I Am That Reporter
CBS News Correspondent and Weekend Anchor Jericka Duncan brings you the I Am That Reporter podcast. Season one covers the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs in the US v Sean Combs case. Duncan will be your eyes and ears in the courtroom as well as what's happening on the streets outside the courtroom. Each week, she'll have conversations with legal and subject matter experts to break down the case from all sides and offer listeners information, perspective and analysis with what's happening in the case and with everyone involved.
I Am That Reporter
Week 2: Kid Cudi Testifies And A Conversation With R. Kelly's Defense Attorney Steven Greenberg
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 brings on a prominent defense attorney, Steven Greenberg. Steven has many years of experience as a defense attorney, most prominently when he represented R. Kelly in his state and federal case. Greenberg would eventually leave Kelly’s team at the start of his RICO case in New York.
Their conversation delves into what happened in the courtroom during the second week in the trial of the US v Sean Combs. They dive into the implications of Kid Cudi's testimony and the strategies employed by both the prosecution and defense. They discuss the complexities of RICO cases, the challenges faced by the prosecution in proving their case, and the dynamics of celebrity trials. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the legal standards and the potential impact of the testimonies on the jury's perception.
THE TEAM
Host: Jericka Duncan
Executive Producer/Editor: Scott Riggs
I'm in the courtroom, right? I'm in the overflow and I'm watching this hearing,
SPEAKER_02:this trial go down in real time. What was the state of his dog? He said his dog was jittery. Kid
SPEAKER_01:Cudi, man, he passed it in 2008 when he was nobody. This is the first trial I'm ever sitting on. Ever. Like, ever. And it's the most intense thing I've ever experienced in my life.
SPEAKER_02:Those are just some of the voices from people following the story alongside of me in week two of the United States government versus Sean Combs. All of the people you just heard from use social media as their way to reach the masses. As someone who works for a legacy media company, I have to say I am truly impressed by the amount of folks using things like Instagram and TikTok as well as YouTube to discuss this case. I've never seen anything like it before. And we did all of this in the cold rain this past week. he is convicted on all charges. Now, Combs, as you know, has denied the charges and the allegations. And just to recap, according to the government, Combs abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him for decades to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct. The government says Combs relied on employees, resources, and influence of his multifaceted business empire that he led and controlled, creating a criminal enterprise whose members and associates engaged in and attempted to engage in, among other crimes, sex trafficking, forced labor, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and obstruction of justice. In their opening statements, the defense said this case is about money, love, and infidelity. The prosecution has interviewed more than a dozen witnesses so far. Thursday's testimony wrapped up with a forensics agent who works for Homeland Security. He discussed how information was taken from three of Ventura's laptops. We heard from a general manager from a hotel in Beverly Hills who said Combs, a frequent guest under the name Jack Starr, made cleanup for housekeepers difficult by, quote, always spilling candle wax on everything. And that journal manager noted there was always an excessive use of oil. We also heard from Myla Morales. She's a former makeup artist for Combs and Ventura. Morales talked about staying in a hotel with Ventura back in 2010, the weekend of the Grammys. She testified that she heard a fight between Combs and Ventura. And right after Combs left, she said she saw that Ventura had bruises to her face, specifically a swollen eye, busted lip, and not, she said, on Ventura's head. She has been public about some of this already, appearing on CNN back in May of last year. But the testimony many people had been anticipating this week is the one given by rapper and actor Kid Cudi, his actual name, Scott Meskety. When Judge Arun Submaranian said the government may call its next witness, the prosecutor said the government calls Scott Meskety, and everyone turned around. including combs. I'll call him Kid Cudi for this podcast, but he walked in very casually wearing jeans, a t-shirt, and a black leather jacket. Within a couple of minutes, the prosecution really zones in on 2011. Here's what the prosecutor said. I want to direct your attention to December, 2011. Did there come a time when law enforcement responded to your home in December of 2011? Yes, Kid Cudi says. Why did law enforcement respond in December of 2011? Because I had a break-in. I'd like to start at the beginning of the day of the break-in. How did the day start? Well, he says, I got a call from Cassie around 5.30, 6 a.m. And she told me that Sean Combs had found out about us. I was really confused, but she asked me to pick her up. She sounded really stressed on the phone, nervous, scared. So I went to go pick her up. And yeah, a few follow-up questions for you. When Ms. Ventura said that Mr. Combs had found out about us, as you said, what was your understanding of what Ms. Ventura was saying? There was an objection. It was overruled. So he answers. She says, you testified Ms. Ventura told you Ms. Combs found out about us. What was your understanding of what Mr. Combs had found out? That me and her were dating. And you also testified that you were confused when you heard that. Yes. Why were you confused? He says, because I didn't think she was still dealing with him. So as the testimony goes on, Kid Cudi says, I called Sean Combs, prosecutor. How did you have Sean Combs' phone number? I just had it for years. Did Mr. Combs pick up your call? Yes. Can you describe the conversation that you had with Mr. Combs on the drive to your home? Yeah, I'm going to be very candid. I said, mother effer, you in my house? And he was like, what's up? I was like, mother effer, are you in my house? And he said, I just want to talk to you. I was like, I'm on my way over there right now. He was like, I'm here. The prosecutor says, what did you see inside your home? Kid Cudi says, some gifts that I brought from my family were opened, some stuff I got from Chanel, and then my dog was locked up in my bathroom. So what's interesting about this dog being locked up in the bathroom, there was a conversation before Kid Cudi took the stand about whether or not there would be testimony given about the dog's demeanor and how it changed after being locked up. It was a lot of back and forth. Funny moments at times because we're obviously not here about a dog, but there was so much conversation about it. Even someone that I noticed who was doing a podcast, a stream, I should say, outside mentioned that the dog was jittery. So he testifies about that and they move on. By New Year's of 2012, Cuddy says that he and Ventura were not really hanging out anymore. The prosecutor then says, directing your attention to January of 2012. So remember, we started in December of 2011. Now we're in January of 2012. The prosecutor says, did there come a time when you learned that your car had caught fire? Kid Cudi answers, yes. How did you learn that your car caught on fire? My dog's babysitter called me in the morning. Approximately what time did you receive that phone call? 6.30, 7.30 a.m. What was your understanding of of where your dog's babysitter was located when she called you at my house. So the jurors are shown six pictures of the damage from the car. The prosecutor asks Kid Cudi, what was your reaction to your car being set on fire? And he says, quote, what the F. Then there was an objection. It was overruled. And then they took a quick five minute break. So the court begins and the prosecution picks up And ask Kid Cuddy if he thought the car fire was an accident or intentional. He says it was intentional. And this part gets interesting because Cuddy basically implicates Sean Combs in the car fire. And he tells the court, I reached out to Sean Combs after my car had caught fire and, you know, finally told him that we needed to meet up to talk, you know. He had been wanting to talk to me. So after the fire, I was like, this is getting out of hand. I need to talk to him. The prosecution says, why was it Mr. Combs you reached out to after the fire? And he says, because I knew he had something to do with it. Then Mr. Steele, one of the defense attorneys, says, your honor, we have to have a sidebar. The judge says, is that an objection? The defense says, objection. The court says the objection is sustained. The jury should disregard the witnesses. Last answer, says the judge. And then Ms. Johnson proceeds, the prosecutor. To help break down the importance and relevance of Kid Cudi's testimony is Steven Greenberg. We go way back. Listen to this. Do you really believe that all of these women are looking for their 15 minutes of fame, as you put it?
SPEAKER_00:I believe that all of these women did exactly what they wanted to do That, again, is...
SPEAKER_02:Steven Greenberg. When I say we go back, we go way back. He represented R. Kelly in his state and federal case and would eventually lead Kelly's team at the start of the RICO case, the federal case here in New York. Steve, welcome and thank you for joining me.
SPEAKER_00:Morning.
SPEAKER_02:You still feel that way?
SPEAKER_00:About that case? Yes, I do. I think that that case was an overreach and never belonged in federal court. Many people have a misconception that that case was about underage sex, and it wasn't. His first case that he beat years ago in state court, that case he was very guilty of. The case in Chicago, probably guilty of. But the case in New York, I think, was an overreach.
SPEAKER_02:Why did you leave the R. Kelly team?
SPEAKER_00:We ended up leaving the R. Kelly team because, unfortunately, the people who got in... Robert's ear were people who he shouldn't have been listening to. And I don't want to get too far into the weeds, but the people who ended up trying his case had no experience trying cases, but they got very close to him. And I think if someone reads about what went on at that trial, it speaks for itself. I absolutely believe that if we had tried that case, that case would have been one of those cases that would have been in the 10% of cases that the prosecutors lose.
SPEAKER_02:Okay. So we'll get to your experience with RICO cases and why you feel the way you feel. But I thought because of the cases that you've covered, your more than 30 years of experience in the legal field, you were the right person to call. And I know you've been following this a little bit, but first and foremost, was Kid Cudi more helpful to the prosecution or the defense?
SPEAKER_00:Well, Kid Cudi was helpful to the prosecution because he was able to be a second person who was able to say that Sean Combs was essentially a... a thug, for lack of a better term. He has him in his house threatening him. And then he was able to give this testimony where he said that Sean Combs had thrown a Molotov cocktail, or someone on Combs' behalf had thrown a Molotov cocktail in his car. You mentioned the objection that came from his attorneys, which was way late. It was after an answer was given, and while it was sustained by a judge, the testimony had already been heard. I have no idea why he was able to say that, because from my reading of the testimony, there is zero proof that Sean Combs actually threw a Molotov cocktail in his car or had anyone throw a Molotov cocktail in his car. That was as much a guess as anything is a guess in this world.
SPEAKER_02:The defense mentioned that DNA from a female was found in that car and the prosecution objected and it was sustained. How difficult is it for jurors to really ignore that type of information or those statements made supporting one side or the other?
SPEAKER_00:Well, look, the DNA was found in in a car from somebody else is not unusual. You know, it's a car. A female was in your car. And so she left DNA behind. That's a weak blow. The defense couldn't get it in the way they wanted to get it in because it was hearsay. And that's why the objection was sustained. You would need to call a witness to testify about the scientific testing and where it was found and so forth. They just wanted the jurors to hear it. I was surprised. that the testimony came in at all in the first place without any sort of connection to Combs. Now, maybe there's a witness coming later in the case who's going to say that Combs hired me to do this or that Combs admitted to me that he had it done or something like that. But at this point, I was very surprised that that came in at all. And that's one of the acts in the racketeering conspiracy is arson.
UNKNOWN:Right.
SPEAKER_02:Did that surprise you, I guess? Because sometimes I wonder if these attorneys may say something that they know that the jurors will have to strike in terms of what they're able to consider, the information, whether they can use that when they decide whether or not to convict someone of a crime. But just the fact that the seed has been planted, and even though you say that he was a great witness for the prosecution, because there was no forensic proof, does that matter? Or is it more about corroborating the story that Cassie Ventura originally told about Kid Cudi. And then you saw the email that came out from 2011 around that time where Cassie Ventura is basically writing Capricorn Clark, an associate and employee of Combs, and her mother saying that Combs threatened her and that he also threatened harm on Kid Cudi. And then this happens.
SPEAKER_00:Right. Well, that's what it is. It's cooperation. So they're saying he makes these threats And then something happens and they'll say it was circumstantial. It's too coincidental to not come back to Sean Combs. And that'll be the argument that the government will make. But to your larger question, and I hate to say this where there'll be a recording of it because some government prosecutor will play it one day at a trial in front of the judge, is attorneys There are things we know we can do, and there are things we know we shouldn't do. And of course, we do the things we shouldn't do sometimes because we want the jurors to hear them. So you'll see all the time, just as you see on TV, people will make comments and say things just knowing an objection is going to come, like with this DNA evidence. I'm sure they knew that the objection was going to be sustained, but they said it three or four times, knowing that they wanted the jurors to hear that there was this other DNA evidence. The issue that I have through a lot of this so far is, from the defense perspective, they've had a lot of places where I think they could strike hard blows but they're doing it in a very genteel way. And I feel like this is a street brawl. This is not really a federal case. It's in federal court, but it's not really a federal case. So far, what we're hearing is essentially a state court domestic violence case. That's basically what it is. You're hearing about someone who beats women. That's been 90% of what they've presented so far. And I think the defense attorneys have to get more down and dirty as if they're trying a case in the building next door in state court and not be so genteel where they're trying like they're trying a white collar case.
SPEAKER_02:The prosecution said very early on, listeners, we're going to jump around. Things will not be in chronological order. But their focus is using this criminal enterprise that they say was run by Combs to feed his sexual desires, using employees to acquiesce and to do things that speak to what he wanted when it comes to his sexual desires. And you say, Steve, that you don't feel they've done anything to really prove this. that, but they have brought about a number of people who've already worked with Combs who talk about having to make arrangements, clean up things, and just know that that he was someone that needed this bag full of medicine, as they called it, the medicine bag, but it was full of narcotics. The assistant who testified, the former executive assistant, the only one, by the way, who's had immunity and said that he would set up the rooms. He would buy certain things for these sort of events or alleged freak offs that he was having. So I honestly think it's just a lot for the jurors to have to consider. And we're only two weeks in, you know, this week was a short week because of Memorial Day weekend. So they had four days of witnesses that they heard from. So when you say you haven't heard anything, I just, I'm pushing back on that having been in the courtroom because there are some things that we have heard that speak to sort of this big picture idea of what the prosecution claims Sean Combs did.
SPEAKER_00:So when I'm saying I haven't heard anything, I haven't heard anything that makes this what should be a federal case. The indictment in this case, it's a very strange indictment because normally in a RICO indictment, you've got an enterprise and no one's ever won a RICO case by saying that an enterprise didn't exist. An enterprise is... just a collection of people, more than two people, so three or more people that has a common purpose. It can be legal, it can be illegal. The enterprise itself doesn't have to be an illegal entity.
SPEAKER_02:So you're saying that's just the name?
SPEAKER_00:It's just a way of categorizing something. So your podcast would fit the definition of an enterprise because right now- Don't try
SPEAKER_02:to put me into anything federal, sir.
SPEAKER_00:Well, it's you, me, and it's a producer. So we would fit the definition. of an enterprise if we had a common purpose. So where you have to attack these cases is on the various acts. And in this indictment, what the government has done is they've said that he committed multiple acts of kidnapping and multiple acts of attempt and multiple acts of conspiracy. And they've listed it violated California law or violated New York law. And they've cited some statutes. But in every RICO case I've ever seen, and I've seen dozens of them, they've set forth what those specific acts are. And in this case, they haven't. So what we're seeing is we're seeing them present to the jury just bad thing after bad thing after bad thing. And one of the things, and I know I'm speaking as a defense attorney here, but one of the things that the law is not supposed to allow a jury to do is to convict somebody because they're a bad person, because we don't like them. We try and keep out of trials bad conduct that's not really relevant. And so you have to ask yourself, okay, he had this really kind of crazy, bizarre sex life. Was it consensual or wasn't it consensual? Because if it was consensual, then what does it have to do with anything so far? And when Cassie Ventura testified, was she testifying to something that she acquiesced in because she wanted to please Sean Combs? And if you look at the totality of what she said, And the way that the relationship ended when Kim Porter, when he said that Kim Porter was actually his soulmate, and it really struck Cassie Ventura that she was never going to be the one. She wanted to marry Sean Combs, and she was never going to be the one that Sean Combs was going to marry. And she was never going to be the number one woman in his life. And that was the last they saw of each other. Was she really going along with all of this to just please him or to try and win him over? And are we just bringing a case about a consensual relationship with domestic violence in it, certainly? And domestic violence is never a good thing, but a consensual relationship. And are we asking the jurors to be the judges of morality here?
SPEAKER_02:So in your opinion, based on the information that you have looked at, those opening statements and some of the witness testimony, what do you think the prosecution needs to do or needs to prove for this to be a stronger case on behalf of the government?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I think the prosecution is trying to say that these things were not voluntary. So again, Cassie Ventura said that I didn't want to do these things. He forced me to do these things down the road. I
SPEAKER_02:mean, and if I could really quick in her closing statement, she said, I would give back the 20 million if it meant I never had to do a freak off in my life. I'm generalizing what she said here, but I mean, she was on that stand, as you know, do any day now. By the time this podcast airs, she may have had her baby boy, but four days going back, Almost 20 years, because she's 38 or 39 years old now, and she is sort of recounting 19. She signs with Bad Boy in 21, around the time that her and Sean Combs start seeing each other.
SPEAKER_00:Yeah, I wouldn't believe for a second that she would give back the$20 million. That's what she said. That's what she said, right. And the other one who filed the lawsuit... Don Rashard? Donna Shard said that she was just there for justice and she didn't care about the money. And, you know, people say all sorts of stuff. And I'm here only to tell the truth, even though I told 50 lies when I testified. They say whatever people say that stuff, but it's not really credible. Do you think she'd give back the money? I'm putting you on the spot.
SPEAKER_02:I don't know. I'm listening to what people are saying in the courtroom. I have no idea what that woman had to go through over the course of, you know, 11 years with Sean Combs. We know what she's able to tell us. We know that Sean Combs is not likely to take the stand, so we won't hear specifically from him. But I can tell you in that courtroom, there are many times where he is, was, I should say when Cassie Ventura was on the stand, either sort of shaking his head in agreement with certain things or disagreement when it came to those things that had to do with him committing a crime. So, and I think, honestly, this is what's so fascinating about any type of court case is this sort of back and forth. There are some things that seem more clear in some cases that I've covered, but there is this sort of, as someone else put it, a tug of war between of what this person said, but then maybe the defense says something that calls into question someone's credibility. But I don't doubt, and I mean, I know you weren't in the courtroom, but you've read enough to know that what Cassie Ventura describes is beyond disturbing in terms of what she said she went through.
SPEAKER_00:It's very disturbing, but they're... What I was leading up to before is in these cases, the government is going to call an expert down the road who is going to testify how people like Cassie Ventura, how they are psychologically affected, how they become controlled by their abuser. And and how to those of us who say, well, why don't you just walk away? You know, they find it difficult to walk away. And it's not as easy as we would just think, because you would say, call your mother. You know, she was talking to her mother. Why don't you just go on your own? I mean, some people say there's been some testimony. Well, he paid her rent and he paid her car payment and stuff like that. Well, a lot of people struggle in life. to get away from a bad situation. So why didn't she?
SPEAKER_02:Steve, we did hear from an expert like that this week who did speak on this sort of generalization of what people in those types of relationships, how they react, how they respond, how it's not abnormal for people to come forward with these allegations later.
SPEAKER_00:For the prosecutors, a RICO case becomes very easy to prove because, again, in this situation, case here they have multiple acts is all they've listed and under each section where they say multiple acts they've got four or five different subcategories and so if you look at the indictment they might have 40 different what we call predicate acts that could be in there if Each of these references is to just one incident, and they only have to prove two for the jury to find racketeering. Some of them, a couple of them, are distributing drugs. So if they find, if the jurors find that on two occasions Combs gave drugs to people, which I think the jurors will find very easy to find, he could lose the case. It's that easy for the prosecutors when you have a RICO case. If they find some of them are tampering with a witness, there are some allegations that after he knew this was happening, that he tried to reach out to witnesses. That's easy for the prosecution to prove the case. because they've got some low hanging fruit and they only need to prove two predicate acts. So even though I think that the prosecution doesn't really have an easy case on sort of the more salacious allegations, and I don't think they're going in great for them, there's all this low hanging fruit in a RICO case that makes it very easy. If you look at the law of averages, They only have to convince the jurors on 5% or 10% of the allegations that they've got in their indictment. Whereas in the normal criminal case, you've got one crime. He shot somebody. He robbed a bank. The prosecution has to prove 100% of what they've alleged. Here, they have to prove a very small percentage of what they've alleged.
SPEAKER_02:The Southern District of New York and most federal jurisdictions have a really high conviction rate. So how much is on the line if prosecutors don't get a conviction?
SPEAKER_00:Well, anytime prosecutors lose a high profile case like this, they've got egg on their face, of course. It rarely happens. It certainly happens more often now than it used to. Jurors are more skeptical. on cases than they used to be. But I don't think you can look at what the overall conviction rate is anywhere because most federal criminal cases end up in guilty pleas. Of the cases that go to trial, the statistics are a little bit different. And then on those cases, the statistics on White collar cases are different than the statistics on street crime sort of cases, cases where they have to rely on, for instance, in that district, on the New York City cops for where they've got their conviction rate is lower than cases where they're relying on the FBI. Right. So it depends on a lot of different factors.
SPEAKER_02:Where do you think things stand in this particular case right now? the U.S. government versus Sean Combs?
SPEAKER_00:Well, I think his attorneys have to get a little bit more down in the trenches and treat it a little bit more like a state case, get more down and dirty and start fighting back a little bit harder. Try and keep some of this stuff out. Try and keep all of this sort of bad acts evidence. They can't have a client who just week after week The government is saying you're a terrible person, terrible person, terrible person. They need to get some clarity as to what exactly they're saying he did wrong. That's really a federal crime. That's really these predicate acts. And I don't think that's happened yet. But as I said, the law of averages, unfortunately, when you've got a RICO case, is not very good.
SPEAKER_02:Steve Greenberg, everyone. Thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate your time. And one more thing. I find myself running into people who covered combs extensively over the years and are really struggling with what they are reading and hearing about in the news, on social media, et cetera. This case is a reminder that we only know people based on how they present to us. We don't know people intimately as husbands, as wives, partners, mothers, fathers. And jurors have the hardest job when it comes down to it. They have to make sense of the allegations that go back 20 years while also following jury instructions at the end. After hearing from six to eight weeks worth of witnesses, there is so much that happens in the span of a week. And this podcast gives us a chance to explore that a little bit more. I thank you so much for listening. Please follow me on Instagram and TikTok. I am that reporter JD. Again, I am that reporter JD. DM me if you have any questions and maybe we can address them on the next one. Until then, have a blessed day. Hopefully we'll see you back here once again. If you enjoy this podcast and want to help, please, please, please spread the word. Tell your friends, tell your family, encourage them to listen. You can also follow Rate and Review on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. And just like Uber, five star reviews are very much appreciated.
