Speaker 1: Hey there, folks.
Speaker 2: It is Tuesday, June twenty fourth, and the prosecution rests,
Speaker 2: the defense rests, and Diddy says thank you to the
Speaker 2: judge in open court. Welcome to the second Diddy update
Speaker 2: of the day here on Amy and TJ and Robes.
Speaker 2: It was a day of developments, which is why we're
Speaker 2: hopping back on.
Speaker 1: A lot of.
Speaker 2: Stuff happened in the afternoon as we're recording this. It
Speaker 2: is early evening here on the East Coast. But a
Speaker 2: day of developments, including hearing Diddy's voice in open court.
Speaker 2: I guess just the we'll get into the exact quotes
Speaker 2: in a second, but just the idea of hearing from
Speaker 2: him seems like it's a big day, just that he spoke.
Speaker 3: Did you just imagine he said it the way you
Speaker 3: inflected it?
Speaker 4: Thank you.
Speaker 1: Would take that? Take that take that.
Speaker 4: I was laughing. I was like, Wow, did he really
Speaker 4: do it? Just like that thing?
Speaker 2: You know what if you did, maybe you want to
Speaker 2: sound very sweet and very innocent today in court.
Speaker 1: We know I cannot imagine.
Speaker 3: Coming out it's probably Mike, thank you no, but this
Speaker 3: is the first time that we have heard from Ditty
Speaker 3: directly correct since the beginning of this trial.
Speaker 2: I'm trying to think there had to be something where
Speaker 2: he had to give a nod or a yes, or
Speaker 2: maybe eighty little.
Speaker 1: I can't remember it though.
Speaker 3: The only thing I have seen reported on from folks
Speaker 3: in the courtroom is his demeanor, his facial expressions, the
Speaker 3: fact that he was nodding or nodding.
Speaker 4: Aggressively towards a juror.
Speaker 3: We've seen reports today that he was hunched over, reports
Speaker 3: that he wouldn't look at the screen when some of
Speaker 3: the explicit videos were being shown, But no, those were
Speaker 3: just descriptions of his behavior and his physical demeanor, but
Speaker 3: nothing from him directly.
Speaker 1: You know what.
Speaker 2: We've been following a lot of these coom these reporters,
Speaker 2: and we were reading their note today about him speaking.
Speaker 2: None of them mentioned that he had spoken prior, so
Speaker 2: I think they would have.
Speaker 4: They would have pretty sure that would have been a
Speaker 4: big deal.
Speaker 1: So this might have been it to hear from him
Speaker 1: the first time.
Speaker 2: We also had a cross examination that took longer than expected,
Speaker 2: which is now messing with the timeline.
Speaker 1: And also Diddy's team.
Speaker 2: Is asking for an acquittal right now and they haven't
Speaker 2: gotten an answer to that yet, So that's an afternoon
Speaker 2: of developments. That's why we jumped on. But I guess,
Speaker 2: like we said, the big one here hearing Diddy's voice.
Speaker 2: This is a standard part of any trial. We talked
Speaker 2: about it before it happened. We're going to hear from
Speaker 2: Diddy today because they always ask are.
Speaker 1: You going to testify on your own defense?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 3: But I thought it was interesting that the judge started
Speaker 3: with asking Diddy how he was feeling that.
Speaker 4: I've heard that before. I didn't either, but it.
Speaker 2: Once in a while though, cordial, how are you feeling?
Speaker 4: So the judge asked Diddy, how are you feeling?
Speaker 3: Comb says, I'm doing great, Thank you, your honor, and then.
Speaker 4: He added my favorite part. He tells the judge you're
Speaker 4: doing an excellent job. Charming as ever.
Speaker 1: I did like that, Okay, I did like it.
Speaker 2: Look everybody likes to be complimented, and a judge in
Speaker 2: his federal trial, I liked it. Who knows what it
Speaker 2: came off. I wonder how it felt in the courtroom.
Speaker 2: Was it actually a warm moment? Is it possible to
Speaker 2: have a warm moment in that courtroom?
Speaker 3: Possibly, but it does seem it seems like there's a
Speaker 3: motive behind a defendant telling a judge that he's.
Speaker 4: Doing an excellent job.
Speaker 3: I mean, maybe he really felt that and thought that,
Speaker 3: but it just made me laugh a little, just because
Speaker 3: so much of what we're hearing about Diddy and his
Speaker 3: charming and uh, just he had a way with people.
Speaker 3: He knows how to make people do what he wants
Speaker 3: them to do.
Speaker 1: That was my thing.
Speaker 2: What if this was a matter of control that yes,
Speaker 2: I'm the defend that my life was on the line,
Speaker 2: but I'm telling you you're doing a good job. I
Speaker 2: still need my approval in this room. But what's going on?
Speaker 3: Using with confidence, ouzing with confidence, as is the defense.
Speaker 2: You notice our our afternoon updates. We're a lot looser.
Speaker 2: We're yeah, we are a punchy. We've been up since
Speaker 2: two thirty three in the morning at this point, so
Speaker 2: forgive us, but we're.
Speaker 1: Going to get through it.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Well, we weren't even expecting to do this episode,
Speaker 3: but a lot happened this afternoon, and it was certainly
Speaker 3: worth noting, specifically because yes, did he did speak, so yes.
Speaker 3: Combs also told the judge that he was not going
Speaker 3: to testify. No one thought he was going to, and
Speaker 3: certainly the defense has told us over the last couple
Speaker 3: of days they weren't bringing any witnesses on the stand,
Speaker 3: so there was zero expectation that Combs was going to
Speaker 3: but we at least got to hear him formally tell
Speaker 3: the judge that and why and how he came to
Speaker 3: that decision.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they always want them to know that they have
Speaker 2: to tell the judge, and the judge has to be
Speaker 2: satisfied because you don't want this issue on appeal. Frankly,
Speaker 2: like you saying, definitely, I'm making this decision, making it
Speaker 2: on my own. I do not want to testify in
Speaker 2: my own defense. Look After he says that the prosecute
Speaker 2: and again this what they call summary witnesses. These are
Speaker 2: not necessarily for one side or the other, but they're
Speaker 2: essentially just to go through notes and to go through
Speaker 2: data for the jury and help them piece connect the dots.
Speaker 2: As you say, So, this is supposed to be a
Speaker 2: boring witness for a lot of ways. This dude was
Speaker 2: on from Friday through this afternoon early almost to the afternoon.
Speaker 2: He turned out to be very important, And I think
Speaker 2: this ended up being a defense witness, did it not, Yes, So.
Speaker 3: That's what I believe was going on. So yes, the
Speaker 3: defense didn't technically call any witnesses, but this Homeland Security
Speaker 3: special agent ended up being a conduit by which the
Speaker 3: defense was able to present texts and videos, and so
Speaker 3: they were in a way able to present its case
Speaker 3: through this prosecution witness, which is not what I don't
Speaker 3: think any of us expected at least. So, yes, he
Speaker 3: was only supposed to be on the stand for a while.
Speaker 3: He was on the stand for three days and much
Speaker 3: longer today, as you pointed out, than he was expected to.
Speaker 3: I believe the defense told the court they thought they'd
Speaker 3: need about an hour and change with him. He was
Speaker 3: up for what three hours made me more?
Speaker 1: Yeah, he ended up being very important. I think those.
Speaker 2: We've obviously kept up with every single day of the
Speaker 2: trial actually now to think about it, but some of
Speaker 2: the evidence, now, I guess some of the text messages
Speaker 2: he was able to introduce, or the defense was able
Speaker 2: to introduce through him, they paint a picture of almost loving,
Speaker 2: normal boyfriend girlfriend relationships. They paint a picture of women
Speaker 2: who are enthusiastic and we use the word earlier giddy.
Speaker 2: I think some of these text messages hit harder than
Speaker 2: a lot of previous ones. We've seen, and that's why
Speaker 2: this witness ended up being so valuable, possibly for the event.
Speaker 4: And you know, whoever goes last.
Speaker 3: Maybe I'm wrong, but I would think leaves a bigger
Speaker 3: impression because it's the freshest on your mind. It's the
Speaker 3: thing that's closest to the decision you're going to end
Speaker 3: up coming to, just before you deliberate. This is the
Speaker 3: last bit of evidence you're hearing, so it tends to
Speaker 3: have a lot of weight. And yeah, we heard texts
Speaker 3: where we saw loving, consensual relationships, but we also saw
Speaker 3: explicit texts that were describing sexual acts, but consensual sexual acts.
Speaker 4: So those were two very important things.
Speaker 3: Not only did he have a loving, softer side, but
Speaker 3: it very much seemed through these.
Speaker 4: Techs that both Cassie and.
Speaker 3: Jane were, as you say, enthusiastically participating in explicit sexual acts.
Speaker 3: And they said so through their texts, through their own words,
Speaker 3: through their own written words in real time.
Speaker 2: That's powerful that they are initiating. There was not some
Speaker 2: they're not being coursed, they're not being right. They initiate
Speaker 2: a lot of this stuff. And look, the defense did
Speaker 2: its job.
Speaker 1: This is what they're supposed to do. Put a little
Speaker 1: bit of doubt. That's all you need. Reasonable doubts.
Speaker 2: Yes, that what they say did the prosecution prove its
Speaker 2: case beyond a reasonable doubt. Look, all we could do
Speaker 2: is report on it from here and read transcripts in
Speaker 2: the courtroom. I don't know, piece by piece listening to
Speaker 2: every single bit of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Hibar Yeah.
Speaker 3: One of the reporters in the courtroom pointed out this
Speaker 3: text message that the defense was able to talk about
Speaker 3: and present to the jury was a message from Cassie
Speaker 3: even Too or Fine, who told Diddy in a text
Speaker 3: in twenty seventeen, you you are my best friend, and
Speaker 3: she said that there was no one that she.
Speaker 4: Loves more than him.
Speaker 3: That's hard to imagine that you would write a text
Speaker 3: to someone like that you are my best friend in
Speaker 3: a way that's even more powerful than any of this
Speaker 3: sexually explicit acts, or that I love you.
Speaker 4: I love you is.
Speaker 3: Because that's mutual admiration. That's that's a deeper bond in
Speaker 3: a way. I just thought that was really powerful.
Speaker 2: You know, I hadn't thought about it the way you're
Speaker 2: speaking of it now. I think a lot of people
Speaker 2: can relate to what those words mean, and it's tough
Speaker 2: to balance to that with this is a woman who
Speaker 2: is being, according to the prosecution, almost held hostage by
Speaker 2: this man because of threats of violence, because of threats
Speaker 2: of taking away rent, because the threats of her career.
Speaker 1: That paints a much different.
Speaker 3: Picture, right, Because if someone is obsessed with someone or
Speaker 3: or sexually obsessed with someone, it might create a different
Speaker 3: in a relationship. But a best friend sounds like a mutual, consensual, loving, friendly,
Speaker 3: respectable relationship.
Speaker 4: It's it's different than.
Speaker 3: Some of these explicit texts we see, and that for me,
Speaker 3: that had a lot of.
Speaker 4: Weight to it.
Speaker 2: You know, we were questioning why it seems amazing. It's
Speaker 2: remarkable that the defense, after all this and everything that's
Speaker 2: on the line, that they would not present any witnesses,
Speaker 2: but having is weird. I just noticed it now that
Speaker 2: over the past several days, all we've been talking about
Speaker 2: as the prosecution is putting on.
Speaker 1: Their case is the defense.
Speaker 2: Ye, because on they are putting on their case, they
Speaker 2: exactly have been doing that, and they've been making their
Speaker 2: points and they have been making some headway and having
Speaker 2: more Perry Mason and courtroom moments than we're used to.
Speaker 3: They are highlighting, and they have an highlighting over the
Speaker 3: past several days, but even specifically yesterday and today, massive
Speaker 3: inconsistencies by the prosecution's star witnesses. And that's with all
Speaker 3: of these loving kind texts. They just fly in the
Speaker 3: face of the direct testimony we heard from those two women.
Speaker 3: And these texts are irrefutable. Even the prosecution had to
Speaker 3: acknowledge their authenticity. These are real texts that happened from
Speaker 3: these women.
Speaker 2: So this is standard. They asked for an acquittal. That
Speaker 2: was the other big yes moment today. It's called it
Speaker 2: rule twenty nine I believe it's called a rule twenty
Speaker 2: nine motion.
Speaker 1: This is standard.
Speaker 2: So they go through and you kind of get a
Speaker 2: little insight into what their defense strategy is, what their
Speaker 2: closing argument might be, and what they think a winning
Speaker 2: strategy has been. But they laid out several things and
Speaker 2: a key part of it was saying that domestic violence
Speaker 2: is not sex trafficking. Yep, like we are copying to Yep,
Speaker 2: he absolutely put his hands on that woman. That is
Speaker 2: not him being violent forcing her to have sex, which
Speaker 2: apparently is a key to proving sex trafficking.
Speaker 1: It has to be the violence. That is a threat, and.
Speaker 2: They laid that out today as a part of the
Speaker 2: motion to say, hey, the prosecution hasn't even made its case.
Speaker 2: We don't even need to put a case on Absolutely.
Speaker 3: They also tried to dismantle the prosecution's claims that did
Speaker 3: He was participating in racketeering acts. They were trying to
Speaker 3: or at least they presented to the court that there
Speaker 3: was zero evidence or they failed to show evidence the
Speaker 3: prosecution did that did He tried to bribe anyone surrounding
Speaker 3: that hotel attack, that video that we saw, So I
Speaker 3: don't know because they said there was no police involvement
Speaker 3: because Cassie venture Fine didn't want any police involved, and
Speaker 3: no charges were So they're trying to go through each
Speaker 3: one of these charges against Didty and saying the prosecution
Speaker 3: did not prove those points.
Speaker 1: You just made the key you.
Speaker 2: Just started with. I'm sorry, I'm racking my brain now. Yes, folks,
Speaker 2: we have been up a long time. You just started
Speaker 2: with the racketeering as what you were talking about it hearing. Okay,
Speaker 2: this is maybe one of the biggest points that they made.
Speaker 1: They prove that Diddy and.
Speaker 2: Others he tried to hide the freak offs from other
Speaker 2: staff members. He tried to keep it a secret from
Speaker 2: some people. He tried to say, hey, wait till the
Speaker 2: coast is clear before you bring mister whoever cowboy.
Speaker 1: In to the room.
Speaker 2: If you do that, then that means you are not
Speaker 2: running a criminal enterprise in which you have fellow criminals
Speaker 2: doing your bidding, because you're actually trying to keep what
Speaker 2: you're doing from them.
Speaker 1: That is a big, big.
Speaker 2: Point about running a criminal enterprise racketeering. He is not
Speaker 2: a mob boss in this argument from the defense, because
Speaker 2: what does a mob boss do. Everybody on the lower
Speaker 2: level on the streets know what bidding they're doing. They're
Speaker 2: doing the criminal bidding for the guy, and the money's
Speaker 2: going right. It's not that kind of thing. They proved
Speaker 2: through text messages. He was trying to not involve people.
Speaker 2: What did the defence attorney say, they did Errand's make
Speaker 2: travel arrangements, They had anything to do with what went
Speaker 2: on with him his girlfriends, and.
Speaker 4: They acknowledged like, yes, did.
Speaker 3: He may have created some difficult, even abusive working conditions,
Speaker 3: grueling working conditions.
Speaker 4: Staffers had little sleep.
Speaker 3: They had to do his bidding at all hours of
Speaker 3: the night, with very little notice. But they point out
Speaker 3: they all could have left, and the reason why they
Speaker 3: did all of these things was not because of any
Speaker 3: threat or coercion or anything illegal. It was because they
Speaker 3: didn't want to lose their jobs. Much simpler, period, And
Speaker 3: that actually makes sense what they were saying, at least,
Speaker 3: what the defense was presenting today was kind of common sense.
Speaker 3: And the dismantle is the best way. They really did
Speaker 3: an effective job of trying to dismantle what the prosecution says.
Speaker 4: They've already proved well in.
Speaker 2: A simplistic way, in a way we can all digest.
Speaker 2: That makes sense to me. Yes, I've done. Who hasn't
Speaker 2: done something you didn't want to do because you want
Speaker 2: to hold on.
Speaker 1: To your job.
Speaker 2: Correct, I'm saying it didn't have to be illegal. Hell,
Speaker 2: I don't even want to go get your coffee that
Speaker 2: kind of a thing. It's not my job. I'm a
Speaker 2: junior partner here. Everybody has. But they put on their case.
Speaker 2: They did not put on a case, but they put
Speaker 2: one on as the prosecution was still having their own
Speaker 2: witnesses up there. So this is what they're going into
Speaker 2: now robes tomorrow. Wait, the timeline now is getting adjusted.
Speaker 3: Yes, so now, because this final witness for the prosecution
Speaker 3: went longer than expected, and I don't know how this
Speaker 3: shifts anything too much. The judge asked the jurors to
Speaker 3: return on Thursday at nine am. But the issue now
Speaker 3: is how long it's going to take and when they're
Speaker 3: actually going to be able to start their closing arguments.
Speaker 3: They think closing arguments now might bleed over into Friday,
Speaker 3: and so now there was the suggestion that the jury
Speaker 3: might not even begin deliberating until Monday, possibly late Friday,
Speaker 3: but possibly they won't even start until Monday.
Speaker 2: Okay, so we can probably rest assured we're not getting
Speaker 2: a verdict this week.
Speaker 4: I think that's highly likely and very probable.
Speaker 1: I wonder how long, I don't think. I don't think.
Speaker 2: I feel completely confident. The conference tomorrow for the jury
Speaker 2: instructions is or is not an open court.
Speaker 3: We're not sure yet, and so obviously we're hoping it is.
Speaker 3: So the jury will for sure not be present for that, obviously,
Speaker 3: because they're discussing what they tell the jurors and what
Speaker 3: the language is that they use for the jurors to
Speaker 3: go and start their deliberation, if it's open quart or not.
Speaker 3: But I don't know if reporters will be allowed, if
Speaker 3: the public will be allowed into the courtroom to hear that.
Speaker 4: I would think that they would be.
Speaker 3: I mean it would just the whole point of a
Speaker 3: court is to have it be transparent, to have it
Speaker 3: be something that the public can witness and watch and
Speaker 3: know that it's done ethically and correctly.
Speaker 4: So it would fly in the face.
Speaker 3: I mean, there are certain things obviously they don't want
Speaker 3: to get out. They'll take a taken aside and the
Speaker 3: judge's chambers or approach the bench that they don't want
Speaker 3: people to know or hear. But in terms of getting
Speaker 3: the jurors instructions, I'm trying to remember in other court
Speaker 3: cases that we have covered, whether or not we've been
Speaker 3: privy to that discussion and that conversation.
Speaker 2: I think so right now, I would say, yes, they're
Speaker 2: not coming back until noon tomorrow, so there are, but
Speaker 2: they all are all expected to be there tomorrow now, hope.
Speaker 1: I don't think robes haven't seen.
Speaker 2: Anywhere either that they expect the charge conference to go
Speaker 2: any longer than tomorrow. I don't think that's going to
Speaker 2: bleed into Thursday, right, They have to get that right.
Speaker 4: I think they have to get that wrapped up.
Speaker 3: I mean, who knows anything's possible, But I just looked
Speaker 3: it up and it says generally jury instructions are not
Speaker 3: open to the public during the deliberation process, but they
Speaker 3: are often part of the public court record after the trial.
Speaker 3: So I knew there had to be transparency. They're just
Speaker 3: not going to be transparent in real time after the fact.
Speaker 3: If people want to go and look and see how
Speaker 3: do they come to the decision to tell the jurors X, Y,
Speaker 3: and Z, that will be.
Speaker 4: Made public after the fact. And so.
Speaker 3: The actual deliberations, including the instructions right by the judge.
Speaker 3: Obviously you know the jury deliberations are private, but that's
Speaker 3: to protect the integrity of the process.
Speaker 5: So the jury instructions we'll see and those have been
Speaker 5: and if they say what they need four hours each
Speaker 5: for closing arguments on for Thursday.
Speaker 2: So even if we start at nine in the morning,
Speaker 2: whoever starts first is going to go in least until
Speaker 2: after lunch, and then whoever's after that is going to
Speaker 2: go through the rest of the day. So then you
Speaker 2: can expect that the next day they're going to start
Speaker 2: instructions to the jury. They do do this in open court,
Speaker 2: and he reads it word for word to them. They
Speaker 2: get it to go back. I mean, they have the
Speaker 2: instructures to go back with him a booklet, but he
Speaker 2: reads every line. This takes a long time. Yeah, from
Speaker 2: my experience.
Speaker 1: So will it take a full day? Will it take
Speaker 1: a half a day? That? I don't know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's anyone's guess. Something else that was We're told
Speaker 3: it's standard. But I thought it was kind of interesting
Speaker 3: that the prosecution, once the defense rested today, they decided
Speaker 3: not to present a rebuttal case, which they're allowed to do.
Speaker 3: They made the decision not to, So I don't know
Speaker 3: how unusual that is, or if that's them trying to
Speaker 3: show their own moment of confidence to reprove dark case.
Speaker 2: They had nothing to but because they didn't present much
Speaker 2: of anything. A few text messages that they acknowledge, yep,
Speaker 2: that was part of the actual record.
Speaker 1: I mean, ye, I don't know if there was much to.
Speaker 3: Rebut that is that is actually fair? So I mean
Speaker 3: who knows. But yes, everything that happened today was what
Speaker 3: we were expecting to happen, including the defense asking for
Speaker 3: that acquittal and the judge saying that he will consider
Speaker 3: making a ruling on it, but not making a ruling
Speaker 3: on it. That's also very standard, very common. I don't
Speaker 3: know if he ends up actually having to make a
Speaker 3: ruling on it, having to declare I am denying your
Speaker 3: request for an acquittal. I'm guessing that has to happen.
Speaker 2: Perhaps tomorrow he will, but it seems strang I'm told
Speaker 2: that's common for them to do that, but I was
Speaker 2: still it seemed odd to me, like, of course, he's
Speaker 2: not gonna do an acquittal. It's just they have to ask.
Speaker 2: The judge then denies. It's part of all these major trials.
Speaker 2: I just didn't know why I didn't do it on
Speaker 2: the spot. But I think I read somewhere from one
Speaker 2: of the reporters that it's also common for the judge
Speaker 2: to handle it this way, just to kind of punt
Speaker 2: it to it.
Speaker 4: Let me think about it.
Speaker 3: It's like when you're a parent and your kid asks
Speaker 3: you for something and you know you're not gonna let
Speaker 3: them do it, but you just don't want to cause
Speaker 3: a scene right there, and you say, I'll let you
Speaker 3: know later, but you already know you're going to say, now,
Speaker 3: you know what we.
Speaker 1: Can talk about this when we get home, exactly.
Speaker 4: I feel like that's basically what.
Speaker 3: Happened today with the judge's decision. He's he already knows
Speaker 3: what he's going to say, which is, yeah, we're gonna
Speaker 3: give this to the jury.
Speaker 1: Can you imagine.
Speaker 2: I don't know that's obviously that's not gonna happen, But
Speaker 2: just there's been I'm waiting for something else, right, I'm
Speaker 2: waiting for another shoot to drop. I'm waiting for another
Speaker 2: shocking moment. I'm waiting for something to become a headline
Speaker 2: we weren't expecting. Don't know what that'll be, but I
Speaker 2: just it's been that kind of trial.
Speaker 3: It certainly has almost every day, but certainly at least
Speaker 3: once a week we get something that's actually we're not
Speaker 3: just exaggerating, jaw dropping. I mean, that's been the case,
Speaker 3: it seems, at least from the beginning, at least something
Speaker 3: each and every time.
Speaker 2: Right, But thirty four witnesses down and just a few
Speaker 2: more days to go before the jury starts deliberating folks.
Speaker 1: In this trial.
Speaker 2: We will continue to keep you updated, obviously well check
Speaker 2: back in with our Diddy update tomorrow. Always you can
Speaker 2: catch us on morning run with your news headlines. But
Speaker 2: for now I am TJ. Holmes and for Amy Robot.
Speaker 2: We always appreciate you running with us. No, we're not
Speaker 2: running today. This isn't run, This is the ditty run.
Speaker 4: Just listening to us, This is the morning receipt.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I know you're tired. Did we mentioned you didn't
Speaker 3: sleep last night at all? Zero on your Aura score,
Speaker 3: so yes, thanks for listening. Everyone, have a great one.