Millions and Millions of Dollars

Summary

Podcast Summary: The Trial of Diddy – Episode: “Millions and Millions of Dollars” (Released February 21, 2025)

Hosts: Kayla Brantley, Germania Rodriguez & Marjorie Hernandez
Guest: Legal Analyst and Trial Attorney, Kelly Hyman
Production: Daily Mail’s Award-Winning “The Trial of Diddy” Podcast

---

Introduction

In the gripping episode titled “Millions and Millions of Dollars,” hosts Kayla Brantley, Germania Rodriguez, and Marjorie Hernandez delve deep into the multifaceted legal battles facing Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs. As the once untouchable hip-hop mogul now stands accused of severe federal charges, this episode unpacks the intricate legal maneuvers, the societal implications, and the personal toll of the case.

---

Overview of Charges Against Diddy

The episode opens with a stark portrayal of Diddy’s fall from grace. At the pinnacle of his career in the 90s and early 2000s, Diddy was a powerhouse in the music industry, producing hits for iconic artists like Biggie Smalls, Mary J. Blige, and Jennifer Lopez. However, his empire is now under siege as he faces multiple federal charges in New York, including:

• Sex Trafficking
• Racketeering
• Transportation to Engage in Prostitution

Marjorie Hernandez sets the stage: “At the height of his career, Sean Diddy Combs had it all. It seemed like everything Diddy touched turned to gold. Now the once untouchable hip hop mogul is fighting for his life as he faces multiple federal charges in New York, including sex trafficking and allegedly running a criminal enterprise.” ([00:25])

Despite the severity of the allegations, Diddy maintains his innocence, pleading not guilty to all charges.

---

Legal Strategies and Arguments

Kayla Brantley provides detailed insights into Diddy’s legal strategies. The legal team is aggressively pushing back against the charges, particularly focusing on racial discrimination in the application of the law.

On February 18th, Diddy’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss count three of the superseding indictment, which pertains to “transportation to engage in prostitution.” They argued that:

• Historical Racial Bias: The law, known as the Mann Act or the White Slave Traffic Act of 1910, has historically been applied disproportionately against Black men. They cite cases like Chuck Berry and Jack Johnson to support their claims.

  Kayla Brantley quotes the defense: “No white person has ever been the target of a remotely similar prosecution.” ([02:05])

• Legitimacy of Business Operations: Diddy asserts that the escort services in question are legitimate commercial businesses operating openly, challenging the government’s narrative of a criminal enterprise.

  Kelly Hyman highlights Diddy’s stance: “The escort service related to his case is a legitimate commercial business operating out in the open.” ([03:00])

These arguments suggest that Diddy is being unfairly targeted due to his race and power in the industry, positing that similar conduct by white individuals often goes unpunished.

---

Recent Lawsuits and Their Implications

The episode discusses the recent wave of lawsuits against Diddy, emphasizing the high-profile dismissal involving Jay Z.

• Superseding Indictment: The legal battle intensified with the addition of new charges, leading to further complexity in Diddy’s defense strategy.

• Jay Z Lawsuit Dismissal: A significant highlight is the dismissal of the lawsuit filed by Texas attorney Tony Busby, which accused Diddy and Jay Z of raping a 13-year-old girl in 2000. The lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it cannot be refiled in its current form.

  Marjorie Hernandez remarks: “Because the dismissal is with prejudice, the lawsuit cannot again be refiled in its current form.” ([07:18])

  Jay Z’s Statement: Jay Z responded, “The frivolous, fictitious and appalling allegations have been dismissed. This civil suit was without merit and was never going anywhere.” He further added, “May the truth prevail for all victims and those falsely accused equally.” ([06:00])

This dismissal not only exonerates Diddy and Jay Z but also casts doubt on the credibility of other pending lawsuits against Diddy.

---

Expert Analysis with Kelly Hyman

The episode features a detailed analysis by legal expert Kelly Hyman, who provides a breakdown of the legal intricacies surrounding Diddy’s case.

Motion to Dismiss

Marjorie Hernandez seeks Kelly’s perspective on the motion to dismiss:

Marjorie Hernandez: “Diddy's lawyers actually asked the judge dismiss count three of his superseding indictment... Do you think the argument actually does stand a chance?” ([08:05])

Kelly Hyman: “Ultimately, that's going to be up to the judge to make that determination. From a legal standpoint, the government has the burden of proof, and they must prove every single element of the cause of action.” ([09:09])

She elaborates on the possible outcomes, emphasizing the importance of substantial evidence in securing a dismissal.

Possibility of Class Action

With over 30 civil lawsuits against Diddy, the question arises whether these could consolidate into a class action.

Marjorie Hernandez: “Could there be a possibility that there could be a class action suit filed against maybe not Diddy himself, but his company, his record company?” ([10:05])

Kelly Hyman: “Each plaintiff has their own unique facts and injuries, making a class action challenging. However, similar patterns in allegations might support such a move, though individual cases are more likely.” ([11:28])

She notes that class actions require plaintiffs to be “similarly situated,” which may not be the case given the unique circumstances of each lawsuit.

Trial Timeline and Logistics

Diddy’s criminal trial is scheduled to start on May 5th. Kelly discusses the factors that could affect this timeline.

Kelly Hyman: “If the state has all their witnesses and is ready, the trial date is likely to hold. Delays are possible but not highly probable unless there are significant legal hurdles.” ([14:15])

She also touches upon the separation of criminal and civil cases, explaining that civil lawsuits operate independently and may continue regardless of the criminal trial’s progress.

---

Potential Witnesses and Evidence

A significant portion of the discussion revolves around the potential witnesses who might testify against Diddy, including Cassie Ventura, one of the alleged victims.

Kayla Brantley: “I could definitely see her there. She could potentially be subpoenaed.” ([32:26])

With Diddy’s settlement with Cassie Ventura, questions arise about the confidentiality of the agreement and whether details will emerge during the trial.

Kelly Hyman: “Settlement agreements often include confidentiality clauses, preventing the disclosure of settlement terms even if subpoenaed. However, if Ventura testifies, the court may limit what she can disclose.” ([34:27])

---

Impact on Diddy's Civil Cases

The interplay between criminal and civil cases is complex. Kelly explains that while they operate separately, developments in one can influence the other.

Kayla Brantley: “Civil cases are filed in different courts and follow their own timelines. Unless there’s a direct impact, like a conflict with trial dates, they proceed independently.” ([18:36])

She anticipates that the ongoing criminal trial may sustain or even catalyze further civil actions against Diddy.

---

Settlement Confidentiality

Discussing the settlement with Cassie Ventura, the hosts explore the implications of confidentiality clauses.

Kayla Brantley: “Confidentiality agreements prevent parties from disclosing settlement terms. If Ventura is compelled to testify, her ability to reveal specifics of the settlement could be legally restricted.” ([34:32])

Kelly emphasizes that while the settlement cannot be publicly disclosed, the testimony can focus on the facts of the allegations without revealing financial terms.

---

Future Developments

Looking ahead, the hosts and Kelly speculate on possible developments in the Diddy trial.

• Jury Selection Challenges: Given Diddy’s high profile, finding an impartial jury is challenging. The possibility of juror sequestration and extensive vetting processes are discussed.

  Kayla Brantley: “It's fascinating to see what the jury will look like and how their backgrounds might influence their impartiality.” ([22:55])

• Cost Implications: Diddy’s legal battles are likely costing millions, with extensive legal teams handling criminal and civil cases across multiple jurisdictions.

  Kelly Hyman: “Diddy's legal expenses are undoubtedly in the tens of millions, considering the sheer number of lawsuits and the complexity of the criminal case.” ([27:47])

• Potential for Additional Charges: As investigations continue, there is always the possibility of new charges emerging, further complicating Diddy’s legal standing.

---

Conclusion

The episode “Millions and Millions of Dollars” provides a comprehensive examination of Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ legal turmoil. Through expert analysis and in-depth discussion, listeners gain a nuanced understanding of the charges, legal strategies, and broader societal implications. As the trial date approaches, the episode underscores the high stakes involved—not just for Diddy, but for all parties seeking justice and resolution.

Notable Quotes:

• Marjorie Hernandez ([00:25]): “At the height of his career, Sean Diddy Combs had it all... Now the once untouchable hip hop mogul is fighting for his life...”

• Kayla Brantley ([02:05]): “No white person has ever been the target of a remotely similar prosecution.”

• Jay Z’s Statement ([06:00]): “The frivolous, fictitious and appalling allegations have been dismissed... May the truth prevail for all victims and those falsely accused equally.”

• Kelly Hyman ([09:09]): “The government has the burden of proof, and they must prove every single element of the cause of action.”

• Kayla Brantley ([22:55]): “It's fascinating to see what the jury will look like and how their backgrounds might influence their impartiality.”

---

Stay Connected

For more updates on “The Trial of Diddy” and other major trials, follow Daily Mail's podcast series on Spotify and Apple Podcasts. Engage with the hosts on X and Instagram @thetrialpod, or contact them directly at [e-mail]. Share your thoughts and predictions, and stay tuned for exclusive interviews and behind-the-scenes insights each week.

---

This summary aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the podcast episode for those who have not listened, capturing the key discussions, insights, and conclusions drawn by the hosts and guest experts.

Transcript

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Seriously popular.

[Kayla Brantley]

The following episode explores a number of allegations regarding the artist Diddy.

[Kelly Hyman]

He denies all charges and has pled not guilty to sex trafficking, racketeering, and.

[Kayla Brantley]

Transportation to engage in prostitution.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

The biggest secret in the entertainment industry.

[Kelly Hyman]

That really wasn't a secret at all has finally been revealed to the world.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

At the height of his career, Sean Diddy Combs had it all. It seemed like everything Diddy touched turned to gold. Now the once untouchable hip hop mogul is fighting for his life as he faces multiple federal charges in New York, including sex trafficking and allegedly running a criminal enterprise.

[Kelly Hyman]

Music mogul and rapper Sean Diddy Combs.

[Kayla Brantley]

Has faced four different lawsuits in recent.

[Kelly Hyman]

Weeks alleging sexual assault. Combs can be seen grabbing Ventura and.

[Kayla Brantley]

Throwing her to the ground. Oh, this guy is dangerous.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Every woman has now come forward.

[Kayla Brantley]

A legend comes of sexual assault. She was drugged and sexually assaulted by Combs.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

I'm DailyMail.com journalist Marjorie Hernandez, and over the last six months, I've been investigating this incredible story and speaking to the people in the eye of the storm. Welcome to the trial of Diddy.

[Kelly Hyman]

Hey, I'm Kayla Brantley, reporter at large for Daily Mail in Manhattan.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

And I'm Marjorie Hernandez, DailyMail.com's West coast news editor.

[Kelly Hyman]

And welcome to episode 23 of the trial of Diddy. I actually began last week's show by saying, another week, another lawsuit, and guess what? It is another week. And now there's another request to drop a lawsuit. Yesterday, which was Tuesday, February 18th, Diddy's lawyers asked a judge to dismiss count three of the US attorneys cased against him from a superseding indictment last month did, namely, transportation to engage in prostitution, claiming that, quote, no white person has ever been the target of a remotely similar prosecution.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Yes, Diddy has been charged under the man act, which is also known as a white slave traffic act, which is a 1910 federal law prohibiting transporting people for prostitution. Now, Diddy's lawyers have said that the law has historically been used disproportionately against black black men, citing rock and roll pioneer Chuck berry and early 20th century's most famous boxer, Jack Johnson, who was actually known as Galveston Giant, as examples. The lawyers alleged that, quote, no white person has ever been the target of a remotely similar prosecution, pointing out former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer's case where escorts were charged, but he was not. Now, Diddy claims that he's being singled out because of his race and being, quote, prosecuted for conduct that regularly goes unpunished because he is a powerful black man.

[Kelly Hyman]

Diddy goes on to claim that, quote, the use of escorts, male or female, is common and indeed widely accepted in American culture today. And that the escort service related to his case is, quote, a legitimate commercial business operating out in the open. Which I personally thought was a very interesting argument that he's like, hey, what do you mean? Everyone's trafficking prostitutes. I thought that was interesting. But his attorneys are claiming that the government has, quote, concocted a criminal case based primarily on allegations that Mr. Combs and two of his longtime girlfriends sometimes brought a third party, a male escort, into their sexual relationship. And that, quote, no other person, and certainly no white person, has ever previously been prosecuted under the white slave Traffic act for hiring male escorts from another state. They go on to say that, quote, what was racist in its inception has often been racist in operation, adding, quote, the statute's target was black male sexuality. And the statute's most notorious persecution targeted famous black men accused of deviant sexual behavior.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Diddy has always, and it's important to say, vehemently denied all the allegations he's faced. And he's pleaded not guilty. After charges were initially filed, his lawyers told DailyMail.com's Mr. Combs and his legal team have full confidence in the facts and the integrity of the judicial process. In court, the truth will prevail that Mr. Combs never sexually assaulted or trafficked anyone, man or woman, adult or minor. And as we know, he has been denied bail three times by two separate judges. And he will remain in jail until his criminal trial starts, which is of today has been scheduled for May 5. He is facing life in prison if he is found guilty of the racketeering charge.

[Kelly Hyman]

I think it's so interesting that his team has actually said that this is targeting black male sexuality and famous black men accused of deviant sexual behavior. I think that this is like the first time that we've heard Diddy reference sexuality or anything like that. Yeah, no one was really talking about that. These allegations from men are in some way allegedly outing Diddy because he's never once come out and said that he's gay. He's never come out and once said that he's had relationships with men. In fact, it's been the opposite. He's always had, you know, music videos with women on his arm and has dated very famous women. And these allegations from men fly right in the face of that. But there's always more. And just after we recorded last week the super high profile suit that accused Dick Diddy and Jay Z of raping a 13 year old girl in 2000 was actually dropped by the plaintiff's lawyers after both Combs and Jay Z denied the allegations. The filing was submitted by Texas based attorney Tony Busby. But the plaintiff, quote, hereby gives notice that the action is voluntarily dismissed with prejudice. Because the dismissal is with prejudice, the lawsuit cannot again be refiled in its current form. Which obviously is a huge victory for Diddy, but an even bigger victory for Jay Z, who this was the only real connection that Jay Z had to the Diddy case was this lawsuit here. And so ROC Nation issued a statement signed by Jay Z referring to the dismissal as a victory. And it reads, quote, the frivolous, fictitious and appalling allegations have been dismissed. This civil suit was without merit and was never going anywhere. The fictional tale they created was laughable if not for this series of the claims. And then Jay Z gets personal saying, the trauma that my wife, my children, loved ones and I have endured can never be dismissed. The courts must protect the innocent from being accused without a shred of evidence. May the truth prevail for all victims and those falsely accused equally. And not only does this exonerate Diddy in this case and Jay Z, but remember, this was the case where there was that third, third female mystery celebrity. Celebrity B. Yeah, Celebrity B, who allegedly watched and was involved. Now, this alleged celebrity who was there is also off the hook if, you know, they ever existed in the first place.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Yeah. Lawsuit mentioned it was a female celebrity, but, yeah, was never named, so.

[Kelly Hyman]

Never named. And we were never going to speculate. Our lawyers would never let us get away with that.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Okay, and with that, let's welcome this week's guest legal analyst and trial attorney, Kim, Kelly Hyman. Hello, Kelly.

[Kayla Brantley]

Hi. Thank you so much for having me on your show.

[Kelly Hyman]

Thank you for being with us. You're from in sunny Florida. I'm so jealous. Marjorie was working on a story, I think, today about the latest filings.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Well, Diddy's lawyers actually asked the judge dismiss count three of his superseding indictment. And what was interesting is his argument or his attorney's argument that this no white person has ever been targeted of this similar charge. And they're claiming that because he's a powerful black man that he's being targeted for that charge. And I was wondering what your thoughts were on that. You know, is this just another way the attorneys are trying to get him off?

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, no one is above the law, but the state who brings the case has the burden of proof, the government. And so they must prove every single element of the cause of action. And then when someone. Someone brings a motion to dismiss, basically saying that you're asking the court to dismiss a case, to dismiss a count of a case, and then you make legal argument. But ultimately the judge is going to look at the law, because that's the key thing, look at the law, and based on the law and facts presented, whether this third cause of action should be ultimately dismissed.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

And that third count is transportation to engage in prostitution. Just wanted to clarify that. But do you think the argument actually does stand a chance?

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, ultimately, that's going to be up to the judge to make that determination. Looking at the law. But it's important to remember in the court of law that you are innocent till proven guilty. That is really important because since the government, the state brings the case, they have to make sure that they have substantial evidence for this. And one of the potential arguments for a motion to dismiss legally is that they cannot prove their case, that they cannot prove the certain elements of the crime. Ultimately, we'll see what the judge does in this matter, whether to dismiss it or to say, you know, no, this is going to go forward. But it's also important to remember from a legal standpoint that the other side, when someone files this, will have an opportunity to respond. We'll give them an opportunity in the court pleadings to make their argument why this count should not be dismissed.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Could this possibly become a separate hearing?

[Kayla Brantley]

The judge could potentially set a hearing, yes. In regards to this, sometimes the judge will rule on the paper, and what that means is one side will file the motion dismissed, the other side will respond to it, but possibly the other side will get a reply. In other words, a reply to the response. And then the judge could set a hearing and have oral arguments. And what that means for from a legal perspective, the oral arguments is each side will get to stand up in front of the judge and make their arguments to the court, basically plead their case and say why the judge should rule accordingly. Or the judge could look at the papers, look at the law that substantiates the different position, P. Diddy's position, the state's position, the government's position, and then just rule on that and issue an order basically saying either, yes, I agree, this count should be dismissed, or no, it should not be dismissed.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

I was just wondering also, there are now, gosh, over 30 civil lawsuits against Diddy. And, you know, they keep coming, as Kayla said. Now, these are, again, mostly individual lawsuits because each victim claims specific incidents and within different time frames. But could there be a possibility that there could be a class action suit filed against maybe not Diddy himself, but his company, his record company.

[Kayla Brantley]

So when you look at a class action, it's important to remember the class action, that there is one person that's kind of like the class representative. They're like the spokesperson, a person that speaks for the class. And then there's other people's as well. One argument can be made from Diddy's standpoint that the people are not similarly situated. Each one has their own unique facts, their own unique injuries and harm. And so based on that, that there cannot be a class action. However, the other side of the coin could say that potentially if you look from legally, if people are similarly situated, they've gone and experienced the same thing, then there could be a class action. However, I most likely see these in individual cases. And it's important to remember about the individual cases that these are civil lawsuits. And so what that means is the compensation is going to be key in the case. So if the court determines that the person should prevail, the plaintiff in those civil cases, it's not jail time, it's monetary compensation to make them whole. So how much the court makes a determination or the jury, if the case goes to a jury trial, what is it going to take, compensation wise to make him or her whole? However, on the other, the criminal, that's where we're looking at penalties with potentially life in prison.

[Kelly Hyman]

You mentioned that each individual case, you know, it's kind of difficult to do a class action lawsuit. But what we've seen in a lot of these allegations are really a similar pattern where someone claims that they were given a drink and then they felt woozy and then they woke up and you know, woke up to being allegedly assaulted. So I do wonder if, because a lot of these stories are so similar, if that would assist in a potential class action lawsuit.

[Kayla Brantley]

Could potentially, if someone makes that determination and haven't seen any class actions, mostly seen the individual cases with specific facts that relate to the person and then different causes of action that they bring forward based on the facts and circumstances for that individual person.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Now, Kelly, could there a possibility that maybe at some point the AG's office could step in and maybe put together a victim's compensation fund like they did with the Harvey Weinstein victims and the Jeffrey Epstein victims also are being paid from a fund through his estate that.

[Kayla Brantley]

Any that is potentially possible? Haven't seen anything like that yet, but I think there's going to be a lot more, as you guys are fully in depth and covering all this, a lot more that's going to come forward as we get closer to the criminal trial as well.

[Kelly Hyman]

And the criminal trial right now is set for May 5th. And we've asked many of our guests who have a legal background if they think that the May 5 date is going to hold up and we actually will go to trial on that date. What do you think?

[Kayla Brantley]

My crystal ball is broken. But if I had to predict, I would definitely say so because we have to look at it from different standpoints. P. Diddy right now is in jail and so he is entitled to a trial set by his peers. And so the more delay, unless the judges changes the ruling in regards to letting him out on bail, he is going to be in jail. So I would assume that he wants the trial sooner rather than later. However, the state brings a case and they have to make sure that they have all their witnesses, everything all set and ready to go. Anything is possible. Something could happen where it doesn't. But I would most likely think that that trial date is going to happen because both sides will wants, you know, the opportunity to move this this case through the system.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Now Kelly, going back to I'm sorry to harp on the, the victim compensation fund because I found that very interesting when it comes to the Jeffrey Epstein victims, they received the money through his state because he did pass away in jail. In the Harvey Weinstein case, it was found that his companies, his employees were victims because of and the AG did it through his companies. But I was just wonder something like this could possibly work out if it's under bad boy records or any other entities who that worked with Diddy.

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, that's a lot of hypothetical. I mean we still have to remember, as I said before, that he is innocent in a court of law until proven guilty. So that in the criminal case that not that has not happened yet. So I think that if, if in fact potentially if he, if he is in something in regards to the, the civil lawsuits and they decide that that's something that they want to do. But I think that that is something that would be much in the future potentially because wait and see what happens in the, the criminal case and how that turns out and then also see what's going on with all the different civil lawsuits as well.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Of course he's maintained that he's innocent out of all the, with all these civil cases. So we'll see, as you said, how it will pan out in court.

[Kayla Brantley]

Right. And I think it's also important to to note that recently plaintiff filed a motion to dismiss with prejudice in the Jane Doe case, a lot of people know it because of Jay Z was also sued in P. Diddy. And so from a legal perspective, dismissing a case with prejudice means that you were basically barred from bringing a similar case in the future.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Yeah, can we talk a little bit about that? I mean, because that one particular case, and this is the one involving, I believe, the woman who alleged that she was 13 years old when this assault happened, could this affect other cases, the other civil lawsuits?

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, each individual lawsuit is brought on their own merits. Each plaintiff in that case has to prove their case based on the elements in regards to their certain case. But potentially, if someone doesn't have the evidence or the facts, as plaintiffs, you bring the case and you carry that burden. And what that means in regards to the civil case, if you're bringing those cases based on those causes of action, you have to prove every single element of those causes of action. And so that's really important. So if you can't prove, prove your case, then it's going to be really hard to prevail in a court of law.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

And now even if he does, you know, again, we're still far away from the criminal trial. So looking at that crystal ball, what happens if, if it does keep moving forward, does that delay all of his civil cases as well?

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, they're two different. There are two different things, apples and orders. So the civil cases are filed in different courts. New York, California. And so each case, each civil case is on its own track. And what does that mean in regards to being on its track? That it's moving based usually on when the case is filed, when the lawsuit is filed. So once you file a lawsuit, defendants usually have two options to answer the complaint and kind of respond to the complaint, or, or file a motion to dismiss and try and dismiss the case. And so each case moves forward with discovery and then more pleadings, depositions. And so as the case moves, it moves along to ultimately a trial. So the criminal case is totally different and separate. So it shouldn't have any effect on the civil case unless there's some kind of conflict in regards to him potentially being at the trial or something along those lines because of the criminal trial or some other trial where there's a, potentially a conflict and he needs to be there or to testify in his case. Then I could see that could potentially happen with moving because of conflicts in regards to the trial dates.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

So essentially he will be in and out of courts possibly for years and.

[Kayla Brantley]

Years to come, depending on what, what exactly happens in regards to the civil when they're set to go to trial, how those cases move forward, if they depose him on those cases. That means deposition is when you, you sit down under oath and you're asked questions and you answer, answer those, those questions under oath with your attorney on your side. And attorneys usually make objections during the deposition as well. And those will vary on how long that they are, sometimes seven, eight hours of deposition, but it, it varies.

[Kelly Hyman]

We have so much more coming up, but for now, let's pause for a break.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Welcome back. And we're still here with legal analyst and attorney Kelly Hyman.

[Kelly Hyman]

This is such a high profile case, Kelly, and I mean, obviously we've been covering it for 23 weeks now. How much more difficult does that make the job for both the prosecution and for Diddy's team?

[Kayla Brantley]

You want a fair and impartial jury, and that's what Vaudreu is. And what that means is that the attorneys will stand up depending on, depending on how they do it. And sometimes they do written questions ahead of time, but have an opportunity to talk to potential witnesses because someone needs to be fair and impartial. And a person who's on trial, especially with serious ramifications, should have the opportunity to ask questions. And if someone can't be fair and impartial, have already made a determination, because as we said before, you're innocent until proven guilty. And so you must listen, or it's important to listen to all the evidence presented and then once the evidence is presented, make that determination of whether someone is guilty or innocent. So if people already have preconceived ideas and can't put anything aside, then that could harm the defendant by not getting a fair and impartial jury, which he is entitled to under our Constitution.

[Kelly Hyman]

Well, I do wonder if they're going to be looking for people who have never heard of Diddy or people who kind of know the case but don't really have any thoughts about it because, I mean, obviously we're all in media, so it feels almost impossible to ignore. But especially a trial that's in New York, where he's from, I feel like this is going to be a very difficult time trying to find someone who's never heard of Diddy.

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, maybe they have heard of Diddy, but they can be fair and impartial. And I think that that's definitely key, that can put everything aside and really make sure that they listen just to the facts and the evidence presented and understand that based on the law that someone is guilty or innocent and just listen to that information as well and be fair, impartial. And that's what's important about Vaudir, because it gives each side an opportunity to ask questions. Right. Find out about them on social media. Right. Did they post something and they already made a determination and they're not going to be fair and impartial or maybe they think one way or another, but they can put it aside. So that's really going to be important. And it's fascinating to me what the jury is going to look like, whether it's going to be, you know, from, from, from New York or in regards to careers and age. And usually each side will hire someone like a jury consultant or someone to kind of assist them. And from a strategy standpoint, if you look at it, we'll have particular jurors in mind of what they want on a jury, of whether it's a, you know, male and their age and their demographics and professional, certain kind of professions and stuff like that. And usually each side will have something different on what they think based on stuff that they've done before, like mock jury trials or groups where they get groups together to kind of see which way some groups are leaning. Whether it's, you know, it's better for us to have all female jury from the defendant's standpoint or, or is it better to have an all male jury and what does that look like? What kind of jobs do they have? What age demographic are they looking at? All those kind of things is really, really fascinating to see, especially when they're going through the Vaudreuic process to see kind of what questions they have because they know who they really want based on all that kind of stuff. But it does might not always, you know, work, work out that way. But they do have an opportunity to strike some, someone for cause, meaning that they believe there's a basis that someone should be stricken. But then they also have an opportunity to say we're gonna just gonna strike, strike this person and not have them on the jury on this type of case.

[Kelly Hyman]

And I do wonder if they're gonna sequester this jury too because of the high profile of this case.

[Kayla Brantley]

Right. Or whether. Right. If it's gonna be really harsh for people. And usually they'll say, you know, how long the, the trial is going to take and how that's going to affect them in regards to their, their job or their, or their family. Then usually the judge in the beginning will also give instructions. Depending on the type of trial, it's a little bit different. Sometimes they'll Say, look, you're not supposed to discuss this case until the end, right? So you're sitting next to, to someone the whole time and talk about other stuff, but not the witnesses. And then at the end deliberate and based on what the evidence was presented, whether you believe that he's guilty or innocent, there could also be potentially a hung juror. And that means basically that not everyone is going to agree. And so that could also potentially happen in this case. We just, we just don't know. There's a lot of things that are unknown at this time until actually the trial happens and what transpires.

[Kelly Hyman]

Anything is possible. Anything's possible.

[Kayla Brantley]

Yes, definitely. You know, during the trial and high profile cases, sometimes things come up where one side will ask, you know, for a mistrial based on certain things.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

There's so many things still up in the air, obviously as we move forward and possibly more cases will be filed. But were you shocked that there was a superseding indictment filed in this case?

[Kayla Brantley]

No, because you always hear that usually that when you gain more information that that could potentially happen based on the information gathered because that's important for the government's case to gain all this information and then use that information for when they're making a determination of finding, you know, the, the stuff that they need to prove their case.

[Kelly Hyman]

And Kelly, from your experience, I mean, this has been going on 23 plus weeks now. Diddy has an army of attorneys battling cases everywhere. How much do you think this is costing him?

[Kayla Brantley]

Millions of millions of dollars?

[Kelly Hyman]

It's tens of millions.

[Kayla Brantley]

I haven't seen his legal bills. I don't, I don't know. We have, you have to look at, as you stated, there's 30 civil lawsuits. So you have to deal with all those cases and discovery and doing that. And then also in regards to the criminal as well. And we have to go back to remember that his place in Miami was raided in dealing with, you know, all that and seeking advice from attorneys. And then also during the process as well as it's going through and fighting and filing motions and doing all those types of things. Very, very expensive.

[Kelly Hyman]

Yeah, I'm sure. And there's also attorneys that, you know, you see the ones filing the motions who are kind of like the faces and the names, but just think about how many behind the scenes are billing numerous, countless hours.

[Kayla Brantley]

Oh yeah. Not only the criminal case, but then you also have the civil cases as well and dealing with those and got cases in New York, you have cases in California. And so dealing with that, going to hearings, preparing responses Preparing discovery, the attorneys.

[Kelly Hyman]

That are sending us statements every time something happens and we're reaching out.

[Kayla Brantley]

Yes, and absolutely, you know, doing that as well. And we know that, you know, Diddy filed a defamation lawsuit against NBC Universal. And so filing that lawsuit as well and gathering all the evidence for the complaint because you have to prove the defamation. And basically, from a legal perspective, defamation is when someone makes a false statement, um, it's reckless or negligent. It is said to someone other than the person bringing the lawsuit and that they're harming their reputation. Now, if someone is a high profile or celebrity, then there must be actual malice. And what that means is this, that they must have known that what they said was, was false. He filed a hundred million dollar defamation lawsuit, so has attorneys working on that case as well as a plaintiff who brought the case. So you have to do all your research on that and get all that ready and then who's going to help substantiate the case and make sure that you have witnesses that are going to be there to testify for you as well if in fact the, the case goes to trial. But from a strategic standpoint, it kind of changed the narrative from the sense that rather than the lawsuits being filed against him, he is the one bringing the lawsuit. Because as I said before, you're innocent until proven guilty. And these are, you know, alleged victims until he's actually convicted or not convicted.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Kelly, you know, Diddy is obviously fighting for his life. He's, as you mentioned, he's also himself have gone after NBC Universal News Nation filing these other lawsuits. But how is it going for both sides, both the prosecution and Diddy's team?

[Kayla Brantley]

Well, from the government's perspective, that's going to be seen at trial whether they have the jury come back and find him guilty or if in fact they're going to come back and find him not guilty on these cases. I am sympathetic to the plight of these people that allegedly have been harmed as someone who deals with people that have been human trafficked. But from the standpoint of P. Diddy and the fact that he has denied all the wrongdoing and the fact that one case was dismissed without prejudice is pretty powerful from the perspective of someone who brought the case and now all of a sudden that case is dismissed could potentially sway people to think, well, why was that case dismissed? Like, are these allegations true or all these allegations not true? And also from P. Diddy, bringing the defamation case and saying that you are harming me is a very powerful, powerful statement.

[Kelly Hyman]

The settlement with Cassi Ventura his ex. Just this week, she announced that she's expecting her third child, you know, with her husband. So it really does feel like she has put this all behind her. But I do wonder if she will be called to testify at all in any of these trials.

[Kayla Brantley]

If I had a crystal ball that was working, I would say in regards to the criminal trial, I could definitely see her there. And so she could potentially be subpoenaed. So basically subpoena means that you were asked to appear in, in a particular place, compelled to do something, and I could see that definitely happen. Could it also potentially happen in regards to the civil case? If there's some kind of knowledge related, you know, related to the case itself, that that could potentially happen. But I could definitely see the government, in regards to the New York criminal case, definitely bringing her in because of the information and the knowledge that she allegedly knows. And also the video that people saw that was played on the news is very, very powerful as well. But PDD's team can try and get that information out and try and say potentially that it's too prejudiced, it's going to harm him so much that it's too prejudiced towards him. But the judge will ultimately decide if that's something that they, they want to do. But I do see her potentially coming in the government's criminal case.

[Kelly Hyman]

We never even knew the details of the settlement. We don't know how much. We don't know any of the details. So I also do wonder if, you know, that's going to come out in due time if she does get subpoenaed. And there's a lot of question marks.

[Kayla Brantley]

Still, if I had to guess, I.

[Kelly Hyman]

Love your crystal ball. I really do. I'm not sure how broken it is. I'm not sure how broken it is. Right.

[Kayla Brantley]

Yes. That she, that she doesn't. Based on confidentiality. Usually in high profile cases, if you reach a settlement that it's confidential and what that means is you cannot disclose it to anyone, you cannot post it. In some cases, if you do disclose the confidential information, then there's some harm to the person that does it, whether the other side gets all the money back, plus potentially attorney's fees. So, like penalties in it as well. Like say if someone settles and says, okay, I'm going to give you X amount of money. Right. But under the agreement, if you disclose it, go on, for example, on a social media and post it or do anything like that, and then the other side can get compensation, get the money back, get attorneys fees, get additional compensation.

[Kelly Hyman]

But does that work if you're subpoenaed?

[Kayla Brantley]

Right. So she could be subpoenaed to be there. I don't see P. Diddy's team, you know, asking. And so I could see maybe in a civil case, was someone in a civil case trying to ask. But I would assume that there would be objections due to confidentiality during breach of agreement. Because also she doesn't want to breach the agreement if the agreement where I'm just assuming the agreement has some kind of confidentiality provisions in it. If she's on a witness stand testifying and part of her deal is if she says the amount, she loses that amount and has like triple damages, like three times as much and all stuff like that, that her attorney who's going to represent her would stand up and say, you know, and argue in front of the court. Your honor, that information is confidential and she would be in breach of the agreement. She cannot say the amount. And they would argue case law and then the judge would, would ultimately, you know, decide. But I don't see that getting out now could be wrong. You know, anything is possible. I don't know what their agreement said, what it has say. But usually in these type of agreements, the one side wants to protect that want the world to know how much it is on any type of case that you reach, you know, a settlement, you can't disclose it, you can't discuss it with anyone, you can't post about it. You just, you know, can't say anything bad about the other person, you know, anything disparaging against them, anything along. Along those lines. So if she does testify and if that is a provision, most likely it will be just the facts, potentially that video of what she experienced. Experienced. But we'll have to, have to see if there's motions. Right. Where they, they don't want her to testify. And based on the confidentiality and attorneys are definitely going to be working hard on both sides on this case.

[Kelly Hyman]

Oh, absolutely.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

What a lot of people also are curious about are the potential witnesses. As you mentioned, Cassie is more than likely one of the alleged victims mentioned in the criminal suit. But I mean Diddy had his hands and knew everybody a listers, Everybody, you know, went to his parties. And I was just wondering what your thought was on that. That there could be some very interesting people who will be up on that.

[Kayla Brantley]

Stand from the criminal perspective. Yeah. So also potentially FBI agents, people that went to his, his house and people that did the, you know, affidavit and probable cause in order to substantiate the Fact that to, to go there. So you're going to see a lot of people like that, FBI agents. And so from the government's perspective, you're going to have a lot of experts as well. Definitely expert driven in regards to the, the criminal cases.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

Kelly, you also mentioned obviously that video and I think it was 2016 of Cassie, we see that Diddy had dragged her from the hotel hallway. But there's also another video that Diddy posted weeks after and that was his apology in reference to that video. And I was just wondering, you think that would be included as well.

[Kayla Brantley]

It's possible. I could definitely, you know, see, see that and also the statements that he made. So it's, it's important to remember usually attorney will tell his client, you know, not to make statements in regards to any type of case or potential case because those statements can be used against you in a court of law. So anything that was said, anything that was, was posted. Also any communication other than his attorneys, there are some spousal privileges but that gets really more complex. The communication that they have is not protected. So potentially if talking to someone else or someone else's messages that was sent to someone or any type of other communication can be used against him. And so I could definitely see that coming up. But the argument can be made is that could go both ways from the argument standpoint of he was being accountable. Right. And apologizing and owning up to it. But the other side of the coin is yes, he's admitting that he did it and therefore because he did it, he allegedly has a propensity to do it again.

[Marjorie Hernandez]

So for now, that's it. And thanks again to this week's guest, Kelly Hyman. Great to have her on the pod. And as we prepare for Diddy's trial in May or whenever it might actually be, what other trials would you like for us to cover? Let us know by email the trialailymail.com or you can WhatsApp us on/447-7966, 5-7512 and start your message with trial.

[Kayla Brantley]

As.

[Kelly Hyman]

Ever, thank you for listening. Please share all your comments, suggestions and thoughts on the trial of Diddy on Apple or Spotify and Follow us on TikTok@DailyMailCrime. Follow the trial of Diddy as we will be here each week with fresh information, new insights and some expert guests. Goodbye.