The Trial: Zero Witnesses for the Defense

Summary

Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
Episode: The Trial: Zero Witnesses for the Defense
Host: Brian Buckmire, ABC News Legal Contributor
Release Date: June 24, 2025

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "The Trial: Zero Witnesses for the Defense," Brian Buckmire delves deep into the high-stakes federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Facing serious charges including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, Diddy's legal battles have captivated the nation. This episode provides a comprehensive overview of the trial's progression, the prosecution's strategies, the defense's surprising decision to withhold witness testimonies, and addresses key questions from listeners.

---

Trial Overview

Prosecution's Case:

The prosecution has been meticulously building its case against Sean Combs, presenting a plethora of evidence aimed at demonstrating his involvement in orchestrating sexual abuse and manipulation through orchestrated "freak offs" — sex parties allegedly controlled and videotaped by Diddy.

• Key Evidence Presented:

  • Travel Records & Hotel Invoices: Special Agent [Name] from Homeland Security showcased extensive travel logs and hotel receipts to establish patterns of movement that may link Diddy to illicit activities.

    • Quote [00:45]: "We're walking the jury through reams of travel records, hotel invoices, and money transfers that prosecutors hope will convince the jury Sean Combs and his associates trafficked his ex-girlfriend, the witness we know as Jane."

  • Money Transfers: Significant financial transactions were scrutinized to suggest the flow of money in support of the alleged criminal activities.

Defense's Strategy:

Contrary to typical legal defenses, the defense team has opted not to present any witnesses during the trial, signaling a potential weakness in their case or a strategic move to rely solely on evidentiary rebuttals.

• Zero Witnesses Decision:

  • Quote [02:30]: "The defense has been actively cutting its list of witnesses. Last week the defense said they anticipated spending two to five days to make their case. But Monday morning, they said they're not planning to call any witnesses. Zero."

• Implications:

  • This unprecedented decision leaves the prosecution's case predominantly unchallenged by direct testimonies, placing greater weight on the factual and documentary evidence presented.

---

Key Moments and Testimonies

Prosecution’s Special Agent Testimony:

Special Agent [Name] from Homeland Security took the stand to present critical evidence, detailing the network of activities allegedly orchestrated by Diddy. His testimony focused on the coordination of travel and financial transactions that purportedly facilitated the criminal undertakings.

• Quote [01:15]: "He's been walking the jury through reams of travel records, hotel invoices, and money transfers that prosecutors hope will convince the jury Sean Combs and his associates trafficked his ex-girlfriend, the witness we know as Jane."

Defense's Evidence Presentation:

Although not presenting witnesses, the defense plans to introduce alternative evidence to counter the prosecution's claims. Details on this evidence remain scant, raising questions about the robustness of the defense's stance.

• Quote [02:50]: "The defense said they'll introduce some evidence Tuesday, but that's it."

---

Listener Questions and Expert Answers

Brian Buckmire engages with listeners by addressing pressing questions related to the trial, providing legal insights and clarifications.

1. Limit on Number of Defense Attorneys:

   • Question by Nancy from Connecticut [03:15]: "Is there any limit as to how many lawyers Sean Combs can have in court, or is it how many he can afford?"
   • Answer [03:27]: "It's really about how much you can afford. Sean Combs has about eight attorneys who specialize in different areas, much like a basketball team where each player has a specific role."

2. Defense Funding Witness Attorneys:

   • Question by Maura from Long Island [04:15]: "How can Sean Combs be paying for somebody who's a witness? How could he be paying for their lawyers?"
   • Answer [04:27]: "Legally, the defense can fund a witness's attorneys, but ethical obligations ensure that the witness's interests remain paramount. It's a delicate balance, and continuing to support a witness financially can sometimes appear less incriminating than withdrawing support."

3. Impact of Juror Replacement on Appeals:

   • Question by Mike from Washington State [08:15]: "Does replacing juror number six help the defense? Can they appeal based on that?"
   • Answer [08:27]: "Potentially. If the defense can demonstrate that the juror replacement was a legal error that impacted the trial's outcome, it could form the basis for an appeal. However, such scenarios are rare and face significant hurdles."

4. Witness Confidentiality and Public Disclosures:

   • Question by Penny from Kernersville, North Carolina [09:06]: "Is Cassie free to speak about her testimony publicly?"
   • Answer [09:38]: "While Cassie's testimony is public record, any non-disclosure agreements from her civil settlement likely restrict her from further public disclosures without legal repercussions."

5. Protection of Anonymous Witnesses:

   • Question by Leslie from Toronto [13:13]: "How are anonymous witnesses like Jane Doe protected, especially with social media?"
   • Answer [13:52]: "Protection relies heavily on the honor code upheld by media and attendees. Breaching confidentiality can result in contempt of court charges. Despite social media's prevalence, strict court rules and penalties deter most from violating witness anonymity."

6. Security in Courtrooms:

   • Question by Jamie from Illinois [15:17]: "Can citizens in overflow rooms recognize and expose anonymous witnesses online?"
   • Answer [15:48]: "Court security is stringent, including metal detectors and confiscation of electronic devices. While the risk exists, severe penalties and vigilant court measures minimize the likelihood of such breaches."

7. Possibility of Last-Minute Witnesses:

   • Question by Chelsea from Birmingham, Alabama [17:36]: "Can new witnesses be subpoenaed last minute?"
   • Answer [18:31]: "While it's uncommon, if credible new evidence emerges during the trial, the judge may permit a last-minute witness to testify, though this involves multiple legal hurdles."

---

Conclusion

"The Trial: Zero Witnesses for the Defense" offers an in-depth look into the intricate legal battle facing Sean Combs. With the defense choosing not to present any witnesses, the episode underscores the weight of the prosecution's evidence and the high stakes involved. Brian Buckmire adeptly navigates through complex legal terrain, providing listeners with a clear understanding of the trial's dynamics and addressing their concerns with expert insights.

For those seeking continuous updates on the Diddy trial, the episode recommends tuning into Burden of Proof: The Case Against Diddy, streaming weekdays on ABC News Live and available on platforms like Disney and Hulu.

Notable Quotes:

• "It's really about how much you can afford." — Brian Buckmire [03:27]
• "If you violate that honor code and violate the rules of the court, it's a federal court. You can be held in contempt of court." — Brian Buckmire [15:48]
• "The defense said they'll introduce some evidence Tuesday, but that's it." — Brian Buckmire [02:50]

---

Disclaimer: This summary is based solely on the provided transcript and podcast information. It aims to accurately reflect the content discussed in the episode "The Trial: Zero Witnesses for the Defense" of Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy.

Transcript

[Brian Buckmire]

Hi, I'm Brad Milke. I'm the host of the Crime Scene Weekly, a new show from ABC Audio about the biggest headlines in true crime. This week, in the heart of Washington's wilderness, a tragedy has shattered a family. Three young sisters are dead and their father is on the run. I'll talk to ABC News correspondent Kayna Whitworth to get the latest. Listen now on Apple, Spotify, Amazon, or wherever you get your podcasts. This is Bad Rap. The case against Diddy. I'm Brian Buckmire, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney this episode. Zero witnesses for the defense. It's hard to believe that the jury in USA v. Sean Combs could start deliberations by the end of the week. Here's what we know about this week. Monday morning started with testimony from a Homeland Security investigation special agent. He's been walking the jury through reams of travel records, hotel invoices, and money transfers that prosecutors hope will convince the jury Sean Combs and his associates trafficked his ex girlfriend, the witness we know as Jane. The prosecution expects the special agent to remain on the stand through part of Tuesday, and then they'll rest their case. Now, the defense has been actively cutting its list of witnesses. We don't know who the defense has cut or why. But last week the defense said they anticipated spending two to five days to make their case. But Monday morning, they said they're not planning to call any witnesses. Zero. The defense said they'll introduce some evidence Tuesday, but that's it. This also answers a greater question. I know a lot of you have been asking, will Diddy take the stand? Seems safe to say at this point, no, he won't. So let's say the Homeland Security investigation agent wraps Tuesday. The prosecution rests, the defense makes a motion for dismissal, and then the defense uses the rest of the day to introduce its evidence. And. And then it also rests. Here's what comes next. Judge Subramanian will meet with the attorneys from both sides on Wednesday. They'll discuss the wording of the instructions for the jury. If all goes to plan, the judge said closing arguments would happen on Thursday. The jury will actually get its instructions. And then. Can you believe it? Deliberations. In this scenario, Diddy's fate would be in the hands of the jury. By Friday, they will decide if Sean Combs is guilty or not guilty of the five counts he's facing. Two counts of sex trafficking for Cassie and Jane, two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution again for Cassie and Jane, and one count of racketeering, conspiracy they'll deliberate for as long as it takes. In the meantime, let's answer some more of your questions. We have some great ones today.

[Nancy]

Hi, this is Nancy from Connecticut. And my question is, is there any limit as to how many lawyers Sean Combs can have in court, or is it how many he can afford?

[Brian Buckmire]

Thanks, Nancy from Connecticut. Thank you for the question. I guess as much as the room can fit and yeah, I get it, Sean Combs does have a lot of attorneys. I think you've kind of hit the nail on the head there. It's really about how much you can afford. But I will say this. Attorneys like doctors, they all have their own specialties, right. Just off the top of my head, Sean Combs has about eight attorneys, or at least eight attorneys who have stood up and done some sort of litigation, arguing, cross examining. He could have other attorneys who are doing other things behind the scenes. So Alexandra Shapiro, for example, she specializes in appellate law. So if Sean Combs is convicted, she would be doing the appeals. She's also making sure that during the trial case, the they are preserving or making sure that the issues that could come up on appeal are raised during the trial. While you have other attorneys who may specialize in sex trauma or cross examining a certain issue, or you want an attorney who's focused on some area of law or some area of evidence. So it's really like a basketball team. One's a shooting guard, one's a center, but they're all working together. But yeah, Shercombs does have a lot of attorneys, so that's fair. All right, next question. Hey, it's Maura from Long island, and I was just wondering, how can Sean Combs be paying for somebody who's a witness? How could he be paying for their lawyers? Thanks. So I think what you're referring to here, Maura, is how the witness known to the court as Jane testify that Sean Combs is paying for her attorney. And it's a head scratcher. I think for the most part, the reason why it's so confusing is because how many people can afford their own attorneys, pay for a witness's attorneys, pay for a witness's rent and still mount a legal defense. And so it's a very rare, rare situation. I think that's why it's somewhat confusing. But theoretically, and actually, as we're seeing, it could happen. So legally, there is a tightrope to be walked here that does allow it. You have your duty to your client, regardless of who's paying the bills. And you'd have that conversation with the person who's paying the bills. So Jane's attorneys would turn to Sean Combs and say, regardless of who's paying, my ethical duty is to Jane and the conversation we had with Jane to the effect of, you. You understand who's paying for me? Are you comfortable with this? Do you understand the ethical obligation that I have to you, that I always have your interests at heart? If you're okay with this, we can go forward. The judge themselves may have some level of inquiry as well to make sure that Jane is comfortable with that. It could theoretically work, and it seems to be working here, but it is very strange. I would agree with you there. The other thing when it comes to Sean Combs that we found out during the trial, is that he's still paying for Jane's rent. I can imagine. And again, I am not an attorney on the defense team for Sean Combs, But I can only say in terms of my experience and what I would do in this situation, which I think is somewhat close to what these attorneys are doing, if Sean Combs came to me and said, I'm still paying for the rent of this person who is expected to testify against me, what should I do? I can see a world where the attorneys would say, keep paying for it, because if you stop paying for it, that would look far worse than if you are continuing to pay for it. Because what the government is saying is that you used money of that exact house that you're still paying for to keep her in the cycle of sex trafficking as a part of your criminal enterprise for hotel nights, wild king nights, freak offs, whatever you want to call them. And so if you cut her off, that would look worse than if you are continuing to pay for her bills. So don't stop. So I think that might be the situation in which we're in. I would say this. It's better to look awkward than it is to look criminal. I look awkward a lot, but never criminal. And I think most people would prefer to do that. Hey, Brian, my name is Mike. I'm calling from Washington State. I had a question. Because of the replacement of the juror, I think juror number six, does that in any way help the defense? Can they come back on appeal, or is this just part of the game? Mike from Washington State, I like the question. And the answer, unfortunately, is maybe when it comes to appeals, sometimes the strongest arguments or also the most common ones are mistake of law or mistake of fact. Here you can make the argument that the judge erred or made a mistake based on whatever legal standard they use in replacing this juror. You can also make the argument that the facts that were elicited through the inquiry of this juror led to the incorrect conclusion. And so those are kind of like two different schools of thought as to why that juror was eliminated. And if an appellate judge agrees with Sean Combs team and it was incorrect to have that person removed and they could show that whereas some sort of materiality, as in, like, it affected the outcome of the trial, then, yeah, that could be an appellate issue. It could come back on reversal. You could. We could be back here all over again for Bad Rap, the Case against Diddy part 2. There could be a retrial. I don't think that's going to be an issue here, but I think Alexandra Shapiro would definitely find an argument to be made. So, yeah, good call on that. All right, you know what? Let's keep going. I think we got a penny for my next thought.

[Nancy]

Hey, Brian, this is Penny from Kernersville, North Carolina. And my question bounces back to Cassie a little bit. Now that Cassie has testified under oath and it's a matter of record about the alleged events that transpired between she and Didi, is she now free to speak about these events? For example, if she wanted to write a book or give an interview? I know there was a settlement with her lawsuit, and I'm supposing an NDA, but since it's on the record now, does that affect that at all, or would the terms of that settlement still apply? Thanks so much. Great podcast, Penny.

[Brian Buckmire]

I know you don't hear, but I'm doing a long pause right now because I'm thinking, so I'm gonna talk this one out and see if this makes sense. So we don't know what the civil lawsuit said in regards to what the parties can do, what they can speak about, what they cannot speak about, if there's an NDA, and what the requirements or the outline of that NDA might be. But I know that that government subpoena would not open the floodgates, so to speak, that she could talk wherever and whenever and however she wants. So I'm inclined to say no, that she may be able to point to what she said while on the stand as an open and public record. But I don't believe that she'd be able to go further and write, for example, like you've given a book or talk about it openly, because I think the NDA and the civil lawsuit would still control what she says when she is not on the stand, when she is not under subpoena by the government. But I like where your head's at because that's. That one's definitely making me think you have a lot more questions about witnesses and how the court can protect their identities. More after the break. Foreign hi, Zoe Saldana. Welcome to T Mobile. Here's your new iPhone 16 Pro on us. Thanks. And here's my old phone to trade in. You don't need to trade in. When you switch to T Mobile, we'll give you a new iPhone 16 Pro. Plus we'll help you pay off your old phone. Up to 800 bucks and you still get to keep it. There's always a trade in. Not right now. @ T Mobile. I feel like I have to give you something in return for karma. That's okay. I don't really have much in my purse.

[Nancy]

Oh, let's see.

[Brian Buckmire]

Hand sanitizer. It's lavender. I'm good. Seriously. Let me check this pocket. Oh, mints. Really, I'm fine. Oh, I have raisins. I'm a mom.

[Nancy]

Wait, wait one sec.

[Brian Buckmire]

I've got cupcakes in the car. It's our best iPhone offer ever. Switch to T Mobile, get a new iPhone 16 Pro with Apple intelligence on us. No trade in needed. We'll even pay off your Phone up to 800 bucks with 24 monthly bill credits. New line, $100 plus a month on experience beyond finance agreement. $999.99 and qualifying. Ported for well qualified plus tax and $10 connection charge. Payout via virtual prepaid card. Allow 15 days credits and balance due if you pay off early or Cancel. See T mobile.com from Marvel Television, I'm executive producer Ryan Coogler.

[Nancy]

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

[Brian Buckmire]

Experience. The sixth episode of that that. Our suit is the ultimate display of power. I'm gonna take it.

[Nancy]

Absolutely not.

[Brian Buckmire]

Now streaming on Disney +R. This is serious. This power does not come without risk. Might be a hero in there after all. Marvel Televisions Iron Heart now streaming only on Disney plus. Paradise is back. It's finally here in a new location, Costa Rica. There will be adventure, drama and romance.

[Nancy]

All gas, no breaks.

[Brian Buckmire]

That's my vibe. Ready to find some love. But it wouldn't be paradise without surprises along the way. These kids need to learn. That's right. Your favorite golden alums are crashing the beach. We bring in a party baby. Bachelor in paradise premieres Monday, July 7th at 8.7Central on ABC and stream on Hulu. We're back. And a lot of you are intrigued by the anonymous witnesses. How does that work? And anonymous from whom?

[Nancy]

Hi, Brian, love the podcast. My name is Leslie. I'm calling from Toronto, Canada. My question is about some of the witnesses who we don't know their true identities. They're being identified as Jane Doe, for example, or Jane Media is allowed in there. So do they have to sign like an NDA when they go in to not disclose Jane's identity? How do they keep Jane's identity unknown, I guess is my question, especially with social media. And yeah, I just figured that would be really hard. Thanks so much. Bye.

[Brian Buckmire]

Leslie from Toronto. I'm going to answer as Brian from Etobicoke. Thank you for calling from my hometown. I love it. So one, we in the media do not sign an NDA to not disclose Jane's identity. For the most part, it's pretty much the honor code. While also understanding if we do release Jane's identity and that is discovered, there are potential repercussions from the court not only onto us, but also if you work for abc, Fox, NBC, the rest of the kind of large media outlets, of course, you'll also have your employer coming down on you. You don't, one, personally want to be kicked out of the court, and two, you don't want your employer to be kicked out of the court. But I would say more so than ever, we have a lot of content creators that are in the court that are sitting in many of what would be consider the public seats in the court. But they come out and they're on their phones on TikTok doing live streaming. And it's an amazing thing to watch. They too are kind of also on this kind of honor code because they don't want to be kicked out either. They don't want like we've seen where Judge Subramanian reprimanded the attorneys as saying that the gag order was violated and information got leaked. And so it really is just don't do it or you're going to get in trouble and you still want access to the court. Thank you. From calling from the six. All right, on to the next question.

[Nancy]

Hi, Brian, it's Jamie from Illinois and I'm calling with a question about the public being able to sit in the overflow rooms. Isn't it a concern that any citizen off the street could walk into the overflow room, recognize who the witness is and blast it all over the Internet or social media? Just wondered if that's maybe something that is causing their identity to be leaked. Thanks for answering my question.

[Brian Buckmire]

Have A great day, Jamie, thank you so much for the question. And I also feel and understand your concern as well. You're right. And just to give the other listeners some understanding, when you go into the Southern District of New York, there's a lot of security, right. When you come in, you go through metal detectors. Similar like if you're going through TSA or flying. If you have any electronics, you have to give them up to the marshals. They give you, like, a little metal coin with a number on it. You keep that. So you're not allowed headphones, smartwatches, phones, laptops, any kind of recording devices that might pick up information. And to your point, Jamie. Yeah. Someone can just walk in, go to the overflow room, say, hey, I, I recognize Jane, walk out and blast that person's information. The only way it's really being protected is everyone's on an honor code. If you violate that honor code and violate the rules of the court, it's a federal court. You can be held in contempt of court. There are criminal and civil penalties that go along with it. That's not something that I think anyone wants to get involved with. There are cameras inside the court. There are cameras as you walk in. And so if it's discovered that you've leaked someone's information that you're not supposed to, the feds are not the people you really want to mess with. And I don't think, for lack of a better term, the juice is really worth the squeeze, like putting out someone's name. You're not going to really get those millions of views that are maybe going to result in some dollars. And then you've got to end up calling me to say, hey, Brian, can you represent me for this contempt of court? And I will, but it's going to cost you, even probably more. So. Yeah, it's just not worth the hassle. I think that's what's really stopping people from doing that. But I hear your concerns, especially for those women in this case who are testifying. Thanks for the question. All right, next caller.

[Nancy]

Hey, Brian, this is Chelsea from Birmingham, Alabama. I was listening just a minute ago, and you mentioned people that are being named that the prosecution may not have as witnesses. Are the witnesses set in stone? In other words, do they have to provide all of that information prior to trial starting and it cannot change? Or can they at the last minute say, hey, we want to subpoena this person. We would like for them to testify to this and see what they say. Can they do that? Or do they have to stick with the witness list and the participants testifying that they provided at the very beginning of the trial, before it even started.

[Brian Buckmire]

Chelsea, that's an interesting question. And unfortunately, like most legal questions, I have to say it depends on now, for the most part, especially the government has witnesses. They have to provide the names of those potential witnesses. And I say potential because it doesn't mean that they're actually gonna take the stand. The government can choose either for them not to take the stand, or like we've seen in this case, where alleged victim, I believe, number three, never ended up making it to the stand because they could not get in contact with the alleged victim nor the attorney. Things change. But they do have to give notification as to who that person is and any discovery which could be information or evidence in which that person could testified to. So the defense can mount a defense against that information. And so before the trial starts, they should get a large swath of information about all potential witnesses. Now, on a very, very rare circumstance, and the only hypothetical I can think of is this one. Imagine throughout the trial, and this is why we have public and open trials, and it's something that Mark Agnifolo actually talked about on behalf of the defense. Imagine during the trial, a witness takes a stand and says something happened, right? And the public hears about it and someone says, you know what? I was on that plane, I was in that room, I was in that hotel, wherever it may be. If that person comes forward and has credible information that no party knew about at the beginning of the trial, and there's a good faith basis that either party would need or could use that information, then the judge will evaluate the timing in which that person came forward, the information in which they had, and the fact that through due diligence, either side could not have found this person through their own research or whatever may be, then potentially, because there still might be some other hurdles, but potentially that person could be a last minute witness that no one expected and just shows up and testifies. So that's why I have to say it depends. But that second part, a lot of hurdles you can imagine in terms of someone coming forward, credible, good faith basis, all of that. So for the most part, they already know who the witnesses potentially could be and they could scrap them based on whatever they feel. But yeah, I guess there could be a last minute witness and I guess we'll see if the defense has one. That's it for this episode of Bad Rap, the case against Diddy. Thanks for listening. And if you're looking for even more daily coverage of the Diddy trial. You could check out Burden of Proof, the Case Against Diddy. The show Streams weekdays at 5:30pm Eastern on ABC News Live. You can also find it on Disney, Hulu or on most of your favorite streaming apps. If you appreciate this podcast, please share it and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Thanks for listening. Sitting down with Barbara Walters I know you don't want to talk about guys and I won't push it, but how are you going to find anybody? No one ever got out totally unscathed. You don't really act. You don't sing. You don't have any talent.

[Nancy]

Forgive me, any talent.

[Brian Buckmire]

She was fearless.

[Nancy]

And sometimes she got under people's skin.

[Brian Buckmire]

My God, she asked the question nobody else had asked.

[Nancy]

She could talk to anyone about anything.

[Brian Buckmire]

Right now. Ladies and gentlemen, Barbara Walters.

[Nancy]

Barbara Walters, tell me everything.

[Brian Buckmire]

Only on Hulu. 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 gonna figure it out. I'm fired up, ready to go. Showtime. Chef. The acclaimed suit series returns.

[Nancy]

Our flower budget is crazy.

[Brian Buckmire]

I blame my elegance.

[Nancy]

Sometimes your work family is part of your family.

[Brian Buckmire]

Family. If you're lucky, FX is the bear. All episodes streaming June 25th on Hulu.