Speaker 1: Opening arguments were set to begin today in a highly
Speaker 1: anticipated federal trial for hip hop mogul Sean Diddy Combs.
Speaker 2: Colmbs has been accused.
Speaker 1: Of sex trafficking by force, transportation to engage in prostitution,
Speaker 1: and racketeering conspiracy as part of a federal indictment originally
Speaker 1: filed in September of last year. The Feds later added
Speaker 1: two more superseding indictments. Combs and his legal team have
Speaker 1: pleaded not guilty to all of the chargers.
Speaker 2: Joining me now to break this all down.
Speaker 1: As a friend of the program, He's an outstanding attorney
Speaker 1: who moonlights as a sports center anchor for ESPN.
Speaker 2: He's also a legal analyst for ABC News.
Speaker 1: All over the Disney family, the one and only Ryan
Speaker 1: Smith is right here with yours, truly. Ryan, always good
Speaker 1: to see you, my brother, always good to see you.
Speaker 2: Let's get right to it.
Speaker 1: The trial started today with six female prosecutors presenting the
Speaker 1: case against Colmebs.
Speaker 2: What impact, if any, could that have on a jury.
Speaker 3: Well, that has a big impact, And the goal of
Speaker 3: that is not only to use some of the top
Speaker 3: prosecutors in the land to prosecute the case, but it's
Speaker 3: also to show that this case is not just about
Speaker 3: Seawan Didy Combs, but it's about what he did to
Speaker 3: primarily women. And when you show that kind of front
Speaker 3: in the prosecution all women prosecution team prosecuting this case,
Speaker 3: it focuses the jury for prosecutors on what they want
Speaker 3: them to be focused on. This was a man who
Speaker 3: might not have done every single elements of the crime,
Speaker 3: but racketeering is not about that. This kind of charge
Speaker 3: of conspiracy is not about that. It's about a man
Speaker 3: who used his power to force women into sexual situations.
Speaker 3: And so that is part of what they're trying to show.
Speaker 3: But I don't want it to be missed in all
Speaker 3: of this. Stephen A that these are some of the
Speaker 3: top prosecutors in the land. So I think sometimes in
Speaker 3: a tendency to say, oh, it's all women, they're doing
Speaker 3: that to put on a show. No, they're using some
Speaker 3: of the best prosecutors in the land to make the
Speaker 3: case by their presence that this is about holding someone accountable.
Speaker 1: Okay, Ryan, you said top prosecutors in the land. That
Speaker 1: resonated with me, because is that to imply these ain't
Speaker 1: just the top prosecutors in New York.
Speaker 2: This is not a local thing. They went all over
Speaker 2: the country and.
Speaker 1: Got six of the best prosecutors in the country who
Speaker 1: happen to be female.
Speaker 3: Is that what you're saying, No, it's more like the
Speaker 3: top the prosecutors in New York. The New York Office
Speaker 3: is one of the best in the world, and so
Speaker 3: these are their best. These are their top These are
Speaker 3: people who have handled cases like just Lady Maxwell connected
Speaker 3: to the Epstein case. That's the lead.
Speaker 4: Prosecutor in this case, handle that case.
Speaker 3: So these are some of the best women in some
Speaker 3: of the best office in the world.
Speaker 1: Break down the demographics, the dynamics and the demographics of
Speaker 1: this jury. How many females, how many males, how many blacks,
Speaker 1: how many whites? What can you tell us about the
Speaker 1: actual jury and the alternates that have been assigned to
Speaker 1: this case.
Speaker 3: Yeah, you've got a full jury. You've got six alternates.
Speaker 3: There are all over the map, and I think that's
Speaker 3: what you want in a case like this. Men and
Speaker 3: women different hues, different colors, different races, but they also
Speaker 3: come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Some come from different higher
Speaker 3: level jobs. Other there's one juror who's a clerk at
Speaker 3: a store in New York. So I think that's what
Speaker 3: prosecutors wanted to paint here, a broad swath of New
Speaker 3: York society, of people who are there to try to
Speaker 3: judge this case. It can be an advantage for prosecutors.
Speaker 3: It can also be an advantage for the defense, because
Speaker 3: the defense can look at this and say, we are
Speaker 3: going to try in many ways to show you that
Speaker 3: Shawn Combs might not be a great guy, might be
Speaker 3: a dirk, might be angry, might have committed domestic violence,
Speaker 3: But was he a racketeer? Was he someone who we
Speaker 3: should hold accountable for what the prosecution is saying. So
Speaker 3: this jury is a diverse, broad swath of people in
Speaker 3: New York. But we will see how that plays out
Speaker 3: on either side.
Speaker 1: One of the things I'm looking at right now, this
Speaker 1: is called the fresh CNN update. I wanted to know
Speaker 1: what you could validate, what you can elaborate upon, if
Speaker 1: at all it says the jury was shown additional footage
Speaker 1: from the hotel hallway.
Speaker 2: The jury is.
Speaker 1: Being shown footage from the north hallway of the sixth
Speaker 1: floor of the Intercontinental Hotel. This is where p Diddy
Speaker 1: ran around, ran out in the hallway with just a
Speaker 1: towel wrapped around himself, naked up top going after cast inventury,
Speaker 1: trying to prevent her from getting on the elevator. He
Speaker 1: grabbed her, he shoved her down, he kicked her, et cetera,
Speaker 1: et cetera. He acknowledged, you know how hainus the video
Speaker 1: was in his own social media posting in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of this being publicized. Could you tell us what happened
Speaker 1: today inside that courtroom as it pertains to evidence that
Speaker 1: was shown to the jury and any testimony that was given.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that evidence that that video right there, that is
Speaker 3: the most powerful piece of evidence the prosecution has, and
Speaker 3: they put it right up front. First witness in the trial,
Speaker 3: they called they put that on full display. You talk
Speaker 3: about the extended view of this. What they're trying to
Speaker 3: show is the defense will try to say, hey, this
Speaker 3: was an argument, This was an argument between a couple
Speaker 3: that went awry. Yes there was domestic violence here, but
Speaker 3: this isn't any evidence of racketeering or conspiracy. So the
Speaker 3: prosecution year is trying to show an expanded view. What
Speaker 3: that does is it kind of undercuts any defense argument
Speaker 3: that says, you're not showing the whole context of what happened.
Speaker 3: You're not showing what really happened. And there was so
Speaker 3: much more that went on that tells a story of
Speaker 3: more of some a couple that got into an argument,
Speaker 3: rather than something that builds more into a criminal racketeering
Speaker 3: conspiracy or something that is a broader issue that comes
Speaker 3: from it. So that's what they're showing there, Steven.
Speaker 4: The big part of today Gough was opening statements.
Speaker 3: The prosecution gets up first and lays out their case,
Speaker 3: and their case is essentially this Son Comb's big music mogul,
Speaker 3: committed these crimes, had these freak costs, had coerce women
Speaker 3: into force sex, all as a part of a criminal enterprise,
Speaker 3: and others were involved to facilitate that enterprise. But the
Speaker 3: defense part of this they come second. And how they
Speaker 3: contrasted it, I think is very interesting. They didn't try
Speaker 3: to say on Colmes did none of this. They said, look,
Speaker 3: he's a bad guy, he's a jerk, he has anger issues,
Speaker 3: he took drugs, and they even took the step of
Speaker 3: saying that he had some domestic violence in his past.
Speaker 3: That is important because in a way you put to
Speaker 3: the jury, hey, if he had these things, doesn't that
Speaker 3: build into what the prosecution's saying. What the defense is
Speaker 3: going to try to do here is say, just because
Speaker 3: he is a bad person doesn't mean he is a
Speaker 3: person who did illegal things.
Speaker 2: We commit.
Speaker 3: We do not convict people for being bad people. We
Speaker 3: convict people for doing illegal activities. So was what we're
Speaker 3: seeing here in this case? Jury? Is what the defense
Speaker 3: is trying to say, was what we're seeing here evidence
Speaker 3: of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy things like that? Or was
Speaker 3: this a person with anger issues that you or I
Speaker 3: might have septual proclivities that we may not understand or
Speaker 3: agree with.
Speaker 4: But are these things that should lead to a conviction
Speaker 4: in this case?
Speaker 3: And I think that's a risky thing to do in
Speaker 3: some ways, but it's what they have to do because
Speaker 3: they've got a very imperfect client.
Speaker 1: That that word risky that you just threw out there,
Speaker 1: I would imagine you've surmised and deduced that this is
Speaker 1: risky because of the times that we're living in. This
Speaker 1: is not the nineties, this is not the eighties, This
Speaker 1: is not even the early two thousands. This is a
Speaker 1: time where domestic violence has really really come to the
Speaker 1: forefront of the mind's eye of American citizens and beyond
Speaker 1: because of the heinous behavior of a lot of people,
Speaker 1: most of them being men against women, the Me Too movement,
Speaker 1: the aftermath of all of that, and what have you.
Speaker 1: You're looking at those kind of things, and I find
Speaker 1: myself saying, why in God's name with the defense team
Speaker 1: believe that that's a strategy to employ in light of
Speaker 1: how sensitive we are to those things in these times
Speaker 1: compared to how we were in years past.
Speaker 2: Is that why you use the word risky?
Speaker 3: It is? It is because we are in a time
Speaker 3: where we are believing people who are accusing big titans
Speaker 3: of industry like Sean Combs. So in the past, a
Speaker 3: lot of times you could undercut that in so many
Speaker 3: ways as the defense team. You could try to dismiss
Speaker 3: a victim, You could try to attack people who are
Speaker 3: accusing people of other things. That is a much tougher
Speaker 3: thing to do today. That's why it's risky. And in
Speaker 3: a way it's risky because you're painting part of the
Speaker 3: prosecutor's picture. The prosecution is trying to show this was
Speaker 3: a man who had these freak offs, did all these
Speaker 3: coerced women into sexual, horrendous sexual engagements, all because he's
Speaker 3: trying to further this enterprise. And then you're getting up
Speaker 3: and saying, yeah, you're seeing a video. He did do
Speaker 3: some domestic violence, he did have angers whose he did
Speaker 3: take drugs for example, even the drugs part if he
Speaker 3: took drugs part of the prosecution cases he drugged women
Speaker 3: to do some of these things. That helps a jury
Speaker 3: build into the prosecution's case. But you do this because
Speaker 3: in some ways you don't have another choice. You do
Speaker 3: this because you know there's a video out there that
Speaker 3: jurors are seeing today in that courtroom that shows what
Speaker 3: he did. You see that there is information they're gonna
Speaker 3: see evidence in that jury of these freak offs and
Speaker 3: things like that. So you know this is the situation.
Speaker 3: The way you can paint this is to try to
Speaker 3: humanize Shawn Combs to this jury and say.
Speaker 4: Look, I know you might not engage in these things.
Speaker 3: I know he might live a different life. But just
Speaker 3: because he lives a different life, would you want someone
Speaker 3: coming in and saying, hey, you live a different life,
Speaker 3: so now we're gonna prosecute you. I think that's what
Speaker 3: they're trying to do. But you make the great point,
Speaker 3: stephen A. In this day and age. Doing that is
Speaker 3: a tough needle to thread, because when you do that,
Speaker 3: you open the door of well, are we not supposed
Speaker 3: to believe these women?
Speaker 4: Are we not supposed to believe what they say Shawn
Speaker 4: Combs did?
Speaker 3: Are we not supposed to believe what we're seeing on
Speaker 3: video and how Shawn Combs in our minds?
Speaker 4: Yes, he could have paid off.
Speaker 3: People at the hotel or done certain things to try
Speaker 3: to cover some of this off. And isn't that part
Speaker 3: of the criminal enterprise they're trying to prove? So that's
Speaker 3: where it becomes risky.
Speaker 1: Define for our audience the word racket hearing and the
Speaker 1: word enterprise, because those words are thrown out obviously as
Speaker 1: a part of this indictment, of course, but I don't
Speaker 1: think people understand those two words when you say criminal
Speaker 1: and they understand it where criminal, criminal enterprise, racketeering, explain enterprise,
Speaker 1: explain racketeering for the purposes of these specific charges against
Speaker 1: Sean Diddy Goombs.
Speaker 4: Okay, that racketeering and criminal enterprise.
Speaker 3: I think people can look at it as where it
Speaker 3: started from years and years ago, when the government was
Speaker 3: trying to go after organizations like the mob. It was
Speaker 3: so tough because in that kind of situation, the person
Speaker 3: you're trying to accuse of the crime didn't do every
Speaker 3: part of the crime. So let's say a mob boss
Speaker 3: ordered to hit on somebody, They might not have done
Speaker 3: the actual hit, So how do you connect them to
Speaker 3: that racketeering?
Speaker 4: And when you talk about criminal.
Speaker 3: Enterprises is where the government tries to set up a
Speaker 3: scenario where they say and enterprise was set up to.
Speaker 4: Do the crime.
Speaker 3: In order to do the crime, must people had to
Speaker 3: be involved, but there was somebody at the top who
Speaker 3: started the whole thing. So we're going to try to
Speaker 3: get all of those people to paint the picture of
Speaker 3: the enterprise and convict the person who started the thing.
Speaker 3: So when Shawn Combs' case, the way it breaks down
Speaker 3: is to say he set up a criminal enterprise. He
Speaker 3: wanted to do things like freak offs and this coersion
Speaker 3: of women and these abusive things that they're accusing him of,
Speaker 3: So he set up an enterprise. That enterprise had people
Speaker 3: going to get the women, had people procuring the drugs,
Speaker 3: had people paying off people. When evidence got out, and
Speaker 3: then prosecutors can take all that information and paint a
Speaker 3: picture of an enterprise that was all set up to
Speaker 3: further Sean Colmes's freek coffs or proclivities sexually. So that's
Speaker 3: how it breaks down. It's almost helpful to look at
Speaker 3: it like the person you're trying to convict didn't touch
Speaker 3: every element of the crime that you're trying to convict
Speaker 3: him of. So you're trying to show that he set
Speaker 3: up an organization all in furtherance of that criminal purpose,
Speaker 3: and when you do that, you can get him on
Speaker 3: that racketeering charge.
Speaker 1: We've heard about him being charged, we haven't heard about
Speaker 1: anybody else being charged. Is that because they can't find
Speaker 1: these other people they can't find enough evidence against these
Speaker 1: other people, or is it because they're utilizing those people
Speaker 1: to make the case against him.
Speaker 3: I would say it's probably part of the latter, which
Speaker 3: is using people to make the case against him. I
Speaker 3: would say in some ways, they're probably speaking all these
Speaker 3: people who are involved in what they see as the enterprise.
Speaker 3: They got these people in they try to see who
Speaker 3: could flip in different areas, and that's why in this case,
Speaker 3: everybody should be watching the witnesses that testify and look
Speaker 3: at the witnesses if they have any that relate to
Speaker 3: people who are incomes as organization. Those are the people
Speaker 3: that you're talking about, the people.
Speaker 4: That in some way might have been involved with.
Speaker 3: What they're saying is this criminal enterprise who are in
Speaker 3: a sense flipping on Diddy. Now, the other side of
Speaker 3: it is not being able to find people. I always
Speaker 3: like to say when you talk about prosecutors and government cases,
Speaker 3: the key for them is patience. They need to have
Speaker 3: evidence to win a case if they believe there's a
Speaker 3: good faith basis in which a crime has been committed.
Speaker 3: That takes time, like even in Ditty's case, it took
Speaker 3: years to try to iron this thing out. So I
Speaker 3: think sometimes when you think of Ditty's case, you think, well,
Speaker 3: is there gonna be another start coming next month or
Speaker 3: the month after. I think for them, it's about let's
Speaker 3: prosecute this case and what we learn here, if we
Speaker 3: can use that for other people, we will do that.
Speaker 3: But we need to preach patience because, just like in
Speaker 3: Ditty's case, if we do not have all our ducks
Speaker 3: in a row, then you are not going to get
Speaker 3: a conviction. And if you don't get a conviction, it
Speaker 3: becomes harder to bring other cases like this where you
Speaker 3: think crimes have been committed.
Speaker 2: Any idea how long you anticipate this struggle.
Speaker 3: I think weeks. It could be anywhere from six to
Speaker 3: eight weeks, and it could be a little bit shorter.
Speaker 3: But the key is the prosecute is going to take
Speaker 3: all the time they need to lay out all their evidence.
Speaker 3: I think one thing you can look for is the
Speaker 3: defense is not going to need nearly as much time
Speaker 3: as the prosecution because their idea is going to be
Speaker 3: a try to shoot down a lot of what what
Speaker 3: the prosecution has. But I think this is going to
Speaker 3: be a week's long trial. You are going to see
Speaker 3: a lot of evidence come out because what the prosecution
Speaker 3: has to do is, like what we talked about, tain't
Speaker 3: this entire picture of an enterprise, But here are the
Speaker 3: key Stephen, And they got to do it in a
Speaker 3: way that makes it simple for the jury. It can't
Speaker 3: be so complicated that jurors sit back and say, I
Speaker 3: can't really get what they're trying to do here. I mean,
Speaker 3: what are you trying to say to me? What prosecutors
Speaker 3: are trying to say is here's a broad picture of
Speaker 3: an enterprise, all the further into of a crime. They've
Speaker 3: got to be able to focus on that every step
Speaker 3: of the way and not make it too complicated. And
Speaker 3: for the defense, the key is going to be poke holes.
Speaker 3: They want to show a man who was maybe mean,
Speaker 3: maybe angry, maybe had unconventional sexual proclivities. That would be
Speaker 3: their way of wanting the jury to look at it,
Speaker 3: but never force anybody to do anything. They're going to
Speaker 3: poke holes. They're going to try to knock down a
Speaker 3: lot of the witnesses by saying they willingly participated in
Speaker 3: a lot of the conduct, maybe even in some ways
Speaker 3: try to facilitate some of the conduct if Combs asked
Speaker 3: for it, And they're going to try to paint the
Speaker 3: picture of he may be a bad guy, but he's
Speaker 3: not a criminal.
Speaker 2: Last couple of questions.
Speaker 1: We know how eccentric showan p Diddy Combs was, and
Speaker 1: particularly with his wardrobe, how fly he liked to look,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 2: Yet he shows up the.
Speaker 1: Court today he's dressed down, wearing a white dress shirt,
Speaker 1: a light colored pullover and khaki pants. Is not how
Speaker 1: the public is used to seeing the music mogul, what
Speaker 1: do you make of that?
Speaker 3: That's by designs and it's always by design I don't
Speaker 3: want people to think that, oh, he's doing that, That's
Speaker 3: not what we would see with other people.
Speaker 4: This happens in every single case.
Speaker 3: The defense is trying to humanize him, and in order
Speaker 3: to humanize him, they got to make him look like
Speaker 3: other humans. And other humans don't come in look and
Speaker 3: fly wearing ten thousand.
Speaker 4: Dollars watches or more.
Speaker 3: You know, other humans are wearing regular clothing, a suit,
Speaker 3: a tie, just there to be humble. And one of
Speaker 3: the pictures that the defense is trying to paint with
Speaker 3: Ditty is to say, and you saw this in Diddy's video,
Speaker 3: I know I did something wrong. I know I was
Speaker 3: not always my best. And so what they're trying to
Speaker 3: do is in his appearance, haint a man who is humble,
Speaker 3: who is just there. I will sit through this case,
Speaker 3: but I did not do what prosecutors said, and that's
Speaker 3: the image they want to show. So I think when
Speaker 3: people say, well, where's all that flyiness that we used
Speaker 3: to see him, you would never want to have that
Speaker 3: in court because that would make him look less human
Speaker 3: to the jury. You want the jury to almost look
Speaker 3: at him and say, even though we know he's a billionaire,
Speaker 3: he's a music mogul. When I look at that man
Speaker 3: in that defense chair, he looks like a man who
Speaker 3: did the wrong thing, but isn't a criminal.
Speaker 4: That's what the defense wants to show in his appearance.
Speaker 2: The jury opted to choose the jury.
Speaker 1: The judge rather, I'm sorry, opted to choose the jury
Speaker 1: today out of concern that if given the weekend to
Speaker 1: think about it, jurors may have second thoughts about serving
Speaker 1: could move on a part of the judge.
Speaker 3: Yeah, excellent move on the part of the judge. You
Speaker 3: want to get this thing underway fast. And I know
Speaker 3: a lot of people actually said to me today, wowy,
Speaker 3: just see to the jury and now we're getting going
Speaker 3: right away. That happens all the time. This is a
Speaker 3: big commitment for jurors. And I know the jurors' names
Speaker 3: won't be revealed. That's a big part of this. That's
Speaker 3: a big part of our justice system. But think of
Speaker 3: the pressure these men and women face. Think of the
Speaker 3: fact that they have to sit through six to eight
Speaker 3: weeks of a trial, pay attention to every detail of
Speaker 3: perhaps the biggest trial.
Speaker 4: In the world right now.
Speaker 3: And so for them there might be feelings of I
Speaker 3: don't want to be a part of this. You know
Speaker 3: what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go home and I'm
Speaker 3: not gonna come back. Let him say something about that.
Speaker 3: Use one of the alternates. No, this judge is looking
Speaker 3: at this saying, we have a jury. Let's get this
Speaker 3: thing going. And at every stage you will see this
Speaker 3: judge trying to move this case along. If he has
Speaker 3: to stop it, he will, but his key is not
Speaker 3: to elongate it because the longer it goes, the more
Speaker 3: a chance that you might lose a juror, and that's
Speaker 3: the last thing you want. Yes, you have the alternates,
Speaker 3: but the people sitting on that jury right now, they
Speaker 3: are focused on making a decision, and you don't want
Speaker 3: to lose one of those decision makers.
Speaker 4: Bring in an AlterNet or worse, have.
Speaker 3: It happen to multiple people, and then you start opening
Speaker 3: this case up to questioning. So the faster you go,
Speaker 3: the better off you are. And this judge is handling
Speaker 3: that right.
Speaker 1: Last question, we've heard about character witnesses for showing Didny
Speaker 1: combs A have you heard of any B If you
Speaker 1: haven't heard, what kind of effect could that potentially have
Speaker 1: on a case of this magnitude and sensitivity.
Speaker 3: I have not heard yet, but I think it could
Speaker 3: have a huge effect. The question is who are those
Speaker 3: witnesses and what do they say? Now? If they use
Speaker 3: a character witnesses, the defense decides go that way and
Speaker 3: use a character witness that's a member of his family.
Speaker 3: You have a jury looking at that person and you
Speaker 3: say many juries might think, well, that's self serving. You
Speaker 3: know him, you want to get him off, You're gonna
Speaker 3: say nice things. Of course, the question would be do
Speaker 3: you have character witness who in some way could transcend
Speaker 3: that for curves and make them think, hey, this is
Speaker 3: somebody who I wouldn't expect to say this about him,
Speaker 3: or somebody who I believe and support everything they say.
Speaker 3: And here they are saying that Diddy is not guilty
Speaker 3: of the things that the prosecutor is trying to prove here.
Speaker 3: So it's always a little bit of a risky proposition
Speaker 3: with character witnesses because if it just seems self serving,
Speaker 3: then the jurors are starting to hear witness after witness,
Speaker 3: especially if you have multiple ones, and they're saying, well,
Speaker 3: what are you doing here? You're just telling me like
Speaker 3: what I expected you to tell me, which is the
Speaker 3: great guy shouldn't be convicted, and the more you hear that,
Speaker 3: the less you believe the defense's case. So I think
Speaker 3: in many ways it's going to be a tough road
Speaker 3: to hoe for these defense attorneys because you want somebody
Speaker 3: to bolster Diddy. But at the same time, the more
Speaker 3: you have somebody who's in his corner, the more you
Speaker 3: open yourself up.
Speaker 4: To jurors saying, can I really believe these witnesses?
Speaker 1: One of the best in the business, leg the Landalysts, extraordinary,
Speaker 1: Ryan Smith right here with Steven A.
Speaker 2: Smith and Steven Ny Smith. Shall appreciate you, buddy man.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: You know I'm going to call you back because I
Speaker 1: want to hear more of what you have to say
Speaker 1: as you continue to monitor this drial.
Speaker 2: Thank you so much.
Speaker 4: Anytime, man, I'll hop my island you go right