The Diddy Verdict: Guilty, Not Guilty, and What It Says About Justice in 2025 | Year in Review Special

Summary

---

The Diddy Verdict: Guilty, Not Guilty, and What It Says About Justice in 2025

Podcast: The Downfall Of Diddy
Host: Tony Brueski (Hidden Killers Podcast, True Crime Today)
Guest: Eric Fatt (Criminal Defense Attorney, Former Prosecutor)
Release Date: November 30, 2025

---

Episode Overview

In this Year in Review special, Tony Brueski breaks down the stunning verdict in the U.S. v. Sean 'P Diddy' Combs trial, exploring what the mixed outcome reveals about power, celebrity, and the American justice system in 2025. With expert analysis from criminal defense attorney Eric Fatt, this episode dissects the charges, the evidence, and the broader implications for victims, abusers, and the future legal landscape. The conversation is candid, critical, and deeply aware of both the letter and the limitations of the law.

---

Main Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Verdict: What Happened in Court?

[02:17 – 05:17]

• Sean 'Diddy' Combs convicted on two counts: Transporting women across state lines for prostitution.
• Acquitted on three major charges: Sex trafficking, sex trafficking conspiracy, and racketeering.
• Tony’s take: The split verdict feels surreal—“like it came out of a Netflix legal drama written by a team of interns.”
  Quote: “Diddy didn’t take the stand…His defense didn’t call a single witness, not even a character reference. He just sat there silent, banking on one thing. Doubt. And in the end, it worked.” — Tony Brueski [03:14]
• Sentencing implications: Up to 10 years per count, possibly 20 years, but realistically less. As of recording, Diddy remained in federal custody, with questions swirling about his release or bail.

2. Why Wasn’t Diddy Convicted on the Most Serious Charges?

[05:18 – 08:43]

• Evidence described as “gut wrenching”: Including disturbing videos (notably the 2016 Cassie Ventura assault), testimony about grooming/coercion, drugged “freak off” parties, and witness intimidation allegations (e.g., Kid Cudi’s car explosion).
• Legal nuance: Celebrity, money, and power can shield alleged abusers unless evidence is overwhelming and fits traditional legal templates.
• Tony’s critique: “If Diddy were a rando with a burner phone and a Motel 6 rewards card, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. He’d already be in prison.”
• Systemic concern: The outcome demonstrates the advantage wealth confers and the persistent myth of the “perfect victim.” “Physical violence, even captured in high def surveillance, isn’t enough to convince a jury that a rich famous man was running a long term criminal operation targeting women.” — Tony Brueski [06:23]

3. The Courtroom and Public Reaction

[05:25 – 07:30]

• Ambivalent emotions: “Some gasps, some sighs. Diddy on his knees, praying in the courtroom. Diddy’s team smirked like they just pulled off a heist. The survivors and the supporters, shell shocked because they brought the receipts, they brought the stories, they brought their trauma and it still wasn’t enough.” — Tony Brueski [05:47]
• Release in limbo: As of recording, Diddy remained in custody, with sentencing likely to occur later in the month or early August.

4. The Meaning & Impact of the Verdict

[07:30 – 12:43]

• Systemic critique: The verdict is “a masterclass in how America handles power, patriarchy in prosecution.”
• Precedent: Sends a message that unless an abuser leaves a blatant paper trail or violence meets classic definitions, they might “skate.”
• Legal vs. public opinion: Even if legal justice is partial, the stories and videos exposed Diddy’s alleged behavior, ensuring a cultural reckoning continues, regardless of court outcomes. “You can bring the bruises, the video, the trauma, and still be told, sorry, not enough.” — Tony Brueski [12:05]
• Future consequences: Civil cases are forthcoming, proof requirements are lower, and ongoing public scrutiny could shape lasting consequences for Diddy.

5. The Jury Problem: Are They Equipped for Modern Legal Complexity?

[16:08 – 21:10]

• Tony’s critique of juries: Most jurors struggle with sophisticated legal terms and concepts like sex trafficking, coercion, and racketeering. “It’s starting to feel like juries might be too legally underqualified for the job we’re asking them to do…making decisions on concepts they’ve barely had time to Google.” — Tony Brueski [16:08]
• Education solution? Should juries get basic legal training before a trial? Tony proposes: “Should we have something in place even before any testimony…just a little lesson plan, everybody—here’s what these words mean?”
• Eric Fatt’s experience: Jurors often bring bias, confusion, and personal sympathy. A half-day orientation “to what their duties are” could help.
  “Oftentimes I’ll go back with the jury after the verdict…some of the stuff you hear is like, wait a sec, that wasn’t even mentioned in the trial…your personal bias or sympathy that’s not supposed to creep in.” — Eric Fatt [20:23]

6. Why Didn’t the Jury Convict for Sex Trafficking?

[22:40 – 23:53]

• Eric’s analysis: If the jury found the key witnesses (Cassie and Jane) totally credible, “that evidence would be sufficient to find someone guilty of sex trafficking.” Jury had “reservations about credibility…shifting feelings in a complicated relationship.”
• Complex victim narratives: Defense (and perhaps the jury) saw ambiguity in long, on-again/off-again abusive relationships and decisions made by the victims.

7. The ‘Me Too’ Pendulum and Personal Agency Debate

[23:53 – 26:40]

• Societal shift: Big cultural swing—moving from “believe all women” to demands for visible, decisive agency by victims.
• Jury skepticism: Modern juries may be resisting abuse narratives unless evidence is “brutal clear cut packaging.”
• Example: “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? …at some point, that’s on you.” — Tony Brueski [24:50]
• Eric’s reflection: Movements swing from credulity to skepticism, impacting verdicts; Cassie and Jane’s cases landed during a period of increased skepticism.

8. Media & Public Perception Effects

[26:40 – 28:30]

• Media hype: Jurors likely influenced by extensive, often sensational media coverage, with most having seen the crucial Cassie video before selection. “The hype was so high at the beginning…the expectations were so high…and then once we get into the actual trial…just a different impression that the jury got in that courtroom.” — Eric Fatt [27:40]

9. Sentencing, Bail, and Diddy’s Future

[28:30 – 31:31]

• No bail: Judge chose to keep Diddy jailed pending sentencing, reflecting seriousness of offenses and potential flight risk.
• Eric’s assessment: “If the judge was considering a sentence on the very low end…why not just let him out now?...I think it suggests the judge is considering something significant.” Estimated sentence: Around 5 years in prison, Diddy to serve 85% (approx. 4+ years), factoring in lack of criminal history and seriousness of the counts.

10. Redemption and Civil Proceedings

[31:31 – 34:57]

• Redemption possible? Tony and Eric note America’s “love of redemption stories” and compare to cases like Kevin Spacey, Louis CK, even Donald Trump.
• Civil suit momentum: Split criminal verdict may hurt plaintiffs in pending civil suits. Jurors there may be influenced by the criminal case outcome: “Maybe this stuff is a little trumped up…maybe Diddy isn’t the villain he’s been cast.”
• Civil forfeiture debate: With acquittal on main charges, government may struggle to seize Diddy’s property as “instruments of crime.”

11. The Big Takeaway: Jury System in Question

[34:57 – End]

• Deep systemic concern: Our justice system's reliance on lay juries for complex cases may be flawed, producing verdicts shaped by confusion, Netflix-style assumptions, and bias rather than clear legal analysis. “We keep handing them modern legal complexity…expecting a group of civilians with zero legal training to interpret and apply all of it flawlessly. Then we act shocked when the verdicts don’t make sense.” — Tony Brueski [34:57]
• Abuse myth: Society still expects “perfect victims” and doubts the reality of abuse if victims aren’t visibly distressed or demonstrably fighting back.
• Justice in limbo: Diddy remains behind bars, civil cases and sentencing to follow, but the deeper reckoning is only beginning.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• “Physical violence, even captured in high def surveillance, isn’t enough to convince a jury that a rich famous man was running a long term criminal operation targeting women.” — Tony Brueski [06:23]

• "If Diddy were a rando with a burner phone and a Motel 6 rewards card, we wouldn’t even be having this conversation. He’d already be in prison." — Tony Brueski [06:31]

• “You can bring the bruises, the video, the trauma, and still be told, sorry, not enough.” — Tony Brueski [12:05]

• "Oftentimes I’ll go back with the jury after the verdict…some of the stuff you hear is like, wait a sec, that wasn’t even mentioned in the trial…your personal bias or sympathy that’s not supposed to creep in." — Eric Fatt [20:23]

• “There is agency that we have…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?” — Tony Brueski [24:50]

---

Timestamps for Major Segments

• [02:17] — The Diddy Verdict Breakdown
• [05:25] — Mixed Courtroom Reactions
• [06:23] — Systemic Issues: Power and Justice
• [12:05] — Survivors, Trauma, and the Limits of Justice
• [16:08] — Are Jurors Qualified for Modern Trials?
• [20:23] — Eric Fatt on Jury Confusion & Bias
• [22:40] — Was This a Clear Sex Trafficking Case?
• [23:53] — Agency, Victimhood, and the Me Too Pendulum
• [26:40] — Media Coverage Effects
• [28:30] — No Bail Decision & Sentencing Prospects
• [31:31] — Redemption Arc for Diddy?
• [33:12] — Impact on Civil Suits
• [34:57] — Verdicts, Legal Complexity, and the System’s Future

---

Conclusion

This episode of The Downfall of Diddy offers a razor-sharp deconstruction of the Diddy trial, its verdict, and the challenges modern justice faces when celebrity, money, and complicated victim narratives collide in courtrooms. Through layered discussion and pointed critique—supported by legal expertise—it asks not only what happened, but what it means for justice moving forward and who, ultimately, the system is built to protect.

Want to weigh in? Tony asks listeners to join the conversation on YouTube and stay updated as the fallout continues—because, as he notes: "This case isn't over."

---

Transcript

[Sarah]

Hey, this is Sarah. Look, I'm standing out front of a.m. p.m. Right now and well, you're sweet and all, but I found something more fulfilling, even kind of cheesy. But I like it. Sure, you met some of my dietary needs, but they've just got it all. So farewell. Oatmeal. So long, you strange soggy.

[Hidden Killers Announcer]

Break up with bland breakfast and taste.

[Tony Bruski]

AM PM's bacon, egg and cheese biscuit made with K tree eggs, smoked bacon and melty cheese on a buttery biscuit. AMPM Too much good stuff.

[Travel Texas Announcer]

Calling all sightseers and selfie takers. Welcome to Texas, where a day on our hiking trails will lead to a lifetime of memories and family road trips become family legends where thrill seekers make a splash into spring fed pools and picky eaters will clean their plates. This is your invitation to visit Texas and see it for yourself. Visit traveltexas.com and plan your family's trip today. That's Texas.

[Wayfair Announcer]

Big news. The sale of the season is here. It's Wayfair's Black Friday sale and it's on now. Right now, get up to 80% off everything home and everything you need for the season ahead. Save on quality furniture for every room in the house, essentials for the guest room, whether it's new bedding or a new mattress, kitchen and dining must haves for all your hosting needs and seasonal home finds like throw pillows and decor or favorites that you'll use all year long. And with amazing doorbuster deals from November20 through December 2, you can shop the things you love at even lower prices at Wayfair. Plus, you can sit back and relax. With Wayfair's fast and easy shipping, everything home comes straight to your home. And the best part? Free delivery. Just in time for the holidays, this Black Friday, Wayfair deals are bigger and better than ever. There's no place like home for the holidays and no place like Wayfair for Black Friday savings. So don't wait. Black Friday ends soon. Shop Wayfair's Black Friday sale now and save up to 80% [e-mail] Wayfair Every style, every home.

[Hidden Killers Announcer]

This is Hidden Killers Year in Review. A look back at the biggest stories of 2025. This is continuing coverage of United States versus Sean Diddy combs from the Hidden Killers podcast and True crime today.

[Tony Bruski]

The Diddy verdict is in. What happened, what it means, and what comes next is what we are about to break down for you right here. So what happened? Let's just rip the band aid off. Sean diddy Combs, music mogul, mogul of moguls, hip hop billionaire, allegedly just got handed a mixed verdict that feels like it came out of a Netflix legal drama written by a team of interns. After weeks of gut wrenching testimony, disturbing video evidence, a mountain of credible witnesses, a New York jury found Diddy guilty on only two charges. Transporting women across state lines for the purposes of prostitution. That's it. 2. The same number of drinks you'd order at happy hour before deciding this world has officially lost the plot. And the rest of the. He was acquitted on the three heavy hitter charges. Sex trafficking, sex trafficking, conspiracy and racketeering. Yeah, those charges, the ones the whole case basically revolved around. Not guilty. Despite the fact that we all saw the 2016 hotel hallway video of Diddy violently assaulting Cassie Ventura. Multiple women testified to being groomed, coerced and drugged. There were accounts of freak off sex parties where women were allegedly drugged and paraded around for the entertainment of rich men. Kid Cudi said Diddy blew up his car literally as an explosion. So let's recap here. Diddy didn't take the stand. His defense didn't call a single witness, not even a character reference. He just sat there silent, banking on one thing. Doubt. And in the end, it worked. The jury convicted him of the meh charges, although they do hold significant penalties and will likely put him away in prison for some time. And we'll get to that in just a moment. While putting on the charges that would have actually defined the legacy of this trial, they punted that down the road, saying, nope, we're, we're. No, he didn't do those. We don't think so. Keep in mind, everything we've seen on the outside here, all these documentaries, all the reporting, all of that, not all of that was in court. Not everyone has been seeing those things. On the outside world, yes, we have. On the inside world of Diddy, in the court setting, only pieces of that were put on as evidence against Sean Diddy Combs or were allowed to be put on as evidence against Sean Diddy Combs. Now, to be fair and legally accurate, transporting someone for sex without coercion is still a federal crime. But it's the difference between being branded a violent trafficker of women versus a sleazy guy with a private jet and a Rolex. Full of bad decisions. After the verdict, the courtroom reaction has been mixed. And as of this recording, they are still in court. As we're recording this. It is the day of this verdict and the debate. As of this hour, as of our recording of this is whether or not to allow Diddy to walk free today, unveil on his own recognizance back to his Miami home, or awaiting the actual sentencing, which, like I said, will likely result in jail time. Up to 10 years on each of these counts. So he could face up to 20 years in prison. That's nothing to sniff at. Will he likely spend that much time in prison? Likely not. But he's going to likely go away for some period of time. Not enough for him to come back and make a comeback, if you will. If the world is willing to take it, which it seems the world is willing to take about anything these days, doesn't it? After the verdict, the courtroom reaction, like I said, it's been mixed. Some gasps, some sighs. Diddy on his knees, praying in the courtroom. Diddy's team smirked like they just pulled off a heist. The survivors and the supporters, shell shocked because they brought the receipts, they brought the stories, they brought their trauma and it still wasn't enough. Diddy is still in federal custody. Like I said, he has not been released. And considering the severity of the charges he was convicted on and the prior denial of bail, it's really anyone's guess right now exactly what is going to happen. He is a first time offender as well, which will also play into this. But there is a very large reality that Diddy could be walking out of that courtroom later today day, catching a flight back to Miami where he's gonna be staying at his home until the actual sentencing takes place. Either later in this month or early August, likely. We don't have a date on that as of yet. So that's what happened. What does it all mean? Let's not mince words. This verdict is a masterclass in how America handles power, patriarchy in prosecution. First, let's talk about the video. This is the video where Cassie Ventura is in. The one where Diddy runs down a hallway and a towel grabs Cassie, throws her to the ground, kicks her and walks away like it's just another Tuesday. That wasn't an alleged event. This was an on tape event. And the jury still found him not guilty on the sex trafficking charge related to her. What that tells us is this physical violence, even captured in high def surveillance, isn't enough to convince a jury that a rich famous man was running a long term criminal operation targeting women. If that's not the legal threshold, then what is? Because let's be real, if Diddy were a rando with a burner phone and a Motel 6 rewards card. We wouldn't even be having this conversation. He'd already be in prison. The decision sets a dangerous precedent. It sends a message to abusers with resources. A message that they have known and lived by for many, many a decades. Really, say millennia. That as long as you don't leave a paper trail labeled sex trafficking for dummies, you might just skate. And that's not just disappointing, it's terrifying. Because this case wasn't about one bad night. It was about a pattern, a culture, an ecosystem of fear, manipulation and control. Victims described a ditty who isolated them, paid them, threatened them, flew them across states and drugged them. He allegedly beat them, stalked them, retaliated when they tried to leave. One woman said she had to escape with the help of hotel staff. Another said she was filmed without consent. But here's the rub. None of that was enough for racketeering. Why? Because racketeering requires a criminal enterprise. And apparently being a billionaire with a long history of questionable behavior doesn't count. Unless you're also filling W2s for your enforcers. The jury did convict him of transporting women for sex, but even that feels like a slap on the wrist compared to what was laid out in court and what reality has shown us he has done. It's like busting Al Capone for jaywalking. The verdict also highlights a persistent problem in the justice system. The myth of a perfect victim. Cassie stayed with Diddy. Other women accepted money. Some parties looked consensual on the outside, and juries. Regular people who still watch Law and Order like it's a documentary can't always wrap their heads around coercion when it doesn't come with a ski mask and duct tape. In reality, power and money are more effective tools of control than any weapon. But our legal system still struggles to process that unless it comes gift wrapped in violence in clear paper trails. So what's next? Now, just because Diddy dodged the big one does not mean he is in the clear. Let's be clear on that. He's still facing sentencing for the two counts he was convicted of. Each count carries up to 10 years in prison. So yes, he could technically serve 20 years. But will he? Probably not. And let's be honest. With the maximum sentencing, we're looking at the possibility of plea deals, appeals, and the kind of legal gymnastics only the ultra rich can afford. Importantly, he, like I said, is still behind bars as of this moment. Bail was previously denied, and with felony convictions now on record, the chances of pre sentencing Release, they're more 50, 50 than slim to none as they were before. So there is a possibility he's not walking free yet, and possibly not for a very long time. Sentencing will likely become a battle of image rehab versus judicial discretion. Except the defense. Expect the defense to roll out every philanthropic project Diddy ever touched, every orphanage he visited, every dollar he donated. They'll paint him as the misunderstood Mother Teresa artist who lost his way, not a violent predator who systematically harmed women. Meanwhile, survivors will continue to speak out. Civil suits are still pending. More victims will likely come forward. The pressures aren't going away, and neither is the public outrage. The court of law may have partially cleared him, but the court of public opinion that's still in session. As this trial peeled back the layers of who Diddy allegedly is. When the lights are off and the cameras are gone. And even if the jury couldn't call it trafficking, the rest of us know what it is, and it is chilling. It's also possible, though let's not hold our breath, that this verdict sparks reform. Conversations about what constitutes coercion, how power dynamics work in abuse cases, why videos of violence still don't guarantee conviction. That is, if anyone in Washington is brave enough to go there. For now, though, Diddy remains in custody. And for every survivor watching, it's a brutal reminder that truth doesn't always win in court, that you can bring the bruises, the video, the trauma, and still be told, sorry, not enough. Let's not forget it took years for these stories to reach a courtroom at all. Years of silence and fear, NDAs threats, shame, and many, many other emotions. The fact that Diddy was even put on trial at this level is already a sea change. And while the legal outcome may be partial justice at best, the cultural reckoning isn't done because the stories are out, the video is out, and no verdict can unring that bell. Let's see what happens when these sentences come down. Let's see how many more people and how many more women step up now that the veil is lifted. Or will this hold them back? Will this silence more people going, well, I can put myself through that hell, but will it do any good? And let's see if the justice system catches up to reality, the reality we've all seen with our own eyes. For now, we're watching. And we won't forget there are still many civil cases against Diddy. The burden of proof in a civil case is a bit different than a criminal case. You have preponderance of evidence there, and it doesn't have to be a full jury that agrees it's basically majority and there's a lot of cases over there. It will happen. Time will tell. This man's gonna be in court for a very long time and behind bars very likely for a point of time as well. Enough time to get out and try and reinvent himself. Very likely. Will we see Diddy the preacher? That's my prediction. What do you guys think? What is going to happen next in the saga of Diddy? Tell me in the comments on YouTube. If you're not on YouTube yet, search hitting Killers with Tony Bruski. You'll find us there. And you can weigh in as well. Be sure to press subscribe wherever you're downloading podcasts. You don't miss any of our updates. And this case and all of the cases that we follow for you right here at the Hidden Killers Podcast. Podcast and True Crime Today. I'm Tony Bruski. We'll talk again real soon.

[Hidden Killers Announcer]

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. This is continuing coverage of United States vs Sean Diddy Combs from the Hidden Killers Podcast and True Crime Today.

[Tony Bruski]

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 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 Fatt, is 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 MeToo pendulum. Is it swinging back our 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 wanna 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, I mean, as an attorney, I'm really curious if there should be something else that we do here because it feels like there's a lot of confusion at the end of the day about what what definitionally things mean and how it applies to a case. Should we have something in place even before any testimony is even given? Just little lesson plan, everybody. Here's what these words mean. Do you understand what they mean? Not in context to the case, but just here's what this means. So if these things are presented to you, you can then process them and fully grasp what the hell was going on around you. Cause it seems we're getting more confusion than we're getting actual verdicts that are based on the letter of the you're talking about upending a whole system here, but is that a problem that we're seeing with We've probably always seen it to a certain extent, but there's a lot of dumb out there. I'm just wondering how much is dumb in infiltrating our jury system and really not allowing it to be truly accurate verdicts and juries of our peers?

[Eric Fatt]

Oh gosh. Not to sound disparaging, but I've done around 60 jury trials and oftentimes I'll go back back with the jury after the verdict And I'll learn about, hey, why did you decide this way? Or what were you considering? And some of the stuff you hear is like, wait a sec, that wasn't even mentioned in the trial. Wait a sec. This is just like kind of your personal bias or sympathy that's not supposed to creep in. And so, you know, could we have something like a half a day prep for jurors perhaps on bigger cases that just orient them to the system and to what their duties are? You know, we already. They already have a speech they listen to in Colorado for like an hour.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah.

[Eric Fatt]

In a jury room. Why not elongate that a little bit? What's the harm?

[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. For some people. And that's gotta be frustrating back there in the jury room for anybody who, you know, does pay close attention. You got somebody who's just stuck and for whatever reason, not just seeing reality for what it is. And I'm not, I am saying they got it wrong here. I really think they did. But was it their fault or was it the prosecution's fault for not spelling this out in a clearer way? I mean, when you look at this at the end of the day, I mean, I know you could look at it, I could look at it. A lot of people who are educated could look at it and go, here's what it is. But did they need to make this more idiot proof?

[Eric Fatt]

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 as a commercial sex act by force, fraud or coercion, and that's sex trafficking. So they tried, but they failed.

[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, but, I mean, but was it a pretty clear sex trafficking case at the end of the day? Was there any. Is it really, Is it. Should, should this be up for debate that this was not sex trafficking at.

[Eric Fatt]

The end of the day, 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.

[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 it was this kind of. I mean, has a pendulum swung back the other way now on me too, almost to an extent of people saying, look, yes, there is coercion, yes, there is influence, yes, there's intimidation. All that stuff does exist. But there is also, 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?

[Eric Fatt]

You know, it's fascinating looking at the evolution of these social movements. You look at me, too, in the very beginning, you know, certainly there was righteous indignation and for good reason. And where we were at kind of a society is like, believe all women whenever they come forward with an accusation. And then, you know, as. As the years went by, there were some instances where we learned, hey, you know, maybe don't believe 100% all women. Every time they say anything or any person who claims to have been victimized. You know, we got to have some balance there. So then I think we sort of shifted to the other side, to where, like you said, there's an element of personal accountability that folks are looking to see that jurors might be looking to see. You know, we look at with the George Floyd.

[Tony Bruski]

Too.

[Eric Fatt]

You know, initially it was like, defund the police and all police are terrible. And then over time, it was kind of like, well, we need some police.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah.

[Eric Fatt]

And so it's sort of just that pendulum that continues to shift. And for Cassie and Jane, it was at the wrong position during this trial.

[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, Grant, we heard it through reporters. We weren't in that courtroom. So I guess I wonder about that a little bit. Do you think the way that this was reported out on and the way the public really felt this was the slam dunk was just. Was that an effect of the reporting on this and kind of the vitriol of the reporting? I don't know if there was any reporting that wasn't a bit biased, that was not rooting for Diddy to go down in flames. I think it was kind of the angle of all reporting on this for the most part. Was there a little bit too quick of a run to judgment here? Because the act sounded horrible, but maybe it wasn't delivered quite as strongly as what was being reported on.

[Eric Fatt]

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 Cassie video. And so I think there's this preconceived notion on these jurors minds about what this must have been. And then once we get into the actual trial and you hear the testimony and it might be a little bit more measured, might be a little less horrendous, or maybe not, but just a different impression that the jury got in that courtroom that was contrasted from what they had been led to believe before. Certainly those expectations and those not being met that could factor into how a jury decides a case.

[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 lawtubers 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?

[Eric Fatt]

Not terribly surprised, no. 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 Cassidy 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.

[Tony Bruski]

Yeah, let's go there. What do you think the relative immediate future holds for Diddy?

[Eric Fatt]

Yeah, so I see. You know, if the judge was considering a sentence on the very low end, like time, sir, for example, or one or two years, then, gosh, why not just let him out now? It's just that we're just talking a few months and if you're going to let him out anyway, it would seem consistent with a decision to allow bond here. The judge didn't allow bond. You know, does that signal that the judge is considering a more substantial prison sentence down the road? Because if the judge was, then it wouldn't make sense to let him out on bond for, you know, a few months to hang out and then put him back in a box for seven years. So 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.

[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?

[Eric Fatt]

I'm thinking they're gonna settle somewhere around five, somewhere around five years in prison. Diddy would do around 85% of that. You know, the judge is gonna take into consideration the lack of criminal history. Judge is gonna take into consideration the seriousness of the charge. Now the charge isn't terribly serious. It's really a, basically a misdemeanor state level prostitution charge. And then you add in that you, 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.

[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 said, 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?

[Eric Fatt]

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 it? You know, you look at Donald Trump, he was convicted of 34 felonies. There were all these alle about sexual misconduct. And he's the President of the United States right now. So is it possible? You bet it's possible.

[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.

[Eric Fatt]

Yeah. So I was thinking about this yesterday. You know, you look at momentum, you look at, you know, Diddy's got the momentum now. And you know, the folks who are going to be jurors on those civil cases, if they do go to trial, have probably heard about this outcome. And perhaps that creates an impression in the minds of some folks that, hey, maybe this stuff is a little trumped up. Maybe it was exaggerated, maybe it was overcharged. Maybe Diddy isn't the villain that he's been cast. And does that weaken the civil cases and their ability to recover money in a settlement? I think, yeah, I wonder.

[Tony Bruski]

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, like 70 or something. I wonder what's going to happen with that and what level is going to happen and what damage, if any, it's going to do to Diddy, you know, financially going forward, or if we're just going to see a whole bunch of settlements coming through like he had been in the past. Cause he's, you know, in terms of civil forfeiture, what's going on with that? I mean, is there any civil forfeiture here?

[Eric Fatt]

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. They're alleging that they were instruments of criminal activity. But when you go to trial and you're acquitted, are they really instruments of criminal activity at that point? Is civil forfeiture appropriate at that point? I'm not sure. But there's certainly a collectibility issue with respect to these civil cases.

[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. What 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 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 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 men 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.

[Hidden Killers Announcer]

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.