The Trial: Verdict Watch

Summary

Podcast Summary: "Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy"
Episode: The Trial: Verdict Watch
Release Date: July 1, 2025
Host: Brian Buckmire, ABC News Legal Contributor

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "The Trial: Verdict Watch" from the ABC News podcast series "Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy," host and legal contributor Brian Buckmire provides an in-depth analysis of the high-profile trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. This episode focuses on the critical moment as the jury prepares to deliberate and potentially reach a verdict in the case against Diddy, who faces serious federal charges including sex trafficking, racketeering, conspiracy, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Diddy has pleaded not guilty to all charges, maintaining that all encounters were consensual.

---

Trial Progress Update

Brian Buckmire begins by outlining the current status of the trial, emphasizing that the jury in USA v. Sean Combs has been deliberating for nearly two months. During this period, the jury has been exposed to jury selection processes, opening statements, numerous witness testimonies, and closing arguments.

Quote:

"[...] the jury in USA v. Sean Combs has spent nearly two months listening, listening to jury selection, opening statements, dozens of witnesses and closing arguments."
— Brian Buckmire [00:31]

---

Jury Deliberation Details

On Monday morning, Judge Subramanian provided the jury with detailed instructions, outlining the necessity to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and the truthfulness of the facts presented. The judge meticulously walked the eight men and four women jury members through each of the five charges outlined in the indictment:

1. Racketeering
2. Conspiracy
3. Sex Trafficking
4. Transportation to Engage in Prostitution

Each charge carries its own set of elements that the prosecution must prove for a conviction. After receiving the instructions, the jury was equipped with trial transcripts, a laptop containing all evidence, a comprehensive list of exhibits, the judge's instructions, and the verdict sheet.

Quote:

"The judge told the jury, you have to decide which witnesses to believe and which facts are true."
— Brian Buckmire [00:31]

---

Issues During Deliberation

Shortly after deliberations began, the jury encountered an unexpected issue. The foreperson of the jury raised a concern regarding Juror Number 25, a highly educated scientist who appeared to struggle with following the judge's instructions. This was surprising as such issues are uncommon early in deliberations.

Quote:

"They sent him a note about one of their fellow jurors. They said they were concerned that juror number 25 was having trouble following the judge's instructions."
— Brian Buckmire [00:31]

Judge Subramanian advised the jury to continue their deliberations and indicated that he might provide firmer instructions if the problem persisted.

Quote:

"The judge told the jury to continue deliberating and suggested he might offer firmer instructions on the law if the issue with juror number 25 continues."
— Brian Buckmire [00:31]

---

Listener Q&A Highlights

Brian Buckmire engages with listeners by addressing various questions related to the trial, legal procedures, and potential outcomes.

1. Question from Penny (Kernersville, North Carolina) [02:56]:
   "Is there case law for an appeal if a juror cannot follow instructions and a conviction occurs?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He explains that the viability of an appeal depends on the nature of the juror's issue. If a juror is unwilling to deliberate or remains biased, it could form the basis for an appeal. However, if the issue is resolved without impacting the verdict, it may not be grounds for an appeal.

   Quote:

   "If the issue becomes cured, ... there would be no legal basis or no case law to have to appeal on this."
   — Brian Buckmire [03:24]

2. Question from Stacy (Wisconsin) [04:58]:
   "Does longer jury deliberation typically benefit the defense?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He suggests that longer deliberations can indeed benefit the defense, as it may indicate the jury is experiencing reasonable doubt. He contrasts the government's methodical approach with the defense's more conversational strategy aimed at questioning the evidence.

   Quote:

   "The government, they're formulaic... the defense ... doesn't this seem peculiar?... reasonable doubt."
   — Brian Buckmire [05:13]

3. Question from Brandon (Pennsylvania) [06:02]:
   "Does every juror need to agree on every count for a verdict?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He clarifies that unanimity is required for each individual charge. If even one juror disagrees on a count, it results in a hung jury for that charge, potentially leading to a mistrial for that specific count.

   Quote:

   "If one juror doesn't agree with one count, would the jury be a hung jury?... resulting in a mistrial."
   — Brian Buckmire [06:34]

4. Question from Rachel (Missouri) [07:24]:
   "Can jurors discuss what they saw after the trial, and will the details of the tapes be revealed?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He confirms that jurors are free to discuss the case publicly after being discharged and that detailed accounts could potentially be published in books or other media.

   Quote:

   "Jurors are absolutely allowed to speak about the case in any way... there could be a book."
   — Brian Buckmire [07:49]

5. Question from Mark (Lake Norman, N.C.) [09:54]:
   "What are the potential sentencing outcomes if Sean Combs is convicted?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He outlines the sentencing ranges for each charge, from probation or up to 10 years for transportation to engage in prostitution, to mandatory minimums of 15 years to life for sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, and up to life imprisonment for racketeering conspiracy. He also discusses the possibility of consecutive versus concurrent sentencing, which could significantly impact the total time served.

   Quote:

   "They will evaluate both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances... whether a charge is run consecutively or concurrently."
   — Brian Buckmire [10:23]

6. Question from Jessica (South Carolina) [12:01]:
   "How can the defense introduce new evidence without calling witnesses?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He explains that evidence can be introduced through stipulations or self-authenticating documents, such as business records, without direct witness testimony. This method is less common but permissible within the court system.

   Quote:

   "There are different ways in which evidence can come in where no one is actually testifying to it... self-authenticating documents."
   — Brian Buckmire [12:32]

7. Question from Jen (San Diego, California) [13:56]:
   "Can the defense's decision not to call witnesses be grounds for an appeal?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He acknowledges that while ineffective assistance of counsel is a common basis for appeals, in this scenario, it's unlikely to be successful. Defendants have broad rights to determine their defense strategy, and mere decision not to call witnesses does not automatically constitute ineffective assistance.

   Quote:

   "While Sean Combs could raise that argument, it's unlikely to be a successful one."
   — Brian Buckmire [14:13]

8. Question from Chandra (Oklahoma) [15:50]:
   "If a mistrial is declared, can Sean Combs be prosecuted again?"

   Buckmire's Response:
   He confirms that a mistrial allows the prosecution to retry the defendant, especially if the mistrial pertains to serious charges. However, he expresses hope for a conclusive verdict to avoid multiple trials.

   Quote:

   "If Sean Combs receives a mistrial... the government would have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to retry Sean Combs."
   — Brian Buckmire [16:13]

---

Conclusion and Next Steps

As the jury deliberates, the episode emphasizes the gravity and complexity of the case against Sean Combs. Brian Buckmire provides listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the legal intricacies involved, the potential outcomes, and the broader implications of the trial's conclusion. He assures the audience that updates will continue in real-time as the trial progresses towards a verdict.

Final Quote:

"We're on verdict watch right now in Bad Rap, so as soon as there is a verdict, we'll be dropping the news into the feed. Stay tuned."
— Brian Buckmire [16:13]

---

Additional Information

For listeners seeking more insights or wishing to engage further, Brian Buckmire encourages questions and participation via voicemail at 929-388-1249. He also invites listeners to share the podcast and provide ratings on platforms like Apple Podcasts or Spotify to support the coverage.

Transcript

[Narrator]

Newport Beach, California sits just south of Los Angeles. It's 2012 and the owner of a marijuana dispensary has been kidnapped, tortured and left for dead in the Mojave Desert. It began a decade long game of cat and mouse between investigators and a perpetrator. A mastermind of escape.

[Brian Buckmire]

He's a psychopath.

[Penny]

Oh my God.

[Brian Buckmire]

They let Hannibal Lecter out.

[Narrator]

Devil in the Desert is out now.

[Brian Buckmire]

This is bad rap. The Case Against Diddy. I'm Brian Buckmire, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney. This episode Verdict Watch the jury in USA v. Sean Combs has spent nearly two months listening, listening to jury selection, opening statements, dozens of witnesses and closing arguments. On Monday, they were able to discuss the case for the first time. Before the jury was sent away to deliberate. Judge Subramanian spent Monday morning giving them instructions. The judge told the jury, you have to decide which witnesses to believe and which facts are true. The judge then walked the eight men and four women through each of the counts in the indictment. Racketeering, conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs has pled not guilty to all of them. The judge also explained what elements need to be proven in order for the jury to convict. Then they were sent away with portions of the trial transcript, a laptop with the evidence loaded onto it, a list of exhibits, a copy of the judge's instructions, and a copy of the verdict sheet. The group chose a foreperson, someone who will lead them in their deliberations and sending notes to the judge. By mid afternoon, the foreperson already had an issue for the judge. They sent him a note about one of their fellow jurors. They said they were concerned that juror number 25 was having trouble following the judge's instructions. Juror number 25 is highly educated and works as a scientist. So the idea that he was having trouble following instructions just about an hour into deliberations kind of took me by surprise. It's just not a common issue. The judge told the jury to continue deliberating and suggested he might offer firmer instructions on the law if the issue with juror number 25 continues. Aside from any issues or questions that may come up, nothing happens in court. As the jury deliberates, they'll discuss the case as long as it takes until they all can come to an agreement. And so now we wait. And since we've got some time, let's answer a few more of your great questions.

[Penny]

Hi, Brian, this is Penny from Kernersville, North Carolina, again calling in with a question just a little over an hour into the jury deliberations, a note was sent back to the judge about one of the jurors not being able to follow the judge's instructions. Not really sure how this is going to play out yet, but I'm already thinking about this being really good framework for a possible appeal if there is a conviction. Is there case law for this type of appeal with jury deliberations? Thanks so much, Penny.

[Brian Buckmire]

Case law. Oh, man, let me think this one through. It would depend on what the issue is. So right now we just know that this juror, according to the foreperson who wrote the note, and potentially some people in the room, believe that this individual cannot follow the rules. It would depend on what rule they cannot follow. It depends on what they said to the jury. If they're saying, I'm not willing to deliberate, I have my opinion and that's it. I'm not going to be swayed or moved in any way, and I will not interact with other jurors to deliberate, then, yes, that's an issue. And there is case law on that, that that person should be removed. If the issue becomes cured, in the sense of this is the first and last we hear about this issue, the person continues to deliberate, and there's no issue going forward, then the case law that I know, at least, there should be no issue there. So at this stance, we unfortunately don't have the information to say where we would go. And at this point, I think the judge is very cautious in terms of information, interrupting meddling, inquiring of the jury because he doesn't want to shake things up too much. He's hoping that the jury can just kind of figure it out themselves and continue working with each other to resolve the issue. And if the issue is resolved, then, to answer your question, no, there would be no legal basis or no case law to have to appeal on this. But the defense team is definitely going to find one if there is. All right, next question.

[Stacy]

Hi, Brian. This is Stacy from Wisconsin. I know it's been said that typically when a jury deliberates longer, it's better for the defense. Is that the same for this case as well, or is this going to be a new creation of its own being?

[Brian Buckmire]

Thanks, Stacy from Wisconsin. I think the idea still works in this case. And the reason why I say that is because look at the styles of the closing arguments for the government, they're formulaic. One plus one equals two, element plus element equals conviction. For the defense, it was much more of a conversation of, doesn't this seem peculiar? Isn't this something you should think about, doesn't this raise reasonable doubt? And just the style and the approach of either side would suggest that one wants you to very formulaically and quickly apply facts while the other one wants you to consider and question facts. And so that's often why that adage comes up, because the defense will often be the latter and the government the former. Onto the next question.

[Brandon]

Mr. Buchmire, my name is Brandon. I'm calling from Pennsylvania. Is my understanding correct in that every single juror needs to agree to every single verdict for every single count? If one juror doesn't agree with one count, would the jury be a hung jury? And if that one juror doesn't agree with a guilty verdict for one count, does that result in a mistrial? Thank you and have a good one.

[Brian Buckmire]

Thank you, Brandon from Pennsylvania. So I think the easiest way to do it is think about mistrials and acquittals or dismissals or convictions for from a count by count basis. Because, yes, if 11 jurors found Sean Combs guilty of racketeering conspiracy and one says no, and to your point just kind of holds out, then as it applies to that count, they would be hung, which would cause a mistrial as it applies to that count. If the jurors are unanimous on another charge, like with the sex trafficking, but hung on the racketeering, then they would be hung. Or there'd be a mistrial as to the racketeering, but a conviction on the sex trafficking. Thanks for the question, though. All right, let's take a listen to the next caller.

[Rachel]

Hey, Brian, it's Rachel from Missouri. My question is, will the jury be able to talk about what they saw after the case is over or are they never allowed to talk about it again? Just wondering, will we find out what they saw on the tapes, what they saw behind closed doors? Are they going to write books? Okay. Well, thank you. Have a great day.

[Brian Buckmire]

Rachel from Missouri, thanks for the question. While I don't know if there will be a book, the jurors are absolutely allowed to speak about the case in any way, shape or form after they are being discharged of their duty, meaning that a verdict has been rendered one way or another. So could there be a book? Sure. They would be well within their right to do so, and I think it'd be an interesting page turner for all of us following this case. More of your great questions after the break. Paradise is back. It's finally here in a new location, Costa Rica. There will be adventure, drama and romance. All gas, no breaks. That's my vibe. Ready to find some love. But it wouldn't be paradise without surprises along the way.

[Mark]

These kids need to learn.

[Brian Buckmire]

That's right. Your favorite golden alums are crashing the beach. We bring in a body baby.

[Narrator]

Bachelor in paradise premieres Monday, July 7th.

[Brian Buckmire]

At 8.7Central on ABC and stream on.

[Mark]

Hulu From Marvel Television. From executive producer Ryan Coogler.

[Brian Buckmire]

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

[Mark]

The sixth episode of that.

[Brian Buckmire]

That isa is the ultimate display of power. I'm going to take it. Absolutely not.

[Mark]

Now streaming on Disney + RiRi.

[Brian Buckmire]

This is serious. This power does not come without risk. Might be a hero in there after all.

[Mark]

Marvel Television's iron heart. Now streaming only on Disney plus.

[Brian Buckmire]

There's probably one really true thing about restaurants. You are never alone. FX presents the Bear. How do we keep this place open? We're going figure it out. I'm fired up, ready to go. Showtime. The acclaimed series returns.

[Stacy]

Our flower budget is crazy.

[Brian Buckmire]

I blame my elegance. Sometimes your work family is part of your family family. If you're lucky, FX is the bear. All episodes now streaming on Hulu.

[Jessica]

Hey, Brian, this is Mark from Lake Norman, N.C. my question is about sentencing in the event that Sean Combs is convicted. We haven't heard about how that would work. And with the multiple charges carrying different sentences and different weights, could you maybe go through from the lightest to the heaviest in what he could be facing? Thanks again and great podcast. Take care.

[Brian Buckmire]

Bye. Thanks for the question, mark. And it's always good to think about what could possibly happen when we talk about these cases. So I'll go, as you said, from the lightest sentence to the heaviest, the transportation to engage in prostitution. There are two counts of that. There's no mandatory minimum. So theoretically, he could get probation, he could get no jail time, but the maximum is up to 10 years. Then you have sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. Now, there's a very specific subsection in which the statute that talks about sex trafficking of individuals that are not minors. But when you use force, fraud or coercion or the threat of force, the mandatory minimum is 15 years to life. Each one of those counts carries that for a possible sentence against Sean Combs. For the racketeering conspiracy or racketeering or rico as you might have heard it, you're looking at a possible sentence of life in prison. One of the difficult aspects of this to consider as well is when it comes to the federal prosecutorial system, you get a sentencing range. So it doesn't mean that Sean combs will get 10 years or 20 years or life in prison. They will evaluate both the mitigating and aggravating circumstances. And the feds like to use months as ranges. So you might get something like 72 to 110 months of possible jail time for the sex trafficking based on those various factors that he's looking at. The big thing, too, is whether or not a charge is run consecutively or concurrently. So we're gonna have to wait and see. But, yeah, there's a lot of different ways it's gonna pan out.

[Chandra]

Hi, Brian, My name is Jessica. I'm calling from South Carolina, and I wanted to ask about the defense's decision not to call witnesses, but their ability to still present evidence. Previously, I believe you mentioned that a witness must be testifying about the evidence specifically for it to be introduced in the trial. But if the defense has chosen not to call any witnesses, how are they then able to introduce new evidence? Have a great week. Thanks.

[Brian Buckmire]

So, Jessica, you are right. I think at one point in time I said that, and that is true. Ish. So there are different ways in which evidence can come in where no one is actually testifying to it. One of the ways, like in this case, we saw a lot of it from the government's case, is through stipulation. It's where both sides agree that information will come in because they stipulate to it that there would have been a witness who would have testified to it. But for whatever reason, both sides say, you know what, we'll just let this come in. And that's what we saw in a lot of the defense's case. There is this other way of doing it as well, and that's through documents that are what's called self authenticating. That there are certain caveats to these documents that we believe them to be true based on the way in which they are created and stored and maintained. Those are often called business records. So like a banking statement or a flight itinerary, something that was not made for the purpose of prosecution but is kept in the ordinary course of business. That's another rare way of doing it. But oftentimes you still have someone testifying to that standard that I just kind of walked you through. But I believe that for this case, these pieces of evidence were stipulated to by both sides. Good catch. And, yeah, it's not the most common way of bringing in evidence, but it is one that is definitely used and allowed within the court system. All right, let's take a listen to our next caller. Hi, Brian.

[Stacy]

This is Jen from San Diego, California. I have a question about Diddy's defense. So his lawyers didn't call any witnesses. Can that be used later during appeals so that they could argue he didn't get a fair defense?

[Brian Buckmire]

Thanks.

[Stacy]

Appreciate your time. Thanks. Bye.

[Brian Buckmire]

Thanks for the question. Jen from San Diego, what you're describing is what's called ineffective assistance of counsel. And yes, that is one probably one of the more common appeals when your attorney doesn't do something appropriate or makes a mistake of law or whatever it may be. And so Sean Combs could have an appeal for that. But it's unlikely in this sense because while a defendant has many rights in a case, the right to take a plea, the right whether or not to testify, the style and the manner in which a case is argued according to at least the case law that I know of in the Supreme Court and the Second Circuit, as well as the sdny, which would cover this case, that's all on the defense attorney. If I want to argue that the government hasn't proven their case and we don't need to put on any witnesses, that's well within my purview as an attorney. And so while Sean Combs could raise that argument, it's unlikely to be a successful one just based on the roles in which we are allowed to have as attorneys. If there's a damning piece of evidence that the defense attorney has chose not to use and there's no reasonable explanation as to why it was not brought in, then, yeah, Sean Combs may have a stronger argument as to ineffective assistance of counsel for not putting on a defense in that sense. But even still, it's a very high bar for a defendant to achieve in saying that an attorney should have done something rather than what they did in order to get a successful appeal.

[Stacy]

Hi, this is Chandra from Oklahoma, and my question is, if a mistrial is granted, can did he be prosecuted again? I've seen Karen Reed case and, you know, it was declared a mistrial, I believe, the first time, and then she was retried again. Is that possible for Diddy? Thanks so much. Love the podcast.

[Brian Buckmire]

Shandra from Oklahoma, thank you for calling in. I want to say, no, it's not possible. And that's just me not wanting to have to do this trial again. But I have to answer that. Yes, it is possible. It is very possible. If Sean Combs receives a mistrial, whether it is for all five counts or probably more importantly for the top charges, say, for example, he's found guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution and there is a mistrial on the sex trafficking or RICO conspiracy, then the government would have the opportunity to decide whether or not they want to retry Sean Combs. Now, if there's a mistrial as to all five counts, more likely than not the government will say, yes, let's try him again. If he's found guilty of only the lesser charges, the transportation charges, and not the top three, I would imagine they'd want to retry him again. But if he's found guilty, for example, of the racketeering conspiracy and and not any of the other charges, that's when it becomes a big question mark. Because for the racketeering conspiracy, he can face life in prison. And say he gets life, say he gets 20 years, whatever it may be. Then it becomes a calculus of does it make sense to use all these resources? Does it make sense to have all these alleged victims testify again, to simply have the same, if not less, jail time against him? It only really makes sense to retry them, similar to the example that you gave of the case that you told us about, if the person either has a complete mistrial or there is a mistrial as to the more serious charges. So hoping that I'm not doing Bad Rap the Case Against Diddy Part 2 It is possible, but let's hope the jury comes to a consensus. Foreign we're on verdict watch right now in Bad Rap, so as soon as there is a verdict, we'll be dropping the news into the feed. Stay tuned. If you have any questions about the case for me, leave a voicemail at 929-388-1249. If you appreciate this coverage, please share it and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

[Mark]

ESPN Presents the T Mobile Home Run Derby, the only night Major League Baseball hits this hard because Atlanta has some extra pop. Feel the power of the dirt and try to keep up with the beat of the ATF the T Mobile Home Run Dark Derby Monday, July 14th at 8 Eastern on ESPN.