Week 1: Opening Statements Plus Cassie Ventura Testifies About Abuse and Freak Offs

CBS News Correspondent and CBS Weekend anchor Jericka Duncan was recently given the assignment to cover the the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Her assignment puts her at the courthouse and in the courtroom every day of the trial so she has a front row seat to all of the action happening in and outside fo the courtroom. 

This week, Jericka shares a bit of what it's like covering the trial before bringing on her guest, Judie Saunders. Judie leads sexual abuse and human trafficking department of the law firm, Ask LLP. She has more than twenty years of experience litigating cases involving sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and discrimination. Judie has also represented survivors in cases against USA gymnastics, local and state governments, and clergy abuse survivors.

Their conversation delves into the ongoing trial of Sean Combs, exploring the complexities of the case, the strategies of both the prosecution and defense, and the emotional dynamics at play. Saunders provides insights into the implications of witness testimony, the nuances of consent and coercion, and the impact of public perception on the trial's proceedings. The discussion highlights the serious nature of the allegations and the challenges faced by both sides in presenting their cases effectively.

THE TEAM
Host: Jericka Duncan
Executive Producer/Editor: Scott Riggs

Follow Jericka on social media:
Instagram
Tik Tok

Transcript

SPEAKER_01: 0:01

This week was a tug of war. The prosecutors came out strong. The defense battled back. Looking like they tried to make Cassie seem some ways. So I think this is still a tug of war.

SPEAKER_03: 0:15

I think I would say that both sides gave the jury a lot to think about. Both sides gave the jury a lot to think about.

SPEAKER_00: 0:23

You got a boyfriend? You're beautiful. Look at this. You see her? Man, what are you doing after this?

SPEAKER_04: 0:37

That is just a taste of the atmosphere outside the federal courthouse for the Southern District of New York. The trial has started for the United States government versus Sean Combs. My name is Jerika Duncan. I anchor the CBS Weekend News and report for CBS Mornings, CBS Evening News, CBS 24-7, and you can catch me on 48 Hours sometimes. In November of 2023, I remember hearing those shocking details from Cassie Ventura's civil lawsuit. She alleged physical abuse. She said she was raped by Combs and forced to take part in something she says Combs referred to as freak-offs, where Combs would allegedly watch her have sex with other men, usually male escorts. Combs settled with Ventura for$20 million, less than 24 hours after the civil suit was filed. And then in May of 2024, about six months later, CNN obtained video of Combs assaulting Ventura inside a California hotel in 2016. A few months after that, September of 2024, Sean Diddy Combs was arrested and charged with racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. The government argues that from around 2004 to 2024, Combs trafficked three women, exercised complete control through physical abuse and threats while paying them and others to keep quiet. The government also says Combs supplied alleged victims with drugs. I have covered the trials of Bill Cosby, Harvey Weinstein, R. Kelly, and Ghislaine Maxwell, but Combs is different. I grew up in an era in which Combs, a rapper and producer, blazed the trail for many of my favorite artists. He was different. He stood out. He inspired many and he built a hip hop empire proclaiming in his 1997 Mo Money Mo Problem song that in 10 years from now, we'll still be on top. Today, he's down bad. I hope this podcast will inform you about what's happening inside the courtroom. Remember, there are no cameras. I wanna be your eyes and ears. There will be discussions on this podcast that you won't find anywhere else. I know what doesn't get reported. I know how it feels in the courtroom. I know how it feels on the streets. And I hope to bring you all of that, all of that perspective and insight to you each and every week. And I wanna work hard to bring you more frequent updates on Instagram and TikTok. So if you are interested, please follow me at I am that reporter JD on those platforms. I thought we'd start the first episode discussing some of what happened during the first week of the trial because it was a bombshell first week. And to do that, I've invited an experienced attorney and expert in sexual abuse cases to offer us some perspective on the strategies in the courtroom and how it's going for both sides so far. My guest today is Judy Saunders, an attorney at Ask LLP Attorneys at Law. She leads the firm's sexual abuse and human trafficking department. She has more than 20 years of experience litigating cases involving sexual abuse, sexual harassment, and discrimination. Judy has represented survivors in cases against USA Gymnastics, local and state governments, and clergy abuse survivors. Judy has extensive courtroom experience, including conducting administrative hearings and jury trials. And honestly, guys, I couldn't imagine anyone else that I would want to have on the first episode of this dope podcast. And fun fact, Judy is an avid runner who has completed several marathons, including the New York City and Marine Corps Marathon. So she knows what it means to go the distance. And we will be going the distance because this trial is expected to last nearly two months. Judy, thank you so much for joining us. So I want to read some of the opening statement from the prosecution, and then I want to read some of the opening from the defense. So the opening remarks were given by Ms. Emily Johnson, Assistant USA Attorney. She starts off by saying this. This is Sean Combs. To the public, he was Puff Daddy or Diddy, a cultural icon, a businessman, larger than life. But there was another side to him, a side that ran a criminal enterprise. During this trial, you're going to hear about 20 years of the defendant's crimes. But he didn't do it alone. He had an inner circle of bodyguards and high-ranking employees who helped him commit crimes and helped him cover them up. Kidnapping, arson, drugs, sex crimes, bribery, and obstruction. These are just some of the crimes that the defendant and his inner circle committed again and again. You are going to hear about all of them during this trial. You'll also hear how the defendant used his employees to get and distribute drugs. They delivered those drugs whenever the defendant asked, including so he could give those same drugs to the women he was forcing to have sex with male escorts. He transported those women and those escorts across state lines and even out of the country for those sex acts. And he used his inner circle and the vast resources of his business empire to help to arrange those trips and make the women available to him. So the prosecution goes on to say he, being Combs, is charged with transporting Cassie, Jane, and male escorts across state lines for sexual encounters. How will the government prove to you beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of these crimes? You'll hear from witnesses, including Cassie and Jane, two of the defendant's victims. They will tell you how the defendant tried to control their lives from their homes to their careers, how the defendant used his control over them, his lies, his drugs, his threats, and his violence to force and coerce them into having sex with male escorts. Cassie and Jane will describe freak-offs for you in painstaking detail. They will tell you some of the most personal and painful experiences of their lives. The days they spent awake in hotel rooms, high on drugs, dressed as characters to perform the defendant's fantasy, just as he directed them to do. And the prosecution ends with this. Please use and trust your common sense. If you do all of that, you will reach the only verdict that is consistent with the law and the evidence in this case, that the defendant, Sean Combs, is guilty. Judy, before I get into the defense, they lay out a lot of the language that we've been hearing when it comes to criminal enterprise, coercion, threats, sex abuse, drugs, arson. What do you make of those opening statements? It was 20 pages. I just read a portion.

SPEAKER_02: 8:07

When I hear that opening statement and having experience with doing trials, I do think that the government will have the evidence, they'll have the witnesses to prove this case. Look, it's not going to be easy. The one thing that... if we were checking off a box with Ms. Ventura's testimony, they have been very able to show violence, threats, and coercion. And they've done that through this witness. The one thing that you always want to be thinking about when you're putting on a case, when you're prosecuting a case, is in as much as possible, any witness that you put on that stand, you're trying to use that witness to prove as many elements of the case as you can. So not only did we hear Ms. Ventura talk about several elements that they need to prove the sexual trafficking, the racketeering, and the transportation to engage in prostitution, not only did you hear some of those elements come out by way of the testimony of Ms. Ventura, you also heard about it with the other witnesses that the government has put on so far. I believe that there was one witness who served as their foundation. He was a security guard at the hotel with the video that's so widely known. I believe that there was a portion of his testimony where he was talking about that Mr. Combs even used threats or some type of force against him.

SPEAKER_04: 9:58

Yeah, this would be Mr. Flores, who addressed Combs that day. What's interesting, though, is they didn't note everything in their report in terms of that other person in the room. And they were questioned by the defense about, hey, your security... You come upstairs, you realize what's going on. You never made mention that there was a third individual in the room. And I think as someone that is not a study of the law, but obviously have covered trials, is I'm wondering as I'm watching the jurors and I'm seeing their reaction to some of the text messages or that audio that came out where she's threatening someone because she's concerned about a video getting out. I'm wondering... you know, again, as a journalist, are they thinking of her in the context of she did take part in this sometimes in a way that it was consensual, even though her testimony is, I only did this to make him happy and I felt like I had to do it.

SPEAKER_02: 11:05

Look, it gets extremely complicated for sometimes the lay person to really wrap their heads around the intertwining and toxicity and the trauma that survivors deal with. It's going to be imperative for the government, and I'm sure that they are going to put on an expert that is going to talk about the different syndromes and the trauma that they go through. It is gonna be very easy for the defense well, I wouldn't say easy, but it's gonna be part of their strategy to show, to weaponize the whole concept of being a victim. So

SPEAKER_04: 11:54

to that point, Judy, if I could, when you say it's gonna be important for the prosecution to make sure they showcase a expert that can lay out, this is not abnormal behavior for someone who's in something in which they feel threatened or they're coerced. And I guess what's the fine line between coercion and consent? When you have text messages and messages over email where someone seems excited about a freak off, there was a message they showed, the defense showed where she said, I'm going to go get the supplies for the freak off. Oh, I forgot the iPad. Should I go back and get it? Some of the details feel so intentional. How important will it be for an expert to establish that a lot of what we heard in reference to her, what appears to be consent to freak offs, may not really be consent?

SPEAKER_02: 12:58

It's going to be very important. An expert is going to talk about, and I've worked, consulted with, worked with experts just for this particular reason. And it's to show that in these toxic relationships, it's not always bad. And we have these different concepts. I'm not even gonna pretend to be a psychiatrist or a psychologist, but we have such behaviors as tend and befriend. You keep these individuals happy. You know that if this person that's constantly threatening you, if they flip, if there's anger, then your safety suffers. So while it may seem that Ms. Ventura is engaging in some forms of content, whether it's by text message, it's not always going to be violence every minute of every day, but there is trauma. And there are things that Ms. Ventura is likely doing tending and befriending so that there isn't violence. She's trying to starve off this behavior that she knows may be coming if she doesn't comply. So

SPEAKER_04: 14:15

I want to take a moment to read the opening statements from the defense. And the defense argument was given by Tenny Garagos, the daughter of Mark Garagos, the famed attorney who's represented a lot of celebrities. And she starts off by saying, Sean Combs is a complicated man. But this is not a complicated case. This case is about love, jealousy, infidelity, and money. This case is about voluntary adult choices made by capable adults and consensual relationships. This case is about those real life relationships and the government is trying to turn those relationships into a racketeering case, a prostitution case, and a sex trafficking case. It will not work. Finally, The story about this case can finally come out. Why do I say that? I say that because this case is not about what you've heard on the news, read in the news, or have seen on social media for the past year and a half. This case is not about what civil attorneys looking for a payday are trying to make my client out to be. There has been a tremendous amount of noise around this case for the past year and it is time to cancel the noise and hear and see the evidence that will be presented in the courtroom. This case is about Sean Combs' private personal sex life, which has nothing to do with his lawful businesses. The government has no place here in this man's private bedrooms. The government can say over and over again that this is not about his private sex life, but the evidence will show you that it is. The prosecution will bring those same employees and others into the courtroom and have them testify that Sean Combs has a temper and that when he drank or when he did wrong drugs, he would get violent. My client is not proud of that, but it is one of the many things we are going to own and fully admit right up front at this trial. There was a name in criminal law for the violence that we will hear about and we will see at this trial. It is called domestic violence. It is called assault. Domestic violence is a very serious matter. I want to say that now. It is a bad, illegal problem and it is something the law addresses. We take full responsibility that there was domestic violence in this case. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking. I want to say it again. Domestic violence is not sex trafficking. However, he has been charged with different crimes, sex trafficking, prostitution, racketeering. There are federal crimes with their different statues. They charge different elements, and he is simply not guilty of those crimes. We are telling you right now that he is physical, that he is a drug user, and I'm telling you he had a bit of a different sex life.

SPEAKER_02: 17:16

It's a masterclass. It's a masterclass on minimizing and controlling the narrative. That's what that opening statement was. The government is going to have to do what all attorneys do that are prosecuting cases, whether they're criminal or civil, and that is to stay laser focused and not to be distracted. What the defense needs you to do, the jury needs they need for their adversary to do is to go down a rabbit hole and to get caught on the minutia and the details. During some points in the cross-examination of Miss Ventura, I saw a little bit of that chasing the tail, so to speak, going over and over again on details and you risk the chance, either side does, risk the chance of the jury losing you, because a lot of times, you know what happens when you're in court trying a case? Your ego pops up. And if you don't keep your eye on the bigger picture, and I think that the government may have the evidence that it needs, but if you get in the way of the case, you could, you know, the defense, you asked the question earlier, who's winning, the defense could continue to move ahead. If the government's experts don't accurately define in real layman's terms and talk to this jury and get them to understand such things as delayed disclosure, why doesn't someone immediately outcry when these horrible things are happening? If you don't get them to understand a lot of the nuances of trauma, then you'll have a jury that starts to sit back and say, huh, Well, you know, that is interesting. You know, they were, you know, how come she didn't, you know, hop on, get in a car and drive away? Why is it that she came back? So they're going to have to really be careful about not going down the rabbit hole. Stay the course, because at every juncture and every point, what you're going to hear is, The defense do, and they'll do it on cross-examination and whatever their case in chief is, they are going to minimize. And that opening is perfectly it. Look, all of us, a lot of us that follow this case before the trial started were caught up on such things, those buzzwords, the baby oil, it's the butt of jokes, the very word freak off, and they're minimizing it. Their whole point is, Yeah, this is bad. Yeah, it's awful. It's not a federal crime though. So that's what they need. That's what they want to hear that jury. And I think that that, not I think, I know that word cancel in that opening statement is intentional. They also have to politicize this a little bit. Cancel the government. Remember, anytime the government brings a case against a powerful person, and a powerful African-American, it is the entire system that's on trial. And they're going to use that. That's also going to be part of their toolbox.

SPEAKER_04: 20:44

So to delve more into and kind of focus on this idea of credibility, because Cassie played so big in this, in the civil suit, obviously, and in this trial. I'm just thinking back to her walking in the courtroom and them sort of being in the same space for the first time since 2018. He was looking at her, but I noticed she was laser focused on straight ahead. I never once saw her look over at Combs, but there were a couple of times that I noticed him kind of looking her up and down quickly and, uh, to see these two people that were in this relationship for almost 11 years and see text messages where they're sending each other love and light in 2020. Congratulations on your baby. Don't want to disrespect your marriage. One day we'll be able to get together and talk things out. And now they're in a federal courthouse.

SPEAKER_02: 21:55

When you survive that, and let me, I could just, I could speak to My experience in working with clients who have gone through similar, maybe not as horrendous, I'm trying to think, well, yes, actually, have gone through similar situations. It took so much, courage isn't even the right word. It took so much to walk into the same room with someone who has had that type of influence, over your person. So her being able to walk into that room and to not look at him, I could assume that was very intentional. He needs to control the space and the energy wherever she is. A lot of that, their expert, the government's expert may discuss, but it does, it takes a lot. I mean, even that text message, to call this a relationship is a stretch. To send a message after she's had a baby, after she's made it out, That's a power move on the part of Mr. Combs or on the part of any alleged abuser to do that to an individual. So I've had, in my own experience, I've had cases where the alleged perpetrator, well, in cases that I've had, the actual perpetrator started to groom. You know what, that's the word that is probably more accurate She was targeted. She was groomed. So doing that whole grooming process, you know, starting in her teens and now to continue this and to reach out to her.

SPEAKER_04: 24:09

And she was, I think one of the things the defense brought up is that she was dating Ryan Leslie, a producer who introduced Cassie to Combs and that that gentleman was 10 years older than her when she was 17, 18, 19, when they dated. So again, they're trying to sort of twist the narrative that, not twist, I shouldn't say that, but they're trying to paint a picture of someone who had been used to dealing with an older man and that at 19, she met him while they didn't. And this is according to Cassie. The first time they kissed was on her 21st birthday. I believe she said it was in Las Vegas. But I don't think anybody would deny that 15 to 25, maybe even older for some, is a very vulnerable time in one's life, men or women. But I think a lot of people also can not relate to the details of their sex life, but the idea of wanting to be someone's everything. In this case, that meant going To places I don't think she obviously is, according to her, did not expect to go to. But in her messages to Judy, she says things like, I only want to share this side of myself with you. Or someone that's like my husband. I think she saw herself as a wife. I think she clearly did express that she wanted to have a child with him one day. So it is very complicated and complex, but I think for people who are following it from the legal part or just reminding people, this is about a criminal enterprise. So for all of the things people can say about, I can't believe they did that. And I can't believe how many people they did it with. And I can't believe they used all this baby oil for Kitty pools that they would fill up with warm baby oil. I mean, the details are salacious, but the point is Sean Combs is facing federal charges for leading a criminal enterprise for transporting sex workers across state lines. But again, the defense reminded people when you read the website of Cowboys for Angels, it doesn't say anything about prostitution. It talks about an experience.

UNKNOWN: 26:39

Right.

SPEAKER_04: 26:40

And what people, someone will say, well, what people choose to do once they get to said place, no one ever said you have to have sex. But I think the idea is an escort service. I guess it's implied.

SPEAKER_02: 26:53

Again, what they are going to do at every juncture that whether it's, you know, a defense witness, whether it's on cross-examination, is to normalize this. You know, hey, it wasn't that bad or to reframe it. And we're going to have to listen to that. But, you know, even if Ms. Ventura, even if a sex worker at some point may have agreed, you were mentioning before, that her hopes that this would be some type of relationship where she would be his only, his exclusive. Even in that type of relationship, you can consent to that. And maybe this will be in closing, but you don't consent to the threats, you don't consent to the violence, you don't consent to being controlled. That part of it will be the pieces that are pulled through to show the criminal enterprise. That yes, there may have been aspects of this that seem to be more traditional. But when you look at the tape, the widely circulated and played tape that CNN had in the hotel in California, that's cowering And in a fetal position, because you're being kicked, that's not something that you're giving consent to. And I believe that Ms. Ventura testified as much. I anticipate that we'll hear in the coming days that even the sex workers that may have, the sex workers or the other individuals, the other individuals that are part of the prosecution's case, even if, there's this notion of withdrawn consent. And a lot of times individuals do not think about that. So you think about, it comes into the context a lot where you have cases of date rape, where you could start, you could agree to one act, but then it either goes beyond or or there's other acts or there's other individuals. So you can agree to have an exclusive intimate relationship with other individuals, but you didn't agree to six or seven or three or four other people. So that is also rape. That could also be parts of the case that we'll see coming out in the coming weeks.

SPEAKER_04: 29:35

If his name wasn't Sean Combs, would the federal government have gone after him for this?

SPEAKER_02: 29:44

Yes. If it spanned the number of years and it included notable victims, alleged victims. So I can think of a scenario where if it was an individual, just a, somebody that's running a company, running a corporation, but maybe didn't have the brand that Mr. Combs, I could see a world where he would still be prosecuted. I could. Now, you know, that is always going to be an argument that they went after him because of who he is. And I'll be the first to admit that a lot of times, you know, I've seen situations where we wish certain individuals, either they wouldn't be prosecuted, they shouldn't be prosecuted, or you point and you're saying, well, why isn't anyone going after these individuals? But I think that when you have, as they're alleging, it includes so many years, it includes such violence, so many people that are in fear, so many threats, I could see a world where the government would still go after this type of alleged perpetrator, even if he wasn't known as Sean Combs or P. Diddy.

SPEAKER_04: 31:22

Judy, if I could ask you this last question, who is winning this case right now? We still have several weeks, a lot more witnesses to testify, but based on what you're hearing, who would you say has the lead?

SPEAKER_02: 31:39

Wow. So, you know, the one point that you just brought out is several more weeks and we can expect to see a lot of pivot, a lot of changing, a lot of strategy as this case spans out over the next couple of weeks. Right now, I would say that After the cross-examination of Ms. Ventura, you're having that shock value. For so long, for the past two days or when the government was doing their direct, you really... were able to relate to Ms. Venture. Now you have the defense coming in and they're painting a bigger picture. They're using what I would say, they're being very effective with showing that maybe there's some doubt. Maybe she wasn't a total victim. Maybe she had some agency. Maybe she was a willing participant. And that is gonna play directly into their strategy of this was consensual. between two adults, albeit it may have been a little rarefied and unique in the patterns that they expressed the relationship. So for right now, there's a little bit of a, to answer your question, I'd say if you were in a race, the defense may have just a little bit, one step ahead. All right,

SPEAKER_04: 33:15

Judy Saunders, thank you so much. Well, thank you. And one more thing before we go, there is nothing easy about covering this trial. It is filled with graphic descriptions of sexual acts, pictures and videos of abuse and details, details you've heard by now that are disturbing. It's not easy for anyone to see or for journalists to report on. But there's another world outside the courtroom filled with supporters, protesters, independent press, bloggers, and just characters, honestly, wanting to be close to the action. And stepping outside of my reporter role for a moment, I have to say it is quite inspiring to see people so passionate and fighting for a chance to be more informed. And that's exactly what I wanna do for you. If you have any questions about this case or subjects you think deserve more scrutiny, DM me on Instagram or TikTok. And make sure to follow me on Instagram and TikTok for regular updates on this case throughout the week. Again, you can find me at IamThatReporterJD. Until then, we thank you so much for listening and we'll see you next time.