Bad Rap: “Power, Violence and Fear”—The Prosecution’s Closing Argument
31:29 Share

I'm Brian Buckmeyer, an ABC News legal contributor and host of Bad Rap, the case against Diddy. You're about to hear our latest episode following everything going on in Sean Combs' trial from the prosecution and the defense. Remember, to hear all of our updates on this case, follow Bad Rap, the case against Diddy. We're dropping two new episodes every week, including one that's not available anywhere else. Now here's our episode.

Summer's here, and Nordstrom has everything you need for your best dress season ever. From beach days and weddings to weekend getaways in your everyday wardrobe, discover stylish options under $100 from tons of your favorite brands like Mango, Skims, Princess Polly, and Madewell. It's easy, too, with free shipping and free returns, in-store order pickup, and more. Shop today in stores, online at nordstrom.com, or download the Nordstrom app. 28 Days of Testimony.

34 witnesses for the prosecution, zero witnesses for the defense. Over a thousand pieces of evidence. All of it has brought us here. Closing arguments and USA v. Sean Combs. This is Bad Rap, the case against Diddy. I'm Brian Buckmeyer, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney. This episode, power, violence, and fear. ♪

This is an important part of the trial for both sides. I like to describe closing arguments as the anchor of a 4x100 sprint. Yeah, you could trip up in the first leg, maybe not be as fast in the third, but that anchor, that attorney making closing arguments, they're sprinting to the finish line. Sprinting to win it all.

Thursday, the prosecution summarized the case they've spent over six weeks laying out for the jury. Prosecutor Kristi Slavik gave a nearly five hour long presentation.

She recalled the witnesses and evidence they presented, all in the hopes of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that Sean Combs ran a criminal enterprise, among other charges. We'll hear the defense's closing argument Friday, where they'll likely remind the jury that Sean Combs might be a flawed man, but reject any allegations of sex trafficking or running a criminal enterprise. Then, the prosecution will have a brief rebuttal.

Other than some instructions from the judge, that's the last thing the jury will hear before stepping away to deliberate. These arguments are the last chance each side has to persuade the jury to see things their way. On today's episode, I have two guests perfect for breaking down this crucial stage of the trial. We're recording on Thursday evening after spending a long day in court listening to the prosecution's closing argument or summation.

Our first guest is Bernarda Villalona, a defense attorney in private practice in Brooklyn, New York. But early in her career, Bernarda was a prosecutor for 16 years in Philadelphia and Brooklyn. And also in studio today is Shauna Lloyd, a managing partner at the Cochran Firm in Orlando, Florida. Shauna and Bernarda are both fellow ABC News legal contributors. Thank you both for joining me here today. I've really been looking forward to this conversation. Let's start with what we heard in court today.

The prosecution has started with their initial part of summations. They led with the idea that Combs used, quote, power, violence, and fear to get what he wanted. We're going to dive deeper into how things are looking for each count in a minute. But Bernardo, big picture, what is the story the prosecution told the jury with its closing argument today? And how did it land for you?

So today was a big day. You know, when it comes to closing arguments, it's one of the most important stages in any trial because it's the last time that both parties get to speak directly to this jury before they go inside to deliberate. So in terms of what the government did today, they wanted to drive and hone in the theory of power, sex, money, control, violence, fear, and how Sean Combs, as the leader of this enterprise, used all

all of that to be able to get what he wanted through his enterprise, allegedly utilizing violence in terms of getting what he wants through these women, through sex trafficking and transportation to engage in prostitution. So in terms of what the prosecution was able to accomplish today, I think they were very strategic, very meticulous in the sense of how they laid this roadmap

for this jury to look at the evidence, look at the charges, look at the strongest pieces of evidence for each of the counts that actually exist that this jury has to ultimately, ultimately have to decide on. But I think they were also strategic in the sense of the most important visual that I'm still thinking of right now is when the prosecution put the

picture up of 27 men, 27 escorts that were run through Cassie and Jane throughout these years of alleged sex trafficking that they engaged in at the hands of Sean Combs. Now, I know you're laser focused and listening to what's going on, but also watching. Any sense of how this is playing with the jury so far?

So I have to say, I spent the entire closing arguments looking at the jury. So not really focused at the prosecutor because I wanted to see whether this jury was actually engaged. And I have to say, I was surprised that for so many hours that this prosecutor was speaking, I believe she was speaking for five hours with breaks here and there. None of the jurors fell asleep.

They were actually engaged in the sense that they maintain taking notes throughout the entire closing arguments. And that's a good sign when you're giving a closing argument because you want the jury to at least give signs that they're acknowledging what you're saying and taking notes about what you're saying, because ultimately those notes are going to go back into that jury deliberation room. So I did see that they were engaged, not dozing off. They were taking notes and they were paying close attention to the prosecutor, what she had to say, but

also looking at the exhibits that she was putting up on the screen for the jurors to look at. Now, Shauna, we know that Mark Ignifilo, the defense attorney, made the argument that if they started closing arguments today, the jury might have been lost, might have fallen asleep. And so they're actually going to start their closings Friday morning. So what do they need to do to tie this all up for the jury, especially since they decided not to call any witnesses?

So I think the defensive strategy here is not about calling witnesses. They're not putting on a case. And that's very smart because there's enough holes within the prosecution's case that they're just going to add to it. You just want to make the hole bigger. So the first thing they're going to attack is this RICO charge. And I think the best way to attack that is really to attack the conspiracy head on.

There was no agreement. You have to have that agreement. And if you cannot show that, it doesn't matter what the underlying predicates are. You don't get the RICO charge. So if I'm defense, I'm attacking that immediately out the gate. There are too many text messages where either the bodyguards, the security or the personal assistant don't know what's going on.

You can know that you're setting up a room for Sean Combs and his girlfriend, but if you don't see what's happening in that room, you cannot be in agreement. And so KK, she's his chief of staff. She tells Sean Combs many times, I don't think you should do that. Why are you lying to me? So I'm going to focus in and hone in on that part of the conspiracy because without it, it breaks apart the RICO. Kind of following up on that, Shauna,

I thought the prosecution did a good job overall in organization, but went very light on terms of the criminal enterprise part. Do you think that could be strategic because they know that the defense is going to go heavy on that point? And then maybe AUSA is kind of baiting them into it.

to a sense of like, when you come in with that for your part on the rebuttal, I'm going to come in real hard for what we want to talk about with the criminal enterprise. Do you think there's some gamesmanship going on there? I think there's a bit of gamesmanship because they don't actually have as much on that. I actually think that's their weakest point. And so it's best to rebut as opposed to starting out because if you start out weak and then it's attacked when they get to do their closing, you don't look as strong. So it's better to have them say whatever they would like about the conspiracy and then attack it and rebuttal. Man,

Makes sense. Now, as this case heads to the jury, how do we feel each side did making their case over the course of the trial? Let's go count by count. Combs, of course, pled not guilty to all of these charges. Bernard, I'll start with maybe the easiest one. Let's get this one out of the way. Transportation to engage in prostitution.

What do you think? That's the strongest count that the prosecution has. So in terms of transportation to engage in prostitution, there are two counts, one for Jane and one for Cassie. And it's important to remember that all you need to believe is just one instance where one escort was taken over state lines to engage in prostitution and was paid for those services.

the prosecutor was able to bring out text messages, invoices, hotel invoices, travel invoices, travel plans, in fact, pointed out to text messages where Sean Combs individually was sending the travel plans to one of the escorts on one of the occasions. So I think that is the strongest count that the prosecution has a transportation to engage in prostitution. So that's the easy count for the prosecution. I think that's the account that the

Defense can't run from. There is a defense. So the defense is arguing that these individuals, these escorts and the entertainment were paid for their time and that all of the sexual activity was gratuitous. And as they mentioned on the stand, the first escort testified when he saw Cassie open the door, she was a beautiful woman. And she said, will you rub oil on me? And he was very excited when she said, will you make love to me? They were paying for time and that everything that happened after it was gratuitous.

The tip was because it was a great performance. It was wonderful. And I thank you so much. And I'm tipping you because I have taken you away from your other engagements. And so I'm compensating you for that time that you have lost. And so that's what I think the defense is going to allege. What about when it comes to trafficking? For our listeners, remember, sex trafficking doesn't necessarily mean running a prostitution ring.

It means making a person engage in commercial sex acts through force, threat of force, fraud, or coercion. Shawna, you first. How did each side do in making their case throughout the trial, and how do you feel the government did in tying it all together in this, their first part of closings?

So trafficking is a harder case because what we're looking at are individuals that were in a personal, intimate relationship over a length of time. And that's not what people typically think of when they think of trafficking. So in that context, I think that the prosecution did the best that they could do, which is they highlighted the points where they felt that were very clear in text messages, the notes that the women reflected and how they felt about what happened.

The reason it's hard when you're a relationship is because at the time that they initiated these acts with Sean Combs, they stated they were willing. Now, consent is a moving target. Just because you consent in the beginning doesn't mean you continue to consent. So they really did try to hone in on this idea that although they were willing participants in the beginning, it later became trafficking because there were instances where they did not want to do it. And I think that the prosecution did the best that they could do with the text messages and the information that they had.

Now, the defense is going to poke a lot of holes into that. And the reason is, again, it's a two-edged sword. When you're in a relationship with someone, there's ebbs and flows. So it's a very murky area. And I think that that is what the defense is going to hone in on is, yes, these women may have thought in their mind they didn't want to do that. But was that verbalized? Was that communicated to him at the time? Or was it just something that, in the case of Jane, that was something that was motivated by jealousy? Was it something that was motivated by...

by money. So I'm going to see, and I expect to see the defense really hone in on that because when you talk about trafficking in a relationship, there's so many nuances and it's going to really depend on the perspective of the juror who's actually looking at that charge. By the time we're taping this, the defense has not had an opportunity to give their closing argument.

But throughout the trial, the defense has argued that all sexual encounters were consensual, that the government's alleged victims essentially testified to regret, that only in retrospect, they say they didn't want to participate in those acts, and that the case is all about love, jealousy, infidelity, and money. Combs' attorneys acknowledged the defendant is a flawed person and that his actions even amounted to domestic violence, but they argue domestic violence does not equate to sex trafficking.

Coming up after the break, we dig into the meatiest charge, the one that carries the most potential jail time for Sean Combs.

This episode is brought to you by Polestar. There's only one true way to experience the all-electric luxury SUV Polestar 3, and that's to take a test drive. It can go from 0 to 60 in as little as 4.8 seconds with the dynamic handling of a sports car. But to truly understand how it commands the road, you need to be behind the wheel. Up to 350 miles of range, the 3D surround sound system by Bowers & Wilkins, it's all something you have to experience to believe. So book your test drive for Polestar 3 today at Polestar.com.

Ryan Reynolds here from Mint Mobile. With the price of just about everything going up, we thought we'd bring our prices down. So to help us, we brought in a reverse auctioneer, which is apparently a thing. Mint Mobile Unlimited Premium Wireless. How about you get 30, 30, how about you get 30, how about you get 20, 20, 20, how about you get 20, 20, how about you get 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month. Sold! Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

This message comes from Greenlight. Ready to start talking to your kids about financial literacy? Meet Greenlight, the debit card and money app that teaches kids and teens how to earn, save, spend, and make money.

I'm back with fellow legal experts, Bernardo Violona and Shauna Lloyd.

All right, let's talk about the big one, RICO, or the racketeering conspiracy. It's definitely the most complicated charge in this case, maybe one of the most complicated charges in criminal law, period. And it also is the one that carries the most potential jail time. And let me do a little refresher on RICO first.

This is the charge with the predicate acts. In Diddy's case, alleged bribery, forced labor, sex trafficking, arson, interstate transportation for prostitution, drug distribution, witness tampering, and kidnapping. The jury only needs to find him guilty of two of these and find there's a criminal enterprise.

The government actually decided to pull back on a few predicate acts this week. They're removing attempted kidnapping, attempted arson, and aiding and abetting sex trafficking from the list of predicate acts the jury will consider. And I've seen some confusion about this online. So I want to clear it up real quick. The arson and kidnapping predicate acts, they're still in there. The government hasn't dropped those charges at all.

It's just that there actually used to be an attempted arson and attempted kidnapping on the list as well. So removing those, along with the aiding and abetting of sex trafficking, is just about streamlining the options for the jury, something the judge requested of the government. It doesn't say anything about the strength of the government's case. Really, it's not a big deal in my mind.

Do you guys agree? Like, does it change us in any significant way? No significant change. No, not at all. We're still where we started. Yeah. I mean, my two cents, it's a question of did he Molotov cocktail, kid cut his car or not? There's no attempt. Or did he have someone do it? Did he kidnap Capricorn Clark or Cassie or have someone do it?

Yes or no? No issue about attempt. Same thing with aiding and abetting when it comes to sex trafficking. Okay, so now let's talk about the predicate acts that the jury will consider. How does the government's case look? Do they have two that will land with the jury, Bernardo? So I think they have more than two predicate acts that will land with the jury. And I think in terms of today, they even made a stronger argument in terms of that you can find two predicate acts within the same crime itself. So for example,

predicate acts possession will pretend to distribute. The prosecution laid out that there were hundreds of time when Sean Combs was allegedly involved in being in possession of narcotics and distributed, whether it's given it to Jane or given it to Cassie or that one time he gave it to Brendan Paul so he can try it out. Or when he gave it to, I believe was Mia or Bona, one of those. And that equaled out to hundreds of time. And all they have to figure out is just two times that they've proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

So in terms of the possession, we tend to distribute giving that away as well as the time that Jane on two different occasions from California bought drugs at the behest of Sean Combs, where he got it from KK at the home of Sean Combs and then brought it to Florida. And that's corroborated by the text messages and the flight logs as well. In terms of kidnapping, kidnapping with

Cassie, but more importantly, I think it's with Capricorn Clark when she testified how she was taken to a building to undergo a lie detector test. But more importantly, the time when she was taken and forced to go to Kid Cudi's home with Sean Combs.

But also another predicate act, the one having to deal with Kid Cudi himself, that one dealing with the arson, where you see the pictures of the Molotov cocktail inside of his Porsche and you see the damage as a result of that. And you have the corroboration that two weeks before that even happened,

Cassie has sent an email to her family member to say that look if something happens to me or something happens in terms of Kid Cudi he threatened for something to happen and he threatened to release the sex tapes and what do you have two weeks later Kid Cudi's car is actually burned with a Molotov cocktail.

Also, in terms of the bribery itself, I think that one is also a stronger predicate act because you also have the corroboration in the sense of Eddie Garcia who did come in and testify and say like, look, I did meet with Sean Combs. Actually, Sean Combs reached out to me personally as well as KK reached out to me personally. He met with them.

He was given $100,000. He was signed at NDA and NDA that was on Combs Enterprise led ahead. And also that photographs of his driver's license and the other guards driver's license pictures of that were taken and where they don't find those pictures in KK's phone. So I think those predicate acts are the strongest predicate acts for the prosecution. And again, you just have to find two of those acts. You don't have to find multiple of acts in order to make out the racketeering conspiracy.

And that's without even touching the sex trafficking, because sex trafficking and the transportation to engage in prostitution are also predicate acts within the racketeering conspiracy. And all you have to find is two of those sex trafficking acts in terms of free calls to make out the racketeering conspiracy, the predicate acts that are necessary.

Absolutely. And there's a lot of those predicate acts and ways in which Sean Cohns can be found guilty of RICO. Now, I don't know how you guys envision RICO in terms like when you think about it in your mind. I think about it as a wheel and the predicate acts are the spokes, the parts that connect to the external part of the tire, but also connect in the middle, that hub. And if the predicate acts are the spokes, then the criminal enterprise is the hub, the center part that they all have to connect to. So, Shauna,

What about the criminal enterprise? Because there can be all the spokes of that wheel. There can be all the predicate acts in the world. But if there's no hub, no center part connecting it, it all falls apart, right? Correct. And so the government is alleging that this enterprise is consisting of Sean Combs himself, his chief of staff, who is KK, the security members and his personal assistants. I think it's a very...

Tenuous connection and I'll tell you why let's start with KK. She's his chief of staff They referred to her as his right brain and that she speaks on his behalf and

Well, I'm a little confused because what is a chief of staff? The purpose of having a chief of staff is so you do not have to talk to everyone that's handling housekeeping, that's handling everything else that's going on in your life. So, of course, she speaks on your behalf by virtue of the definition of her job title. Again, with the personal assistants, they talked about them being young and that they may not have known what was going on, but that they were involved. Security. Well,

If you're my personal security, I expect you to be by my side during anything. So the idea that we're making them part of the enterprise when by virtue of their job description, they have to be there, they have to speak on his behalf, I think it creates a very tenuous situation for others that are looking at it and for other people who have run businesses.

Of course they're working to operate to execute his desire. That is the definition of a personal assistant. If I ask you to get my dry cleaning, you get my dry cleaning. So I think that that creates a very different idea when you have only those positions. I think if they had had the director of human resources, if they had other positions, the finance director,

then maybe I would see that a little bit more clearly. But by definition, these are people who are supposed to be carrying out the things that you are asking them to execute. Security is by your side at all times, no matter what. Otherwise, they're not doing their job. So I have a bit of an issue with that, but that is what the prosecution is alleging is the enterprise.

Combs' defense has said there is no criminal enterprise and that the government hasn't proven that any other individual actually conspired with Combs to quote "conduct the affairs of a 20-year purported criminal enterprise." The defense is arguing that there are no predicate acts, that either the government has not provided enough information that Sean Combs directly or indirectly participated in certain predicate acts like the arson,

Or that the elements of those crimes are not sufficient enough to suggest that Sean Combs had committed those allegations. Think of the bribery and that NDA. That the NDA specifically says that an individual should testify to law enforcement if they're requesting to do so, meaning that they're not hiding any potential testimony.

But each one of the predicate acts, according to the defense, doesn't make out the elements that Sean Combs or anyone under his employment or at his direction committed those acts.

It's worth mentioning that the reason we're already at closings is because the defense decided not to call any witnesses. We first heard the defense would call witnesses for two to five days. We also heard, quote, "we're making adjustments as we go." And then zero witnesses, just introducing some evidence without anyone testifying to it. What's the defense signaling here by not calling any witnesses? Shana, your thoughts on this?

What I saw is that they have enough places where they can insert reasonable doubt that there's no reason to introduce additional witnesses because there's a number of things. One, you open them up to cross-examination. Two, you don't know how they're going to come across to the jury. Will the jury believe they're credible? Will a jury like them? Will they believe that they're motivated for personal or financial interests?

So with a case like this, to me, when I'm looking at what the federal government has, I am going to be intent on poking holes in their theory of the case as opposed to adding anything else. We've got the 4th of July coming up. The judge had told the jury from the time they were selected that this case would not go past that.

How long do you think, Bernarda, deliberations will last? And do you think the 4th of July has any effect on that? That's the million dollar question. You can never tell how long a jury is going to deliberate, especially in a case like this that's so heavy with so much testimony and so much pieces of evidence and text messages and videos and photos.

freak off videos and voice notes and just testimony from witnesses for this jury to actually deliberate on. So in terms of how long they will last, we don't know. But the judge did tell them that they will complete this case by July 4th and July 4th is next week. And remember that July 4th, the court is closed. That's that Friday and also July 3rd, the court is closed. So really, they're going to have Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday to deliberate.

I think in terms of what they can be grappling with, those first few notes will let us know, the ones that they sent out. I know our listeners are going to want more. So I'm going to ask it this way, Bernarda. Are we working July 7th? Are we coming back on that Monday? Ha ha ha!

It's quite possible if we do not get a jury verdict by July 2nd that this jury is going to come back on July 7th. What I am hoping, though, that they don't run the gamut in the sense that you have an issue with a sitting deliberating juror during that time, being that the holidays are coming up and that you're going past July 4th, which is when you promise this jury that they will be done with this case. All right. I'm going to let you off the hook now. I asked you the hard question. I'm going to come to Shawna now.

How's it going to end? Any predictions as to guilty on some charges, not guilty in others? Can we get a hung jury on one of the charges? How do you think this plays out? I think we're going to get a mixed verdict. I think we're going to get some guilty, some not guilty. And I think of all the charges, the one I believe that they're going to have the toughest time with is trafficking with Cassie. My opinion, if there's going to be a hung jury, that's the one I see it on.

One thing I know that people haven't been thinking about, Bernardo, but we've been talking about, consec and concurrent. If Shauna is correct that we get a mixed bag, one, can you explain consec and concurrent and how that could apply to the charge of the Sean Combs when it comes to his sentence?

So Sean Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy where he faces up to life. He's charged with two counts of sex trafficking, one count for Jane and one count for Cassie and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, one count for Cassie and one count for Jane.

If Sean Combs were to be found guilty of all these charges, of course, he'll face up to life in jail. But in terms of the sex trafficking and the transportation to engage in prostitution, because you have two different counts with two different victims, if he is found guilty, he is facing consecutive time, meaning that if the judge says, I'm going to sentence you to 10 years for sex trafficking,

having to deal with Cassie, and he's found guilty of the sex trafficking, having to deal with Jane, that it can be 10 on top of those 10. So those numbers are high numbers that Sean Combs is facing, but reality is with the racketeering conspiracy, he's facing up to life. That's the most scariest charge for him. - Shawna, if Sean Combs is found guilty in this mixed bag of charges, let's say for argument's sake, he's found not guilty of the RICO, 'cause if he's found guilty of RICO, this question doesn't make sense. But if he's found guilty of any of the other four charges,

What kind of mitigation could you see the defense bring up that might lessen his jail sentence that Bernard is pointing out? I think we're going to see them talk about the fact that he doesn't have a record, that he has other issues. I think they've alluded to the drug use affecting him and other things that he was taking affecting his mental state. I think you're going to see them talk a lot about that and to mitigate. And I also think you're going to see them bring up

a lot about his therapy. We didn't hear, we only heard very short snippets about that. But even when Jane testified, she was clear that she was actually shocked by the video in the elevator that she didn't know him to be violent outside of that one altercation they had together, which she started. So I think you're going to see them lean a lot on that to get that sentence reduced. Thanks, Sean and Bernardo, for joining us today. It's been great talking with you both. Thanks for having us. Thank you.

The defense is scheduled to deliver its closing arguments today. Listen for full analysis of that and the prosecution's rebuttal on burden of proof, which will drop into the Bad Rap feed this evening. Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy is a production of ABC Audio. I'm Brian Buckmeyer. If you have any questions about the case for me, leave a voicemail at 929-388-1249. I'll answer as many as I can before the verdict.

If you appreciate this coverage, please share it and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Our podcast production team includes Vika Aronson, Audrey Maztek, Amira Williams, Tracy Samuelson, and Sasha Azlanian. Special thanks to Stephanie Maurice, Caitlin Morris, Liz Alessi, Katie Dendos, and the team at ABC News Live. Michelle Margulis is our operations manager. Josh Cohan is ABC Audio's director of podcast programming.

Laura Mayer is our executive producer. Paradise is back. It's finally here. In a new location, Costa Rica.

There will be adventure, drama, and romance. All gaps, no breaks. That's my vibe. Ready to find some love. But it wouldn't be paradise without surprises along the way. These kids need to learn. That's right. Your favorite Golden alums are crashing the beach. We bringing a party, baby. Bachelor in Paradise premieres Monday, July 7th at 8, 7 central on ABC and stream on Hulu.

Something new is happening at Cox. Now the price of your Cox internet and mobile plan won't go up for three years. And Wi-Fi equipment is included. So no frustrating price changes, just a lot more of what you want. Like a pizza with extra pineapple. Yikes. Okay, let's stick with something everyone wants. No price changes on your plan, guaranteed. Learn more at cox.com slash value. Must have at least 500 megabits per second speeds and Cox Unlimited mobile taxes and fees excluded from price guarantee. Mobile data speeds reduced after 20 gigs usage per month.