Speaker 1: We're gonna get started right here in New York City
Speaker 1: and a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial against Sean
Speaker 1: Dede Combs. It was an emotional day in court as
Speaker 1: Cassie Ventura, Combe's ex girlfriend and former bad boy protege,
Speaker 1: took the stand and detailed their ten year relationship. It
Speaker 1: was testimony filled with allegations of physical abuse and control
Speaker 1: that included drug fueled sexual encounters called freak offs with
Speaker 1: male escorts under Combe's direction.
Speaker 2: Cassie told the jury.
Speaker 1: That Colmbs would often beat her, leaving her with black
Speaker 1: eyes and bruises all over her body.
Speaker 2: Her lawsuit, filed.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty three, became the framework for the government's
Speaker 1: case against p Diddy. Cassie testified that her career as
Speaker 1: an artist ultimately became stifled because she spent most of
Speaker 1: her time for filling Comb's sexual fantasies. Cassie is back
Speaker 1: on the stand today with more details of their relationship.
Speaker 1: Defense attorneys for did he maintain the sexual encounters between
Speaker 1: he and Cassie were consensual? This is just my opinion.
Speaker 1: I don't give it. I don't give it, not even
Speaker 1: a little bit. When you hear the details that we heard.
Speaker 1: Good luck with the defense deciphering the difference between sex
Speaker 1: trafficking and racketeering as opposed to domestic abuse.
Speaker 2: And thinking that's going to win them a jury.
Speaker 1: I find it very difficult to believe that human beings
Speaker 1: are going to be able to disassociate themselves from the
Speaker 1: criminal kind of behavior she's alleged he has done. By
Speaker 1: the way, there is video of it, and I don't
Speaker 1: know what level of access is going to be given
Speaker 1: to it, but it's spanning about fifteen minutes. Remember when
Speaker 1: you saw on running down the hallway after have but
Speaker 1: naked with a tower wrapped around him.
Speaker 2: Remember that right there? Remember that?
Speaker 1: Remember when he dragged her and threw it to the
Speaker 1: ground and kicked her. Apparently we only saw a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes, but that scene took place for about fifteen minutes.
Speaker 1: And now reportedly anyway it's going to be released if
Speaker 1: it hasn't already for all to see.
Speaker 2: I don't know whether that's true or not. I just
Speaker 2: know that's very.
Speaker 1: Very bad as it pertains to domestic violence not being
Speaker 1: a federal com.
Speaker 2: That's more of a state crime.
Speaker 1: Good luck with convincing the jury of that see my
Speaker 1: man Christen here, I see my man Galen here, I
Speaker 1: see my man Rusting here. I got a bunch of
Speaker 1: people there. Jennifer's in the control room. How are you
Speaker 1: going to be able to.
Speaker 2: Hear evidence.
Speaker 1: Of black eyes, bruises over the body, in urination on
Speaker 1: her and in her and disassociate that by saying, well,
Speaker 1: that's not really sex trafficking, that's not really racketeering, that's
Speaker 1: just domestic violence. So I'm gonna let him off. I
Speaker 1: don't know about that job. I understand legally, if you're
Speaker 1: on a jury, that's what you're supposed to do. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you're going to convince jurors to do that.
Speaker 1: So in my opinion, it looks very, very very bad
Speaker 1: for Diddy. It really really does, especially since the defense
Speaker 1: has all but said, hey, we understand his behavior was reprehensible,
Speaker 1: but that doesn't mean he's guilty of these two.
Speaker 2: Specific federal crimes. I don't know how you do that.
Speaker 2: I just don't. But that's just me.
Speaker 1: Better minds than me might be able to answer that question,
Speaker 1: which is why I'm going to My next guest joining
Speaker 1: me now to discuss the trial is CNN Legal analyst
Speaker 1: Extordinaea the one and knowly Ellie Honing, a frequent contributed
Speaker 1: to the show. Thank you so much, always good to
Speaker 1: see you.
Speaker 2: Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I know Cassie is back on the stand today,
Speaker 1: but let's talk about yesterday. What were your impressions of
Speaker 1: what we heard in court from Cassie herself yesterday.
Speaker 3: Well, I think she was doing what prosecutors need her
Speaker 3: to do, which, first of all, Stephen, is to come
Speaker 3: across as credible, to come across as sympathetic, to tell
Speaker 3: her story, to put the jury in her shoes. Remember,
Speaker 3: in a trial setting like this, the witness is sitting
Speaker 3: feet away from the jury, five to ten feet. She
Speaker 3: is right there. And it sounds to me from talking
Speaker 3: to people in the courtroom and reading her testimony, that
Speaker 3: what she talked about was clear. I think she detailed
Speaker 3: some really horrific experiences she went through, and I think
Speaker 3: she came off as credible. She didn't give the sense
Speaker 3: that she was stretching or going out of her way
Speaker 3: to say things that were damaging to Sean Comb. So
Speaker 3: I think yesterday at the if I was the prosecutor
Speaker 3: at the end of the day, yesterday I would have said, good,
Speaker 3: good start.
Speaker 4: We got a long ways to go though.
Speaker 1: One of the things that and I hate bringing this up.
Speaker 1: I certainly am not trying to to just harm heart
Speaker 1: in any way. I mean, I just want to say
Speaker 1: when she gave the details and then she talked about
Speaker 1: being urinated in her mouth, I just I was so appalled,
Speaker 1: so taken aback by it. I know most I can't
Speaker 1: imagine most human beings would feel any differently than me.
Speaker 1: That doesn't necessarily equate to sex trafficking and racketeering per se.
Speaker 1: But how damaging is that in a case such of
Speaker 1: this nature against P Diddy.
Speaker 3: Well, it's obviously visceral and revolting testimony for the reasons
Speaker 3: you said, Steven, And I think it actually does raise
Speaker 3: that question, which is was this voluntary? Because that's ultimately
Speaker 3: what the defense is going to be. And when you
Speaker 3: talk about acts like that that are so stream, it
Speaker 3: becomes harder and hard to agree that something like that
Speaker 3: what you just talked about would be done voluntarily. But
Speaker 3: you raise a really important point, and this is what
Speaker 3: the defense argued in its opening statement. And by the way,
Speaker 3: I thought this was an excellent opening statement by the defense.
Speaker 3: Sometimes you'll see defense layers get up there and say
Speaker 3: everything you'll hear from the prosecution is Bs, their star
Speaker 3: witness is a liar, they have bad motives.
Speaker 4: That's not what the defense did here.
Speaker 3: I think they very smartly said I'm paraphrasing here, but
Speaker 3: they said he's not a good guy.
Speaker 4: He's done really bad things. He had a drug problem.
Speaker 3: He was domestically abusive of Cassie. However, the defense argued
Speaker 3: that is not what he's charged with.
Speaker 4: And they're right.
Speaker 3: This is not a domestic violence case, this is not
Speaker 3: an assault case. It is a federal racketeering, conspiracy, and
Speaker 3: sex trafficking case. And so I think a big part
Speaker 3: of the defense and we'll see this, I think when
Speaker 3: Cassie gets cross examined, probably late in the day on Wednesday,
Speaker 3: is you don't have to believe she's a full liar,
Speaker 3: Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Even if what she
Speaker 3: says is true, this relationship, the defense will argue, was
Speaker 3: consensual and it does not make Sean Combs a federal
Speaker 3: racket Here.
Speaker 4: I thought they did a really effective job of articulating.
Speaker 1: But Ellie, what about the notion that it's twelve jurors, right,
Speaker 1: it's twelve jurors, is six alternates.
Speaker 2: They're human beings.
Speaker 1: And there is such a thing as hearing about acts,
Speaker 1: hearing about an.
Speaker 2: Individual that's so repulsive, so.
Speaker 1: Heinous, that you find yourself wanting to give him even
Speaker 1: if the charges don't necessarily correlate with what you're hearing.
Speaker 1: We're talking sex trafficking and racketeering. But you might have
Speaker 1: people up there and says, I don't give a damn
Speaker 1: about the specifics one hundred charges. His behind needs to
Speaker 1: be in jail. How do you wore that off?
Speaker 4: If you're the defense one, that is a dynamic in
Speaker 4: the court.
Speaker 3: You know, I practiced in that courthouse for much of
Speaker 3: my career in the Southern District of New York. People
Speaker 3: have this misconception that the jury is sort of this monolith.
Speaker 3: All it is is twelve regular twelve people from Manhattan
Speaker 3: and the Bronx, maybe Westchepter County. They are subject to
Speaker 3: emotion like anyone else. And yeah, if you're the prosecution,
Speaker 3: you do want to inflame the jury. There's limits, but
Speaker 3: you want to show them that video. You want them
Speaker 3: hating him, you want them being disgusted, And I think
Speaker 3: what The trick is the difficulty for the defense layers
Speaker 3: is you have to prevail upon the jury say, look,
Speaker 3: you are not here to rule with.
Speaker 4: Your emotions or your heart.
Speaker 3: You are not even here to rule on whether he's
Speaker 3: a good person or a horrible person. You are here
Speaker 3: to rule on whether the prosecution has proved the specific
Speaker 3: federal crimes they've charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, by
Speaker 3: the way, I don't think the prosecution is going to
Speaker 3: be unable to prove its charges, but it is important
Speaker 3: to note that the charges are more dramatic and sort
Speaker 3: of more far flung than just domestic violence and just assault.
Speaker 3: They have to show, essentially that Shawan Combs presided over
Speaker 3: a criminal organization that had structures and procedures in order
Speaker 3: to promote and protect his career.
Speaker 1: Most of what was heard yesterday was about sex, drug use,
Speaker 1: domestic violence, as you just reiterated, but all of those essentially,
Speaker 1: especially the last. The latter is a state crime, by
Speaker 1: the way, but this is a federal case. Has the
Speaker 1: prosecution made the connection to the federal charges of sex
Speaker 1: trafficking and racketeering yet?
Speaker 2: In your eyes?
Speaker 4: So no, not yet. I mean they're still early in
Speaker 4: their case, but I think they'll get there.
Speaker 3: The racketeering laws that I used to use, these laws
Speaker 3: charge these laws all the time, are very broad and
Speaker 3: what they allow federal prosecutors to do, and again this
Speaker 3: is a federal prosecucution, is to pull in certain things
Speaker 3: that would otherwise be state crimes. So for example, domestic
Speaker 3: violence or just an assault like we see on that video,
Speaker 3: that would ordinarily not be a federal crime, but you
Speaker 3: can bring it into a federal court as evidence of
Speaker 3: the racketeering enterprise.
Speaker 4: And so yeah, the allegation here is.
Speaker 3: The racketeering enterprise committed a bunch of different crimes, including
Speaker 3: not just sexual assault and interstate prostitution, but gun possession
Speaker 3: and drug use and obstruction. And I'll tell you one
Speaker 3: other interesting feeature of the charge here, Steven, racketeering definitionally
Speaker 3: means an organization, a group of people. I used to
Speaker 3: charge twenty five person racketeering cases. I was doing bob cases,
Speaker 3: so it was more of a traditional setup. Sean Combs
Speaker 3: is alleged to be a racketeering enterprise of one. There
Speaker 3: are other participants alluded to, but he's the only person
Speaker 3: who's ever indicted, is the only person sitting at that
Speaker 3: defense table and look for his defense team to say,
Speaker 3: they're overkilling this. They're telling you the man was a
Speaker 3: one man criminal enterprise, and I think prosecutors are going
Speaker 3: to respond saying, you bet, that is what we're saying.
Speaker 1: You know, Cassie Ventura is on the stand yesterday and today.
Speaker 1: We've seen images footage of her being beat We've heard
Speaker 1: about her being urinated on. She's an expectant mother, she's
Speaker 1: about to give birth, she's nine months pregnant. What kind
Speaker 1: of role, what imagery she provided with being pregnant do
Speaker 1: you think that could potentially have on a jury ticularly
Speaker 1: considering her testimony at this moment in time.
Speaker 3: I think that absolutely matters. I take a very humanistic
Speaker 3: view of trials. I think they're all about the people
Speaker 3: and the personalities that are there in the courtroom. And
Speaker 3: you know, it's interesting because the defense wanted to prohibit
Speaker 3: her from walking in. Normally, the way it works is
Speaker 3: the door opens at the back of the courthouse and
Speaker 3: the witness walks right down the middle of the aisle,
Speaker 3: right past the jurors, and the defense said, no, judge,
Speaker 3: let's get her seated first, so she doesn't have to
Speaker 3: do that so it's less obvious that she's pregnant, and
Speaker 3: the judge denied that. The judge said, no, we're going
Speaker 3: to treat her like any other witness. So they obviously
Speaker 3: know she is very, you know, far along in her pregnancy.
Speaker 4: They can see it.
Speaker 3: She's sitting right in front of them, and of course
Speaker 3: that elicits some degree of sympathy.
Speaker 4: It humanizes her. It reminds them that she is a
Speaker 4: much She already is a mother, but she's a mother to.
Speaker 3: Be, and you have to take that into consideration if
Speaker 3: you're the defense cross examining her. Now, first of all,
Speaker 3: it's going to be a female defense lawyer who cross
Speaker 3: examines her. I mean, if they send a male to
Speaker 3: cross examine her, that is malpractice. And you know, you
Speaker 3: have to go after the prosecution's key witness. You have
Speaker 3: to be pointed and aggressive, but you also don't want
Speaker 3: to come across as being domineering or a bully. And
Speaker 3: so I think the fact that she's in her third
Speaker 3: trimester would also play in there.
Speaker 1: Ellie helped me out here. I mean, just just play
Speaker 1: with me for a little bit here. Why would it
Speaker 1: be malpractice? I mean, for obvious, I know the answer,
Speaker 1: but I want you to articulate it to the audience.
Speaker 1: Why would it be malpracticed to send a male attorney
Speaker 1: up there to question Cassie Ventur. What if it were
Speaker 1: an absolutely brilliant attorney.
Speaker 2: Who was suave, who know how to be very.
Speaker 1: Very charming to a jury, etc. Why would it be
Speaker 1: malpractice to send a male attorney up there? The question
Speaker 1: of Cassie Venturer educate our audience A.
Speaker 4: Lot of it's just an appearance issue.
Speaker 3: Look, this case is about a male abusing females, and
Speaker 3: so look, cross examination could get pointed, and you don't
Speaker 3: want to be in a position where the jury's watching
Speaker 3: a male defense lawyer, you know, not literally, but figuratively
Speaker 3: beat up on a very pregnant female witness slash victim.
Speaker 3: So I think there's a sensitivity there. Also, Look, there
Speaker 3: may need to be cross examination about some of the
Speaker 3: nuances and details of the sexual activity, the freak offs. Look,
Speaker 3: there was testimony, For example, Cassie Ventura testified that at
Speaker 3: times she was made to do these freak offs while
Speaker 3: she was menstruating. And so those are questions that are
Speaker 3: much more comfortably asked by a female of a female
Speaker 3: than a male of a female.
Speaker 1: And my room is saying this, Ellie, does this sound
Speaker 1: even worse than R Kelly?
Speaker 3: It's you know, it's it's interesting how you look at it.
Speaker 3: I mean, R Kelly, I think there was probably more violence.
Speaker 3: I mean, I know we have the videotape in this case.
Speaker 3: The number of victims I think was more with R.
Speaker 4: Kelly. But boy, the the.
Speaker 3: Sort of full core domination of these women mentally, physically, sexually,
Speaker 3: career wise in the Sean Combs case, I think is
Speaker 3: in a different category.
Speaker 2: Last question for you, Elie, Cassie's husband.
Speaker 1: I'm being told he may be called to testify in
Speaker 1: this trial, yet he was in court on Monday. First
Speaker 1: of all, is that ordinary? Is that something that's typical?
Speaker 1: I don't know whether or not that is. And what
Speaker 1: do you think about the notion of him giving testimony
Speaker 1: in all of this?
Speaker 3: So it's interesting because normally, if somebody is a potential witness,
Speaker 3: they're supposed to be what we call sequestered, meaning they're
Speaker 3: not supposed to be in the courtroom because you don't
Speaker 3: want witness A seeing what witness B is saying, because
Speaker 3: they might conform their testimony to be consistent or to
Speaker 3: contradict that. So ordinarily, whichever side is thinking of calling
Speaker 3: a witness should make sure that that witness is not
Speaker 3: in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. If he
Speaker 3: is called, look, you know, if either side needs him
Speaker 3: to come to the stand, they will subpoena him.
Speaker 4: He will have to take the stand. I'm not sure
Speaker 4: what his relevance would be.
Speaker 3: It could be that the defense thinks he undercuts some
Speaker 3: aspects of Cassidy's testimony. Maybe she's had conversations with him
Speaker 3: that contradict things she said on the stand. Or on
Speaker 3: the other hand, maybe he supports some of the things
Speaker 3: she said. Maybe he met her at a time when
Speaker 3: she made certain statements to him that could be relevant now.
Speaker 3: So that would be a risky move, I think for
Speaker 3: either side. But you know, these are high stakes scenarios,
Speaker 3: stephen A, and sometimes you have to make tricky calls.
Speaker 4: So we'll see this.
Speaker 3: This reminds me of being back there at the prosecutor's
Speaker 3: office and are we happy with what we got or
Speaker 3: do we need to roll the dice here on another witness.
Speaker 1: Absolute last question, if you're the defense team, how are
Speaker 1: you feeling today?
Speaker 3: I'm feeling okay thus far, because if I'm the defense team,
Speaker 3: my strategy is, you can believe Cassie Ventura. Even if
Speaker 3: you believe her though, this was a ten to eleven
Speaker 3: year consensual relationship, and so I'm in a position on
Speaker 3: the one hand where i don't have to convince the
Speaker 3: jury that this eight months pregnant, likable, well spoken, sympathetic
Speaker 3: woman is some kind of lunatic liar. On the other hand, though,
Speaker 3: let me give the other side. I'd be worried though,
Speaker 3: because that videotape is so bad, and the visceral nature
Speaker 3: of her testimony and what she went through is so shocking.
Speaker 3: I'd be worried about what you talked about a few
Speaker 3: minutes ago, Steven, which is just is the overwhelming disgust
Speaker 3: for this guy, for Diddy gonna just be so much
Speaker 3: that overwhelms everything else in that.
Speaker 1: Now, apologies, you just brought up something very very quickly,
Speaker 1: the fact that the whole tape is the whole tape
Speaker 1: has been released.
Speaker 3: Yeah, so look, the I don't know whether we'll get
Speaker 3: to see it in the public, but that tape is
Speaker 3: a crucial piece of evidence you're gonna need. The jury's
Speaker 3: gonna need to see and consider every.
Speaker 4: Bit of that.
Speaker 3: And they actually had Cassidy Ventura narrating it sort of
Speaker 3: piece by piece, which I think is really important, a
Speaker 3: because it bolsters Cassidy Ventura's testimony, but be it allows
Speaker 3: a firsthand participant, the victim, to tell the jury exactly
Speaker 3: what they're seeing there, what's happening each step of the way.
Speaker 1: Kelly Honik, CNN Legal and list extraordin there right here
Speaker 1: on the steven Ate.
Speaker 2: Mike.
Speaker 1: Sure, appreciate you, buddy, Thank you so much for your time. Man,
Speaker 1: I know you right, thank you all right
Speaker 3: M hm