What’s going on with Diddy’s trial as judge cancels court day?

Summary

Diddy On Trial: Episode Summary – “What’s going on with Diddy’s trial as judge cancels court day?”

Release Date: June 18, 2025

Introduction

In the latest episode of Diddy on Trial, hosted by Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty from BBC Sounds, listeners are brought up to speed with the tumultuous developments in the high-profile federal trial of Sean 'Diddy' Combs. Charged with sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution, and racketeering with conspiracy, Diddy has consistently denied all allegations. This episode delves into unexpected courtroom disruptions, juror issues, incoming testimonies, and insider insights from legal experts, providing a comprehensive overview for both regular followers and new listeners.

---

Trial Progress and Unexpected Delays

The episode opens with Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty summarizing the current state of the trial:

"Now it's Wednesday in the sixth week of the prosecution's case in Diddy's trial... today we were expecting the final couple of witnesses for the prosecution, Brendan Paul, one of his former assistants. But it didn't really go to plan as one of the jurors has called in sick." ([02:35])

Juror Issues and Courtroom Dynamics

A significant portion of the episode addresses the unexpected cancellation of a court day due to a juror falling ill:

"Yeah, a juror on the way into court got vertigo. And so the judge decided... to give everyone the day off and to regroup on Friday because Thursday is a federal holiday in the United States. So what it means is that while we thought prosecutors might wrap their case Friday, earliest it will now be Monday." – Neda Taufik ([02:38])

The host discusses the implications of this delay, highlighting the prosecution's initial expectation of a swift verdict and the defense's counterposition:

"Defense isn't the one here having to prove its case. The government has that burden... perhaps they're feeling confident enough at this stage." – Sean Kent ([03:07])

Dismissal of Juror Number Six

The episode recounts the dismissal of a juror due to inconsistencies in their residency claims:

"The juror apparently told a court official that he was actually staying in New Jersey with his fiance. And so it got a bit convoluted... the judge found that the inconsistencies were alarming enough... replace him with an alternate, a white man." – Sean Kent ([04:00])

Diddy's legal team expressed concerns about the decision impacting the jury's diversity and the perception of fairness:

"Diddy's lawyers really complained... saying that it could affect Diddy's ability to get a racially diverse jury." ([04:45])

However, the judge maintained that the juror's lack of honesty warranted removal:

"He didn't feel the juror was forthcoming and this was the best course of action." – Sean Kent ([05:00])

Potential Issues with Juror Number Seven

Further complications arise with Juror Number Seven, who is suspected of discussing the case outside the courtroom:

"There are now the discussion that juror number seven, that he may have had conversations about the case with a colleague... the jury must be wondering what's happening themselves." – Sean Kent ([05:16])

Leaked Sealed Information

The episode highlights a breach in court protocol with sealed information being leaked online:

"The judge was very concerned that this information had been leaked, and he threatened both sides with criminal contempt if this happens again." – Sean Kent ([05:40])

Legal expert Sean Kent elaborates on the severity of this breach:

"The judge is saying, you all have made me angry. I can hold any of you in contempt of court... it doesn't hurt Sean Combs' trial, his right to fairness. It more affects the judge's ability to control his courtroom." – Sean Kent via Richard Karn ([13:01])

Role and Impact of Summary Witnesses

A notable feature of the episode is the explanation of "summary witnesses" and their function in the trial:

"It's somebody who organizes this voluminous amount of evidence... putting it all together in a way that the jury can understand." – Sean Kent ([06:32])

The prosecution utilizes summary witnesses to present complex evidence, such as text messages and travel logs, in a digestible format for the jury. This includes critical communications between Diddy and key individuals like Cassie and Christina Quorum, reinforcing the prosecution's timeline and allegations.

Focus on Christina Quorum's Testimony

Christina Quorum, Diddy's chief of staff, emerges as a pivotal figure in the trial. The episode delves into her interactions and communications that suggest complicity:

"Christina Coram has always been a central figure in this... she tells him, if you start lying to me, that it will break me." – Sean Kent ([07:19])

These exchanges highlight potential dishonesty and manipulation within Diddy's inner circle, providing substantial evidence for the prosecution's case.

Brendan Paul’s Anticipated Testimony

Brendan Paul, a former personal assistant charged alongside Diddy, was expected to testify but was unable to attend due to a juror falling ill. His testimony is anticipated to shed light on the operational aspects of Diddy's alleged activities:

"Brendan Paul is a 26-year-old Syracuse University basketball player... he was arrested at the Miami airport and charged with cocaine possession." – Sean Kent ([11:18])

Paul's eventual testimony is poised to be crucial as one of the last prosecution witnesses, potentially offering firsthand insights into the charges against Diddy.

Defense Strategy and Potential Absence of Defense Witnesses

In a segment with criminal defense attorney Sean Kent, the discussion shifts to the defense's strategy, or apparent lack thereof:

"I'm shocked. It's going to take two to five days. If I was dealing with this case... you are innocent until proven guilty. You do not have to say a word." – Sean Kent ([18:18])

Kent suggests that the defense may opt not to present additional witnesses, relying instead on the prosecution's burden of proof to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This tactic underscores the defense's confidence in dismantling the prosecution's case.

Listener Questions and Legal Insights

The episode also features a Q&A segment where legal expert Richard Karn addresses audience inquiries:

1. Discovery of Evidence by Alternate Jurors:

   "They pick all the jurors at the same exact time... they're told to pay attention to everything at all points in time." – Richard Karn ([19:53])

2. Publication of Voice Notes and Evidence Handling:

   "This is just what they put inside of the court system... it's just the way that the federal procedures are." – Richard Karn ([20:07])

3. Rebuttal Process in Federal Cases:

   "To be a rebuttal, it must be in response to something the defense has put forth." – Richard Karn ([22:18])

4. Naming of Celebrities in Trial Proceedings:

   "The judge is the gatekeeper of evidence... makes the decision whether certain things will come in." – Richard Karn ([24:07])

These responses provide clarity on procedural aspects of the trial, offering listeners a deeper understanding of federal court operations and the strategic maneuvers by both prosecution and defense.

Conclusion

This episode of Diddy on Trial effectively captures the ongoing drama and complexity of Sean 'Diddy' Combs' federal trial. From juror mishaps and courtroom tensions to strategic legal discussions and anticipated testimonies, the podcast offers an in-depth analysis that keeps listeners informed about every twist and turn. As the trial progresses towards its climax, the insights provided by BBC's New York correspondent Neda Taufik and criminal defense attorney Sean Kent ensure that audiences are well-equipped to comprehend the multifaceted nature of this high-stakes legal battle.

For those following the case or seeking to understand the intricacies of federal trials, this episode serves as an essential resource, blending real-time developments with expert commentary and listener engagement.

Transcript

[Richard Karn]

This BBC podcast is supported by ads outside the uk.

[Anushka Matanda]

Sasha hated sand, the way it stuck to things for weeks. So when Maddy shared a surf trip on Expedia Trip Planner, he hesitated. Then he added a hotel with a cliffside pool to the plan and they both spent the week in the water. You were made to follow your whims. We were made to help find a place on the beach with a pool and a waterfall and a soaking tub and of course, a great shower. Expedia Made to Travel hi, I'm Richard.

[Neda Taufik]

Karn and you may have seen me on TV talking about the world's number one expandable garden hose. Well, the brand new Pocket hose Copperhead with Pocket Pivot is here and it's a total game changer. Old fashioned hoses get kinks and creases at the spigot, but the Copperhead's pocket pivot swivels 360 degrees for full water flow and freedom to water with ease all around your home. When you're all done, this rust proof anti burst hose shrinks back down to pocket size for effortless handling and tidy storage. Plus your super light and ultra durable pocket hose Copperhead is backed with a 10 year warranty. What could be better than that? I'll tell you what, an exciting exclusive offer just for you. For a limited time, you can get a free Pocket Pivot and their 10 pattern sprayer with the purchase of any size Copperhead hose. Just text water to 64,000. That's water to 64,000 for your two free gifts with purchase. W A T E R to 64,000. By texting 64,000 you agree to receive recurring automated marketing messages from Pocket Host. Message and data rates may apply. No purchase required. Terms apply available@pocket host.com terms.

[Sean Kent]

BBC Sounds.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Music radio Podcasts hello and welcome back to Diddy on Trial from BBC Sounds with me, Anushka Matanda. Make sure you subscribe and turn on your push notifications so you never miss a thing. Now it's Wednesday in the sixth week of the prosecution's case in Diddy's trial. A reminder before we get into things, he is charged with sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution and racketeering with conspiracy. These are charges he's consistently denied. Now, today we were expecting the final couple of witnesses for the prosecution, Brendan Paul, one of his former assistants. But it didn't really go to plan as one of the jurors has called in sick. So we have our weekly roundup episode later. We'll be hearing from our resident criminal defense attorney, Sean Kent. But Right now I'm chatting to the BBC's New York correspondent, Neda Taufik. Hi, Neda.

[Sean Kent]

Hey, Anoushka.

[Stephen Stockwell]

So, Neda, there's no court today. Tell me about what happened in more detail.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, a juror on the way into court got vertigo. And so the judge decided, since the juror was sick, to just give everyone the day off and to regroup on Friday because Thursday is a federal holiday in the United States. So what it means is that while we thought prosecutors might wrap their case Friday, earliest it will be now is Monday.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Yeah, so so much for the whole. We're going to have a verdict by the end of next week because Diddy's defense come out and say it will only take them two to five days to put on the case.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, that's right. And that was a big question. Will Diddy take the stand? What other witnesses might the defense call. This new timeline of two to five days really does suggest that Diddy might not take the stand, because remember how long Cassie and Jane were there. But look, this isn't that unusual. Defense isn't the one here having to prove its case. The government has that burden. And so the defense really is just going to use this to put on any other points they want to make. But perhaps they're feeling confident enough at this stage.

[Stephen Stockwell]

But it hasn't been without its drama. In typical fashion of the Diddy trial. There's been some other issues with jurors.

[Sean Kent]

That's right. Let's not forget that we've had juror number six dismissed. And this was a big back and forth between the prosecution and the defense. What happened was this is one of the blackmail jurors, and he had said that he lived in the Bronx. Remember, you have to be a resident of New York to serve on a jury in a trial that took place in this city. And so the juror apparently told a court official that he was actually staying in New Jersey with his fiance. And so it got a bit convoluted, his story. Now, the judge going through that found that the inconsistencies were alarming enough that he said he would just take the juror off and replace him with an alternate, a white man. Now, Diddy's lawyers really complained about this, saying that the court was confusing inconsistencies with lying, that they fully believed he would be able to look at the facts and follow directions saying he's awake more than some of the other jurors. And also saying that it could Diddy's ability to get a racially Diverse jury. But the judge shot that down, saying that that's not Diddy's right here, and that you can't really put the genie back in the bottle, that he didn't feel the juror was forthcoming and this was the best course of action.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Yeah, so that was juror number six, but now they're talking about juror number seven. And then there are these other issues about sealed information.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, we have a lot coming up in between witnesses in court with these discussions. There's now the discussion that juror number seven, that he may have had conversations about the case with a colleague. And so the judge basically cleared the courtroom to talk to juror number seven. We're waiting to see how that pans out. And the jury must be wondering what's happening themselves, because even with juror number six, they're not allowed to discuss that. They're not allowed to discuss amongst themselves what happened there. They just have to be left in the dark and focused on the evidence in this case and doing their job. But that's why there's alternates. Now, separately, the judge also was just irate and very upset with the defense and prosecution, saying that one of them was lying because leaked information was out in an online article from what should have been sealed court proceedings. Remember, we're in there, we're witnessing things, but occasionally private information is meant for just the two parties. And the judge. And the judge was very concerned that this information had been leaked, and he threatened both sides with criminal contempt if this happens again.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And that's been the drama around the court proceedings. But the person we've actually had on the stand is somebody called a summary witness. Nada. First of all, what is that?

[Sean Kent]

So it's literally somebody who organizes this voluminous amount of evidence, quite literally into a summary so that the jury can understand it. It's understanding complex information like hotel bookings and travel logs and text messages and putting that all together in a way that the jury can understand. Because, remember, when they go and have verdict sheet, they're going to have to say, has the government really proven the case that did he paid for, for example, or the company, these escorts to fly across state lines? Did he really book their hotel rooms? Did he really get employees to help? So all of this is a way to put that summary in front of the jury in a clean way from somebody who went through all the evidence.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And we know in this case there's so much evidence because we knew there were terabytes of data recovered from digital devices, and some of that Stuff we've seen. It's come up again with the summary witness, particularly messages from Cassie.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah. And this is reinforcing a lot of the timeline and what was happening with Cassie. Text messages between her and Diddy, where she's organizing or booking the male escorts. There was one moment where, again, this photo of her with a big gash in her eyebrow was shown, and it was in the context of messaging Diddy to say, just so you remember. And he said, you know, I'm sorry, exclamation point, exclamation point. So reinforcing just that whole timeline with Cassie and her conversations about what hotels and when and connecting that with the bookings so that the jury could understand what evidence had been provided by the government to support that.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Yeah. And it does make sense because it feels like a lifetime ago that Cassie was on the stand. We had another focus on Jane's messages as well. But really the end of it was a heavy focus on Christina Quorum.

[Sean Kent]

Yeah. Christina Corum was Diddy's chief of staff, and her name has come up again and again throughout this trial. And there was even talk at one point about whether she was also going to be given immunity to come testify. But here we are toward the end of the prosecution's case, and she's not taking the stand. But what we have noticed is that the groundwork has clearly been laid to present these text messages in court. And Christina Quorum is somebody who crossed over with not just Cassie, but also Jane, who was much later in this alleged criminal conspiracy and was dating Diddy right up until his arrest. So she's somebody who really knows the ins and outs of his company and his personal life. And that was really evidenced by some of the text messages she had with some of the personal assistants where they described Diddy being active and ready to go and her asking if it meant he was going to be having a Gucci night or a King's Knight. And it was interesting to see at one point, they put forward messages directly between Christina Coram and Diddy in November of 2023. So after Cassie's lawsuit, in which you see her expressing concern that he's not being completely forthcoming with her. And in that exchange, and I'll just read you some of it, she tells him, if you can't be honest with me, this doesn't work. We all know what your kryptonite is and where you don't make the best choices at that. She says she feels like Diddy's lying to her and it's not sitting well with her. And he says, well, you can come take my phone. You can come look for yourself. And she says, if you start lying to me, that it will break me. So Christina Quorum has always been a central figure in this, and this was the chance we've got to finally see some of her perspective.

[Stephen Stockwell]

We had some of those messages that were speaking directly to the charge of transportation for prostitution. There's messages between Christina and a staff member giggling about spotting a cowboy in in the lobby of a hotel. Neda, what's a cowboy?

[Sean Kent]

Yeah, so we've heard that Diddy liked to book escorts from the service called Cowboys and Angels. And it's interesting because when we heard from the personal assistants, we heard a lot about the brutal work environment and how they were expected to transport drugs and make sure copious amounts of baby oil and other items were always on deck and ready for the hotels. But you always wondered, did they fully know everything going on? And here they are joking about some spotting a cowboy in the lobby of the company and just saying they looked very much like an escort in that moment. So jokes about Diddy's personal habits, they're very clearly laid out between Christina Korum and his personal assistants.

[Stephen Stockwell]

But the next person we have taking the stand is Brendan Paul. Neda, tell me a little bit more about Brendan.

[Sean Kent]

So Brendan Paul is a 26 year old Syracuse University basketball player and he was a former personal assistant of. And the reason his nickname as the drug mule of Diddy's has come up is because when Diddy's homes were raided, Brendan Paul was arrested that same day. He was arrested actually at the Miami airport and charged with cocaine possession. And we were just about to get into his testimony before this juror was sick. But he was given immunity. And so now when we get back to court, he will be testifying and we'll hear what he has to say.

[Stephen Stockwell]

So he's one of the last witnesses for the prosecution. Then we have a summary witness and then we're really in the home straight. Neda, thank you so much for breaking this down for us.

[Sean Kent]

Absolutely.

[Stephen Stockwell]

That was the BBC's New York correspondent, Nada Taufik. Now it's time to catch up with our resident criminal defence attorney, Sean Kent. I spoke to him on Tuesday night where we answered some of your questions. Sean, in the past week there have been a variety of different issues cropping up. We know about juror number six, who's been dismissed. We're hearing about issues with juror number seven. And then we have information from a sealed conversation between the judge, the prosecution, and the defense making its way into an online article. Now, I understand issues with the jurors. That's why we have alternates. But this sounds, to me, at least with little experience, sealed information getting out there sounds like a really, really big issue.

[Richard Karn]

It is, and it isn't. Okay, it is in that candle is just going to make a judge upset. You have violated his rules of court. The judge is saying, the sanctity of our meetings when we have these private meetings should not get out. Basically, the judge is saying, y' all have made me angry. And for this reason, I can hold any of you in contempt of court. I don't think there's any chance of a mistrial for that issue. The reason being it doesn't hurt Sean Combs trial, his right to fairness. It more affects the judge's ability to control his court courtroom.

[Stephen Stockwell]

But so he's pulled Mark Igniflo, lead counsel for Diddy's defense, and then lead counsel for the prosecution, Maureen Comey, and into a room and said, basically, on your heads be it. It's your job to make sure this doesn't happen. And I'm going to do an investigation, and when I find out where it came from, I'll hold one of you in contempt of court. Is that enough for the bar to get involved?

[Richard Karn]

If the bar believes that you have done something to hurt Mr. Combs ability to get a fair trial, yes, they will get involved. I doubt it. Is this. This is more of a judge saying, I'm going to utilize my contempt powers because you have violated my order. And in his contempt powers, he can put them in jail or he can order a fine. Those are the two big things that he can do.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And then the other question is, with jury number six being dismissed. And I've seen a lot of US stations saying, well, are they going to give an interview? I don't think it's illegal for them to give an interview, but if they came out and they were like, wink, wink, we all think he's guilty. That's. That's unfair to Diddy.

[Richard Karn]

The only thing that the juror 6 could do that could cause a new trial. If he said something during the jury when they were in the room, if he said, look, while we were in the room, we were discussing this trial like crazy, and we all thought blank, that could get him a new trial. Or if a court of appeals later looks and they said, judge, you impermissibly removed juror number six. This was not the right thing to do. It happened on A case that I actually had, there was a banker, he had a trial, he was convicted, he was found guilty. The federal Court of Appeals found that the judge impermissibly removed a juror, and they gave this guy a new trial. So that is a big issue if they feel as though the judge impermissibly removed a juror.

[Stephen Stockwell]

I mean, Donaldson, who's a member of the defense, went very hard saying, you know, he turns up on time, he made a comment saying, juror number six is active participant writing in his notes as. And he's awake compared to some of the other jurors, some have been spotted nodding off. So I guess that might be something that they bring up if there is a conviction at an appeal.

[Richard Karn]

100%. The real question is candor to the tribunal. And so what the judge was saying is, that juror was not honest with me. And since this juror was not honest with me, I believe that they wanted to get on the jury. And because of the way they answered their questions, I believe they went out of the way to get on my trial. I don't trust them. I want them gone. I think of all the crazy stuff that's happened in the trial, the wild part is juror number six could be the issue if there is a conviction, why this man could get a new trial.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Potentially, just out of interest, if you have noticed members of the jury nodding off, I mean, they are long days. Could the defense team not point over and say, well, juror number five is asleep, so there's no way in hell did. He's getting a fair trial because they're missing chunks of the evidence.

[Richard Karn]

We had a trial once. It was quite some time ago, and I'll never forget it. We were sitting in a trial and one of the jurors had fallen asleep. And so the prosecutor, joking, not jokingly, but very seriously, went, trying to be all secretive to the judge and said, you, Honor. And this is why the prosecutor was talking, your Honor, juror number four has fallen asleep. And the judge, without missing a beat, says, you put him asleep, you wake him up. And so that's candidly the issue. It's just like if you're the one who put the jury asleep, that's on you. So just falling asleep, not paying attention, it's hard to get a juror thrown off for that. And if they're being born, that's on them.

[Stephen Stockwell]

I gotta ask you about these summary witnesses. They were on the stand. The one today was on in cross examination for ages. We didn't get to Brendan Poole, who we were expecting. I mean, we were talking ages ago about the smoking gun that the prosecution might have at the end, and going out with a bang, not a whimper. It's not quite the end of the prosecution I was expecting. What is the relevance of the summary witnesses?

[Richard Karn]

I hate this rule. It's a federal rule. It's 1006. It's called a summary rule. And basically the summary rule allows you that if there is too much information, then the judge and the courts will allow one witness to come and basically summarize these terabytes of information. So that's the whole point. So the government can get their. All of their evidence out without the need of calling people. Problem is, one, I believe it violates what's called a confrontation clause. Confrontation clause is guaranteed by the United States Constitution that you have the right to confront your accuser. If somebody is talking trash about me and says, sean has done something, I have a right to look them dang in their face and said, you tell me what you said. Don't talk about me behind my back. That's just common sense. That's what we do as normal people. I don't want someone to talk about my back without me with the right to defend myself. That's the problem with summary witnesses. And two, this is not necessarily evidence. That's in evidence. They're just bringing stuff up. And that's often a problem that people have with it, as from the defense standpoint. A lot of times juries don't pay attention because it's so dang boring and it's not a real witness. So it cuts both ways.

[Stephen Stockwell]

But it doesn't really feel like we're going to go out with some explosive testimony from the prosecution.

[Richard Karn]

I wouldn't count that just yet. There's a reason they're stopping with Brendan Paul. You understand? There is a reason. I don't know what the reason is. I'm still giving that prosecution the benefit of doubt, but they usually stop with their strongest witness that they can be able to control.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And then the other big thing is the defense coming out and saying it could take us two to five days to put on their defense, which, I mean, to me was like, crazy, because this man's freedom is at stake from their perspective. But you were saying to me the other day that they didn't even necessarily need to put on a defense at all.

[Richard Karn]

I'm shocked. It's going to take two to five days. If I was dealing with this case, from what I've seen right now, I wouldn't put a single witness on because you're not required to. In the US System, you are innocent until proven guilty. You do not have to say a word. They have the burden of proof to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. That's not all doubt, but beyond a reasonable doubt. And you can say all that. You can literally regurgitate the defense's opening. All they have proved is that Diddy is really a bad person and guilty of domestic violence. But this is not rico. This is not sex trafficking. That could be it. Because my fear is what witness will the defense be able to call to say that this is not blank? And so at some point in time, it's just like, why are you calling people just to call them? Because they're clearly, and we talked about last week, not putting Diddy on the stand. It ain't happening. Which means they like the way the defense has gone. I don't know who the witnesses are, but it'll have to be some pretty interesting witnesses to justify putting on a case.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Now, this is a quick fire question from WhatsApp. It's just about the new juror, the alternate that switched in. Will they have heard evidence given in the five previous weeks? If they haven't, why they don't they have to start the case again? I'm pretty sure the alternates are in there all the time.

[Richard Karn]

They pick all the juries at the same exact time. They're all sitting in the courtroom. They tell them at the very beginning, you're an alternate, but if something happens to anyone else, you're in there. So they're watching everything. They're told to pay attention to everything at all points in time.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And then another one is, why are we able to hear snippets of the voice notes sent from Diddy to Jane? Some of the stuff that was entered into evidence in the media, but we can't see all of the evidence. Everything isn't released.

[Richard Karn]

It'll be released eventually. This is just what they put inside of the court system. It's just the way that the federal procedures are. So I can't give you a good.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Reason apart from that under seal.

[Richard Karn]

Right?

[Stephen Stockwell]

Because the videos they're watching, whenever a.

[Richard Karn]

Lot of stuff is under seal, some stuff is not important.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Okay, we've got a voice note for you, Sean.

[Richard Karn]

Ooh, like a trivia question.

[Unknown Caller]

I used to be for a time a criminal defence lawyer in the uk. The American system is in part very different to ours, both original and creative. And at times seems bafflingly strange. I don't know if it's come up in did his trial, but I've never understood the instruction from the judge to the jury to disregard what they have just heard. They may understand they can't take it into account when reading their verdict, but they can't unhear it. So it will be in their minds whether they want it to or not.

[Richard Karn]

I truly wish that I could disagree with that caller, but I agree 1000%. The American system can be quite baffling. The only way that we can think about it is the judge does tell people that you must disregard. Because let's think about it this way. Here's the easiest way to think about it. If we couldn't simply say disregard what you just heard and say, let's start over. Every lawyer on the planet when the case is going badly would say things that you're not supposed to hear and then you would keep retrying the case over and over again. So judges have to utilize their discretion and make a determination that sometimes mistakes are made. And if a mistake is made and it was not intentional, and that's our theory, if it is not intentional to hurt the trial, then the judge can tell the jury, your job is not to listen to this evidence. That's it. It happens a lot of times.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And we've got another one from Shanice in Bristol. This is the question. Like most people, I was expecting. Christ, a quorum to testify with the prosecution. Is it possible for the prosecution to bring Christina out to testify during their rebuttal after the defense's case? How does the rebuttal process work in federal cases like Diddy's trial?

[Richard Karn]

Absolutely possible. But to be a rebuttal, it must be in rebut to something the defense has put forth. Okay, so Diddy's team has specifically said they are calling three witnesses. If the government wanted to rebut, they could rebut those ones. So here's the easiest way to describe it. Let's say for argument's sake, Diddy puts forth an expert that talks about the fact that freak offs are normal. Everybody does a freak off and all of these people are consenting to them. Well, then the government could recall their expert. They could recall her to specifically rebut what the defense has said. But that's it. You just cannot call a witness just because you feel like it's it. I think he has mentioned that the defense is possibly calling other employees of Bad Boy Combs Entertainment and things of that nature. Under that situation, maybe they could recall Christia Corum to rebut some of the stuff that they were saying. But make sure you understand it must be to rebut what the defense is saying, which is another reason why I'm not a fan of putting on a case, because you don't know what you're possibly opening the door for for the prosecution to say about you.

[Stephen Stockwell]

And the last question, which I thought was such a good one, came from Jade on Instagram as well. We spoke about this a little bit. How come the name Young Miami can be thrown around, but the rapper in Vegas who is allegedly having a swinging party thing that Jane attends? Their name can't be mentioned. And that was ruled by the judge. Why is it different for one celebrity as compared to the other?

[Richard Karn]

The reason that question is so good is we always talk about appellate issues. The exact thing you have just said is what a court of appeals be looking at later. And they will ask that exact question. Why can you let one celebrity name in there, but the other one is just like, oh, we don't want celebrities in this case. And what the court will say is, it was good when the prosecution wants it, but when the defense wants it, it's a complete no, no, I can't give you a good reason. That's up to the judge. The phrase that we use is the judge is the gatekeeper of evidence. The judge is the person who makes the decision whether certain things will come in.

[Stephen Stockwell]

Kent, Sean, thank you so much for breaking all of this down.

[Richard Karn]

Thank y' all for having me. I much appreciate it.

[Stephen Stockwell]

That was Sean Kent, criminal defense attorney from South Carolina. And that's it for this episode of Diddy on Trial with me, Anushka Matanda Doughty. Keep sending us your questions on WhatsApp at 033-01-2551. That's 033-01-23551. And if you've been affected by any of the issues we've spoken about in today's program, you can find some [e-mail] forward/action line.

[G]

She's accused of murdering her relatives by serving death cap mushrooms inside a beef Wellington. Erin Patterson's trial has finally started and all the details about that infamous lunch are now coming out.

[Stephen Stockwell]

It's a tragedy what's happened.

[Richard Karn]

I love them.

[G]

I'm Stephen Stockwell, and I'm here in the small Victorian town of Morwell, where the triple motor truck is underway every day on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast. We'll tell you about all of the evidence presented in the courtroom to make sure you don't miss an episode hit Follow on the Mushroom Case Daily podcast. Wherever you get your podcasts.