Speaker 1: Hey, the Hopes.
Speaker 2: It is Monday, June twenty third. This is the seventh
Speaker 2: and now we're told the final week of testimony in
Speaker 2: the Didy trial. Welcome to this Didy Update episode of
Speaker 2: Amy and TJ. We've been keeping you updated throughout. It
Speaker 2: doesn't seem like roads. Now we have much longer to go.
Speaker 2: We got a better idea of the timeline of this trial,
Speaker 2: and your honor, the defense calls.
Speaker 3: No, no one right exactly. So that was the breaking
Speaker 3: news this morning. We were all waiting in anticipation for
Speaker 3: who the defense might call to the witness stand and
Speaker 3: how long they might go. We had heard it could
Speaker 3: take one or two days, so we didn't figure there'd
Speaker 3: be many people who would be testifying.
Speaker 4: But it turns out no one is going to be testifying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, the defense is said it will not call any
Speaker 3: witnesses to this stand, and that means one can assume
Speaker 3: or presume that they believe they have made their case.
Speaker 3: They have made their defense of Sean Ditty Combs in
Speaker 3: their cross examinations of the prosecution's witnesses.
Speaker 2: I'm still blown away by what they're saying they're going
Speaker 2: to do. So the witness is on the stand for
Speaker 2: the prosecution. Their final one, this Homeland Security agent. He
Speaker 2: is going to be up there until the end of
Speaker 2: the day, and they expect him to go ropes into tomorrow.
Speaker 2: The defense says they will then be done tomorrow. They're
Speaker 2: not even taking a full day to defend Diddy. That
Speaker 2: blows my mind.
Speaker 4: It's bold, It's really bold.
Speaker 3: It's super confident, and I can see how perhaps that
Speaker 3: would send a message to the jury because everyone expects
Speaker 3: someone at least to have one witness or a few
Speaker 3: witnesses to testify in your defense. The fact that they're
Speaker 3: not calling anyone actually could be a brilliant move in
Speaker 3: terms of what the jury was expecting, because they're thinking, well, hell,
Speaker 3: if they don't need to call anyone, they must have
Speaker 3: proven their case. I mean, I can see how that
Speaker 3: would create a certain mindset in a jury because it
Speaker 3: is not I mean, it happens, It's not unprecedented by
Speaker 3: any means. I mean, this is something that happens quite often,
Speaker 3: but in a case this big, with the stakes so high,
Speaker 3: I mean, we all remember, Diddy is facing life in prison.
Speaker 3: This is not a couple of years, This isn't just
Speaker 3: a few offenses. This is serious, significant stuff where his
Speaker 3: life is on the line, So to not call any
Speaker 3: witnesses is bold, and I you know, it could be brilliant.
Speaker 3: We'll only know after the jury renders it's verdict.
Speaker 2: Bold, brilliant, it could be the exact right move. Look,
Speaker 2: we are we've watched a bunch of trials, but we
Speaker 2: are not legal experts at all. These folks know what
Speaker 2: they're doing, is what I generally find. And if somebody
Speaker 2: like Diddy, who has his resources, he is he has
Speaker 2: the best lawyers with.
Speaker 4: Names like Garrigos and Shapiro his.
Speaker 2: I mean history makers in this country in a law
Speaker 2: of legal and celebrity cases. They know what they're doing,
Speaker 2: so they're making the right the best and you better
Speaker 2: sure believe did he signs off on this defense? And
Speaker 2: how this is going? But they said they're going to
Speaker 2: present a defense of just a few items of evidence
Speaker 2: and exhibits. I don't know how earth shattering those could be,
Speaker 2: but that's their defense. Here you go, here's our homework,
Speaker 2: and that's it.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I mean they did spend days cross examining the star witnesses,
Speaker 3: Cassie Ventura and Jane, so certainly they did. You could
Speaker 3: say spend. They spent days presenting their case through the
Speaker 3: cross examination of the prosecution's witness, and it may be
Speaker 3: that they don't even have a witness to call to
Speaker 3: refute any of the claims. And the people who know
Speaker 3: the people who were there to testify were the people
Speaker 3: that the prosecution already called. So who else would they
Speaker 3: bring on the stand? I mean, people had wondered if
Speaker 3: KK would be coming up, if one of his bodyguards
Speaker 3: would be coming up. But many of them might feel like,
Speaker 3: who knows the reasoning behind it? But they made the
Speaker 3: choice not to bring anyone up to refute anything.
Speaker 4: They feel like they did their job.
Speaker 3: In showing and frankly, they did discredit quite a bit
Speaker 3: of what Jane had to say or even Cassie. When
Speaker 3: you at least it brings a question in the juror's
Speaker 3: mind when you hear them say I didn't want to
Speaker 3: do it, I was coerced to do it.
Speaker 4: I had a financial reason.
Speaker 3: Why I had to do it, And then you have
Speaker 3: text from them saying I can't wait to be with you,
Speaker 3: I can't wait to do some freaky stuff with you.
Speaker 4: It's hard, and that certainly casts doubt in terms of
Speaker 4: what the state are sorry. I always say the state.
Speaker 4: In terms of what the Feds are trying to prove.
Speaker 1: Do moments matter?
Speaker 2: Do moments stand out for a jury that could possibly
Speaker 2: sway them one way or another? And I say moments.
Speaker 2: It seems like the defense had more than the prosecution.
Speaker 2: The Perry Mason moment we will never forget. It seemed
Speaker 2: like they made more headway sometimes.
Speaker 1: Than the prosecution seems to have. Does that matter?
Speaker 2: You think if the margins are that slim, you're just
Speaker 2: talking about the psychology, it might get into their brains.
Speaker 2: They didn't present any witnesses, So in that same vein,
Speaker 2: is it possible that moments matter throughout the trials.
Speaker 1: Of the jury?
Speaker 4: Moments absolutely matter.
Speaker 3: The Perry Mason moment was pivotal, and there were several
Speaker 3: slightly less perhaps like explosive moments in that, but there
Speaker 3: were plenty of them. When they had witnesses go back
Speaker 3: and read texts that were omitted, and the texts actually
Speaker 3: showed a very different vein of motivation for why these
Speaker 3: women might have participated. It was incredibly damning, I believed,
Speaker 3: to the prosecution's case. When the defense had some of
Speaker 3: these other texts read that frankly flew in the face
Speaker 3: of what we heard in testimony from these women.
Speaker 4: So it's this.
Speaker 3: Is you know what, and just the psychology of life.
Speaker 4: Isn't confidence so powerful?
Speaker 3: And by not calling any witnesses that is so confident,
Speaker 3: so confident?
Speaker 2: How did I forget you? I'm sitting here and I'm like,
Speaker 2: oh my goodness, I forgot I had this. I've reached
Speaker 2: out to a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: Friend of ours.
Speaker 2: Okay, That's all I say, just because that was my question.
Speaker 2: Why on guides Earth that please help me understand why
Speaker 2: the defense in the Ditty trial would not call any witnesses.
Speaker 2: The response and I quote because they think they have
Speaker 2: one already and they may have wow.
Speaker 4: Wow.
Speaker 3: You know, the prosecution has called thirty four witnesses to
Speaker 3: the stand and the final one is on the stand today.
Speaker 3: Trying to connect the dots summarizing these freak offs, going
Speaker 3: through explicit videos, going through the paid receipts that Diddy
Speaker 3: has had purchased plane tickets for some of these women
Speaker 3: and some of these male escorts to attend these parties.
Speaker 4: My question is, okay, so.
Speaker 3: He paid for these folks to participate in these freak
Speaker 3: offs around the country, so crossing state lines. But if
Speaker 3: they went there willingly, if they weren't coerced, if you
Speaker 3: can even call into question that they may have wanted
Speaker 3: to do it at the time and regretted it later,
Speaker 3: any seat of doubt about any of that throws the
Speaker 3: prosecution's argument out the window, because they need the jury
Speaker 3: to believe that these women and maybe even these escorts
Speaker 3: didn't really want to be there and felt they had to.
Speaker 1: What is the charge again, I have to look at
Speaker 1: these house in here.
Speaker 4: I've got it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he's pleaded not guilty to racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 1: That's the big one. He could get life for that one.
Speaker 3: Correct, two counts of sex trafficking by force, sex trap
Speaker 3: that's what it is, by force. And the interesting thing
Speaker 3: about that is the in fact what they were going
Speaker 3: over today and on Friday with this home security agent.
Speaker 3: He was actually going through the text messages of Cassie
Speaker 3: and Jane where they at first told KK, his chief
Speaker 3: of staff, I don't want to go.
Speaker 4: He's just using me.
Speaker 3: I don't want to be there, But then after talking
Speaker 3: to Diddy, they decided to come.
Speaker 4: They made the choice to come.
Speaker 3: So I'm just confused how that would be force, two
Speaker 3: counts of sex trafficking by force, then fraud or oh
Speaker 3: sorry I skipped it, two counts of sex trafficking by force,
Speaker 3: fraud or coercion.
Speaker 1: Now one of those do carry a fifteen year.
Speaker 3: Minimum, Okay, so force, fraud or coercion. And then he's
Speaker 3: also facing two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution.
Speaker 2: And those are only those are a maximum of ten years,
Speaker 2: So I guess that would be the lesser charge it
Speaker 2: he gets convicted of that, But how is he not
Speaker 2: for prostitution? To engage in prostitution? So they have evidence
Speaker 2: that he paid to have a male escort come to.
Speaker 1: New York for a freak off?
Speaker 3: Is that that seems like that's a done deal to me?
Speaker 3: The two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, just
Speaker 3: from my non legal mind and what I've witnessed and
Speaker 3: what I've read, it seems like they kind of nailed
Speaker 3: that one. They have the receipts, they have the proof,
Speaker 3: they have the videos, and clearly the male escorcords who
Speaker 3: were engaged in sex that you could clearly see on
Speaker 3: the videotape were clearly paid. So and many times yes,
Speaker 3: they crossed state lines.
Speaker 2: So what was the name of the one the escort website.
Speaker 4: Wait, oh, it was Cowboys for Angels Aloys eight or Angels.
Speaker 3: For Cowboys, Cowboys for Angel Voice Rangel.
Speaker 2: So that company came out in testimony today the same
Speaker 2: day that he was such a long term customer that
Speaker 2: he wanted a discount, that he was upset with him
Speaker 2: for raising their rates, and they have the communication between
Speaker 2: him and the Cowboys for Angels agency. His line is
Speaker 2: stop raising my rate. I am a long timer. They
Speaker 2: have that from him two Cowboys for Angel Cowboys for Angels.
Speaker 3: Technically, I imagine to be a legal business would have
Speaker 3: to just say, hey, these are just escorts.
Speaker 4: These are just people.
Speaker 3: Who were there for your pleasure, not for sexual pleasure,
Speaker 3: but just to be there and to accompany you and
Speaker 3: wherever you want to go and whatever you want to do.
Speaker 3: But clearly they're not acknowledging that this is for sex.
Speaker 3: But clearly we have the videos that show that is
Speaker 3: in fact what happens.
Speaker 2: Okay, speaking of the legal part of that, So what
Speaker 2: if all he was doing was hiring an escort to
Speaker 2: come to New York and be and escort to escort
Speaker 2: him or someone else around and lo and behold, sex
Speaker 2: ended up happening.
Speaker 1: Is that a legal argument?
Speaker 4: I think it could be.
Speaker 3: Geez, now that you just said that, I thought maybe
Speaker 3: that is possible, because they could say the escort decided,
Speaker 3: after hanging out for a while that just, you know,
Speaker 3: because he liked everybody, he just wow, maybe he was horny,
Speaker 3: Maybe he just wanted to have sex, but the payment
Speaker 3: was specifically for companionship, not for sex.
Speaker 1: You know what.
Speaker 3: Possibly that just was a light bulb that went off
Speaker 3: in your head. And then yes, I concur that does
Speaker 3: sound reasonable in terms of a legal explanation to get
Speaker 3: around the actual charge.
Speaker 4: I think, look, we're not gonna get a witness now for.
Speaker 3: The defense, but we will hear from the defense attorneys,
Speaker 3: and we will hear. We now know closing arguments are
Speaker 3: scheduled for Thursday. Correct, And so this case, this seven
Speaker 3: week long case, with thirty four witnesses and lots of
Speaker 3: graphic videos and a tremendous amount of jaw dropping testimony,
Speaker 3: is all going to be in the hands of the
Speaker 3: jury as early as Thursday afternoon, perhaps.
Speaker 2: Even again, they have a conference on Wednesday. The judge says,
Speaker 2: for the attorneys and the judge to go over the
Speaker 2: jury instructions. I have been a part in seeing jury instructions.
Speaker 1: That go half a day.
Speaker 4: Yeah, that's true.
Speaker 2: It does, it goes, it takes a while, so.
Speaker 3: And in this case, probably definitely going to take a
Speaker 3: very long time. I have you know, we have as
Speaker 3: much as we can sitting in our apartment monitoring everything.
Speaker 3: Still I would need to be redirected and shown what
Speaker 3: is what and what means this and what's the level
Speaker 3: of proof.
Speaker 4: I mean, I it's mind blowing. You're right.
Speaker 3: The judge could have instructions for half a day, and
Speaker 3: I don't know the defense and the prosecution, who knows
Speaker 3: how long they'll take.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they read though, Yeah, they make sure they read
Speaker 2: every single line of the instructions. It's almost a manual
Speaker 2: you get when you buy a new appliance and he's
Speaker 2: reading through and you're trying to follow what all this
Speaker 2: stuff means. Now, I have never robes And tell me
Speaker 2: if you have been a part of jury instructions.
Speaker 1: That were quick.
Speaker 4: No, I have not.
Speaker 1: No, it's never a quick process.
Speaker 4: The jury.
Speaker 3: The truth is well, most of the trials, I would
Speaker 3: imagine all of the trials. I know that I have
Speaker 3: actually personal personally witnessed have been for murder. So people's
Speaker 3: lives are on the line, and they want to make
Speaker 3: sure that all the t'ser crossed, all the eyes are dotted.
Speaker 3: They want to make sure the jury knows exactly what
Speaker 3: they have to do and what.
Speaker 4: The burden of proof is.
Speaker 3: That that is the gray area, what is reasonable doubt.
Speaker 2: And there's gonna be some fighting in between the attorneys
Speaker 2: about the language that goes. They always are so so
Speaker 2: particular about what types of language, type of language can
Speaker 2: go into those things. Because after that that the defense
Speaker 2: all the attorneys have no more say.
Speaker 1: Nobody can do anything. It's over.
Speaker 2: You can't make any other case once they go into
Speaker 2: that jury room. So this is their last chance to
Speaker 2: have some kind of.
Speaker 1: An influence on the jury.
Speaker 2: The closing arguments, is it who goes first?
Speaker 1: I can't remember? Is it prosecution again?
Speaker 4: I think? See, I think I thought the defense had
Speaker 4: the last word. I need to look this option?
Speaker 3: Did?
Speaker 1: I cannot?
Speaker 3: You know what?
Speaker 1: This is embarrassing?
Speaker 4: One of us is correct.
Speaker 2: We should know why because I used to remember thinking
Speaker 2: that it wasn't fair that whoever went last got to
Speaker 2: go last.
Speaker 4: Of course, that's like everyone would want to go last
Speaker 4: in this sason.
Speaker 1: I thought the prosecution got to go last.
Speaker 4: That's she's I'm looking this up right now.
Speaker 3: But in terms of the jury, we ended up only
Speaker 3: losing one juror through we thought at one point we
Speaker 3: might lose three jurors, but we only ended up losing
Speaker 3: one juror.
Speaker 4: And the alternates are still there.
Speaker 3: But that's kind of moot, now, right do they get
Speaker 3: to participate in the actual jury deliberations or be a
Speaker 3: part of it if something were to happen?
Speaker 1: You know what, I actually don't know that. Why are
Speaker 1: you over there Google and stuff? Look that up?
Speaker 2: To do alternates need to be in the deliberating room?
Speaker 2: So I guess it's possible they could start deliberating and
Speaker 2: something happens with a juror.
Speaker 1: Isn't that possible? Did you get the answer?
Speaker 3: I got the answer for the court cases, and you're
Speaker 3: always right? Why do I even try to pretend like
Speaker 3: I might have something that is correct over you? All?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 3: In court cases, the party with the burden of proof
Speaker 3: generally gets the last word. This is usually the prosecution
Speaker 3: in criminal cases and the plaintiff in civil cases. They
Speaker 3: get the opportunity for a closing argument or rebuttal after
Speaker 3: the opposing side has presented its case.
Speaker 1: And I always thought that was unfair. My life was
Speaker 1: on the line. I should get the last word always,
Speaker 1: That's why I remember it. I thought that was wild.
Speaker 1: But yeah, so the prosecution will get the last word
Speaker 1: before they all get to go in. I am reading
Speaker 1: something here. I know you. Did you find it already?
Speaker 3: Yes? Okay, Well about alternature Yes, so there were six
Speaker 3: alternate jurors. I think we're down to five alternate jurors
Speaker 3: because one of the alternate jurors became actually a member
Speaker 3: of the jury, so no. Alternate jurors Generally do not
Speaker 3: participate in jury deliberations unless a regular juror is unable
Speaker 3: to continue serving. If an alternate juror replaces a regular
Speaker 3: juror during deliberations, the court will then instruct the jury
Speaker 3: to begin deliberations unnew So if anything happens during the
Speaker 3: actual deliberation and some juror has to leave, they can
Speaker 3: actually appoint an alternate to come step in, but then
Speaker 3: they have to start all over again. So let's hope
Speaker 3: that doesn't happen. But I'm so happy we were able
Speaker 3: to answer our own questions in this podcast. I'm so
Speaker 3: sure everybody was on the edge of their seats waiting
Speaker 3: for the answer, or they're like, I already know that, dummy.
Speaker 2: Everybody was waiting on the edge of the seat. You
Speaker 2: know that is I only bring it up and it
Speaker 2: shouldn't be a big deal. But the jury has been
Speaker 2: a little weird. Been some wonky stuff going on with
Speaker 2: this jury at times, and some questions. One got kicked off,
Speaker 2: one was about to get kicked off, and of them
Speaker 2: got sick. It's just some stuff. One of them was
Speaker 2: nodding it, and a.
Speaker 4: Black jur was replaced by a white jur. So you know,
Speaker 4: there are all from Westchester, from the Bronx to.
Speaker 2: Westchester, and so it's so that's why I just hold
Speaker 2: my brether when it comes to this particular jury. But
Speaker 2: I just can't believe this is it when I heard
Speaker 2: they were only going to when they said there the
Speaker 2: prose consecution is going to rest on Tuesday.
Speaker 1: The defense is going to rest on Tuesday.
Speaker 4: That's wild again, bold and possibly brilliant.
Speaker 2: The best in the business are defending him, so they
Speaker 2: know what they're doing. He's not going to get a
Speaker 2: better defense than this, or a better strategy. I turn
Speaker 2: on a TV somewhere today and you'll have somebody criticizing this,
Speaker 2: says ah, some legal expert.
Speaker 1: Doing this, and that some legal analysts, da da da da.
Speaker 2: And you know what, when he is found not guilty
Speaker 2: on something, they'll come back on and what will be
Speaker 2: their excuse then.
Speaker 3: Well, you know, perhaps they knew more than we did,
Speaker 3: or they believed something that we didn't realize.
Speaker 4: Who knows, but it will be fascinating.
Speaker 3: And you know, in a weird way, it's we've been
Speaker 3: so glued to every word, every bit of testimony to
Speaker 3: think that it's all coming to an end kind of
Speaker 3: feels strange and like, Okay, here it is. And I
Speaker 3: wonder what Diddy is feeling right now, if he feels confident,
Speaker 3: if he's you know, all of the folks or all
Speaker 3: of the reporters in the courtroom have reported on him
Speaker 3: being actively involved, leaning forward, watching the monitor, reading like
Speaker 3: they get a testimony they have the words of.
Speaker 4: So he doesn't miss anything. I mean, he has been very, very,
Speaker 4: very a huge part of this.
Speaker 3: And to your point, he obviously had to sign off
Speaker 3: on not calling any witnesses.
Speaker 2: Remember he has been in prison since last September. Wow,
Speaker 2: and he could potentially either walk out of there in
Speaker 2: the next week, you could even argue, or he's going
Speaker 2: to find out he's going to prison for a long,
Speaker 2: long time. We should have that answer soon. I even
Speaker 2: thought about the possibility of miss trials and hunger.
Speaker 4: Yeah, who knows that.
Speaker 3: I mean, there are there are a million different not
Speaker 3: a million, but there are several different outcomes that could
Speaker 3: take place here, including he gets convicted on a lesser
Speaker 3: charge and gets credit for time served and isn't in prison.
Speaker 4: For that long, or maybe he has already done his time.
Speaker 4: Who knows.
Speaker 3: But we will continue to watch everything that goes on
Speaker 3: in that Lower Manhattan courtroom and bring you the very
Speaker 3: latest and you know, the big bombshaw today. The defense
Speaker 3: is not calling any witnesses. The defense will rest the same.
Speaker 4: Day the prosecution does. So thank you so much for
Speaker 4: listening to us. Everyone.
Speaker 3: We'll keep the updated but in the meantime, hope you
Speaker 3: have a wonderful day today.