Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish

Summary

Podcast Summary: 20/20 – "Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish"

Episode Details

• Title: Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
• Host: Brian Buckmire, ABC News Legal Contributor
• Release Date: May 23, 2025
• Series: 20/20 by ABC News

---

Introduction

In this gripping episode of ABC News's 20/20 series titled "Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish," host Brian Buckmire delves deep into the high-stakes trial of Sean Combs (commonly known as Diddy). The episode provides an in-depth analysis of the prosecution's strategy, witness testimonies, and the legal intricacies of the case. Additionally, former federal prosecutor Moira Penza joins the discussion to offer expert insights into the prosecution's approach and the challenges faced in such high-profile cases.

---

Recap of Court Proceedings

Witness Testimonies

The trial has been marked by a flurry of testimonies from a diverse array of witnesses, shedding light on the complexities of the case against Sean Combs.

• Kid Cudi's Testimony ([04:15]):

  One of the most anticipated testimonies came from Scott Meskady, better known as rapper Kid Cudi. Wearing a distinctive black leather jacket and crisp white sneakers, Kid Cudi recounted a harrowing series of events. He described a break-in at his home in December 2011, allegedly orchestrated by Sean Combs. "I returned home to find my gifts opened and my dog locked in the bathroom," Kid Cudi testified ([03:20]). He further detailed an incident where his Porsche was set ablaze using a Molotov cocktail, a direct act of arson linked to the racketeering conspiracy charges against Combs. This testimony aligned with Cassie Ventura's previous claims that Combs threatened to destroy Kid Cudi's vehicle.

• Cassie Ventura's Testimony:

  Cassie Ventura, who has a civil lawsuit against Combs, provided crucial testimony about the strained relationship dynamics. She alleged that Combs threatened Kid Cudi, intensifying the tensions surrounding their personal relationships and business dealings.

• Other Witnesses:

  The courtroom also heard from two special agents from Homeland Security Investigations, two former assistants to Combs, and a makeup artist who worked with both Combs and Cassie. The makeup artist recounted observing physical signs of distress on Cassie post-Grammys 2010, including a swollen eye and busted lip ([19:00]).

Evidence Presented

The prosecution has methodically built a compelling case by presenting a wealth of evidence aimed at substantiating the racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges.

• Arson Evidence:

  Jurors were shown distressing photographs of Kid Cudi's Porsche, with its interior blackened and the driver's seat melted. The prosecution argued that the use of a Molotov cocktail was an attempt to intimidate and coerce ([05:10]).

• Drug-Related Evidence:

  Prosecution showcased baggies containing colorful pills and marijuana powders seized from Combs' properties in Los Angeles and Miami. These substances were purportedly used to ensure compliance and endurance among participants during "freak offs," events central to the racketeering allegations.

• Firearms Component:

  Special Agent Gerard Gannon testified about the discovery of two AR15 assault-style rifle parts with defaced serial numbers near where Combs allegedly stored materials for these extremist gatherings ([06:00]).

• Personal Items:

  The jury was shown personal items such as baby oil, lingerie, platform heels, and sex toys, which were linked to the ongoing investigations and charges.

---

Interview with Moira Penza

To provide a deeper understanding of the legal strategies at play, Brian Buckmire interviews Moira Penza, a seasoned trial attorney with significant experience in prosecuting complex cases, including the high-profile Keith Raniere of NXIVM fame.

Prosecution and Defense Strategies ([07:00])

Moira Penza commends the prosecution's meticulous approach: "They are trying to elicit testimony that is really going to meet the elements of the crimes... keeping it narrowly focused on what they actually are going to need to prove" ([06:55]). She highlights that the defense is strategic in not overplaying their hand, especially concerning Cassie Ventura, thereby maintaining credibility with the jury.

RICO Charges Explained ([12:04])

Penza elucidates the application of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act beyond traditional mob or gang contexts. She states, "The government is saying that Sean Combs was able to operate the way that he did because he was, in fact, part of a criminal organization" ([12:04]). Penza draws parallels to her prosecution of Keith Raniere, emphasizing that RICO can encompass various criminal enterprises, including those involved in sex trafficking and fraud.

Comparison with Previous Cases ([22:14])

Drawing from her experience with the NXIVM case, Penza notes similarities in the structure of the criminal organizations and the methods of coercion employed by the leaders. However, she also points out differences, such as the heightened level of physical violence in Combs' case, which serves as compelling evidence for the prosecution.

Defense Tactics ([25:46])

Penza discusses the anticipated strategies of Sean Combs' defense team, led by Mark Agnifolo and Tenny Garagos. She predicts that the defense will adopt a more straightforward approach, acknowledging certain misconducts to preserve their argument's credibility while challenging the prosecution's definitions and evidence of the crimes ([25:46]).

Role of Forensic Psychology ([28:55])

The conversation shifts to the involvement of forensic psychologist Dr. Don Hughes. Penza explains, "Dr. Hughes can explain how difficult it can be... in a situation where you've been abused repeatedly, especially where you have an individual who is extremely famous, who has enormous power over your career" ([28:55]). This expert testimony is crucial in helping the jury understand the psychological manipulation and trauma experienced by the victims.

Handling Consent Claims ([31:45])

Addressing potential defense arguments about consent, Penza asserts that the level of coercion and physical violence present negates any claims of consensual activities. She emphasizes that the prosecution's evidence robustly supports the elements of sex trafficking, making consent a non-viable defense ([32:10]).

Preparing Victims for Testimony ([33:15])

Penza outlines the compassionate strategies employed to prepare victims for court appearances. She stresses the importance of empowering victims by reminding them that they are not alone and that their testimonies are supported by corroborating evidence. "Tell victims to tell the truth, to answer questions posed by the defense attorney the same way they're answering questions by the prosecutor," she advises ([33:15]).

---

Conclusion and Current Status of the Trial

As the trial progresses, the prosecution continues to solidify its case against Sean Combs by presenting a substantial body of evidence and leveraging expert testimonies to underscore the gravity of the charges. With weeks of trial remaining, both the prosecution and defense are gearing up for their closing arguments, setting the stage for a potentially landmark verdict in the case.

---

Notable Quotes

• Moira Penza on Prosecution Strategy ([06:55]):

  "The prosecution is being very methodical. They are trying to elicit testimony that is really going to meet the elements of the crimes."

• Moira Penza on RICO Charges ([12:04]):

  "The government is saying that Sean Combs was able to operate the way that he did because he was, in fact, part of a criminal organization."

• Moira Penza on Defense Approach ([25:46]):

  "I think right now... they realize it will be a more effective strategy to admit that Mr. Combs is a deeply flawed individual and just try and get the jury to stay focused on the narrow issue of are these crimes actually proven?"

• Moira Penza on Forensic Psychology ([28:55]):

  "Dr. Hughes can explain how difficult it can be... in a situation where you've been abused repeatedly, especially where you have an individual who is extremely famous, who has enormous power over your career."

---

Note: This summary excludes all advertisements, promotional segments, and non-content sections of the podcast, focusing solely on the substantive discussions related to the Sean Combs trial.

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.

[Brad Milke]

Hi, I'm Brad Milke. I'm the host of the Crime Scene Weekly, a new show from ABC Audio about the latest headlines in true crime this week. I'm talking about the shocking allegations against the Alexander brothers, once the golden boys of luxury real estate, now facing serious sex crime charges. Listen to the Crime Scene Weekly on Apple, Spotify, Amazon or wherever you get your podcasts.

[Brian Buckmire]

We saw a lot happen in court this week, so let's catch up. The last few days featured testimony from a really wide range of witnesses. We heard from two special agents from Homeland Security Investigations, two former assistants who worked for Sean Combs, a makeup artist and perhaps the most anticipated witness this week, Scott Meskady, better known as rapper Kid Cudi, who once dated Cassie Ventura. In her civil lawsuit, Cassie alleged that Combs threatened to blow up Kid Cudi's car after finding out that she and Kid Cudi were dating. Well, Thursday we finally heard Kid Cudi's version of that story. Kid Cudi walked towards the witness stand wearing a black leather jacket, opened with a white T shirt underneath with blue jeans and crisp white sneakers, a cross earring dangling from his right ear. He testified about a break in at his home in December of 2011 while he was with Cassie. He says he got a call from an assistant to Sean Combs who allegedly told him Combs was in his house. Kid Cudi told the jury he returned home to find his gifts that he had bought for his family had been opened and his dog was locked in the bathroom. After the New Year, he testified he got a call that his Porsche was on fire in his driveway. Jurors saw photos of the blackened interior and the charred, melted driver's seat. Kid Cudi said a Molotov cocktail was dropped into the car through a hole cut in the roof. Arson is one of the underlying acts included in the racketeering conspiracy count Combs is facing. And Cassie Ventura previously testified that Combs had threatened to have Kid Cudi's car blown up. Kid Cudi testified that he reached out to Sean Combs to kind of squash the beef. He met Combs at the Soho House of Los Angeles, where he walked into a room with just Combs standing there staring out of a window with his arms behind his back looking like, as Kid Cudi testified, some kind of a marvel supervillain. That line got a laugh from the jury. Although Cassie testified she started seeing Kid Cudi when she and Combs relationship was in a rough patch. Kid Cudi testified that Cassie told him they had been split up. On cross examination, the defense said both Kid Cudi and Combs were played by the same woman. The person who played you, the person who played Shawn Was Ms. Ventura true? One of the lawyers asked. Yeah, kid Cudi replied. And this week the jury saw other photos too, including pictures of baby oil, lingerie, platform heels and sex toys. You'll recall Diddy's Los Angeles and Miami homes were raided by federal agents back back in 2024. Special Agent Gerard Gannon testified that the feds recovered the parts of two AR15 assault style rifles with defaced serial numbers only feet from where Combs allegedly stored supplies for freak offs. Prosecutors have argued that the threat of violence allowed Combs to coerce his alleged victims to participate in freak offs. Jurors also saw baggies of colorful pills and other drugs allegedly found in Combs home, including marijuana powders and other drugs that prosecutors have alleged were used to make participants compliant during freak offs and would allow them to perform well past the point of exhaustion. Thursday afternoon, a makeup artist who worked with Diddy and Cassie testified that she saw Cassie with a swollen eye and busted lip and knots on her head after the Grammys in 2010. Altogether this week, it felt like the prosecution was really beginning to build support for its racketeering conspiracy charges. This is Bad Rap. The case against Diddy. I'm Brian Buckmire, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney. This episode, prosecutors go for the big fish as we wrap up the second week of usav. Sean Combs, I wanted to sit down with someone who could take listeners inside. What goes into prosecuting a high profile case like this one, A federal criminal case that combines RICO charges along with sex trafficking? My guest, Moira Penza is a trial attorney working in private practice. She's not involved in the Diddy prosecution, but she's got a lot of interesting insight because back in 2019 she was an Assistant US Attorney for the Eastern District of New York. Omoira was the lead prosecutor on a RICO and sex trafficking case the government brought against a man named Keith Raniere. He was the leader of a company called Nexium that Sold self improvement classes and workshops. Omoira and her colleagues proved that Raniere was in charge of a criminal enterprise that engaged in sex trafficking and forced labor, among other crimes. Raniere is currently serving a 120 year sentence and two members of his defense team are now representing Combs, Mark Agnifolo and Tenny Garagos. So Moira has faced off against some of Combs attorneys in open court, which is another reason I was curious to talk with her. Now, in this conversation, we're going to lean on Moira's expertise and experience as a prosecutor. You'll hear that in how she talks about these cases. She often assumes the government's point of view. But we want to remind you that Sean Combs has pled not guilty to all of the federal charges he's now facing. I started by asking Moira what stood out to her so far about the prosecution and defense strategies in a Combs case.

[Moira Penza]

Well, I think the prosecution is being very methodical. They are trying to elicit testimony that is really going to meet the elements of the crimes. And so where they have salacious details, I think they are keeping it narrowly focused on what they actually are going to need to prove. And I think that's the right approach for the government. I also think the defense is doing a good job as well. I think that they have an uphill battle because there is so much evidence here. We have pictures, we have a lot of corroboration, we have video. But what's standing out to me from the defense side is that they're really not defending the indefensible. So they're taking responsibility for things that they know they have to take responsibility for it, like the fact that the defendant engaged in domestic violence. It's on tape. So by standing up and taking responsibility for that on the defendant's behalf, that's preserving their credibility with the jury so that they can actually make other arguments about the law. I also thought the defense was smart to not be overly aggressive with Ms. Ventura. We've seen defense attorneys make that mistake stake in other sex crimes prosecutions. And I think what they were trying to do is just allow the messages to speak for themselves. So regardless of what Ms. Ventura may have said on any occasion or what the text messages say, to the extent the jury is going to be persuaded by those messages, that's enough. They don't need to be standing up there attacking Ms. Ventura, who's eight and a half months pregnant and was clearly the victim of crimes. Even if, according to the defense, not sex Trafficking or racketeering.

[Brian Buckmire]

Let's talk about the part of the case you think is the most clear cut, the charges of sex trafficking. Why do you think that?

[Moira Penza]

Well, I'm a former prosecutor and I've prosecuted very similar crimes back when I was at the Eastern District of New York. And what we've seen is that the government has really laid out a strong case of the elements of sex trafficking. I think we've also seen them lay out a strong case for the RICO conspiracy charges as well. But talking about the sex trafficking first, the most important things for the government to prove there is that there was commercial sex that was compelled through force, fraud or coercion. And so in this case, we have very clear commercial sex. So commercial sex is. Anytime there is sex exchanged for a thing of value in a lot of sex trafficking prosecutions we've seen recently against high profile individuals, we're not talking about an actual exchange of sex for money, as one might traditionally think about sex trafficking. For example, in the Harvey Weinstein cases, you're talking about an exchange of sex for a position in the entertainment industry. That's really what you're thinking about in terms of thing of value here. This is a somewhat unique case in terms of recent sex trafficking prosecutions in that we actually have participants in the sex act, we have the escorts who actually are being paid. Then you need the force fraud or coercion. And there I think the government's laid out a very clear case as well. We have incident after incident of physical violence against Ms. Ventura surrounding these freak offs. We also have strong evidence of coercion. So where you have an individual who is in a dynamic with an abuser, where that abuser really has control over every aspect of her life, so her career, all the way down to what color she's painting her fingernails, that's going to take away an individual's agency. And so in that situation, it is much easier for somebody who intends to hurt somebody to do so. We also have the government introducing evidence of the threats against Ms. Ventura, that the tapes of the freak offs would be used if she were to leave him. And so that's another really strong piece of evidence that we see as to the sex trafficking elements.

[Brian Buckmire]

Now we've been getting a lot of questions from listeners about the RICO charges Sean Combs is facing. When people hear rico, they might think of a criminal organization like a mob or a gang. I've also heard people talk about that the RICO statute being applied here is overly broad. So can you help our listeners understand why the Government is using RICO laws to prosecute Sean Combs.

[Moira Penza]

Absolutely. So racketeering laws do prosecute criminal organizations. That's absolutely true. And that's what the government is saying here. The government is saying that Sean Combs was able to operate the way that he did because he was, in fact, part of a criminal organization, that there were other individuals who helped facilitate the crimes that he is charged with. And that expansion of the racketeering laws to prosecute crimes other than mob cases has been going on for a long time. So in the Eastern District of New York, you had the prosecution of soccer corruption under the. The racketeering laws. We've seen various opioid cases that are brought under the racketeering laws. And in fact, I used the racketeering statute when I prosecuted Keith Ranieri, who was the head of the nexivm, what's colloquially called a sex cult. But there, my argument was, in fact, that Keith Ranieri was running a criminal organization. He wasn't a cult leader. He was a crime boss. And that's really what you hear the government doing in this case as well. And that's why we're getting testimony from assistance, other people in his entourage, other people who were employed by him, who saw what was happening and helped facilitate it, including by covering up his crimes.

[Brian Buckmire]

So I'm actually curious about this, because I've tried to have this conversation with my friends, and they're always saying, Sean Combs made music, he produced music, he had a whole fashion line, alcohol, everything. His organization isn't criminal. He's a business person. But then he did freak off. So, like, only a percentage or a small part of it could be considered criminal. So how are you calling what he's doing a criminal enterprise? Can you make sense of that?

[Moira Penza]

Yes. So when the government is charging racketeering, they can say that an organization is entirely criminal, or they can say that there is an association of individuals who together are committing crimes. And sometimes an organization or the way that somebody is operating their businesses can help facilitate crimes. So, again, similarly, in the case that I prosecuted, even though we talk about it as the nexivm case, I did not charge NEXIVM as a criminal organization. I charged Keith Ranieri and his associates together as a criminal organization who were using nexivm classes, the individuals who were taking NXIVM courses to commit these crimes, sometimes as participants in the crime, sometimes as victims. And so just because there can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise. Same thing with the FIFA case. Right. There can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, but where an individual is working with others to commit crimes, even if they are also doing things that are legitimate, they that can still be racketeering.

[Brian Buckmire]

Last thing on this whole RICO allegation in charge, two part question. What does the government need to prove in order to make out their case against Combs that he's guilty of RICO charges? And from what you've seen so far, are they doing that?

[Moira Penza]

So they've charged Sean Combs with racketeering conspiracy. So they have to show that he agreed with at least one other person to engage in racketeering. Then to actually figure that out, what you're looking for is two predicate acts of racketeering that other people were involved in facilitating. So, you know, there can be additional nuances to that as well. But I think the government's going to want to make it easy for the jury and say, here are all these instances where the crime that Mr. Combs committed required other people's involvement. So that's, I think, the way that the government is going to lay it out. And in terms of whether they're there yet, I think they're getting there. I think we've heard testimony that showed the involvement of other individuals. We also had testimony from one of Mr. Combs assistants, and he was going to take a fifth. So he was not going to testify, saying that he would be incriminating him himself if he took the stand. And so he was actually granted immunity so that he would in fact testify. And so having individuals who the government is actually saying were part of this conspiracy testify about what they saw, what they did, that's going to be powerful evidence. And we still have weeks of trial to go.

[Brian Buckmire]

It's interesting that you bring up granting an individual immunity because George Kaplan, one of Sean Combs personal assistants, we saw him on Wednesday take the 5th, then be granted immunity and then testify. So what goes into an AUSA's mindset as to we need to give this person immunity in order to testify? And how do you get to that conclusion and what do you do with them?

[Moira Penza]

Well, I think this is one of the toughest parts of the job as a prosecutor is really exercising that prosecutorial discretion. So just because somebody did engage in criminal conduct, just because somebody may have been a lower ranking member of a criminal conspiracy, you may choose not to charge them with crimes. Right. In other situations, you might actually charge somebody with a crime and then they cooperate with the government and testify in exchange for the government eventually seeking leniency on their behalf in other situations. And I can't speak to the exact specifics of how the government made the decision that they made. But in other situations, what you're going to say is this isn't necessarily somebody who I think should be charged for a crime, or there may be other reasons why you don't want to charge them with a crime. But they themselves might say, or through their lawyers, I'm not going to testify because what you want me to say is going to incriminate me. And so in that situation, the government makes a calculus that you don't want to prosecute the person, but it is also worth having them testify. And you always want to be doing that when it is helping you get the person who is significantly more culpable. And here there's clearly no dispute that the defendant, Mr. Combs, was the head of this organization. So the government is going to make certain decisions to make sure that they can hold him responsible.

[Brian Buckmire]

So sometimes people ask me in just a layperson's term, and so I'm gonna ask you in this term.

[Moira Penza]

Sure.

[Brian Buckmire]

Is it sometimes that you're just going after the big fish and you let the little fish go?

[Moira Penza]

I think that's totally fair. And I think that's, that's the way that the system should work. I think that prosecutorial discretion is a very important part of the system. And certainly there can be cases where for a variety of reasons, maybe because somebody was such a victim, him or herself, that you choose not to prosecute them.

[Brian Buckmire]

Just ahead, former prosecutor Moira Rapenza has faced some of Combs defense team in court before and she says they're making some new moves in the Combs trial.

[Moira Penza]

Oh my God. Is this your home? This is the.

[Brian Buckmire]

This is the humble abode. Oh my God.

[Moira Penza]

It's so humble.

[Brian Buckmire]

FX presents Adults.

[Moira Penza]

You don't know your Social Security number?

[Brian Buckmire]

No, I do.

[Moira Penza]

It's just my mom like knows the whole thing.

[Brian Buckmire]

A new comedy about 20 somethings achieving 0 anythings.

[Unknown]

What is worst the that happens I go broke. I can't pay my loans. I start an only fans. But only you guys subscribe.

[Moira Penza]

You can't do only.

[Unknown]

Yeah, you wouldn't make it on there. So sorry.

[Brian Buckmire]

FX's Adults premieres May 28th on FX. All episodes streaming on Hulu.

[Unknown]

Get tickets now.

[Moira Penza]

Look, I got a dog. Ow.

[Unknown]

To the movie event of the summer.

[Moira Penza]

You sure that's a dog? Yeah. Rough.

[Unknown]

This Memorial Day the summer starts with.

[Moira Penza]

Stitch, adorable little psychopath.

[Unknown]

Disney's Lilo and Stitch rated PG parental guidance suggested now playing only in theaters.

[Moira Penza]

This is the next phase in my.

[Unknown]

Therapeutic work, Nicole Kidman returns for The Hulu Original Nine Perfect Strangers Season 2.

[Moira Penza]

Breathe in, breathe out. This is safe.

[Unknown]

We take you back to a core trauma.

[Brian Buckmire]

She is manipulating us. Breathe in.

[Unknown]

Breathe out.

[Moira Penza]

While you're resisting.

[Brian Buckmire]

Is it too late to get a refund?

[Unknown]

The all new season of nine Perfect Strangers is now streaming on Hulu and Hulu and Disney. New episodes Wednesdays.

[Brian Buckmire]

And I'm back with Moira Penza, a former federal prosecutor who's brought charges similar to what Sean Combs is facing. Perhaps her most high profile case was the prosecution of Keith Raniere, the former NXIVM leader who was convicted of crimes including racketeering and sex trafficking in 2019. I asked Moira if she sees any parallels between the two cases.

[Moira Penza]

So I think that there are a lot of similarities in the cases in that you have an individual who within his community is very high powered. Now, of course, far more people know Sean Combs than knew Keith Ranieri at the time that I prosecuted him. But they were both men who have significant influences in the spheres in which they operated. And the way that I charged the nexivm case was recognizing that the crimes that Keith Ranieri committed, he was able to commit over such a long period of time and with so many victims because he did have the involvement of other people and because he was part of this organization where a lot of individuals were benefiting financially, emotionally from being with him, they aggrandized him and were willing to participate in the victimization of other people on his behalf. In the naxivm case for the sex trafficking piece, there were a number of different ways in which we proved the elements, but basically what we were saying was that women were collateralized. So there were women who thought they were joining a female empowerment group, and as part of joining that, they were forced to hand over nude pictures, damning information about themselves, either true or false. Once they had handed over that information, only later, once that blackmail material was already obtained, did they learn that part of this organization was requiring them to have sex with Keith Ranieri. So that was the coercion that you see in terms of the sex trafficking charges that we have there. And then in terms of the racketeering charges, again, we had other individuals who were helping groom women and who were involved in other crimes for Keith Ranieri, including covering up different pieces of it. In terms of showing that the victims were under the coercive control of the defendant. Again, there were a lot of similarities. So the women in my case were controlled in every aspect of their life, and their whole lives had really become this person, this organization, their careers. They were really separated from people who could really serve as sounding boards for what was going on. One difference that we do have is the level of alleged physical violence in the Sean Combs case. In the naxivm case, there was a little bit of that. And, of course, the sex crimes themselves are inherently violent, but this sort of brutal physical violence is something that we didn't have in my case, but that you do have in this case. And that, I think, is very powerful evidence for the prosecutors.

[Brian Buckmire]

You've got a little bit of inside baseball here because you've gone up against Mark Igno and Tenny Garagos, and now the SDNY is going up against who I would describe as the lead defense attorneys in Sean Combs. So what can we expect of their style? What can we expect of the way they're gonna cross examine? What can we expect of the closing arguments that the defense is likely gonna bring up, since you know, their style of defense?

[Moira Penza]

Mark and Tenney were the team in the NAXIVM case, so I know them well. Ms. Garagos did not have as much of a standup role during the naxivm trial. I certainly think she's a talented lawyer, and I do think, optically, it was a good decision on the part of the defense team to have a young woman who was a contemporary of the prosecution team standing up and showing that she was on the defendant's side and advocating for the defendant. So I think, to Mark and Tenney's credit, I don't think they're necessarily following the same playbook that I saw in their defense of Keith Ranieri. And I think that reflects probably their own evolution in how to defend these cases. But also, I think likely, I think Mr. Combs is maybe more willing to allow them to take certain approaches, like accepting responsibility for being a bad boyfriend for domestic abuse. So I think right now, where I think we're going to see closing arguments go is really a bookend of what we saw in opening. I think we're going to see the defense say, we've heard a lot of stuff you might not like Jury, but it's not the crimes that the government has charged. And I think in that respect, it will be a little bit more matter of fact than we might have seen in the NXIVM case, where I think Mark made more of an effort to try and paint Keith Ranieri as actually a good man with good intentions, as opposed to here, where I think they realize it will be a more effective strategy to admit that Mr. Combs is a deeply flawed individual and just try and get the jury to stay focused on the narrow issue of are these crimes actually proven?

[Brian Buckmire]

In your case against Keith Raniere, you had an expert forensic psychologist by the name of Don Hughes who also testified in Sean Combs case. How did you use her expertise to help in that case, and how do you see her expertise to being used to further the government's case against Sean Combs?

[Moira Penza]

So I think in both cases, Dr. Hughes's testimony is being used very similarly. I think the NXIVM case is actually the first case in which Dr. Hughes testified, and she's now testified quite a bit on behalf of the government and on behalf of victims of abuse and sex trafficking. The reality is that victims of sex crimes, victims of domestic abuse, often behave in ways that may seem counterintuitive to a layperson, to a jury. We often see victims writing text messages, talking about how much they love their abuser. We see them going back, having consensual sex after they've been raped. And that sort of behavior can sometimes, for somebody who is not familiar with the psychology of it, seem like it goes against the credibility of the victim. In reality, those behaviors are very common. I've seen it in every sex crimes case that I was involved in. And, you know, now, as somebody who comments on these sorts of cases, it's something that you see in basically every case. And what Dr. Hughes does is not talking about the specifics of the case at all can explain this sort of victim behavior and the psychology of it and why we can see that and put it into terms that are understandable for a jury. And then the jury can apply what They've heard from Dr. Hughes to what they've heard the victim say, and then it may be a lot more understandable. So, for example, Dr. Hughes talks about the fact that there's often love in these long term relationships where there's abuse, but there's these trauma bonds that keep people coming back. Even in situations where a layperson who, you know, thankfully has not experienced this sort of behavior thinks, why didn't she just leave? The door was open, she had family, she could have gotten help. And Dr. Hughes can explain how difficult that can be in a situation where you've been abused repeatedly, especially where you have an individual who is extremely famous, who has enormous power over your career. And that can be really helpful for the jury in answering some questions that they might have.

[Brian Buckmire]

So the interesting thing that I found with this case. What also happened in Keith Ranieri's case was that the defense had the argument of some of this was consensual or all of this was consensual as a way of defending their case. What kind of difficulties does that create for the government in terms of trying to prove their case that either consent didn't happen or it doesn't matter in the context of these allegations?

[Moira Penza]

I don't think that consent is a real challenge in this case because of the level of physical violence that you have and because of the coercive elements, the threats of blackmail. It's something that is a challenge for the government, but certainly something that can be overcome. And I think it's just something for the government to address head on. But this isn't a he said, she said case. It's really going to come down to the legal standard. I think the government is going to be able to show how, regardless of what Ms. Ventura may have said on any occasion or what the text messages say, that the elements of sex trafficking are met. That's, that's what we're going to hear the government say about these alleged crimes.

[Brian Buckmire]

How do you prepare alleged victims to testify in court? Considering all of what's gonna happen in the direct examination, showing up to court, and especially the cross examination, I think.

[Moira Penza]

That'S one of the most challenging aspects of being a prosecutor because you are really asking these alleged victims to relive some of the most traumatizing events of their life. And what I like to do is remind our victims that, or back when I was a prosecutor, that this individual doesn't have power over you anymore. It's very different to see them in a courtroom when they've been charged with a crime and you're in the witness stand versus when you may have last seen them and all they are is this super high powered individual and then always reminding people that they are not here to be an advocate for the government. They're just there to tell the truth. I also like to remind victims that there's a lot of corroboration that we can't tell them about. So there's going to be a lot of other evidence that helps support what they're saying. And we can't tell them the specifics of that, but we can tell them that they're not out there alone. And then in terms of cross examination, just again, tell victims to tell the truth, to answer questions posed by the defense attorney the same way they're answering questions by the prosecutor. And we talk about what to expect we would talk about. You're going to see text messages saying that you loved him and just try and take away as much of the surprise element as you can.

[Brian Buckmire]

Moira, thank you so much.

[Moira Penza]

No problem. Thanks for having me.

[Brian Buckmire]

Court's taking somewhat of a longer break from Memorial Day weekend. They're off today on Friday and Resume on Tuesday, May 27th. We'll be back in your feed later that day with the latest from ABC News Live's Burden of Proof. If you have any questions about the case you'd like me to answer, call and leave a voicemail at 9. Thanks to everyone who's called. We love hearing your questions and we'll answer as many as we can on future episodes. The Case Against Diddy is a production of ABC Audio. I'm Brian Buckmire. Our podcast production team includes Vika Aronson, Nancy Rosenbaum, Audrey Mastek, Amira 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.

[Unknown]

Like your favorite travel guide, T Mobile's network knows all the spots because T Mobile helps keep you connected from the heart of Portland to right where you are on America's largest 5G network. Switch now. Keep your phone and T Mobile will pay it off up to $800 per line via prepaid card. Visit your local T Mobile location or learn more@t mobile.com keepandswitch up to 4 lines of your virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days qualifying unlock device, credit service report in 90 plus days device and eligible carrier and timely redemption. Required card is no cash access and expires in six months.

For the team ready to conquer the grandest stage, immortality awaits moments of sweat and sacrifice towards the composition of champions. An unforgettable journey is nearing its finale.

[Brian Buckmire]

Four more wins to take home the trophy.

[Unknown]

The NBA finals, presented by YouTube TV, begin June 5 on ABC.