[Geragos] The disconnect between the public perception...
and the publicly-filed indictment
may be one of the largest chasms I've ever seen
in the last 40 years.
The defence has countless written communications
that will negate any lack of consent in this case,
that will negate any coercion in this case.
If all the prosecution can offer by way of proof and argument
when they put this thing up for trial,
is that Sean Combs was having threesomes
and participating, with the enjoyment
of legally-hired sexual escorts, they're gonna lose, period.
If you have a divided jury,
a diverse jury that doesn't get along well,
you could very well hang this, independent of the evidence.
We, the jury, in the above entitled action,
find the defendant, Sean "Diddy" Combs...
[♪♪]
Pretty much everybody watching this unfold
believes Diddy is guilty as hell.
But it's not as simple as that.
This is going to come down to 12 people in a jury box.
And they're not gonna be looking at all the chatter outside the courtroom.
Fact is, there will be a defence,
by a team of high-powered lawyers.
At the end of this documentary,
you're going to see our mock jury deliberate,
and decide if Diddy should spend the rest of his life
behind bars, or walk free.
Maybe someone was coming from out of town to party with Diddy.
They ended up having sex, but does that mean that they were a sex worker?
Does that prove that it's sex trafficking?
No, but it's a pretty damn strong indication.
He ain't the only dude committing crimes.
Seriously, a hundred dudes, white dudes
-in L.A. doing this right now. -Yeah.
A hundred, easy. No, they are not Diddy.
But can you be coerced when you're in a consensual relationship?
Cassie was in a relationship for 10 years.
I don't know how you were coerced.
I--I don't--even with-- I can't see it.
[tense music]
[jury foreperson] We, the jury, in the above entitled action,
find the defendant, Sean "Diddy" Combs...
[tense music]
Today I'm announcing the unsealing of a three-count indictment
charging Sean Combs with racketeering,
conspiracy,
sex trafficking,
interstate transportation for prostitution.
[♪♪]
The first paragraph of the indictment really sums up the charges.
It said, "For decades, Sean Combs, the defendant,
abused, threatened, and coerced women, and others around him
to fulfil his sexual desires,
protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct."
[♪♪]
On one occasion in March of 2016,
that conduct was captured on video,
and later reported in the media.
Listen to everybody, but you believe all proof. This video is proof.
Yeah, well, hands-down proof. And it is just so disgusting.
They're gonna show that video over, and over, and over.
[photographers shouting]
[man] Cassie, Combs' ex-girlfriend,
she sued him back in November of 2023 for sexual assault,
battery, sex trafficking.
This was among other claims.
And that case ultimately started the ball rolling
with more lawsuits filed against Combs,
and ultimately culminated with these criminal charges.
[reporter] You had U.S. Attorney Damian Williams saying
that these victims felt they could not leave,
because their own security was at risk if they did.
And there is actual video evidence of that,
when one of the victims was trying to leave a hotel room,
trying to leave one of those freak-offs, and what happened?
Sean Combs violently beat her.
That is on tape.
[photographer] Everyone, right here!
After Cassie filed her lawsuit, you said,
"Been trying to tell y'all for years."
What were you trying to tell people?
That Diddy was not a safe human,
and that you should be careful,
if you're planning on entering any type of relationship
with him, from business, to personal.
He's accused of creating a criminal organization
that carried out and covered up his alleged crimes,
including sex trafficking, forced labor,
interstate transportation for purposes of prostitution,
coercion and enticement to engage in prostitution,
narcotics offences, kidnapping,
arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice.
That is many crimes, actually. That is a lot of criming.
-[reporter] Congratulations on the revoke, man. -Thank you very much.
Combs allegedly planned and controlled the sex performances,
which he called freak-offs.
And he often electronically recorded them.
The freak-offs sometimes lasted days at a time,
involved multiple commercial sex workers,
and often involved a variety of narcotics.
[Levin] One of the things they are alleging, and this is the prostitution charge,
which is that Diddy would bring male porn stars across state lines
to participate in these freak-offs, and essentially, victimise.
I mean, that's the way they're putting it,
some of the women who were pressured to be part of it.
[♪♪]
[D. Williams] In March of this year, special agents from HSI executed search warrants
at Combs' residences in Miami and Los Angeles.
They seized firearms and ammunition,
including three defaced AR-15s, and a large-capacity drum magazine.
They also seized evidence of the freak-offs.
Electronic devices that contained images,
and videos of the freak-offs, with multiple victims.
They seized cases and cases of the kinds of personal lubricant
and baby oil that Combs' staff allegedly used
to stock hotel rooms for the freak-offs,
more than 1,000 bottles altogether.
[♪♪]
The victims did not believe they could refuse Combs
without risking their security or facing more abuse.
[man] I don't give a fuck who you are!
[Diddy] I don't give a fuck who you are either, motherfucker!
[many people shouting at once]
Back up, back up, back up.
Who do you think you are? Just keep walking. Keep walking.
I knew all of that was going on. I've known the whole time.
But what the prosecutors have done is expanded the case with more details.
They've added two new female victims,
and they've also said that the alleged crimes took place
over a longer time frame than they'd initially said.
By adding these two additional women,
the feds are sort of bolstering their case, and they're saying
these women were also lured and trafficked for prostitution.
And he says they were paid in career opportunities, they were paid in money,
and they were paid in maybe their housing expenses, and rent being paid.
[reporter] One of the lawyers representing Sean "Diddy" Combs
in his sex trafficking case is quitting.
Anthony Ricco filed notice in Manhattan federal court Thursday,
writing, quote, "Under no circumstances can I continue
to effectively serve as counsel."
It's about time that he goes to prison.
And--and, you know, and that's all I'm gonna say about that.
Diddy done, Diddy done.
[Smith] When you hear racketeering conspiracy,
when you hear sex trafficking by force,
when you hear that drugs were used to keep them obedient and compliant,
when you hear about the prostitution,
male sex workers and all of this other stuff...
he's in a world of trouble.
[dramatic music]
[reporter] Diddy, we're just trying to figure out what's going on, that's all.
People just want to know if you feel sorry,
if things are gonna, you know, what's going on with that.
-All right. -Love.
-You have a good day. -[reporter] All right.
[Geragos] Let me tell you what I think my read on Diddy is.
I think that when it comes to public perception,
the public perception is that he's guilty,
and that he's guilty of everything and anything
that you can think of, and let your imagination go wild.
The lawyer who dropped out of his case and will no longer be representing Diddy,
people are talking that necromancy is the reason why.
Like, baby oil's not really the baby oil,
it's actually GHB, which is, like, a drug.
Imagine how many people were paid off,
bribed, threatened,
for this to be hidden for so long.
[Geragos] When it comes to the actual case itself,
the disconnect between the public perception
and the publicly-filed indictment,
may be one of the largest chasms
I've ever seen in the last 40 years.
I'm Mark Geragos, and I represented Michael Jackson,
and then ended up not only representing him,
but testifying for him, not once, but twice.
Over 120 victims, both male and female,
have come out with their own accusations,
25 of which were only minors,
with the youngest being nine years old.
They have pictures, video, text,
and would expose many powerful people, and their many dirty secrets.
Essentially, this man is the Epstein of the music industry.
Everybody assumes that there's all kinds
of Epstein-like collateral,
that there's hundreds, if not thousands,
of videotapes of A-list celebrities,
that there's trafficking with minors,
that there's all kinds of a fanciful sex slave operation.
There is nothing that is too crazy to find currency
on the Internet, when it comes to this case.
For decades, P. Diddy has been a hardcore sexual predator,
running a massive sex trafficking operation
that has involved many, many minors.
I'd just like to point out that not a single person
has come forward to say that Diddy's innocent,
which lets me further know that he did all of that.
P. Diddy is going to end up with the death penalty charge.
The public and the media have gotten nearly every fact wrong
about what the prosecution's case is here.
So, I just want to take one issue with that.
You know, there's no minors, there's no celebrity sex tapes.
You know, the civil lawsuits here
are not driving the allegations that we're defending against,
but it is driving the vitriol against him in the media.
[Levin] We should say that one of the lead lawyers
in this case, in Diddy's defence,
is a woman named Teny Geragos, who is your daughter.
So, fair to say, this might be a little coloured
by some family lineage here.
Well, I will also tell you that one of the lead prosecutors
is the daughter of a gentleman named James Comey.
So, you know, it's a battle of the...
My daughter would hit me, but it's a battle of the nepo babies.
This office is determined to investigate and prosecute
anyone who engages in sex trafficking,
no matter how powerful or wealthy or famous you may be.
The battleground here will be consent.
In this whole case, the battleground will be consent.
And quite frankly, you know,
it sounds like at the time, people were consenting.
My name is Joe Tacopina.
I'm fresh off a win at the A$AP Rocky trial in Los Angeles.
[jury foreperson] We find the defendant not guilty.
[people cheering]
♪♪ Yeah, yeah ♪♪
[Tacopina] It's not sex trafficking if everyone wants to be there, okay?
When you think of sex trafficking,
you have connotations of people being sold for sex.
I mean, that's what you think of as sex trafficking, normally minors.
You're not going to get that here.
What I've been told is that
the defence has countless written communications
that will negate any lack of consent in this case,
that will negate any coercion in this case.
It's going to be hard for them to say, "Yeah, I wrote those things,
but I was just scared, and I wrote that I was happy to come,
when I really wasn't happy to come."
So I think that this is not quite as, you know,
signed, sealed and delivered as people think it is for the prosecution.
Don't listen to him no more, all right?
Just get on here in those grandpa kicks. You listen to me.
-[laughter] -[man] He's a friend.
The second we start making free choice illegal,
we got a big problem, and then,
anybody could be prosecuted for anything.
My name is Jose Baez, and I have won several high-profile cases
that are nationally known, like Casey Anthony,
Aaron Hernandez, Dr. William Husel.
There's got to be a line,
and I think people are defined by their choices,
and a lot of times, we'd love to go back
and change those choices, but we can't, we can't.
And that doesn't mean that you have to blame someone else for your bad choices.
I think consenting adults starts with the word consenting.
Does it end with the word consenting?
I think it does. I think it does.
If someone consents to something,
and then later on they choose to opt out of it,
that is still consent.
They are still making that choice to opt out of it.
Yeah, they love me! Anybody, man! Love! Love!
You know what I'm saying? I'm feeding my people, baby!
If the defence can land the plane of consent in a convincing way,
I think that's a problem for the prosecutors.
Eboni K. Williams, the host and producer
of Equal Justice with Judge Eboni K. Williams,
as well as Holding Court with Eboni K. Williams,
which is an award-winning podcast.
[Levin] When you talk about consent,
what's interesting is...
that the three alleged victims were girlfriends.
And if the defence can show
that they were willing participants,
and that there was consent going into these freak-offs,
doesn't that hurt the prosecution's case?
Oh, there's no case at that point.
If this defence team can convincingly lay out a case
that these were girlfriends and that there was consent going on,
and perhaps different for us, for, you know,
your average Joe and Mary on the street,
but certainly not wholly atypical for a celebrity
of Sean Combs' status and the life
in which he is living, which is, you know,
extreme by any measure.
You know what I'm saying? The fuck?
Shit started out in the Bronx, man.
Look where this shit is at now.
I'm Sean "Diddy" Combs.
Proud owner of Cîîroc vodka.
[E. Williams] That is why I'm saying it really is going to turn
on the defence's ability to land the plane of consent,
to land an argument that says that these were willing,
competent, conscious adults who were engaging
on their own behalf in activities that maybe
you or I think are weird, or you or I think
might be different, but are legal.
This is really going to land on that particular
juror's kind of personal lens as to whether
or not that's a compelling argument,
that this enticement reaches to a point of coercion.
I think some jurors are going to buy it,
and some are going to really call b.s. on it.
[paparazzi shouting]
Everybody eats!
When I'm in town, everybody eats!
[crowd cheering]
[Levin] The feds say Diddy offered these women money,
career opportunities,
housing expenses, to go along with the freak-offs.
So how does that play?
Well, here's how it plays.
If they willingly accepted housing, career opportunities,
and, you know, whatever else, money,
to participate in these freak-offs,
and they did it consensually because they thought
they were gonna get something for it, it doesn't make it a crime.
They consented, because it was in their own interest,
because they were getting something for it.
[paparazzi] Diddy!
Cassie, over this way! Cassie, look right!
Over your shoulder!
-Thank you, baby! -[paparazzi 2] Oh, yes.
Unless he put a gun to their head and said,
"Unless you take this house and participate
in my freak-off,
I'm gonna blow your brains out." That's different.
But if it was like, "If you participate in my freak-offs, you come to my parties,
and have some fun with me and my boys, I'm gonna take care of you,
I'll get you a house." And they were like, "Okay."
Why is that something a prosecutor could convict someone
and put them in jail for the rest of their life for?
I don't think it is, and if that's their case,
I think a lot of people are gonna have trouble with that.
[rapping indistinctly]
Yeah.
What is coercion?
If you're flying somebody to Vegas
for a weekend, is that sex trafficking?
I laugh every time I hear the term sex trafficking.
I've been in the Burbank airport on a Friday, back in the day,
when it was nothing but women
who were flying to Vegas for the weekend.
Is that sex trafficking,
if you give her the money to go buy a ticket to go to Vegas?
The idea that somehow, if you wine and dine somebody,
that's something that you hear about every single industry.
And by the way, this industry that Diddy's involved in
has coined the expression sex, drugs, and rock and roll.
And so, what do you expect?
Oh, we gave you all some drinks, now it's time to enjoy life.
This is a celebration of life.
This is a legendary White Party.
It's the real White Party.
They're talking about these parties that everyone was dying to go to.
I mean, if you got invited to a Diddy party back then,
you were like, wow, you were it, you made it, right?
Let's just start to get our groove on a little bit.
In an hour, we'll put the kids away, it's all good.
All right, D.J., let's hit it, let's do it.
[Tacopina] Everyone couldn't wait to go.
And then if they got something for it,
they were even more happy to go.
Now, upon reflection, and in this era that we live in
now where, you know, all of a sudden everything
becomes a criminal act, it's a lot easier to now
point the finger and say, oh, I didn't consent,
but you have to really, really prove that up.
It can't be just, you know, I'm saying it,
and I got a lawyer, and, you know,
we're in the "Me Too" Movement era,
and I'm just going to make a claim,
and let's hope it sticks. Doesn't work that way.
The feds say that Diddy was dangling his ability
to make or break their careers, give them money or cut them off
in order to push them into doing these freak-offs,
and they say that's evidence of coercion.
-What do you think? -Look,
they didn't have to accept his money, right?
And if they said, look, I'm not doing this freak-off thing
with you, and that means you're not going to pay
for my house, I don't need your house, don't pay for my house.
But he has no obligation to pay for someone's house.
They know what they're bargaining for here, they know what they're getting into.
But saying, I won't continue to further
support you financially if you don't participate
in a freak-off, okay.
Then don't support me financially,
but I'm not participating, and goodbye.
I'm trying to make as much money as I can this year.
I think that's a good idea.
Why don't we all get on that same page?
Let's all make as much money as we can this year.
If the defence has an opportunity to really
start picking away one or two jurors
from buying the prosecution argument, it's gonna be on this piece,
something that I tend to call the golden carrot.
You know, this argument that I agree the prosecutors
are going to make that say,
Sean Combs is so all-encompassing of a figure
in this industry, and really, global culture,
at this point, that when he promises a record deal,
when he promises a career advancement,
when he promises this luxury car or this luxury vacation,
that this becomes convincing.
No one's owed a luxury five-star vacation.
[D. Williams] The indictment alleges
that he maintained control over the victims in several ways,
including by giving them drugs,
such as ketamine, ecstasy, and GHB,
which Combs distributed to the victims
to keep them obedient and compliant.
I praise him anywhere!
[gospel music playing over stereo]
[Levin] The prosecution is saying
the drugs were used to manipulate.
The defence is saying it was the women's choice to take them or not.
Yeah, I think if that's the case,
we need to start rounding up all the bartenders
who serve people alcohol,
and ultimately get DUIs or DUI manslaughters.
And if you choose to take an illegal substance,
you have to bear the responsibility
of what happens next, unless they're being
given something that would totally incapacitate them,
and they're unaware of it.
[tense music]
I challenge someone to find me another
sex trafficking case with a 10-year adult relation.
Go ahead. Take all the time you need to find
another sex trafficking case
with a 10-year adult relationship,
and you won't find it.
It's just not there.
You like the construction right here?
Yeah, for sure.
[Levin] Cassie is going to be the star witness,
and the feds acknowledged that there was a span
between 2009 and 2018 where these freak-offs occurred,
and this was during their on-again,
off-again relationship.
Does the longevity of that relationship help
the defence when it comes to issues like consent?
I think that undermines any suggestion that it was coercive.
I think it was a relationship.
Anybody who saw them, anybody who witnessed them,
you know, I off and on would have a front-row seat,
and I will tell you that that relationship,
which was well-chronicled, including by your publication,
does not appear to me to be anything more
than a very spirited
and emotional long-term relationship.
[hip hop music playing]
You want this shot right here.
Hey. Hey.
[tense music]
[paparazzi shouting]
[♪♪]
[Levin] Would the defence make the point that prosecutors
are actually infantilising women,
taking their agency away by making it
seem like they just can't say no
to all the goodies that he was offering?
What do you think about that?
It's a great point, Harvey. I mean, it really does.
It lends to that argument.
You know, the defence will have to be very crafty
in how they bring that argument up,
because you don't want to be offensive, either.
But it does sort of sound very disrespectful to women.
They don't have the wherewithal or the ability to say,
no, I don't want to do this, and thank you very much.
If a woman doesn't want to be degraded and placed
in a position that she doesn't want to be in, again,
doesn't want to be in, then she should walk away from this guy in total,
including all his creature comforts that he's given her.
♪♪ Been on the low lately The feds hate me ♪♪
♪♪ The son of Satan, they say My killin's too blatant ♪♪
[E. Williams] I mean, the prosecution is also arguing
that there was violence at play, that there were physical
and aggressive violent tactics also being used by Sean Combs.
And see, it's the conflation, I believe,
but a defence ability to keep the physical violence piece
on one side, and perhaps this autonomous lifestyle choice
piece on another side, I think that puts the defence
in a stronger position.
[♪♪]
Their difficulties did not stem
from their intimate time together.
Their difficulties stem from the fact
that she was cheating on him, and he was cheating on her.
And what we see in that video is terrible,
it's unforgivable, and we don't seek to forgive it.
But it's not related to the charge.
In terms of his criminal defence lawyer,
that is not a piece of relevant evidence to the charge.
And that's what I'm gonna say about that.
Do I think it's gonna be part of the evidence?
I'm expecting it will be.
[Levin] How does the defence explain away
a video that paints a horrendous picture of Diddy?
I mean, I imagine it would be an argument like this.
You know, who someone is on their worst day
of their life, in their worst moment of their entire
lived experience, is not who they are in totality.
If the defence can sell that convincingly,
I think they stand to fight another day.
[paparazzi] Diddy! Diddy! P to the I to the D!
[Levin] So, let's talk about the Cassie video.
He is not being prosecuted for that.
It's a state crime,
and the statute of limitations has run.
But this jury is going to see that video.
How does the defence overcome that?
Well, you say he's not being prosecuted for that,
but he actually is, you know?
[laughs] Whether it's done at this time or at that time,
it's still being done.
So you can try your best to justify,
or you can try your best to explain that aspect,
that he's not on trial for this,
he's on trial for something else.
But the reality is, those arguments fall on deaf ears.
The prosecution is going to say some very ugly things
about his behaviour, about that specific incident.
I think the defence would have to be even harsher
and worse in describing that incident,
and showing how he is absolutely ashamed, embarrassed,
humiliated, and incredibly regretful
for that stupid decision.
If you give them nowhere to go, they've got nowhere to go.
We told you about this wild lawsuit
that Diddy's ex, Cassie, filed against him,
alleging rape, alleging human trafficking.
And as quickly as it came, it went.
Just over 24 hours after she filed the lawsuit,
they settled it. This was shocking.
I mean, we knew that there would be talk of a settlement.
I just didn't think it would come this quickly.
[paparazzi shouting]
What's significant here is that five years
after the breakup, five years after the breakup,
this person comes forward
and says, "I want money." Not that I want justice,
not that I wanted to go to the FBI,
not that I went to Homeland Security
or the local police precinct.
I went to a plaintiff's lawyer,
not saying that she can't do that,
but in terms of the merits of this as part of a criminal case,
we have to look at everything including that.
[paparazzi] Hey, Cassie, how are you? How do you feel
about all the allegations with Diddy going on right now?
Do you feel justice is being served right now?
[Levin] How relevant is it that Cassie, and others,
first filed a lawsuit or went to a civil lawyer
before going to authorities?
Is that something that's going to be a big deal in the criminal case?
Well, I just think it's a fact that you can't get away from.
I'll give you one of the standard retorts
by people defending civil cases is,
who did you first call?
Did you call your doctor or your lawyer?
And that most people understand what the difference means.
-[hum of chatter] -[paparazzi] Straight ahead.
[paparazzi 2] Two of you looking here, right here for me.
[paparazzi] And right next to him, please.
[Tacopina] They're going to paint her as a scorned ex-girlfriend,
who was looking for a quick payday,
threatened to sue Combs if she didn't get her quick payday,
threatened to publish a tell-all book during her time with him,
and if she didn't get that, she wanted money.
In fact, that's what happened. She wound up suing him,
it became very public, and she got a settlement,
and then there became a criminal case.
[E. Williams] Jurors are people, and you've got to appeal
to that human curiosity that's going to always wonder,
why not want the person behind bars?
Why not, first and foremost,
be solely concerned with the criminal outcome?
Not sometimes taking into account
that the criminal outcome might not be available
for a litany of reasons.
Therefore civil outcome becomes
something, when something could be better than nothing.
[♪♪]
[Baez] We all expect victims of domestic violence
to go to the authorities.
Doesn't always happen that way, though.
But you still, at the same time,
want to be able to show, like, look, she had options.
And she chose this option.
And you have to take that into consideration
when you're analysing and trying to judge
what a person's motives are,
whether they're telling the truth or not.
We never know if someone's lying,
and we have to be able to utilise
every tool at our disposal
to try and see where the actual truth lies.
Sean Combs led and participated in a racketeering conspiracy
that used the business empire he controlled
to carry out criminal activity.
This is a racketeering case about threesomes, at the end of the day,
and this is an important sort of takeaway.
If they can do this to Mr. Combs,
and intrude into his private life,
and build a racketeering case, then, truly, nobody is safe.
[paparazzi shouting]
[Tacopina] I mean, this is not what you would find in a typical racketeering case.
These freak-offs, if you will,
are not your typical racketeering activity.
What normally you would find is mob murders,
drug cartels, financial frauds, even.
But something like this is very, very different,
so it's not going to be that easy
to sell it as a racketeering conspiracy.
Who wants to be a millionaire?
If you work hard, and you dig down deep,
and you stay away from the bullshit!
You could be a millionaire! You could be a millionaire!
[screaming]
This feels like the feds have taken
Diddy, an individual,
and they have kind of focused on him
as an organised crime figure.
Does that strike you,
that they're using those tools against an individual?
It is very true that this is not the norm, per se.
We don't tend to always see individuals,
certainly not high-profile global celebrity figures,
under criminal prosecution in this format.
But we can't say it's unprecedented, either,
because, again, you know, we do have a couple of examples,
R. Kelly being the most recent to cite.
[reporter] R. Kelly is spending more time in prison
after being sentenced federally for child pornography
and enticement of minors for sex.
[Levin] R. Kelly really involved minors,
and that's not the case here with the three alleged victims
that are in the federal prosecution.
Indeed, but we know that it's not a requirement
that someone has to be a legal minor to be
subject to the prosecution and the elements,
kind of as we know them, to be at play here.
Combs has been charged with RICO conspiracy.
He used his business and employees of that business
and other close associates to get his way.
How does it strike you that the federal government is using
kind of organised crime statues
to prosecute, some would say, what goes on in the bedroom?
If you wanna be honest, this man's business is not organised crime.
He's an entertainer and has been for years,
and he's also been very successful in business.
Is Diddy so valuable that you get to own a piece of a business
without putting any money in to begin with?
-Yes. -Why?
There is a value to my involvement
that has to be factored in.
To attack him in that way, I think it's...
not only false on its face,
but it really tries to get you to appeal to your biases.
Combs abused, threatened, and coerced victims to fulfil his sexual desires,
protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct.
Can the defence use the racketeering charge
to say, "This is how far prosecutors are going to get him,"
that it's a law that usually is brought against the mafia,
and here they're bringing it against an individual?
Does that fly with the jury?
Can it be brought up by the defence?
[Geragos] I don't see why it couldn't be.
This seems like a bridge too far.
Why is it a bridge too far?
Because you would have to believe
all of the urban legends that are not in the indictment.
And then it came out that it was over 1,000 people
that were victims of Diddy and his weird tactics.
My heart goes out for these damn kids.
They're little as nine years old.
He's the equivalent of a mob boss,
and he has people working underneath him
to put all these things into play
so he could benefit off of the corruption.
That's who he is. That's who Puffy is.
He's one of the members of the mob.
He's a mafia member.
What the indictment does not have in it,
the indictment does not have a detailed complaint about minors,
does not have a detailed sex trafficking other than saying
that there were escorts who were involved
in consensual private sex.
That's what the indictment alleges.
It's almost as if this is Epstein derangement syndrome
in that we never got our fill with Epstein
because he killed himself or some other explanation.
And so now we're gonna take all of those Epstein urban legends
and we're gonna imprint them or overlay them against Diddy.
I believe the sex workers throughout the years
are gonna come forward and say exactly what they've been through,
exactly what they did, and exactly what they had to do.
One of the allegations is the interstate transportation
to engage in prostitution, the Mann Act.
Based on what I know,
one of the things the prosecution probably can prove
is that there were sex workers that did go from one state to another
and may have been involved in liaisons with Diddy and with Cassie
or with one of the other two witnesses.
What does the defence do with that?
I don't know that that's a crime.
-I don't think that's a crime. -Why not?
You're basically prosecuting the john, not the pimp.
Who's sending them across state lines?
The very definition of a sex worker is that they work for somebody.
Who do they work for?
So is that a defence that essentially Diddy is the john
and that prosecutors, by not going after the pimp but rather the john,
it kind of shows they're out to get him?
Is that what the defence would do?
Just reading the indictment, that's what strikes me.
I've never seen an indictment that charges the john with being a pimp.
[Levin] That sounds like what we call in the law...
kind of like selective prosecution,
that you don't charge johns generally,
but you're charging this john federally,
and you're overlooking the sex worker.
Well, and not only overlooking the sex worker,
then you're throwing in what appears to be a domestic violence case,
which is peculiarly a state offence where the statute of limitations expired.
And you've heard the expression "make a federal case out of it."
They've made a federal case out of it.
If all the prosecution can offer by way of proof and argument
when they put this thing up for trial
is that Sean Combs was having threesomes
and participating with the enjoyment of legally hired sexual escorts,
they're gonna lose, period.
I'm on my second mountain. I'm on my second chance at life.
Every day we get up, y'all, we get a second chance at life.
And so it's like I'm in a new era, and I'm just blessed.
[Agnifilo] For whatever reason, in this country,
we like to run down the street with our pitchforks
and our torches and get the monster.
Here's a man who has made
some of the most important businesses owned by a Black man.
Run, owned, created, founded.
The vision was that of a Black man.
What have we done?
We have reduced him--
not everyone, but a large amount of our society--
to being a monster.
That should make us shake in our boots.
Shake in our boots.
This is the government scrutinising his businesses.
His businesses are fine.
Scrutinising the taxes, he pays his taxes.
He does everything right.
What's the last vestige?
We're gonna go into his bedroom.
We're gonna go into his bedroom
'cause maybe we don't like the way he's having sex.
[man 1] Hey, Diddy, man.
[man 2] Hey, Diddy. What's up, man?
Man, we've seen this before.
The government's been doing this for 100 years.
They see an opportunity, and they start making this case,
in my opinion, as a takedown, as a takedown of a successful Black man.
[man] Diddy, what's up, baby?
[Levin] How important is race in this case?
I have said as long as I've been practicing,
race permeates everything in the criminal justice system.
Period. End of story.
Race plays a part of everything in America.
What has happened with African Americans, we have tried to rise above that.
Race is tremendously important in this case,
and anybody that pretends otherwise is either kidding themselves
or just not being honest.
Do you think the defence can point to...
the case of Eliot Spitzer, who was the governor of New York?
I've disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself.
Who paid $80,000 to prostitutes to cross state lines.
He was not prosecuted, and this is the same
U.S. Attorney's Office that is now prosecuting Diddy.
So the argument they would make is,
what's really the difference other than one guy is Black and one guy is white?
I think it's a great argument. If I'm the defence lawyer, I'm making the same argument.
Why would the federal government be in that business of,
as Diddy's lawyer told me,
an attempt to take down a successful Black man?
Good headlines are good for everyone.
The government's not beyond propaganda, public relations.
Let's face it, that's their business.
They're better at it than anyone.
I really do believe our government's not beyond
exploiting race when it's convenient for them.
And just looking at the situation, I think that's what we're looking at.
Oh, y'all like that, huh?
Y'all like that, y'all like that, I love y'all, I gotta go.
So the defence has said that race is gonna be a big part of their case.
How do they show that this is a racist prosecution?
As subtly as they're offering it. I think
juries are attracted to when you point out the subtleties
and allow them to figure things out.
Because they don't wanna be told what to think. They wanna think on their own.
So I think the right way and the right approach should be to drop the subtle hints
and to let them know at some point, this is exactly what you think it is.
I hate to say it, no offence to my daughter or Marc Agnifilo,
but this case will be over in jury selection.
Yeah, I think jury selection is the most important thing.
[McGraw] Harvey, I would go for deaf, dumb, and blind.
Well, I'm Dr. Phil, and although you may know me from television,
I spent most of my professional career in the litigation arena,
most notably defending Oprah in the Mad Cow case,
where she was sued for billions of dollars, and we zeroed them out.
[crowd cheering]
Phil, you have been one of the biggest jury consultants ever.
What kind of a jury, in broad terms,
do you think the defence wants and needs in the Diddy case?
I think to begin with, you're gonna want someone that is truly open-minded
and is not suffering from confirmation bias.
That may seem like, well, that's obvious, but it really isn't obvious.
I mean, who is actually open-minded enough?
And the way you're gonna do that is find people that
can answer some questions that reveal that
by talking to them about,
tell me some times in your life where you have been really surprised,
where you held a position for a long time,
a deeply held position in your life,
and you were really surprised to learn it was not correct.
So you're looking for people that can say, hey, I can change my position.
Can I finish lunch? And then I'll come out. I'll holla at y'all.
Just let me finish lunch. I have a nice business lunch.
Number one, people who are sympathetic to his lifestyle and career.
By that, it would be people who are fans of hip-hop,
maybe music industry professionals,
people who understand the entertainment industry.
My name is Jo-Ellan Dimitrius,
and I am a jury consultant most well known
for working for the defence on the O.J. Simpson case.
We, the jury, in the above entitled action,
find the defendant, Orenthal James Simpson,
not guilty of the crime of murder.
I do believe that if the defence ends up with
a number of African-American jurors on their panel,
they have a significantly higher chance of a not guilty verdict.
I think without question,
whether we want to acknowledge it or not,
there will be empathy on the part of Black jurors for P. Diddy
because this is a successful Black man,
and that played a big part during the O.J. Simpson case.
There was definitely reasonable doubt that we had,
and I'm very comfortable with the decision that I made.
I would certainly favour Black men on this jury
if I was the defence, because I think to this day,
despite all these charges and all the noise and all the media,
Sean Combs remains, in many, many ways,
highly aspirational to Americans, to Black Americans.
There's going to be an effective connectivity
between Sean Combs and some Black men that could potentially sit on that jury.
[woman] We love you, Sean.
There's no one like you.
[Levin] Based on your experience,
is it better for the defence to have men or women on the jury?
It would be more advantageous for the defence
to look at female jurors, because as females,
we judge other females much more critically than men do.
The defence is gonna want to find out from women,
particularly, have they ever been in a position
where they compromised their own values to get ahead,
whether it was professionally or personally?
A woman who says yes to that,
you want to explore more to find out if, in fact,
the person did have regret or if they're happy
that they did what they did.
[McGraw] I don't think you want jurors that have daughters
that are in the window that would be vulnerable
to the type of things that are alleged here.
I think you want to be sensitive to whether or not
they would be empathetic with the alleged victims
in the case than someone that did not have children
and therefore wouldn't put themselves,
if my daughter was in that situation, how would I feel?
[Levin] There is gonna be a lot of evidence
in this case involving lurid sex, freak-offs,
the interstate transportation of sex workers,
all sorts of sexual acts.
So how does that factor into the kind of jury you want?
There are two things that I think about in regard
to the sexual allegations.
One is that you do not want anyone
who they themselves or a close family member has been
sexually molested or abused.
That is an absolute definitive in any case like this.
The second is, you have to find people
who are open to talking about some pretty
lurid sexual discussions.
It's kind of an interesting way of voir dire-ing the jury.
Do you ask them about their sexual tolerance,
their proclivities, things like that?
Yeah. There is a very sensitive aspect to getting
into someone's sexual proclivity.
But I think that there is a way to design questions
that you can explore that.
[McGraw] There's another thing that I think is important here
that people wouldn't ordinarily think about
that I often leaned into in complex trials.
And that is the collective personality of the jury.
I would want a very diverse jury.
I don't want this jury getting along well.
I want this jury to be coming from a lot
of different walks of life. I want them arguing.
I think one of the things you may be looking for
is to hang this jury up and not get to a verdict.
And if you have a divided jury,
a diverse jury that doesn't get along well,
you could very well hang this independent of the evidence.
[tense music]
[Levin] The problem is that he's sitting in jail without bail.
So if the jury is hung and they retry him,
he sits in jail, which is ultimately the endgame.
So does getting a hung jury really
accomplish something for the defence?
It does. And I'll tell you what,
they're gonna come at him with everything they've got.
And if you have an initial trial,
you're gonna see every card they've got,
every witness they have, everything that they can bring.
You're gonna put all their cards on the table.
And your ability to prepare for that the second time around
is gonna help you for the second trial,
if there is a second trial.
And depending on how close they got to a conviction,
their appetite for doing this a second time could go way down.
That's what it is. These are crooked people.
It never happened in our-- it's called weaponisation
of the Department of Justice or the FBI.
We've never had anything like this.
And it's all bullshit, too. It's all stuff.
[reporter] The president reaching his final decision Sunday,
writing in a statement, "No reasonable person who looks at the facts of Hunter's cases
can reach any other conclusion than Hunter was
singled out, only because he is my son.
And that is wrong."
Is this a good time for the defence,
in that there is a distrust of institutions,
especially the Justice Department?
We've heard both Democrats and Republicans
talking about the Justice Department becoming weaponised,
unfair, targeting.
Does that calculate here?
This is the best time that I can think in my lifetime,
actually, for someone to challenge the legitimacy
of a federal prosecution.
And don't say that lightly at all.
The skepticism, the downright disbelief
around kind of historic institutions,
whether it be the DOJ, whether it be the United States Supreme Court,
what is really behind the targeting of certain individuals,
whether they be elected officials, celebrities,
tech billionaires, you name it, it's all fair game.
[overlapping chatter]
Get you something special.
[E. Williams] If I'm a defence counsel or a defendant,
it's a good time to be putting 12 in a box, so to speak,
to challenge and really suss out the credibility
of the charging institutions.
[McGraw] One of the things that I think
you have to do in a case like this
is what I call plaintiffing the defence.
And that is, rather than defending P. Diddy,
what you need to do is put the prosecution on trial
for prosecutorial abuse, misconduct,
overreach, abuse of their authority.
Now, people are listening to this and probably saying,
"Wow, that seems really unfair."
It's not a matter of unfair. This is a chess game.
This is chess, not checkers. It's a matter of doing what you're doing
and gathering the information you're doing in a very subtle way.
I'm not saying that everybody is as adept at it as everyone else.
I'm just saying, your client is entitled
to the best defence you can provide them.
[apprehensive music]
Okay, so you have seen two of our documentaries on Diddy,
one which really focuses on the prosecution's case,
another on the defence.
You will deliberate, hopefully come to verdicts.
We will see. Good luck.
[inquisitive music]
When we heard about racketeering,
the biggest question--
and I don't wanna say where I'm leaning--
but there has been no profit motive involved at all.
-The last word is "profit." -He's already reached.
So whether or not he had the freak-offs or he did whatever--
Follow the money.
Well, there is no money to foll--
I mean, the freak-offs aren't a--
Okay, the way in which I read it, it's not an illegal business.
A freak-off is a freak-- or whatever these things are, right?
Yeah.
[juror] But the profit-- that last word actually
got my attention 'cause I was like,
how is he making any money in that thing at all?
So I don't know.
You follow the money in a lot of situations like this
if you really wanna get to the truth, right? I wholeheartedly agree.
If you take "For profit," the last two words of this
definition out of it, does it change the way
you look at it or the validity of
-that allegation towards him at all? -Well,
I don't believe that you can take profit out of this.
And simply because this is what he's been charged with.
And from what I could see, there was no profit.
It does say that, so that last sentence, right?
"And Combs to and from freak-offs,
resupplying Combs with requested supplies,
delivering large sums of cash to Combs."
So there was profit to him
to the pay of commercial sex workers.
He could turn around and say, I didn't make any money.
I gave you money. I mean,
if racketeering is what racketeering is, right?
And I'm thinking, you know, mob and other stuff,
even if people turn on him, he's like, what kind of money did I make?
Maybe I did increase my profile,
but my profile was wherever it was before.
Like, I actually think the racketeering charge
might be the hardest one for anybody to pull off.
But if these parties are sponsored,
and like any of those parties are paid for
by his business and Combs Enterprises,
it's a business activity.
Right, but it's a loss. It's not a profit.
I mean, if it's on your ledger, Combs Enterprise could be like,
this is part of my marketing budget, my marketing budget
doesn't give me any income. I just kick out money.
[juror] Is he the only person being prosecuted?
There's nobody else in jail but him.
'Cause he was the ultimate facilitator of all of this.
He was the Gatsby, if you will, of all of this.
He was the one who probably, as--
He's the one with the name.
He's the man with the money. I get that.
Wanted to be the centre of all of it as a star.
[juror] If he's guilty and it's a big enterprise,
then where is all the other associates?
If you're gonna bring one down, bring 'em all down.
Yeah, that's what--
Well, maybe they will later.
Like, it says employees, as well carried this out.
So maybe they're still coming.
[tense music]
This is a duck. Like, if it walks like a duck
and it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.
-This is a duck, to me. -[juror] I believe you.
I'm like, this-- unlike the racketeering charge, this is a duck.
-[juror] I agree with you. -Like, wait a second.
And even when Geragos was talking
about flying somebody from LA to Vegas to party,
you ain't supposed to do that either.
That's sex trafficking, whether it's by force.
I mean, athletes do that. Everybody flies girls out nowadays.
-It's 2025. -It's illegal, though. I mean, this is the thing--
-It's illegal. -No, no, I'm not saying that people don't do it.
I mean, but it's illegal. Like, this is the charge, you know what I'm saying?
-Every day, all day. -Can you convince me that the sex trafficking by force
and fraud was proven enough for me
to believe that this actually went down?
Oh, because the transportation of all of these people
from across the country or state lines
is something that's established, right?
They were flown out in private jets or in regular 747s.
That much is on paper.
Does that prove that it's sex trafficking?
No, but it's a pretty damn strong indication.
[juror] But the coercion piece is somebody mentioned about,
you know, people wanting their career to blow up or whatever.
That's coercion. I mean, it's different modes of coercion.
And whether or not, you know, you shouldn't make that choice,
you did make a choice, but it's coercion.
[juror] That has nothing to do with sex trafficking and prostituting them.
For the purpose of a commercial sex act.
[juror] Yeah, but I don't see the coercion part.
Like, he willingly did it
and then the person willingly accepted.
I don't--I don't see the--
[juror] One thing that I haven't heard said at this table yet is bribery.
So he probably promised a lot of these people
either fame, fortune, riches.
Whether or not he delivered, I doubt it.
But that's another matter entirely, right?
So that's obviously-- if he incentivised
some of these people in order to participate
in all of these things, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
Is that a definition or does that fit
a definition of coercion in any way, bribery?
I think his name alone would make them do that.
I don't even think he would have to do anything.
I'll help you with your career.
I'll make you a star. Come party with me.
[juror] Girls, if you listen to what they say,
'cause I'm a little bit younger. I can see the social media.
Girls asked to get flown out nowadays.
Does that mean I go to jail 'cause I did it?
It depends on whether or not there's
sexual activity, drug use, whether that sexual activity is
-consensual or not. -Consent issue.
[juror] It's about what happens after they fly them out.
If he flies them out saying, "Hey, I wanna hear your voice,
I want you to record a few songs for me,
I think you've got potential," something like that, then...
absolutely, what you just said right there describes that.
But what happens after he flies them out?
Are they pumped full of ketamine and having sex with six,
-eight people they don't even know? -See, if you can prove
that he snuck drugs into them
and then stuff started happening, then yes, he can.
Wait, so you're saying, I can't change my mind after I get on the plane?
No, no, no, no, I'm not saying--no, no, no, I'm not saying that.
I'm saying, like, all right, so you might not wanna hook up with him at the time, all right?
You get out there, no one knows what happens
when you're hanging out.
If drug use is in your system the next day
and stuff happened that you weren't ready for,
you can prove that I did not want this to happen.
Right. Cassie was in a relationship for 10 years.
I don't know how you were coerced.
I don't even read-- I can't see it,
if you were in a relationship with him for ten years.
I don't know how many years the other two ladies were
in a relationship with him, but ten years?
Well, look at how many, like, abusive relationships there are
and how long those women stay.
Like, it can be up to, like, over 20 years.
Terrified, because they don't wanna get strangled or something.
And imagine it being the most powerful person there is
in like the rap career. I would stay for that long, too.
Why wouldn't I?
[juror] The three girlfriends' question is,
can you be in a relationship and still be coerced sexually?
- And I think you just answered. - Whether or not you think about it, yeah.
So I think that's a yes. I don't think time in a relationship
stops you from being coerced.
I think it probably gets worse.
But can you be coerced when you're
in a consensual relationship?
With a man like him, what if they felt like they would be
tracked down, they would be found, they would be blacklisted everywhere,
they would be broke. -Or killed. -Or their family, yeah.
There were rumours he put a car bomb in one of their cars.
-And they say he's one of the mob. -I mean, it's a rumour. Rumour.
And she tried to get out of, like, the hotel and he literally
kicked her and dragged her back in the room.
It's not like he just grabbed her.
He grabbed her and dragged her, and then kicked her,
and then kicked her again.
And it's just like, you cannot...
unwatch that.
[apprehensive music]
So he transported from either one state or one country to Miami,
over state or country lines.
-Thank you. -Compared to the other ones,
this is a little more obvious to me.
-Yeah. No debate for me. -Yeah, I mean, I think--
Ain't no party like a Diddy party.
And I say that because maybe someone was
coming from out of town to party with Diddy,
they ended up having sex.
But does that mean that they were a sex worker?
They might have just been coming to have a party.
-No, no, but that's not-- -You know what I'm saying?
-[juror] That's something else. -But if you go to a Diddy party,
this is gonna sound-- but if you go to a Diddy party
and you have sex with a sex worker that Diddy has flown in,
-that ain't you, that's-- -I don't know he flew her out.
No, no, but I'm saying, that's what I'm saying.
There's a credit card receipt for that or something like that.
-I have no idea. -He's been so wealthy and powerful--
Maybe he just cashed in, you know?
As someone who works for him's assistant making these payments.
-[juror] No paper trail. -He's so resourceful.
He's got dozens of people who could be carrying out something.
And it may not even be money. It might be just a favour.
Or ungodly amounts of cash that the man has hanging around, right?
I'm crystal clear that this happens to hund--
I mean, seriously, a hundred dudes,
white dudes in LA doing this right now.
-A hundred, easy. -[juror] 100%.
However, no, they are not Diddy.
But no, they don't have a 14-page indictment.
I mean, he committed crimes. He ain't the only dude committing crimes.
He committed crimes. Our job, as a jury, is to whether or not we say,
we find him guilty or not guilty on these three charges.
It ain't right. It definitely ain't right. You know what I mean?
Yeah, that's all I was saying.
It definitely ain't right, though.
[tense music]
[Levin] Has the jury voted?
-Yes, sir. -Yes.
Madam Foreperson, will you stand, please?
And will you read the verdict?
Yes.
We, the jury, in the above entitled action,
find the defendant, Sean "Diddy" Combs,
six guilty, six not guilty for the crime
of racketeering conspiracy.
Split down the middle.
Second count.
We, the jury, in the above entitled action,
find the defendant, Sean "Diddy" Combs,
ten guilty, two not guilty of the crime of
sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion.
And the final count?
We, the jury, in the above entitled action,
find the defendant, Sean "Diddy" Combs
12 guilty of the crime of transportation
to engage in prostitution.
[Levin] So on the last count, the jury was unanimous.
Yes, sir.
Thank you, Madam Foreperson.
Why was it easier for you to come together
on that last count, the transportation
of prostitution charge?
It's the evidence that was placed before us
with the women and the stories that we were hearing
and the videos that we seen, him in his full prime, abusing somebody.
So it just makes it more believable for me
that he can do other things as well.
So it's interesting,
because the Cassie video really doesn't relate to that count.
It relates to the other counts.
Yet on that one, you were unanimous.
How many people did this profoundly impact
in making your decision, that Cassie video?
-Show of hands. -Cassie video.
So it really impacted you folks.
Did it turn it for you?
-Yeah. -Why?
Being a woman myself and seeing a woman like that,
it just made me more sensitive to the whole case itself
and probably maybe more siding with the victims,
seeing a victim instead of him
being the person that was attacking her.
So I can't side with him
because I don't see anything done to him
in that light that was done to her.
I didn't know much about the case at all.
So I came in completely objective.
And watching him beat his girlfriend--
he's, like, prohibiting her from leaving as well--
it's very distressing to watch.
So you found him guilty on that third count?
Yes, sir.
Based on that third count,
should Diddy go to prison?
-Yeah, I think so. -Why?
He has proven time and time again
that he has gotten away with so many things
that he obviously shouldn't have gotten away with,
and it's gotten to such a point where he is such,
like, honestly a danger to society
and a danger to, like, women in general.
So I don't think he should be, like, out in public.
I don't think he should be doing it anymore.
He's gotten too many free passes.
Your question about whether he should do time
is challenging 'cause I don't know if he should do time.
Is the racial component what's giving you pause?
Yeah, there's no doubt about that.
I mean, there's enough brothers in jail.
They don't need to-- I mean, there's enough.
[apprehensive music]
[theme music]