← The Stephen A. Smith Show
The Stephen A. Smith Show
Interview Only: Discuss federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs, with legal expert Ryan Smith.
00:16:06
Loading summary
Transcript27 lines
- [00:00]
Stephen A. Smith
Foreign Diddy Combs federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial in New York City after six weeks of testimony, the government today has started to present closing arguments in their case against the music mogul. The feds characterized Combs as the leader of a criminal enterprise and that enterprise serviced Combs personal desires through a pattern of, quote, violence, coercion and manipulation, end quote. In addition to that, the feds allege Combs committed several crimes that include kidnapping, arson, forced labor, bribery and sex trafficking. Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges. If convicted on all counts, he could face up to life in prison. Joining me now to break it all down is an attorney and legal analyst extraordinaire for ABC News. You can also catch him on SportsCenter hosting SportsCenter on ESPN. Please welcome back to the show, the one and only Ryan Smith. What's going on, Ryan? How are you doing, man?
- [00:58]
Ryan Smith
Man, I'm good, Stephen. How you doing?
- [01:01]
Stephen A. Smith
I'm tired as hell, but it's always good talking to you, my brother. I've been working like crazy for the last three months, but I'm here. Let's get started with the news yesterday that the feds were withdrawing some of the criminal allegations against Combs ahead of closing arguments today. The move was made as part of an effort to quote, unquote streamline instructions to the jury. Break this down for us please. What exactly happened there and what does it mean?
- [01:24]
Ryan Smith
They are saying they're not going to argue the attempted arson and the attempted kidnapping parts of this case. Now I want to specify this does not apply to the arson that's being alleged against Kid Cudi's car. So that's one that I think a lot of people know about, that they've heard about that's attracted a lot of attention. That's still going to be part of what they're arguing. But what they're trying to do. This kind of to me relates more to the RICO case than anything else. In a RICO case, which is the big charge against Sean Petticombs, you get to bring in all this evidence, all this information. You're trying to basically say did he and somebody else or other people, maybe his, his entourage, other people in his orbit got together, committed two crimes, at least two crimes in a 10 year period in furtherance of the criminal enterprise. But the problem is they've offered so much information in this thing that they have to try to streamline things for the jury. They have to. This is why in this kind of case, cross closing argument becomes everything because you have to Take all this evidence, all this information, all these witnesses, and you got to show that rico, you've got to show that he others got together, they did these two crimes or more in this period of time. But after you start throwing in attempted arson, attempted kidnapping, and you don't think you have a good case against that, you run the risk of the jury saying, well, I don't believe those things, so I don't believe the whole thing. Instead, they're focusing a lot on who bribery is, some of the crimes committed. They're going to probably talk about Kid Cudi's car. They're talking about things like drugs and things like that. All these things are the crimes they're saying are part of RICO are part of the sex trafficking. And they're doing this so that jury of 8 men and 4 women ages 30 to 74 don't get confused in all this information.
- [03:03]
Stephen A. Smith
Yeah, but you say they're doing it not to get confused. What about those who would argue that they're trying to modify their allegations and their accusations against Sean Diddy comes because they didn't make a strong enough case and now they're trying to cover themselves? What about those who believe that, you.
- [03:18]
Ryan Smith
Know, it's not a bad argument because in some ways you got to wonder if somebody on that it only takes one. I always want to say that it only takes one because this didn't have to be unanimous. Only takes one juror to say, I'm not buying something here. I don't believe this. I see reasonable doubt. And you could argue that maybe a juror will look at this and say, well, what about this thing that I thought I heard about an attempted arson or kidnapping? Now what the prosecution is trying to do is trying to say, that's not going to be part of the instruction. So you're not even supposed to think about that stuff. But we can't control human nature of what they might have heard. I do understand people saying, hey, they didn't prove something here, so they're trying to cover themselves. But this does happen in cases. Sometimes you present a lot in a case. You're trying to determine what is part of the case, especially as you're trying to tie it up in closing arguments and you try to get in the instructions, hey, tell the jury not to consider these things because this is not part of what we're trying to do. And Stephen A. The flip side of I think people trying to criticize the prosecution on this is the fact that the prosecution is in there right now saying there are A whole host of crimes that were a part of the criminal enterprise. We don't need those two because we got scores of others that Diddy did here. And so that to me says the prosecutor is just trying to say we don't have to consider everything we've talked about, but we have a lot of stuff that he did wrong that's criminal that we can still convict him on. And jury, you should look at that.
- [04:40]
Stephen A. Smith
But Ryan, what really, really resonates with me, man, is that it's been six weeks of testimony and then the, the, the, the defense has its turn and they don't put on a single witness. It's almost like they're saying, we ain't worried about this. This is nothing. They have no case against us. Why should we even waste our time? That's how they're coming across right now. Ryan.
- [05:02]
Ryan Smith
It's not a bad, it's not a good sign of the prosecutors. And in some ways this is something I love talking about when you talk about juries. I think sometimes people look at that and they say, well, that's a problem for the defense. They got to put somebody on. They put Diddy on. First of all. The last thing you want to do is put him on the stand. That's a last ditch effort. We have no chance. We got to go for this. And that's not where they are right now. But more than that, you're right, Stephen A. They're trying to portray to the jury, we got this. There is nothing to see here. And we're going to show you that in our closing arguments. You know what I found interesting? The thing they did present in the 23 or so minutes they had was the loving text messages between Cassie and Diddy. That's the defense trying to restate one very important thing. All of the, in all of this, consent. That's the defense's whole case. Consent. Yes, he might be a bad man. Yes, you might think the freak offs are terrible. Yes, you might even think he's an abusive man. But are these consensual relationships, say, for example, the sex trafficking, the whole idea that Jane and Cassie were compelled to engage in commercial sex acts under fear of force or coercion? They're going to undermine that the defense will by saying, look at these loving text messages. Look at how these women wanted to do this.
- [06:14]
Stephen A. Smith
Hold it.
- [06:14]
Ryan Smith
So go ahead.
- [06:16]
Stephen A. Smith
It's not just the loving text messages, Ryan. Am I wrong when I say I could have sworn I've seen where there were freak offs that occurred without him by those Two. Jane and Cassie. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I'm wrong about Cassie or Jane, please correct me right here on camera. My understanding is that every freak off didn't involve P. Diddy. It involved them doing it on their own with others of their own volition, not forced at all. Am I correct?
- [06:45]
Ryan Smith
I think you're right about that. But here's the thing. The prosecution even tried to touch on that in their closing arguments by saying, you don't have to believe that he orchestrated and did something wrong. At every freak off, all you got to believe is it happened once. That's it for the sex trafficking. All you got to believe is it happened once. No, it's true.
- [07:01]
Stephen A. Smith
So hold on. Excuse me for interrupted. So you try and tell me that if on their own they engaged in several freak offs, but then there was one that he was involved in that they could literally try to instruct the jury, pay attention to the one, not the others that you did of your own volition.
- [07:26]
Ryan Smith
No, they're saying this here. I get what you're saying, but here's what I'm saying. They're trying to show the jury, they're trying to show the jury that this happened over and over again. These women were forced in some ways to be a part of this and that all of these things show what he was doing all along. And what they're trying to show to the jury, though, is maybe something that you're reflecting a good point. You're reflecting the point of somebody might look at one of these freak offs and say, where's Diddy? And all this. They even in their closing argument said, you don't have to believe that every single freak off was him threatening violence or coercion. Just once, just once, either to Cassie or Jane, that is sex trafficking. Because it's an act of sex trafficking. It's an act of the predicate offensive sex trafficking. They're trying to forward here. So I get your point, but they're trying to battle that point as we speak in the courtroom by saying, we offered all this evidence, we offered all this evidence to show you the world that he created in this criminal enterprise that he was in charge of. But you don't have to believe that every single moment he was threatening violence, every single moment he was threatening coercion. It can be once, it can be twice. And if you see that, you have to convict him. But your point is, what about the once?
- [08:37]
Stephen A. Smith
The twice? No, what about the once or twice or five times or ten times they did it on there oh, listen, I'm not trying to get him off. I got no, I got no nothing in this game. If he's guilty, he's guilty. If he's innocent, he's innocent. I don't know. I know what I saw in that video with him hitting Cassie. Ain't no getting around that. He can't come back from that. But anything else involving the sex trafficking and racketeering, I'm in no position to judge him. But what I'm saying is not only have we heard testimony about them having freak offs without him, we even saw or heard of them having their preference about who was going to be involved in the freak offs. So all of that points to consensual more so than anything else, wouldn't you say, Ryan?
- [09:22]
Ryan Smith
The problem is, in some ways, yes, and let me touch on reasonable doubt in that. But what they're saying is think about the rest of the testimony with Cassie, the rest of the testimony with Jane, because that was part of what the defense pushed back on. When they were both on the stand and they both mentioned, I felt like this would happen if I didn't do these things. Jane even mentioned the point of, hey, if I didn't get to choose the escorts, if I'm going to be put in this horrible situation that I'm coerced to be in, at least I want to have a say on who I have to have sex with. And so that's the situation they're trying to build out here. But what I like about what you're saying, Stephen A. Is you are channeling one of those eight men and four women possibly in that jury box. And I say this again, the ages are 30 to 74. I say that because you never can really account for how that wide range of ages might look at this thing. They might look at that and say exactly what you're saying. Well, wait a second, they were setting up some of these things. Well, wait a second, I didn't see Diddy in all of this. And if just one has reasonable doubt, you lose that conviction. I think that's the risk that the prosecution ran in a case like this. And I think it's the problem with the RICO case. You bring in all this evidence, but if all of the evidence doesn't necessarily point to what you're trying to prove.
- [10:31]
Stephen A. Smith
It can be a problem as it pertains to jury selection. When you talk about the wide range 30 to 74, who does that favor? The defense or the prosecution having a wide range in a jury? Because again, all it takes is one. Right. So chances are from 30 to 74 cats are going to think differently. And if they're going to think differently, differently, and all it takes is one. It would seem to me that a jury saw, you know, ranging with that, ranging that wide would benefit the defense.
- [11:02]
Ryan Smith
I would say this. If the prosecution can't do a fantastic job of tying all this together and making it crystal clear to everybody in that courtroom, yes, he ran this enterprise. Yes, he and others got together and, and did these criminal acts over this 10 year period and furtherance of the enterprise for Rico, at least the sex trafficking, the transportation of prostitution, seems like they can get a conviction there. But unless they can do that, clearly it favors the defense. Why? Because the defense looks at this jury and they see one person they think might be favorable and they essentially, they just talk to that person or talk to those two people or talk to those three people. You don't look at a closing argument in a case like this with that wide range. And the wide range isn't uncommon for cases like this. But what I'm saying is for defense attorneys, you look at a case like this and you say, I only got to convince one. I don't have to convince all of them. All I got to do is convince one strongly. Who can go in that jury room and say, you guys, I see what you're saying, but I'm not buying it. I'm not buying it. And if you can get somebody to do that, then you win. I think that favors the defense unless the prosecution can do a stellar job.
- [12:06]
Stephen A. Smith
Let's get down to it. When it comes to you, Ryan Smith, based on what you've heard, did the feds make their case on all the charges facing Diddy?
- [12:13]
Ryan Smith
Transportation of individuals to engage in prostitution. Yes, Sex. Because there's definitely evidence of. There's witnesses who come forward, talk about calling this person. They come across state lines that I think is easier to solve. That is not the biggest charge, though, in terms of rico, in terms of sex trafficking, I don't know. And I'm not, I wouldn't say no, because we're not in that courtroom. And so much is relying on them tying everything together today, right now with what they're saying in those closing arguments. But here's my problem. They talk about Diddy getting together with all these people. They talk about that lead us one of his assistants, people like Krista Corum, Christina Quorum, who's one of these people who sets these things up, who people were talking about a lot in the courtroom. I had A little bit of a problem that I didn't hear from all of these people because you're saying Diddy and in order to do rico, you have to say Diddy and others did these things in furtherance of the enterprise. Where are the others? Some of the others came forward. But if you're that jury and you don't believe that all these others have the are part of this enterprise, then you're searching for the other people, then doubt comes in. So right now, I would say based on what we've seen, I think the prosecution has a strong case, but it is definitely not a slam dunk. It is definitely not clear. There's big differences between this and R. Kelly case and rico, for example. And this is not something that I think is an easy one to prove for them.
- [13:42]
Stephen A. Smith
So I think it's 50, 50 jury deliberations. How long you anticipate this? This could go? Because the trial could end whether it's tomorrow or it could end by Monday, and then jury deliberations kick in. How long do you anticipate that'll take?
- [13:55]
Ryan Smith
Can go days. But I'll say one thing. What's going to be interesting to me and what I think people should keep an eye on. Will the judge give the jury this case on Friday? It's a very small point, but sometimes when juries have a case on Fridays and they really want to go home and they really want to be done, they rush it and you could have a verdict on Friday. My sense here is the judge might have them start on Monday, so they're really thinking it through and being thorough. And if that's the case, I think it could go on for days. And it's mostly because of that RICO charge. I think it is a very complicated thing that prosecutors have to do here to tie it all together to prove that case. And I think we see clearly. Look, Stephen, we can look at this case no matter what you think. We see that Diddy is a bad guy. We see that he did bad things. But are they criminal things? Are they criminal things? And I don't know if we see that here. And I think that's gonna take the jury a long time to sort out.
- [14:45]
Stephen A. Smith
Very last question. I know this trial hasn't been televised. The judge didn't want that. That's why we see, you know, the drawings and all of this other stuff. Is it possible that the judge may allow the verdict to be televised?
- [14:59]
Ryan Smith
No, I don't think so. I think this is going to be shut down the whole way through. I think One thing that people can look for, though, even as they hear about the decision, is he convicted on one thing and not on others? And I will say this, Stephen A. If he's convicted, say, for example, on the transportation to commit prostitution, but not on the other two, that is a loss for the prosecution, a huge loss. Because you want to get him on that top charge. You mentioned it at the very beginning. He faces life in prison. That's for those things like sex trafficking, for RICO conspiracy. And if they don't get convictions on that, that is a huge loss, not only for this case, but for a prosecutor's office that is trying really hard to hold powerful people accountable for what they consider to be criminal acts created by an enterprise. If they can't get a conviction here, that's a problem on those big two charges.
- [15:50]
Stephen A. Smith
Wow. The one and only. Ryan Smith, ABC News, espn. Right here with your boy, Stephen A. Appreciate you as always, my man. Take care of yourself. We'll talk soon, all right?
- [15:58]
Ryan Smith
Yeah, man, you too. Get some rest.
- [16:00]
Stephen A. Smith
I do my best. We'll do my best.