Bad Rap: “You went to another man's freak-off?”
20:36 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.

This is Bad Rap, the case against Diddy.

I'm Brian Buckmeyer, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney. This episode, you went to another man's freak-off? A second mistrial request denied. Diddy tells Jane to move on. And references to a well-known rapper. This all happened this week, week five of USA v. Sean Combs, the rapper's racketeering and sex trafficking trial.

One of his alleged victims, testifying under the pseudonym Jane, was on the stand. Or maybe we should say hot seat, because much of this week was cross-examination of her by the defense, Tenny Garagos. The defense had Jane read text messages where she expressed enthusiasm for the couple's so-called hotel nights. These were days-long sexual encounters that often involved drugs and Jane having sex with male escorts.

Jane also testified that Combs didn't know how she felt about these encounters, seeming to contradict earlier testimony where she said he did know. The jury heard a voice note Combs sent to Jane after a trip to Turks and Caicos in March of 2023. Hey, baby, we had a great time. Stay in the light. It's all good. Get your rest. You are the crack pipe. That's my new name for you. Crack pipe. I call you CP.

Under direct examination from the prosecution, Jane testified that she was initially excited for the trip, but became upset when she learned it would involve a hotel night, something she said she wasn't expecting. Now go rest up, get in your bag, you know what I'm saying? Got your contract, find a nice little spot.

Put your mind at ease. The contract was an agreement that Combs would pay Jane $10,000 a month for rent on a home in Los Angeles. She then sent him messages that said, I feel closer to you. I had so, so, so much fun. And I'm a super lucky girl. In reference to the contract, she says, yay. The defense used this to argue she'd enjoyed the trip and was benefiting financially from the relationship rather than being coerced.

We also learned that even though the government is calling Jane as a witness, Combs is paying for her legal representation related to the case. After Jane, we expect just a few more witnesses and that the prosecution will rest his case sometime next week. My guest this week is Aaron Katursky. He's ABC's chief investigative correspondent. You've heard him on Bad Rap before. He joins me now from outside the courthouse. I'm sure you can hear it in the background. Aaron, thanks for being here.

Good to hear you, Brian. Well, let's talk about the cross-examination of the latest alleged victim. She goes by the pseudonym Jane. What did the defense's argument seem to be with their cross, and what were some standout moments to you from that cross-examination? The whole point to me, Brian, and you saw some of this...

was for the defense to try and bring out moments where Jane had agency in her relationship with Sean Combs, to blur the line between coercion and consent, and to show that moments she testified were traumatizing

actually ended up with her sending loving and effusive, even suggestive and raunchy text messages to Sean Combs about

to perhaps suggest to the jury that is this really how Jane was feeling when she told you that she didn't want to do these things? Because here she is texting Sean Combs about how much she loves him and how their sexual energy was so incredible on a given night with a male escort. And I think there was a key moment

when the defense attorney, Tenny Garagos, asked Jane whether she regretted those nights with those other men. And Jane's response was, "I resent Sean Combs." She did not say that she regretted being with Combs at the time federal prosecutors alleged he was trafficking her for sex.

And as for standout moments, I thought there were a couple when Jane got a little bit snippy and a little bit sassy. They were talking about some of the gifts that she had received. And defense attorney Tani Garigow said, did you get a Chanel bag? No, Jane said, I only got trauma.

What about Bottega Veneta? What's that? You know what that is. I bet you have one. Actually, no, I don't, Garagos said. And when she said, you know, what does Bottega cost? Jane snapped back, what does my body cost? Yeah, definitely very snippy on that and interesting. And I think the jury even gave some reaction to that as well.

One thing that you didn't mention that I thought was interesting as well was how the defense brought up the fact that some of the people that worked with Sean Combs in the inner circle, that Jane kept it secret from them that these hotel nights were happening. That's true. I think that they're trying to get at there's no criminal enterprise.

And Jane, I think, helped the defense in that regard when there was a text exchange about an escort named Paul. And they were trying to arrange where to have one of these so-called hotel nights. And Jane testified that she asked Combs whether they wanted to go to his house. And what did Combs write back? And the jury saw this. Paul can't come to my house.

And the defense suggested that Combs wanted to shield people like his bodyguards and his assistants and his housekeepers and, you know, anybody else in his house that worked for him from knowing about these kinds of nights. And that's certainly different than how prosecutors portrayed it with assistants setting up the room and bringing the supplies.

It's interesting how this cross-examination, even the director's going. I would have thought the government would have focused on...

key events that they would have said, you know what, it might have gone up and down, left and right, but there are key events where trafficking occurred. And we heard about testimony about one key incident, a 2024 Las Vegas trip where Jane testified she rode with a well-known rapper on his private jet. She testified that flirtation ensued. What do we know about the incident and what's the significance of this testimony to the defense? Why are we digging into it?

We don't know a lot, but the defense dropped a couple of hints, didn't they, when they called the famous rapper, you know, an icon. And the defense, without the jury present, sought to push the judge to allow them to say who it was. Perhaps, Brian, the only thing I can figure is to show that Jane liked to be in the company of, you know, rich and famous rappers.

Maybe she thought there was something to be gained from keeping their company. One part of the cross-examination involved Jane saying that she flew on his plane, saw Anton, one of the male escorts, that she had had a hotel night with, and Anton was with some other woman. So perhaps trying to say that this kind of polyamorous lifestyle that Combs said he was living was common,

in the rap world and not the kind of criminal act that prosecutors are trying to portray. - Yeah, I would maybe synthesize what you said and just say the defense is probably trying to show that she's about that life. And if she's about that life, then she's not being trafficked as the government is suggesting. I thought it might work, but we'll see where it goes. After the break, the ever mystifying Rico charge, a charge that could put Diddy away for life.

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. A bid to get 30, 30, a bid to get 30, a bid to get 20, 20, 20, a bid to get 20, 20, a bid to get 15, 15, 15, 15, just 15 bucks a month. Sold! Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch.

She's made up her mind, lived pretty smart. Learned to budget responsibly right from the start. She spends a little less, puts more into savings. Keeps her blood pressure low when credit score raises. She's couldn't get right out of her life.

Boring money moves make kind of lame songs, but they sound pretty sweet to your wallet. BNC Bank. Brilliantly boring since 1865.

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.

Aaron, the government is nearing the end of their witness list, so let's take stock of where we are with one of their most significant charges. Which also happens to be the charge we get the most questions from listeners by far. This is the RICO charge, or Racketeering Conspiracy. And people are wondering if that charge really fits the allegations against Sean Combs. Quick refresher: this RICO charge contains eight potential predicate acts, or related charges.

Those are kidnapping, arson, bribery, witness tampering, forced labor, sex trafficking, transportation for the purposes of prostitution, and drug distribution. So let's start with what the government needs to prove. They need to convince the jury that Combs did at least two of the alleged predicate acts and that there was a criminal enterprise.

Yeah, in order to convict on the racketeering conspiracy charge, Brian, the jury must be convinced that he was running this criminal enterprise and that all of these people around him, his assistants, his bodyguards, his managerial staff, his household staff, that they all existed to help

further these criminal acts. Now, what were these so-called predicate crimes? Well, one is arson. And the testimony elicited from both Cassie Ventura and Kid Cudi was that Sean Combs, at least was implied, that Combs wanted to set Kid Cudi's car on fire. And the jury saw the elements of the Molotov cocktail used, the charred and blackened interior of the Porsche.

And there was certainly an implication that Sean Combs was behind it because he was upset that Kid Cudi and Cassie Ventura were dating. Another potential predicate act: kidnapping. We heard from Capricorn Clark, one of Combs' assistants, that she was effectively dragged out of her home against her will to go with Sean Combs in order to make a confrontation.

to Kid Cudi. And prosecutors, the way they portrayed it was that she effectively was kidnapped to go on this journey with Combs. Forced labor is another potential predicate act. And the woman who testified under the pseudonym Mia

And several other assistants talked about the long hours they were forced to work, the five nights in a row she said she went without sleep, all for $50,000 a year. How she was made to be at his beck and call, had to maintain eye contact with him, had to just be in his presence. He could ask her to do 17,000 things at once, from doing his taxes to filing his nails, to just stand there looking at him for 22 hours a day doing nothing.

and the way prosecutors want the jury to see that is as forced labor for almost nothing in return. Yeah, and when it comes to the allegations of bribery, another potential predicate act, that's where Eddie My Angel comes in. This is the government's witness, Eddie Garcia, who was a security guard at the Intercontinental Hotel.

He testified that Combs paid him $100,000 in cash for what they believed was the only copy of the hotel surveillance footage showing Combs beating Cassie Ventura. That's why Combs called Eddie his angel for helping him keep that video under wraps. But evidence of that payment, the government says, amounts to bribery.

But changing gears, outside of testimony this week, we've also heard there may be some kind of issue with juror number six, and the government has asked for him to be removed. We don't know much about what the issue actually is, do we, Brian? The judge didn't really say what the issue is the way prosecutors described it. They said it was...

a lack of candor with the court. So does that mean that the juror wasn't fully forthcoming about something, failed to disclose something, wasn't fully honest about something? We don't know. The defense said it was a thinly veiled attempt by prosecutors to remove a black juror from the panel.

So they clearly want this juror to stay, and whatever the issue is, the defense does not think it's going to impede his ability to be fair and to deliberate. Aaron, now I'm curious as to what you think is next, both next in terms of witnesses taking the stand, but also the judge from the outset said we're going to finish this case by July 4th.

How does that work scheduling-wise? What do you think? And I might throw in my two cents as well about that scheduling after you give us your ideas. Yeah, please. I'd love to hear what you think. We know the next witnesses, right? One's going to be a federal agent. One's going to be what's called a summary witness to help the jury make sense of all the, what, 500 or so exhibits they've seen so far. And one is going to be a man named Jonathan Perez, one of Sean Combs' assistants, right?

The prosecutors have indicated they intend to rest their case no later than Friday the 20th. So it still seems like they have additional witnesses left to go. We don't know who they are yet. But Brian, let's take a guess. Who would you like to hear from? I'd like to hear from one of the bodyguards. I'd love to hear from D-Rock, whose name keeps coming up. I don't think he's going to be testifying against Sean Combs.

We'd like to hear from Christina Corum, who has been described as Combs' chief of staff and someone who many of the witnesses have testified was on the phone, was in the room, was talking to Combs, was on the trip, was with the kids, and seemed to be in the middle of all of the things that were going on in Sean Combs' life.

I would love to hear from DRock and Christina Corum as well. But in terms of scheduling, I think the jury gets this case by July 1st. And I'm kind of doing the math backwards. Everyone wants this case to be done by July 4th. You want the jury to at least deliberate for two days. So I'm thinking closing arguments on the 30th, maybe the 27th. But I think we're looking at deliberation on July 1st and 2nd. And that's assuming that the defense has...

what, a week and a half of witnesses. I'm not sure what they have, Brian. I think they'd like to put in an expert to rebut the prosecution expert, Don Hughes, to perhaps challenge the way alleged victims remember sex trauma. What else do they have?

That is the question. I think we're going to leave it at that, Aaron. Thank you so much for being here with us. It's always a pleasure working with you, Aaron. You are a gentleman and a scholar, and thank you for fitting us in on this day. Thank you, Brian. Good to hear you. 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 on our Tuesday episodes. If you appreciate the coverage, please share it and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

If you're looking for even more coverage of the Diddy trial, you can check out Burden of Proof, The Case Against Diddy. The show streams weekdays at 5.30 p.m. on ABC News Live. You can also find it on Disney+, Hulu, or on most of your favorite streaming apps. Our podcast production team includes Vika Aronson, Audrey Maztek, Amira Williams, Tracy Samuelson, and Sasha Aslanian.

Special thanks to Stephanie Morris, Caitlin Morris, Liz Alessi, Katie Dendas, 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. The stakes do not get any higher. I pledge allegiance to what I believe in. Live to fight another day of yesterday. We've been better. Got no time to waste. That's as it's day. These are.

The two very best in the NBA. Pacers. Thunder. The NBA Finals. Presented by YouTube TV. Continue on ABC. Hey there, it's Ryan Reynolds. And if you're into weird animals and questionable life choices, well, you're in for a treat. You tell them, Green Day. I've teamed up with Nat Geo to fast forward right past nature's glory hogs and get down in the mud.

These guys are the grossest, most unlikely stars in the great movie of life. Underdogs, new series Sunday at 9 on National Geographic. Stream on Disney Plus and Hulu.