Interview Only: CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig breaks down Diddy's jury selection and trial.

Summary

Summary of The Stephen A. Smith Show Episode: Interview with CNN Legal Analyst Elie Honig on Diddy's Trial

Release Date: May 6, 2025

In this episode of The Stephen A. Smith Show, host Stephen A. Smith engages in a comprehensive discussion with CNN legal analyst Elie Honig regarding the high-profile federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. The conversation delves deep into various facets of the case, including the implications of jury selection, defense strategies, prosecutorial maneuvers, and the overall outlook of the trial.

---

1. Introduction to the Case

Timestamp: 01:15

Stephen A. Smith sets the stage by outlining the gravity of Sean Combs' federal trial. Combs faces serious charges of sex trafficking and racketeering, with prosecutors alleging the abuse and exploitation of numerous victims over decades. The stakes are immense, as a conviction could result in a lifetime sentence for Combs.

---

2. Combs Declining the Plea Deal

Timestamp: 02:31 – 03:12

Smith addresses the unexpected decision by Combs to reject a plea bargain that offered a reduced sentence. Elie Honig explains:

"He appears to believe he's got a shot at winning this trial, otherwise, he would have taken that plea." (03:12)

Honig suggests that Combs and his legal team are confident in their ability to contest the charges, despite the high risks involved, including the possibility of a minimum 15-year sentence or life imprisonment.

---

3. Jury Selection Process

Timestamp: 03:19 – 06:30

The conversation shifts to the intricacies of jury selection in federal court, which Honig notes is typically faster than in state courts. However, the high-profile nature of Combs introduces complexities:

"Everybody who comes in there as a prospective juror will have at least heard something about Sean Combs, about Diddy." (04:00)

Honig emphasizes the challenge of finding impartial jurors given the widespread public awareness of the case. He anticipates jury selection to be completed by midweek and discusses the defense’s strategy to identify jurors without prior knowledge or bias against Combs.

---

4. Defense Strategy: Portraying Combs as a Swinger

Timestamp: 06:30 – 10:43

Smith probes into the defense's approach of characterizing Combs as a "swinger" who engaged in consensual sexual activities, including third parties. Honig elaborates:

"There's no federal crime of being a freak. There's no federal crime of having these sort of aggressive, unusual sexual appetites." (07:45)

The defense aims to undermine the prosecution's narrative by suggesting that any misconduct was consensual and personal, not criminal. They also intend to question the credibility of the victims, portraying them as seeking financial gain through their testimonies.

---

5. Developments in the Case

Timestamp: 07:45 – 09:27

Honig shares insights on recent case developments, noting that the indictment remains relatively unchanged despite numerous civil suits:

"It's a very unusual case in that the charge is racketeering, ... yet he's the only defendant." (08:05)

This singular focus on Combs is atypical for racketeering charges, which usually involve multiple defendants. The defense is expected to challenge the prosecution on why Combs is the sole target, potentially suggesting prosecution overreach.

---

6. Impact of Video Evidence and Witness Testimonies

Timestamp: 10:16 – 13:08

A pivotal piece of evidence is a video showing Combs assaulting his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Honig asserts its significant role in the prosecution's case:

"That video is the prosecution's single most important and most powerful piece of evidence." (10:43)

He anticipates that the defense will attempt to diminish Ventura's credibility, arguing that her testimony is motivated by personal gain rather than truth. Additionally, Honig discusses how prior public statements and documentary appearances by witnesses will be scrutinized and used for cross-examination.

---

7. Confidence in the Prosecution's Case

Timestamp: 13:08 – 14:53

Discussing the Southern District of New York (SDNY), Honig remains cautiously optimistic about the prosecution's strength, despite acknowledging its high conviction rates:

"I would put it, you know, if I had to make a picture, I would say 75, 80% that he gets convicted." (13:32)

He emphasizes that while the SDNY is renowned for its effectiveness, no legal entity is infallible. The compelling evidence, including the assault video and victim testimonies, bolster the prosecution's position, making a conviction likely.

---

8. Prosecutorial Strategy and Plea Offers

Timestamp: 14:53 – 17:13

Honig explores why prosecutors might offer a plea deal even with a strong case:

"You lock in a conviction, you move on to sentencing. And let's keep in mind, there's always a risk ... of jury nullification." (15:54)

Prosecutors may seek to secure a guaranteed conviction and avoid the uncertainties and costs associated with a trial, especially in high-profile cases where public opinion and jury dynamics are unpredictable.

---

9. Courtroom Media Access

Timestamp: 17:13 – 17:40

Addressing the media coverage of the trial, Honig expresses frustration with the lack of transparency:

"Federal courts are dinosaurs. They refuse to allow not only cameras but even live audio feeds." (17:18)

He advocates for more openness in federal trials, suggesting that public access could enhance the judicial process's transparency and accountability.

---

10. Conclusion and Final Insights

Timestamp: 17:40 – 19:05

As the interview wraps up, Honig reiterates his expectations of the trial's outcome, supporting the likelihood of a conviction given the evidence and prosecutorial strength. He underscores the high stakes for Combs and the unpredictable nature of jury deliberations in such a sensational case.

---

Notable Quotes:

• Elie Honing (03:12): "He appears to believe he's got a shot at winning this trial, otherwise, he would have taken that plea."

• Elie Honing (07:45): "There's no federal crime of being a freak. There's no federal crime of having these sort of aggressive, unusual sexual appetites."

• Elie Honing (10:43): "That video is the prosecution's single most important and most powerful piece of evidence."

• Elie Honing (13:32): "I would put it, you know, if I had to make a picture, I would say 75, 80% that he gets convicted."

---

This episode provides listeners with an in-depth analysis of the Sean Combs trial, offering expert perspectives on legal strategies, case developments, and the broader implications of such a high-stakes legal battle. Elie Honig's insights shed light on the complexities of federal prosecutions, especially those involving well-known public figures, and underscore the unpredictable nature of jury decisions in the American legal system.

Transcript

[Podcast Host]

You're listening to an iHeart podcast at&t has a New Guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed In a world where nothing is guaranteed AT and T is bringing something new to the table AT and T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity you can depend on deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn [e-mail] guarantee@&t connecting changes Everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.com guaranty for details.

[Chumba Casino Advertiser]

How to have fun anytime anywhere. Step 1 Go to chumbacasino.com chumbacasino.com Got it. Step 2 Collect your welcome Bonus Come to Papa. Welcome Bonus Step 3 Play hundreds of Casino style Games for Free.

[Ellie Honing]

That's a lot of games all for free.

[Chumba Casino Advertiser]

Steps Step 4 Unleash youh Excitement Chumba Casino has been delivering thrills for over a decade. So claim your free welcome bonus now and live the chumba life. Visit chumbacasino.com no purchase necessary vgw group.

[Ellie Honing]

Void where prohibited by law 21 + terms and conditions apply.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Let'S get to New York, where jury selection began today in a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean Diddy Combs. Federal prosecutors allege Combs used his power and wealth to sexually abuse chorus and exploit alleged victims for decades. If convicted, Combs would be spending the rest of his life in federal prison. Defense attorneys for Combs contend that all of his sexual encounters were consensual and have described the music mogul as a swinger who invited third parties into his bedroom. Last week, federal prosecutors offered Combs a chance to plead guilty for reduced sentence. He turned down that offer. Joining us now, obviously, to discuss the trial, is Ellie Honing, legal analyst for cnn, who's been on this show many times. One of our favorites. What's up, Ellie? How are you, man? How's everything, Stephen?

[Ellie Honing]

This is, this is gonna be a fascinating trial. This is the courthouse I used to practice in, so I can bring you inside the huddle on this one.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Well, I can't wait for you to do that. First things first, him turning down a plea deal for a lesser charge, is that something to be expected? Should that be considered a surprise? What do you make of that?

[Ellie Honing]

You know, it's an interesting little bit of last minute gamesmanship here. It's not that uncommon for prosecutors to make an offer on the eve of trial. Now the big question is, what were they offering? Right? It's one thing if they were offering him 12 years. It's another thing, if they were offering him three years or something like that, I. The fact that he said no, you know, I guess it depends again on what the offer is. But he's dug in. Look, he. He appears to believe he's got a shot at winning this trial, otherwise, he would have taken that plea. Because the downside here, if he loses this trial, Stephen, he's going to get 15 years minimum, and as you said before, up to life. So Sean Combs and his lawyer must have sat down and said, look, there's a chance to get out of this for less. But, but they're comfortable rolling the dice. Those are very high consequence dice to roll, though.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Let's get to the jury selection, Ellie, which obviously started today. How long should we expect this process to take place?

[Ellie Honing]

So this is federal court. Federal jury selection is way quicker than state jury selection.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Right.

[Ellie Honing]

We've seen state cases drag on for weeks and weeks and weeks. I have had juries selected in multiple murder cases in two days or so. Now we have the complication in this case that everybody knows the defendant. Everyone who comes in there as a prospective juror will have at least heard something about Sean Combs, about Diddy. So that takes longer to wade through. I am certain we will have a jury by the end of the week. If I had to guess, I would say we'll have one by Wednesday. Federal court moves pretty quick when it comes to jury selection.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Given the charges federal prosecutors levied against Diddy, what type of jury should his defense team want to see, actually?

[Ellie Honing]

So this is where the gamesmanship comes in, Stephen. I'll never forget something that when I was a young prosecutor, a veteran defense lawyer who'd been practicing 40, 50 years, said to me something like, jury selection isn't just the big deal, it's the whole ball game. I mean, these are the people who decide the case. Now, let's think about this from the defense side. Like you said, you're Sean Combs, you're Sean Combs's lawyer. What are you worried about here? To me, it's pretty obvious you want to avoid anyone who, A, knows about this case, mostly everyone does, and B, just has their mind made up, has already come to some sort of judgment. There will be many, many questions asked of the jurors, the potential jurors. Have you heard about this case? Have you formed any opinions? Could you still consider the evidence fairly? But look, the fact of the matter is this case has gotten an enormous amount of publicity. Sean Combs, since the indictment came down, has been the subject of all sorts of criticism of jokes in the media. And I would be looking out for people who already had their minds made up against him and could not come in there and judge the case fairly and impartially. But the catch, though, Stephen, is a lot of people will say, oh, yeah, I could be fair and impartial. I could put aside everything I've heard. But this is where your gut instinct comes in as a lawyer. I tried. I tried a case against John Gotti Jr. Right? Everyone had heard of the guy. A lot of. A lot of jurors said, oh, I could be fair. But then it gets into that gut, like, do I believe him? Am I sensing something weird, that I don't think this person could be impartial? So defense is looking for people who've already convicted the guy, but defense is.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Also looking for people who don't, who know little to nothing about the case. I would imagine. How plausible is that in considering how high profile he is, that people don't have foregone conclusions because they're completely oblivious to what's going on.

[Ellie Honing]

Right. So you'd be amazed the types of answers you get from these potential jurors who sometimes, like, have barely heard of things. I think everyone's going to have to say they've heard of the guy. I imagine 90% of the people will know, well, I know he was in some trouble, but I actually think you're right. I don't think that many people are going to say, well, I know he's charged with racketeering and sex trafficking and all that. I think they're going to just basically come down to, well, I know he got arrested. I know he's in trouble. I know it has something to do with sex and coercion and that kind of thing. So that's going to be a key question. How much do you know about this case? How much do you know about the charges? Have you read the indictment? Have you seen this story covered on cnn, on Stephen A show? And you're just, it's a guessing game, right? It really does come down to your instinct. But, yeah, if I'm the defense, I would want someone who knows less about the case. But on the other hand, if you get someone who's like, I've never heard of this guy. I've never heard of the case, then you start wondering, like, is there something off about this juror? And maybe I don't want that.

[Stephen A. Smith]

What about the defense team from this perspective? They've already put out, they've described the music mogul As a swinger who invited third parties into his bedroom, I'm like, is that a detail that you wanted to just let out as a defense team? I don't know what to make of that. What say you?

[Ellie Honing]

Third parties and fourth parties and fifth parties and six parties, apparently. But that is going to be the defense. And look, I know it's maybe not the greatest PR move in the world, but it's a viable defense. And I think this will be the core of the defense. It'll boil down to maybe he's a freak, ladies and gentlemen of the jury. But there's no federal crime of being a freak. There's no federal crime of having these sort of aggressive, unusual sexual appetites. But going hand in hand with that, that's not going to be enough on its own because you're going to have victims and witnesses testifying. You say, he coerced me, he threatened me, he assaulted me. And so they're going to have to combine that. Maybe he's a swinger, but that's not a crime. With an attack on the victims in the courtroom, they're going to have to suggest that these victims, these witnesses have bad motives. They're looking for a payday. They made up stories about him, it became a pylon, and they all sort of picked up on each other's stories. And that's a common defense you see in these sort of multi victim, multi witness cases. So I think that's exactly what the defense is going to be.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Since the last time you were on here weeks ago, have there been anything. Has there been anything additional as it pertains to information or, you know, or findings that have transpired over the last few weeks that you find potentially alarming or potentially beneficial to Diddy? To the Diddy case itself?

[Ellie Honing]

Yeah. I've actually been surprised the other way, Stephen, which is I thought there would be more victims that are charged in the indictment. I thought there would be more expanded charges. Now, prosecutors have tweaked this indictment up a little bit. They now reference victim one and victim two in the indictment. Apparently there's gonna be a third victim as well. But given the number of civil suits, the dozens of civil suits, I thought that at some point the prosecution would either be A, adding more and more victims than they did, and B, adding more and more defendants. This is a very unusual case in that the charge is racketeering, which means in this case, they're charging Sean Cohen at the head, running a criminal enterprise, yet he's the only defendant. Now, you can do that. R. Kelly is another example of a guy who was a one man racketeering enterprise. But look, I used to charge racketeering cases. I used to teach the course on racketeering within DOJ. My racketeering cases were mob cases. There's 25 guys, 28 guys, 15 guys. So it's unusual and I think a bit surprising to me that the original indictment has more or less remained intact. I would have expected, I think I said to you, Stephen A. Back at the time I thought that there was going to be bigger expansions of this indictment than there were.

[Stephen A. Smith]

And because there aren't, is that an argument the defense makes in his favor? Where the other, where are the other defendants? How come he's the only guy that's really being prosecuted here? Why is it that you haven't been able to find anybody else that you're accusing him of racketeering?

[Ellie Honing]

Oh, you bet they're going to make some variation of that argument. They're going to go, oh my goodness folks, a racketeering enterprise. There must be a lot of people, well, well folks, guess what? They say he's the whole thing. How about all these other guys? How about these bodyguards? How about these handlers? How about these enablers? Now some of them will testify, some of them have been given deals, they've been given immunity or they've been given non prosecution agreements. So some of these people are going to get on the stand and say, yes, I was part of this, yes I helped him out. But in exchange for my testimony I've been given a free pass. Now you know what the counter to that is going to be? They got a sweet deal because they're just telling prosecutors whatever prosecutors want to hear. But it's not uncommon. I mean I made more cooperation deals than I could even remember. So yeah, that's absolutely going to be a dynamic at this trial. He's the only one. They say this is a one man show. You shouldn't believe that. Members of the jury, what about the.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Video, Cassie Ventura, his ex girlfriend, where he ran down the hallway half naked and dragged her through her to the ground, kicked in all of that stuff. We saw that video. First of all, we don't know. I, I'd like to know whether you, you believe that's going to be admissible in this court, case number one. And number two, the fact that she's agreed to testify against him according to the reports. How damning do you believe there is the potential for that to be?

[Ellie Honing]

I think that video is the prosecution single most important and Most powerful piece of evidence. It will come in. By the way, that was the subject of a pretrial ruling. The judge said, yes, you may play the video. Now. The question is going to be what's the relevance? What's the context around it? It appears the prosecutors are going to argue this was part of him threatening, forcing, coercing, abusing this woman as part of his effort to traffic her across state lines for sexual purposes. Apparently the defense is going to be, no, this had nothing to do with the sex trafficking ring or coercion. This was a fight they were having over infidelity. And, you know, I think Cassie will be, Cassandra will be the most important witness for the prosecution. But the attack on her is going to be, she's a liar, she's telling them what they want to hear, she's looking to raise her own profile, she's got a bad financial incentive. And so look, so much of this just comes down to the jurors are going to be sitting feet away from her. I mean, I've been in these courtrooms, they're going to be four feet away from her. And so much of it is just going to come down to how they assess her demeanor. What does she look like, how does she deliver her answers, Is she credible? From what I've seen of her in public, she seems quite credible to me. But people don't always play the same on the witness stand as they do in front of a camera.

[Stephen A. Smith]

What about the documentaries and stuff like that that have been put out about, about him and some of the allegations against him and people essentially co signing on what he's being accused of because they're highlighting his behavior or what it was throughout these years. How much of an impact, if any at all, do you expect that to have?

[Ellie Honing]

So prosecutors cannot obviously just play the documentaries or pieces of the documentaries for the jurors. Right. That would be inadmissible. However, if there's a witness on the stand who has previously spoken in one of these documentaries, and there will be many of those, everything they've said previously can be used to cross examine them, to impeach them, as we say. So if a witness gets on the stand and says something a little different than what he or she said in a documentary or leaves out a detail or adds a detail that they didn't say in the documentary, then that's absolutely fair game for cross examination. And I assume in this case, if the prosecutors are any good at their jobs, and I'm sure they are, it's my former office, they have not just whatever the documentaries are, but the raw footage that came before it. Because a lot of times you'll do a two hour interview and it'll end up being 12 minutes on the documentary. So I assure you both sides have watched that footage very carefully and it's all in play just the same. If it was prior testimony to a police officer in front of a grand jury, it can be used.

[Stephen A. Smith]

You've raved about your former place of occupation, Southern District of New York, and what it brings to the table in terms of its high conviction rate, et cetera, et cetera. You still feeling as, as confident in their case, considering their reputation and what they bring to the table, you're still feeling as confident with, with the whole Diddy, with this whole Diddy matter against them?

[Ellie Honing]

That's a great question. So I, I, of course, you know, look, I came up through this office. I, I have a reverence for it, but I, I, I certainly do not think the SDNY is infallible. They've made a lot of missteps, including most recently, I think, throwing out the Eric Adams case, which I know a lot of the people there pushed back and disagreed with, but that came from up above. No, look, I think the case is a sound case. Looking at the indictment, I think the hype around it, and maybe the SDNY helped promote this hype, got a little beyond what actually ended up happening. But look, the odds are stacked against any criminal defendant in that courthouse. You know, you'll see that conviction rates are 98%. Throw those out. Because that includes guilty pleas, which almost every case pleads guilty. There are no reliable data on how many trials result in conviction. But in my experience, and just following that courthouse, 70, 80% or so of all trials result in conviction. I don't think Sean Combs is going to cut a sympathetic figure here for the jury. I think they're going to hear some horrible things about him. I think the witnesses are going to present some devastating testimony. I think that video that we talked about of the assault is really, really damaging evidence. So I would put it, you know, if I, if I had to make a, make a picture, I would say 75, 80% that he gets convict.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Last question. Is he better off or worse off now than he was when he was first arrested? As it pertains to this case and how he's looking?

[Ellie Honing]

Well, I think he's slightly better off in that it hasn't been this explosion in the number of witnesses. But look, it could get a lot worse. I mean, he was given that Plea offer. Again, we don't know what it was, but he was given a chance to sort of hedge his bets and mitigate his bottom line loss here, and he chose not to do it. And the way these trials work is it's, it's, it's a flip of a coin. It's yes or no. The jury can't come down and say, well, we want to kind of convict them. But if some, you know, I mean, well, look, they can split the verdict. I guess I should say that they can convict them on some accounts, but not others. But man, if he gets convicted on anything in this case, he's looking at double digits plus behind bars. So, so he's, he's take. Look, it's a huge gamble. It's terrifying for anybody to be in that position. You know, I've seen a lot of people go through it. The odds are against him. He has a very good defense team behind him. So anything can happen. But, but his, his life is, is on the line here.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Forgive me, I got one more question I just thought about. If your case is that strong, if you're the Southern District of New York and your case is that strong, why offer him a plea?

[Ellie Honing]

So it could be that they don't think they're, that they could be that they're worried about some aspect of their case. It could be they're worried about one of the witnesses or the victims. It also could be, look, the reason you offer a plea deal when you have a strong case, especially on the eve of trial, is, is A, you might be worried about some aspect of your case, or B, you're just trying to, again, cap your risks. You know, you lock in a conviction, you move on to sentencing. And let's keep in mind, there's always a risk, Stephen, A, of what we call jury nullification, which means when the jury or a single juror just says, I don't really care what the evidence is, I'm going to vote not guilty. And all you need is one. If you're the defense, right. You need all 12 jurors beyond a reasonable doubt to convict. So you get one person on that panel says, I don't know, I don't believe some of these victims. Or I feel bad for Sean Combs. I feel like he's been railroaded. Racial issues could come into play here. You have a black man sitting at the defense table. So a celebrity, a universally known guy. So my fear going into this as the prosecutors would not so much be of an acquittal. I don't think you're going to get 120 not guilty. But you never know. In a high profile cases, cases hang and then that's a win essentially for the defense. You can always retry a hung jury, but it's a nightmare for prosecutors. So it may have been they said, look, if we can lock in a conviction, get X as the penalty, avoid the time and expense of trial and avoid the risk of a hung jury, maybe they calculated that would have been worth it.

[Stephen A. Smith]

This case not going to be televised or anything like that, right? I mean cameras are not going to be allowed in the courtroom or anything. Right? Is that correct?

[Ellie Honing]

Right. Federal courts are dinosaurs. They refuse to allow not only cameras but even live audio feeds. Even the Supreme Court by the way gives us live audio feed now. But they are old fashioned. I am on this soapbox. Stephen A. They need to let cameras in there. The Constitution says public trial. Why are we acting like it's 1840? Show it. We can all watch it. We should get to see it.

[Stephen A. Smith]

Ellie Honing, Senior legal analyst for cnn, one of the best in the business. It'll be much watch television whenever you're on. I can promise you that. Thank you Ellie, man, I really appreciate it man. Take care of yourself.

[Ellie Honing]

Thanks David. I appreciate it. Talk to you soon.

[AT&T Advertiser]

AT&T has a new guarantee because most things in life are not guaranteed. Like getting through self checkout by yourself. Not guaranteed. In a world where nothing is guaranteed, AT T is bringing something new to the table. AT AND T is introducing a guarantee with connectivity you can depend on, deals you want and service you deserve or they make it right. Learn more at att.com guarantee@ and t connecting changes everything. Terms and conditions apply. Visit att.com guarantee for detail.

[Chumba Casino Advertiser]

Behind every successful business is a vision. Bringing it to life takes more than effort. It takes the right financial foundation and support. That's where Chase for Business comes in. With convenient digital tools, helpful resources and personalized guidance, we can help your business forge ahead confidently. Learn [e-mail] business Chase for Business Make More of what's yours. The Chase Mobile app is available for select mobile devices. Message and data rates may apply. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA member FDIC Copyright 2025jpg JPMorgan Chase & Co. You're listening.

[Podcast Host]

To an I Heart podcast.