Speaker 1: Hey, there're folks. It is Monday, June thirtieth, and jury
Speaker 1: deliberations are officially underway in the trial of Sean Diddy Combs.
Speaker 1: Welcome to this Diddy Update episode of Amy and TJ Robed.
Speaker 1: It's a little bizarre to think it's kind of over
Speaker 1: after we've been watching this thing so closely for two months.
Speaker 1: Things started on May fifth with these jurors not even
Speaker 1: knowing if they would be picked for the jury. They
Speaker 1: just showed up for jury select jurwy selection two months ago.
Speaker 2: And that's so wild to think. Yeah, twelve people, eight men,
Speaker 2: four women right now are deciding the fate of Diddy
Speaker 2: after hearing six plus weeks of testimony. Was it thirty
Speaker 2: five witnesses total? Four thirty four witnesses total?
Speaker 1: Another one who was the extra you threw?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Kanye did not.
Speaker 2: Test He didn't count. But then too, They all sat
Speaker 2: for what two hours this morning listening to the judge
Speaker 2: go over in detail how they are expected to deliberate
Speaker 2: on these five charges that Ditty is facing. And it
Speaker 2: is complex, and it was even tedious hearing and at
Speaker 2: least reading what the judge was explaining to the jurors.
Speaker 1: So as we're recording those folks with this is the
Speaker 1: jury just got the case. We'll get into the jury
Speaker 1: instructions in a sect, but they officially do have the
Speaker 1: case now. In the meantime, Diddy is not going back
Speaker 1: and forth. This is interesting. As we speak, Ditty is
Speaker 1: not going back and forth from the jail in Brooklyn
Speaker 1: to the courthouse in Manhattan while this is going on.
Speaker 1: He has to stay at the courthouse. I thought that
Speaker 1: was interesting. Then it's okay, you can take some light reading.
Speaker 2: Yeah, he asked for some books to take with him
Speaker 2: in the holding cell with him as he waits. I mean,
Speaker 2: it's funny. Well, it's not funny, but it's interesting. I'm
Speaker 2: feeling nervous just waiting or anticipating what the jury is
Speaker 2: going to do and what they're going to think and
Speaker 2: how they're going to begin. Can you imagine what he's
Speaker 2: going to be doing. Light reading, maybe heavy reading. I'd
Speaker 2: like to know what books he's he's reading to distract
Speaker 2: himself or maybe try to take himself to another place
Speaker 2: while his fate is being determined.
Speaker 1: But to consider that, folks, as we speak, Diddy is
Speaker 1: in a holding cell. A couple of blocks from where
Speaker 1: we are recording with his books and waiting to find
Speaker 1: out if he is going to spend the rest of
Speaker 1: his life in prison, or maybe a few years in prison,
Speaker 1: or maybe be home by the fourth of July. That
Speaker 1: is not outside the realm of possibilities at all. But
Speaker 1: this morning, Robes we're so used to. We were in
Speaker 1: the We were actually in the car this morning when
Speaker 1: court first started, and I was asking for you to
Speaker 1: look at the updates since I was driving and I
Speaker 1: was so ready for there to be a two hour delay.
Speaker 1: A juror has a transportation issue, a childcare issue. I
Speaker 1: was waiting for something. This is one of the few days,
Speaker 1: it seems, in recent weeks that you know, they just
Speaker 1: got started like they.
Speaker 2: Were supposed to be. Yeah, the judge started addressing the jury,
Speaker 2: I believe at nine to twenty. Beforehand, we got a
Speaker 2: little bit of color from reporters who were there in
Speaker 2: the courtroom saying that did he came in and hugged
Speaker 2: his defense team, his entire family. His six adult children
Speaker 2: are there in court behind him, or were there in
Speaker 2: court behind him, along with his mother, and people just
Speaker 2: described he was kind of seemed active, seemed engaged. But gosh,
Speaker 2: I just can't imagine.
Speaker 1: That's always been the report, like the whole time. They say,
Speaker 1: this is a very involved client. Yes, but looking at
Speaker 1: juror sometimes we're not supposed to it, but certainly engaged,
Speaker 1: looking at the juror, looking at jurors, engaged with his
Speaker 1: own I mean his family members at time, members of
Speaker 1: his defense team. They say he takes notes, he passes notes,
Speaker 1: he fidgets sometimes, so he is obviously all that's on
Speaker 1: the line. You want to sit up and pay attention.
Speaker 2: That is not surprising at all.
Speaker 1: But about his family, I was surprised to hear I
Speaker 1: can't remember which reporter did said the family has been
Speaker 1: passing notes. Yes, I saw that too, on a notepad.
Speaker 1: I don't know. This is the first time I've seen
Speaker 1: that's been going on. I don't know if it's been
Speaker 1: going on all trial, and that's.
Speaker 2: The first I heard. Maybe they had questions for the
Speaker 2: attorney they were passing up or at least what was
Speaker 2: to be expected today. Maybe they had questions about timing
Speaker 2: all of that as they were waiting for the jury
Speaker 2: to come in and the judge to come in. But
Speaker 2: this morning was not an exciting event. It wasn't something
Speaker 2: where we were expecting anything other than real specific language
Speaker 2: from the judge that had already been determined and agreed
Speaker 2: upon between both sides on Thursday of last week. So
Speaker 2: all of this that the judge read had already been preordained,
Speaker 2: so to speak, by both sides fought over.
Speaker 1: It's fair. They fought over every single bit of language,
Speaker 1: and as we talk about some of it here, you'll
Speaker 1: see why they had to get so specific. But I
Speaker 1: was surprised. I think I always want to give them credit.
Speaker 1: But the BBC report, I believe, was talking about what
Speaker 1: was going on in this non exciting event in the
Speaker 1: overflow room today. This is how uneventful it was. People
Speaker 1: were falling asleep.
Speaker 2: She said that there was audible snoring in the overflow rooms,
Speaker 2: and I didn't realize this, but starting I believe last
Speaker 2: week they actually had to open up more overflow rooms.
Speaker 2: There are four overflow rooms now, I believe, in addition
Speaker 2: to the actual courthouse, and that particular reporter from the
Speaker 2: VBC described this morning outside of the Lower Manhattan Court
Speaker 2: House as exceptionally busy. That people are starting to get
Speaker 2: excited or at least anticipate a potential verdict, and so
Speaker 2: there was. It was just a lot of buzzing and
Speaker 2: a lot of activity, a lot of folks wanting to
Speaker 2: get into that courthouse to be a part of it.
Speaker 1: Was it did you say already one was knitting?
Speaker 2: Did you? I didn't say that someone was knitting too? Yes,
Speaker 2: so you know, did he has light reading. One of
Speaker 2: the folks who wants to watch the uh, at least
Speaker 2: watch the jury come back or not today is knitting?
Speaker 2: Other people are sleeping, your choice.
Speaker 1: But the reason they were knitting and sleeping and audibly
Speaker 1: snoring is because the official term is called a jury charge.
Speaker 1: That's what happened today. Jury charge. You'll see that a
Speaker 1: few places. All that means is that the jury officially
Speaker 1: got their instructions, instructions that Robes was just talking about
Speaker 1: that were kind of fought over by the attorneys. And
Speaker 1: he does Robes, He's come in. I've been a part
Speaker 1: I've seen these before. I've been a part of like
Speaker 1: I'm the defendant, but I have seen these and he
Speaker 1: is lit to relate. It is as if you were
Speaker 1: reading the instruction pamphlet from a TV or an electronic
Speaker 1: He is reading every single line about what they have
Speaker 1: to do, and it does. It takes a while. You
Speaker 1: have to pay attention. I think some of the they
Speaker 1: were take well, they'll have a copy of the instructions
Speaker 1: back there with them. But you have to sit and
Speaker 1: pay attention because he goes through what legally some of
Speaker 1: these standards you have to meet to find somebody guilty.
Speaker 1: And that is the part that gets complicated, and especially
Speaker 1: when you talk about racketeering, and I think that is
Speaker 1: the one they spend a lot of time on in court.
Speaker 2: Today, racketeering. He actually the judge went through the eight
Speaker 2: different potential crimes that could be a part of the
Speaker 2: racketeering and made it clear that did he had to
Speaker 2: have committed or they had to believe he committed at
Speaker 2: least two of them with a co conspirator within a
Speaker 2: ten year period of time. Say it again for the
Speaker 2: people in the exactly really did he had to have committed?
Speaker 2: According to the jurors had to decide that he committed
Speaker 2: two of these ten crimes with someone within the last
Speaker 2: ten years or within ten years of each other. We see,
Speaker 2: it's so amusing, but here the eight they have to
Speaker 2: find that he was guilty of at least two of
Speaker 2: these crimes with another person, kidnapping, arson, bribery, forced labor,
Speaker 2: transportation to engage in prostitution, sex trafficking, witness tampering, and
Speaker 2: possession with the intent to distribute controlled substances. And he
Speaker 2: got very specific about that last one about the drugs,
Speaker 2: because he said it didn't matter how much drugs we
Speaker 2: were talking about, or which drugs were talking about, It's
Speaker 2: just had to have happened with a second person and
Speaker 2: an intent to distribute. I mean, it's I'm telling you
Speaker 2: my mind. Every time I was listening to him reiterate
Speaker 2: or at least reading what he was charging the jurors with,
Speaker 2: it got more and more confusing. That's why this is
Speaker 2: all written down and the jurors will each have a
Speaker 2: copy with them in the deliberation room, because I imagine
Speaker 2: you would have to refer I'm having to refer back
Speaker 2: to it. I'm having to say, wait, now, which ones
Speaker 2: in what time frame?
Speaker 1: With whom so he used that phrase a lot today,
Speaker 1: the Comb's enterprise, because it needs to be an enterprise
Speaker 1: in order for them to find him guilty of racketeering. Again,
Speaker 1: this is the one he spent most of the time
Speaker 1: on today. Was explaining racketeering, so Rotes. So much of
Speaker 1: the debate was did they even establish that there was
Speaker 1: a Comb's enterprise, meaning all this stuff he was doing
Speaker 1: was personal, So there had to be one other person,
Speaker 1: So the other it could be his drug mule, quote unquote,
Speaker 1: could it be Kkstad, Could it be his security guy.
Speaker 1: They had to somebody at least one of those people
Speaker 1: had to agree to commit two of these crimes with him, did.
Speaker 2: They That'll be for the jury to decide.
Speaker 1: To think you have to go. Okay, so think about
Speaker 1: the jerom. How long is this going to take?
Speaker 2: All?
Speaker 1: Right? Kidnapping, did he commit kidnapping? You have to say
Speaker 1: yes or no. They say yes, he committed kidnapping. But
Speaker 1: did somebody else in his circle agree to do that
Speaker 1: kidnapping with him?
Speaker 2: The prosecution would say d Rock did when he took.
Speaker 1: Capricorn after kid cut it. Correct, Okay, So if that's
Speaker 1: the case, that's just one. Yeah, Now we got to
Speaker 1: go through all the others. And then and only then
Speaker 1: can you say he is guilty of racketeering. If they
Speaker 1: decide Robes, that's the case that two of these were
Speaker 1: committed with did he he's going to doil for the
Speaker 1: rest of his life.
Speaker 2: Correct, because that and that is the reason it's the
Speaker 2: most complex of them all, and it's the one that
Speaker 2: carries the longest prison sentence, so up to life in prison.
Speaker 2: It's that.
Speaker 1: If he is found guilty, he is going to prison
Speaker 1: for the rest of his life. Quite oh my goodness. So, yes,
Speaker 1: it gets complicated. They spend time with that. Yes, rhades
Speaker 1: to your point. They're going to have the jury instructions.
Speaker 1: They got laptop with them that has all the evidence
Speaker 1: on that. They have a list of all the exhibits,
Speaker 1: and they have a verdict sheet in there with them,
Speaker 1: and that's kind of it that they go in again.
Speaker 1: And you mentioned as well, So he go on the
Speaker 1: drugs for a second before we move on to this
Speaker 1: next thing about that we're getting into about disregarding a
Speaker 1: witness's testimony. The drugs thing. Both of us I think
Speaker 1: when it happened the testimony was it Brandon Paul, I
Speaker 1: think we both were like, wait a minute, drug distribution?
Speaker 1: Is the jury really going to say this dude was
Speaker 1: distributing drugs? Did he as a drug distributor? Because he
Speaker 1: told his assistant to come get him some drugs and
Speaker 1: then he gave one pill to Cassie for the for
Speaker 1: the freak off. Is that drug distribution?
Speaker 2: Well, yes, according to the judge, he said, the amount
Speaker 2: of drugs is irrelevant. That if at least two people
Speaker 2: agreed to distribute a drug from one person to another,
Speaker 2: then that falls into Yeah, that's the burden.
Speaker 1: Of proof if two people. If you and I take
Speaker 1: go to who I want to name somebody rigue, I
Speaker 1: don't name a real person. But then oh, Joe shmok.
Speaker 1: Let's say you and I go buy drugs from Joe. No,
Speaker 1: you go buy drugs from Joe because I asked you to.
Speaker 1: And then you bring those drugs to me and I
Speaker 1: say thank you, Robock. And then I go give one
Speaker 1: pill to a friend of mine because they asked for it.
Speaker 1: I am now a drug distributor.
Speaker 2: Yep, according to the way the judge laid it out,
Speaker 2: that actually is the case. And so when we were
Speaker 2: listening to the prosecution, when we were listening to people
Speaker 2: the assistants describe what they did for Diddy, that seemed
Speaker 2: like a slam dunk. I don't know now.
Speaker 1: Is that the place where you go into some common
Speaker 1: sense that a juror thinks, Wait, a minute. It was
Speaker 1: personal use drugs, which is what the defense said. Is
Speaker 1: a juror gonna sit there and say, I am I
Speaker 1: going to send Sean Combs to prison for the rest
Speaker 1: of his life because he wanted to use personal drugs.
Speaker 1: That goes beyond a legal definition. And that's where you
Speaker 1: talk about what you were saying. His attorney put on
Speaker 1: such a show.
Speaker 2: So here's the other little cybar that I noticed. Did
Speaker 2: you see or did you read? I'm sure you did.
Speaker 2: What the judge said to the jurors, A got intoxication
Speaker 2: because this is what I think is very interesting when
Speaker 2: it comes to the drug use. So the judge specifically
Speaker 2: told the jurors before they went away for deliberations that
Speaker 2: being intoxicated is not a defense for committing a crime,
Speaker 2: but it can impact your intent to commit a certain
Speaker 2: crime like racketeering. So this has been a huge part
Speaker 2: of the defense saying, hey, he was a drug addict,
Speaker 2: he needed to go to rehab. He knew not what
Speaker 2: he was doing because he was so messed up. He
Speaker 2: was out of his mind on drugs, he was out
Speaker 2: of his mind on alcohol, and so it's not a
Speaker 2: defense for the crime, but it could absolutely impact whether
Speaker 2: or not they believe he was a part of this racketeering. I.
Speaker 2: I thought that was huge as well. That's why I
Speaker 2: wanted to bring it up now when we're talking about
Speaker 2: the drugs, because it's not it's not just about distributing
Speaker 2: the drugs. He was taking the drugs.
Speaker 1: I thought that. Look, I don't know for sure, and
Speaker 1: I don't know if the judge, if it legally has
Speaker 1: to be in there, but I'm pretty sure his defense
Speaker 1: team was I'm sure rooting for that.
Speaker 2: It was very happy to hear. That was one of
Speaker 2: the last things the judge told the Jersey.
Speaker 1: That's interesting to hear. So this is why I never heard.
Speaker 1: Does intent to commit racketeering matter? Do you have to
Speaker 1: have the intent to be a mob boss?
Speaker 2: It seems like the answer is ye.
Speaker 1: To that, then all this is out the window. Then
Speaker 1: isn't it to suggest that Diddy was running a enterprise
Speaker 1: for the purpose of committing I am a huge music
Speaker 1: star and the purpose of all this is so I
Speaker 1: can have drug fueled sex nights.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's for pleasure. Well, he was doing what he
Speaker 2: did for pleasure, personal pleasure, sexual pleasure, drugs. You could say, yes,
Speaker 2: he wants to be high. He wants to numb, So
Speaker 2: that's very different. So that intent seems to be very different.
Speaker 2: I don't, you know, I don't know how the story
Speaker 2: is going to figure this out. I really don't because
Speaker 2: even when you hear the judge clearly say what this is,
Speaker 2: what that is, there's still so much room for what
Speaker 2: you think, what you feel, what your experience is, what
Speaker 2: you would put on someone else, what you know you've
Speaker 2: personally done in your life, and would that be racketeering?
Speaker 2: And by the way, the judge just spoke, most people
Speaker 2: in this country would be guilty of racketeering then with
Speaker 2: drug use, I mean, even if it's just like a
Speaker 2: prescription pill somebody needs anti depressed and somebody needs a xani,
Speaker 2: how many people have just passed that stuff out, you
Speaker 2: know what I mean? Like, it's just I think people
Speaker 2: bring in their own real life experiences to this too
Speaker 2: when they're judging, and this seems ah, this seems so
Speaker 2: there's so many gray areas. That's the issue.
Speaker 1: And another key point the judge had today was if
Speaker 1: a witness lied about one thing, then hey, you can
Speaker 1: assume they lied about everything. We continue here on this Monday,
Speaker 1: June thirtieth, the first day of deliberations. Now in the
Speaker 1: Diddy trial, as we speak, the jury deliberations have officially begun,
Speaker 1: and before they went in robes, of course, the judge
Speaker 1: gave them their instructions and a key part of the instruction,
Speaker 1: and this is something we heard his defense attorney talking
Speaker 1: about yesterday. But look, if you think one witness, if
Speaker 1: a witness lied about one thing, you can assume they
Speaker 1: lied about everything if you want to.
Speaker 2: That was a key point and that was something yes,
Speaker 2: that the defense was trying to hammer home on their
Speaker 2: closing arguments. Yes, but the judge made it very very clear,
Speaker 2: if you find that any witness willfully testified falsely, you
Speaker 2: have the right to reject the testimony if that witness
Speaker 2: in its entirety, even if you find them truthful or
Speaker 2: credible in other parts, the judge is still instructing the
Speaker 2: jury that they have the right to then disregard every
Speaker 2: single thing that witness testified to. And so, because especially
Speaker 2: with that big Perry Mason moment the defense had when
Speaker 2: it came to the timeline that Mia was giving about
Speaker 2: whether or not did you actually dangled her over that
Speaker 2: sixteenth floor balcony on said date once.
Speaker 1: That was you know what, Wow, that.
Speaker 2: Was Brianna Bongoland. But that witness, it seems specifically, if
Speaker 2: you are taking the judge what he instructed you to disregard,
Speaker 2: certainly in that moment, that was not a true statement
Speaker 2: and it was proven not to be true that he
Speaker 2: dangled Brianna from that balcony on that very specific date.
Speaker 1: Did you're speaking of me? Why do I think Capricorn
Speaker 1: Clark had something? I thought she got hung up or
Speaker 1: got caught in something that wasn't quite clear. Brianna Bonglan
Speaker 1: obviously was the big one. But the defense attorney Mark Agniphillo, Yes,
Speaker 1: finally got that right. Agniphillo. Yeah, the trial is wrapping up.
Speaker 1: I finally got his last name right. But he made
Speaker 1: that point in closing, he made sure he got that
Speaker 1: in there. He said, the judge is going to instruct
Speaker 1: you on this tomorrow but or on Monday. But let
Speaker 1: me tell you, but absolutely so, Brianna Bongley was a
Speaker 1: key a key witness, not only because of what happened
Speaker 1: to her, but because of what she allegedly saw, Because
Speaker 1: of what she saw did he allegedly do, and how
Speaker 1: he behaved and even suggested he assaulted her. And then
Speaker 1: was she smoking a marijuana cigarette or was this a
Speaker 1: regular cigarette? Like there were little things in there. The days,
Speaker 1: How many days is she spilling the stand?
Speaker 2: Multiple days?
Speaker 1: Multiple days, that key prosecution witness. They might take all
Speaker 1: of her testimony and scrap it up and throw it
Speaker 1: out because they just say, ah, don't believe me. In
Speaker 1: the justice, I got the right to disregard all of it.
Speaker 2: And you know that the defense wanted that in there
Speaker 2: as well. It seems as though with the judges instructions,
Speaker 2: the defense got a lot of what they wanted the
Speaker 2: jury to remember or at least told they were capable
Speaker 2: of doing when they went into that deliberation room, when
Speaker 2: they started to look at the evidence and really go
Speaker 2: they have the transcripts, they can go back and actually
Speaker 2: see those moments where some of the witnesses might have
Speaker 2: been caught up in ambiguous testimony or at least testimony
Speaker 2: that maybe they later had to amend or change. And yeah,
Speaker 2: you just need what win is to say, nep, I
Speaker 2: don't believe I don't believe that, and it goes Oh,
Speaker 2: it all goes away.
Speaker 1: Next, So what's the next Now for the next I
Speaker 1: mean we wait. We literally this is okay, and now
Speaker 1: we wait.
Speaker 2: We are waiting, but the clock is ticking. Yeah. The
Speaker 2: first thing that the jurors are supposed to do is
Speaker 2: to pick a four person. So they're supposed we're waiting,
Speaker 2: I guess for a message. They will when they vote
Speaker 2: and they pick out their four person, they will then
Speaker 2: send that message to the judge, and I believe the
Speaker 2: judge will then let the courtroom know who the four
Speaker 2: person is, or at least that they've found or picked
Speaker 2: chosen a four person and are going forward from there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and after that, we are waiting for them to decide,
Speaker 1: for them to let us. Yeah, two notes he asked for.
Speaker 1: He says, send me a note, let me know who
Speaker 1: the four person is, and what was the second one?
Speaker 1: Let me know what your schedule is going to be.
Speaker 1: He's asking them, when do you all want to stop deliberating?
Speaker 1: He said they can go until five every day.
Speaker 2: He said, they can go past five pm. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I had to say, I've certainly seen judges. I've seen
Speaker 1: juries like get us the hell out of here. I
Speaker 1: still till eight o'clock, nine o'clock. Sometimes, don't know. This
Speaker 1: jury could go into three, because they've been going nine
Speaker 1: to three has been what the court's been. I don't
Speaker 1: even know how to guess that.
Speaker 2: No, because it depends on those jurors individual lives and
Speaker 2: what their lives are like schools out here in New
Speaker 2: York Finally, for the first time since they started deliberating.
Speaker 2: Not sure if any of these folks or parents, but
Speaker 2: that could have a huge impact because up until Thursday,
Speaker 2: if they had kids, their kids were in school. Now
Speaker 2: those kids are out of school here in the New
Speaker 2: York City area. It's a late time to get out.
Speaker 2: But yeah, it is crazy timing. And also of note,
Speaker 2: the judge sent the five alternates home and said you
Speaker 2: can go home. However you need to keep They have
Speaker 2: to have a phone number, they have to be able
Speaker 2: to be reached at a moment's notice. They kind of
Speaker 2: have to be on standby, so to speak. And he
Speaker 2: actually did apologize to them. He said, I'm so sorry
Speaker 2: most of you will not be able to see this
Speaker 2: through to the deliberation process. And can you imagine you
Speaker 2: spent that much time of your life watching, witnessing, probably
Speaker 2: forming your own opinions, and then not actually getting to contribute.
Speaker 1: I was waiting on you to say that out loud,
Speaker 1: and then I figured you'd come to the same conclusion
Speaker 1: I did. That's the best place to be. I got
Speaker 1: a front row seat. I got to experience history and
Speaker 1: see this and it is It'll go down in history
Speaker 1: this trial, and then I get to go home and
Speaker 1: I don't actually have to vote and figure this out.
Speaker 1: This is just too heavy. It's just jurys, jurors, God
Speaker 1: love you. I've been called of some jury duties, never
Speaker 1: had to serve on a jury. This is just to
Speaker 1: have somebody's life in your hands. This civic duty is
Speaker 1: what we're all supposed to do. It's just it's a
Speaker 1: lot of robes because you can see sympathy with so
Speaker 1: many people. What do people deserve? What is fairness? What
Speaker 1: is the law say? What is my common sense tell me?
Speaker 1: What does my eyes tell me? What does my heart
Speaker 1: tell me? I don't know.
Speaker 2: And then the dynamic of those other folks in the
Speaker 2: room with all of their different life experiences coming in,
Speaker 2: and then everyone has to find a compromise because at
Speaker 2: the end of the day, this has to be a
Speaker 2: unanimous decision on all five of these charges. So you know,
Speaker 2: some some cases are more complicated than others. And obviously
Speaker 2: murder trials, someone's life is truly on the life. But
Speaker 2: sometimes it's as simple as a murder charge or you know,
Speaker 2: a first degree or second degree charge. This is so complicated,
Speaker 2: with so many different types of charges that carry very
Speaker 2: different punishments. It's it's exceptionally confusing. That's why I you know, look,
Speaker 2: this could they could come back at any point, but
Speaker 2: it seems like it's going to take some time.
Speaker 1: Be shocked if we get anything, you know what, I
Speaker 1: if I were a betting man, I would put it
Speaker 1: through fourth of julyne if I were a betting man,
Speaker 1: I would put it through that unless they do some
Speaker 1: longer hours or if they want to get out of
Speaker 1: their fine. But it is so step by step, twelve
Speaker 1: people we have to go through and listen to twelve
Speaker 1: people on eight different counts that only lead to the
Speaker 1: one racketeering count. I mean, it's it's I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know how they do it.
Speaker 2: I don't either. I was trying to think about it
Speaker 2: as a parent, like just having a couple of kids,
Speaker 2: trying to figure out what you want to do for
Speaker 2: today or what food you want to order. It's that's
Speaker 2: hard to get twelve people to agree on something this
Speaker 2: serious and this complex, with the world watching, knowing you're
Speaker 2: gonna be questioned and knowing you're gonna have to sleep
Speaker 2: at night.
Speaker 1: Which one takes less time? Which charge? Which one you
Speaker 1: think they would get through fairly quickly?
Speaker 2: Well hmmm, I mean I feel like the drug charge,
Speaker 2: But that's a part of the racketeering. That's part of
Speaker 2: the rector see, that's part of the.
Speaker 1: Racketeer's actually charged with kidnapthel and charged with arson, not
Speaker 1: charged with drugs, but those underlying crimes go into the racketeering.
Speaker 1: That's crazy tell to think about. But the prostitution one
Speaker 1: is the one that because yes, he paid those guys
Speaker 1: flew to where he was and they ended up having
Speaker 1: sex with his girlfriend.
Speaker 2: Would have to buy the defense's argument that he was
Speaker 2: paying for their experience and their time and not for
Speaker 2: their sex. And I think that's a hard one to
Speaker 2: believe because the video shows differently.
Speaker 1: And let's litigate the case. Yes, that's second. Yes, this argument, well,
Speaker 1: why don't you just shut down all escort services? Was
Speaker 1: the Yes, we hired an escort. They're online cowboys for angels. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just hiring an escort. Why is that business legal?
Speaker 1: And I'm supposed to put this man in jail for
Speaker 1: the rest of his way?
Speaker 2: No, And I think that could be a human reaction.
Speaker 2: It's not necessarily the legal one, because I think if
Speaker 2: you look at the legal part of this, it seems
Speaker 2: like it's a fairly cut and dry issue that he
Speaker 2: absolutely paid for male escorts and Cassie and Jane to
Speaker 2: cross state lines to participate in sex parties, and he
Speaker 2: paid them for it, So that does But he's claiming
Speaker 2: he will paid for their experience in time and the
Speaker 2: sex just happened to happen.
Speaker 1: Everybody else who hires an escort, right, correct, you're hiring
Speaker 1: and escort. What happens after that? Hey, it's up to you.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that I see that. So the prostitution
Speaker 1: one seems to be, well, he paid, they can't have
Speaker 1: sex five But this is the one that is up
Speaker 1: to ten years in prison.
Speaker 2: So it's the lesser of all the right, I think
Speaker 2: the one. Yes that so that one seems like the
Speaker 2: most obvious one that they could come to a conclusion on.
Speaker 2: But who knows, because look, again, every juror brings their
Speaker 2: life experience into that deliberating room.
Speaker 1: Hope no guys in there.
Speaker 2: Well, there's eight men and four women.
Speaker 1: Hope none of them are frequent visitors to Cowboys for
Speaker 1: Angels or well, no, they wouldn't be. I guess right.
Speaker 2: Well, the boys for Angels, yes, but cowboys for angels,
Speaker 2: Angels for cowboys, cowboys for angels yes. So anyway, we
Speaker 2: will continue to wait along with all of you in
Speaker 2: any odes anything interesting that comes out of the courtroom
Speaker 2: we'll pop back on. So take a look at your phone,
Speaker 2: keep your eye on it, because we will absolutely be
Speaker 2: updating our Amy and TJ podcast speed with any new
Speaker 2: developments that will happen throughout the day to day and
Speaker 2: for the days to come. But in the meantime, thank
Speaker 2: you for listening to us here on this Monday afternoon.
Speaker 2: Hopefully all have a good one.