← Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Drop Dead Serious With Ashleigh Banfield
Diddy’s Jury Has Questions! And One Juror Might Not Be Following the Rules? | Diddy Trial Verdict Watch
00:16:00
Loading summary
Transcript2 lines
- [00:02]
A
Lowes knows that no matter your paint project, saving is at the top of your list. That's why when you shop today, you can buy one get one free. Select Valspar and HGTV Home by Sherwin Williams one Coat coverage interior paints via rebate. Shop these deals in store or online. Today at Lowes we help you save rebate. Inform a Visa gift card equal to 100% off the second eligible item purchased before or after applicable discounts if any See details offer N79 foreign.
- [00:34]
B
Hey everyone, I'm Ashley Banfield and this is drop dead serious. After weeks and weeks and weeks of graphic testimony and bombshell witnesses and cross examinations that shook the courtroom, it finally arrived. The jury is finally deliberating in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial. I Sean Diddy Combs. But just when we thought we had entered the final phase this morning, we were thrown a real curveball. By mid morning, one of the jurors, according to the other jurors, apparently cannot follow the judge's instructions. Or maybe he won't follow the judge's instructions. We're working that one out. And then there was another jury question that came out of deliberations and we're going to get to that in just a moment. But first let's talk about what those jury instructions actually were, what the jurors were told before they were told nothing else, and then were forced to deliberate some kind of a verdict. The judge in the case, Aaron Subramanian, he kicked off the day, which was a day set aside for jury instructions, and then the start of deliberations with the basics in this case and, and what these jurors have to do. Sean Diddy Combs is presumed innocent. He started there. The government has the burden of proof. That presumption only goes away if the jury unanimously agrees that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, not beyond all shadow of a doubt, because that's kind of impossible in life, isn't it? Just beyond a reasonable doubt. And the judge explained reasonable doubt as well. He says it doesn't mean any doubt, it just means a doubt that would cause a reasonable person to hesitate. And if they have that kind of doubt, the judge said it is their duty to acquit, vote not guilty. And then the judge explained the types of evidence that jurors can consider. And this is one of my favorite parts of jury deliberations and instructions. Trust me, I know it's very nerdy, but, but I like it because it's the common sense stuff, right? It's really Hard to remember for a lot of people, some of these elements. It's very difficult to remember exactly what kinds of evidence are called what and which kinds have more weight, right? But the reminders come in handy not just for jurors, for us, too, who love true crime, because sometimes we can forget there's direct evidence. And direct evidence is stuff like witness testimony or exhibits that are brought into the courtroom and entered into evidence. And then there's that pesky little thing called circumstantial evidence. And you have heard people, you have heard people ad nauseam say the words, oh, it's just a circumstantial case, right? As though guy's gonna get off. It's just circumstantial. It's not direct. So it's just circumstantial. Well, you can tell those people, what do you know about American jurisprudence? Because some cases that are just circumstantial cases are extraordinarily strong. Like the Brian Coburger case is mostly circumstantial, right? But they got them dead to rights, even though they gave a plea deal. But that's an important thing. Circumstantial evidence. Let me explain it real quick or just remind you if you already know. The circumstantial evidence is where facts are inferred, right? And the example that the judge gave this jury is a great one. If somebody walks in the door with a wet umbrella, you can reasonably infer that it is raining outside. Even if you did not see it with your own eyes, you're not out the window. You can't see that it's raining. But they walked in soaking wet with an umbrella. It's reasonable to infer that it's raining outside. It ain't crazy. You'd vote on that. You'd be strong, you'd feel strong, right? That is circumstantial evidence. So you see how circumstantial evidence can be so critically important and so incredibly strong in a case. Maybe the witness who saw it raining actually had shower water on their glasses. So the direct evidence might not have been as good as. Anyway, when it comes to witness credibility, the judge said that you, the jurors, you are the judges of that credibility. There is no magic formula, right? The jurors can weigh demeanor, they can weigh consistency, they can weigh red flags. If they see red flags with a, you know, a witness who's up there on the stand, if they notice something like that about anybody on the stand, they can take that into account. That's what the judge told them. And if they think that a witness lied about just one thing in their testimony, the judge said, they're allowed to throw out part or all of what that person said in their testimony. It's up to the juror. They can make that decision. That's power, right? The judge also told the jurors that they consider whether a witness might benefit from how the trial ends up right. If the witness benefits from the outcome of the trial, the jurors are allowed to weigh that in any way they want. He reminded them that they are allowed to use their own life experience and their own common sense when making those calls. And one more thing. Just because a witness met with the prosecutors before getting up on the witness stand and testifying, the judge said, that doesn't mean anything shady happened. It is normal. The jury can factor it in, but it is not improper to meet with prosecutors before going into testify. And then came the charges. The judge broke down all five charges against Diddy, one by one. Count one, racketeering conspiracy from 2004 to 2024, two decades. Count two, sex trafficking of Cassie Ventura between 2009 and 2018. So almost a decade. Count three, transporting others for the purpose of prostitution from 2009 to 2018, nine years. Count four, sex trafficking of Jane Doe from 2021 to 2024, three years. And count five, transporting Jane Doe and others with intent to engage in prostitution. The judge told the jury that this. This panel has to return a verdict of guilty or not guilty for each of those counts, and they have to consider each one separately. They cannot lump them together. The judge also walked jurors through something called a special sentencing factor for count one. Right. That's the racketeering charge. The judge said if the jurors find Diddy guilty of racketeering, they also have to decide whether sex trafficking of Cassie or of Jane was part of that pattern. And the sex trafficking can involve any combination of force, threats, fraud, or coercion. That's a lot of leeway. And coercion, the judge said, does not have to be obvious. Judge said it can be threats. It can be manipulation. Coercion can even be a pattern of behavior that just causes somebody to fear that there might be some serious harm. The judge also explained a commercial sex act, saying that it. It just means that something of value was exchanged. But don't think for a minute that it has to be money. It was just something of value. Say, for instance, I got my jollies by having a lot of sex that night, right? I didn't get paid. I didn't make money off it, but I got something valuable. Right? That. That's what the judge is trying to say. And as for counts three and five, the transportation for the purpose of prostitution, Diddy didn't have to move anybody. The judge said, you know, Diddy didn't have to do the moving himself. Just arranging the travel is enough. Like calling your assistant and saying, get a ticket for so and so and so and so and make it happen. Just arranging it is enough. And the intent of the person who's being transported, did that person consent to the trip? The judge said it doesn't matter. So let's just say Jane and Cassie, they were all in. They wanted to go to Turks and Caicos, they wanted to go to Atlanta, they wanted to go to Miami, they wanted to go to New York and la. And maybe they wanted to or didn't want to do the freak offs, but it doesn't matter if they wanted to go or didn't want to go. They didn't have to go in handcuffs is what the judge is saying. They could have been willing to go. And then the thing that happened that they didn't want to do happened. So that's interesting. Consent is not a defense for Diddy in this case. That, that the ladies wanted to go, that the prostitutes wanted to go and jumped on the plane, you know, of their own volition. That is not a defense for Diddy, the judge said, which is, you know, that gives the jury a lot to work with. And before sending that jury off, they were warned not to speculate about people who did not testify, not to guess what uncalled witnesses might have said. Where was kk? Why there was no KK on the stand. Must be something hinky going on here. The judge said, you're not allowed to think that way if there's not a witness who came up on that stand. That's not for you to infer. Something wrong must, you know, be in the. In the offing. Just don't is basically what the judge told the jury. And about the topic of intoxication, the judge said if Diddy was too impaired to form intent, the judge said that may matter, but it doesn't automatically mean that he didn't commit a crime. That's pretty interesting. And then came the rules for the deliberations. No outside research, no sharing notes with each other, and also no assuming that because somebody on the jury was taking notes, they're more credible than. Than somebody else on the jury that wasn't taking notes. And finally with that, the deliberations were underway. But just an hour into those deliberations, the trouble started brewing. At 12:40pm the jury sent out a note, and it was addressed to Judge Subramanian, and it read, we have a juror, juror number 25, who we believe cannot follow your instructions. What? What? But that was it. That was all the note said. No details, no clarification. Just that there were some rumors afoot in the courthouse early in the day that there's some problem with mental capacity that did not bore. It did not bear out. But I'm just going to say this. These jurors have been together for eight weeks. Yeah. They're not allowed to talk about the case, but they've talked about everything else under the sun. So if there was somebody with a. Some kind of a mental incapacity, they'd know hella long before now. Right. So now I'm left thinking, okay, was there one juror that went back there and started making demands as to how everybody should be voting on these verdicts that didn't follow what they were told with the instructions, and that guy wouldn't shut up about it? Is that possible? Maybe. But given the way the day played out, I don't think that was it. And I'll tell you why. So, for now, the judge has decided he's not going to pull the plug on juror 25. But he did tell the jury to keep going, like, keep deliberating, which is not unusual. You just rarely break up a jury and say, well, okay, well, this isn't going to work, so everybody go home. We'll start this whole process again next year. Instead, the judge sent a note back to the jury. And this is where it's very frustrating if you don't live in this world. But if you hear what I'm about to tell you and you're frustrated because it's unsatisfactory, I get it. I find judges responses to jurors very unsatisfactory as well. But a lot of times they're. They're hamstrung by what they can say. And this note that Judge Subramanian sent back said, quote, I received your note. I remind every juror of their duty to deliberate and their obligation to follow my instruction on the law. With that instruction in mind, please continue deliberating. So if they were expecting some magic remedy to come from the judge, it didn't. So I would have thought, well, if they're really entrenched and there's a problem, they're going to send Another note out saying, what the. What the. Help us, Judge. Help us, Obi Wan Kenobi. But the judge also reminded the jury not to include any specifics about their deliberations if they send future notes out to the court. So now my wheels were turning, like, well, now what are they going to say? And just before the end of the day, another twist. Yep. The jury sent out not one, but two notes to this judge. And I'm expecting it's all going to be about that issue. And it was not. I think they might have figured that issue out because the first question came and it was a big question. The jury asked, quote, if somebody asks for controlled substances and another person hands it over, does that count as distribution? Interesting. Judge Subramanian did not answer that question right away. As is right. He needs to confer with the prosecution and the defense. And he told those lawyers to meet and confer and then report back by 6pm tonight with some kind of a proposed response that the judge can send back into the jury. He says he wants that answer ready for first thing tomorrow morning. The then the second note was kind of more procedural, letting the court know that they were wrapping it up for the day. They were allowed to go late if they wanted to, but they sent the note out saying, no, thank you, I appreciate that, but we're good. So that means that the, the deliberations are going to resume tomorrow at 9am and with that, the jury was brought out back into the courtroom and officially dismissed for the night. Five hours of deliberations under their belts. So we now have a juror in question, but maybe that's resolved because we didn't get any more notes on that guy. We have a question about drug distribution that hangs in the balance until the parties can decide how the judge should answer that question. We should get that in the morning and then deliberations will roll into day two. Either way, we are going to be here every step of the way. So make sure you're subscribed on YouTube or your favorite podcast platform so that you don't miss a thing. I'm Ashley Banfield. Thank you so much for listening. And remember, the truth isn't just serious, it's drop dead serious.