← The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
Did Diddy Tamper With Witnesses To Secure Not-Guilty Verdict?
00:26:24
Loading summary
Transcript66 lines
- [00:00]
Ryan Seacrest
It is Ryan here and I have a question for you. What do you do when you win? Like are you a fist pumper? A woohooer? A hand clapper? A high fiver? If you want to hone in on those winning moves, check out Chumba Casino. Choose from hundreds of social casino style games for your chance to redeem serious cash prizes. There are new game releases weekly plus free daily bonuses, so don't wait. Start having the most Fun ever@shamba casino.com.
- [00:25]
Unknown
No purchase necessary vgw group void where prohibited by law 21 + terms and conditions apply.
- [00:30]
Going to the gym can be discouraging, especially if you're putting in the work but barely seeing changes. But with Tonal you can actually see your progress with every workout. Tonal provides the convenience of a full gym and the expertise of a personal trainer anytime at home with one sleek system designed to reduce your mental load. Tonal is the ultimate strength training system, helping you focus less on workout planning and more on getting results. No more second guessing your technique. Tonal gives you real time coaching cues to dial in your form and help you lift safely and effectively. After a quick assessment Assessment Tonal sets the optimal weight for every move and adjusts in 1 pound increments as you get stronger so you're always challenged. Tonal lets you choose from a variety of expert LED workouts from strength to arrow hit to yoga and mobility to keep you coming back for more. For a limited time go to Tonal.com to get $500 off your Tonal purchase plus a free four year warranty. That's Tonal.com for $500 off plus a free four year warranty.
- [01:29]
Ryan Seacrest
Tonal.com hey it's Ryan Seacrest. Life comes at you fast which is why it to find some time to relax a little you time. Enter Chumba Casino with no download required. You can jump on anytime, anywhere for the chance to redeem some serious prizes. So treat yourself with Chumba Casino and play over 100 online casino style games, all for free. Go to Chumbacasino.com to collect your free welcome bonus sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [01:55]
Unknown
No purchase necessary VGW Group Void we're prohibited by law. 21 plus terms and conditions apply.
- [02:01]
This is continuing coverage of United States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime today.
- [02:10]
Tony
So after weeks of explosive testimony, disturbing video, multiple women alleging years of abuse, the jury in the Sean Diddy Combs federal trial said guilty, but only on the le the lesser charges. No to sex trafficking, no to Racketeering note of the counts, that carried real weight. And, and now the big question is, how did we get here? Was this a failure of the prosecution? Did a key witness backing out blow the case wide open? Or was this jury never going to convict a music mogul on those charges no matter what was in front of them? Joining me to discuss, someone who's been on both sides of the courtroom, former prosecutor, current defense attorney, and friend of ours, Eric Faddis. Okay, what the hell happened? From a legal void. What happened here?
- [03:04]
Eric Faddis
You know, to me, I think that there was a lot of hype about this trial going in, a lot of sensationalism, perhaps. The government did a press conference. Everyone was hyped up for it. And then they kind of. The presentation was underwhelming. It didn't meet the expectations. There were missteps that were made along the way. The defense scored some points on their own as well. And all of that culminated in this verdict that is guilty, but only on the least serious charges.
- [03:35]
Tony
Why was it so underwhelming, do you think? Because normally, you know, the, the precedent has been if the federal government is going after you, they got a case and they're going to take you down with it. I mean, they, you know, they did do some damage here, but the big ones, the things that were really going to take him down, they kind of, you know, they fell short a bit. Or did they. I mean, did they not present a strong enough case with the arguments that they brought?
- [04:06]
Eric Faddis
You know, that was my appraisal of it. When you look at it, I think the government really tried to streamline their case. So, you know, there are like a hundred plus accusers of Diddy saying that he did similar things that were alleged in this case. We didn't hear from hardly any of those folks. There were only really three people who alleged sexual miscond. The government also did not call as witnesses these alleged co conspirators, the people with whom Diddy allegedly agreed to do crime. I think they really tried to narrow the focus, but maybe they narrowed it too much and the jury was just left at the end saying, hey, there's not enough here. And what is here is hotly disputed.
- [04:49]
Tony
I mean, why. Let's talk about that for a second. Why did we not see more victims? I know one of them, and that's a big point. Backed out last minute, trial started missing. We don't know exactly what is going on. Or do we? Do you have any more information as to what happened to this mystery witness?
- [05:08]
Eric Faddis
Not more than just what is in the public realm? Just that they thought they would have her. And then lo and behold, trial comes and she's nowhere to be found. And that part of their case is nowhere to be found.
- [05:21]
Tony
Well, and that to me seems like kind of a big deal considering the government did not succeed in bringing their case against Diddy. And this was key woman allegedly, that was supposed to really connect a lot of those RICO charges and a lot of the kidnapping stuff. And she obviously did not show. She backed out last second. And I mean that to me, like, why were you intimidated? That seems to me like a screaming red flag on this whole damn thing as to well, here's how we got here. But what happened there? I mean that in itself I think could end up being another case unless it was just on her own recognizance and fear and there was no threats. But I mean, let's talk about that for a second. Cuz that could be the big elephant in this room that still we're not really paying attention to yet.
- [06:08]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, and it's kind of puzzling, Tony, especially from a legal perspective because the government has subpoena power. So you know, as you're preparing for a trial, usually weeks or months in advance, you subpoena these people, it means they're legally required to come in and testify. And if they don't show, there are measures you can take. They're unpleasant, but you can have an arrest warrant issued for a subpoen witness who did not show. And then you have the entire weight of the government going to track down this person, find where they are, bring them into custody and force them to testify. And I'm not aware of the government taking any of those measures. And so kind of puzzling in that sense that they didn't do more to ensure that this witness would be present.
- [06:51]
Tony
I mean, you can take those measures only if you know where the person is though too. If you can find them and get to them. And I don't know the answers to any of those questions, you know, nobody does. And that's. Are we ever going to find out the answers to those questions? I mean, that's a big thing because to me, if that's a big chunk of your case or at least some significance to your case and it's missing and you didn't get the results you wanted, I would be looking there, I'd be wondering, was there some sort of witness intimidation going on? I would think that would be an investigation, would it not?
- [07:23]
Eric Faddis
I would think certainly they should look into it. There are A number of reasons why this person may not have showed could be that she was intimidated and harassed. Harassed. You know, that's the reason the judge didn't grant bond to Diddy in the first place is because there were allegations and some evidence that he was intimidating and harassing witnesses. Is that a piece of it? Is it that, you know, she just got cold feet and didn't want to deal with the embarrassment and the public nature of all of it? You know, I think there are a number of plausible explanations, but should be looked into. And especially after Diddy, you know, kind of gone off, if you will, on. On this case, I wouldn't be surprised the federal government is looking into why this witness was not.
- [08:05]
Tony
It's a term I've been avoiding using on this case the last couple of days is the word get off.
- [08:10]
Eric Faddis
After it came out of my mouth.
- [08:12]
Tony
I was like, no pun intended. But I've done it a few times, too. It's like, oh, yeah, it's just baffling. Let's play the cards here for a second in the what if game. What if there is something that comes out here about this witness that can be directly tied back to Diddy or his associates of whatever they said, whatever they did. If they did something that that is why that person did not testify, that would likely be. That would be witness tampering, would it not? Would that. Would that in itself be enough to go back on any of these charges and say, we're going to try you again on this because you tampered with the witness that didn't show up?
- [08:59]
Eric Faddis
That's a tough question legally, because there are a number of doctrines that could apply. There's a doctrine called joinder, and it essentially says that if you're going to charge someone for an act or a series of acts that are all related, you got to bring it all together. You can't charge them for 90% of it and see how you do, and then later on months down the road, charge them for the remaining 10% of it. And so I think it's unlikely that the original alleged charges could be brought. However, if there's witness intimidation and tampering and Diddy sort of mostly prevailed in this case, you better believe the government is out to even the score, if you will. And they would pursue that fully. And I'm sure a judge would look at that and say, hey, if Diddy was convicted, say, hey, you took underhanded measures to really manipulate the court system to your advantage, and now you're going to have to pay for that.
- [09:52]
Tony
The fact that they had their first big swing at him though, already does this one witness that is missing, could they, could they really potentially bring that much more than what was brought already, where it's really gonna tip the scales against Diddy? Cuz they did have quite a bit of stuff against him. I mean, there, there, I mean, granted, was it enough? Clearly not. The jury did not call this trafficking. Even after weeks of detailed, consistent testimony about groomin, drugging, about coercion, the jury rejected it and said it's, it's like a domestic matter, basically. I mean, if you're to read the tea leaves, that, that's essentially. Even after the video, even after the Cassie video, the 2016 video showing Cassie being beat up in the hallway of the Intercontinental Hotel, being thrown to the ground, being stomped on. In her testimony, even saying how she was putting up with it, how she felt coerced, how she felt pressured, how she felt she didn't have a way out. So yes, she participated, but it was more like life and death. They still said, nope, this is a domestic type thing, this is not trafficking. Do we have issues here with juries understanding the definition of these words or do we have juries having a difficulty understanding the definition of abuse?
- [11:20]
Eric Faddis
You know, I think that those issues certainly played a role. You look at the RICO charge, that's hard for an attorney to follow and understand all the requirements of, let alone some lay jurors back there, that there are a number of criminal enterprise requirements, conspiracy requirements, predicate offenses requirements, what qualifies as a predicate offense. And so I think there was some confusion there. And then I think, yeah, when we're talking about sex trafficking, you know, a lot of people think that that has to be, you know, you keep a person in a cage and you're driving them around or flying them around to different locales to be tricked out or whatever. And that's not what the law requires. The law has a lesser threshold for sex trafficking. And I just wonder if those terms and that the preconceived notions in the jurors minds about what these things mean maybe overshadowed some of the letter of the law that was contained in the jury instructions.
- [12:17]
Tony
Do jurors need to be more educated before making decisions? I mean, as an attorney, I'm really curious if there should be something else that we do here because it feels like there's a lot of confusion at the end of the day about what, what definitionally things mean and how it applies to a case. Should we have something in place even before Any testimony is even given. Just little lesson plan, everybody. Here's what these words mean. Do you understand what they mean? Not in context to the case, but just here's what this means. So if these things are presented to you, you can then process them and fully grasp what the hell was going on around you. Cause that it seems we're getting more confusion than we're getting actual verdicts that are based on the letter of the law. You're talking about upending the whole system here. But is that a problem that we're seeing with. We've probably always seen it to a certain extent, but there's a lot of dumb out there. I'm just wondering how much is dumb in infiltrating our jury system and really not allowing it to be truly accurate verdicts and juries of our peers.
- [13:28]
Eric Faddis
Oh, gosh. You know, not to sound disparaging, but I've done around 60 jury trials, and oftentimes I'll go back with the jury after the verdict, and I'll learn about, hey, why did you decide this way? Or what were you considering? And some of the stuff you hear is like, wait a sec. That wasn't even mentioned in the trial. Wait a sec. This is just like kind of your personal bias or sympathy. That's not supposed to creep in. And so, you know, could we have something like a half a day prep for jurors, perhaps on bigger cases that just orient them to the system and to what their duties are? You know, we already. They already have a speech they listen to in Colorado for, like, an hour.
- [14:10]
Tony
Yeah.
- [14:11]
Eric Faddis
In a jury room. Why not elongate that a little bit? What's the harm?
- [14:15]
Tony
Exactly. Like, why not just give them the tools to work with for the task we're asking them to complete? Other than just, what did you learn in life? Well, clearly not a lot for. For some people. And that's gotta be frustrating back there in the jury room for anybody who does pay close attention. You got somebody who's just stuck and for whatever reason, not just seeing reality for what it is. And I'm not. I am saying they got it wrong here. I really think they did. But was it their fault or was it the prosecution's fault for not spelling this out in a clearer way? I mean, when you look at this, at the end of the day, I mean, I know you could look at it. I could look at it. A lot of people who are educated could look at it and go, here's what it is. But did they need to make this more idiot proof?
- [15:00]
Eric Faddis
You Know, that's something you always have to do as a prosecutor. And when I was a prosecutor, you really have to spell it out. You have to kind of hold their hand in fact, during closing arguments. As a prosecutor, I would give a roadmap and I would give a suggested approach to what you do during the deliberations. Here's step one, here's step two, here's step three. And then jury, you decide how you want to handle it, but it's really the prosecutor's burden to do. Now, in this case, the prosecution did a reasonably good job. They explained how even if there's prior consensual romantic encounters, all it takes is one. All it takes is one non consensual sex act, that is a commercial sex act by force, fraud or coercion, and that's sex trafficking. So they tried, but they failed.
- [15:45]
Tony
I mean, was this not a pretty clear cut sex trafficking case? I mean, where there was trafficking? I mean, I know, I mean, I know you can argue from both angles. It's your job, it's what you do. You got the mad skills to do it. But, but I mean, but was it a pretty clear sex trafficking case at the end of the day, is there any, Is it really, should this be up for debate that this was not sex trafficking at the end of the day?
- [16:09]
Eric Faddis
You know, I think if the jury found Cassie and Jane 100% credible and believed everything they said, then I think that evidence would be sufficient to find someone guilty of sex trafficking. There were times where they said, hey, they didn't feel like they had a choice choice. And there were at least some disputed communications with Diddy of Cassie and Jane telling him, hey, I don't want to do this. And so if the jury were to fully accept that testimony, it would have been enough. I just think the jury had some reservations about credibility, about, you know, the shifting feelings of a human being over the course of 10 years in a complicated relationship. And I think those issues were also front of mind.
- [16:58]
Tony
And I think that that's true. And at the end of the day, here we are talking about a 10 year relationship. This wasn't just a quick thing. This was coming back time and time again to your abuser. And I get it. I understand the abuse cycle, I understand why it's a cycle. I get, I'm not even arguing any of that. But it was this kind of, I mean, has a pendulum swung back the other way now on me too, almost to an extent of people saying, look, yes, there is coercion, yes, there is influence yes, there's intimidation. All that stuff does exist. But there is also personal accountability, and there is also agency. And you can't just say, I have no agency, and let's lock the person away forever. Because to play devil's advocate here, there was freak offs Cassie arranged by herself and set up. There was things that. There was windows. She was not tied up in a dungeon with handcuffs. There were opportunities to leave. It's easier to say on the outside than the inside, considering even her mom was coerced into paying Diddy to not beat her daughter, which is insane. But there is agency that we have. And is this, in a way, the jury society going back and saying, you need to enact more of that, you need to demonstrate more of your own agency. And we can't just say, because these people are evil, because these people are gonna do horrible things to you, and if you keep going back to it, well, at some point that's on you. I'm not trying to be harsh or horrible, but is that really kind of what this verdict was?
- [18:41]
Eric Faddis
You know, it's fascinating looking at the evolution of these social movements. You look at me too, in the very beginning, you know, certainly there was righteous indignation and for good reason. And where we were at kind of a society is like, believe all women whenever they come with an accusation. And then, you know, as. As the years went by, there were some instances where we learned, hey, you know, Maybe don't believe 100% all women every time they say anything or any person who claims to have been victimized. You know, we got to have some balance there. So then I think we sort of shifted to the other side to where, like you said, there's an element of personal accountability that folks are looking to see that jurors might be looking to see. You know, we look at with the George Floyd matter too. You know, initially it was like, defund the police, and all police are terrible. And then over time, it was kind of like, well, we need some police. And so it's sort of just that pendulum that continues to shift. And for Cassie and Jane, it was at the wrong position during this trial.
- [19:45]
Tony
It's just amazing with everything that was testified to that the jury still did not that that level of abuse and coercion and everything that was there, that was still. Yeah, we don't think so. I'm just. I'm surprised after the days and days of what we hear. Granted, we heard it through reporters. We weren't in that courtroom. So I guess I wonder about that a little bit. Do you think the way that this was reported out on and the way the public really felt this was the slam dunk was just. Was that an effect of the reporting on this and kind of the vitriol of the reporting. I don't know if there was any reporting that wasn't a bit biased, that was not rooting for Diddy to go down in flames. I think it was kind of the angle of all reporting on this for the most part. Was there a little bit too quick of a run to judgment here because the act sounded horrible, but maybe it wasn't delivered quite as strongly as what was being reported on?
- [20:45]
Eric Faddis
I think so. I think the hype was so high at the beginning, the expectations were so high. And really all the potential jurors before they were selected said, yeah, of course I've heard about this case. In fact, all or nearly all of them had already seen the Cassidy. And so I think there's this preconceived notion on these jurors minds about what this must have been. And then once we get into the actual trial and you hear the testimony and it might be a little bit more measured, might be a little less horrendous or maybe not, but just a different impression that the jury got in that courtroom that was contrasted from what they had been led to believe before. Certainly those expectations and those not being met that could factor into how a jury decides a case.
- [21:35]
Tony
The judge has chosen not to allow him to get out on bail. Right now a lot of people, including a lot of law tubers the day of were saying he should be out, like there's no reason. Were you surprised that he is remaining behind bars until at least as of right now, until the October hearing, which could be pushed forward for the sentencing?
- [21:59]
Eric Faddis
Not terribly surprised now. I mean, you know, Diddy was still convicted of two very serious or significantly serious federal offenses. And then he's looking at up to 10 years in prison on both of those. The judge has to have in mind, hey, is this person a flight risk? Could they, you know, up in skedaddle and leave the country? Because they have not only this prison sentence potentially ahead of them, but also all these other legal matters. I think the judge erred on the side of caution. I think the judge heard evidence out Cassie, because Cassie made a statement essentially saying, hey, I'm fearful. Please don't let this man out. And Cassie was a party to the charges on which Diddy was convicted, although not the sex trafficking charges. So, yeah, I think the judge, I was not surprised. And the judge is Going to keep him in there. And I think this could signal something about what the judge is considering for sense.
- [22:49]
Tony
Yeah, let's go there. What do you think the relative immediate future holds for Diddy?
- [22:57]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, so I see. You know, if the judge was considering a sentence on the very low end, like time, sir, for example, or one or two years, then, gosh, why not just let him out now? It's just that we're just talking a few months and if you're going to let him out anyway, it would seem consistent with a decision to allow bond here. The judge didn't allow bond. You know, does that signal that the judge is considering a more substantial prison sentence down the road? Because if the judge was, then it wouldn't make sense to let him out on bond for, you know, a few months to hang out and then put him back in a box for seven years. So. So trying to read into this judge's ruling and how it could signal a possible sentence, I think it suggests that the judge is considering something significant that is not time served.
- [23:45]
Tony
What do you think we're looking at here in reality? Obviously up to 20 is the possibility. At the end of the day, what do you realistically think we're going to see?
- [23:54]
Eric Faddis
I'm thinking they're gonna settle somewhere around five, somewhere around five years in prison. Diddy would do around 85% of that. You know, the judge is gonna take into consideration the lack of criminal history. Judge is gonna take into consideration the seriousness of the charge. Now, the charge isn't terribly serious. It's really basically a misdemeanor state level prostitution charge. And then you add in that you took the sex worker from a different state, brought him to you. But that being said, there are all of these egregious other allegations in the larger picture. Will the judge take those matters into consideration and up the ante a little bit in the sentence? It's possible.
- [24:36]
Tony
Do you see? And this is, it's not even a legal question. It's just more so, you know, conjecture your personal opinion. Do you think there's going to be a redemption for Diddy now? Other week we talked about or I joked like he'll become a preacher and he's, you know, we're going to see, you know, R. Diddy or whatever, Reverend Diddy, whatever it may be. Do you think there's going to be another chapter in the career of Diddy in the public eye, where the public eye is going to forget essentially all of these horrible, horrible things that we know about Diddy to be true?
- [25:14]
Eric Faddis
You know, Diddy's reputation has surely been damaged irrevocably. You know, I'm sure that he has lost promotional deals, contracts with companies and things like that, that he was endorsements, stuff like that. That makes sense. America loves a story of redemption. And you look at Kevin Spacey is trying to get back into things and getting some work. Disgraced. Louis CK the comedian. He's had some varied success in trying to get back into public life. And so could that happen with it. You look at Donald Trump. He was convicted of 34 felonies. There were all these allegations about sexual misconduct. And he' President of the United States right now. So is it possible? You bet it's possible.
- [26:01]
Tony
Anything's possible. There's still a litany of civil suits out there for him as well, that obviously this probably does hurt them. It would be stronger if they had full convictions on this for those, but where does that put those going forward?
- [26:17]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, so I was thinking about this yesterday. You know, you look at momentum, you look at, you know, Diggy's got the momentum now. And, you know, the folks who are going to be jurors on those civil cases, if they do go to trial have probably heard about this outcome. And perhaps that creates an impression in the minds of some folks that, hey, maybe this stuff is a little trumped up. Maybe it was exaggerated, maybe it was overcharged. Maybe Diddy isn't the villain that he's been cast. And does that weaken the civil cases and their ability to recover money in a settlement? I think does, yeah.
- [26:55]
Tony
I mean, the sheer number of cases, we know it's going to dwindle, but it'll go down. But I wonder if we're going to still this insanely high level like we have with Busby, where it's like 70 or something. I wonder what's going to happen with that and what level is going to happen and what damage, if any, it's going to do to Diddy, you know, financially going forward, or if we're just going to see a whole bunch of settlements coming through like he had been in the past, because he's, you know, in terms of civil forfeiture, what's going on with that? I mean, is there any civil forfeiture here?
- [27:31]
Eric Faddis
You know, I haven't read reports about that. I sort of suspected that they would take all of the devices, they seized, the firearms, cash, all sorts of items that the government took and pursue civil forfeiture, alleging that they were instruments of criminal activity. But when you go to trial and you're acquitted? Are they really instruments of criminal activity at that point? Is civil forfeiture appropriate at that point? I'm not sure, but there's certainly a collectibility issue with respect to these simple cases.
- [28:02]
Tony
It's going to be interesting to watch. Eric Faddis Defense Attorney, former Prosecutor thank you.
- [28:08]
Unknown
Craving Non Stop True Crime Updates Press subscribe now and get the latest cases, analysis and expert commentary delivered straight to your feed only from the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today.
- [28:25]
Ryan Seacrest
Hello it is Ryan and we could all use an extra bright spot in our day, couldn't we? Just to make up for things like sitting in traffic, doing the dishes, counting your steps. You know, all the mundane stuff. That is why I'm such a big fan of Chumba Casino. Chumba Casino has all your favorite social casino style games that you can play for free anytime, anywhere with daily bonuses. So sign up now@chumbac casino.com that's chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary.
- [28:51]
Unknown
VGW Group void where prohibited by law 21 + terms and conditions apply.
- [28:55]
Ryan Seacrest
It is Ryan Seacrest here. There was a recent social media trend which consisted of flying on a plane with no music, no movies, no entertainment. But a better trend would be going to chumbacasino.com it's like having a mini social casino in your pocket. Chumba casino has over 100 online casino style games all absolutely free. It's the most fun you can have online and on a plane. So grab your free welcome bonus now@chumbacasino.com sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [29:20]
Unknown
No purchase necessary. VGW Group Void we're prohibited by law 21 plus terms and conditions apply.
- [29:25]
Tony
Bubba Wallace here from 2311 Racing. Funny thing about being fast. You end up waiting a lot.
- [29:32]
Unknown
First to show up first in line, then just waiting.
- [29:35]
Tony
Me, I rev up Jumbo casino with over 200 social casino games. No slow lanes here.
- [29:39]
Unknown
Why sit around when you can spin?
- [29:42]
Tony
I'm already racing your turn. Play for free@chumbacasino.com let's Chumba sponsored by Chumba Casino.
- [29:49]
Eric Faddis
No purchase necessary. VGW Group voidware prohibited by law 21.
- [29:53]
Ryan Seacrest
Plus terms and conditions apply.
- [29:54]
Unknown
How to have fun anytime, anywhere. Step 1 Go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it. Step 2 Collect your welcome bonus.
- [30:03]
Eric Faddis
Come to papa.
- [30:04]
Ryan Seacrest
Welcome bonus.
- [30:04]
Unknown
Step 3 Play hundreds of casino style games for free.
- [30:07]
Ryan Seacrest
That's a lot of games, all for free.
- [30:09]
Unknown
Step 4 Unleash your excitement. Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome bonus now and live the chumba life. Visit chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary.
- [30:21]
VGW Group Void where prohibited by law 21/ terms and conditions apply.