← 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 The Jury FEAR The Wrath Of Diddy If They Voted Guilty? Defense Expert Breaks It Down
00:22:14
Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:01]
Tony Bruski
Life is a workout, and Smoothie King is here to help you power through. Whether you're grinding out bicep curls or muscling the couch across the living room, crushing morning miles, or sprinting through back to back meetings, Smoothie King has fuel to help you maximize your workouts, own your recovery, and elevate your game. Give your body the energy, protein and power it needs with a lineup of delicious smoothies made to help you conquer your goals. Only at Smoothie King. This is Hidden Killers with Tony Bruski. So after weeks of explosive testimony, disturbing video, and multiple women alleging years of abuse, the jury in the Sean Diddy Combs federal trial said, kind of guilty, but only on the lesser charges. No sex trafficking, no racketeering, no to the counts. That carried real weight. 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 now is someone who's seen both sides of the courtroom, former prosecutor, current defense attorney, and friend of ours, Eric Faddis. So let's break this all down. Let's start here. How does a defendant get convicted of transporting women for prostitution but walk on sex trafficking and racketeering charges tied to the same alleged conduct?
- [01:40]
Eric Faddis
Help us understand what it seems is that the jury drew some conclusions. One, that there were commercial sex acts going on. That is the basis for the interstate prostitution conviction. Sounds like the jury was not convinced that these were non consensual. Now, that's different than saying that they were consensual. That's not what the jury decided. But the jury ultimately determined, hey, there wasn't enough evidence to determine they were non consensual. And there wasn't enough evidence to really qualify Bad Boy Entertainment as a criminal enterprise. Along the same lines as like the Bloods or Crips or the Mafia. That's kind of my take.
- [02:20]
Tony Bruski
They're not quite there. How much damage did the prosecution suffer? And this is my big one on this whole thing. When one of their key witnesses reportedly backed up before trial and for context, they didn't have a crazy list of witnesses that were like the ones that were doing things with Diddy. There was a handful. And this was one of what, like four or five? I mean, it wasn't big. And I'm wondering what exactly her voice was going to bring to this. There was talk that that was gonna collect or more of the trafficking, more of the RICO type pieces of the enterprise. But we don't know what happened to her. And everybody's just kind of like moving on from that, which I find to be a little weird.
- [03:08]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, when you have, I think the jury looked at Cassie's testimony and said, gosh, there's some problematic stuff here also maybe consensual, not sure. And then they had Jane, the second alleged victim, and said, oh, well, that this seems consistent. But also Jane, there are some issues with sort of a transactional relationship there. You know, if they had a third alleged victim or a fourth or a fifth, you know, there are 70 civil cases alleging similar sexual misconduct against Diddy. That could really turn the tide. That could have been sort of the straw that broke the camel's back and caused the story to say, wait a sec, this keeps happening over and over and over again. Now I'm really concerned about the consensuality of these encounters.
- [03:52]
Tony Bruski
And what was the government strategy there? Less is more of, let's go in with some really strong ones. And turns out, you know, even one of them decided to. Two of them actually walked away. We don't know what the other one was actually gonna bring to the table. Just let's bring in very specific ones. Not overwhelm the jury with all of these and cause you have far more chances that if you bring, you know, 10, 20, 30 of the other ones to the table that some may not pan out and may they look false. And then, well, how do you trust the other ones? What do you think their strategy was here with so few? Did they just not have solid cases on all of these or was this by choice?
- [04:38]
Eric Faddis
I think there were several things going on. One was to streamline the trial. The trial even with the two alleged sex assault victims was two months. You know, you don't want a year long trial where the jury's so fatigued they don't remember it. Also, I think that there was a concern about opening up a can of worms. And some of these alleged victims can present in a really compelling way. Some perhaps can't. Perhaps some have credibility issues. And perhaps the prosecution didn't wanna risk losing some points on those other folks. But I would note in the Harvey Weinstein cases initially they brought, I wanna say, about six victims in the New York case to really show what they believe happened here. We didn't see that approach at all. And ultimately the prosecution was unsuccessful with this alternative approach.
- [05:27]
Tony Bruski
Were they just overconfident in their ability to let the evidence speak for itself and did the jury underestimate, or did they underestimate how the jury would interpret all the trauma based testimony? I mean, cause for some of us, we can hear it if we've have people in our lives. If you've dealt with trauma yourself or with other people, you get it. For a lot of people, they've never been in that boat. They haven't had to have any sort of understanding of it. And lucky for them. So trying to interpret how trauma and abuse survivors cope with things is sometimes foreign territory. That's where you get that, well, why didn't they just walk away? This and that type views on things. What do you think was going through the jury's mind here?
- [06:12]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, you know, trauma is a messy business. The consensualness of romantic encounters can be complicated and it can be a difficult thing. And the prosecution did present an expert to try to explain to the jury, hey, here is sort of the cycle of abuse. Here is why a person might not leave a relationship that's abusive. But ultimately the jury, I think, you know, saw this, these complicated relationships over the course of years, if not more than a decade. And then lastly, I think the star factor played a role. I think that they weren't inclined to convict Diddy, this mogul, international acclaim guy of a very serious charge. With the evidence that was presented that had some points on both sides that came to light.
- [07:05]
Tony Bruski
And Diddy, from all accounts, obviously we weren't in the courtroom. He played pretty well for the most part. You know, we heard a couple things where the judge had to say like, you know, stop making faces or such. But it seems like Diddy was being Diddy, even cracking some jokes here and there, getting laughs from the gallery. Overall, you know, I think the Diddy that people came to know and love in the 90s and 2000s when we didn't know all these things were going on, it seems to be how he was kind of presenting himself. I wonder that of how much. And I wondered how much celebrity would play a role in this. Cause he's not Martha Stewart. He's not necessarily like super. He's not Bill Cosby either. He's a rapper. But he was a fairly safe rapper in terms of image for all of those years. He wasn't like super gangster in street. He was. He's doing songs with Mariah Carey. And how much people, you know, maybe even subconsciously when they're looking at this like, we may put Diddy away for the rest of his life for these things, how much they're also holding on to Another time and place in their life. This guy is on the soundtrack of, you know, if you like, you know, pop music or hip hop or anything, and you grew up in the 80s, 90s, 2000s, he's on everything. Listen, I noticed that this, just this weekend when I was listening to Pandora, I'm like, shit, Diddy. Popping up on shit all the time of like, I like that.
- [08:39]
Eric Faddis
Ooh.
- [08:40]
Tony Bruski
And I'm like, yeah, I miss a time where he was just kind of the weird producer. Is that part of the decision making process of let's not shit on the past just because we don't want to live in a world where another person that we thought was safe was a monster.
- [09:00]
Eric Faddis
It's. So I talked, or I was listening to a sociologist talk about this phenomena and it's really, you know, with celebrities, oftentimes we like them and we have nostalgic feelings about them. Especially, like you said, folks who grew up in the 90s and 2000s, you know, they have a connection to these, to these entertainers, whether that it's conscious or not. And they tend to want to think that, oh, gosh, that person couldn't have done this. And, you know, they played at my high school prom, their songs and stuff like that. They don't want to accept the notion that these folks are real human beings who have flaws and shortcomings and who are capable sometimes of monstrous things.
- [09:46]
Tony Bruski
Yeah, I think that's very true. I mean, look, there's. It's separating the artist from the actions. And I initially, you get the whole, oh, I could never listen to that. And then slowly R. Kelly starts playing at weddings again and, you know, everything. Michael Jackson's out and it's just like, okay, well, I mean, it is what it is. It's. It's how we, we handle some of these things. Do you think the jury struggled with the modern definition of trafficking? I mean, particularly when it doesn't involve physical captivity like locked in a room scenario, but heavy allegations of the grooming of the. Do you think people, juries, I mean, in your own practice, in your own life out there, is that a hard one to get people to wrap their minds around?
- [10:39]
Eric Faddis
100%. Trafficking in the legal context might be different than trafficking folks have seen in the news and in movies and things like that. Like you said, it's not a bunch of people bound with chains and their sex slaves and a cage for years of their life. That's not what the legal definition requires. All the legal definition requires in this case was that there be some commercial sex act by force, fraud, or coercion. That was enough to prove trafficking. And I just wonder if the jury's preconceived notions about that loaded term trafficking were sort of overbore. Their contemplation of what the actual jury instructions, what the actual law says, and that happens all the time in court.
- [11:29]
Tony Bruski
Obviously, to get their point across, they needed to call Cassie, they needed to call some of the Jane does. They needed to hear what went on and why it was coercive and why it was abuse. But again, juries seem to have, and people in general seem to sometimes have a difficulty understanding what goes from a normal relationship to a controlling relationship to a coercively controlling relationship to an abusive, coercively controlling relationship where you really don't see the way out. I think it's kind of like red or green for a lot of people. Like, well, either you're in it or you're out of it. And that's obviously not all the case here. Do you think the jury also struggled? And I wonder if there's an element of jealousy in there with some jurors as well, of, look, you lived this to Cassie, you lived like a queen on the outside. I'm not speaking emotionally. She lived a limos, champagne, millions of dollars. I mean, it was on the surface, it looked like everyone's dream, if you will, if you want celebrity lifestyle and glitz and glamour, but on the inside, obviously it was horrifically painful, damaging and traumatic. Was the jury more focused on the physicality of things, of those elements, and then the things that Cassie in fact did in terms of going along with some of Diddy's things, planning some of these freak offs. Were they having a really hard time separating choice versus coercion?
- [13:07]
Eric Faddis
Totally. So I think in this trial there was. There's a lot of nuance, right? So like there could be dozens of consensual romantic encounters, but all it takes is one non consensual one technically to. To convict somebody of sex trafficking so long as the other ele are met. I think the jury kind of conflated all of that and sort of looked at this holistically. And also maybe there was an expectation that the alleged victim had to be a meek little mouse and had to go into hiding and had to not have money and not have a public life. And perhaps the jury saw the opposite of that and said, hey, that doesn't square with my expectation. There's some cognitive dissonance there. And does that sort of translate into doubt? Perhaps it did.
- [13:58]
Tony Bruski
Is this a reckoning to a certain extent as well, where the pendulum is swinging back? And I'm not saying this is right. I'm just saying, is this a pendulum swinging back now and the world or the public saying, you have your own agency, too? Yes, we know things were bad. It sounds horrible. No one would want that for you. But you weren't literally chained up in a corner and you couldn't get out. You could have left. There are options that you could have taken. Yes, it would have been scary. Yes, have not been the best thing for anybody. But there were physical ways for you to leave compared to many others who are truly not in that sort of a situation. And you're saying you couldn't get out of this or get out of this. Is this kind of a referendum on that, saying, take more agency? And yes, you are an abuse victim, but take more agency, because you can't just come back years later and go, this is a really, really horrible guy when you chose for years to stay with him and keep getting all the perks while enduring the abuse.
- [15:01]
Eric Faddis
I can't help but wonder if, like you said, Tony, this is in part a function of that pendulum swinging. So we started with the MeToo movement, 20, 15, 16 or so. And, you know, at that point, we were saying, hey, let's believe all women and really any kind of accuser within that context. And then over time, I think there was kind of some blowback from that, and the pendulum swung a little bit in the middle. And I think when this trial hit, this Diddy trial, I think that's the point at which the pendulum had really gone to the other. And there are these social pressures and understandings kind of saying, hey, you know, we're looking at this differently now. You had. You had some choices, in their opinion, and didn't take those choices.
- [15:44]
Tony Bruski
Yeah, it's, you know, it's a statement, I think, that, you know, it's fair to put out there to a certain extent, because we went to believe everyone, no matter what. Don't even question that there's another side, which I thought was incredibly unhealthy and insane because people make shit up. And then we went to, okay, you're right. People make shit up. We gotta be, you know, make sure vet this. And now I feel like with this one, it's like he's on video stomping on her head, and it's still not enough. So it's like over here, way over here, we have a very hard time staying here in the, like, reality of life in the middle, where things can be reasonably thought out. What do you think that the prosecution could have done different, could have done better? If you're reviewing this and saying, okay, you really want a conviction, here's how you could have had it, here's how you blew it, in your own opinion.
- [16:35]
Eric Faddis
I think the RICO charge was very provable. And I think the jury wanted to hear from the co conspirators, the other bad actors involved in that. The prosecution could have called kk, who was the assistant, could have called as a witness Drock, who is security, because allegedly those folks had knowledge of the criminal activity in which Diddy and Bad Boy Entertainment were all sort of engaging in a coordinated way. The prosecution didn't do that. On the sex trafficking charges, I think the prosecution could have included several other alleged victims. Can't have too many, or else you're going to have an appellate issue. But if you include, you know, a handful of other ones, that could really bolster this notion that, hey, this wasn't just two sort of one offs where there were complicated relationships, possibly transactional. This is a pattern among, you know, at least five alleged and victims can't be the case that all of them are making.
- [17:32]
Tony Bruski
Why didn't they do that? Why didn't they do exactly what you suggested and call those specific people? Is there any reason, is there any logical reason why anything holding them back? Any legal reason holding them back?
- [17:44]
Eric Faddis
You gotta be a little bit careful as to how much you pile on as a prosecutor. We saw that in the Harvey Weinstein case, the first round, where I believe they called six alleged victims. And what the appellate court said was that the charges were only based on some of the alleged victims and the other folks. That was uncharged conduct. It became too prejudicial. It created this impression on the jury's mind that he must have done it because he has a propensity to do that. So you gotta be careful about that. And I wonder if that was on the prosecutor's minds and also just the length of the trial itself. It already went for about two months. And that was only with two alleged things.
- [18:25]
Tony Bruski
Here's another one for you. Or was this all. I mean, this is. I'm not a conspiracy theorist, but you know, on things like this and Epstein, there was so much buzz that there was so many big people that were gonna go down on this. You know, when the government originally brought the charges against Epstein years ago, before the last time, when he killed himself, allegedly, it was a very light charge. It was a slap on the wrist. And it was just like there's all this evidence, but we gotta make it look like we're doing our job here. So I'm wondering, was this another plan of let's make it look like we're doing our job here? Diddy was a much big, more large public figure, you know, entrenched in people's normal lives, in the lexicon of pop culture. So probably needed to have a little more intention than just, you know, that creepy guy that you guys who are really paying attention know who he is. We got to look like we're doing something. This was Diddy. We got to do a trial, and he's going to walk away with a very light sentence. I'm wondering how much of this was for show and really wasn't necessarily to actually get to the end of this, but to show that you got to make it look like it. But we can't go too far, because there's certain people that could go down here beyond Diddy.
- [19:46]
Eric Faddis
If just hypothetically, the government had that idea that, hey, if we dive into this too deeply, we're going to expose some folks, and for whatever reason they didn't want to do that, then this presentation would make a whole lot of sense, streamlining it, limiting it to two alleged victims who ultimately testified and not really referencing any other stars that there weren't, you know, although the alleged victims in the civil cases have certainly been more vocal about who might be involved. This federal criminal case, we really didn't hear about any other bad actors, although that information exists. And so why didn't we hear about it?
- [20:28]
Tony Bruski
That's a very good question. Just like, you know, the Epstein list has gone too. What about one more question on this? If we take the conspiracy angle out of it, do you think fear, or even subconscious fear played a role into the verdict? I mean, with the allegations that were out there of intimidation, surveillance, and violence, I mean, the jury did see what Diddy is capable of doing or has done. He just wasn't being charged for some of it. At that point in time, do you think they're, you know, they're in their mind going, retaliation, violence, things like that. What's gonna happen when I get outta here, out of this jury box? I mean, he. People will figure out who you are, and I wonder if that played a role in this.
- [21:15]
Eric Faddis
It's an important question. Look, I was just handling a homicide case in Colorado recently. My client, who was completely not guilty and was found not guilty, he was a preschool director, he was a rec center manager. He was part of this dad's group and even then the potential jurors, when we were asking him about being on the jury, said, hey, I'm worried if I decide a certain way I could receive some kind of retaliation. I'm worried that this person can hurt me. And so, you know, that's a preschool director when we're talking about Diddy, who is on video, you know, beating the heck out of a woman. Understandably, those considerations could have been in the minds of the jurors.
- [21:55]
Tony Bruski
Does this discourage any more Diddy accusers from coming forward?
- [22:02]
Eric Faddis
I think it does. Rightly or wrongly. You know, I think that really the momentum has shifted a little bit. I think folks are realizing, hey, it's kind of hard to prove something at a trial. You can have a really good case on paper. But I just wonder if this is going to have a deterrent effect on alleged victims coming forward. And that would be an absolute shame, especially for the folks who were truly victimized and will never receive justice.
- [22:28]
Tony Bruski
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.