Speaker 1: Hey, the folks. It is Tuesday, July first, and the
Speaker 1: jury has reached verdicts in the Diddy trial. But we
Speaker 1: don't know what the verdicts are yet, and we might
Speaker 1: not know for several days. Why more jury drama, folks,
Speaker 1: Welcome to this episode, this second Diddy update episode of
Speaker 1: Amy and TJ for the day Robes. What was your reaction?
Speaker 1: I had to give you the updates in real time
Speaker 1: via text because you happen to be out at the time.
Speaker 1: But what were was your reaction to hearing what we
Speaker 1: know now?
Speaker 2: Oh, my heart was pounding.
Speaker 3: I was running around New York City in the rain
Speaker 3: and trying to get some errands done, but like hearing
Speaker 3: from you that there were verdicts in Bam, my heart stopped,
Speaker 3: and so I tried to start looking at my phone,
Speaker 3: reading the reporters who were in the room, trying to
Speaker 3: read the tea leaves, because we first just started getting
Speaker 3: anecdotal observations about how Diddy was reacting and how his
Speaker 3: defense team was reacting, and I was trying to figure
Speaker 3: out what that meant. It was confusing, exciting, and I
Speaker 3: don't know. So much is on the line, and we've
Speaker 3: all been following this everyone who's been listening with us,
Speaker 3: but those of us who are covering it, it just
Speaker 3: it's overwhelming, all.
Speaker 1: Right, So folks, we'll let you know where we are
Speaker 1: right now as of this recording, early evening here on
Speaker 1: July first, the jury has gone home. They've gone home
Speaker 1: for the day, but they sent a note to the
Speaker 1: judge at about four fifteen this afternoon, that note telling
Speaker 1: him that they had reached verdicts on four of the
Speaker 1: five counts against Sean Diddy Combs. The one count robes
Speaker 1: they're hung up on. We should not be surprised, and
Speaker 1: we are not legal experts, but I guess we kind
Speaker 1: of saw this coming.
Speaker 3: Yes, they are stuck on the racketeering conspiracy charge. That,
Speaker 3: of course, is the one that was the most confusing
Speaker 3: and complex and the one that would send Diddy to
Speaker 3: prison for the rest of his life. So that is
Speaker 3: the one that they were asking questions about. We kind
Speaker 3: of figured that out. But what we hadn't realized is
Speaker 3: it sounds like perhaps they had already pretty quickly made
Speaker 3: decisions on count two, three, four, and five.
Speaker 1: Hey, that's tough to's that is what is that? I mean,
Speaker 1: any legal expert will tell you something and what that means.
Speaker 1: But they started sending notes, and it's giving an indication
Speaker 1: that they were debating about the racketeering charge really really
Speaker 1: early in the process. So to think that counts two, three,
Speaker 1: four five they were unanimous on in a matter of
Speaker 1: it had to be an hour.
Speaker 3: I know so. And look, I am no legal expert,
Speaker 3: but a lot of folks will believe if you get
Speaker 3: a verdict back quickly or decision is made quickly, oftentimes
Speaker 3: it is guilty. That is just typically what you see.
Speaker 3: It's not always the case. But to add to that,
Speaker 3: the defense team, who knows what they're telling Diddy, what
Speaker 3: they're telling their client. But from the folks who were
Speaker 3: in the room, they said his face looked despondent, and
Speaker 3: there were a lot of hugs, There was a lot
Speaker 3: of pats on the backs. The mood seemed serious, I believe,
Speaker 3: is how they described it.
Speaker 1: I think you saw as well. We read again, folks,
Speaker 1: We read all of the commentary from the reporters who
Speaker 1: are in the room, so they're feverishly typing their observations
Speaker 1: and then we take it in. Now we from Sky News, BBC,
Speaker 1: the Independent.
Speaker 2: Of CNN, ABC.
Speaker 1: NBC, we look at all of these things ropes. I
Speaker 1: saw a few initially talking about hugs and almost smiles
Speaker 1: and even laughter on Ditty's side. I saw some follow
Speaker 1: ups that said after the note came that there were hugs,
Speaker 1: very serious looks on their faces, and to your point, desponded.
Speaker 1: So some of the scenes they're describing were different. But
Speaker 1: I think what you just said was more consistent and
Speaker 1: what everybody was observing, like something's up, something serious. Why
Speaker 1: are they hugging?
Speaker 3: Yes, And because they don't know, obviously, no one knows
Speaker 3: what the verdict is if it's not guilty or guilty,
Speaker 3: but most attorneys know in these types of situations. Just
Speaker 3: they're reading between the lines in terms of the notes
Speaker 3: that the jurors have been sending over the last day
Speaker 3: and a half and the fact that they are stuck
Speaker 3: on the most serious charge. But seemingly came pretty quickly
Speaker 3: to their decision on count two, which is sex trafficking
Speaker 3: by force, fraud or coersion that was about Cassie Ventur.
Speaker 3: They had a unanimous decision on count three, that's transportation
Speaker 3: to engage in prostitution that also pertains to Cassie Ventura
Speaker 3: and the sex workers that we've heard about. They're unanimous
Speaker 3: on the count four charge, which is also sex trafficking
Speaker 3: by force, fraud or corrosion, this is in reference to Jane,
Speaker 3: and then unanimous on their decision for count five, which
Speaker 3: is transportation to engage in prostitution that is involving Jane
Speaker 3: and the sex workers that also a part of that
Speaker 3: that testified as well.
Speaker 1: So you know, look, it's settled right now. They have
Speaker 1: settled and they have made a decision about the fate
Speaker 1: of Sean Didtycomb's on four of five counts, the most
Speaker 1: serious one is left, sure, but the fact that he
Speaker 1: is potentially looking and again robes on two of those
Speaker 1: counts we're talking about sex trafficking. Those carry a minimum
Speaker 1: of fifteen years each, correct a minimum, yes, a minimum
Speaker 1: of fifteen years. He has the other two, the prostitution
Speaker 1: counts have a maximum of ten years. But he is
Speaker 1: looking at some serious, serious prison time if in fact
Speaker 1: these are guilty. I mean, I was going back and
Speaker 1: forth before we started recording with you, like, how do
Speaker 1: you possibly look at this? How could you lean not guilty?
Speaker 1: How could you look at this and lean and possibly
Speaker 1: think well, they did it that quickly how could you
Speaker 1: lean not guilty.
Speaker 3: See, I just feel like if there's stuck on the racketeering,
Speaker 3: which is the most serious of the crimes and involved
Speaker 3: some of these counts in that you just had to
Speaker 3: have a co conspirator involved as well. So it just
Speaker 3: seems to me that the count two through five are guilty. Okay,
Speaker 3: it just seems like that has to be what it is.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened, looking at your face right then,
Speaker 1: and you just for whatever reason, it just clicked. It
Speaker 1: clicked if you again, I don't think I said this
Speaker 1: point clear enough. At the top the jury note that
Speaker 1: they sent said that we've reached verdicts on four or
Speaker 1: five counts. We on one. We have people who are unpersuadable,
Speaker 1: who are unmovable on both sides. So that means there's
Speaker 1: somebody on that jury who is so sure that he's
Speaker 1: guilty of racketeering that they refuse to move. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: person is probably voted.
Speaker 3: That person has not voted not guilty on counts two
Speaker 3: through five.
Speaker 1: That is a hunt, that's a done deal.
Speaker 2: So that's why, Okay, that's why the despondent looks.
Speaker 3: And I think that's why the hugging, because I think
Speaker 3: they know at the very least did he is going
Speaker 3: to prison, is going to stay in prison for quite
Speaker 3: some time with these verdicts.
Speaker 2: Now I can understand the racketeering conspiracy.
Speaker 3: Someone might think he was guilty of counts two through five,
Speaker 3: But did it really rise to the level of racketeering?
Speaker 3: Did he actually have an empire? Did he actually have
Speaker 3: an enterprise? Did he actually have a co conspirator? And
Speaker 3: so I can see why someone said could say who
Speaker 3: thought he was guilty on counts two through five still say,
Speaker 3: you know what, I don't.
Speaker 2: Think he's guilty of racketeering.
Speaker 3: Also, that's putting him away for the rest of his life,
Speaker 3: and that might feel a little bit more ominous.
Speaker 1: But their note suggests somebody is sure, unpersuadable and unmovable
Speaker 1: on the racketeering charge of him being guilty. I'm glad
Speaker 1: we talked this out because I was trying to find
Speaker 1: a way, like, how is it? Is it any way
Speaker 1: at the Nope, there's no way.
Speaker 2: I don't think there's any way that sure he.
Speaker 1: Was guilty of racketeering.
Speaker 2: There's no way say.
Speaker 1: He's not guilty of something else.
Speaker 2: Here's the deal. Here's a question.
Speaker 3: He could be he could be not guilty on the
Speaker 3: sex trafficking charges, and he they could have unanimously decided that,
Speaker 3: And then they could have unanimously decided that he's guilty
Speaker 3: of the transportation to engage in prostitution. So he might
Speaker 3: they might have unanimously It might be split.
Speaker 1: You make another good points.
Speaker 2: So maybe he is only facing ten years each.
Speaker 3: I mean, if there's a myriad of possibilities, they're not
Speaker 3: necessarily all guilty or all not guilty.
Speaker 2: It could be a mix.
Speaker 1: You know what I am Again, I'm not being curt
Speaker 1: with this or because of the seriousness of what we're
Speaker 1: talking about here, But if I were a betting man,
Speaker 1: I would take that scenario you just laid out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: meaning there's some difficulty with the sex trafficking. People have
Speaker 1: a difficulty understanding why, Like, wait a minute, she could
Speaker 1: have left any time she wanted to be kind of
Speaker 1: a thing. And even if you're not okay with the
Speaker 1: sex trafficking, maybe it's easier to say, okay, he paid
Speaker 1: for these guys came and had sex.
Speaker 3: When we heard the prosecution give their closing arguments and
Speaker 3: throughout the testimony, we kind of really felt like that
Speaker 3: was a slam dunk. While we were listening to the
Speaker 3: evidence as it was happening, we said, kind of feels
Speaker 3: like they totally proved that by the law that it
Speaker 3: seems yes, right, So that wouldn't be shocking. Now here's
Speaker 3: another scenario, babe. They could have believed Cassie.
Speaker 2: Ventura and not believed Jane. There could be it could
Speaker 2: split on that as well, a myriad of guilty and
Speaker 2: not guilty.
Speaker 3: But there are definitely there are definitely some guilties in there.
Speaker 1: They got to be some gilis in there. So which
Speaker 1: ones are they? Yeah, it's wild. So after all of
Speaker 1: that scene, they had to figure out Okay, the jury
Speaker 1: sent a note they have a question about what to
Speaker 1: do next. So then the lawyers came back into the courtroom.
Speaker 1: This is the part that's been fascinating and this took
Speaker 1: hours today. They had to argue, fight over what's the
Speaker 1: right language to give back to the jury right.
Speaker 2: And both the This was interesting.
Speaker 3: Both the defense and the prosecution wanted the jury to
Speaker 3: go back and to continue to deliberate, and the defense
Speaker 3: wanted to use even stronger language like go back, And
Speaker 3: then the prosecution wanted to give an Allen charge, which
Speaker 3: rises to a whole other level, and.
Speaker 1: So it's very controversial. Some people think it shouldn't be
Speaker 1: used at all. Alan charge is essentially a stronger and
Speaker 1: amended jury instruction, essentially telling them in more forceful terms,
Speaker 1: you have an obligation to go back there and get
Speaker 1: us a verdict, and almost encourages them to re examine
Speaker 1: their own opinion and not be afraid to change their minds.
Speaker 1: And some people say that's almost like some psychological influence
Speaker 1: you're having on.
Speaker 2: The jury, like are you sure you're right? Are you
Speaker 2: sure that's this decision you want?
Speaker 1: Essentially asking them to question the decision they've already made
Speaker 1: and why it's in the interests of the court and
Speaker 1: the system to get a verdict instead of doing what
Speaker 1: you believe me you are That's what the argument sometimes is.
Speaker 1: But they didn't go that.
Speaker 3: Far, No, And the judge did make a point and
Speaker 3: to the juror saying, you know, if you strongly believe something,
Speaker 3: no one is asking you to go against what you
Speaker 3: believe is right and true. And that was certainly an
Speaker 3: important part of the.
Speaker 2: Instructions to the jury.
Speaker 3: But yeah, the judge could have just sent them back.
Speaker 3: He could have given them an all in charge. He
Speaker 3: could have allowed for a partial verdict. Some folks were
Speaker 3: thinking that maybe we might hear what the verdicts were
Speaker 3: on counts two through five, but the judge didn't ask
Speaker 3: the jury to do any of that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know what you we get those verdicts.
Speaker 1: They do not want a hung jury. Neither side wants
Speaker 1: a hung jury on account because that means we have
Speaker 1: to go reach trie over again, and at that point
Speaker 1: he's going to be I mean, at this point it
Speaker 1: seems like he's guilty on some count. Are you going
Speaker 1: to go through and do all of this over again?
Speaker 1: Nobody wants that, So yeah, to your point, both sides
Speaker 1: wanted them to go back in and keep talking the options.
Speaker 1: You just laid out what they could do. But the
Speaker 1: judge eventually did decide what he wanted to do, and
Speaker 1: he brought the jury late in the day back into
Speaker 1: the courtroom. And we're going to tell you exactly what
Speaker 1: he told them to do. All right, we have verdicts
Speaker 1: in the Didy trial. We have verdicts on four of
Speaker 1: five counts. We don't know what the four verdicts are yet,
Speaker 1: because the jury sent the judge to the jury back
Speaker 1: in to continue deliberating. But Ropes, he had options for
Speaker 1: what he could tell them to do. He could tell
Speaker 1: them to keep deliberating, give this new instructions, kind of
Speaker 1: a harsher instruction about what to do. Or he could
Speaker 1: allow a partial verdict. But he kind of split the baby,
Speaker 1: kind of made everybody happy and gave them some instructions.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's correct.
Speaker 3: So after the prosecution weighed in the defense weight in,
Speaker 3: the judge decided to tell the jury this when he
Speaker 3: brought them back into the courtroom just a short while ago,
Speaker 3: he said this, I received your note that you have
Speaker 3: reached verdicts on count two through five, but not on
Speaker 3: count one. I ask at this time that you keep deliberating.
Speaker 3: And so that is what he told the jury. The
Speaker 3: jury went back out of the room and shortly thereafter
Speaker 3: they sent a note back to the judge saying, hey,
Speaker 3: we're done for the day. And so it was determined
Speaker 3: that they will come back tomorrow morning at nine am
Speaker 3: to keep deliberating on count one and who.
Speaker 2: Knows how long that will go.
Speaker 3: Who knows how long the judge will ask them to
Speaker 3: keep deliberating. Until they come back with a either a
Speaker 3: unanimous decision, or once again, if they already have people
Speaker 3: who say, I will not budge, I will not move.
Speaker 1: I don't know what the cutoff. At some point he
Speaker 1: has to use discretion, But at some point you have
Speaker 1: to if they say absolutely not and keep saying absolutely not,
Speaker 1: and I've seen a judge keep throwing it back and
Speaker 1: back and back at jurors, and eventually they just have
Speaker 1: to convince him that this isn't going to happen. I
Speaker 1: don't know if the judge has in his mind a deadline,
Speaker 1: a timeline on it. They might come back tomorrow and
Speaker 1: have more legal questions, be asking for more things, and
Speaker 1: maybe negotiations start anew to a certain degree, I do
Speaker 1: not know. But if I were a betting man, once again,
Speaker 1: I always bet tomorrow's in that Tomorrow, on Wednesday, we
Speaker 1: would get a verdict or at least a decision and
Speaker 1: hear what's going.
Speaker 2: On here, you know.
Speaker 3: And there's been so much discussion about what the mood
Speaker 3: has been like outside the courthouse. Inside the courtroom, it's
Speaker 3: been described as tense and certainly building. I can't even
Speaker 3: imagine tomorrow morning what that scene is going to be
Speaker 3: like as folks are expecting. Hey, the verdict is almost
Speaker 3: certainly coming down tomorrow and Diddy, you know, his mother
Speaker 3: was in court with him today, one of his daughters,
Speaker 3: his children have all been there throughout this trial. And
Speaker 3: just to now have to sit and wait and know
Speaker 3: that the verdicts are in recounts two through five and
Speaker 3: you're waiting to hear about what they think on that
Speaker 3: most serious charge.
Speaker 1: That's tough. Your fate has been sided on four or
Speaker 1: five counts and you have to sit and still wait
Speaker 1: to hear that. You're not waiting on a decision to
Speaker 1: be made, you're waiting for them to tell you your decision.
Speaker 1: That just hits a little different. But wow, we shouldn't
Speaker 1: be surprised more drama with this jury from the start
Speaker 1: day one, day two.
Speaker 2: Yeah, they've kept it interesting.
Speaker 3: It hasn't ever actually gotten to the point where I
Speaker 3: was born. It seems like every time I had a
Speaker 3: moment to do something else, another note came in and
Speaker 3: another question or another note came back from the jurors.
Speaker 3: But I thought it was interesting the prosecutors when they
Speaker 3: first learned of this split, that they haven't decided or
Speaker 3: they can't come to an agreement on count one.
Speaker 2: They initially wanted.
Speaker 3: The judge to tell the jurors this is one of
Speaker 3: their suggestions that the case could be retried if they
Speaker 3: don't reach a verdict. I wonder what that was about.
Speaker 3: Would they have preferred a hung jury on the racketeering
Speaker 3: charts so that they could retriumph rather than try and
Speaker 3: get them to come to a unanimous decision, fearful that
Speaker 3: perhaps that unanimous decision would ultimately be not guilty.
Speaker 1: Give him an offer, give him an offram. Oh, that
Speaker 1: would have I should say, given him an off ram,
Speaker 1: Like this is heavy, this is very difficult and emotional,
Speaker 1: and we've all had some kind of emotional reaction to it.
Speaker 1: But they're the ones in charge of this man's fate,
Speaker 1: and so yeah, to give them somewhat of an off ram.
Speaker 1: I could see why they might have wanted to put
Speaker 1: it in there and take the pressure off of them
Speaker 1: to make a decision because of the decision maybe the
Speaker 1: prosecutor thinks they do not want to make. Is that
Speaker 1: one to have to put him in prison for the
Speaker 1: rest of his life?
Speaker 3: Wow? Yes, because just the pressure on the jury members
Speaker 3: who don't want to change their mind. But pure pressure
Speaker 3: is certainly powerful, and isn't that part of how a
Speaker 3: jury works.
Speaker 1: I want to go back and watch the people versus
Speaker 1: OJ Simpson for somewhere you remember all that.
Speaker 2: It's been a while, but it goes so.
Speaker 1: Much insight into that particular jury as well. It's just
Speaker 1: I can't imagine what's going on. We will hear the
Speaker 1: stories later.
Speaker 3: But and well, I was gonna say there is some
Speaker 3: interest because okay, we think there's going to be in
Speaker 3: terms of what may happen if the jury somehow doesn't
Speaker 3: reach a verdict tomorrow and say they continue to deliberate.
Speaker 3: They actually had to discuss the judges and the attorneys
Speaker 3: whether or not court could even convene on Thursday, July third,
Speaker 3: because typically the court is closed because of the fourth
Speaker 3: of July holiday. So the judge did say that they
Speaker 3: could keep the court open if it's necessary for the
Speaker 3: jurors to continue to deliberate on Thursday, July third, But
Speaker 3: it doesn't seem like that's in anyone's interest. And they're close,
Speaker 3: You're like, that's never happened.
Speaker 1: I mean, some of these guys are telling the family
Speaker 1: what charcoal bye? I mean they're they're cooking out, they're
Speaker 1: they're getting ready for the fourth of July. This is
Speaker 1: I can't imagine.
Speaker 3: Yes, well I think so the defense lawyer Marca and uh, okay,
Speaker 3: you think I know. Agnet Pillow actually said he didn't
Speaker 3: want the judge to ask dureors what they want to
Speaker 3: do until the end of the day tomorrow because he
Speaker 3: doesn't want them to feel rushed into a decision.
Speaker 2: You can understand that.
Speaker 3: And they're saying, hey, we'll wait till Monday if we
Speaker 3: have to just let them take their time. They didn't
Speaker 3: want anyone to feel pressured or rushed to make a decision.
Speaker 2: To just get out of there. By end of the
Speaker 2: day tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We'll only got one thing to talk about.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: It's a big thing to talk about, racketeering, but they
Speaker 1: are down to only one decision to make. Folks, we
Speaker 1: appreciate you. I'll continuing to listen to us. It has
Speaker 1: been a ride, but we are it's coming around the
Speaker 1: corner in the next couple of days or might go
Speaker 1: into next week, but either way, we appreciate you being
Speaker 1: along with us. But for now, I'm TJ. Holmes along
Speaker 1: with Combard to Amy Robach we'll talk to us soon.
Speaker 3: H