Speaker 1: Now let's get to the latest on the federal sex
Speaker 1: trafficking and racketeering trial of Seawan Diddy Combs, a Diddy
Speaker 1: ex girlfriend. The latest using the pseudonym Jane, was back
Speaker 1: on the stand today. She described the drug fueled sexual
Speaker 1: parties called hotel nights she endured during her relationship with
Speaker 1: Seawan Diddy Combs. Jane says she felt pressure to have
Speaker 1: sex with other men. Chosho broke down in sobs as
Speaker 1: she recalled getting to spend time alone with Combs.
Speaker 2: Afterwards, and just yesterday, the judge.
Speaker 1: Threatened to exclude Combs from court if he kept trying
Speaker 1: to interact with the jury. Combs was seen nodding in
Speaker 1: the jury's direction during the testimony of a woman who
Speaker 1: said Combs dangled her over a balcony railing in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: During that testimony, it was revealed that Combs was actually
Speaker 1: in New York during the Bad Boy Reunion tour at
Speaker 1: the time she claimed the incident happened. Joining me to
Speaker 1: discuss the latest the Diddy trials is one of the
Speaker 1: best legal minds in America as far as I'm concerned.
Speaker 1: Legal analysts Destraordan there for ABC News obviously host sports
Speaker 1: and on ESPN as well.
Speaker 2: My buddy, the one and only, Ryan Smith. What's up, man?
Speaker 2: How are you? Hey?
Speaker 3: Man, good to talk to you. How you doing.
Speaker 2: Let's get right to it. I'm good man.
Speaker 1: It's just that, it's it's just crazy to meet all
Speaker 1: of this Didney stuff. We just keep hearing more and
Speaker 1: more stuff. It's hard to listen to, to be honest
Speaker 1: with you, but what do you make of the testimony
Speaker 1: of the witnesses who says she was dangled over the
Speaker 1: balcony of her apartment. How incriminating is that against Diddy?
Speaker 4: Yeah, Banna, that's really important for the prosecution's case. Why
Speaker 4: even though she wasn't somebody who said she was assaulted
Speaker 4: by him sexually?
Speaker 3: This shows the.
Speaker 4: Four the violent endencies that the prosecution is saying Diddy
Speaker 4: has that this is what women were afraid of, that
Speaker 4: this is why people had that he had this threat
Speaker 4: of violence held over people. Because when you look at
Speaker 4: it from the prosecution's eyes, if he could dangle somebody
Speaker 4: off a balcony, imagine him what he might have threatened
Speaker 4: to do the Cassie if she didn't engage in the
Speaker 4: free costs or to Jane with what she's talking about
Speaker 4: with the hotel nights. Showing that and showing what happened
Speaker 4: for the prosecution is like saying, this is how dangerous
Speaker 4: this man is.
Speaker 1: When you judge threatened to remove him and exclude him
Speaker 1: from trial because he thought his facial expressions and whatever
Speaker 1: you were influencing the jury. How big of a deal
Speaker 1: is that, if it is a big deal at all.
Speaker 4: Yeah, I think that's huge because if the jury walks
Speaker 4: in one day and they don't see Diddy there, they
Speaker 4: wonder why, and they can't necessarily be told why, or
Speaker 4: the judge will give them an instruction but won't maybe
Speaker 4: not tell them all the details. But it goes to
Speaker 4: if you're on that jury, you're thinking, wait, why is
Speaker 4: there a change here? And any change I think in
Speaker 4: this case involving Diddy is bad for the defense. So
Speaker 4: with Diddy, the accusation is that he's nodding to the jury.
Speaker 4: And here's the thing. When you're a defendant, you cannot
Speaker 4: interact with the jury why because that makes it seem
Speaker 4: like you're trying to influence them in some way. Here's
Speaker 4: Diddy with this power, people know him of him, and
Speaker 4: if he's looking straight at you during number twelve, and
Speaker 4: he's not don't.
Speaker 3: Believe that, don't I'm not saying I know that he
Speaker 3: did that, per se.
Speaker 4: But when you talk about nodding for judges and for
Speaker 4: courtroom watchers, that's somebody trying to send an indication to
Speaker 4: somebody on the jury saying believe this or don't believe this,
Speaker 4: which could influence their decision.
Speaker 3: So in a way, the judge has to clamp down
Speaker 3: on the damn right.
Speaker 2: But damn right. I mean he got to sit there
Speaker 2: for weeks. He can't smile, he can't smirk, he can't
Speaker 2: nod his head. I mean for weeks at a time.
Speaker 2: Isn't that an.
Speaker 1: Impossible task to expect from a defendant where you can't
Speaker 1: have any kind of bodily communication whatsoever, affirming or denying anything.
Speaker 2: Is that not a bit unreasonable.
Speaker 4: It's reasonable to be able to have a reaction to things,
Speaker 4: but to be turning to the jury and reacting to
Speaker 4: them is borderline influencing them.
Speaker 3: And that's the last thing you want.
Speaker 4: You want these juries jurors to be able to make
Speaker 4: any decision they want to make based on the evidence
Speaker 4: they're hearing, not based on the defendant looking at them
Speaker 4: telling them believe that, don't believe that. The thing here
Speaker 4: is Stephen A. We don't know exactly what he was
Speaker 4: doing in that courtroom. If he's turning and nodding and
Speaker 4: making indications to them, that's off limits.
Speaker 3: You can't do that.
Speaker 4: And before trial his defense team would have told him, hey,
Speaker 4: you can't make statements or do things to the jury
Speaker 4: or have loud out first, because they know that the
Speaker 4: judge will clamp down, because the judge doesn't want the
Speaker 4: jury being influenced. But having reactions being upset or being
Speaker 4: mad or crying or scribbling a note to your lawyer,
Speaker 4: that kind of stuff is affected eat that though, away
Speaker 4: from turning to the jury and trying to send an
Speaker 4: indication to them. And again we don't know what did
Speaker 4: he was actually doing.
Speaker 3: In that courtroom or what he might have been trying
Speaker 3: to do.
Speaker 4: But the judge has to look at that and say
Speaker 4: any way in which you are reacting turning to them
Speaker 4: and making emotion is potentially trying to say to them,
Speaker 4: don't believe this, believe that, and possibly influencing their decision.
Speaker 3: It can't have that.
Speaker 1: My next question is going to be in you know,
Speaker 1: just as a treat to to Diddy supporters out there,
Speaker 1: because just like R.
Speaker 2: Kelly had his supporters, Diddy's got his.
Speaker 1: And you have a lot of people that's been listening
Speaker 1: to you and others talk about what's going on during
Speaker 1: this trial, reporting accurately on what's actually transpiring in the
Speaker 1: courtroom and in the case itself. It says, I am
Speaker 1: everybody's pointing the finger at Diddy. I mean, what about
Speaker 1: these other witnesses, what are they saying, How do we.
Speaker 2: Know they're telling the truth? Et cetera, et cetera. I'll
Speaker 2: give you the latest example.
Speaker 1: Diddy's defense team said proved that Diddy wasn't there. The
Speaker 1: defense actually provided receipts and asked a woman if he
Speaker 1: could be in two places at once once. They proved
Speaker 1: that he wasn't even in attendance at the time that
Speaker 1: she said this ordeal happened with them, and when they
Speaker 1: asked her that question, she said, theoretically, I mean, what
Speaker 1: does that mean?
Speaker 2: How incriminating is that against her?
Speaker 3: Yeah, that damages her testimony completely.
Speaker 4: He can't be in two places at once, And the
Speaker 4: defense even said that can he be in LA and
Speaker 4: be in New York at the same time, no, and
Speaker 4: that kind of opens and shuts the door on her.
Speaker 3: So that is you PHO for the defense. That's a
Speaker 3: big thing for the defense.
Speaker 4: And you have to believe the jurors whether they think
Speaker 4: the outright made that up or they think, hey, your
Speaker 4: story's got to be dubious, mate, you had your dates.
Speaker 3: Different, something done that up here.
Speaker 4: You never want a witness on the stand saying one
Speaker 4: thing happened and then the other team getting up and saying, well,
Speaker 4: I can prove he was somewhere else.
Speaker 3: So yes, it's damaging for prosecutors. But here's the thing.
Speaker 4: She was there to offer testimony about how he uses
Speaker 4: violence to intimidate people.
Speaker 3: Other people have offered that evidence.
Speaker 4: So for Diddy supporters out there who might say, hey,
Speaker 4: well this is proof that he was never violent, I
Speaker 4: don't know if it's proved that he was never violent.
Speaker 4: I think maybe it's proof that he wasn't violent in
Speaker 4: the way this person described on that date. But did
Speaker 4: he still has a whole lot of things to push
Speaker 4: back on to say that he didn't use threats and
Speaker 4: coercion to get people to do the things that he
Speaker 4: wanted them to do.
Speaker 2: Today, the jury heard from Jane. Jane is the name.
Speaker 1: Who testified that Cole's threatened stop paying for her apartment
Speaker 1: if she didn't continue the hotel nights sleeping with other men.
Speaker 2: For his pleasure. However, it was revealed like you.
Speaker 1: Said that Colmes was going to break up with her,
Speaker 1: and she continued with the hotel nights. What do you
Speaker 1: make of that she's gonna break up with her but
Speaker 1: she continued with the hotel nights.
Speaker 2: Anyway, does that help his case at all?
Speaker 4: It does in some ways, but it also helps the prosecution.
Speaker 4: Let me back up, for everybody who hears James's testimony
Speaker 4: and starts reading it, what is important for prosecutors to
Speaker 4: prove here is a Rico conspiracy. That's a pattern that
Speaker 4: basically saying in a nutshell that Diddy is either assisting
Speaker 4: in or operating this sort of criminal enterprise, that other
Speaker 4: people are involved, and it's this pattern of criminal activity. Now,
Speaker 4: I want people to hang on to the word pattern.
Speaker 4: We saw Cassie up there for days talking about these
Speaker 4: tenant what she did with her. He started dating her,
Speaker 4: they start going out, he offers her the recording contracts,
Speaker 4: they start working together, and then he starts engaging her
Speaker 4: in these freak offs according to her, and starts using
Speaker 4: these threats and coercion, according to her, in terms of hey,
Speaker 4: you got to keep doing this or I'm going to
Speaker 4: take things away. Now we see Jane talking about the
Speaker 4: same thing. Even this is why I believe James's testimony
Speaker 4: is some of the most impactful testimony we're going to
Speaker 4: see in this trial, because she now is talking about
Speaker 4: exactly what Cassie was talking about, which makes it a pattern.
Speaker 4: So I know that people are gonna say, well, look,
Speaker 4: she could have withdrawn herself from the free cost, but
Speaker 4: look at what she's saying as to why she's saying, Well,
Speaker 4: he started dating me and then we had this relationship.
Speaker 4: Then part of the relationship became these other things that
Speaker 4: I had to do, these hotel nights, and then he
Speaker 4: would say, well, I'm going to take according to her,
Speaker 4: I'm going to take this housing away, I'm gonna take
Speaker 4: these things away.
Speaker 3: It's the same kind of thing.
Speaker 4: It's a pattern, and in a way, it requires jurors
Speaker 4: to look at this and say, these women were in
Speaker 4: a position where they didn't feel like they had a
Speaker 4: way out, and Steven, hey, let me touch on one
Speaker 4: other thing related to this. I think twenty thirty years ago,
Speaker 4: we might look at this case and say, well, why
Speaker 4: didn't someone just leave? Now, we tend to look at
Speaker 4: these cases differently. We look at cases like r. Kelly
Speaker 4: and we see grooming. We see how people are conditioned
Speaker 4: into certain behavior and then they start feeling like they
Speaker 4: can't leave situations.
Speaker 3: That's the case the prosecution is trying to build here.
Speaker 4: They're trying to show that Diddy is a person who
Speaker 4: strings people along, gets them in these relationships, gives them things,
Speaker 4: and then gets them in a situation that they feel
Speaker 4: they can't get out of, either by violence or coercion,
Speaker 4: financially or otherwise, and puts them in this untenable situation.
Speaker 1: So is it possible, before I'll let you get on
Speaker 1: out of here, that the real thing that's incriminating with
Speaker 1: him is the age of these ladies at the time
Speaker 1: he started their relationships with them.
Speaker 2: I'm guessing that, based on what you alluded.
Speaker 1: To in terms of how society was in the past,
Speaker 1: they would say it was consensual. Why couldn't you just
Speaker 1: walk away from this situation? And then you bring in
Speaker 1: the grooming element. Well, if you're somebody in your thirties
Speaker 1: and your forties. Somebody might not want to hear that.
Speaker 1: But if you're somebody in your teens and you started
Speaker 1: dating this gentleman, then obviously you're going to be perceived
Speaker 1: as being a bit more vulnerable, and as a result,
Speaker 1: he's going to be the person in a position of
Speaker 1: power who manipulated that power.
Speaker 2: To take advantage of you.
Speaker 1: Is that a good way of, you know, basically drawing
Speaker 1: a synopsis of all of this and really crystallizing this
Speaker 1: for the viewers out there.
Speaker 3: I think it's part of it, but I don't think
Speaker 3: it's all of it.
Speaker 4: I think the fact that they were younger women may
Speaker 4: have made them a little bit more susceptible to his influence.
Speaker 3: I think his power dynamic plays into part of.
Speaker 4: This, that a woman who's older could have also been
Speaker 4: swept into this power dynamic. And I think the way
Speaker 4: he conducted himself, at least according to the prosecution, but
Speaker 4: making a mistake, Stephen, As you watch these people testify,
Speaker 4: like Jane when she's talking about he had me take
Speaker 4: drugs across from LA to Miami. Now they're building the
Speaker 4: case of drug trafficking. When he talks about having her
Speaker 4: and then her later calling people escorts to come in
Speaker 4: from different places to do these hotel nights.
Speaker 3: Now we're talking about the sex trafficking element.
Speaker 4: What you're seeing here When I talk about grooming, I'm
Speaker 4: talking about his mo O.
Speaker 3: And they're trying to describe how did this.
Speaker 4: But I think age, while being a part of it,
Speaker 4: is not all of it. I think what it is
Speaker 4: is they're trying to describe how he got his hands
Speaker 4: into them and then in their mind, put them in
Speaker 4: a position where they couldn't get out, and that's how
Speaker 4: they're trying to build the Rico case, the sex trafficking case,
Speaker 4: the drug trafficking case, all of it is all based
Speaker 4: on him and his associates getting these people in a
Speaker 4: world that they couldn't get out of, and age is
Speaker 4: a part of that, But I don't think it's all
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 1: Last question, We've seen so much and we hear so much,
Speaker 1: and it just appears to be getting more and more
Speaker 1: incriminating for showing Dinny Combs by the day. But that's
Speaker 1: through the lens of the prosecution. When are we going
Speaker 1: to start seeing things through the lens of the defense team.
Speaker 3: I think it's going to be at least a week.
Speaker 4: I think you can expect Jane to be on the
Speaker 4: stand for another couple of days. And when you talk
Speaker 4: about the lens of the defense team, just like we
Speaker 4: saw with Cassie, we saw Cassie getting grilled on the
Speaker 4: stand by the defense. We hear we heard about Mia
Speaker 4: getting grilled on the stand by the defense wanting to
Speaker 4: be the same with Jane, because Jane has a lot
Speaker 4: of text messages going back and forth talking about their relationships.
Speaker 4: Jane talks about how she over time started booking the
Speaker 4: escort herself. According to her, that was so she control
Speaker 4: at least know the men that she would be kind
Speaker 4: of coerced into engaging in these hotel nights with The
Speaker 4: defense is gonna turn that and they're gonna say, look,
Speaker 4: but you're calling these experts.
Speaker 3: You're saying, are we doing this?
Speaker 4: And you can't later come back and say it was
Speaker 4: non consensual because you were in this relationship with him
Speaker 4: for three years, as you said, Steven, why didn't she
Speaker 4: get out?
Speaker 3: They're gonna be questions like that.
Speaker 4: The defense is gonna press on, and they're gonna press
Speaker 4: hard because the defense knows what's getting out there, the
Speaker 4: impression that Sean Dittycombs controls these people, that he has
Speaker 4: a whole pattern of doing these things, that he uses
Speaker 4: all these associates to do these things, and that's the
Speaker 4: recal conspiracy. They have to knock that down by essentially
Speaker 4: hitting on one key point all of this was consensual,
Speaker 4: that he strongly denies all of this, and that all
Speaker 4: of this was what the women wanted to do and
Speaker 4: wanted to do with him.
Speaker 3: So the defense is going to get that chance when
Speaker 3: they cross examine her.
Speaker 4: And I would say, if that doesn't happen today, it's
Speaker 4: gonna happen early next week. But it's gonna be aggressive,
Speaker 4: it's gonna be strong, because that's exactly what they did
Speaker 4: with Cassie.
Speaker 2: Ryan Smith, legal analysts extraorda there.
Speaker 1: For ABC News and of course Sports Center anchor for ESPN.
Speaker 1: Appreciate you as always, have a wonderful week, and man,
Speaker 1: look forward to talking to you next week.
Speaker 3: You take care yourself, you too, man, Take care