‘Jane’ tells court of sex night with different famous rapper

Summary

Diddy On Trial – Episode: ‘Jane’ Tells Court of Sex Night with Different Famous Rapper Release Date: June 13, 2025

Overview

In this gripping episode of Diddy On Trial, hosted by Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty of BBC Sounds, listeners are taken deep into the high-stakes federal trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Facing serious charges including sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution, and racketeering with conspiracy, Diddy vehemently denies all allegations. This episode, titled “‘Jane’ Tells Court of Sex Night with Different Famous Rapper,” delves into the intense courtroom drama surrounding victim two, known pseudonymously as Jane, and her crucial testimony.

Courtroom Developments

Final Day of Jane’s Testimony ([02:18] Neda Talfik):

Neda Talfik, BBC's New York correspondent, provides a detailed account of the day's proceedings. The session began with a two-hour delay due to debates over revealing the name of a famous rapper involved in the case. Ultimately, the rapper's identity remained protected, a decision that significantly impacted the cross-examination of Jane.

Key Testimonies and Admissions:

During cross-examination, Jane recounted an incident where she traveled with a renowned rapper and his girlfriend to Las Vegas. “[She] testified about people in the room having a sexual encounter, about half a dozen, while a male escort had sex with the rapper's girlfriend,” ([02:45] Neda Talfik). Under pressure, Jane admitted, “[The rapper]... said that he always wanted to have sex with [her] because he found [her] so sexy” ([02:32] Neda Talfik). These admissions paint a complex picture of the environment surrounding Diddy, suggesting involvement beyond his direct actions.

Defense Strategies

Portraying the Swinger Lifestyle ([03:53] Sean Kent & [04:02] Neda Talfik):

Sean Kent, the resident criminal defense attorney, explains the defense's approach to frame the situation within the context of the music industry's prevalent swinger lifestyle. “Diddy wanted to suggest that this was a very normal thing in the music industry and for others like him,” ([04:02] Neda Talfik). By introducing another famous rapper into the narrative, the defense aimed to normalize the activities being scrutinized, thereby diminishing the perception of Diddy’s actions as criminal.

Financial Gifts and Agency ([05:52] Sean Kent & [07:14] Neda Talfik):

The defense highlighted the lavish gifts and financial support Diddy provided to Jane to illustrate that he was not singling her out. Jane herself admitted receiving expensive items, including a matching Van Cleef bracelet and necklace, high-end restaurant meals costing upwards of $15,000, and trips exceeding $50,000. “[Jane] was clearly frustrated with this line of questioning,” ([07:14] Neda Talfik), indicating the defense's intent to showcase Jane as a woman with agency and choices within the relationship.

Incident of June 2024

Domestic Violence Allegations ([10:17] Neda Talfik):

A pivotal moment in the trial involved Jane describing a violent altercation with Diddy in June 2024. “[Jane] slamming his head down onto a marble countertop” and “[Diddy] chased her around the house, kicking down several doors and putting her in a chokehold,” ([10:17] Neda Talfik). This incident introduced a new dimension to the trial, revealing domestic abuse that the defense admits occurred but uses to portray the relationship as toxic rather than one-sidedly abusive.

Legal Insights and Expert Opinions

Immunity and Prosecution Strategies ([14:03] Sean Kent & [14:08] Anoushka Matan):

Anoushka discusses the complexities of witness immunity, explaining that “she was given immunity” to secure Jane’s testimony without facing prosecution for admitted crimes such as drug trafficking and prostitution ([14:03] Sean Kent). This strategic move by the prosecution underscores the intricate legal maneuvers employed to build their case against Diddy.

Strength of the Prosecution’s Case ([15:32] Sean Kent & [16:16] Anoushka Matan):

Sean Kent critiques the prosecution's approach, suggesting that their case may lack the necessary cohesion to convincingly establish a RICO conspiracy. “I'm kind of shocked if they're close to wrapping because they haven't had that one witness that ties everything in to prove that this is an overreaching, far-reaching RICO case, conspiracy,” ([15:40] Anoushka Matan). The prosecution plans to introduce an expert to elucidate the RICO elements, a common tactic to solidify complex cases.

Juror Concerns and Mistrial Requests

Juror Dismissal for Lack of Candor ([17:03] Sean Kent & [17:20] Anoushka Matan):

The prosecution faced challenges regarding juror impartiality, with a request to dismiss a juror for "lack of candor." Candor refers to the juror's truthfulness during the selection process. Anoushka explains, “Candor is truthfulness with the court. That's what candor means,” emphasizing the serious implications of any dishonesty and the stringent measures to maintain a fair trial ([17:20]).

Mistrial Appeals by Defense ([18:10] Sean Kent & [19:38] Anoushka Matan):

The defense has filed motions for mistrials based on alleged prosecutorial misconduct, specifically regarding inconsistent testimonies from witnesses like Barna Bongolen. Anoushka counters these claims by highlighting the defense’s opportunity to cross-examine and challenge inconsistencies in court, asserting the robustness of the legal process in addressing such discrepancies ([19:36] Anoushka Matan).

Audience Q&A

Witness Anonymity ([21:34] Sean Kent & [22:02] Anoushka Matan):

A listener inquires about the feasibility of maintaining Jane's anonymity given her high-profile lifestyle. Anoushka acknowledges the challenges but notes strict court orders against disclosure: “Technically you're in violation of a federal court order, it is witness intimidation, and the judge has the ability to hold you in contempt” ([22:02]).

Legal Complexity of Prior Behavior ([22:48] Sean Kent & [23:09] Anoushka Matan):

Another question addresses the exclusion of previous unrelated bad acts from the current trial. Anoushka explains, “We want a trial tried on the merits, not what somebody has done in their past,” highlighting the principle that prior behavior should not prejudice the jury’s judgment on current charges ([23:09]).

Defense Attorney’s Final Thoughts

Potential Testimony from Diddy ([24:25] Sean Kent & [24:28] Anoushka Matan):

Sean Kent speculates on the likelihood of Diddy taking the stand, suggesting it could be detrimental to his case. He advises against it, citing the strong and possibly contradictory evidence the prosecution has already presented through text messages and witness testimonies ([24:28]).

Conclusion ([26:09] Sean Kent):

Sean Kent concludes by emphasizing the complex dynamics of Diddy's relationship with Jane, underscoring the narrative of a consensual yet troubled partnership. He reflects on the pivotal role of Jane’s testimonies and the defense's strategy to weaken the prosecution’s narrative ([26:09]).

Closing Remarks

Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty wraps up the episode by encouraging listeners to subscribe and engage with the podcast through platforms like WhatsApp for ongoing updates and discussions. The episode effectively encapsulates the intense legal battle surrounding Diddy, offering insightful analysis and expert commentary that keeps the audience informed on every twist and turn of the trial.

Notable Quotes

• “This is our weekly roundup episode and later we'll be hearing from our resident criminal defense attorney, Sean Kent, who's going to be answering some of those questions you've been sending us on WhatsApp.” – Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty [00:56]

• “Diddy was generous with her at times, was a good boyfriend and lover. That's what she said in some of the text messages to him.” – Neda Talfik [07:14]

• “You were made to help you and your friends find a place on the beach with a pool and a marina and a waterfall and a soaking tub.” – Sean Kent [00:32]

• “If I could give it all back, all the stuff and the money to not ever have to do a hotel night, I would.” – Jane [08:21]

• “Candor is truthfulness with the court. That's what candor means.” – Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty [22:02]

Conclusion

This episode of Diddy On Trial masterfully navigates the complexities of a high-profile federal trial, presenting a balanced view through detailed reportage and expert legal analysis. By focusing on Jane’s pivotal testimony and the strategic maneuvers of both the prosecution and defense, the podcast provides listeners with a comprehensive understanding of the case's nuances and its broader cultural implications.

Transcript

[Anoushka Matan]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the UK with the AMEX Gold Card.

[Neda Talfik]

Turn your errands into rewards with four times membership rewards points at US Supermarkets.

[Anoushka Matan]

Then grab a little pick me up from Dunkin courtesy of amex with the $84 Dunkin credit. Earn up to $7 in monthly statement credits when you pay with the Gold Card. The AMEX Gold Card rewards you on life's necessities.

[Neda Talfik]

Enrollment required terms can apply.

[Anoushka Matan]

Learn [e-mail] US explorer Gold Trip Planner by Expedia. You were made to have strong opinions about sand.

[Sean Kent]

We were made to help you and your friends find a place on the beach with a pool and a marina and a waterfall and a soaking tub.

[Anoushka Matan]

Expedia Made to travel.

[Neda Talfik]

BBC Sounds Music.

[Sean Kent]

Radio Podcasts hello and welcome back to Diddy on Trial from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutandadawati. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Here at the Southern district of New York core in lower Manhattan, it is the same what one journalist has described to me as circus, as it usually is. Justin did. His son just walked past and got absolutely, absolutely mobbed by influencers and news agencies and people just walking past on the street. So yeah, nothing's really changing. But before we get into things today, a reminder, Diddy is on trial for charges of sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution, and racketeering with conspiracy. These are charges he's consistently denied a warning. This episode contains descriptions of violence. Now this is our weekly roundup episode and later we'll be hearing from our resident criminal defense attorney, Sean Kent, who's going to be answering some of those questions you've been sending us on WhatsApp. But first, we have the BBC's New York correspondent Neda Talfik to fill us in on what happened today and the rest of the week. Hi Neda. So today was the final day of having victim two, who's using the name Jane to protect her identity on the stand. Neda, what kind of stuff did we find out from cross examination?

[Neda Talfik]

The day started actually with a two hour delay because there was a debate over whether a famous rapper could be named. And Diddy's lawyer actually complained that Diddy and the public weren't able to hear that conversation between the judge and the parties. But ultimately the rapper wasn't named. And we find out why that's important because during cross examination, the defense returned to this incident where Jane flew with a famous rapper and his girlfriend to Las Vegas. And after partying with them and going to a strip club. They later went to a hotel and she testified about people in the room having a sexual encounter, about half a dozen, while a male escort had sex with the rapper's girlfriend. And they watched. And Jane, under cross examination, admitted a few things. First, that this was, quote, an icon of the music industry that she flew with. Secondly, that she was dancing and flashed her chest to the people in the room, and that the rapper had approached her and said that he always wanted to have sex with her because he found her so sexy. We have Jane testifying about an incident where she is in this environment where Diddy is nowhere to be seen. And she's also asked to call an escort that she might know. She calls one up and she tells Diddy's lawyer that perhaps they got the sense from her that she was involved in that swinger lifestyle and perhaps that's why they asked her. So that was a real key piece of cross examination today.

[Sean Kent]

And use the term their swinger. Now, that's not the first time we've heard this. Before the trial even started, the word swinger became quite important for Diddy's defence team.

[Neda Talfik]

Yeah, Diddy wanted to suggest that this was a very normal thing in the music industry and for others like him, that this was part of the swinger lifestyle. Now, what we saw in this instance was the parameters around this lawsuit. Not trying to introduce other people and other scenarios in. But here is this one instance where the defense is able to bring attention to the jury that there's another famous rapper. These things are happening in the industry.

[Sean Kent]

And then for the rest of the day, we focused on some themes that have been picked up on since the beginning of her cross examination, particularly around finances and stuff Diddy may have gifted or given to her.

[Neda Talfik]

Yeah, that's right. The defense has tried to suggest that Jane was very jealous of other gifts and trips that Diddy gave to other women, despite Jane admitting that she knew he was not monogamous. And so, again, return to the fact that Diddy invested in a company of hers that now is profitable and didn't expect any return from that. That he paid for her house, that he got her expensive things. You'll remember yesterday, there was a kind of tense exchange. Tenny Garagos, the defense lawyer, asking Jane if she was jealous that she didn't get a Chanel bag, for example. And she said, no, I only got trauma. And later, when she was asked about how much a Bottega Veneta bag cost, she said, well, I'm sure You have one to Tenney. To which she replied, actually, I don't. How much are they? And she said, well, how much is my body worth? So we've seen these tense exchanges, but again, all part of the defense's strategy to show that she was a woman with agency choices, in their view, that's their argument. And that she was getting things from Diddy and there were happy times.

[Sean Kent]

And then picking up on the idea of agency, the idea that she also had some control over Diddy as well. Earlier in the week, we spoke about this 2022 birthday that she had where he goes on holiday with Young Miami right afterwards. What do they have to say about that?

[Neda Talfik]

Yeah, Jane talks about how she had sex with three escort on her birthday and how it was the last thing she wanted to do. She thought that Diddy was going to have other special plans for her. And she talks about how angry she was to then see that Diddy was off with the rapper Young Miami, who she knew he had started to see, and that he had taken her to Turks and Caicos, which for Jane was a very special place because she said that's where they had kind of begun their relationship. And she had asked him to go back several times. So she was texting him angrily about this. And under cross examination, we heard that she told Diddy, you better come back from that trip. And that he did actually come back a day early and that he took her on another trip after that and continued to spend on her and try to make her at least feel a little bit better about that scenario.

[Sean Kent]

And Tenny was. She kept returning to getting Jane to explain some of the gifts that were bought for her and then also explain the value of them, including restaurants might be high end restaurants. And talking about that, what were some of the things Jane spoke about that he bought for her?

[Neda Talfik]

The defense were really trying to draw out that there were other parts to this relationship. And Jane did admit that Diddy was generous with her at times, was a good boyfriend and lover. That's what she said in some of the text messages to him. And so they asked about some of the things he bought her. So a matching Van Cleef bracelet and necklace, for example, a very expensive jewelry designer. Also expensive restaurant meals with her friends, around $15,000 or more, trips that cost upwards of $50,000. And this is on top of her house payments and other things. Jane was clearly frustrated with this line of questioning, but the defense was bringing this up to show that he was, I guess, trying to give the perception that he was spoiling her and giving her as much as the other girlfriends that he wasn't singling her out in the way that she has testified to.

[Sean Kent]

And in Jane's direct testimony, she made a comment about saying, you know, if I could give it all back, all the stuff and the money to not ever have to do a hotel night, I would. Tenny Garagas pressed her on that today.

[Neda Talfik]

Yeah, Jane said that she would, but when she was asked specifically about the house, and remember, this is the house that she shares with her son, she said that that was a difficult question. And this has been what Jane has used as a thread throughout her testimony, that she felt the threat of her. The roof over her head being ripped from her if she stopped doing these hotel nights, as she called them. And so when she was pressed on that by Tenny Garagos, Jane saying that was a really difficult question for her to answer.

[Sean Kent]

And they also spoke about how much of a part did she play in these hotel nights. She says she performed sexual acts, but we find out as well that she was actually booking some of these sex workers and buying stuff for them.

[Neda Talfik]

The defense wants to paint Jane as somebody who was eagerly willing to participate in these. Right. Enthusiastic about these hotel nights. And so they elicited testimony that she bought Rhino performance enhancing pills for Diddy and the male escorts and that she also bought them matching shorts, that she even booked some of the hotels herself. And even messages were brought up where she was given options from Diddy about how things should play out. And she was engaging. But again, Jane really tried to hit back to suggest that she knew she couldn't say no, and so she was trying to make the best of out of the situation. But the defense really hammering that point because, again, it goes to their central claim here that these were strong, capable women who could have left at any time, and that they were part of this lifestyle as much as Diddy.

[Sean Kent]

Another key moment that came up a lot in direct testimony, we built up to it in chronological order, and it came up in cross examination is this physical fight that they have in June 2024. Now, we heard that Jane, instead of that, was obviously going to be something that they would pick up on in cross examination.

[Neda Talfik]

So this is actually a key moment that the jury will have to look at. Jane says it was supposed to start off as a chill date night, but she got in an argument with Diddy because of his relationship with another woman that he had a big age gap with. And although she was within age, Jane kept calling him a pedophile, kept telling him, I hate you. And she admits to. To actually slamming his head down onto a marble countertop. Now, in response, she said Diddy chased her around the house, kicking down several doors and putting her in a chokehold. Jane said she ran out of her house barefoot and hid out for a few hours. But when she got back, she said Diddy was still there. And she describes him beating her so badly that she had welts on her forehead, which sounds very similar to what Cassie talked about, bruises. And she said that he handed her ice and told her to ice her injuries and to get ready because he had called over entertainment, a male escort for the night. And he said, you're not going to be ruining my night. Now, she said that she told him through tears that she didn't want to do it, but he gave her ecstasy and told her, is this coercion? She said she ultimately complied. She gave the male escort oral sex. And she said, I just felt like I wasn't even in my own body. So that's the incident that Jane talked about. And, you know, under cross, the defense brought this up again because, remember, up until the last year of their relationship, there was no real violence that Jane had testified to. We see it in the last year of their relationship. And the defense has admitted that there was domestic abuse. So the defense, again, trying to paint this as not a very simple dynamic, right, where a Diddy had the power over Jane, but rather a relationship that turned toxic.

[Sean Kent]

And we know that the prosecution have said that they're going to go until about Wednesday next week and then they wrap up and then we're into the defensive side of things. Neda, thank you so much for filling us in today.

[Neda Talfik]

My pleasure.

[Sean Kent]

That was the BBC's New York correspondent, Neda Talfik. And now it's time to pick up on those questions you've been sending us in for our resident criminal defence attorney, Sean Kent. So I'm going to head back to the flat and I'll meet you there.

[Neda Talfik]

Packages by Expedia.

[Sean Kent]

You were made to be rechargeable. We were made to package flights, hotels and hammocks for less.

[Anoushka Matan]

Expedia. Made to travel.

[Sean Kent]

I'm Zing Singh. And I'm Simon Jack. And together we host Good Bad Billionaire, the podcast exploring the lives of some of the world's richest people. In the new season, we're setting our sights on some big names. Yep, LeBron James and Martha Stewart, to name just a few. And a. As always, Simon and I are trying to decide whether we think they're good Bad or just another billionaire that's good. Bad Billionaire. From the BBC World Service. Listen now, wherever you get your BBC podcasts. So the end of last week and the beginning of this week was all about Jane, her direct testimony and her cross examination. Sean, I know you're following along with the case. What do you make of the stuff you've been hearing?

[Anoushka Matan]

I. I think it's interesting. I think it's fairly obvious that the government has gone to Jane over and over again trying to get her to cooperate. I think it's pretty obvious from watching her testimony that for the longest, Diddy and his team were convinced that she was not going to testify against him. I think she was given immunity, which makes sense why at the very last moment she says, I'm going to testify against you. I, I think that's pretty obvious, and I think her testimony is pretty damning. Also.

[Sean Kent]

When you say she's been given immunity, is that because she spoke about things like drug trafficking?

[Anoushka Matan]

Yes. Don't forget she had mentioned taking drugs across county lines, across state lines, things of that nature. That would be a crime. That would be something that she's complicit in. He's also charged with transporting for across lines for prostitution. That would be something that she had admitted to, that she had paid money to and she had gotten these escorts. So those would be two federal crimes that she has admitted to, that they needed her to admit to and not face prosecution for. And there is a possibility that she could be a co conspirator. And so I think they probably went to her and said, we'll charge you as a co conspirator. And if he gets life, you also get life. You better cooperate. I've seen that happen to some of my clients before.

[Sean Kent]

When is the crime too big to offer immunity?

[Anoushka Matan]

The problem is with the federal government, to get these people, the underlings, if you will, they have to offer immunity to just about everybody. Otherwise nobody would ever testify because this is the federal government. And if they come after you with all their weight, all the power, all their money, all their influence, people are going to say, look, I'm not helping unless I get immunity, because the numbers are so great. Otherwise, I'm doing 10, 15, 20 years. So they find the person that they want, they make sure everybody else is tangentially related. And they said, you guys aren't as culpable, if you will. You're not who we want. You're not a danger to the community, so we'll give you all immunity. I think if there's A little bigger, they wouldn't give them immunity. But in these situations, I don't think they consider them a danger.

[Sean Kent]

Now we're coming to the end, the tail end of the prosecution's argument. What do you make of it? How strong do you think it is?

[Anoushka Matan]

Again, as I mentioned, when we first started talking, I never thought that anybody was well prepared. I didn't think the defense was well prepared. I didn't think the prosecution was well prepared. Watching this trial, I'm thinking the same because usually when you see a federal prosecution, you don't see this much great cross examination of people because there's nothing to cross examine. Every witness who has taken the stand, every fact witness who has taken the stand has warts. They all have problems with them. I'm kind of shocked if they're close to rapping because they haven't had that one witness that ties everything in to prove that this is an overreaching, far reaching RICO case, conspiracy.

[Sean Kent]

They did say on this Friday they're going to bring somebody on who will help tie it all together for the jury. But they won't be a witness. That's part of the case. They'll be more in an expert capacity.

[Anoushka Matan]

Yeah, and they do that a lot of times. They'll bring somebody in, they'll qualify them as an expert. Because if you remember when we talked, I had mentioned that I thought that the sexual trauma expert would be the last witness. Because you always want your last witness to be an expert, usually because those are people who are controllable that they're almost difficult to cross examine. So if they get somebody qualified as an expert in rico, that person can explain it to the jury and then say generically this what this is RICO is. And then guess what, what this guy did was rico. And then they've tied it all in together. That is somebody who they can utilize unfair from a defense attorney standpoint when they're qualified as an expert. But that's something that happens when you're the federal government.

[Sean Kent]

And we've had a bit of conversation this week about jurors, some misinformation online that one was dismissed. They haven't been dismissed, but there has been a request by the prosecution for one of the jurors to be dismissed and then an alternate put in for lack of candor. What does lack of candor actually mean?

[Anoushka Matan]

It is very hard to dismiss a juror mid trial once a jury has tried it because you want an individual to have a constitutional right to have the jury that they have selected. So some of the reasons that jurors get dismissed in the middle of trial is sometimes they get sick, sometimes they all of a sudden they tell the judge, I can't be fair and impartial anymore. Sometimes they come back and somebody has found that they have talked to other people, they have had conversations with other people, somebody has seen them doing something. Those are reasons you get dismissed. You do not get dismissed for rolling your eyes. You don't get dismissed for smiling. You don't get dismissed for laughing. You don't get dismissed if it looks as though you like Diddy. Now, what does happen is the federal government can be watching you and they're just like, God, that's a bad juror for us. And what would happen in that situation is, man, juror six is a bad juror. They lean over their back and they talk to one of their agents and they said, go dig up information on juror number six. And. And they come back. And that's what candor is. Maybe when that person did that questionnaire, you remember that questionnaire we talked about at the very beginning, the long and short of it, if they go and look and they said, they didn't tell us this on their questionnaire. We didn't. We went into their Facebook profile and we saw that they went to 27 Diddy concerts or they worked for this or they worked for Bad Boy. That means they haven't been candor. And candor is truthfulness with the court. That's what candor means.

[Sean Kent]

The other requests we've had are for mistrials from the defence. We've had two of those. Now, the first one was around, potentially the narrative being introduced that Diddy was powerful enough to have evidence gotten rid of in the case of Kid Cudi and the arson of his car. And then the other one was about Barna Bongolen's testimony and discrepancies between her accounts and Cassie's accounts and what Cassie saw and what she didn't and what the prosecution should have known that Cassie didn't see. So Cassie gets on the stand and testifies that she witnessed this event. But then in text later to Christina Quorum, she talks about hearing about it. And then Barna gave about two or three different accounts of whether Cassie saw it or Cassie didn't see it during her different meetings with the prosecution, with the federal government. Now they're saying prosecutorial misconduct because they.

[Anoushka Matan]

Prosecutorial misconduct.

[Sean Kent]

They allowed her to get on the stand and you got it.

[Anoushka Matan]

They said, gotta understand the lie.

[Sean Kent]

So was there not some weight to that Argument that they made.

[Anoushka Matan]

Yeah, there is some weight to it. And I, I was not in the courtroom. But the judge would have said, you had full opportunity to cross examine this person. You had full opportunity to go into their inconsistencies in front of the jury, because that's the point of cross examination. They put somebody on the stand. You were able to cross examine them in front of the jury. You got a full and fair ability to cross examine what they said and show the jury that they were lying and so forth. Now, where it would have been a stronger mistrial is if we didn't find that. Because here's the problem. The defense already knew when she got on the stand, so they knew what she had said. That is an inconsistent statement. And if you watch the entire cross examination by the defense, they have the text messages they have, well, you said this, but didn't you say this? You said this, but didn't you say this? And that again, wasn't in the courtroom. The assumption would be the judge would say, you had opportunity to cross examination. This is not ripe for a mistrial. You were not so unduly prejudiced that you weren't able to cross examine this witness.

[Sean Kent]

Is there something to calling for a mistrial when it comes to the appeals process and then having that on the record?

[Anoushka Matan]

Here's the problem. So let's say they did mess up. Okay, let's say the prosecution completely did something dishonest. That's something a jury will hear. And they're like, oh, my God, I heard that. Well, if the defense does not object and does not cause for a mistrial, the lawyers get in trouble with the state bar because they said, you have done such a bad job on the case. You did not protect your client's rights the way you should have. You get sanctioned and you get in trouble. And number two, if they do not do that and Diddy appeals that issue, the issue of them doing something wrong is not protected for appeal, which means another court can't give him another trial if they think the judge did something wrong. So you must make these objections. It's not that they want to. They have a duty, an affirmative duty when they think that the prosecution has done something illegal and they must make a motion for a mistrial and they must object. If not, they're in trouble.

[Sean Kent]

We've had so many questions coming through, and once again, really, really good, detailed questions. Here's the first one. How is it possible for witnesses like Jane to maintain their anonymity when they seem to be a high profile person? Who was dating Diddy for several years and has social media profiles, clothing lines, et cetera. Wouldn't it be relatively easy to deduce who she is from all the info she is giving in the testimony? And how do they prevent members of the public who are attending the court case from reveal who she is?

[Anoushka Matan]

Great question. Well, you can read anywhere on social media and figure out who she is. You can put two and two to figure out who she is. However, if somebody from a courtroom or somebody discloses who she is, technically you're in violation of a federal court order, it is witness intimidation, and the judge has the ability to hold you in contempt and witness intimidation. And that carries up to three years, if I'm not mistaken. So if a judge thinks somebody in the courtroom, specifically the media or somebody has leaked this person's identity, it would affect her wanting to testify, affect other witnesses. The judge would say, you leaking this information might have caused her not to want to testify. Testify differently affected this trial. You are now in contempt of the court's order and I can hold you in contempt.

[Sean Kent]

We've got some other great ones as well. This one has come in. I love the pod, but I have to admit that I get lost on the law stuff sometimes when it's explained. I thought UK law was confusing, but US seems even worse. Especially the bit about potentially not including previous behavior in a current charge. Surely previous behavior is key to current and ensuing behavior. No question mark.

[Anoushka Matan]

Absolutely. And that's why it's not fair. You want a trial tried on the merits, not what somebody has done in their past. Unrelated. It would be completely unfair. And the example we give is, let's say in 2025. My random friend Nushi is on trial in 2025 for selling drugs. And at that trial, the prosecution wants to say, well, you know, Nushi has also sold drugs in 20, 17, 18 and 19. Well, the jury is likely to say what they did it in 17, 18 and 19. You know what? They probably also did it in 2025, especially if the case in 2025 is weak. That's why we don't want your prior bad acts to come in at your current trial, because then the jury is thinking about the other stuff you did and said, it's more likely than not that if you did it in the past, you probably did in the future. We call that prejudicial. It is more prejudicial than it is probative, meaning the prejudice is so high that we're not going to get any input out of it. It's not going to help us make our decision. So we just think that's unfair. And so that's why we want to try to keep that away. Now, if Diddy takes the stand, the rule is once you take the stand, your credibility goes on the stand with you. And then all of those prior bad acts can come in via cross examination.

[Sean Kent]

Do you think he's going to do it originally?

[Anoushka Matan]

If you want me to be honest, I thought he would. I think he has a fighting chance on some of the charges, and he has a argument to be made based upon the way the prosecution is going so far at this point in time. If he was my client, I'd advise him not to take the stand. For the first time, I've changed my position that I would advise him not to take the stand at this point as it stands today. And it's, you know, this entire. I've never hidden that. I thought the defense the entire time was going to be consent and coercion. We've talked about that since the rip. They've had one defense. I didn't know if they'd be able to do their defense ably. I think they've done it through the state's witnesses, through the United States witnesses. Is. How would. Did he know? From Diddy's standpoint, he's like, I flew him out. I paid for their stuff. They sent me messages and said they enjoyed it. I said, would you want to be a part of this creepy relationship? And they said yes. And they engaged in it. And then now today, for the first time, they're telling me I didn't want to do this. That's the problem. That's why I thought Jane's text messages were so important, because at least she was saying specifically, I don't want this. I don't want this. I don't want this. But they're also showing text messages that showed a different message. So that's why it's. I don't know if he's going to testify because what the prosecution has done is by putting all of his text messages in and his responses they put in his defense on why would he testify now? Because his defense is in the record. They were telling me that they were into this. They were telling me that they like this. They were telling me that they loved me. Yes, I'm an awful person. But this wasn't rico. This wasn't a freak off. This was a consensual bad relationship.

[Sean Kent]

Sean, thank you so much for breaking everything down for us. That was Sean Kent, criminal defense attorney from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Diddy on Trial from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matan. Adam. Don't forget to turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing and keep sending us those fantastic questions. You can find us on WhatsApp at 033-01-2235 551. And if you've been affected by any any of the issues we've mentioned in this program, you can find [e-mail] Action Ryan. It's not funny.

[Neda Talfik]

It's true.

[Sean Kent]

Lily Allen and Makita Oliver Keats, I've.

[Neda Talfik]

Got some questions for you, BBC Sounds. Tell me what you've enjoyed about our podcast so far.

[Sean Kent]

I like that you've got more and more comfortable in this space and I've watched you show all parts of yourself. We've both cried. Miss me with Lily Allen and Makita Oliver. We're just us having a chat. Feels like we've been doing it forever. We kind of have. Listen on BBC Sounds. I'm Zing Singh. And I'm Simon Jack. And together we host Good Bad Billionaire, the podcast exploring the lives of some of the world's richest people. In the new season, we're setting our sights on some big names. Yep, Lebron James and Martha Stewart, to name just a few.

[Anoushka Matan]

Few.

[Sean Kent]

And as always, Simon and I are trying to decide whether we think they're good, bad or just another billionaire. That's Good Bad Billionaire from the BBC World Service. Listen now, wherever you get your BBC Podcasts.