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.