← The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
The Downfall Of Diddy | The Case Against Sean 'Puffy P Diddy' Combs
Is The Diddy Verdict A Societal Rejection Of The 'MeToo' Era?
00:22:46
Loading summary
Transcript23 lines
- [00:01]
Tony Bruski
This is continuing coverage of United States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and True Crime Today. So here's the thing no one wants to say out loud. It's starting to feel like juries might be too legally under qualified for the job we're asking them to do. We're watching some of the biggest cases of our time with terms like sex trafficking, coercion, conspiracy, and racketeering being thrown around and jurors sitting in deliberation rooms making decisions on concepts they've barely had time to Google. No offense, but when a person's freedom and dozens of lives hang in the balance, shouldn't we expect jurors to do more than guess their way through definitions that even trained lawyers argue over? In the case of Sean Diddy Combs, we got a split verdict. Guilty on two mad act counts, not guilty on trafficking, not guilty on racketeering, and a whole lot of legal and moral whiplash in between. After weeks of testimony about grooming, drugging, coercion, and even video footage of physical assault, the jury landed squarely on not quite sure territory. Not quite sure? I don't know. Is it? I don't, I don't, I don't know. What is it? And it begs the question, was this about reasonable doubt or was this about confusion, sympathy, or plain old old school fatigue? Or just morons making decisions? That's where we're going today. And my guest, Eric Faddis, criminal defense attorney and former prosecutor who's tried dozens of jury trials, has seen how these decisions actually get made behind the curtain. We're talking about the anatomy of a confused jury, why the prosecution may have overshot the case without enough legal handling, and whether the public's evolving or regressing views on victimhood and personal accountability might be showing up in verdicts more than anyone wants to admit. We also get real about the elephant in the courtroom, the Me Too pendulum. Is it swinging back? Are jurors now resisting narratives of abuse unless they come in the most brutal, clear cut packaging? And how much of this is about the law versus public perception built on years of headlines, hashtags, and hot takes? In the comments, I want to know your thoughts as we go through this conversation on YouTube. Find us if you're not there already. Search Hidden Killers with Tony Bruski. If you're on the podcast platforms, press subscribe there so you don't miss any of this. But do please check us out on YouTube so you can join in that conversation. So I asked Eric if this case wasn't legally confusing, then what happened? Was it a problem with how the prosecution told the story, or were the jurors just not ready to hear it? Do jurors need to be more educated before making decisions? I mean, as an attorney, I'm really curious if there should be something else that we do here, because it feels like there's a lot of confusion at the end of the day about what definitionally things mean and how it applies to a case. Should we have something in place even before any testimony is even given? Just little lesson plan, everybody. Here's what these words mean. Do you understand what they mean? Not in context to the case, but just here's what this means. So if these things are presented to you, you can then process them and fully grasp what the hell was going on around you. Because that it seems we're getting more confusion than we're getting actual verdicts that are based on the letter of the law. You're talking about upending a whole system here. But, but, but is that a problem that we're seeing with. We've probably always seen it to a certain extent, but there's a lot of dumb out there. I'm just wonder much how much is dumb in infiltrating our jury system and really not allowing it to be truly accurate verdicts and juries of our peers.
- [04:25]
Eric Faddis
Oh, gosh. Not to sound disparaging, but I've done around 60 jury trials, and oftentimes I'll go back with the jury after the verdict and I'll learn about, hey, why did you decide this way? Or what were you considering? And some of the stuff you hear is like, wait a sec. That wasn't even mentioned in the trial. Wait a sec. This is just like kind of your personal bias or sympathy that's not supposed to creep in. And so could we have something like a half a day prep for jurors, perhaps on bigger cases that just orient them to the system and to what their duties are. They already have a speech they listen to in Colorado for like an hour in a jury room. Why not elongate that a little bit? What's the harm?
- [05:12]
Tony Bruski
Exactly. Like, why not just give them the tools to work with for the task we're asking them to complete? Other than just, what did you learn in life? Well, clearly not a lot for some people. And that's gotta be frustrating back there in the jury room for anybody who does pay close attention. And you got somebody who's just stuck and for whatever reason, not just seeing reality for what it is. And I'm Not. I am saying they got it wrong here. I really think they did. But was it their fault or was it the prosecution's fault for not spelling this out in a clearer way? I mean, when you look at this at the end of the day, I mean, I know you could look at it. I could look at it. A lot of people who are educated could look at it and go, here's what it is. But did they need to make this more idiot proof?
- [05:57]
Eric Faddis
You know, that's something you always have to do as a prosecutor. And when I was a prosecutor, you really have to spell it out. You have to kind of hold their hand. In fact, during closing arguments. Prosecutor, I would give a roadmap and I would give a suggested approach to what you do during the deliberations. Here's step one, here's step two, here's step three. And then jury, you decide how you want to handle it. But it's really the prosecutor's burden to do that. Now, in this case, the prosecution did a reasonably good job. They explained how even if there's prior consensual romantic encounters, all it takes is one. All it takes is one non consensual sex act, that is a commercial sex act by force, fraud or coercion, and that's sex trafficking. So they tried, but they failed.
- [06:42]
Tony Bruski
I mean, was this not a pretty clear cut sex trafficking case? I mean, where there was trafficking? I mean, I know, I mean, I know you can argue from both angles. It's your job, it's what you do. You got the mad skills to do it. But I mean, but was it a pretty clear sex trafficking case at the end of the day? Is there any. Is it really, Is it. Should, should this be up for debate that this was not sex trafficking at the end of the day?
- [07:05]
Eric Faddis
You know, I think if the jury found Cassie and Jane 100% credible and believed everything they said, then I think the pro. Then I think that evidence would be sufficient to find someone guilty of sex trafficking. There were times where they said, hey, they didn't feel like they had a choice. And there were at least some disputed communications with Diddy of Cassie and Jane telling them, hey, I don't want to do this. And so if the jury were to fully accept that testimony, it would have been enough. I just think the jury had some reservations about credibility, about, you know, the shifting feelings of a human being over the course of 10 years in a complicated relationship. And I think those issues were also front of mind.
- [07:54]
Tony Bruski
And I think that that's true. At the end of the day here we are talking about a 10 year relationship. This wasn't just a quick thing. This was coming back time and time again to your abuser. And I get it. I understand the abuse cycle, I understand why it's a cycle. I get not even arguing any of that. But was this kind of. I mean, has a pendulum swung back the other way now on me too, almost to an extent of people saying, look, yes, there is coercion, yes, there is influence, yes, there's intimidation, all that stuff does exist. But there is also personal accountability and there is also agency. And you can't just say, I have no agency and let's lock the person away forever. Because to play devil's advocate here, there was freak offs Cassie arranged by herself, you know, and set up. There was things that there was windows. She was not tied up in a dungeon with handcuffs. There were opportunities to leave. It's easier to say on the outside than the inside, considering even her mom was coerced into paying Diddy to not beat her daughter, which is insane. But there is agency that we have. And is this, in a way the jury society going back and saying, you need to enact more of that, you need to demonstrate more of your own agency. And we can't just say, because these people are evil, because these people are gonna do horrible things to you. And if you keep going back to it, well, at some point that's on you. I'm not trying to be harsh or horrible, but is that really kind of what this verdict was?
- [09:37]
Eric Faddis
You know, it's fascinating looking at the evolution of these social movements. You look at me too. In the very beginning, certainly there was righteous indignation and for good reason. And where we were at kind of a society is like, believe all women whenever they come forward with an accusation. And then as the years went by, there were some instances where we learned, hey, Maybe don't believe 100% all women every time they say anything or any person who claims to have been victimized. We got to have some balance there. So then I think we sort of shifted to the other side to where, like you said, there's an element of personal accountability that folks are looking to see that jurors might be looking to see. You know, we look at with the George Floyd matter too. You know, initially it was like, defund the police and all police are terrible. And then over time, it was kind of like, well, we need someplace. And so it's sort of just that pendulum that continues to shift. And for Cassie and Jane, it was at the wrong position at the. During this trial.
- [10:41]
Tony Bruski
It's just amazing with everything that was testified to that the jury still did not that that level of abuse and coercion and everything that was there, that was still. Yeah, we don't think so. I'm just. I'm surprised after the days and days of what we heard. Granted, we heard it through reporters. We weren't in that courtroom. So I guess I wonder about that a little bit. Do you think the way that this was reported out on and the way the public really felt this was the slam dunk was just. Was it a. Was that an effect of the reporting on this and kind of the vitriol of the reporting. There was any reporting that wasn't a bit biased, that was rooting, not rooting for Diddy to go down in flames? I think it was kind of the angle of all reporting on this for the most part. Was there a little bit too quick of a run to judgment here because the act sounded horrible, but maybe it wasn't delivered quite as strongly as what was being reported on?
- [11:42]
Eric Faddis
I think so. I think the hype was so high at the beginning, the expectations were so high. And really all the potential jurors before they were selected said, yeah, of course I've heard about this case. In fact, all or nearly all of them had already seen the Cassidy meeting. And so I think there's this preconceived notion on these jurors minds about what this must have been. And then once we get into the actual trial and you hear the testimony and it might be a little bit more measured, might be a little less horrendous, or maybe not, but just a different impression that the jury got in that courtroom that was contrasted from what they had been led to believe before. Certainly those expectations and those not being met could factor into how a jury decides a case.
- [12:31]
Tony Bruski
The judge has chosen not to allow him to get out on bail. Right now a lot of people, including a lot of law tubers the day of, were saying he should be out. Like there's no reason. Were you surprised that he is remaining behind bars until at least as of right now, until the October hearing, which could be pushed forward for the sentencing.
- [12:55]
Eric Faddis
Not terribly surprised now. I mean, you know, Diddy was still convicted of two very serious or significantly serious federal offenses. And then he's looking at up to 10 years in prison on both of those. The judge has to have in mind, hey, is this person a flight risk? Could they, you know, up in skedaddle and leave the country? Because they have not only this prison sentence potentially ahead of them. But also all these other legal matters. I think the judge erred on the side of caution. I think the judge heard out Cassie because Cassie made a statement essentially saying, hey, I'm fearful, please don't let this man out. And Cassie was a party to the charges on which Diddy was convicted, although not the sex trafficking charges. So, yeah, I think the judge, I was not surprised. And the judge is going to keep him in there. And I think this could signal something about what the judge is considering for sense.
- [13:46]
Tony Bruski
Yeah, let's go there. What do you think the relative immediate future holds for Diddy?
- [13:53]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, so I see. You know, if the judge was considering a sentence on the very low end, like time served, for example, or one or two years, then, gosh, why not just let him out now? It's just that we're just talking a few months and if you're going to let him out anyway, it would seem consistent with a decision to allow bond here. The judge didn't allow bond. You know, does that signal that the judge is considering a more substantial prison sentence down the road? Because if the judge was, then it wouldn't make sense to let him out on bond for, you know, a few months to hang out and then put him back in a box for seven years. So trying to read into this judge's ruling and how it could signal a possible sentence, I think it suggests that the judge is considering something significant that is not time served.
- [14:42]
Tony Bruski
What do you think we're looking at here in reality? Obviously up to 20 is the possibility. At the end of the day, what do you realistically think we're going to see?
- [14:50]
Eric Faddis
I'm thinking they're going to settle somewhere around five, somewhere around five years in prison. Diddy would do around 85% of that. You know, the judge is going to take into consideration the lack of criminal history. Judge is going to take into consideration the seriousness of the charge. Now, the charge which isn't terribly serious. It's, it's really a, basically a misdemeanor state level prostitution charge. And then you add in that you took the sex worker from a different state, brought him to you. But that being said, there are all of these egregious other allegations in the larger picture. Will the judge take those matters into consideration and up the ante a little bit in the sentence? It's possible.
- [15:32]
Tony Bruski
Do you see? And this is, you know, it's not even a legal question, it's just more so, you know, conjecture. Your personal opinion. Do you think there's Gonna be a redemption for Diddy. Now, other week we talked about, or I joked like, he'll become a preacher and he's, you know, we're gonna see, you know, our Diddy or whatever, Reverend Diddy, whatever it may be. Do you think there's going to be another chapter in the career of Diddy in the public eye, where the public eye is going to forget essentially all of these horrible, horrible things that we know about Diddy to be true?
- [16:11]
Eric Faddis
You know, Diddy's reputation has surely been damaged irrevocably. You know, I'm sure that he has lost promotional deals, contracts with companies and things like that, that he was endorsements, stuff like that. That makes sense. America loves a story of redemption. And, you know, you look at Kevin Spacey is trying to get back into things and getting some work disgraced. Louis CK the comedian. He's had some varied success in trying to get back into public life. And so could that happen with, you know, you look at Donald Trump. He was convicted of 34 felonies. There were all these allegations about sexual misconduct. And he's the President of the United States right now. So is it possible? You bet it's possible.
- [16:57]
Tony Bruski
Anything's possible. There's still a litany of civil suits out there for him as well, that obviously this probably does hurt them. It would be stronger if they had full convictions on this for those, but where does that put those going forward?
- [17:13]
Eric Faddis
Yeah, so I was thinking about this yesterday. You know, you look at momentum, you look at, you know, he's got the momentum now. And, you know, the folks who are going to be jurors on those civil cases, if they do go to trial, have probably heard about this outcome. And perhaps that creates an impression in the minds of some folks that, hey, maybe this stuff is a little trumped up. Maybe it was exaggerated, maybe it was overcharged. Maybe Diddy is the villain that he. That he's been cast. And does that weaken the civil cases and their ability to recover money in a settlement? I think does.
- [17:49]
Tony Bruski
Yeah. I wonder. I mean, the sheer number of cases. We know it's going to dwindle, but it'll go down. But I wonder if we're going to still see this insanely high level like we have with Busby, where it's like 70 or something. I wonder what's gonna happen with that and what level is going to happen and what damage, if any, it's going to do to Diddy, you know, financially going forward, or if we're just going to see a whole bunch of Settlements coming through like he had been in the past because he's, you know, in terms of civil forfeiture, what's going on with that? I mean, is there any civil forfeiture here?
- [18:27]
Eric Faddis
You know, I haven't read reports about that. I sort of suspected that they would take all of the devices they seized, the firearms, cash, all sorts of items that the government took, and pursue civil forfeiture, alleging that they were instruments of criminal activity. But when you go to trial and you're acquitted, are they really instruments of criminal activity at that point? Is civil forfeiture appropriate at that point? I'm not sure, but there's certainly a collectibility issue with, with respect to these civil cases.
- [18:59]
Tony Bruski
So if you're still scratching your head over how the jury in the Diddy case arrived at guilty, but not really, you're not alone. But this conversation revealed is something a lot of people on both sides of the legal aisle are whispering right now. Our juries are struggling not because they're bad people, maybe, but because we keep handing them modern legal complexity. Conspiracy, coercion, psychological abuse, RICO structures, and expecting a group of civilians with zero legal legal training to absorb, interpret and apply all of it flawlessly. Then we act shocked when the verdicts don't make sense. Eric made it clear this isn't just a one off. Prosecutors across the country are trying serious, nuanced cases that depend on terms like fraud, forced coercion, and commercial sex acts. And jurors are coming in with assumptions shaped more like Netflix headlines than legal definitions. When they don't see a woman in handcuffs chained to a radiator, they hesitate to call it trafficking, even if the law in black and white says otherwise. What's even more frustrating is this creeping idea that abuse is only real if the victims fight back in the right way, at the right time, with the right level of visible distress. And if she doesn't, then maybe she had agency. Maybe it wasn't that bad. Maybe she kept going back because she liked it or benefited from it, or somehow, God help it, deserved it. That's how people are thinking. That's not just dangerous. That's how cycles of abuse survive. Not in the dark, but in plain sight. And yes, the verdict reflects something more than just legal outcome. It's a crucial recalibration, a pushback awareness with believing victims, especially when they're not perfect or palatable or screaming from inside a locked room. Jurors, like the rest of us, are tired, but what they're tired of may be justice itself. So as diddy remains behind bars awaiting sentencing. The rest of us are left asking the hard questions. Not just what did the jury decide but but what kind of justice system do we actually want? One where we convict based on evidence and clarity? Or one where confusion gets the final word? This case isn't over. The civil suits are coming. The sentencing is coming. And if the government watching closely, they might already be rethinking how they build their next high profile case because next time they might not get a second chance. In the comment section, tell me what you think on this case. How did it all come out? Did the jury of his peers make the right choice? Tell me on YouTube. Find us there. Hidden Killers with Tony Bruski is where you will find us. Just search that Press Subscribe Wherever you're downloading podcasts, you don't miss any of the conversations we have on this case. Of the many we follow for you, right here at the Hitting Killers Podcast in True Crime Today, I'm Tony Brusky. We'll talk again real soon. 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.