The Trial: A Heated Cross

Summary

Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy

Episode: The Trial: A Heated Cross
Release Date: June 3, 2025
Host: Brian Buckmire, ABC News Legal Contributor

---

Overview

In the fourth week of Sean "Diddy" Combs' high-profile federal trial, ABC News delves deep into the mounting allegations against the hip-hop mogul. Brian Buckmire, an experienced attorney and legal commentator, guides listeners through the intense courtroom dynamics, the strategic moves of both the prosecution and defense teams, and the broader implications of the case on Diddy's legacy.

---

Trial Progress and Key Testimonies

The episode picks up mid-trial, focusing on the cross-examination of Mia (Victim 4), an alleged victim who has brought forth accusations of prolonged threats, physical assault, and instances of sexual assault, including rape in Diddy's Los Angeles residence.

• Defense Strategy:
  Brian Steele, renowned for his role in the Young Thug RICO case, spearheads the defense's cross-examination. Steele scrutinizes Mia's delayed reporting of the assault, questioning the credibility of her allegations based on the absence of supporting evidence like texts or photos.
  "Was that just made up by you?" Steele probes Mia regarding her story of escaping Diddy by paddleboarding, casting doubt on the authenticity of her account. ([04:00])

• Judge's Intervention:
  The prosecution objects to Steele's line of questioning, particularly when he implies Mia's motivations might be financially driven by the Me Too movement. Judge Arun Subramanian rules that Mia cannot answer such queries outside the jury's presence, admonishing Steele for the form of his questions. ([04:00])

---

Listener Questions and Legal Insights

Buckmire engages with listeners' inquiries, addressing complex legal aspects of the case:

1. Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) and Civil Settlements:
   A listener asks about the implications of Cassie's 2023 settlement and potential NDA breaches. Buckmire explains that while NDAs in civil cases typically prevent public discourse, they do not shield individuals from testifying in criminal proceedings. Even if an NDA exists, it "cannot stop you from testifying." ([04:34])

2. Consent and Burden of Proof:
   Another listener from Ohio seeks clarity on how consent is interpreted in the context of the charges. Buckmire emphasizes that consent must be continuous and can be revoked at any time. The prosecution's stance is that "there was never consent here," undermining any defense based on voluntariness. ([05:26])

3. Potential Testimony of Sean Combs:
   A caller from South Carolina inquires about the strategic advantages of Diddy potentially taking the stand. Buckmire speculates that while Combs could humanize himself by admitting to certain behaviors, it might simultaneously allow him to "deny the actual charges he's facing," creating a complex dynamic in court. ([08:28])

4. Sex Trafficking vs. Prostitution Charges:
   Addressing confusion between different charges, Buckmire clarifies that Diddy is specifically charged with "transportation to engage in prostitution," distinguishing it from state-level prostitution charges. He delineates the nuances between sex trafficking and prostitution, highlighting the federal nature of the current charges. ([09:49])

5. Lesser Included Crimes:
   A listener from Los Angeles asks whether jurors can consider lesser charges. Buckmire explains that "transportation to engage in prostitution" does not have lesser included offenses, meaning jurors cannot downgrade the charges based on the specifics of the case. ([14:54])

---

High-Profile Developments and External Perspectives

• Presidential Pardon Considerations:
  In response to a listener query about the possibility of a presidential pardon, Buckmire provides an update featuring Donald Trump's remarks. Trump indicates that a pardon isn't off the table but emphasizes evaluating the facts impartially:
  "I don't know. I would certainly look at the facts. If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact." ([17:48])

• Insights from Diddy's Rival, Suge Knight:
  The episode includes an exclusive interview with Marion "Suge" Knight, a longstanding rival of Diddy. From his prison cell, Knight discusses the pervasive culture of abuse within the hip-hop industry, asserting that such toxicity "did not start with Combs." Interestingly, Knight opposes life imprisonment for Diddy, advocating instead for his accountability paired with potential for positive contribution:
  "I think he can do so much good right now, him telling the truth about the industry." ([19:21])

---

Legal Ramifications and Case Trajectory

Buckmire outlines the gravity of the federal charges, emphasizing that sex trafficking involves coercion, distinct from consensual prostitution activities. He underscores the prosecution's challenge in dismantling the defense's narrative of consent and voluntary participation.

Furthermore, the potential absence of Victim Three adds another layer of complexity, with Buckmire discussing the legal mechanisms and ethical considerations of compelling testimony from alleged victims.

---

Conclusion and Ongoing Coverage

As the trial advances, Buckmire invites listeners to stay engaged through the podcast and related ABC News platforms, ensuring continuous, real-time updates as the courtroom drama unfolds. He encourages audience participation by submitting questions, which he addresses with legal expertise, fostering a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted case against Diddy.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Brian Steele (Defense Attorney): "Was that just made up by you?" ([04:00])
• Donald Trump: "If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact." ([17:48])
• Suge Knight: "I think he can do so much good right now, him telling the truth about the industry." ([19:28])

---

Stay Tuned:
For ongoing analysis and updates on the Diddy trial, follow the six-part narrative series launching March 25, with additional real-time episodes as the May trial date approaches.

Transcript

[Polestar Sponsor]

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 in as little as 4.8 seconds with 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. It's all something you have to experience to believe. So book your Test drive for Polestar 3 [e-mail].

[Brian Buckmire]

This is bad Rap the Case Against Diddy. I'm Brian Buckmire, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney. This episode A Heated Cross Here we are, week four of what was originally expected to be an eight week trial for Sean Diddy Combs, but now maybe closer to six since the prosecution says it's running a bit ahead of schedule this week. The trial picked up where it left off last week with the cross examination of the prosecution's 21st witness, Mia, an alleged victim testifying under a pseudonym. She's also known as Victim 4 in the federal indictment. Last week, Mia told jurors the rap mogul threatened her for years, threw objects at her and sexually assaulted her on three occasions, including raping her while she was sleeping in his Los Angeles home. Brian Steele led the defense team's cross examination of Mia. You'll recall him as the hotshot attorney from the Young Thug RICO case in Atlanta that wrapped up at the end of 2024. Steele joined the Combs team shortly before the trial started, and his cross has put a lot of pressure on Mia. He questioned why she waited until June of last year to tell prosecutors she'd been sexually assaulted by Combs, noting that was six months after she began meeting with prosecutors and seven months after Cassie filed her, quote, viral lawsuit. He also asked Mia about a story she told jurors last week about how she and Cassie escaped Combs by paddleboarding out to sea on a trip in Turks and Caicos. There aren't any texts, emails or photos to support her story. Was that just made up by you? Steele asked. No, mia said. Steele also asked Mia whether she hired a lawyer in 2024 because she wanted to join the Me Too money grab against Sean Combs. The prosecution objected to that and the judge agreed, so Mia didn't answer the question outside the jury's presence. The prosecution said Mia had endured a humiliating cross examination, quote, crossing the threshold into harassing and unduly Embarrassing. Judge Arun Subramanian said he saw no improper treatment, but he did caution Steele about the form of his questions. I loved answering listener questions a couple weeks ago. And you all have continued to call in. We've even had international callers. So it's interesting to hear what parts of this trial and our legal system stick out to you all. So this episode, we'll spend some more time getting to the heart of what you want to know. Non disclosure agreements or NDAs, consent and why one of the alleged victims expected to testify may be a no show. And at the end of the episode, we'll also get an update straight from President Trump about the possibility of a pardon for Diddy and hear from Diddy rival Suge Knight. ABC spoke to him in prison about what he thinks should happen to Diddy. All right, let's dig into these questions.

[Listener 1]

Hi, Brian, my name is. I had a quick question that I was hoping you clarify. So I'm curious how Cassie's settlement plays into the situation since she settled, I think you said, in 2023, I assume she also signed an NDA. Is that a breach of contract now that she's speaking publicly, or does the settlement not at all count towards what's happening now?

[Brian Buckmire]

That's a great question. And as a reminder about Cassie's civil lawsuit in 2023, it was settled in a day with no admission of guilt. And we learned at trial they settled for $20 million. Now, we don't know whether or not Cassie actually signed a non disclosure agreement, but when it comes to the general practice of cases like this, the parties typically do sign an NDA. It's probably why Cassie hasn't spoken about this case outside of a criminal setting. And it's probably why, for example, when Sean Combs g apology to Cassie after the Intercontinental video came out, he didn't mention her name. Now, when it comes to criminal activity, you cannot NDA those away. A person cannot, for example, commit a crime against an individual and then say, you know what? I'm gonna give you a million dollars. And if you sign this contract, you take the money and you can't talk about this because if a state or federal prosecutor's office files a subpoena and requires you to testify about a criminal action, that NDA cannot stop you from testifying. And that at least if there is an NDA in the civil lawsuit between Cassie and Combs, she would still be required to testify without any form of breach of contract to that NDA. Okay, next listener question.

[Kelly]

Hi, this is Kelly from Ohio. My Question is around the consent part of this case and the burden of proof as it relates to the rest of the case. My understanding is consent isn't a blanket permission slip and that consent can be revoked at any time. So at any time, if someone says no, that's enough, then it has to stop. So even if she did seemingly consent frequently, does the prosecution just need to show that consent was not given or revoked at least one time? And if so, does that lack of consent have to directly tie to the transportation across state lines, et cetera? Do they have to show illegal activity from start to finish for at least one of the freak off sessions? Or can it be bits and pieces proven in different states? Thank you. Great work on the show.

[Brian Buckmire]

Kelly from Ohio, what a question. Let me see if I can break it down and answer every piece of it. I love it. I love it because you're really thinking and I appreciate the question. So, yes, you are 100% correct that consent is not a blanket permission slip. It does have to continually happen throughout the action. So to give you a more PG version, if my wife and I are holding hands from the time that I grab her hand until the time that I let go of it, if she lets me, I have to have consent to that the entire time. If halfway through holding her hand she revokes that consent and I keep holding her hand, then yes, that would be an unconsensual touching. What the defense is attempting to say is that through that entirety of that using the example hand holding, consent was always there, but when the action stopped happening, the person then looked back and said, you know what, I think I was uncomfortable. I think I gave or I took away consent. That's the argument the defense is making. But you are 100% right that consent must occur throughout the entirety of the course of action. When it comes to the consent and it applying directly to the transportation across state lines, again, you're really hitting the nail on the head here. When it comes to the fact that it's a federal crime and not a state crime, the consent would have to touch on both the wanting to participate in the freak offs, going to the freak offs, participating in the freak offs, it would have to be there the entire time. But the argument the defense is making here is she wanted to go. And I think in one of the questions and answers that she gave was, well, I didn't like the freak offs, but I like the time that I spent with Sean Combs. And the defense is saying that Cassie and those who are following with these charges they wanted to participate in these actions, but it's after the fact that they have remorse. The prosecution is making the argument that there was never consent here, that Cassie could not choose for herself to participate in this. And they're also highlighting the massive degree of violence to showcase that no one would willingly participate in this. So they're taking out the idea of consent altogether. All right, next listener question.

[Listener 1]

This is Sarah from South Carolina, and earlier on the podcast, you talked about Diddy possibly taking the stand. In what ways would that benefit the prosecution team, and in what ways would that benefit the defense team?

[Brian Buckmire]

Thank you, Sarah. Thank you for the question. Now, as the case continues on, I'm less and less sure that Sean Combs is actually going to take the stand. But it is everyone, including Sean Combs, constitutional right as to whether or not he takes the stand. As an attorney, you can only advise your client as to whether or not it's a smart idea or a bad idea, and they ultimately make that decision. So we'll see what he decides. The way the defense is arguing the case, if Sean Combs was to take the stand, I guess he would follow in line with what his attorneys are now saying, that there was domestic abuse. At least it applies to Cassie. But Sean Combs could potentially get up there and be very apologetic, very charismatic. He could admit to the domestic abuse in a way that he's never done before, because, again, he's always said that the sexual contact was consensual, and he's never sexually assaulted anyone. Maybe he gained some credibility by admitting to some things, but then denying the actual charges he's facing. That could help him if he testifies. Okay, let's get to our next listener.

[Listener 2]

Hi, good afternoon. I'm calling from Atlanta, Georgia, and I was wondering, when it comes to the question of sex trafficking and prostitution, I thought that it was the person that's providing the service, if you will, that is charged with prostitution or trafficking, and that the person that's receiving the services would be charged with solicitation. So in the case of Diddy, if he is the quote, unquote client, do they still define that as engaging in prostitution and trafficking?

[Listener 3]

Thank you.

[Brian Buckmire]

Thank you for the question. And I understand why there might be a little bit of confusion. So let me try to see if I can do this. You ask about sex trafficking and prostitution. I understand why you're asking about prostitution, but Sean Combs is not being charged with that here. He might have engaged in some of those actions, but. But to be more specific, he's being charged with transportation to engage in prostitution. So the moving of people across state lines to engage in this act. You are correct that if someone solicits the work of a sex worker, that would be solicitation or prostitution, but that's not how he's being charged here. When it comes to sex trafficking, it's not that you're soliciting the services of a sex worker. It's that you are forcing someone to participate in that role through force, fraud or coercion. Oftentimes when you buy the services of a sex worker, you're not using force, fraud or coercion. You're just giving them money to do that service. That's why sex trafficking and prostitution are very different. It might be the same outcome, but how you do it is very different. And the government feels that the charge of sex trafficking is more precise as to what Sean Combs has allegedly done. And prostitution on its face is, is generally more a state charge, not a federal one. Just ahead, what's going on with victim three? And could the jury consider lesser charges? More after the break.

[Ryan Reynolds]

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile with a message for everyone paying big wireless way too much. Please, for the love of everything good in this world, stop with Mint. You can get premium wireless for just $15 a month. Of course, if you enjoy overpaying. No judgments. But that's weird. Okay, one judgment anyway. Give it a try. @mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment of $45 for.

[Brian Buckmire]

3 month plan equivalent to $15 per month. Required intro rate first 3 months only, then full price plan options available, taxes and fees extra. See full [e-mail] hello, it's Robin Roberts here. Hey guys, it's George Stephanopoulos here. Hey everybody, it's Michael Strahan here. Wake up with Good Morning America.

[Robin Roberts]

Robin, George Michael, gma, America's favorite number one morning show. The morning's first breaking news. Exclusive interviews, what everyone will be talking about that day. Put some good in your morning and start your day with GMA.

[Brian Buckmire]

Good Morning America.

[Robin Roberts]

Put the good in your morning. GMA 7A on ABC.

[Kelly]

Oh my God, is this your house?

[Brian Buckmire]

This is the, this is the humble abode.

[Listener 1]

Oh my God, it's so humble.

[Ryan Reynolds]

FX presents adults.

[Kelly]

You don't know your Social Security number?

[Brian Buckmire]

No, I do. It's just my mom like knows the whole thing. A new comedy about 20 somethings achieving 0 anythings. What is the worst that happens? I go broke, I can't pay my loans. I start an only fans but only you guys subscribe. You can't do only wouldn't make it on there. So sorry. FX's adults, Wednesdays on FX. All episodes streaming on Hulu. Here's a question a few of you seem to be curious about based on the questions we've gotten the alleged victim referred to in the case as Victim three. Victim three was in the indictment and she was expected to testify in court. But there's been some reporting these last couple of weeks that even though she was served a subpoena to appear as a witness for the government, she's not going to show. You might be wondering, how is that possible? How can someone just ignore a government subpoena like that? Well, first, we don't know if she's ignoring it, but ignoring a government subpoena is considered contempt of court. That is a crime. Could the federal government force her to come in, send the marshals and go get her? Yes. Could they get her on the stand to testify? Absolutely. But this is an alleged victim by the very definition of the government. And so do you want to force someone who you believe was the victim of this type of crime to take the stand and force him to testify like that? I don't think so. And so they may not just call her and they may not try to prosecute her for contempt of court. Okay, last listener call for today.

[EJ]

Hi, my name is ej. I'm calling from Los Angeles. And my question for you is this. When instructions are given to the jury after the trial is completed, is it possible that they are allowed to consider lesser versions of the charges that are being brought against dd? Generally speaking, are the jurors going to be allowed to consider variations of the charges that are being brought against Divvy? Thank you very much. Really enjoying the podcast.

[Brian Buckmire]

EJ from la. I love this question. Anytime I can be a little bit of a legal nerd, I love diving into it. So I appreciate you for this, ej. You and I might be a little bit ahead of the class. So let me first explain what a lesser included crime is. A lesser included offense in criminal law refers to a crime that is encompassed within a more serious crime. What does that mean? I think most people know what petit larceny is and what grand larceny is. Well, in the state of New York, petit larceny is theft of anything under $1,000. Grand larceny, therefore, is anything over $1,000. And if you want to get really to the top, like grand larceny and the first degree in New York, that's over a million dollars. So let's say EJ and I, EJ we're partners in crime now. We go and steal a million dollars, Right. In order for us to steal a million dollars, we must have obviously stolen $1,000. And so if the government catches us and they charge us with this crime, they would charge us with both grand larceny in the first degree and petit larceny. And of course, all the larceny is in between because the petit larceny would be a lesser included crime of the grand larceny, because in order to commit grand larceny, you have to commit petit larceny. But the reason why I don't think that's going to happen here in these charges is because there are no lesser included crimes to to rico. There are no lesser included crimes to sex trafficking. There are no lesser included crimes to transportation, to engage in prostitution. Those are just the crimes. You can't do something like less of transportating. You can't get someone just up to the state line and then not bring them over to the state line and be like, well, it's a lesser included to transportation to engage in prostitution. Some crimes have lesser included, some don't. The one that Sean Combs is facing doesn't appear to have them. But great question. Thank you so much. To circle back to a listener question from a couple episodes back. A listener asked if President Trump could pardon Sean Combs. The answer was yes. This is a federal case. The president has that power. At the time, we'd asked ABC's political team to check with the White House to see what they could find out about the possibility of a pardon. They spoke with a source who said that a pardon for Diddy was not being considered. But we have an update. President Trump was asked last Friday if he'd considered pardoning Diddy. Here's what he said.

[Donald Trump]

First of all, I look at what's happening and I haven't been watching it too closely, although it's certainly getting a lot of coverage. I haven't seen him. I haven't spoken to him in years. He used to really like me a lot. But I think when I ran for politics, he sort of that relationship busted up. From what I read, I don't know. He didn't tell me that. But I'd read some little bit nasty statements in the paper. All of a sudden, you know, the.

[Brian Buckmire]

President wrapped up his remarks. Suggesting a pardon for Sean Combs isn't out of the question.

[Donald Trump]

I don't know. I would certainly look at the facts. If I think somebody was mistreated, whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact.

[Brian Buckmire]

And in another interesting development outside the courthouse, our ABC colleagues got an interview over the weekend with one of Diddy's longtime rivals whose name has come up at least 50 times in the trial so far. Marion Suge Knight, who once led death row records, was viewed by many as Sean Combs chief competitor when he was at his peak in the hip hop world. Knight is currently serving a 28 year sentence for voluntary manslaughter stemming from a 2015 fatal hit and run that's not connected to Combs case. This is Global2Link. You have a prepaid call from Suge Knight, an incarcerated individual. In a series of phone interviews from prison Saturday, Suge described what he alleges was a toxic culture of abuse in parts of the hip hop industry that he said certainly did not start with Combs.

[Listener 3]

Don't get me wrong, he did terrible things, but he just didn't come up with those stuff and those ideas on his own, you know.

[Brian Buckmire]

But Suge doesn't think Combs should spend the rest of his life in prison.

[Listener 3]

That's why I don't feel that they should take Pumpy and lock him up and throw away the key. I think he can do so much good right now, him telling the truth about the industry.

[Brian Buckmire]

You can find the full Suge Knight story on the ABC News website. You've been listening to Bad Rap the Case Against Diddy. Thanks to all of you who called in and left a question. If you have a question for me, I'd love to hear it. Leave a message at 929-388-1249. We'll try to play as many of them as we can and answer them on this podcast. If you appreciate our coverage, please share the Bad Rap podcast and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. If you're looking for more analysis of the Diddy trial every night of the week, you can check out Burden of the Case Against Diddy. It streams weekdays at 5:30 Eastern on ABC News Live. You can also find it on Disney, Hulu or on most of your favorite streaming apps. Foreign hello, it's Robin Roberts here. Hey guys, it's George Stephanopoulos here. Hey everybody, it's Michael Strahan here. Wake up with Good MORNING America.

[Robin Roberts]

Robin, George Michael, gma, America's favorite number one morning show, the morning's first breaking news, exclusive interviews, what everyone will be talking about that day. Put some good in your morning and start your day with GMA.

[Brian Buckmire]

Good Morning America.

[Robin Roberts]

Put the good in your morning. GMA 7A on ABC.

[Brian Buckmire]

For the team ready to conquer the grandest stage, immortality. Moments of sweat and sacrifice towards the composition of champions. An unforgettable journey is nearing its finale. Four more wins to take home the trophy. The NBA finals, presented by YouTube TV, begin June 5 on ABC.