Prosecutor tells jury it is time for Diddy to face justice

Summary

Podcast Summary: Diddy On Trial – "Prosecutor tells jury it is time for Diddy to face justice"

Episode Information:

• Title: Prosecutor tells jury it is time for Diddy to face justice
• Podcast: Diddy On Trial
• Host: Anoushka Mutanda Doughty
• Release Date: June 26, 2025

---

Introduction

In this pivotal episode of "Diddy On Trial", host Anoushka Mutanda Doughty delves deep into the prosecution's closing arguments against Sean 'Diddy' Combs. As the trial approaches its conclusion, the episode offers a comprehensive breakdown of the charges, the evidence presented, and insights from legal experts.

Prosecution’s Closing Arguments

The episode opens with Anoushka outlining the gravity of the prosecution's case against Diddy, who stands accused of sex trafficking, racketeering with conspiracy, and transportation for prostitution—charges he vehemently denies.

Key Highlights:

• Meticulous Presentation: Prosecutors employed a detailed PowerPoint presentation to illustrate Diddy's alleged criminal enterprise. Sean Kent, the criminal defense attorney, describes the prosecution's approach:

  "[00:46] Sean Kent: …they started by showing a picture of him and saying that he led an enterprise, that sole purpose was essentially to serve him, to protect him in every way. It was his kingdom..."

• Hierarchy of the Enterprise: The prosecution depicted a structured organization with Diddy at the helm, supported by key figures like his chief of staff, Christina Quorum, and security personnel such as Drock and Uncle Paulie. Further, they introduced the "foot soldiers"—personal assistants who allegedly executed Diddy’s directives without awareness of the broader criminal activities.

• Scope of Alleged Crimes: The prosecution asserted that Diddy was responsible for hundreds of crimes, including arson, sex trafficking, drug distribution, bribery, forced labor, and kidnapping. They emphasized that the jury only needed to find him guilty of two of these crimes to secure a conviction.

Detailed Examination of Charges

1. Racketeering and Forced Labor:

• The prosecution linked forced labor charges to testimonies from women like Cassie and Jane, highlighting grueling work conditions lasting three to four days, enforced through threats and manipulation.

  "[03:23] Sean Kent: …Cassie and Jane described these freak-offs as grueling…Diddy would tell them, keep going, finish strong, you're not getting tired on me..."

• Mia’s Testimony: Mia's experiences were used to illustrate sexual exploitation within the enterprise. The prosecution argued that Diddy's HR department was complicit, serving to protect his interests rather than the employees.

2. Witness Tampering and Obstruction of Justice:

• The episode underscores allegations that Diddy attempted to record testimonies from alleged victims to fabricate consensual narratives, as evidenced by recordings where Diddy questioned Jane about recording interactions.

  "[05:55] Sean Kent: …he used damage control…always knew he had to spring into action, him and his inner circle, to protect him."

3. Sex Trafficking:

• The prosecution focused on specific incidents, such as the one on June 18th, 2024, where Diddy allegedly coerced Jane into a freak-off. They argued that even a single instance of coercion sufficed for a sex trafficking conviction.

  "[08:02] Sean Kent: …they said you could actually look at one individual freak off. And if you find that he used force, coercion, threats, that's sex trafficking."

Defense’s Potential Strategy and Analysis

Host Anoushka engages with Sean Kent, the criminal defense attorney, who provides critical insights into both the prosecution’s strategy and the defense's potential counterarguments.

Key Points:

• Discrediting Prosecution Evidence: Kent suggests that the defense might challenge the credibility of the prosecution's notes, pointing out inconsistencies and lack of witness signatures on official documents.

  "[12:15] Sean Kent: …defense was pointing out discrepancies in the prosecution's notes…they just gave us the ones that were hurting."

• Jury’s Reasonable Doubt: Kent emphasizes the importance of the jury’s perception of reasonable doubt, questioning whether the presented evidence unequivocally proves Diddy's guilt beyond this standard.

  "[16:40] Anoushka Mutanda Doughty: …the standard…beyond reasonable doubt…you have to believe it."

• Impact of Civil vs. Criminal Cases: The discussion highlights the differences between civil lawsuits and federal criminal charges, explaining that while criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt, civil cases operate on a preponderance of evidence, typically resulting in monetary compensations rather than incarceration.

  "[23:32] Anoushka Mutanda Doughty: …criminal charges are about jail time, incarceration… civil cases are about getting money."

Audience Questions and Legal Clarifications

The episode features a segment where Anoushka addresses listener questions, providing clarity on complex legal issues related to the case.

Notable Questions Addressed:

1. Domestic Violence Charges:

   • Question: Why aren’t there charges for domestic violence despite agreements on abuse?
   • Answer: There is no federal charge for domestic violence, and the state of California imposes a statute of limitations on such charges for the incidents in question.

   "[21:20] Anoushka Mutanda Doughty: …there is no federal domestic violence charge…statute of limitations in California."

2. Charges for Alleged Rapes:

   • Question: If the jury believes Diddy committed rape but not sex trafficking, what are the implications?
   • Answer: Since rape isn’t a separate federal charge in this context, the jury cannot convict based on those allegations alone without the underlying sex trafficking charges.

   "[22:16] Sean Kent: …he’s literally not charged with it…there is not the federal charge based upon the time."

Closing Arguments and Legal Procedures

Anoushka and Sean delve into the nature of closing arguments, highlighting their significance and optimal duration.

Insights:

• Effectiveness of Closing Arguments: Emphasizing that closing arguments should be concise and engaging, Sean critiques the prosecution's lengthy presentation as potentially detrimental, likening it to overextended movies that lose viewer attention.

  "[25:04] Anoushka Mutanda Doughty: …the longest closing argument should be an hour, 30 to 45 minutes."

• Unanimous Jury Decision: They discuss the requirement for a unanimous verdict in criminal cases, noting the challenges a hung jury poses and the typical federal government advantage in retrials.

  "[19:25] Anoushka Mutanda Doughty: …they have to vote unanimously…if one person says not guilty, he doesn’t go free."

Conclusion and Next Steps

As the episode wraps up, Anoushka hints at the forthcoming defense closing arguments and the potential for a jury deliberation that could significantly impact the trial's outcome.

"[27:44] Sean Kent: …what a compelling, emotional case that the United States just put on."

The episode sets the stage for the defense's response, promising further in-depth analysis and updates on the trial's progression in future installments.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Sean Kent on Prosecution’s Presentation:

  "[00:46] Sean Kent: …they started by showing a picture of him and saying that he led an enterprise..."

• Discussion on Forced Labor:

  "[03:23] Sean Kent: …Cassie and Jane described these freak-offs as grueling…"

• On Jury’s Reasonable Doubt:

  "[16:40] Anoushka Mutanda Doughty: …the standard…beyond reasonable doubt…you have to believe it."

• Closing Remarks on Juror Decision-Making:

  "[27:44] Sean Kent: …what a compelling, emotional case that the United States just put on."

---

Stay Informed: Subscribe to "Diddy On Trial" on BBC Sounds and turn on push notifications to follow every twist and turn of the high-stakes trial, ensuring you remain updated with the latest developments as they unfold.

Transcript

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads.

[Neda Taufik]

Outside the UK BBC Sounds Music radio podcasts. Hello and welcome to Diddy on trial from BBC Sounds with me, Anoushka Mutanda Doughty. It's been the prosecution's turn to make their closing arguments to the jury as Sean Diddy combs trial nears the end. Now a reminder, he's on trial for sex trafficking, racketeering with conspiracy, and transportation for prostitution, all of which he has consistently denied. Later, I'll be catching up with Sean Kent, our resident criminal defense attorney. But now I'm with the BBC's New York correspondent, Neda Talfik. Neda, you're gonna walk me through what went down in there. How did it start?

[Sean Kent]

Well, look, this was a very meticulous PowerPoint presentation. So for those who are in there, just imagine slides up on the board. And they started very big picture. They started with the racketeering count against Diddy, and they started by showing a picture of him and saying that he led an enterprise, that sole purpose was essentially to serve him, to protect him in every way. It was his kingdom, they said. And then they went to a second slide showing his inner circle. And it's interesting because these are people that we've heard a lot about throughout the trial, but who never actually testified. So, like people like his chief of staff, Christina Quorum, and his various security guards like Drock, Uncle Paulie. And then they went to a third slide talking about the foot soldiers of this enterprise. And those are all of the personal assistants we've heard from. They said that these were young people that they didn't necessarily know about all of Diddy's alleged crimes, but that they didn't blink to do whatever it took to keep the defendant happy. And so it was essentially using that influence, power, money, all of these employees, they said, to carry out the crimes under racketeering. They said he carried out hundreds of crimes under racketeering between arson, sex trafficking, drug distribution, bribery, forced labor, kidnapping. The list goes on. And it was interesting for them to say that the jury had to only find that he was guilty of two of those crimes. And it could be two instances of drug distribution. It didn't even have to be drug distribution, and something else. So a real sense from prosecutors early on that they think they have overwhelmingly provided evidence, but that they wanted to present all of that to the jury to really hit home just how guilty they believe Diddy is. And really, throughout the five and a half hours of closing arguments, we went through again, text messages, again, photos, very much in a narrative fashion, laying out to jurors the evidence, almost like connecting the dots for them. So that when they go in that jury room and start deliberating, they've basically given them a whole roadmap to the prosecution's case.

[Neda Taufik]

I want to pick up on the forced labor predicate offense as part of the RICO charge because people don't automatically think about Cassie and Jane when you hear the forced labor charge. But it's Cassie, it's Jane, it's Capricorn, Clark, and. And it's Mia that they were speaking about that crime in relation to all four of those women. How did they explain that when it came to Cassie and Jane?

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, that was really interesting because I don't think a lot of people necessarily included Cassie and Jane in that count, even though the testimony certainly matched what they were talking about. She says, look, Cassie and Jane described these freak offs as grueling, lasting as long as three to four days in some cases that they didn't want to do this. This wasn't for pleasure. They saw it as work. We remember Cassie saying it felt like a. And they actually presented hotel bookings to show like, look, this did last three to four days in some cases. Look at the bills of thousands of dollars worth of damage. And the women, even if they were ill, they said Diddy would tell them, keep going, finish strong, you're not getting tired on me, are you? And expected them to keep performing. They kept using this word, keep performing. To always be on call for him when he wanted these freak offs. And so cross Christina Corum, again his chief of staff, was in contact with them throughout all of this, knowing that the women were being threatened. The prosecution said, knowing that these women were being drugged so that they weren't adult women able to make a choice in this. And ultimately that Kristina Corum helped enable and aid Combs booking these hotels, setting everything up.

[Neda Taufik]

When they were talking about the charge in relation to Mia, you would immediately think about the long hours that she worked or, you know, she told that story about having period blood running down her leg. Cause he wouldn't let her go to her room. But actually when they spoke about the sexual labor that is in direct relation to the rape allegations, that for me was like, oh, that forms part of that forced labor charge.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah. The way they put it was when the other women weren't around, he used Mia for fulfilling his sexual desires. And Mia testified, remember? And prosecutors brought this up in their closing arguments that HR in the company wasn't there to protect the state staff that Actually, HR was used to paper over Diddy's treatment of Mia and to protect him. So, again, very much putting it in the light of the enterprise and the alleged crimes.

[Neda Taufik]

And then the last predicate offense they spoke about under RICO was witness tampering and the obstruction of justice. Anyone who's been following with us since November knows that the accusations of witness tampering have cast a shadow over this trial since the beginning. They were saying that once Cassie's lawsuit was filed and he had very strong indications that he was being investigated by the federal government, he went to some effort to, in some cases, recorded testimony from alleged victims, saying, oh, yeah, I did this of my own free will.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah. And we heard this throughout the trial. So it was interesting to put those examples together. We heard in court today some of those recordings from Diddy even saying to Jane, are you recording me now? And Jane talked about how she had text messages, diary entries from the time well before Cassie's lawsuits, outlining how she felt like she was being used. She didn't want to play this role in his life anymore to fulfill his fantasies, she would say, and Diddy would gaslight her. And what we heard in the audio recordings and what we heard from prosecutors was his attempt to get her to go along with his narrative that this was all consensual. And even though Jane was very clear that she had trauma and PTSD from all of this, and especially after reading Cassie's lawsuit saying it felt like reading her own sexual trauma, so did he. Very much in damage control. And that's what prosecutors laid out, that he was always in damage control, that he always knew he had to spring into action, him and his inner circle, to protect him.

[Neda Taufik]

And I know there were some headlines earlier in the week that arson wasn't going forward as one of the charges that the prosecution were going to bring up, they dropped it. That's not true. They spoke about arson. They spoke about Kid Cudi's car. They presented all of this to the jury, stuff we've heard before. I don't want to skate too quickly over transportation for prostitution. But that was reflected in what the prosecutor had to say.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, she said, I'm not going to spend more than 10 seconds. It's very clear that these male escorts were transported across state lines for sex. And if you just look at the evidence, they're hoping that that's a slam dunk for their case, and that's why they quickly moved on from that point after presenting it.

[Neda Taufik]

But sex trafficking, we knew they were going to spend more Time on, they started with Jane first and then went into Cassie. It was methodical and they pulled out specific examples to highlight to the jury how they fulfill the needed benchmark of evidence for sex trafficking. But the thing that I found really interesting was about how they don't have to find every instance of the freak off. And that kind of speaks to some of Cassie's text messages and Jane's text messages that the defense have shown.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, because you don't have to look at these women and all these encounters as a whole. They said you could actually look at one individual freak off. And if you find that he used force, coercion, threats, that's sex trafficking. And by that one single freak off with each women, he could be found guilty on that entire count. So I think that was news to a lot of people in the courtroom who might have been like, okay, how do you address the relationship and nature of the relationship? And we could go down a rabbit hole with arguments and counter arguments in that. But here they're telling them, look at the very specific incidents. And one that found that was really particularly telling was they brought up an incident with Jane from June 18th of 2024. Remember, this is the one where he beat her and kicked down doors and chased around the house before forcing her into a freak off, allegedly. Well, they point to when Diddy told her, is this coercion? They said, look, he already knew he was under investigation by this point. He knew how Jane had been feeling about it, that Jane's felt very much like she was being used for sexual purposes in the way Cassie was. And here he is, prosecutors said in their closing arguments, taunting her, asking her and acknowledging that he's breaking the very same law that he's being investigated for in that moment. And so the prosecutor told the jury the answer couldn't be clearer. Yes, it is coercion and I think.

[Neda Taufik]

Speaks to, to the overarching impression that the prosecution were presenting to the jury of Diddy, which is that he's methodical, he's in control, and he's calm even when he's angry. We watched that CNN video again. They went through it bit by bit saying, look at the decisions that he's making. And this speaks to who he was and how he ran this criminal enterprise.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, I mean, they said the video of him dragging Cassie back to the room is quite literally proof of sex trafficking. They said that there is your proof. But look at the aftermath of what happened. Then he immediately starts texting Cassie, they say, manipulating her by suggesting he's getting Arrested when he's not. They say that shows that he knew there could be consequences from police, and he's trying to again, use that manipulation to get her on his side. Then they say he tries to make a first attempt at bribery with the security guard who was there. Fails. Then he gets his inner circle involved. It gets to the point where his chief of staff, Christina Coram, allegedly is told no several times and gets the security officer's personal cell phone number to get Diddy on the phone to talk with him. So they go through all of this to just show the level of effort that went into protecting him. Right. And this wasn't just about his image, they say, in protecting his reputation, they say he knew very clearly that there could have been criminal consequences. So they're painting a very compelling picture of their arguments, and it will be fascinating to see the narrative that the defense puts forward and if they're able to be as compelling for the jury.

[Neda Taufik]

Neda, like you said, we'll see what happens tomorrow when the defense present their closing arguments. Thank you so much for filling us in on today.

[Sean Kent]

My pleasure.

[Neda Taufik]

That was the BBC's New York correspondent, Neda Taufik. Now it's time for me to get all the latest legal analysis from Sean Ken, our resident criminal defense attorney from South Carolina. I caught up with him last night to get his take on the week so far in court.

[Sean]

Hi, Sean.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Hey. How are you doing?

[Sean]

I'm good. I want to get your first reaction to Diddy speaking in trial for the first time and him paying the judge a little compliment. Was that something you think the lawyers would have advised him to do?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

No, absolutely not. That is, we would have gone out of our way to tell him not to do that. That is him thinking that he can ingratiate himself with the court, and if the judge likes him, he'll take it easy on. It ain't happening. It came across as awful, staged, and planned, which also tells me one of the reasons why it's very good they did not put him on the stand because clearly he thinks he can charm people, and you saw how that worked out.

[Sean]

This brings me on to my next point, which is a moment where I'm gonna have to say, sean, you were right, and you told us this a while ago, but the defense. You could have taken a bathroom break and missed it. I take it you're not surprised because you've been telling us for a while they didn't have to put on a case.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yeah, I never. If they didn't put the client on, which you know, for a while we weren't sure if he was going to testify or not. But once they made the decision and telegraphed pretty clear he was not going to testify, I thought it was pretty clear they were not going to put on a very long case. It's clear that their case is going to be debunking the prosecution case. So it's just like, what's the point of putting a bunch of witnesses on? I was not surprised, not in the slightest. Actually.

[Sean]

A fair part of the defense was pointing out discrepancies in the prosecution's notes. Are those notes taken by an independent third party or are they taken by the prosecution?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

By the prosecution and by people who work for the prosecution.

[Sean]

So pointing out discrepancies in the prosecution notes in those pre trial meetings that they have, saying, for instance, if I take Dawn Rashad in the first four meetings she had with the prosecution over the total, I think she had seven. In the end, she didn't reference that Diddy made a comment to her saying people who talk go missing or something to that effect, indicating the fact that maybe people have added things on or that there are discrepancies in the stories that they've told. Could the prosecution not just come back and be like, well, as shoddy note and that's it.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

That's absolutely what they do. And that's why they do that on purpose. Those little forms that they call, they have somebody from the FBI or somebody who's an agent of the federal government, the form is called a DEA 6 or something of that nature, where they are supposedly write down contemporaneously what the witness says. The problem is they don't have the witness sign it. They don't have the witness look at it. Those are just their notes. So exactly what you just said has happened. Sorry, we took bad notes. This might not have been word for word, verbatim of what they said. And that covers them. When a witness comes on and says, I don't remember saying that. I don't think I said that. I'm not sure I said that. So that's something intentional on the federal government's part. Because think about it, they could have easily just recorded the interview. Everybody in the world has got an iPhone written record function. They really wanted accuracy. They would just stop and record it and said, here's a recording of what.

[Bobby Frixion]

The Indian singer and rapper Sidhu Musiala inspired a generation of young Punjabis.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

It really affected the lifestyle, the culture.

[Bobby Frixion]

But at the height of his fame, he was shot dead.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

This is a murder which Punjab will not forget.

[Bobby Frixion]

I'm DJ and broadcaster Bobby Frixion and in World of Secrets, the Killing Call, we're searching for answers behind his murder. What kind of world was Sidhu caught up in? Who wanted him dead and why?

[Lily Allen]

He always say that, bro, one day I'm going to die with a bullet. I know that.

[Bobby Frixion]

World of Secrets from the BBC World Service. Listen now, wherever you get your BBC podcasts.

[Sean]

He said, surely that's not that robust of a defense. If you can immediately just rebut it by saying these weren't well kept notes.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Don't forget. And everybody, we have the misnomer that they say Diddy's team did not put a case on. I disagree with that. Diddy's team did put a case on. So for argument's sake, what would have ended up happening is his entire legal team would have sat down before court and said, what is our defense going to be? And they would have done something to the effect of we need to discredit Cassie. We need to show that Cassie was in it just as much as anybody else. We need to show that possibly these escorts, these male workers weren't really there for the money. They were in love with Cassie. We should say that the federal government did not keep good notes. Well, guess what? And then they'd say, well what witnesses do we need for that? Well, the witnesses are Cassie, the sex workers and they were able to get all of the things I just set out through the government's witnesses. So we say they didn't put on a case, but technically they called about 10 witnesses who were the state's witnesses and they got their theory of the case out of those witnesses. So they did call the case. So even though everyone's saying, oh my gosh, their defense was only 30 minutes, if you go through all of the cross examination and getting their 30 minutes out, it's probably realistically like two weeks even still.

[Sean]

Have they strongly, robustly proven, if we just focus in on a central moment with the CNN video, have they robustly proven that that wasn't him trying to force Cassie back into a freak off in your opinion?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

No, robustly not by the phrase that you have just said. But if you take it, what the judge is going to say? Is there some reasonable doubt? Is there some hesitation? Is there a reason you could pause to possibly believe this is what the defense is saying? Is there a possibility? Is there a chance you don't believe Cassie's version? Is there a possibility, a chance you don't believe these Sex workers were in this. Now, under that, there is a chance that the defense has driven a truck through the door of reasonable doubt. Remember, that's our standard. It's not a robust belief. We must believe it. It has. The United States of America proved the case against Sean Cones beyond reasonable doubt. That's the question. And so as you sit there and if you ask questions, if you talk to people in the courtroom, if you check the social media parlance and you ask the question, are you 1 million percent sure that Cassie wasn't into it? Are you 1 million percent sure that the sex workers weren't into it? Are you 1 million percent sure that Mr. Combs did not know for a fact that these people weren't in it? Are you 1 million percent sure that it actually is an enterprise and everybody who worked with him were in on what he was doing? When you start asking those questions, I think it's a closer call than we think. The question is, are 12 strangers, and they are strangers to each other going to universally agree on all the charges that Mr. Combs knew for a fact what these women wanted based upon their text messages that were presented as evidence? I'm not saying they will or they're not saying they won't, but that's going to be the question. And then you run into people in different walks of life, and I don't care who you are, there's going to be some women also on the jury who are going to be repulsed by the behavior of Cassie and so forth, and also going to be repulsed by the behavior of Sean Combs. It's going to be a interesting jury room. That's the room that I wish I could be in to see the logic and analysis that this jury comes with. Because, remember, we send them back there, we give them charges, but we don't give them instructions on how they come up with their decision.

[Sean]

Do we ever get transcripts of their time in?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Oh, you will never know how they came up with their decision. And the wild part about it is everybody thinks they know everything. I've talked to a lot of juries. You think you're winning. You think you won for a specific reason. That jury will come back with a reason you will be shocked by, because they bring their similar. They bring different walks of life. They're different people. They're not all the same. So the reasons they come up with may not be the reasons you come up with or the reasons I come up with. And here's the other thing. You didn't see those free call videos I didn't see the free call videos.

[Neda Taufik]

Yeah, that's true.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

People watch the pre call videos and I don't know what they saw, but they saw them and we didn't. So we don't know what they're thinking.

[Sean]

And remind me, does it have to be a unanimous decision from the jury?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

100%. Everybody has got to vote unanimously if there's a guilty or not guilty. And if one person says, and this is the thing, if one person says we believe that he is not guilty, he doesn't go free. They gotta do it all again.

[Sean]

Aren't your chances at prosecuting that to the same level massively diminished? Because all of the witnesses that you've called are going to be very frustrated that they have to do it all again.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Well, and I've seen a number of retrials and everybody always says the same thing. A retrial goes better for the federal government than it goes for the defense because the federal government now knows what the defense questions are going to be of every witness. Text messages are going to be. They'll be able to go and talk to the jury. Like some of the jury are going to say, I guarantee you, we thought it was weird that the government didn't give us all of the text messages. They just gave us the ones that were hurting. What were they trying to hide? So maybe in the next trial, if there is one, if there's a hung jury, the federal government says, let's tell them everything. Let's not pick and choose. Maybe they may choose not to do the arson charge. You don't know. But yes, it's almost always the second trial, if there is one is better for the United States of America.

[Sean]

Well, you know, as this has been going on, as always, we're getting tons and tons of questions. We've had some in the same loo that have come up over and over again. I think we have a voice note to play in.

[Makita Oliver]

Hi, I'm Rhianne from Staffordshire and a question that I keep thinking whenever I'm listening to the podcast is why isn't there a charge for domestic violence? It seems like everyone, he's pretty much in agreement that he did domestically abuse Cassie at certain points, and yet that charge isn't there. I would have thought that the more charges the better. So, yeah, I'm really hoping you can answer that because I'm so confused.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Very good question. There's a couple of ways to answer that. 1. There is no federal domestic violence charge. There's no such thing under the federal statute for Domestic charge. So they couldn't have charged that if they wanted to. Two, in the state of California where this occurred, there is what's called a statute of limitations. So when Cassie brought her lawsuit and did all these other stuff, he could not be prosecuted criminally for everything that he saw in the video. That's why he was so willing to admit the stuff that he's done. And that's why the defense was willing to admit that he is a domestic abuser, because he cannot be charged for it and he cannot be charged in California for it. So even if they wanted to, they could not. And a lot of folks believe, and I think this is going to be part of the defense. The whole reason this case came forward was because of that civil lawsuit that she brought because he couldn't be prosecuted criminally anywhere for the actions that he committed on that video. What a great question.

[Sean]

Yeah. And further from that, I think the one we've spoken about this before, but I think the one that people struggle with a lot is there are some other really horrific alleged crimes in this, particularly the rape that's been alleged by Mia and Cassie. Is it the same for that? If the jury believed that he might have committed those rapes, but not the sex trafficking, what happens?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

He's not charged with it. I mean, he's literally not charged with it. And there is not the federal charge for that based upon the time, which is concerning, if you will, but it's beyond concerning. If the jury finds that he has committed that, but they can't find him guilty of something underlying that that is.

[Sean]

Concerning, will they be able to voice that? Will they say, well, we haven't determined sex trafficking. We think this.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Nope. They are given a jury form on that. They're giving a verdict form on that verdict form. They're allowed to check guilty, not guilty, proven, not proven, and that's it. They are not allowed to give opinion commentary. What do you think? Why do you do that? Until after they are done and then later people can interview them and talk to them, but it does not affect what happens in that case.

[Sean]

And quickly, one last time. We've had so many questions again, and I think this is important because we're going to see the civil lawsuits ramping up once this federal trial is wrapped up. There have already been a few filed today. The difference between civil lawsuits and federal. And this federal case, easiest way to.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Describe it is now we're starting to understand our little legal phrases. Criminal charges are. They must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So prosecutors bring cases that Are, I want to say, easier to prove because they understand you must have stronger evidence to prove a civil case is preponderance of the evidence more likely than not. And so in. Civil cases are about getting money. Criminal cases are about jail time, incarceration. That's the big difference in the two. So a lot of times when people are bringing these civil lawsuits, federal prosecutors have scoured and looked at all these civil lawsuits and they realize we can't prove those allegations beyond a reasonable doubt. So we're not bringing them. We can't prove that those allegations actually happen. We're not bringing them in the civil arena. However, you can look and say, you know what? It is more likely than not he did blank. It is more likely than not he caused blank. And that's when you end up getting your money. So one is about money, one is about freedom, one is easier to prove, one is harder to prove. And criminal charges should be harder to prove. Why? Because we're putting someone's freedom at stake and putting them in jail. And we don't want that to be easy. So we make sure if you're bringing criminal charges, it's hard for the United States of America or whatever state to get you.

[Sean]

And finally, your favorite thing, we have these closing arguments. You are the expert on this. You were not best pleased when I said that they're going to be four hours long each. What do you think about that?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

As we've talked about, this is, like I said, I'm not expert. I don't know if there's an expert on closing argument, but this is something that I teach on around the country. Frequent guest lecturers on closing arguments. The person up. The purpose of a closing argument, believe it or not, is to entertain and convince that jury has been sitting around in a trial for a long period of time. Sometimes you've heard closing arguments called summations. Our job is to sum up what you've just heard in a short, succinct, entertaining way. I tell people when we teach this subject, there's two things you need to focus on when you are talking to a jury. The big thing I am is I'm big on don't using notes. Why? Because if something is passionate, if something is important to somebody, you don't need notes. When you have notes in front of you that tells the jury you don't really believe and what's going on. And if you check TikTok, if you check Instagram, if you check this podcast, people don't need notes to tell you everything they think about the Diddy case. So why should a prosecutor or a lawyer, two jurors, have a small window of attention? So do all of us. If you go to, again, Instagram or TikTok, there's a little thing on there, and I tell people to look at it. You can look how long the average person watches something. The average person does not watch videos for four dang hours. They don't. They lose their attention span. So a lot of times they black out. So what we have to do when we're given a closing argument is DB the most interesting, the most compelling. And you have to make that jury look at you, listen to you, like you, and believe in you. And if it takes you four hours to do it, it ain't going to work.

[Sean]

Is this the defense in another way? Like you said, they were putting on a case with the cross examination. Is this them clawing back time to put on their case in the closing arguments?

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Yes and no. But four hours is just not going to do it. Like I'm telling you, you and I have taught movies. People watch movies, people enjoy movies. There's no person who sits down. The Avengers was one of the great movies in history. And even the people who wrote it came up with it and said, we need to break this down. Nobody's going to sit here and watch this for four hours. And those people pay for tickets. And they had to split it up to two hours and two hours. I believe the longest closing argument should be an hour, 30 to 45 minutes. Should be plenty of time for you to get your point across. Even from the defense standpoint. There's a movie, My Cousin Vinny. My Cousin Vinny made a. It seems like exaggerating, but the character in that movie, in response to the government, basically said everything that guy said was bs. That's a closing argument. Simple, to the point. That said, we don't believe anything that those guys say. That's the way that you can close. You can be simple and to the point and make sure that jury goes back there in the back and says, I don't believe the United States of America or the other way. What a compelling, emotional case that the United States just put on.

[Sean]

Sean, thank you so much.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

Once again, thank you so much for having me.

[Sean]

That was criminal defense attorney Shawn Kent from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Diddy on Trial from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka, Mutandadawati. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing and keep sending us those.

[Neda Taufik]

Questions on WhatsApp at 033-01-2235 551. That's 033-01-2355 551.

[Sean]

And if you've been affected by any of the issues we've spoken about in today's program, you can find [e-mail] Actionline.

[Makita Oliver]

It'S not funny, it's true.

[Sean Kent]

Lily Allen and Makita Oliver Keats, I've got some questions for you. BBC Sounds. Tell me what you've enjoyed about our podcast so far.

[Makita Oliver]

I like that you've got more and more comfortable in this space and I've watched you show all parts of yourself.

[Sean Kent]

We've both cried.

[Sean]

Miss me With Lily Allen and Makita Oliver.

[Makita Oliver]

We're just us having a chat. Feels like we've been doing it forever.

[Sean Kent]

We kind of have. Listen on BBC Sounds.

[Bobby Frixion]

The Indian singer and rapper Siddhu Musiala inspired a generation of young Punjabis.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

He really affected the lifestyle, the culture.

[Bobby Frixion]

But at the height of his fame, he was shot dead.

[Anoushka Mutanda Doughty]

This is a murder which Punjab will not forget.

[Bobby Frixion]

I'm DJ and broadcaster Bobby Frixion, and in World of Secrets, the Killing hall, we're searching for answers behind his murder. What kind of world was Sidhu caught up in? Who wanted him dead and why?

[Lily Allen]

He always say that, bro, one day I'm gonna die with the bullet. I know that.

[Bobby Frixion]

World of Secrets from the BBC World Service. Listen now, wherever you get your BBC podcasts.