Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
Episode: The Trial: “I’m Not a Sex Robot”
Host: Brian Buchmire, ABC News Legal Contributor
Release Date: June 10, 2025

Introduction

In the pivotal episode titled "The Trial: I’m Not a Sex Robot", ABC News delves deep into the fifth week of the high-profile federal trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Facing a slew of serious charges—including racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution—Combs maintains his innocence, pledging not guilty to all allegations. Host and legal expert Brian Buchmire guides listeners through the intricate details of the case, highlighting key testimonies, strategic defense maneuvers, and the overarching narrative that has captivated the public’s attention.

Charges and Prosecution's Case

Brian Buchmire opens the discussion by outlining the gravity of the charges against Combs. The prosecution has presented compelling evidence, including:

• Voice Recordings and Text Messages: The prosecution introduced recordings of voice memos and phone calls between Combs and a former girlfriend, referred to as Jane. These recordings aim to demonstrate a pattern of coercion and manipulation.

• Alleged "Freak Offs": Jane testified about prolonged sexual encounters with male escorts in hotels, reminiscent of the "freak off" parties detailed in Cassie Ventura's lawsuit against Combs. She described these encounters as traumatic, stating, “I’m not a porn star. I’m not an animal. I need a break. I don’t want to do anything. I’ve hit a wall.” (02:14)

• Financial Manipulation: Jane accused Combs of leveraging his financial support to coerce her into participating in these hotel nights, adding a layer of emotional and financial abuse to the case.

Notable Quote:

Jane: "I’m not a sex robot." (01:43)
Combs: "I really don't know what's going on with you, but I just wanted to just give you a heads up that I'm about to really disappear on you. You feel me?" (01:43)

Key Testimonies

Jane’s Testimony

Jane, a central witness, provided harrowing accounts of her experiences with Combs. Her testimony drew parallels to Cassie Ventura’s allegations, painting a picture of extensive sexual abuse and manipulation orchestrated by Combs. Jane expressed feelings of being manipulated and overwhelmed, culminating in her decision to end the relationship. Her emotional testimony underscored the severity of the allegations against Combs.

Cassie Ventura’s Lawsuit

Cassie Ventura's lawsuit plays a significant role in the prosecution's narrative, reinforcing the claims of Combs' aggressive and manipulative behavior. Jane referenced Cassie’s legal actions, stating, “I feel like I'm reading my own sexual trauma.” (02:14) This connection serves to bolster the prosecution’s case by establishing a pattern of abusive conduct.

Defense’s Strategy and Mistrial Requests

The defense team, led by Judd Subramanian, has been actively challenging the prosecution’s evidence. Key developments include:

• Second Mistrial Request: The defense filed a second motion for a mistrial, citing alleged false evidence regarding an incident where Combs is accused of dangling Brianna Bungolen off a 17th-floor balcony in Los Angeles (06:03). Defense claims that Combs was in New York at the time, presenting alibi evidence that undermines the prosecution's timeline.

• Accusations of Perjury: The defense argues that Bungolen’s testimony is perjured, asserting that the government either knew or should have known the witness was lying. This serious allegation aims to discredit the prosecution’s case and question the integrity of the evidence presented.

Notable Quote:

Defense: "The government knew or should have known this testimony was perjured and that Ms. Bungolen could not possibly have been injured by Mr. Combs on a Los Angeles balcony." (02:51)

Listener Questions and Legal Insights

Throughout the episode, Brian Buchmire addresses questions from listeners, providing clarity on complex legal concepts related to the trial.

Jury Nullification

Question by Courtney from North Carolina:

“Could you explain what jury nullification is? And also, is it something that is legal for juries to do?”

Buchmire explains that jury nullification occurs when jurors acquit a defendant despite evidence of guilt, often due to disagreement with the law or its application. While technically legal, it is not openly acknowledged or encouraged by either the defense or prosecution.

Asset Forfeiture

Question by Kelsey from D.C.:

“What happens to Diddy's assets if he's convicted, and what happens to his assets if he's not convicted?”

Buchmire outlines that if convicted, Combs could face forfeiture of assets connected to the alleged criminal activities. This includes proceeds from his enterprises, which could be substantial given the scope of the charges.

Witness Immunity

Question by Brianna from North Carolina:

“Are the jury members aware of who is being granted immunity and who is not, and how can that affect their perceptions throughout the trial?”

He confirms that jurors are aware of which witnesses have been granted immunity, which can influence their perceptions and the credibility they assign to testimonies.

Mistrial Explained

Question by Cammie from San Francisco:

“What is a mistrial and why are the lawyers defending Diddy calling for it?”

Buchmire differentiates between a mistrial due to a hung jury and one resulting from procedural errors or misconduct. The defense is seeking a mistrial to challenge the integrity of the prosecution’s evidence and preserve the possibility of appeal.

Evidence Recovery

Question by Teresa from South Dakota:

“How were the old text messages recovered after a decade?”

Buchmire explains that law enforcement utilized forensic analysis of both physical devices and cloud storage to recover deleted messages, emphasizing the importance of digital forensics in modern trials.

Courtroom Dynamics and Public Perception

Brian Buchmire also touches on the courtroom behavior of Sean Combs, noting his intense focus during the trial and strategic body language. He discusses how every action taken by Combs is scrutinized by the jury, impacting their perception of his demeanor and credibility.

Notable Observation:

"Sean Combs is very intense, focused on the testimony. Either he's leaning forward... or he's sitting really far back... vigorously nodding his head at the jury, either in agreement or disagreement of what he's hearing." (14:27)

Future Proceedings

Looking ahead, Buchmire outlines the upcoming schedule for the trial:

• Cross-Examination of Jane: Starting Tuesday morning, the defense will have the opportunity to challenge Jane’s testimony.
• Additional Witnesses: Following Jane’s testimony, more witnesses are expected to testify before the prosecution rests its case.
• Mistrial Decision: Judge Subramanian is set to rule on the defense’s mistrial motion on Tuesday, which could have significant implications for the trial’s continuation.

Conclusion

In this compelling episode, ABC News provides an exhaustive examination of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal trial, unpacking the multifaceted allegations against him and the strategic legal maneuvers at play. Through detailed testimonies, listener interactions, and expert legal analysis, Brian Buchmire offers listeners a comprehensive understanding of the case's complexities and the high stakes involved. As the trial progresses, the episode promises ongoing real-time updates, maintaining its status as an essential resource for those following the dramatic rise and potential fall of one of hip-hop’s most influential figures.

Stay Informed: For continuous coverage of the Diddy trial, tune into ABC News Live’s Burden of the Case Against Diddy streaming every weekday at 5:30 PM Eastern, available on Disney+, Hulu, and other major streaming platforms.