Speaker 1: Either, folks, it is Friday, June twentieth, and week six
Speaker 1: is in the books. We have learned that next week
Speaker 1: should be the final week of testimony in the Ditty trial.
Speaker 1: Welcome down to this bonus episode of Amy and TJ roolps.
Speaker 1: I say, a bonus episode. This is not one we
Speaker 1: were planning to do. But there were some remarkable developments
Speaker 1: that happened essentially after the testimony ended, and I'm talking
Speaker 1: about we've kind of gotten an update on the schedule
Speaker 1: and next week should be the final week of testimony
Speaker 1: in the Ditty trial.
Speaker 2: Yes, so we learned that the prosecution is most likely
Speaker 2: going to rest on Monday, but most notably, the defense
Speaker 2: basically hinted that its case is going to be quicker
Speaker 2: than we thought. We at first thought it might be
Speaker 2: a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: Yep was the original Yep.
Speaker 2: Then we heard maybe two to five days.
Speaker 1: That's what they've been saying this week, And now.
Speaker 2: We're hearing that it might just be a day a
Speaker 2: day a day or so. Right, So, if the prosecution
Speaker 2: ends it case on Monday as expected, that means that
Speaker 2: the defense has and they say they will want the
Speaker 2: entire day on Tuesday, maybe Wednesday at most, to the
Speaker 2: point where the court now has said they're anticipating closing
Speaker 2: arguments on Thursday, meaning that is when the jury in
Speaker 2: this case might get this case.
Speaker 3: Like that, that's it.
Speaker 2: They're going to start deliberating in less than a week.
Speaker 1: Okay, And what wowed me? Okay, the schedule wows me
Speaker 1: just to think, Wow, we've gone through all this and
Speaker 1: you got arrested last September. We've been following this story
Speaker 1: for so long and now here it is as finally
Speaker 1: to the end. But I was fascinated, how is it
Speaker 1: possible this man's life was on the line and they
Speaker 1: actually have stated in court officially we might need only
Speaker 1: one day to put on our case.
Speaker 2: Do you think that is posturing in any way too
Speaker 2: smart for that? As part of me thinks like, okay,
Speaker 2: let the people think that we're gonna need weeks to
Speaker 2: defend ourselves.
Speaker 1: Oh, we're going to go back to then Okay.
Speaker 2: Then you go ahead and make a dramatic shift after
Speaker 2: you've seen what the prosecution god and you say, you
Speaker 2: know what, now that we see it, we might just need.
Speaker 3: A couple of days.
Speaker 2: And then at the end of it, you're like, wow,
Speaker 2: Is that all you got? Yeah, I think we just
Speaker 2: need to get So I'm actually thinking this could be
Speaker 2: a fully Like that makes sense, doesn't it create a
Speaker 2: situation in which you're thinking, well, shit, is that all
Speaker 2: they got? Okay, like they don't need to defend themselves further.
Speaker 1: But you're going back to the beginning and thinking saying
Speaker 1: two to three weeks was a strategic move as well.
Speaker 2: Correct, So you're gonna go ahead and overestimate what you're
Speaker 2: going to set the expectations for, like, yeah, we're gonna
Speaker 2: need a couple of weeks to defend ourselves, and then
Speaker 2: a little bit into the prosecution case, you say, you
Speaker 2: know what, maybe we just need a couple of days
Speaker 2: forget the couple weeks. I do think that would be
Speaker 2: smart if you were and they are smart, they know
Speaker 2: what they're doing. What are the last names in Diddy's
Speaker 2: defense team, Shapiro Garagos.
Speaker 1: Legendary legal names, familiar legendary legal names. Yes, you are correct. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's take that as one possibility. Is there another
Speaker 1: possibility here that they have put on their case already,
Speaker 1: meaning the prosecution called so many of the same witnesses
Speaker 1: that the defense would have called they got to cross
Speaker 1: examine them anyway, So they got to put on their
Speaker 1: case already without having to call those witnesses. They've already
Speaker 1: interviewed the people they wanted to interview. Is that also
Speaker 1: a legitimate way of looking at it?
Speaker 2: I would imagine that they feel good about their cross examination. Yes,
Speaker 2: that they feel like they are in a strong enough
Speaker 2: position based on their ability to discredit some of the
Speaker 2: progress or some of the points that the prosecution was
Speaker 2: able to make with their witnesses by discrediting them in
Speaker 2: some way, shape or form, so that they now feel like, yeah,
Speaker 2: we don't have to put on as rigorous of a
Speaker 2: defense because of what we were able to do in
Speaker 2: cross examination.
Speaker 1: Do no harm, right, do no harm. We are in
Speaker 1: a good position. There's nothing else we can do to
Speaker 1: further our case.
Speaker 2: So do no harm and do the defense doesn't have
Speaker 2: to prove innocence. They just have to cast doubt. That's
Speaker 2: all they have to do. They have to make one
Speaker 2: juror think maybe that's not the case.
Speaker 3: They don't have to prove anything more than that.
Speaker 2: And that's so honestly like resting in that position of power,
Speaker 2: because truly, it is an advantage to only have to
Speaker 2: plant a seed of doubt worthy enough of someone saying
Speaker 2: I can't convict.
Speaker 3: That is all you have to actually prove.
Speaker 1: Okay, last Quesch, last scenario. Is it possible? You and
Speaker 1: I have covered a ton of cases from the state
Speaker 1: level to the federal level throughout a thirty year career.
Speaker 1: Do you posture in this way? Do attorneys ever roll
Speaker 1: the dice and posture meaning they are trying to send
Speaker 1: a message by saying, you know what, it's not even
Speaker 1: worth our time because they didn't prove their case. Now,
Speaker 1: I've heard and I've talked to plenty of attorneys who
Speaker 1: said that this does happen at times. But this seems
Speaker 1: like a hell of a gamble with a guy a
Speaker 1: case this high profile and his life is on the line.
Speaker 1: Is that a gamble worth taking simply for the matter
Speaker 1: of the theatrics for putting on the show of look, guys,
Speaker 1: we don't even have to waste our time putting on
Speaker 1: a defense. Is there any part of that you think
Speaker 1: is factoring into this.
Speaker 2: I actually think that the attorneys feel like they're in
Speaker 2: a good position.
Speaker 1: Genuinely.
Speaker 2: I actually don't think that, as you pointed out, a
Speaker 2: garags or a ship the daughter of those esteemed attorneys
Speaker 2: would actually think that it would be worth a risk
Speaker 2: or worth a gamble in this place. I do think
Speaker 2: that they feel like they've planted enough seeds of doubt
Speaker 2: that they don't have to put on a big production.
Speaker 3: The question is, though, do we know has.
Speaker 2: Anyone actually been able to put up a name of
Speaker 2: who they will call to the stand if they've got
Speaker 2: a day a day and a half of testimony. Who
Speaker 2: are the people they are putting up on the stand
Speaker 2: to reiterate or at least bring home their case.
Speaker 1: But they keep adjusting. We don't have an official witness
Speaker 1: list as of police this recording, but they keep adjusting ropes.
Speaker 1: There's one thing for them to go from two weeks
Speaker 1: in two to three weeks is what they said at
Speaker 1: the beginning, They went to two to five. They said
Speaker 1: two to five. Today they're saying one possibly wild, one
Speaker 1: and a half that's wild. How do we get down
Speaker 1: to this man's life, this complicated case. We can defend
Speaker 1: him and put our case on in a day in
Speaker 1: a day, and that's all it takes for us to
Speaker 1: prove that this man should not be found guilty. I
Speaker 1: know they did a lot with the cross examination. It
Speaker 1: just seems like throw anything in there. I don't care
Speaker 1: if freak it's elementary school teacher. I don't give a damn.
Speaker 3: I'm curious there.
Speaker 2: I'm curious their strategy in creating those expectations. They're so
Speaker 2: smart because they know that the jurors don't want to
Speaker 2: stay longer than they have to.
Speaker 1: Ah.
Speaker 2: But but once you set those expectations like two days max,
Speaker 2: you can't extend like they have to know when they
Speaker 2: make these kinds of statements that there is a level
Speaker 2: of expectation, and that expectation is that they aren't going
Speaker 2: to go past next week. So then they really do
Speaker 2: have to wrap up their case, which is interesting in
Speaker 2: terms of strategy. That must mean they actually do mean
Speaker 2: what they say, because it would not do them any
Speaker 2: good to string the jury along and to be like, oh,
Speaker 2: we really hope to wrap it up in a day
Speaker 2: and then suddenly have it last five days. That's not
Speaker 2: going to go over well with the jurors.
Speaker 1: And how long are jury instructions? Don't can't they take
Speaker 1: half a day at least?
Speaker 3: That makes sense.
Speaker 1: Okay, So let's say closing arguments are on Thursday, like
Speaker 1: The best case scenario now is for the jury to
Speaker 1: begin deliberations on Friday. We're not going to get a
Speaker 1: verdict on Friday. Well, go through the weekend, they come
Speaker 1: back on Monday. This is a Monday. This is not
Speaker 1: a sequestered jury. So now they start a full week
Speaker 1: of deliberation.
Speaker 3: That's June thirtieth, Dane thirtieth.
Speaker 1: They start off full week of deliberations. You better believe
Speaker 1: they will be out of there before fourth of July.
Speaker 1: Correct now clockwise? Do you think it works better for
Speaker 1: the defense of the prosecution if it bleeds into fourth
Speaker 1: of July? Do you think they're going to be in
Speaker 1: a hurry to get out of there? So that means
Speaker 1: let's hurry up and convict. Are they gonna be a
Speaker 1: hurry up and get out of there?
Speaker 2: Hens where the majority is and where the minority in
Speaker 2: the jury room?
Speaker 3: One hundred percent?
Speaker 2: But I also wonder to wait, how much does this
Speaker 2: plan do it? Have you ever been on a jury,
Speaker 2: by the way, no, either have I. I don't think
Speaker 2: people like us tend to be on juries. I don't
Speaker 2: think they tend to want people like us who report
Speaker 2: the news on juries. But I'm thinking here, does it
Speaker 2: play any factor to know that the state or sorry
Speaker 2: I always say the state because I'm used to that.
Speaker 2: But the Feds, the Feds in this case, took five.
Speaker 3: Weeks basically to present their case. Correct, five weeks? Is
Speaker 3: that what it is? Okay?
Speaker 2: And that the defense didn't waste your time? They just
Speaker 2: like does that make you feel more? Just like, wow,
Speaker 2: I appreciate the defense.
Speaker 3: They only they told me what I needed to know
Speaker 3: in one day.
Speaker 2: It took the Feds five weeks to tell me what
Speaker 2: I needed to know. Does that play into the psychology?
Speaker 1: Use them to the defensive line.
Speaker 3: I'm just asking that. That's all. That's my question, you know.
Speaker 1: I again, we haven't been in the courtroom. We have
Speaker 1: been all kinds of reports about the energy and the
Speaker 1: back and forth and sometimes between the juries. You know what,
Speaker 1: that hasn't been that much talk about the demeanor of
Speaker 1: the jurors every time or sometime.
Speaker 2: You can't have a talk about that, correct.
Speaker 1: Well, they grimaced at the video. Little nuggets like that
Speaker 1: have come out, but we haven't heard a whole lot
Speaker 1: about their emotions and how they're doing. So nobody knows
Speaker 1: where their heads are. But ROMs to think next Thursday.
Speaker 1: There are closing arguments in this case. It's so at
Speaker 1: the end of today. I think the headline came out
Speaker 1: when testimony was over. And yes, we did hear from
Speaker 1: Brendan Paul today finally, and I think rose we had
Speaker 1: the earlier episode today if you want to check that out.
Speaker 1: We did go through his testimony what he was talking
Speaker 1: about in our earlier regular did he trial update? We're
Speaker 1: doing this bonus episode because there was more here that
Speaker 1: actually warranted the headlines. But there was something Brendan Paul
Speaker 1: we didn't get to talk about earlier, yes, and how
Speaker 1: he wrapped up the testimony, and it really goes to
Speaker 1: show who he is, maybe the age he is, the
Speaker 1: relationship he had, and how this is all just kind
Speaker 1: of a mess and it's not as simple as it seems.
Speaker 2: No, he did not want to testify against his former boss.
Speaker 2: And even when he was arrested caught with cocaine in
Speaker 2: a Miami area airport in a goy yard bag, he
Speaker 2: didn't even give up, did he at that point either.
Speaker 2: He did not say this isn't mine, this is my boss's. Now,
Speaker 2: so he said he didn't do any of that for
Speaker 2: one simple reason. Loyalty, and you saw that on the
Speaker 2: stand even today, like you did.
Speaker 3: When he was testifying.
Speaker 2: You know, this isn't something he chose to do, wanted
Speaker 2: to do, sought out to do.
Speaker 3: He had no reason to want.
Speaker 2: To be there.
Speaker 1: And the defense only got up. He was up there
Speaker 1: an hour and a half. It was pretty quick with
Speaker 1: the prosecution, they questioned for hour and a half. The
Speaker 1: cross examination only went i think tops fifteen minutes, but
Speaker 1: then on redirect the prosecution asked a few questions and
Speaker 1: it was that last question. We have seen a couple
Speaker 1: of pretty good last questions, some poignant moments, some powerful
Speaker 1: moments when people have wrapped their testimony. But he was
Speaker 1: asked directly how he felt about Sean Diddy Combs today,
Speaker 1: the guy he looked up to, the guy who taught
Speaker 1: him so much, the guy that he was an inspiration
Speaker 1: to him, the guy taught him about the business, gave
Speaker 1: an opportunity, but also the guy who has him now
Speaker 1: testifying about using drugs, buying drugs and all this. How
Speaker 1: Brendan Paul do you feel about Sean Diddy Combs today?
Speaker 2: So this was interesting by the folks who were there
Speaker 2: in the courtroom. They described Paul as not having a
Speaker 2: quick or a definitive response, but ultimately after he paused,
Speaker 2: he said, it's complicated. Wow, And I actually feel like
Speaker 2: hearing him say that, taking the pause he needed to
Speaker 2: have before he described it made it that much more authentic.
Speaker 2: And everything he testified to beforehand he was it just look,
Speaker 2: when you're a juror, you're looking to see, is this
Speaker 2: person testifying before me speaking the truth? And I do
Speaker 2: think in those moments, when you have those questions that
Speaker 2: require nothing but an honest answer, and you'll know if
Speaker 2: it's not, you then can kind of look back at
Speaker 2: the previous testimony and base.
Speaker 3: It off of that answer.
Speaker 2: And to me, that was that moment where he said
Speaker 2: it's complicated, and.
Speaker 1: That's we should all take that out of this. We
Speaker 1: wanted to be black and white, good and bad, right,
Speaker 1: good versus evil. This is so simple, but it's not.
Speaker 1: This is right. And I'm always reminded because we've talked
Speaker 1: to a lot of people who have been and we've
Speaker 1: been in that position and other people who've been in
Speaker 1: the position of being kind of tabloid fodder, if you will,
Speaker 1: And it's easy for you to look at this kid
Speaker 1: and he has been labeled as something other than a
Speaker 1: human being. He's been labeled as what a drug mule.
Speaker 1: So when you label somebody as something other than a
Speaker 1: human being, a college student, a college graduate, a young man,
Speaker 1: a basketball somebody, impressionable, a son, no son, a boyfriend
Speaker 1: at this or that, right, we're looking at him as
Speaker 1: something other than that until today. To be honest, he
Speaker 1: got up there and from what we've read, we couldn't
Speaker 1: see it. But he was a kid. Imagine being twenty
Speaker 1: two and the biggest star in the world old you
Speaker 1: want to be in wants you to work for him. Yes,
Speaker 1: I will do anything you tell me to do. And
Speaker 1: it just it humanizes so much of the testimony makes
Speaker 1: these folks human in a way that I think so
Speaker 1: much of the tabloid fodder and foolishness has not. And
Speaker 1: I think this kid and a lot of yes, he's
Speaker 1: twenty sex.
Speaker 2: Twenty six, twenty six December, he'll be twenty.
Speaker 1: Second, he's still a kid.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And so we just.
Speaker 1: I don't know. He was humanized in a way for me,
Speaker 1: and I think that final answer was humanized him greatly.
Speaker 2: Look, I think we are watching this trial, a lot
Speaker 2: of us are continually shocked and surprised at how some
Speaker 2: other people live their lives or choose to live their lives.
Speaker 3: Who are the victims, who are complicit?
Speaker 2: Who are the evildoers?
Speaker 1: It's hard to know the willing participants, right, There's a
Speaker 1: fine line between all that stuff.
Speaker 3: It is.
Speaker 2: It is an eye opening experience. But I do hope
Speaker 2: and I think we both hope as we continue to
Speaker 2: cover what's going on inside that courtroom that everyone also
Speaker 2: just gives people a little bit of space and a
Speaker 2: little bit of grace. You don't know what people are
Speaker 2: going through, what their aspirations, or what their what their
Speaker 2: situations are, and why or how they make decisions. I
Speaker 2: think this is it's tough. There are fine lines and
Speaker 2: fuzzy lines between victims and perpetrators, between being complicit and being.
Speaker 3: Abused.
Speaker 2: It's there are so many questions, and we're going to
Speaker 2: continue to have these conversations about different industries, and you
Speaker 2: know this has been all kind of blown open over
Speaker 2: the last several years and all you.
Speaker 1: Just said, Brendan Paul summed it up today. Final answer.
Speaker 2: It's complicated, it really is.
Speaker 1: It is. So another day, six six weeks of testimony
Speaker 1: in the books. Next week, I think we can say
Speaker 1: confidently right will be the final week of testimony.
Speaker 2: I think by all accounts yes, in.
Speaker 1: The Diddy trial, and this jury could be deliberating by
Speaker 1: the end of next week. Folks. Yeah, there were some
Speaker 1: significant updates, so we thought it was worth jumping on
Speaker 1: and giving you those updates. Again, thank you. We appreciate
Speaker 1: you going along on this journey with us. We have
Speaker 1: learned a lot as we report a lot about this case.
Speaker 1: But folks, thank you as always continue to follow us
Speaker 1: because obviously it's a it's a Friday. We didn't plan
Speaker 1: on doing this. We had other plans we didn't.
Speaker 2: Yes, but we're always here and we're always checking in,
Speaker 2: So thank you for checking in with us, and have
Speaker 2: a great weekend.
Speaker 1: Chech