Diddy's Freedom & Future Hang In The Hands Of 12 Jurors

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs

Hosted by Tony Brueski on True Crime Today

---

Introduction

In the episode titled "Diddy's Freedom & Future Hang In The Hands Of 12 Jurors," Tony Brueski delves deep into the high-profile trial of Sean 'Pcredible P Diddy' Combs. This episode serves as a comprehensive analysis of the ongoing legal battle, examining the intricate details of the case, the strategies employed by both the prosecution and defense, and the potential ramifications for Diddy’s future.

---

The Trial Overview

The trial of Sean Diddy Combs has been a focal point of media attention, spanning six intense weeks. Federal prosecutors presented a formidable case against Combs, calling 34 witnesses and showcasing graphic evidence intended to portray Diddy's alleged involvement in a criminal enterprise.

Key Points:

• Prosecution's Presentation: The prosecution depicted Combs as the mastermind behind coercive sexual activities masked by lavish parties. They introduced explicit video footage, detailed financial records, and harrowing testimonies from victims who alleged abuse and intimidation.

• Notable Quote: Stacy remarks, "[...] prosecuted presented 34 witnesses, part of which were graphic, often unsettling evidence that will haunt them in their dreams for the rest of their lives." (00:19)

---

Prosecution's Case

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavic delivered a powerful closing argument, painting Diddy as the head of a sophisticated and violent criminal network. Slavic emphasized the systematic and organized nature of the crimes, highlighting incidents of violence and manipulation aimed at controlling and exploiting women.

Highlights:

• Violent Evidence: Slavic referenced a disturbing 2016 video showing Combs violently assaulting Cassie Ventura, underscoring a pattern of abusive behavior.

  • "Surveillance video presented again today showed the 2016 incident at the Los Angeles Hotel. Prosecutors emphasized this disturbing footage highlighting how Combs violently threw Cassie to the floor and dragged her back into a room." (08:23)

• Criminal Enterprise: The prosecution argued that Combs' inner circle, including bodyguards and employees, actively facilitated and concealed these crimes, reinforcing the RICO charges.

• Notable Quote: Slavic labeled Combs as someone who "consistently acted above the law, leveraging fame, money and influence to silence and control victims and witnesses alike." (60:33)

---

Defense's Strategy

In a surprising move, Combs' defense team chose not to call any witnesses, opting to rest immediately after the prosecution concluded. This strategy meant the jury did not hear from character witnesses or expert testimonies that could have painted Diddy in a more favorable light.

Discussion Points:

• Lack of Defense Witnesses: The absence of witnesses from the defense side left the jury to rely solely on the prosecution's narrative.

• Notable Interaction: When Judge Aaron Submarine questioned Combs about declining to testify, Combs responded, "I'm doing great. Thank you. You're doing an excellent job." (07:08)

• Analytical Insight: Eric Faddis comments, "To me, it feels like they gave up." (10:36), while Stacy speculates whether the defense's silence was a strategic gambit or an admission of a weak case.

---

Potential Jury Impact

The episode explores the psychological toll on jurors exposed to graphic evidence, discussing the rarity and complexity of jurors suing defendants for trauma experienced during trials.

Key Insights:

• Juror Trauma: Eric Faddis raises concerns about the trauma jurors might face, questioning if counseling is provided post-trial.

  • "They're being traumatized by the shit they're seeing during this trial." (02:01)

• Legal Implications: Using ChatGPT, Eric discovers that while jurors can theoretically sue for trauma, such cases are exceedingly rare and difficult to win.

  • "Under certain circumstances a juror may potentially sue if they were traumatized by evidence presented during a trial." (04:00)

---

Charge Breakdown and Analysis

The podcast meticulously breaks down the three primary charges against Combs:

1. Racketeering Conspiracy (RICO):

   • Details: Accused of orchestrating a criminal enterprise involving sex trafficking, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and more.
   • Prosecution's Angle: Emphasizes the systematic nature of the crimes over nearly two decades.
   • Defense's Challenge: Limited evidence on co-conspirators weakens the RICO charge.
   • Potential Outcome: Likely conviction due to the overwhelming evidence presented.

2. Sex Trafficking by Force, Fraud, or Coercion:

   • Details: Combs allegedly coerced individuals into commercial sexual acts using threats and manipulation.
   • Prosecution's Strategy: Focuses on violent control mechanisms, such as drugging victims to keep them compliant.
   • Defense's Counter: Argues consent and questions the extent of coercion.
   • Potential Outcome: Mixed; while some evidence is compelling, the lack of extensive victim testimonies may create reasonable doubt.

3. Interstate Prostitution:

   • Details: Involves transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution.
   • Prosecution's Strength: Clear evidence of organized travel arrangements for sex parties.
   • Potential Outcome: Strong likelihood of conviction, given the direct nature of the evidence.

Notable Quote: Stacy asserts, "I think he's going to be found guilty on all charges, if not most charges." (19:02)

---

Potential Penalties

If convicted on all counts, Combs faces severe penalties:

• RICO: Mandatory minimum of 15 years, potentially leading to life imprisonment depending on the severity and number of crimes.
• Sex Trafficking: Minimum of 15 years, with life imprisonment possible if aggravated circumstances are proven.
• Interstate Prostitution: Up to 10 years per count, alongside substantial fines and asset forfeiture.

Financial Implications: Significant fines and mandatory restitution to victims could effectively dismantle Combs' financial empire.

---

Possible Future Scenarios for Diddy

The podcast speculates on Combs' potential paths post-conviction:

• Life Imprisonment: Given his age and the severity of charges, a lengthy or life sentence is plausible.
• Redemption Narrative: Drawing parallels to figures like Louis CK, the possibility of reinvention through ministry or other means remains, though public perception may pose significant challenges.
  • "I think we're kind of sick of that. We're not really going to look the other way anymore." (54:32)

Speculative Insight: Stacy humorously imagines Combs reinventing himself as a preacher, attempting to rebuild his reputation from within the prison system.

---

Conclusion and Verdict Expectations

With closing arguments delivered by the prosecution and the defense yet to present their case, the episode anticipates a swift jury deliberation:

• Verdict Timing: Likely within a few days post-closing arguments, potentially by early next week.
• Fan and Public Reaction: The episode encourages listeners to share their thoughts and predictions, highlighting the significant public interest in the trial's outcome.

Final Thoughts: Tony Brueski encapsulates the gravity of the situation, emphasizing the dire consequences for Combs and the broader implications for celebrity culture and legal accountability.

Notable Quote: Tony reiterates, "It's a legal chess match that's been unfolding in the federal trial of Sean Diddy Combs." (22:29)

---

Key Takeaways

• Robust Prosecution: The case against Diddy is built on extensive evidence and deliberate strategy, making a strong case for conviction.
• Defense Weaknesses: The lack of witnesses and Combs' decision not to testify diminish the defense's credibility.
• Jury's Role: The jury's interpretation of consent, coercion, and the credibility of testimonies will be pivotal in determining the verdict.
• Future Implications: A conviction could set a precedent for holding high-profile individuals accountable, while an acquittal might reignite discussions on the effectiveness of legal strategies in complex cases.

---

For more in-depth analysis and updates on this case, subscribe to the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today on your preferred platform.

Transcript

[Tony Bruski]

This is the big Breakdown, a long look back at some of the biggest stories we're covering for you at the Hidden Killers podcast and true crime today. This is continuing coverage of United States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and true Crime today.

[Stacy]

Here we are. We are at the almost end of the trial of Sean Diddy Combs. Closing arguments are to begin on Thursday or today, maybe yesterday, whenever you're watching or listening to this. But that's where we're standing right now. We're going to take a look back at the trial itself, what happened in the trial, what it means, and what's next in the trial of John Diddy Combs. After presenting a comprehensive narrative over six intense weeks, federal prosecutors finally rested, leaving jurors with a stark, unfiltered portrayal, if you will, of Diddy's alleged criminal enterprise. In total, prosecutors called 34 witnesses, presented graphic, often unsettling evidence that will haunt them in their dreams for the rest of their lives. You're going to dream about Diddy's parties tonight. You are.

[Eric Faddis]

You know, these people even got the red room. Yeah. Are there things in place? I've never been part of a jury. We've talked about that before, how I pretty much got booted once they figured out what I did for a living.

[Stacy]

I was afraid you're gonna say I've never been part of a ditty party.

[Eric Faddis]

No, I've never been part of a freak off. Thank God. But I wonder if there is anything in place for maybe some counseling afterwards to deal with. I mean, they're being traumatized by the shit they're seeing during this trial. This is second. Second. Like, what would you call it? Something trauma, but it's.

[Stacy]

Is it second hand trauma?

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, something of that nature. I mean, it's not directly happening to them, but them having to watch it, like they can't look away. They have to see it.

[Stacy]

Yeah. Can they, like, can they civilly sue Diddy after this for having to be on this jury and be traumatized by what he put them through? That'd be an interesting one. I wonder if it's ever happened. Has a juror ever civilly sued the defendant in a criminal trial civilly because of what they had witnessed or for trauma of what they had to witness in the.

[Eric Faddis]

I'm going to ask AI if you can sue for.

[Stacy]

Look that up. I'm gonna, I'm gonna keep going through.

[Eric Faddis]

This and yeah, I'm betting that that's.

[Stacy]

Not a thing because probably something that prevents that. Yeah, because someone's would have, would have had to have attempted this by now, I would think, unless we just came up with a brand new idea. In total, prosecutors called 34 witnesses. They presented graphic, often unsettling evidence, including explicit video footage. I think one day it was like 30 minutes or so or it was a long time, they had to sit there and watch Diddy freak off. And detailed financial and travel records and harrowing firsthand accounts from victims who describe coercion, abuse and intimidation at Combs infamous freak off parties.

[Eric Faddis]

Dude.

[Stacy]

And what did you find?

[Eric Faddis]

Now of course this is ChatGPT giving the answer. So for those of you listening out there going, I've got an idea. Obviously if that's something you want to do, you need to talk to an attorney. But it says yes, under certain circumstances a juror may potentially sue if they were traumatized by evidence presented during a trial. But the path is difficult and the legal protections for courts make these claims rare and challenging to win.

[Stacy]

Really?

[Eric Faddis]

Yes. But it doesn't exclusively say you can't do that.

[Stacy]

You can't do that on tv. Wasn't that a Nickelodeon?

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, I think so. So civil lawsuits are a long shot. Alternative avenues may be requesting therapy or counseling, referrals from the court, victim compensation programs, and legislative action in rare cases where traumatized jurors have petitioned for change like mental health support or screening. So interesting.

[Stacy]

One could potentially sue Diddy. I wonder if it's like, if it's state law affects that as well in terms of like what, you know, what actually would be. I don't know, I don't know.

[Eric Faddis]

Again, it talks about how difficult it is to, to win this. But there have been reports of jurors experiencing PTSD like symptoms after disturbing trials. Child abuse, violent murder. In some cases these led to public discussions about the need for post trial support systems. What I was just asking about, I, if I had to sit say if I had to sit through Gilgo Beach.

[Christy Slavic]

Yeah, yeah, I'm out.

[Stacy]

I think any I. The co Burger trial, if they're going to show graphic bodies and I don't want to see it, that's that you can't unsee that shit.

[Eric Faddis]

And but you, I think as a juror you have to, you can't like shield your eyes. I mean you, you've got to look. That's evidence. You are a juror.

[Stacy]

What do you do? Maybe that's how you get out of jury duty at one there too where it's like you're going to be exposed to this graphic evidence. How do you Feel about that? I'll throw up. I'll just vomit projectile at the fellow jurors.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah.

[Stacy]

Everywhere. I'm talking like fucking pea soup, exorcist shit. Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

I mean, I wouldn't.

[Stacy]

I wouldn't, but I would say that.

[Eric Faddis]

Right. And one more thing I'd like to add to that. If you need to get out of something at work, always. Explosive diarrhea. Nobody can fight that.

[Stacy]

Nobody can fight the power of explosive diarrhea.

[Eric Faddis]

It's a true story.

[Stacy]

It sounds like a 80s product or something.

[Eric Faddis]

It does.

[Stacy]

No one can fight the power of explosive diarrhea by men.

[Eric Faddis]

Best day off of work. Sponsored by Imodium ad.

[Stacy]

Yeah, well, the defense, another thing of what happened here in this case, they chose not to call any witnesses. Kind of a big deal. Surprisingly or per. Perhaps confidently, the defense team opted to rest immediately after the prosecution finished. It was just basically, stand up, sit down, we rest. This means the jury is not hearing from character witnesses or expert testimonies brought by Combs lawyers or random children that he somehow adopted in strange videos that are online saying how wonderful Mr. Combs is or whatever the hell he's been up to. Most notably, Sean Combs himself explicitly declined to testify. In a memorable courtroom moment when Judge Aaron Submarine directly asked him how he felt about that decision, Combs casually quipped, I'm doing great. Thank you. You're doing an excellent job. Eliciting chuckles from an otherwise tense courtroom.

[Eric Faddis]

Wow.

[Stacy]

Nothing that happened. The jury got their final instructions. They included the judge finalizing and previewing jury instructions clarifying exactly how jurors should weigh charges like racketeering, sex trafficking, and interstate prostitution. These instructions emphasize definitions of coercion, consent, and the criteria required to prove the existence of a criminal enterprise. So that's what has happened in the trial of Diddy thus far. What it means. Well, the prosecution's case now has been fully presented. The prosecutors have meticulously crafted a powerful narrative. They've shown extensive evidence aimed at proving that Combs orchestrated and oversaw coercive sexual activities under the facade of lavish parties, leveraging his immense wealth, fame, and influence. And there's the exhaustive presentation, the videos, the text, the hotel records, the explicit communications that paints kind of a disturbing picture of organized exploitation rather than consensual encounters. What matters about the defense's bold and risky strategy of not calling any witnesses? Well, by presenting zero witnesses, the defense essentially made a calculated gamble. They're arguing implicitly or implicitly rather, that the prosecution's case doesn't even merit a rebuttal. Hoping the strategy highlights perceived weaknesses in the evidence or alleged inconsistencies in the testimonies. Combs choice not to testify himself might prevent jurors from humanizing or sympathizing with him. But it also avoids potentially damaging cross examinations that could undermine the defense's reasonable doubt strategy. What do you think about that?

[Eric Faddis]

To me, it feels like they gave up.

[Stacy]

Did they? Or as less is more.

[Eric Faddis]

This is your opportunity. This is where you speak your piece. This is where you give your side of the story. They didn't do that. You know, I, I, I don't know. I, it's not the strategy I would have taken, but I'm not a less is more kind of a person. I'm like, you know, throw the glitter, put it all out there. I would have done it differently.

[Stacy]

How old is, is Sean Combs?

[Eric Faddis]

It's my note. I want to say 47.

[Stacy]

55.

[Eric Faddis]

55.

[Stacy]

So if he got 15 years for.

[Eric Faddis]

This, he's an old man.

[Stacy]

He's an old man, but he could get out at 70. I'm wondering.

[Eric Faddis]

Fifteen years, that's just depends.

[Stacy]

I mean, that would be the minimum. So if he's trying to go that route, I don't know, just shaking the dice at this point to see what he would get and not incriminate himself further on anything else.

[Eric Faddis]

70 is 55 now, 15 years in prison.

[Stacy]

I'm wondering if he's playing the odds, the long game here of he's going to reinvent himself as Reverend Sean Combs.

[Christy Slavic]

Oh.

[Eric Faddis]

Are you shitting me? You're probably right.

[Stacy]

Rev Diddy. Rev D and he's going to find the Lord and he's going to repent for his sins and he'll start preaching in prison. He'll try and be like a real, you know, inspirational dude and he'll get out and then this have all fizzled out. Look, he's atoned. He's. Don't we all believe in giving second chances? All that sort of shit will happen and he'll have a very successful online ministry.

[Eric Faddis]

I could see it. I could see it. I totally could.

[Stacy]

There's my prediction. Or he's, I mean, if he gets out ever, or he will be behind bars for the rest of his life. But, like, what's the best odds here? It's like, I think he's pretty much guaranteed he's going to go down for a while. So maybe play the long game and don't try and argue anymore. On a good day here, you'll get 15 years, bad day it could be a lot more. But there is a potential for a good day. Cause it's gonna be a lovely day. Lovely day Lovely day Lovely day Lovely day. The absence of defense witnesses moves the trial into a stark binary choice for jurors. Trusts the detailed emotional testimonies presented by prosecutors. Or embrace the skepticism showed by defense cross examination that implied consent and portrayed alleged victim's complain simplicity in Combs lifestyle. At this juncture, it's all down to the jury's interpretation of credibility, consent and coercion. So what's next? Closing arguments scheduled Thursday. So might be the day you're listening to this. Might be yesterday, might be tomorrow. It all depends. But they are scheduled for 26th June, 2025. Barring anything crazy happening, and God knows crazy things never happen in this world. Both prosecution and defense will present their closing arguments. Each side will have several hours to make their final case directly to the jury. Prosecutors are expected to revisit and underscore their strongest evidence, highlighting Combs alleged systematic abuse, manipulation and orchestration of criminal activities. The defense is expected to frame the entire scenario as consensual adult behavior, painting the prosecution's narrative as sensationalized, exaggerated and unfairly judgmental. Of Combs private lifestyle choices. Jury deliberations could begin soon as well. Immediately after closing arguments, Judge Submarine will deliver formal instructions. Jurors may begin deliberations as early as could be this week or Monday, depending on the procedural timing. It's a complex case. Lot to it, a lot of gravity. Deliberations could last anywhere from several days to weeks. Still, the thoroughness of the prosecution's presentation might streamline jurors decision making. What do you think? You think this is going to be a. A long wait on the jury? Are they going to walk in and do not. No.

[Eric Faddis]

I would be willing to bet that Shoney's gift certificate that I lost in the Karen Reed bet that we made.

[Stacy]

Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

I'm betting this is going to. It's just going to be the time spent doing the paperwork. They're gonna walk into the room, grab their subway sub and go, all right, let's fill out the paperwork.

[Stacy]

And then somebody's gonna go, damn, I didn't want chicken, I wanted turkey.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah.

[Stacy]

And that's gonna hold everything up. Cause then somebody's gotta get to the subway again. And then get another sandwich and bring it up. Cause he's gonna say, I'm not gonna express my opinion until I get my turkey. And I. Is this light mayo? No, it's not. I asked for Light mayo. And what about the pictures? I asked for the pictures. Don said there was going to be pictures. Now I got to sit here and eat a fucking Subway sandwich with regular mayo.

[Eric Faddis]

See, this is going to be a quick turnaround. I could be very wrong about this, but I have a feeling what these people saw is stuck in their memories, and they're thinking, nothing but guilty. I can't imagine that they're sitting back going, well, you know, this is just his lifestyle.

[Stacy]

I hope not. It's a pretty bizarre lifestyle, is three counts. So we'll see what, what could happen. Here's our possible outcomes in this. If convicted on all counts, Sean Combs faces severe penalties, including potential life imprisonment. Federal racketeering and sex trafficking charges carry significant mandatory minimum sentences, making conviction particularly dire. An acquittal, conversely, obviously would immediately free Combs from custody, although he would likely face continued civil lawsuits and reputational repercussions. Regardless, final thought on all this, I mean, it's. It's a lot. The prosecution's massive, sprawling case against Sean Combs to the direction that we're going to see the closing arguments of Sean's side go.

[Eric Faddis]

What do you think?

[Stacy]

I. I think he's going to be found guilty on all charges, if not most charges.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah.

[Stacy]

I think that's going to put him away for a long time. How long? You know, he's. There's going to be appeals, they're going to be this, there's going to be that. And look, I mean, people get. They went on appeal. Look at Cosby.

[Eric Faddis]

Oh, do I have to?

[Stacy]

He's out. They appealed, and they found that the piece of evidence that was admitted was supposed to not be. It was supposed to be. He was supposed to be immune from any sort of prosecution based on the evidence that he was giving in a deposition or something, and they used it, and then that made the whole case get thrown out. So, look, it's not crazy to think that this guy's not going to be out at some point in time again. I hope not.

[Eric Faddis]

But.

[Stacy]

We live in a strange, strange world. You know, I don't know. Trump decides to pardon him because he's going to make Shawn John fashion great again. There you go. Everything is Sean John at the Trump store going forward. Nothing weird about that. Great, great artist, great performer. We're going to make Diddy great again.

[Eric Faddis]

Oh, my God. God made up. Make Diddy great again.

[Stacy]

Now, look, I don't care what side you're on. That's funny. That's just funny.

[Eric Faddis]

I. I don't have Enough alcohol for that thought. I really don't. Yeah.

[Stacy]

Trump and Sean John branded baby oil.

[Eric Faddis]

I was just gonna say baby oil. The Trump baby oil. Oh, God.

[Stacy]

Big tea on that. And then Sean, the signature. Sean John signature there.

[Eric Faddis]

Oh, the world we live in today.

[Stacy]

Anything is possible, my friends. Anything is possible. In the comment section. Let us know your thoughts on where you think this might all be going. Guilty, innocent, hung jury, Anything is possible. Pardoned, you know, abducted and missing out of the jail cell before sentencing and hanging out in an island with Tupac somewhere.

[Eric Faddis]

Epstein Island.

[Stacy]

Tell me where you think this is.

[Tony Bruski]

Continuing coverage of United States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime today.

[Stacy]

It came and it went. The trial of. Of Sean Diddy Combs a lot faster than I think a lot of us expected it to. But here we are, we're at the end. You may be listening to this after there's a verdict or seeing this after a verdict or while they're deliberating or right before, because we're all in this very tight place right now. It's a legal chess match that's been unfolding in the federal trial of Sean Diddy Combs. Case has been packed with sex trafficking charges, graphic evidence, and a defense team that just dropped the mic like, we're not.

[Christy Slavic]

We're good.

[Stacy]

Go on. Continue on. But by saying absolutely nothing. Really. No witnesses, no Diddy on the stand. Just a quiet gamble that the jury shrugs and says, okay, well, let's see what that strategy is. I don't know. Was it a flex, a white flag to break it all down? I'm bringing someone in who's been on both sides of the courtroom. Defense attorney and former prosecutor Eric Faddis. Let's dive into that. No witnesses being called by the defense of Diddy. A lot of ways of looking at this. How are you looking at this now?

[Christy Slavic]

It's a risk. It's a bold move. Does it signal confidence? Does it doesn't say that the defense believes the prosecution hasn't met their burden. It's their job to put on the evidence and meet that legal threshold. They haven't done it. We're not going to help them. From the defense side, or is it some kind of tacit admission that they don't have a lot of folks who are going to back up their narrative and so let's give it to the jury and hope for the best.

[Stacy]

Do you find it hard to really grasp what the strategy is in this case since we can't hear the arguments in court? We can't hear or see how it's been going. We've just been getting reports from people and obviously the words that we're hearing, I mean, it sounds horrible, the stuff that he was up to, but there's also questions of did they prove their case on all of the charges. And we'll get into that in just a few seconds. But is it more difficult to, to determine, you think, on the outside for an attorney or just a layperson to really feel what's going on in there?

[Christy Slavic]

Totally. So attorney. The federal courts have this policy where they don't allow video recording as a general rule on any of their cases. And so those sort of conflicts with the constitutional right to a public trial. And in fact, courts have said the public has an interest in knowing what's going on, especially in a high profile, nationally publicized case like this. And so we're sort of relegated to these second hand reports and, and what have you. But there have been a lot of them. There are journalists in the courtroom. And so we are receiving information, albeit kind of secondhand.

[Stacy]

Yeah, and that's an interesting thing about, you know, a public trial. And when they invented that and made that statement and made that the rule, obviously it wasn't a broadcast trial, it was public. So I mean, what we're getting essentially is the same sort of reporting we would have had, you know, many years ago by basically print reports and then it turns into audio and all of that. But it is just, you know, people writing down their notes and coming back and reporting on it. We get the information now much quicker, you know, right after they walk out of the courtroom. But it's still the same sort of thing. Is that something that, you know, you think needs updating here in this country? Should we have federal courts allow public to, not only, you know, see it if they happen to be geographically close by, but those who can't be. Should this been something that the public as a whole would have or should have been able to, to see take go down?

[Christy Slavic]

You know, the courts are very slow to reacting to advances in technology, advances in societal norms and understanding that kind of thing. And so in my appraisal, what's the benefit of the court not allowing video to show these trials when nearly all state courts are open to that? What interests are they serving in doing that? That would outweigh the public. And the public's receiving information about very important cases that implicate some really weighty societal issues. I just don't see it. Let the look, the camera's in there. Who Cares.

[Stacy]

Yeah, I would agree. I don't really quite. I feel like it's one of those things where it's like, well, we're going to keep operating on this the same way they operate on many other principles that have been proven to not be the best of ideas, like the parental thing with kids and when they have one parent that's abusive, but it's still, it's best for reunification, not just keeping that kid away from, from the abuser. Reunification, eventually, if we can make that like, no, not always the best idea. But I digress. So we have closing arguments that are going on basically as we speak right now. But let's talk about the case itself. Prosecutors, just right before going to closing arguments, dropped the arson and kidnapping charges against Diddy. Give me your insight. Why did they do that?

[Christy Slavic]

This was a curious move, and I think it might come back to hurt him. You know, my apprehension is that, you know, you have a case as a prosecutor, it looks good on paper, and you think, oh, gosh, I can prove all of these serious things, and then you get in that gauntlet in trial. That's not always how it goes. And so I'm wondering if the prosecution wants the jury to focus on just the most compelling, the strongest potential grounds for the RICO charge and eliminated these other less strong grounds. However, it could look like they're kind of surrendering that they're kind of saying, hey, we told you we could prove this stuff, but we actually can't. But trust us when we say we can prove these other crimes.

[Stacy]

Well, I mean, is that part of the case here, considering once they started going, one of their witnesses did go missing and that witness was supposedly going to be kind of backing up a lot of their case with the, the RICO and the kidnapping. And since they really couldn't have the witness there for that, they had to. To kind of drop it and I guess. And then the rest of the case, the Diddy and. Or the, the Cassie area of all this, we certainly saw sexual coercion and abuse and things like that, but I don't know if it crosses the line to kidnapping. What about any other piece of this trial? Did you see that there was anything that would, would lead to anyone to believe that, or was it just really not quite their reasonable doubt?

[Christy Slavic]

You know, for me, the, the whole presentation by the government, that's just my opinion. It's been a bit underwhelming, you know, going into this. They came in guns ablaze and talking about arson and kidnapping and sex trafficking and people being drugged and These sort of like, you know, Caligula esque orgies with all of these stars. And that's not really what the evidence has been. And so I'm just wondering how the ju jury is going to be impacted by this 11th hour change. You know, are they going to say that, gosh, the government kind of, you know, made a lot to do about this case and and then they didn't really have the goods or are they going to say, hey, we're going to be laser focused on these other grounds for RICO that are more provable and that might spell doom for Diddy is.

[Stacy]

That, I mean, that's got to be a difficult thing sometimes. And you got to figure out, I guess, who your jury is and how they're going to react to whatever you're going to put in front of them. Because I mean, we've seen in many cases, and I'm sure you have seen in far, far, far more cases than me, they can be kind of confusing or they can be confused, maybe I should say, even when the jury forms to most would not be that confusing. But if you don't look at them all the time and you're not used to seeing them. Yeah, I mean it's, it takes a little figure this out. Is that something, I mean they're really concerned with here of let's, as simple as possible, let's not let them just give a couple light charges and walk away. Let's have them. Really the options are stark. It's either you're going to be checking the boxes and stuff that's going to put them away for at least 15 years or more, or you're not, there's nothing really, it seems light on the table here. Is that accurate?

[Christy Slavic]

Oh, yeah, yeah, I think absolutely. And it's, it's an important point because the RICO charge itself is terribly confusing. The jury instructions that I've seen for that charge are difficult for a seasoned attorney to follow, let alone a layperson juror. And so perhaps the government wanted to simplify this for the jury and say, hey, you know, there aren't 20 moving parts now there are six. And that's more manageable for a jury because when there's confusion in that deliberation room, sometimes confusion translates into doubt, which can translate into reasonable doubt.

[Stacy]

Do they ask enough questions when they need to ask enough questions from back of that jury room? Just from your experience as a prosecutor or defense attorney? Because you'll see both ends of it. Have you seen more where they come back and ask the right questions or More where they come back with a verdict. And it's like, if you had just asked this question, you would have understood this better and it wouldn't have led you to that decision.

[Christy Slavic]

You know, on the whole, in my experience, the jurors ask important questions while they're back there, including clarifying questions about the jury instructions, the charges, the verdict form, that kind of thing. Because if they don't, and if there's some kind of misunderstanding, you can get inconsistent verdicts within a trial, and that itself can be a ground for appeal. So it's really important that the juries understand what they're supposed to be doing back there.

[Stacy]

Let's talk about the RICO charges. The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations act is being used to argue that Diddy ran a criminal enterprise involving sex trafficking, drugs and violence. And he's saying, no, that wasn't part of my company. That was just the weekends, basically. RICO allows prosecutors to bundle multiple acts under one broad umbrella. That's why we've been seeing it used outside of just like Mafioso type cases. We saw it in the R. Kelly case, we're seeing it here. But yeah, it is complex and controversial when applied outside of organized crime. So how exactly are prosecutors trying to meld this and form this in a way that a jury is going to understand it? So they get what, a RICO charges and see how that applies to Diddy. How do you work that through your mind to explain it?

[Christy Slavic]

So kind of the intellectual flowchart, if you will, for it is for a RICO charge, there's gotta be a criminal enterprise. And there have to be at least two predicate offenses that happen within 10 years that are connected to that criminal enterprise. Like running a stop sign isn't enough. They got to be serious crimes. And so I think the prosecution is going to argue that the Bad Boy entertainment helped facilitate some of this sex trafficking that they contend was non consensual, that they set up hotels, that they engaged in payments at times. Sometimes they're fueling these hotel parties with drugs. And so what the prosecution is going to say is that the sex trafficking crimes themselves can be the predicate offenses for rico, so long as they can connect it to Bad Boy. You know, they've been able to have some successes in drawing those connections. There were some receipts and texts entered into evidence. On the other hand, there are some Bad Boy affiliates who say, hey, we didn't know about any criminal activity. We certainly didn't agree to facilitate it. And so that one, there's some conflicting evidence.

[Stacy]

There I mean, ultimately, ultimately, the man with the checkbook is Diddy. So he's going to do what he wants and pull the funds from wherever. Is it really come down to where the funding for these parties came from or the people or persons involved who planned it? Because if you're operating off of Diddy's personal card on everything thing, and all this is that rico, even if you have employees helping to facilitate these things, but all the funding is coming out of. Out of Diddy's personal account, not the Bad Boy Entertainment account. I guess the other question would be, who are these people employees of? Would they be employees of Bad Boy Entertainment? Because I don't know the answer to that. I don't know how his assistants were set up or anybody set up. Was that Bad Boy or was that Sean Combs Enterprises, or whatever it was is called? I suppose it doesn't matter if it's Bad Boy or not. If it's under a. A business structure of any type, really, that would be constituting a RICO charge. Whether it's just, you know, you're employed to be making the life of Diddy, the life of Diddy as assistance and stuff, that's still a corporate structure. It's not Diddy personally.

[Christy Slavic]

Totally. So to the first question, the funding is critical. I mean, certainly the jury is going to want to see, hey, were there business accounts that were used to rent out these hotels, that were used buy flights for mail escorts, that kind of thing? It's important, but it's not necessary. Under rico, you can have just the affiliates of the alleged criminal enterprise arranging things. And really, the central piece is that did they have knowledge that there was some criminal activity going on, and did they coordinate all together to advance that criminal activity and connection with the criminal enterprise? Also the criminal enterprise, that's like. It's a very low standard to meet that. It's kind of just a loose confederation of people who happen to be working in coordination. It doesn't even have to be a business here. It is a business. And so it's a much lower standard than people think to prove that some criminal enterprise exists. And I think that, you know, the government went far in trying to establish that in having text messages from other bodyguards and from executives at Bad Boy Entertainment that all according to the government sort of coalesce in some of these criminal acts.

[Stacy]

I think a lot of times when we hear the word sex trafficking or a layperson hears that, they're thinking, you know, a bunch of immigrants in the back of a truck or something that have Been picked up and this is. They're just. That's not how it typically. I mean, is that part of it? Sometimes, sure, but that's not always how it has to be. I mean, the fact that you mean sex work is illegal in most states. If you're getting, if you're purchasing a sex worker to come in from New Jersey and the party's in New York, we're crossing state lines, just a theoretical one out there. And the purpose of that person coming to that party is to do sex work with Diddy, his guests, whatever. Is that sex trafficking? Just like that, even though that person is knowingly coming, they're not being forced, it's not coercion, they're getting paid. Is it sex trafficking if they're willingly coming for that purpose to another state?

[Christy Slavic]

It's a really important point because I agree with you, there is kind of a misnomer in terms of sex trafficking and what that means. It doesn't need to include sort of, you know, forced migration of a bunch of people to go and do something. The charge in this case is sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion, which requires that someone engaged in a commercial sex act by force, fraud or coercion. And so all that really depends on is having some commercial sex worker, which we have ample evidence of the punisher for one. So, and so then the remaining question is, was it by force, fraud or coercion? That's the part that the jury, I think is going to wrestle with. But sex trafficking is also a lower standard than perhaps our societal understanding might suggest.

[Stacy]

And that's the interesting part, I guess, of this case. It's not even so much about the state lines. It's about once they're there and they're there for that job, was there force, fraud or coercion involved in them performing the job, meaning they felt that they were being forced or coerced into having sex with people? That said, I think a gray line to a lot of jurors, especially if it is a sex worker, like, well, what were you expecting to have happen here? But did he hired you to be a sex worker? But obviously rape is something that you would not really expect to be part of it. But we have to. Is there even evidence of, of that with some of the sex workers? It's gonna be a difficult one, I think, to convince a jury on, quite honestly. I mean, where do you think it stands? Cuz from what I've understood, from what I've taken out of a lot of this, from the testimony, other than the direct things with Cassie and some assistance and some people that are really directly close. We're not hearing a lot from sex workers that, you know, they're like held captive in Diddy's land. It seems they kind of came and went, at least most of them. Other ones who didn't get involved, a closer relationship, didn't seem to have those sort of stories.

[Christy Slavic]

Right. As far as I can tell, none of these sex workers are alleging that they were forced to do something criminally that they didn't want to do. I think the sex trafficking by force, fraud, coercion charges are based on Cassie and based on Jane. And so, you know, if there was evidence, where did. He said, hey, I need you to do this freak off or else I'm going to beat the hell out of you? That's. That's by force. That's sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion.

[Stacy]

Sure.

[Christy Slavic]

However, that. That's not what we. There was sort of this specter of threats that this implication and this subjective understanding from Cassie and Jane that they didn't feel like they had a choice. But that's not necessarily enough that the government's got to prove that Diddy knew Cassie and Jane felt they didn't have a choice and he forced them to do this anyway through his machinations, whatever they may be. And so that's kind of an added level of proving that Diddy knew that they didn't have a. Felt they didn't have a choice and went forward anyway in a course of fashion. That's yet another layer that's gonna be difficult to prove.

[Stacy]

That's what I was expecting to see if he was gonna call any witnesses. I was expecting to see some people to come up and go, no, this wasn't coercion. No, this wasn't this. No, this wasn't that. Obviously no witnesses are called. Do you think there's nobody out there that would testify to that or is it just, let's not keep focusing on Diddy having sex with sex wife workers. Let's just. It's already been brought out. We know that's happened. We don't think they proved it beyond a reasonable doubt that this was some sort of coercion. I don't know. Are you surprised that we didn't hear anybody backing up Diddy in any way, shape or form?

[Christy Slavic]

I am surprised. I thought they would call at least like two witnesses or so who would come in and say, you know, hey, I'm from Bad Boy. I was at some at one of these parties and nothing Seemed non consensual to me. No one was saying no. They weren't saying, saying stop. They weren't, you know, their body language wasn't sort of resistant or something like that. It seemed perfectly consensual. I think that would go a long way. And then further, another witness they could have called is someone who said, hey, yeah, I work for bad boy. And I was, I had no knowledge of any crimes going on. I was just doing my job, you know, day to day work. I would expect those types of witnesses to be called. They weren't called. Is it because they don't exist? That's, that's a question that could be lingering in the jury's mind.

[Stacy]

I mean, or is it just, you know, let's leave it out by omission? And then makes the jury wonder, like, maybe nobody else does exist. But there are people who do exist who had quite a case against him. Cassie Ventura being one of them. The jury saw that video of him beating the crap out of her at the Intercontinental Hotel, stomping on her head, throwing a vase at her, dragging her through the hall. Pretty damaging stuff. And then they heard several days of her testimony that went far more dark and into brutal territory. That makes that video look pretty tame, quite honestly. We have that as being a big, A big part of this. How much do you think just that element of this case is going to weigh on the jury's decision over all three charges? Just because of how damning that is? And then maybe just being a little trigger happy going, he did that, he can go down for the other things too. Just kind of a, you know, you're a horrific human being, let's just get you away.

[Christy Slavic]

The shock factor cannot be understated. That video is terribly evocative in the worst way for Diddy. And on top of that, it sort of communicates to any common person, hey, if he's capable of doing that, he's at least capable of these other accusations. You know, that being said, one question I think that the defense should ask in closing argument rhetorically to the jury is, you know, was Cassie forced? Excuse me, did that physical violence force Cassie to do these freak offs? You know, was there some direct imminent threat or was it just this was a complicated and abusive and horrible relationship, and on top of that, she chose to do these freak offs? You know, I think that subtle distinction is important because that physical force has to have a contributing factor to the sex trafficking by coercion. They got to make that link.

[Stacy]

They do. And I think that's, I Obviously, the abuse that he has drained down on her is pretty obvious. That question, though, is, you know, she has agency too. Did she just. Did she stay because she was fearful? I know she's argued that, and I get that. I believe she probably is fearful. But courts don't always look at it the same way a psychologist would. A psychologist could look at this and go, yeah, I get why you were here. This was fear and you felt you had no choice, and this was why you were here. Courts don't quite grasp all of that quite the same way as a doctor would. And understanding the psychology behind it, do you think a. The court will see it that way or are they going to look more at, you know, you're an adult, you were coming and going. You were not, you know, technically locked down there. You could have. There was a lot of windows where you could have used agency and got the hell out of there. Would it have been a mess? Would it have been hell? Yeah, I'm sure it probably would have been horrible, but it wasn't completely impossible. How do you think a jury. And I'm not trying to victim shame here, I get where. Why she stayed. But, but do you think that that is going to play well enough in front of a jury for them to believe that in the court, to believe.

[Christy Slavic]

That without question, there are a series of unfortunate circumstances. Clearly some trauma was inflicted, people were victimized, abuse was going on. That seems pretty evident. That being said, a person who is an alleged victim getting on the stand and saying, hey, I was affected by all of these circumstances, and so I felt I didn't have a choice, I felt I couldn't le. That is certainly regrettable, without question. Is that the same thing, though, as. As Diddy forcing someone to engage in a sex act because of those circumstances? That's a question that's separate and apart from these sort of sociological considerations that are clearly at play here. And, and, and the court looks at things a little bit more coldly, I would say. And the jury instructions don't allow for, you know, if you felt sorry for Cassie and you think she truly believes she didn't have a choice, you got to find him guilty. There's a lot more that has to be proven for a charge like this.

[Stacy]

Yeah, I mean, I would certainly think so. Obviously, jurors are human, though, so if they were affected by this, maybe they'll lean more in that direction. But, yeah, I mean, yeah, it is a colder lean because it doesn't take all those factors into consideration. The fact that we also didn't see evidence of. Of co conspirators. I mean, that's usually part of a RICO case. We maybe we do have co conspirators, but they took plea deals. I mean, does that still mean there's co conspirators? They said at the beginning and opening we're gonna see co conspirators. We didn't see any co conspirators, like, explicitly named here. We saw, you know, know, some assistance that probably should be getting charged, but probably are not right now for their testimony. Is that. Was that showing co conspirators? I guess.

[Christy Slavic]

You know, I thought it was a severe misstep by the government to not identify and charge co conspirators because we're talking about a criminal enterprise that's multiple people, that's affiliates, that's sort of a gang of folks who are doing crime together. But here we only have one person charged with a crime. So undercuts just our general understanding of what a criminal enterprise might be now. Now, certainly there were some folks who are engaged in some underhanded activities with drugs and arrangements and texts and everything else, but, you know, do they appear to be criminal agents of Diddy who are all acting in concert to pull off this massive sex trafficking? That's a bit of a stretch.

[Stacy]

Yeah. Certainly had people who were complicit in doing it. But did they believe they were engaging in something that was illegal too? Or did they think this is just really, you know, just extreme behavior by one of the richest people out there that seems to like this stuff? You don't know, you know, how other than having to clean up some really messy rooms, I don't know that they would have known what exactly was going on behind closed doors. Or did they? I mean, there was testimony, not testimony, but we heard stories from people who had been out and, and, and claimed to have seen Diddy being very abusive to Cassie. Actually, there was testimony about that in this trial. I forgot. So it does make you wonder behind closed doors, at the house, assistance, things like that. If. If Diddy is willing to be abusive in public, at restaurants, towards the person he's with. I would think maybe behind closed doors, that wouldn't be a far stretch to wonder if they were doing the same thing there.

[Christy Slavic]

Very fair point. And there certainly was testimony about public assaults and that kind of thing. So. So what that means is that perhaps some of the bad boy entertainment folks had knowledge that there was at least some criminal activity like an assault going on. But, but, but another layer, another question is, did they materially aid in bringing about further crimes with the knowledge that they're doing crime. That that's really what Rico contemplates. Like you said, think about the Mafia, for example. Those are all folks who they're doing when you know, five of them stop a retail or a bus with retail items, truck with retail items and, and then stick them up here. It's just a different scenario.

[Stacy]

Yeah, I mean it, it, it really is. Let's talk about the charges here for, for a moment and, and what specifically they are and what if convicted, Diddy could be facing the charges carry minimum starting starting at 15 years and could result in life if certain allegations are proven. We have the racketeering conspiracy. Accused of running a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering laws. Prosecutors allege he orchestrated legal activities including sex trafficking, kidnapping, arson, bribery, forced labor, obstruction of justice and more as part of the long term scheme to control and exploit women and conceal his wrongdoing to you. Guilty. Not guilty. What are your thoughts?

[Christy Slavic]

I'm thinking not guilty on this one. I've heard stories that the government's going to focus on the forced labor piece as a predicate. That is just not the most compelling aspect of this trial at all to try and prove rico. And the government has limited the bases on which a jury could find that Diddy is guilty of RICO by limiting kidnapping and arson. So I think that charge is pretty shaky. I'm going not guilty.

[Stacy]

Up the next one that we're looking at. Sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. One count pertains to alleged coercion. At least one woman victim. One who prosecutors say was recruited, harbored, transported and forced into commercial sexual acts using threats, psychological manipulation and possibly violence. So we do have one that is. Is there. I was expecting far more, honestly. And it certainly doesn't discount that one is having had this experience and is talking about it, while many more maybe are just afraid or just don't want to be thrown into that world further than they actually were. What are your thoughts on the sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion charge, Eric?

[Christy Slavic]

You know, these are the most, arguably the most serious because they do carry up to life in prison if convicted. One of the charges pertains to Cassie, the other one pertains to Jane. And it's really going to come down to was there force or coercion? And did that directly cause these alleged victims.

[Stacy]

Okay, engage. Sorry, I didn't realize my mic was on.

[Christy Slavic]

I don't have a problem. Okay. So it really comes down to whether the force, fraud or Coercion, Whether did he use that to knowingly cause these alleged victims to engage in commercial sex acts against their will? And on that part, there is conflicting evidence. There's certainly testimony under oath that they didn't want to do this and they felt they had no choice. There's other text messages where they're seemingly pretty open and into the free goss, and so this one could go either way. I'm leaning towards not guilty on these ones as well.

[Stacy]

Okay, number three, we go to Diddy. Accused of moving individuals across state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution. Part of the alleged pattern of orchestrated travel for freakoff parties involving escorts. Eric, what say you?

[Christy Slavic]

This one's pretty strong, I think. I think this one is hard to defend against. The defense might say that, hey, Diddy was just paying for these folks time and not sex, but common sense, and the testimony would tell us otherwise. I think he's going down on these ones. But the thing is, these are the least severe, and he could even just get time served on these, on these charges.

[Stacy]

What do you think? And this is a fun one. If Diddy were to survive all of this, which there's a possibility, you know, I mean, egotistically survive and, you know, pr. Survive is one thing. I think that's been destroyed. But if you were to, you know, have freedom again, whether it be 15 years down the road or a few years down the road, down the road, do you think he can reinvent himself? Do you think Diddy is done? Is he going to go the way of Ike Turner, where it's just like, yeah, we remember you, or. Or do you think there's any path where Diddy can be redeemed or that he's going to attempt to go down at least, and he'll probably get some people if he takes a certain route.

[Christy Slavic]

You know, it's. It's a. It's a really interesting question. And I think that in. In our modern era, soc kind of fed up with. With a bunch of rich people mistreating folks, and especially in a criminal fashion and a sexual fashion. And I think we're kind of sick of that. We're not really going to look the other way anymore. On the other hand, in America, we love a story of redemption. And so is it at least theoretically possible that. That he could make some kind of comeback? You know, you think about Louis CK who's made quasi comeback after some controversy and. And other folks, you know, redemption, I don't think is out of the question in America.

[Stacy]

America, I think if he became a preacher. That's, I mean, look at MC Hammer did it. MC Hammer was not accused of this sort of stuff. Mace did it. Who was, you know, on mo money, mo problems again, not as big as Diddy. I think there's some other, I think Montel Jordan became a preacher again. Those guys didn't have those sort of, you know, accusations against them, but it, it kind of gave them a new life, gave them some new income. People look at their old school artists and go, oh, they, they're a preacher now. How nice. I would wonder if Diddy were to go down that road, spend a couple years silent, just kind of working his little ministry. Eventually he has a mega church and he's out there dancing around, he's asking for forgiveness and the Lord forgives him. And then everybody stands up and he does his songs and makes his money on the offerings. And nobody's the wiser because everybody forgets things in the course of just a few months.

[Tony Bruski]

Continuing coverage of United States, States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime today.

[Stacy]

Closing arguments in the case of Sean Diddy Combs. And only one side got their full five hours of closing arguments in today. The prosecution. We're about to break down what happened, what it means, and also what is next in the federal trial of Sean Diddy Combs. So here we go. Let's just get right to it and what happened today. Assistant U.S. attorney Christy Slavic made a dramatic, uncompromising closing argument, explicitly labeling Sean Diddy Combs as the head of a sophisticated and violent criminal enterprise operating behind his celebrity Persona. She described Combs as someone who consistently acted above the law, leveraging fame, money and influence influence to silence and control victims and witnesses alike. Slavic argued that the sheer volume of illegal activity, hundreds of individual acts over nearly two decades, was orchestrated methodically by Combs rather than sporadic or impulsive misconduct. And then there's the details of the freak offs and the sex parties. Prosecutors extensively described events known as the freak offs. Dealing how Combs allegedly coerced Cassie Ventura and another woman known as Jane into drug fueled sexual encounters involving paid escorts. Slavic painted vivid scenes for the jury explaining how Combs allegedly manipulated these women through threats, intimidation and force, using drugs, particularly a potent drug called tusi, to keep them compliant, disoriented and unable to resist or leave. Surveillance video presented again today showed the 2016 incident at the Los Angeles Hotel. Prosecutors emphasized this disturbing footage highlighting how Combs violently threw Cassie to the floor and dragged her back into a room. Underscoring their Argument of the brutal control. Of course there's the violent episodes and the patterns of abuse that they wanted to also knock home to the jury today. Another major point Slavic drove home involved the detailed testimony regarding a 2024 assault on Jane. She graphically recounted how Combs allegedly kicked, choked and slapped Jane, dragging her by the hair to force her into his sexual encounter. This incident served to reinforce prosecutors arguments about a long established violent pattern. Slavic used these examples strategically to argue Combs consistent use of violence and fear as central to his method of controlling women, reinforcing the broader sex trafficking charges. And there's the inner circle, the alleged people that help facilitate all of this and their role in the criminal enterprise. Prosecutors describe Combs entourage, his assistants, bodyguards and employees ways as integral components of his alleged criminal activities. Slavic portrayed this inner circle as a loyal army complicit in executing and covering up crimes. Specific allegations included the direct participation of employees in distributing drugs for the freak offs, arranging interstate travel for sex trafficking, and offering bribes to witnesses or hotel staff to conceal evidence. Highlighted today was testimony about hotel security guards offering or being offered large sums of cash by Combs associates to suppress evidence of violence. Underscoring the systematic cover up alleged by prosecutors. It's systematic. That pattern of behavior is a very important part of trying to prove a RICO case. It's not just a one off here and there. This is them doing this on a regular basis and feeling they have no choice but to. To make those, those actions and those wishes of Sean come to life. You have the explicit listing of the criminal acts that they also laid out. Prosecutors systematically summarized major charges against Combs today, reminding jurors explicitly the varied crimes he's accused of orchestrating or committing. Attempted arson, allegedly targeting a car out for revenge, kidnapping, forced labor, bribery, and extensive drug distribution connected directly to sex trafficking. Slavic made clear each of these charges was backed by weeks of detailed testimony, documentation and compelling witness statements. How will it all land and what it means? That's what we'll get to next thoughts on everything they laid out. And they, they did that for five hours, not five minutes. So that's the five minute summary of what they laid out today in court.

[Eric Faddis]

What I find fascinating is every single charge that is sitting there, it's kind of like they're gonna spin the roulette wheel. All it takes is one charge and he is in prison for pretty much the rest of his life.

[Stacy]

At least a good chunk of it.

[Eric Faddis]

A good chunk of it. I mean, okay, so he gets out when he's 70. He's in the prime of his life right now. So to me, that's. That's a life sentence, really. And it just takes one charge. So really, that jury, they go into the room, they only have to decide on one charge. And his life has completely changed. It's career ending, it's possibly life ending is in terms of freedom, you know, and then the people around him, what are they going to be charged with because he didn't act alone?

[Stacy]

Immunity.

[Eric Faddis]

Well, true.

[Stacy]

I think he got a lot of that. And I don't know. I think anybody that came forward thus far is. Is probably pretty safe. Maybe that one assistant, if they can find other charges there. And I don't know what type of deal they made with her either. I mean, it could be a very. You're going to need to testify for us or we may or may not arrest you, but you will be arrested, guaranteed, if you choose not to. And.

[Eric Faddis]

Well, let me ask you this. Is Cassie safe after this? Does he hold so much power in this community?

[Stacy]

I don't know.

[Eric Faddis]

Rap community, you know, whatever enterprise he had going on. Is she safe after this? Because without her, this did not move forward.

[Stacy]

Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

I wonder what life's going to be like for her. This is a big deal. I mean, she almost needs witness protection, I would think.

[Stacy]

I don't know. I mean, I don't know that there's a lot of. I don't. I just don't know the answer to that. I'm not close enough to any of that to know. Does he still have power? Does he still have goons out there who are willing to do his work? Or has pretty much everybody just ran away from Diddy?

[Eric Faddis]

You know, it's a good question. And now that the money's going to be gone, because I'm sure a lot of people look the other way because there's so much money at stake.

[Stacy]

If the money's not there, I don't think he's going to have people there. And I don't know that anybody's going to want to put their well being in jeopardy for Diddy.

[Eric Faddis]

Right. No money, no problems.

[Stacy]

Right? I mean, that may be the thing here. Yeah. No money, no problems. It's. He'll discover that when he becomes a preacher in prison and then opens up the megachurch when he gets.

[Eric Faddis]

That's right. You know, as much as I. I don't even want to think about that, but I think you're 100% right.

[Stacy]

Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

It's equivalent to when a star cancels an engagement because of Dehydration like yeah, I didn't. I totally saw that coming. That was on the bingo card.

[Stacy]

Yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, you just nailed it bit.

[Stacy]

Racketeering, conspiracy. That's charge number one. Rico. We'll break it down here and what it all could mean. He's accused of operating and managing a criminal enterprise under federal racketeering laws. Prosecutors claim he coordinated activities involving sex trafficking, forced labor, obstruction of justice, bribery, drug, drug use and financial manipulation as part of a long term term criminal pattern. The RICO charges essentially bundle multiple illegal acts under one overreaching conspiracy. It's also why they were able to go way back in time and pull things that would have already been out of the statute of limitations and charged them in this case or brought them into the RICO charge as part of the conspiracy that otherwise couldn't be prosecuted any anymore. That's how they, how they did that with R. Kelly as well. Same principle. They're arguing that Diddy's actions were organized, systematic and involved other participants or co conspirators. And that's a part we didn't really get. I think a lot of evidence on for co conspirators. I mean unless, unless they can count. And I could be right, I could be wrong in this. I don't know. Are we counting people like his assistants and people who willingly worked for him as co conspirators? I mean they'd be working for the company, but they're doing illegal acts for that company. Does that make you a co conspirator? I don't know.

[Eric Faddis]

In my brain it sounds like it does.

[Stacy]

Yeah. In a legal brain. I don't know. I think a lot of us were expecting to hear, okay, and here's another person that's being indicted and they got another trial over here. And we didn't really see that. But like I said earlier, I think the folks who did bring a lot of information probably got immunity or some sort of a deal to testify so they could get that information from them. Otherwise they could have just lawyered up really, really, really quick. And I'm guessing the government said if you do that, we're just going to take you away too.

[Eric Faddis]

So that's how they get people to talk.

[Stacy]

Yeah, because they had, I mean there's a, I mean there was a lot of those people who worked for him could face serious charges or, or could have faced serious charges for what they were doing. I'm going to ask it a question because I am curious about this. Could a co conspiracy.

[Eric Faddis]

Be interesting to see the answer?

[Stacy]

Yeah, let's See what? Absolutely. An employee can legally be considered a co conspirator under federal law, particularly within rico. There you go. So there you go. You got co conspirators and they don't necessarily have to be charged. It just they need to be in existence as a co conspirator. So her, his woman that was a lot like, is like Ghislaine Maxwell, allegedly that's a co conspirator. The, the drug mule kid. He's a co conspirator.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah.

[Stacy]

I'm sure there's a lot more in the infrastructure spider web of Diddy that could be in that, that category. Let's continue. Next charge. Sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. Combs faces specific charges related to coercing individuals primarily identified as Cassie Ventura and another woman known as Jane into engaging into commercial sexual acts against their will. The prosecution alleges Combs used psychological manipulation, threats of physical harm, financial control and coercive behaviors to maintain control and force participation in sexual activities. I think that one was proven pretty well. Well yeah, I, I think it was transportation to engage in prostitution. Combs is accused of transporting individuals across state lines explicitly for commercial sex acts. Again, proven pretty well. Part of the alleged arrangements for his notorious freak off parties. The federal charge targets interstate travel for prostitution related purposes carrying significant penalties even with when coercion isn't explicitly involved. Potential consequences for all this if he is convicted. Severe sentences potentially ranging from a mandatory minimum of 15 to 20 years for Rico. That's the first charge we talked about up to life. So 15 to 20 minimum. If convicted on that, significant financial penalties, asset forfeiture and restitution to victims could also apply.

[Eric Faddis]

So they pretty much, I think the restitution's gonna happen.

[Stacy]

They'd pretty much go in and gut him more than they already have. Sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion. These ones carry manip manimum minimum sentences of typically 15 years with potential life imprisonment if severe circumstances or injuries are proven. Convictions under these statutes also result in substantial fines, asset seizure and mandatory restitution. Okay, sounding pretty solid. Transportation for prostitution, interstate prostitution basically. While generally carrying lighter sentences than RICO and forced sex trafficking convictions could still mean substantial prison terms, often up to 10 years per count and significant fines. Depending on the number of proven incidents. Penalties can can circumventally lead to lengthy incarceration periods. Overall potential outcome if convicted on the most serious charges, Sean Combs faces a realistic possibility of life imprisonment. Particularly given the severity and scope of the RICO and sex trafficking charges. Even partially Convicted, unlike interstate prostitution, would likely mean substantial prison time and lifelong having to face the financial consequences through restitution. So, I mean, he could end up just getting a. Could really be a couple years if. If it's just on interstate prostitution.

[Eric Faddis]

I'm not feeling that. Are you?

[Stacy]

I. I'm not, but. I don't know. Juries can be tricky. He's pretty. I mean, pretty polarizing figure these days, but this is a New York jury, and he was, you know, a pretty big figure in that city for quite some time.

[Eric Faddis]

So do you think this is the end of. Of royalty and hip hop? I mean, whose Jay Z is still out there? Who else is left?

[Stacy]

Well, I mean, it's one thing to be, like a major artist, and I guess you could call royalty, but I don't think a lot. I don't think, like, Jay Z parties it up like Diddy did. You know, he did. And he's more private than Diddy is. Diddy was, you know, look at me, look at me, look at me. So, I mean, Diddy was an interesting character. There's no one else I can really think of that was less like Diddy, you know, that. That actually, you know, had the power and wasn't just trying to. To look like it.

[Eric Faddis]

The only one I. Kanye is trying.

[Stacy]

Yeah, but Kanye went nuts, right? The only other person I can think of in hip hop that. That also kind of faded into the back, but was also a very successful business person would have been Master P. He had. And I always wonder, like, how like. Like most of your artists were not big. Like, you had a handful of hit songs, but he had a clothing line which was pretty big. I think maybe a lot of the money came from clothing. I don't know. But I was always kind of wondering, how the hell does he have all this? He never had a remote amount of success that was comparable to, like, Bad Boy Records or Death Row Records. I mean, they had some, but it wasn't. It wasn't to that level.

[Eric Faddis]

There's incredible markup in clothing, though. I think if you do it right, I bet you can make a mint. I bet you just make bank like crazy. I mean, remember back, and this is insider information, but we would give away T shirts at the radio station, those T shirts. And I remember I. I bought some. I. When I worked in promotions for our radio station, or was forced to do promotions, let's put it that way. I didn't typically do it, but t shirts were 25 cents a piece. Now, if you think about it, I just went to an ACDC concert paid 75. Was it 75 or 50 for a T shirt? And so this was probably 20 years ago that they were 25 cents a shirt. But even, let's just say for inflation's sake, it's a dollar a shirt. Now they're charging 50.

[Stacy]

If you're getting screen PR printing on it and it's a shirt of like, and it's like a, like a, not a super, super cheap one, you're talking at least probably 250 to 350 for a. Okay one. You're probably five to seven for a thicker, better quality one.

[Eric Faddis]

Yeah, this raw cost, the one at the ACDC concert was not high quality. It was, it was a cotton, like a jersey shirt. No big deal. Like something, something you'd find at Target maybe, you know, big deal.

[Stacy]

We, we should be putting merch on our thing. And I haven't. And I always hate it because you have to put such a markup on it to make anything. And I feel like an asshole because I'm like, even like, at minimum, I feel like that's really expensive, but everybody has it out there. I, it shouldn't be for me to judge. If you want to spend your money on it, I appreciate it. But there is such a huge markup on some of that stuff. Or you have to mark it up to make money, because some of these things, I mean, unless you're producing it directly and shipping it yourself. But if you're doing one of these services where they print it and somebody orders it, I mean, you're base. I mean, you're talking, you're making a very few bucks on a product unless you really market up job.

[Eric Faddis]

But yeah, and I, I just, I have a hard time spending money on, on T shirts that are, you know, 25 bucks, 30 bucks.

[Stacy]

Some people love it.

[Eric Faddis]

I can justify it.

[Stacy]

Yeah, yeah.

[Eric Faddis]

But anything above $30, unless it's just, again, you know, you're at a concert, you want to remember the concert. For me, it's always a T shirt. But again, the, the markup in clothing is substantial. So I understand why some of these, these musicians go into the clothing industry. Because that's where the money sits.

[Stacy]

Yeah. I mean, I could. So other than Diddy, I don't know. I don't know there's anybody else really comparable alive that or out of jail. I mean. Yeah. I mean, in another format of music, I mean, you know, you had Clive Griffin, but if we're talking like black artists, that, that paved ways and really, you know, did some amazing Stuff in his career. I mean he checked all the boxes. He, you know, he expanded his business beyond the music and. Yeah, and that extreme power and all that money, I think went beyond his head and blew it up. But I think he was someone who was already susceptible to that going in, in, you know, very showman like. And if he, you know, has to be the center of attention and. Yeah, I just think you push somebody to such extremes or he pushes himself to such extremes and the only thing you end up liking is extremes. And that would explain, I think a lot of the sexual behavior too. So closing arguments coming from the defense. Supposedly that'll be on Friday and we'll see where that all goes and give you a recap of that. And I'm going to guess, I mean if they wrap up early, it could go to the jury in the afternoon. I would say probably more likely they might just say Monday. You know, we'll pick it up but we'll see. Depends. I mean who they gotta be arguing something. I would think. I don't think they're just gonna go. We rest on that too. I'd be shocked.

[Eric Faddis]

I would think so.

[Stacy]

I would think.

[Eric Faddis]

And don't forget we have a holiday coming. Do you think that jury wants to have that lumen over their head?

[Stacy]

They got no choice about that. That's this next week. So are you saying you think they'll get it done before the fourth? Like that'll be incentive to wrap it up.

[Eric Faddis]

So that's what I'm thinking.

[Stacy]

It might be an incentive then to start tomorrow if they, if the defense is done by then because there's still rebuttal. Too.

[Eric Faddis]

True.

[Stacy]

But if the, if the defense doesn't do anything, then maybe, I don't know this. If you got that and you got rebuttal, I'm guessing Monday. And then it'll be four days until they probably, I don't know, two or three. Probably a three day, four day week. I don't know what they, their have their schedule for. I don't know that it's going to take very long.

[Eric Faddis]

I don't think it is.

[Stacy]

I'm going to say if they have a full day. If, if Monday is a full day, I think Monday we'll get a verdict. I think whatever day it goes on, if it's, whatever it's a full day, we'll have it. If it starts really late in the afternoon somewhere, I think you're up for the next. But dang, there you go. That's the latest in the world of Diddy. Be sure to comment in the comment section on YouTube and let us know what you think. Also, if you're listening to the podcast, wherever it may be, check out our YouTube channel, search hidden Killers with Tony Bruski and comment there. And now you can even comment before anybody else. When you become a Premium member on YouTube, you also get access to all the videos before everybody else. That's how you get to comment before everybody everybody else. So if you want in on that, check that out. It's a new premium service that we're offering on our YouTube channel, just search Hitting Killers with Tony Brusky. Until next time for Stacy, I'm Tony. We will talk again real soon.

[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.