex trafficking or running a criminal enterprise. Then the prosecution will have a brief rebuttal. Other than some instructions from the judge, that's the last thing the jury will hear before stepping away to deliberate. These arguments are the last chance each side has to persuade the jury to see things their way. On today's episode, I have two guests perfect for breaking down this crucial stage of the trial. We're Recording on Thursday evening after spending a long day in court listening to the prosecution's closing argument or summation. Our first guest is Bernarda Villona, a defense attorney in private practice in Brooklyn, New York. But early in her career, Bernarda was a prosecutor for 16 years in Philadelphia and Brooklyn. And also in studio today is Shawna Lloyd, a managing partner at the Cochran firm in Orlando, Florida. Shanna and Bernarda are both fellow ABC News legal contributors. Thank you both for joining me here today. I've really been looking forward to this conversation. Let's start with what we heard in court today. The prosecution has started with their initial part of the summations. They led with the idea that Combs used, quote, power, violence and fear to get what he wanted. We're going to dive deeper into how things are looking for each count in a minute. But Bernarda, big picture, what is a story the prosecution told the jury with its closing argument today? And how did it land for you?

[Bernarda Villona]

So today was a big day. You know, when it comes to closing arguments, it's one of the most important stages in any trial because it's the last time that both parties get to speak directly to this jury before they go inside to deliberate. So in terms of what the government did today, they wanted to drive and hone in the theory of power, sex, money, control, violence, fear, and how Sean Combs, as the leader of this enterprise, used all of that to be able to get what he wanted. His enterprise allegedly utilizing violence in terms of getting what he wants through these women, through sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. So in terms of what the prosecution was able to accomplish today, I think they were very strategic, very meticulous in the sense of how they laid this roadmap out for this jury to look at the evidence, look at the charges, look at the strongest pieces of evidence for each of the counts that actually exist that this jury has to ultimately, ultimately have to decide on. But I think they will also strategic in the sense of the most important visual that I'm still thinking of right now is when the prosecution put the picture up of 27 men, 27 escorts that were run through Cassie and Jane throughout these years of alleged sex trafficking that they engaged in at the hands of Sean Combs.

[Brian Buckmire]

Now, I know you're laser focused and listening to what's going on, but also watching any sense of how this is playing with the jury so far.

[Bernarda Villona]

So I have to say I spent the entire closing arguments looking at the jury. So not really focused at the prosecutor because I wanted to see whether this jury was actually engaged. And I have to say, I was surprised that for so many hours that this prosecutor was speaking. I believe she was speaking for five hours with breaks here and there. None of the jurors fell asleep. They. They were actually engaged in the sense that they maintained taking notes throughout the entire closing arguments. And that's a good sign when you're giving a closing argument, because you want the jury to at least give signs that they're acknowledging what you're saying and taking notes about what you're saying, because ultimately those notes are going to go back into that jury deliberation room. So I did see that they were engaged, not dozing off, they were taking notes, and they were paying close attention to the prosecutor, what she had to say, but also looking at the exhibits that she was putting up on the screen for the jurors to look at.

[Brian Buckmire]

Now, Shawna, we know that Mark Agnifolo, the defense attorney, made the argument that if they started closing arguments today, the jury might have been lost, might have fallen asleep. And so they're actually gonna start their closings Friday morning. So what do they need to do to tie this all up for the jury, especially since they decided not to call any witnesses?

[Shawna Lloyd]

So I think the defense's strategy here is not about calling witnesses. They're not putting on a case. And that's very smart, because there's enough holes within the prosecution's case that they're just going to add to it. You just want to make the hole bigger. So the first thing they're going to attack is this RICO charge. And I think the best way to attack that is really to attack the conspiracy head on. There was no agreement. You have to have that agreement. And if you cannot show that it doesn't matter what the underlying predicates are, you don't get the RICO charge. So if I'm defense, I'm attacking that immediately out the gate, there are too many text messages where either the bodyguards, the security, or the personal assistant don't know what's going on. You can know that you're setting up a room for Sean Combs and his girlfriend, but if you don't see what's happening in that room, you cannot be in agreement. And so kk, she's his chief of staff, she tells Sean Combs many times, I don't think you should do that. Why are you lying to me? So I'm gonna focus in and hone in on that part of the conspiracy, because without it, it breaks apart.

[Brian Buckmire]

The RICO kind of following up on that, Shawna, I thought the prosecution did a good job overall in organization, but went very light in terms of the criminal enterprise part. Do you think that could be strategic? Because they know that the defense is going to go heavy on that point and then maybe AUSA is kind of baiting them into to a sense of, like, when you come in with that for your part on the rebuttal, I'm going to come in real hard for what we want to talk about with the criminal enterprise. Do you think there's some gamesmanship going on there?

[Shawna Lloyd]

I think there's a bit of gamesmanship because they don't actually have as much on that. I actually think that's their weakest point. And so it's best to rebut as opposed to starting out, because if you start out weak and then it's attacked, when they get to do their closing, you don't look as strong. So it's better to have them say whatever they would like about the conspiracy and then attack it. And rebuttal makes sense.

[Brian Buckmire]

Now, as this case heads to the jury, how do we feel each side did making their case over the course of the trial? Let's go count by count. Combs, of course, pled not guilty to all of these charges. Bernardo, I'll start with maybe the easiest one. Let's get this one out of the way. Transportation to engage in prostitution.

[Bernarda Villona]

What do you think that's the strongest count that the prosecution has. So, in terms of transportation to engage in prostitution, there are two counts, one for Jane and one for Cassie. And it's important to remember that all you need to believe is just one instance where one escort was taken over state lines to engage in prostitution and was paid for those services. And the prosecutor was able to bring out text messages, invoices, hotel invoices, travel invoices, travel plans, in fact, pointed out to text messages where Sean Combs individually was sending the travel plans to one of the escorts on one of the occasions. So I think that is the strongest count that the prosecution has, a transportation to engage in prostitution. So that's the easy count for the prosecution. I think that's a count that the defense can't run from.

[Shawna Lloyd]

There is a defense. So the defense is arguing that these individuals, these escorts and the entertainment were paid for their time and that all of the sexual activity was gratuitous. And as they mentioned on the stand, the first escort testified when he saw Cassie open the door. She was a beautiful woman, and she said, will you rub oil on me? And he was very excited. When she said, will you make love to me? They were paying for time and that everything that happened afterwards was gratuitous. The tip was because it was a great performance, it was wonderful, and I thank you so much. And I'm tipping you because I have taken you away from, from your other engagements. And so I'm compensating you for that time that you have lost. And so that's what I think the defense is gonna allege.

[Brian Buckmire]

What about when it comes to trafficking for our listeners? Remember, sex trafficking doesn't necessarily mean running a prostitution ring. It means making a person engage in commercial sex acts through force, threat of force, fraud, or coercion. Shawna, you first. How did each side do in making their case throughout the trial? And. And how do you feel the government did in tying it all together in this, their first part of closings?

[Shawna Lloyd]

So trafficking is a harder case because what we're looking at are individuals that were in a personal intimate relationship over a length of time. And that's not what people typically think of when they think of trafficking. So in that context, I think that the prosecution did the best that they could do, which is they highlighted the points where they felt that were very clear in text messages, the notes that the women reflected, and how they felt about what happened. The reason it's hard when you're a relationship is because at the time that they initiated these acts with Sean Combs, they stated they were willing. Now, consent is a moving target. Just because you consent in the beginning doesn't mean you continue to consent. So they really did try to hone in on this idea that although they were willing participants in the beginning, it later became trafficking because there were instances where they did not want to do it. And I think that the prosecution did the best that they could do with the text messages and the information that they had. Now the defense is gonna poke a lot of holes into that. And the reason is, again, it's a two edged sword. When you're in a relationship with someone, there's ebbs and flows. So it's a very murky area. And I think that that is what the defense is gonna hone in on is, yes, these women may have thought in their mind they didn't wanna do that, but was that verbalized? Was that communicated to him at the time or was it just something that, in the case of Jane, that was something that was motivated by jealousy. Was it something that was motivated by money? So I'm gonna see, and I expect to see the defense really, because when you talk about trafficking in a relationship. There's so many nuances, and it's gonna really depend on the perspective of the juror who's actually looking at that charge.

[Brian Buckmire]

By the time we're taping this. The defense has not had an opportunity to give their closing argument. But throughout the trial, the defense has argued that all sexual encounters were consensual, that the government's alleged victims essentially testified to regret, that only in retrospect, they say they didn't want to participate in those acts and that the case is all about love, jealousy, infidelity and money. Combs attorneys acknowledged the defendant is a flawed person and that his actions even amounted to domestic violence. But they argue domestic violence does not equate to sex trafficking. Coming up after the break, we dig into the media's charge, the one that carries the most potential jail time for Sean Combs.

[Shawna Lloyd]

When life brings the blah, add more yabba dabba doo with some tasty fruity Pebbles. Early morning meeting, blah.

[Bernarda Villona]

Someone brought the Pebbles.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Yabba dabba doo.

[Brian Buckmire]

Run errands, blah.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Head to the store for Pebbles Yabba dabba doo. Fruity Pebbles, less blah, more yabba dabba doo. Pick up Pebbles cereal today Yabba dabba.

[Brian Buckmire]

Doo and the Flintstones and all related characters and elements Copyright and trademark Hanna Barbera.

[Shawna Lloyd]

This message comes from Greenlight. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend wisely and invest. With your guardrails in place with Greenlight, you can send money to kids quickly, set up chores, automate allowance, and keep an eye on your kids spending with real time notifications. Join millions of parents and kids building healthy financial habits together on Greenlight. Get started risk [e-mail] Spotify.

[Brian Buckmire]

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. Now I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a [e-mail] Switch upfront payment.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Of $45 for three month plan equivalent to $15 per month required new customer offer for first three months only.

[Brian Buckmire]

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Busy taxes and fees extra. See mint mobile.com.

[Brian Buckmire]

I'm back with fellow legal experts Bernardo Villona and Shana Lloyd. All right, first, let's talk about the big one, Rico or The racketeering conspiracy. It's definitely the most complicated charge in this case, maybe one of the most complicated charges in criminal law, period. And it also is the one that carries the most potential jail time. And let me do a little refresher on RICO first. This is the charge with the predicate acts in Diddy's case. Alleged bribery, forced labor, sex trafficking, arson, interstate transportation for prostitution, drug distribution, witness tampering, and kidnapping. The jury only needs to find him guilty of two of these and find there's a criminal enterprise. The government actually decided to pull back on a few predicate acts this week. They're removing attempted kidnapping, attempted arson, and aiding and abetting sex trafficking from the list of predicate acts the jury will consider. And I've seen some confusion about this online, so I want to clear it up real quick. The arson and kidnapping predicate acts, they're still in there. The government hasn't dropped those charges at all. It's just that there actually used to be an attempted arson and attempted kidnapping on the list as well. So removing those along with the aiding and abetting of sex trafficking is just about streamlining the options for the jury, something the judge requested of the government. It doesn't say anything about the strength of the government's case. Really. It's not a big deal in my mind. Do you guys agree? Like, does it change us in any significant way?

[Shawna Lloyd]

No significant change.

[Bernarda Villona]

No, not at all. We're still where we started.

[Brian Buckmire]

Yeah. I mean, my two cents. It's a question of did he Molotov cocktail kid cut his car or not? There's no attempt. Or did he have someone do it? Did he kidnap Capricorn, Clark or Cassie? Or have someone do it? Yes or no? No issue about attempt. Same thing with aiding and abetting when it comes to sex trafficking. Okay, so now let's talk about the predicate acts that the jury will consider. How does the government's case look? Do they have two that will land with the jury? Bernarda.

[Bernarda Villona]

So I think they have more than two predicate acts that will land with the jury. And I. I think in terms of today, they even made a stronger argument in terms of that you can find two predicate act the same crime itself. So, for example, predicate acts, possession will attend to distribute. The prosecution laid out that there were hundreds of time when Sean Combs was allegedly involved in being in possession of narcotics and distributed, whether it's giving it to Jane or giving it to Cassie, or that one time he gave it to Brendan Paul so he can try it out or when he gave it to, I believe was MIA or Bona, one of those. And that equaled out to hundreds of time. And all they have to figure out is just two times that they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So in terms of the possession, we tend to distribute, giving that away, as well as the time that Jane, on two different occasions from California, bought drugs at the behest of Sean Combs, where he got it from KK at the home of Sean Combs and then brought it to Florida. And that's corroborated by the text messages and the flight logs as well. In terms of kidnapping, kidnapping with Cassie, but more importantly, I think it's with Capricorn Clark when she testified how she was taken to a building to undergo a lie detector test. But more importantly the time when she was taken and forced to go to Kid Cudi's home with Sean Combs. But also another predic act, the one having to deal with Kid Cudi himself, that one dealing with the arson. Where do you see the pictures of the Molotov cocktail inside of his Porsche. And you see the damage as a result of that. And you have the corroboration that two weeks before that even happened, Cassie has sent an email to her family member to say that, look, if something happens to me or something happens in terms of Kid Cudi, he threatened for something to happen and he threatened to release the sex tapes. And what do you have? Two weeks later, Kit Cudi's car is actually burned with a Molotov cocktail. Also in terms of the bribery itself, I think that one is also a stronger predicate act because you also have the corroboration in the sense of Eddie Garcia, who did come in and testify and say, like, look, I did meet with Sean Combs. Actually, Sean Combs reached out to me personally as well as KK reached out to me personally. He met with them. He was given a hundred thousand dollars. He was signed at NDA, an NDA that was on Combs Enterprise let ahead. And also that photographs of his driver's license and the other guards driver's license pictures of that were taken. And where did they find Those pictures? In KK's phone. So I think those predicate acts are the strongest predicate acts for the prosecution. And again, you just have to find two of those acts. You don't have to find multiple of acts in order to make out the racketeering conspiracy. And that's even touching the sex trafficking. Because sex trafficking and the transportation to engage in prostitution are also predicate acts within the racketeering conspiracy. And all you have to find is two. Two of those sex trafficking acts in terms of free calls to make out the racketeering conspiracy. The predicate acts that are necessary.

[Brian Buckmire]

Absolutely. And there's a lot of those predicate acts and ways in which Sean Combs could be found guilty of rico. Now, I don't know how you guys envision RICO in terms like when you think about. In your mind. I think about it as a wheel. And the predicate acts are the spokes, the parts that connect to the external part of the tire, but also connect in the middle that hub. And if the predicate acts are the spokes, then the criminal enterprise is the hub, the center part that they all have to connect to. So, Shawna, what about the criminal enterprise? Because there can be all the spokes of that wheel, there can be all the predicate acts in the world, but if there's no hub, no center part connecting it, it all falls apart, right?

[Shawna Lloyd]

Correct. And so the government is alleging that this enterprise is consisting of Sean Combs himself, his chief of staff, who is kk the security members, and his personal assistants. I think it's a very tenuous connection, and I'll tell you why. Let's start with KK she's his chief of staff. They referred to her as his right brain and that she speaks on his behalf. Well, I'm a little confused, because what is a chief of staff? The purpose of having a chief of staff is so you do not have to talk to everyone that's handling housekeeping, that's handling everything else that's going on in your life. So, of course, she's speaks on your behalf by virtue of the definition of her job title. Again with the personal assistants. They talked about them being young and that they may not have known what was going on, but that they were involved. Security. Well, if you're my personal security, I expect you to be by my side during anything. So the idea that we're making them part of the enterprise when by virtue of their job description, they have to be there, they have to speak on his behalf, I think it creates a very tenuous situation for others that are looking at it and for other people who have run businesses, of course, they're working to operate, to execute his desire. That is the definition of a personal assistant. If I ask you to get my dry cleaning, you get my dry cleaning. So I think that that creates a very different idea when you have only those positions. I think if they had had the director of human resources if they had other positions, the finance director, then maybe I would see that a little bit more clearly. But by definition, these are people who are supposed to be carrying out the things that you are asking them to execute. Security is by your side at all times. No. What Otherwise, they're not doing their job. So I have a bit of an issue with that. But that is what the prosecution is alleging is the enterprise.

[Brian Buckmire]

Combs defense has said there is no criminal enterprise and that the government hasn't proven that any other individual actually conspired with Combs to, quote, conduct the affairs of a 20 year purported criminal enterprise. The defense is arguing that there are no predicate acts, that either the government has not provided enough information that Sean Combs directly or indirectly participated. Participated in certain predicate acts like the arson, or that the elements of those crimes are not sufficient enough to suggest that Sean Combs had committed those allegations. Think of the bribery and that NDA, that the NDA specifically says that an individual should testify to law enforcement if they're requesting to do so, meaning that they're not hiding any potential testimony. But each one of the predicate acts, according to the defense, doesn't make out the elements that Sean Combs or anyone under his employment or at his direction committed those acts. It's worth mentioning that the reason we're already at closings is because the defense decided not to call any witnesses. We first heard the defense would call witnesses for two to five days. We also heard we're making adjustments as we go and then zero witnesses, just introducing some evidence without anyone testifying to it. What's the defense signaling here by not calling any witnesses? Shauna, your thoughts on this?

[Shawna Lloyd]

What I saw is that they have enough places where they can insert reasonable doubt that there's no reason to introduce additional witnesses. Because there's a number of things. One, you open them up to cross examination. Two, you don't know how they're gonna come across to the jury. Will the jury believe they're credible? Will the jury like them? Will they believe that they're motivated for personal or financial interest? So with a case like this, to me, when I'm looking at what the federal government has, I am gonna be intent on poking holes in their theory of the case as opposed to adding anything else.

[Brian Buckmire]

We've got the Fourth of July coming up. The judge had told the jury from the time they were selected that this case would not go past that. How long do you think Bernarda deliberations will last? And do you think the Fourth of July has any effect on that, that's.

[Bernarda Villona]

The million dollar question. You can never tell how long a jury's going to deliberate, especially in a case like this that's so heavy with so much testimony and so much pieces of evidence and text messages and videos and freak off videos and voice notes and just testimony from witnesses for this jury to actually deliberate on. So in terms of how long they will last, we don't know. But the judge did tell them that they will complete this case by July 4th, and July 4th is next week. And remember that July 4th court is closed. That's that Friday. And also July 3rd, the court is closed. So really they're going to have Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to deliberate. I think in terms of what they can be grappling with, those first few notes will let us know the ones that they sent out.

[Brian Buckmire]

I know our listeners are going to want more. So I'm going to ask you this way, Bernarda. Are we working July 7th? Are we coming back on that Monday?

[Bernarda Villona]

It's quite possible if we do not get a jury verdict by July 2, that this jury's going to come back on July 7. What I am hoping, though, that they don't run the gambit in the sense that you have an issue with a sitting, deliberating juror during that time, being that the holidays are coming up and that you're going past July 4th, which is when you promised this jury that they will be done with with this case.

[Brian Buckmire]

All right, I'm gonna let you off the hook now. I asked you the hard question. I'm gonna come to Shawna now. How's it gonna end? Any predictions as to guilty on some charges, not guilty in others? Can we get a hung jury on one of the charges? How do you think this plays out?

[Shawna Lloyd]

I think we're gonna get a mixed verdict. I think we're gonna get some guilty, some not guilty. And I think of all the charges, the one I believe that they're going to have the toughest time with is trafficking with Cassie. My opinion, if there's gonna be a hung jury, that's the one I see it on.

[Brian Buckmire]

One thing, I know that people haven't been thinking about Bernard, but we've been talking about consec and concurrent. If Shawna is correct, that we get a mixed bag. One, can you explain consec and concurrent and how that could apply to the charge with Sean Combs when it comes to his sentence?

[Bernarda Villona]

So Sean Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy, where he faces up to life. He's charged with two counts of Sex trafficking, one count for Jane and one count for Cassie, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, one count for Cassie and one count for Jane. If Sean Combs were to be found guilty of all these charges, of course he'll face up to life in jail. But in terms of the sex trafficking and the transportation to engage in prostitution, because you have two different counts with two different victims, if he is found guilty, he is facing consecutive time, meaning that if the judge says, I'm going to sentence you to 10 years for sex trafficking, having to deal with Cassie and he's found guilty of the sex trafficking, having to deal with Jane, that it can be 10 on top of those 10. So those numbers are high numbers that Sean Combs is facing. But reality is, with the racketeering conspiracy he's facing up to life, that's the most scariest charge for Sean.

[Brian Buckmire]

If Sean Combs is found guilty in this mixed bag of charges, let's say for argument's sake, he's found not guilty of the rico. Cause if he's found guilty of the rico, this question doesn't make sense. But if he's found guilty of any of the other four charges, what kind of mitigation could you see the defense bring up that might lessen his jail sentence that Bernard is pointing out?

[Shawna Lloyd]

I think we're gonna see them talk about the fact that he doesn't have a record, that he has other issues. I think they've alluded to the drug use affecting him and other things that he was taking affecting his mental state. I think you're gonna see them talk a lot about that and to mitigate. And I also think you're gonna see them bring up a lot about his therapy. We didn't hear. We only heard very short snippets about that. But even when Jane testified, she was clear that she was actually shocked by the video in the elevator, that she didn't know him to be violent outside of that one altercation they had together, which she started. So I think you're gonna see them lean a lot on that to get that sentence reduced.

[Brian Buckmire]

Thanks, Sean and Bernardo, for joining us today. It's been great talking with you both.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Thanks for having us.

[Bernarda Villona]

Thank you.

[Brian Buckmire]

The defense is scheduled to deliver its closing arguments today. Listen for full analysis of that and the prosecution's rebuttal on Burden of Proof, which will drop into the Bad Rap feed this evening. Bad Rap, the case against Diddy is a production of ABC Audio Video. I'm Brian Buckmire. If you have any questions about the case for me. Leave a voicemail at 929-388-1249. I'll answer as many as I can before the verdict. If you appreciate this coverage, please share it and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Our podcast production team includes Vika Aronson, Audrey Mostek, Amirah Williams, Tracy Samuelson and Sasha Aslanian. Special thanks to Stephanie Maurice, Caitlin Morris, Liz Alessi, Katie Dendas and the team at ABC News Live. Michelle Margulis is our operations manager. Josh Cohan is ABC Audio's director of podcast programming. Laura Mayer is our executive producer. There's probably one really true thing about restaurants.

[Bernarda Villona]

You are never alone.

[Brian Buckmire]

FX presents the Bear. How do we keep this place open? We're gonna figure it out.

[Bernarda Villona]

I'm fired up, ready to go.

[Brian Buckmire]

Showtime, the acclaimed series returns.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Our flower budget is crazy.

[Brian Buckmire]

I blame my elegance.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Sometimes your work family is part of your family.

[Brian Buckmire]

Family.

[Bernarda Villona]

If you're lucky.

[Brian Buckmire]

FX's the bear. All episodes now streaming on Hulu. From Marvel Television. I'm executive producer Ryan Coogler.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Y' all calling me crazy. I want to build something iconic experience.

[Brian Buckmire]

The six episode of that is the ultimate display of power. I'm gonna take it.

[Shawna Lloyd]

Absolutely not.

[Brian Buckmire]

Now streaming on Disney plus. Remy, this is serious.

[Shawna Lloyd]

This power does not come without risks. Might be a hero in there after all.

[Brian Buckmire]

Marvel Televisions Ironheart now streaming only on Disney plus.