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 7 (The Jury): The Jurors, Deliberation, And Possible Outcomes With Jury Consultant Renato Stabile
CBS News Correspondent and CBS Weekend anchor Jericka Duncan was recently given the task 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 of the courtroom.
This week, Jericka sits down with jury consultant and attorney, Renato Stabile. They discuss the intricacies of jury consulting and selection, particularly in high-profile cases. Stabile highlights the unusual length of jury selection in the case of Sean Combs, the importance of diversity in juror makeup, and the potential impact of stealth jurors. They also explore the dynamics of jury deliberation in this case, the significance of a potential mistrial, and the possible outcomes and sentencing for Combs before wrapping things up with his expectation of when the jury deliberations will be complete.
THE TEAM
Host: Jericka Duncan
Executive Producer/Editor: Scott Riggs
Just came to support my brother, that's all, you know what I mean? Just give him the support and the love he need, you know what I mean? Had he been put on, he need real people around him, you know what I'm saying? Real love.
SPEAKER_01:What do I think about the statements from the ladies? I would say that, okay, yeah, some of the things were disgusting and wrong, but at the end of the day, I feel like they still played a part in it. It wasn't just him alone.
SPEAKER_02:Deliberation Day is finally here. The eight men and four women who make up the jury in the federal case against Sean Diddy Combs have a decision to make. Guilty or or not guilty? That is the question. Hello, everyone, and welcome to the I Am That Reporter podcast, the Diddy Trial edition. My name is Jerika Duncan, and I'm a CBS News national correspondent and anchor of the CBS Weekend News. If you've been following this story, and I imagine you have been if you're listening to this podcast, then you know that 2023 was not a good year for Combs. First of all, he went after the world's most powerful liquor brand that summer, accusing Diageo, who he had a partnership with, of discrimination. By November of 2023, he was presented with a lawsuit from his ex-girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. He settled for$20 million. In March of 2024, Homeland Security officials raided two of his homes. And by September of that same year, Sean Combs was arrested on sex trafficking charges. Here's one of the first reports that I filed about his arrest.
SPEAKER_03:The
SPEAKER_02:legal troubles for longtime entertainment mogul Sean Diddy Combs have been building for months, including allegations of sexual misconduct, abuse and violence. Now the iconic rapper and producer is in custody in New York City in connection to an ongoing investigation by Homeland Security. The charges were not immediately known, but the hip hop star has been the subject of a months long federal probe led by HSI since last year. In March, we saw these dramatic scenes unfold where agents raided his homes in L.A. and Miami in connection to a possible sex trafficking probe. CBS News legal contributor Jessica Levinson.
SPEAKER_03:This type of months-long delay is not unheard of. So you execute a search warrant and then you spend a lot of time going through all the evidence to determine if there's enough there to bring charges.
SPEAKER_02:The three-time Grammy winner became the subject of disturbing accusations starting in November when his Former girlfriend Cassie Ventura filed an explosive lawsuit alleging Combs raped, physically abused, and sex trafficked her during their relationship. The two settled the next day with Combs denying any wrongdoing. But in May, disturbing surveillance video surfaced of Combs violently assaulting Ventura. Since November, Combs has been hit with several more lawsuits with similar accusations, all of which he has denied. In a statement, Combs' attorney said in part, he is an imperfect person but is not a criminal, adding he has been cooperative with this investigation and voluntarily relocated to New York last week in anticipation of these charges.
SPEAKER_03:If there was, in fact, a conviction on federal sex trafficking and or racketeering, you could see a sentence that is in the double digits. You wouldn't be looking at something like parole.
SPEAKER_02:So once again, we're waiting for that indictment to be unsealed. It could happen at any moment now. And something else important to know, Anne-Marie, that we've learned from sources is that while there is no connection between R. Kelly and Sean Diddy Combs, Homeland Security Investigations took the lead in that case regarding R. Kelly, also taking the lead in this case. There are some similarities when you look at sexual assault accusations and racketeering, possibly. We will, of course, know when that That document is unsealed and bring it to you as soon as we hear the very latest. But again, no connection. But it's interesting that both of those cases headed up by the Homeland Security Investigations, we're just learning that from sources.
SPEAKER_04:Yeah, that gives us a tiny little hint as to what he might be facing. Jerika, thank you so much. Yeah, very serious.
SPEAKER_02:And because Combs was denied bail several times, he remained behind bars. And for the last seven weeks, I and many others have sat through hours and hours of testimony. Over 30 people took the stand. When it was the defense's turn, they decided not to call any witnesses. Well, this past week, both sides made their final plea to the men and women who could have the final say. So you can better understand each side's arguments. I want to read you a portion of both the government's and the defense's closing remarks. Assistant U.S. Attorney Kristi Slavik speaks on behalf of the government. She starts her arguments off like this. Over the last several weeks, you've learned a lot about Sean Combs. He's the leader of a criminal enterprise. He doesn't take no for an answer. And now you know about many crimes the defendant committed with members of his enterprise. Kidnapping of one of the defendant's employees. Arson by trying to blow up a car. forced labor, including of an employee and the defendant repeatedly sexually assaulted, bribery of a security officer to keep damning evidence against the defendant buried, and of course, the brutal crimes at the heart of this case, sex trafficking. You heard all about how the defendant again and again forced, threatened, and manipulated Cassie and Jane into having sex with escorts for his own entertainment. Across all these crimes, the same thing was true. The defendant used power, violence, and fear to get what he wanted. Dozens of witnesses agreed. He doesn't take no for an answer. For now, I want to focus on two specific moments that we're going to come back to in detail later. Two moments eight years apart, but shockingly similar. The first, March 16th, at the Intercontinental Hotel during a freak-off with Cassie and an escort. The defendant got violent with Cassie. Cassie tried to flee. She ran out of the hotel room without shoes on. You saw what happened. The defendant threw her to the ground. He dragged her back to the freak-off. The second, 2024, at Jane's house, the defendant and Jane got into a fight. It got physical. The defendant kicked, choked, and slapped Jane. She ran away from him into her backyard. She couldn't get away. He dragged her back to the house by her hair, and then he forced her into a freak-off. He wouldn't take no for an answer. These two incidents are separated by eight years, but they're not separate stories. They're chapters in the same book, the story of Sean Combs and the criminal enterprise he led made up of his inner circle. Again and again, that criminal enterprise serviced the defendant's every desire through a methodical pattern of violence, coercion, and manipulation. The defendant counted on silence and shame to keep his crimes hidden. He thought that his fame, wealth, and power put him above the law. But over the course of this trial, his crimes have been exposed. Over the last seven weeks, you've realized how he managed to do this all. The members of his close inner circle and a small army of personal staff who made it their mission to meet the defendant's every desire, promote his power, and protect his reputation at all costs. No one could stop him, and he managed to do this for two decades because he used his inner circle, his money, and his influence to cover up his crimes. He wouldn't take no for an answer. So that is how the government starts off their argument. They're presenting slides to the jurors so they can see this on a screen, and they start off explaining that Combs is the leader of a criminal enterprise. But when you listen to how the defense started their closing arguments, as expected, very, very different. Mark Agnifilo argued on behalf of the defense. He starts off saying, Good morning, everybody. This trial is a tale of two trials. It is a trial told from the mouths of witnesses. It is the trial told from the text messages. There's the trial told from the videos. In a word, there's a trial that's told in the evidence. That's one trial. The second trial is a very different trial. The second trial is the trial as told from the mouths of the prosecutors. And the trial told from the mouths of the prosecutors is very different. Nothing like the trial told from the evidence. Now that you've heard the evidence, I'm going to ask you to reach certain conclusions. The first conclusion I'm going to ask you to reach is that this case is badly, badly exaggerated. It's made up in a word. From the mouths of the witnesses, from the evidence, from the text messages, what do you see? What is that trial? What's the trial of evidence? It's personal use drugs. That's what it is. That's just what it is. It's nothing else. What's the trial of the evidence? The trial of the evidence is a lifestyle. You want to call it swingers? You want to call it threesomes? Whatever you want to call it. That's what it is. That's what the evidence shows. That is not what the prosecutors are saying to you. The prosecutors have charged one of the most serious, complicated, comprehensive statutes on the books. They have charged personal use drugs and threesomes as racketeering. That is the other trial. That, I submit to you, is the false trial. That is the exaggerated trial. That is not the real trial. Let's talk for a second about what the evidence shows about Sean Combs. Sean Combs has become something that is very, very hard to become, very hard to be. He is a self-made, successful Black entrepreneur. I don't know how many there are. I hope there are tens of thousands. I don't think there are, but he's one of them. He's one of them. And he's done something that's very, very hard to do. He has built wonderful, sophisticated, real businesses. that have stood the test of time, businesses that are so outstanding that other, larger, more established businesses create business relationships with him. This case is about five things. I submit to you, none of which is racketeering, none of which is sex trafficking, none of which is conspiracy. Five things. It's about love. I know you guys are keeping like notes in your pad. If you're keeping really, really good notes, you will know that the word love has been spoken at this trial 881 times. This trial is about love. This trial is about jealousy, so much jealousy. It's about infidelity. It's about money. One of the things my colleague, Ms. Garagos has said, she said it in the opening and we own it, the domestic violence. We own it. Again, that was the beginning portion of the government and the defense's closing arguments. As always, I like to recap what Combs is facing. And just a reminder, it's five felony counts, which include racketeering conspiracy, two counts of sex trafficking by force, fraud, and coercion, and two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. According to the government, Combs abused, threatened, and coerced women and others around him for decades, they say, to fulfill his sexual desires, protect his reputation, and conceal his conduct. Combs has denied any wrongdoing, and as you probably know by now, he has pleaded not guilty to all of the charges. So we have a very special guest today, Renato Stabile. He is an attorney based here in New York, and he's also a jury consultant. So thank you so much for joining us, Renato.
SPEAKER_05:Thanks for having me.
SPEAKER_02:So first and foremost, for context, Linda Moreno was part of the defense team during the process of picking a jury. Explain to our listeners who she is and why these defense attorneys rely sometimes on jury consultants.
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, so Linda Moreno is a fairly well-known and certainly highly experienced jury consultant. She's also a lawyer and not all jury consultants are, but she is. And so she tries her own cases, but she's also a jury consultant. As am I, I'm an attorney also, right? So in these high profile cases, it is, I would say, almost standard at this point. to have a jury consultant. So I think any high profile cases, you're gonna have that. This jury selection, just because of who Sean Combs is, was unusual. And what I mean by that is the jury selection took two weeks. They had an extensive written questionnaire. There was extensive individual questioning of each juror. That is highly unusual. It's highly unusual. It's so unusual. You know, most defendants in federal court and people should know this. Your jury selection is a day if you're lucky. I mean, sometimes it's over in the morning and the lawyers are giving opening statements after lunch, which I think is terrible and a disgrace considering the jury selection is arguably the most important part of the case. These people are going to decide your fate. And a lot of times it gets rushed in this case. And in most high profile cases, because of the media attention, because of the prominence of the defendant, it's much longer. So, you know, did he already got a jury selection that nobody else really gets? Good for him. He deserves it. But I just think more criminal defense defendants deserve it.
SPEAKER_02:When I looked over at Moreno, I noticed during the closing summation, she looked very pleased. The two rows for the Combs family were filled with friends and family, of course. And one person, I noticed that shaking her head and smiling, like, see, it was clear that this was the moment they had been waiting for in terms of being able to argue the points that the prosecution has laid out. What does that tell us? Because I feel like so much of jury consulting is Not just listening to the words, but also looking at people's body language and how they react and how they respond to different things.
SPEAKER_05:Yeah. So, I mean, there are some consultants that believe a lot in body language and trying to read facial expressions and sort of pick up on little micro cues. I don't do that. I've never pretended that I'm good at reading body language. I'm not sure how many people really are. I think the real key in jury selection these days is doing your research. And what I mean by that is, yeah, you get the written questionnaire and you get the voir dire, but there's a lot of background research that goes on on these people, especially when you have two weeks. So I think the defense, especially because they had a jury consultant, but probably the prosecution also have had people doing background research, trying to figure out. You see, juror number six got booted, apparently because the prosecution did some research and started to question whether he lived in the Bronx, which is within the Southern District of New York, the federal district where this case was. And then he equivocated on his answers. He said, well, I moved to Jersey and New Jersey is not within the Southern District of New York. So he was out of venue and he wasn't allowed to sit on the jury. And he got booted from the case and, you know, replaced by the first alternate.
SPEAKER_02:Yeah. And they said it was lack of candor in terms of his ability to be truthful and honest. And I mean, have you ever had to work on a trial that was that high level that you wonder how many of these jurors are looking to write a book after this or be a consultant for a movie, things like that?
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, we call them stealth jurors, people that come in with an agenda. And it could be one way or the other. You know, it could be people who come in, and I think the defense is hoping that they have ditty supporters who or people that maybe grew up with him in the 90s and really like his music. And maybe they're going to really give him, of course, every defendant is entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I think the presumption of innocence is, quite frankly, an illusion. I think most jurors presume that if you're sitting in that chair, you must have done something. So I think the defense is really hoping that they have people that are going to really Give Diddy the presumption of innocence. But in any high profile case, you're worried about these stealth jurors, people that come in with an agenda. And like you said, maybe they want to write a book. Maybe they want to do interviews. Maybe they want to do all kinds of things. And so both sides are on the lookout for that.
SPEAKER_02:You mentioned this briefly at the top, but describe that process a little bit more in detail with each person, each side getting these strikes or having various reasons as to why they should not sit on the jury and even the judge sometimes dismissing people. I noticed there were language barriers for some of them. There were concerns about their mental health. One woman said that, you know, she gets basically sick off of the sight or sound of, you know, hearing sexual assault type of thing. She went back to something that happened to her in middle school. She said she fainted. I mean, there were some really interesting sort of stories that came out of that process, and there were so many jurors that they did question, and we were there for part of that.
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, well, it's New York City, so you get a wide, wide variety of people, but this is typical. In high profile criminal cases, especially criminal cases, people get very nervous. It is the pressure of the moment gets them. I've seen jurors cry, you know, saying they just didn't think that they could handle it mentally. And people can get dismissed for two reasons. One, for cause. So either they say, I know too much about the case. I can't be fair and impartial. I've seen the video. I'm disgusted by it. I don't think I can give him a fair shake here. And of course, they have to be dismissed. Some people will say, look, I don't think my mental health will survive this trial. They can get dismissed. And some people just have vacations, doctor's appointments, surgeries, weddings, all kinds of things. So those are all the cause reasons, right, where people might get dismissed. But then you also have what are called peremptory challenges. So Defense gets 10, prosecution gets six. And those are challenges that can be exercised for any reason, including did he can turn to his lawyers and just say, I don't like how that juror was looking at me.
SPEAKER_02:Why does the defense get 10?
SPEAKER_05:Because the defense, you know, quite frankly, I don't know why the defense gets them. It's by rule. So it's by statute. I mean, that's what the statute gives.
SPEAKER_02:Is the idea that because the burden of proof is on the prosecution, it sort of gives the defense a little bit more leeway when it comes to picking a jury that they think would be fair and impartial?
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, it does. I mean, but, you know, in civil cases, the burden of proof is on the plaintiff and you get three and three. So it is by rule. It is by statute that the defense gets 10. Also, you do have sometimes multiple defendant cases. And so when you have co-defendants, you don't get more than 10. So if there were two defendants, three defendants, five defendants, you would still only get 10. The court has discretion to give you more. But by rule, you are not entitled to more.
SPEAKER_02:Got it. So the jury is made up of eight men. and four women, there are three black women, a woman that appears to be of Latin descent. Then there is a black man and a man who again, to me, looks Indian, like Southeast Asian. How important is that? Because even when juror six was dismissed and the defense argued questions about having diversity and sort of acknowledging this was probably one of the most diverse juries that they've seen, How important is it to have that makeup that I just outlined?
SPEAKER_05:Well, look, I don't think that this case fundamentally centers on race, right? This is not a civil rights case. This is not sort of a police brutality case. But the defense has certainly tried to insinuate that Diddy is being prosecuted because he's a black man and that there is some racial overtones to this. And so I do think it's important to have that diversity on the jury because it's It's probably been telegraphed enough. You know, they've never heard of a prosecution like this against a celebrity. And he's a black celebrity. So I think it is a factor. I mean, look, I represented Irv Gotti many, many years ago in his criminal case in Brooklyn. He was fully acquitted. But I do think the jurors there also were thinking about why was the government going after these two brothers, Irvin Criscotti from Money Laundering? And I think it was a turnoff to them because the evidence was kind of weak. And so I think that's what the defense is hoping for here. And the racial makeup will have some of the jurors maybe wondering, is there some sort of racial motivation behind all of this?
SPEAKER_02:All the defense needs is one juror to have doubt. For this to be a hung jury in which it would result in a mistrial, which means we could be back here all over again, correct?
SPEAKER_05:That could be. We will be because I'm sure the prosecution will try this again if there's a mistrial. But yeah, that's exactly right. You know, in a criminal defense case, a mistrial is considered a win because the conviction rate in federal court, especially here in the Southern District of New York, it's probably 99%. I mean, statistically speaking, he has about a 1% chance of getting acquitted. So the defense is definitely hoping for that one holdout juror who just says, you know what, I'm not doing this, and that's enough.
SPEAKER_02:I know you said you're not into paying attention to body language, but I can tell you that there was a juror that myself and my colleagues have watched look as though when certain witnesses were testifying, they had questions. Again, if you could, just when you have that one person that even people who are novices and they're not experts, but you can see that they seem frustrated or possibly not believing everything that they're hearing, what is it like for that juror if they have already sort of made up their mind How likely is it for them to be influenced by the other jurors when they are able to talk about the case, where they are able to go through what the judge tells them? This is the letter of the law. This is how you follow and find someone guilty or not guilty of said crime.
SPEAKER_05:What I would be looking for, if I detect that there's one juror who really seems to be skeptical of the government's case, one tip is that you watch the jurors enter the courtroom. and you see who that juror is speaking with as they walk in. So when the jurors leave the courtroom, they typically walk out in the same order. Like the first row will walk out followed by the second row. When they walk back in, they often do not walk in in that order. They will walk in often in friend groups. And so you will see which jurors are chit chatting with each other as they walk back into the courtroom. I'd be very curious to see if that one juror is bonding with any of the other jurors. Because if that juror seems to be not ever speaking to anybody and seems to be off on their own, then I think it's more likely that they will just be a holdout. Whereas if they've bonded with other jurors, they may feel some compulsion that, look, if everybody's voting guilty, I'm not going to hold this up and I'm going to go along with it.
SPEAKER_02:When you look at the charges and the evidence, keep in mind that RICO charge, which you know is the most serious, it's very broad. And jurors only have to find Combs committed two elements of the larger racketeering conspiracy to find him guilty. And of course, that he was leading a criminal enterprise. Based on what you've read, based on what you know, do you think Combs will be convicted on that racketeering conspiracy?
SPEAKER_05:So I think the racketeering conspiracy, if there's any charge that he's going to be acquitted on, it would be that charge. Why? Well, because I just think there are two other charges that are much easier for the jurors to reach a conclusion on. And I just think the RICO enterprise, I mean, RICO, as you know, is typically a statute reserved for gangs, MS-13, the Crips, the Bloods, the Italian Mafia. Those are typically what you see as RICO enterprises. So it's pretty unusual to charge a legitimate business and his record label, even the prosecution admits it's basically a legitimate business that they claim he co-opted for criminal purposes. So I just think it's so unusual. There's certainly enough evidence there for them to convict him on RICO. But keep in mind, if somebody wants to compromise in the jury room, That's the one where they can say, well, look, I'll go along with the sex trafficking, but I'm not convicting him on RICO. But as a practical matter, and the jurors don't know this, as a practical matter, it won't make any difference. Because if Diddy is convicted on any of the charges, I believe he is facing a very long prison sentence, possibly an effective life sentence.
SPEAKER_02:Do you see him at all being convicted on the prostitution, the transportation for the purposes of prostitution? but then being acquitted on the other two or actually other four counts?
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, I mean, I could see a compromise verdict here. That's what we would call a compromise verdict where the jurors decided, you know, we're not convinced on all these charges and on the weaker charge, on the Rico charge, they acquit him. That's why as a criminal defense attorney, when you have these multiple charges, that's what you're really, really concerned about. Because again, the jurors might think that they're giving the defense something by acquitting him on some of the charges. But practically speaking, from a sentencing perspective, it does not make any difference.
SPEAKER_02:So one of our legal experts, who's also a reporter, Katrina Kaufman, broke down for me, the racketeering conspiracy, she said, is a maximum sentence of life in prison. Sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion is a mandatory minimum of 15 years in prison. But that that transportation to engage in prostitution has a max of 10 years in prison.
SPEAKER_05:Well, he could be, I mean, on any of the charges, he could be sentenced to probation. There's no mandatory minimums here, but he will-
SPEAKER_02:Oh, really? He could be sentenced to probation on a racketeering conspiracy charge?
SPEAKER_05:I mean, theoretically, he could be, but that's not gonna happen. He could be, so there are sentencing guidelines. So his guidelines are gonna be, I don't know what they are, but I'm sure they're gonna be absolutely through the roof And I don't see him getting less than 10 years, regardless if he's
SPEAKER_02:convicted on any of these counts, even if it's just one.
SPEAKER_05:Yeah, for sure. I think I, you know, if I had a guess, I think he's looking at at least 15 years, maybe 20 years if he's convicted on anything.
SPEAKER_02:Now that it's in the hands of the jury, what's happening behind the scenes?
UNKNOWN:Yeah.
SPEAKER_05:Um, right. So I think, you know, just from watching and not real jurors, but certainly we run a lot of mock jury tests and I wouldn't be surprised if the defense ran some sort of mock jury simulation in this case. But typically what happens is they'll go into the room and they'll take a baseline vote. They'll, they'll probably just go around and say, look, do people know where they are already? And they'll just see like where they are right on day one. I imagine that, you know, I don't think 12 hands are going to go up for guilty right away. I think some people are going to say, look, I'm a little bit, I want to hear a little bit more about this or that. I want to look at the jury instructions.
SPEAKER_02:So you think it'll literally be that public? Like people will announce how they're feeling as opposed to like writing it down and then some leader of the group reads what they think? everybody's feeling in the room? Because I think, don't you think people would be like a little nervous at first? Or is it a feeling of like, we're ready? Look, we're in this together, so you may as well know where everybody stands?
SPEAKER_05:Well, they're not strangers to each other at this point. They have certainly formed bonds. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these jurors are going to stay in touch for years and years after this experience. So they're absolutely not strangers. They know each other pretty well because of all the time they've spent together. So I think... They are comfortable saying where they are, and that's just a practical way of starting off deliberations that we see all the time, that people will go around. Or maybe they'll just go around the entire table. They'll elect a foreperson. So I don't know who that foreperson is going to be. I don't know who's the most dominant personality in there, but that person will be in charge of leading the discussions. They don't have any more power than anybody else, but that person will typically write the notes to the court if they need readbacks or they want to see some evidence. They're going to have a laptop, so they're going to have all of the evidence on a laptop if they want to review it. But they might seek clarification on some of the legal instructions that they've received. But I do think they're going to take some sort of baseline and then go from there.
SPEAKER_02:How influential is that foreperson in this trial?
SPEAKER_05:so the four person can be quite influential depending on how strong their personality is but i'll note that you have a lot of highly educated people on this jury you have a phd level molecular biologist you have an investment analyst now you have an architect so i would suspect that it's going to be one of those people will be the four person and if they have very strong opinions even though technically they don't have any more power than any other juror, they could rally the other jurors around whatever position they're taking.
SPEAKER_02:The deliberation is happening the week of July 4th. We know a lot of folks are ready to get back to their lives, ready to celebrate the holiday. Does that at all affect how quickly they will come with a decision, do you think?
SPEAKER_05:Absolutely. You know, as a defense lawyer, you don't like jurors to start deliberating on a Friday because they sort of have an incentive to rush through it, to get out of there and go back to their lives on Monday. This has been a long trial. They have put their lives on hold and done a service to the courts for being there for weeks and weeks and weeks. But you better believe this is not going to go past tomorrow. July 4th weekend. I do not believe. I think we will have a verdict by Thursday. July 4th is on Friday. I don't think anybody's looking to come back after the July 4th weekend. So I'm pretty confident we're going to have either a verdict or an indication that they are unable to reach a verdict, certainly this week.
SPEAKER_02:Renato Stabile, thank you so much for breaking down what these jurors are going through right now and the process. Now we wait and see what happens.
SPEAKER_05:Thanks a lot for
SPEAKER_02:having me. And one more thing. Thank you all for listening. I truly appreciate it. And thank you to my producer, Scott Riggs. I called him eight weeks ago with a crazy idea to start a podcast a week before the trial because I realized there was much more content and nuance to this story that cannot be captured by quick social media clips or a one minute and 45 second story on the network. And thank you to my father, Ronnie Andrew Duncan, who connected me to the graphic designer, sports rap CEO for the logo, which he said I could use in perpetuity. Thank you to my brother, Joshua Duncan, for picking out the music. And thank you to CBS, which allowed me the freedom to try something new. And a special thank you to the people in my life who are always supportive of my ideas, but also have the sense enough to tell me when this is over, Sit your ass down and rest. No, really, that's what people have been saying. And I will. 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.
