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 8 (The Verdict): Perspectives On The Verdict and Sentencing in Diddy's Trial with Attorneys Judie Saunders and Steven Greenberg
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 friends of the pod Judie Saunders and Steve Greenberg.
Saunders 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. She delves into the verdict of the case against Sean Combs, exploring the complexities of the case, the reactions from various stakeholders, and the implications for future legal proceedings. Saunders provides insights into the challenges of proving sex trafficking, the role of evidence, and the community's response to the trial, the potential impact of the verdict on the justice system and the future of Combs himself.
Greenberg is a defense attorney with many years of experience of experience in high-profile cases, 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. Greenberg explores the implications of the jury's decision, the burden of proof in civil cases, and the complexities of relationships within legal contexts. He also reflects on the trial experience, the expectations for sentencing, and the broader implications for the justice system.
This may the end of the Diddy Trial, but, the I Am That Reporter podcast will be back with more in-depth stories and news coverage, so stay subscribed and stay tuned. We'll see you soon!
THE TEAM
Host: Jericka Duncan
Executive Producer/Editor: Scott Riggs
Welcome to the I Am That Reporter podcast. I'm Jerika Duncan, CBS News national correspondent and anchor of the CBS Weekend News. This is the final episode covering the Diddy trial. You know why? Because the verdict is in. Sean Combs was found guilty on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution as it relates to his ex-girlfriend's Cassie Ventura and a woman who testified under the pseudonym of Jane. Combs was found not guilty on the most serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking. The day before we got the news that there was a unanimous verdict, we were told the jurors had reached a partial verdict in every count with the exception of count one. racketeering conspiracy the most serious. The next day, Wednesday, July 2nd, I remember thinking, today could be the day. I had a piece airing on the CBS morning show in the eight o'clock hour, unrelated to the Diddy trial. And it was about Philadelphia's mural arts project. If you don't know about it, look it up. It's amazing. It was a story that we shot back in April. And I was super excited about featuring something positive after covering a trial that was very heavy and very dark. So after leaving the morning show, which is about a 20 minute car ride, I got to the courthouse area around 930. I thought, you know what? Let me get something to eat. before all hell breaks loose. So I got some turkey and mashed potatoes from this deli that literally has everything, hence why I got turkey and mashed potatoes that early. But anyway, at about 9.43, no, not at about, because I checked my phone to make sure this was accurate. At 9.43 in the morning, I got a call from Nia. She's a field producer for CBS News. And she said, listen, something is happening. I'm not sure yet what's going on, but you need to get here now. So I take my purple roll-away bag, my black purse, and I start walking, and I pass Lauren Honemeyer. She's our lead booker for CBS Morning Show, but she also works on CBS Evening News, et cetera. So I see her through the window of a Starbucks, and I gesture, you know, hey, I'm heading to the courthouse. So I get there at 9.50, and within 10 minutes, there was a note from the jury, and the note says that we have reached a verdict on all counts. I quickly mic up. I put the IFB in my ear. That's the thing that I put in so I can hear what's going on in New York. In this case, I wanted to be able to hear from the anchor who was doing our breaking news coverage, Tony DeCoppo, for a special report. This is part of it.
SPEAKER_00:For now, though, Jerika Duncan is outside the court. She's been following this case for all of those seven weeks that it's been ongoing. Jerika, good to see you. What's the mood? What are you hearing from where you are?
SPEAKER_04:There are people yelling out a potential verdict. The result, we are not going to report that just yet. The last note that I got from Alice Gaynor, who was inside the courtroom, was at 10.15, the judge said, all rise, and that the jury was being let in. Let's talk about the jury there for a moment. Eight men and four women, at least five people of color. This is a very diverse jury, and they have been listening to testimony for the last eight weeks, seven weeks of testimony from And obviously deliberating in this last week here, the eighth week. But they have heard from 34 witnesses and two key witnesses that are part of this indictment. Part of the charges were Jane, a pseudonym that was used for an ex-girlfriend that he dated from 2021 to 2024. And Cassie Ventura, truly the star witness in all of this. She was with Combs for about 11 years. She said that she met him when she was 19 years old, was signed to his record label, but talked SHE WAS ON THE STAND FOR FOUR DAYS AND JANE WAS ON THE STAND FOR SIX DAYS. SO THE JURORS GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION. THEY SAW VIDEOS OF BOTH WOMEN ENGAGED IN SEX ACTS THAT WERE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC. THEY SAW IMAGES OF CASSIE, HER BRUISED BODY. THEY SAW VIDEOS OF CASSIE, HER BRUISED BODY. E-MAILS AND TEXT MESSAGES THAT THE DEFENSE WOULD SAY TELL TWO DIFFERENT STORIES AND THEY MAINTAINED THAT THERE WERE TWO TRIALS HAPPENING. AGNIFILO, MARK AGNIFILO, THE LEAD DEFENSE ATTORNEY SAYING THIS WAS A MODERN-DAY LOVE STORY, BUT THE GOVERNMENT BEGGING TO DIFFER AND SAY THIS ISN'T EVEN ABOUT A LOVE STORY, THIS IS ABOUT A CRIME. WE'RE JUST GETTING WORD NOT GUILTY ON COUNT ONE, NOT GUILTY on count two, is that correct?
SPEAKER_05:Guilty
SPEAKER_04:on count three. Guilty on count three. Stay with me, Tony. Not guilty on count four. Not guilty on count four. And guilty on count five. And guilty on count five. This is just coming into us right now. Could you repeat that for me, Nia? She's our field producer. You said not guilty on count one. That is the racketeering conspiracy. The second count. Not guilty. Not guilty on count two. Is that correct? Not guilty.
SPEAKER_05:Guilty on count three.
SPEAKER_04:Guilty on count three. That would be the Mann Act transportation of Cassie Ventura. And if you could, it looks like I have the note as well, so I'm just going to read it. Count one, racketeering conspiracy, not guilty. Count two, not guilty. Count three, guilty. Count four, not guilty. Count five, guilty. So essentially, the jurors found that he was guilty of the Mann Act. That is the transportation to engage in prostitution, but they found him not guilty on sex trafficking, very serious charge there where he could have spent a minimum of 15 years in prison, and not guilty on that RACKETEARING CONSPIRACY WHICH HE COULD HAVE SPENT UP TO LIFE IN PRISON FOR. SO THAT IS THE VERY LATEST. WE'RE GOING TO GET MORE INFORMATION AS THINGS ARE COMING OUT IN TERMS OF THE MOOD INSIDE THAT COURTROOM. WHAT IS SEAN COMBS DOING? WHAT IS HIS FAMILY DOING? WHAT ARE THE JURORS DOING? HOW ARE THEY REACTING? ALL OF THAT SHOULD BE COMING TO US MOMENTARILY. BUT AGAIN, IF YOU'RE JUST TUNING IN, SEAN COMBS NOT GUILTY ON THE MOST SERIOUS OF CHARGES, THE RACKETEARING CONSPIRACY AND SEX TRAFFICKING. Now, this case has been very divisive. After the verdict was announced, there were people cheering outside the courthouse. There were people arguing about the merits of the case. And by now you've probably heard there were literally people putting baby oil on their bodies. Anyway, clearly there are people that are happy about the verdict. That would be Combs, his family, his defense team. And then there are those who were shocked and those who believe that the government proved its case on sex trafficking of Cassie. One of those people is Judy Saunders, an attorney at Ask LLP. She leads the firm's sexual abuse and human trafficking department. Judy, thank you for joining us today. What was your reaction? I
SPEAKER_05:was not entirely shocked at the verdict. Having followed cases similar to this, it was expected. Sadly, in this area dealing with sex trafficking and sexual abuse, you tend to temper your opinions and anticipations on verdicts, especially highly public celebrated trials such as this. So, you know, I wasn't entirely shocked. I think that going in I actually believed and I did a little bit of research into the history of this RICO charge. And I think that it is a difficult count to prove. The government was going to have a high bar for that charge. So, you know, I was I wasn't like I said, I wasn't shocked. I thought that was going to be one of the more difficult cases. And Especially because this defendant, and I wish every defendant, and I'm saying this from someone who represents survivors of sexual abuse, every defendant deserves a well-funded, brilliant minds in the defense of their rights. And Mr. Combs had that in this defense team. So I knew that going in, the government was going to have to really be fastidious on proving this racketeering charge.
SPEAKER_04:Why did you think sex trafficking of Cassie Ventura was proven by the government?
SPEAKER_05:The video. That video was pivotal to the government proving its charge. You were always going to have an issue in cases where the parties know each other. And in this case, you have an intimate, at one point, romantic relationship. You're always going to have that question in your mind. At what point was there no longer consent? At what point did it turn into force? At what point did it turn into violence? And without that video, you were really going to be left with a kind of a His, her narrative. But that video was a bright line showing the jury that there was not consent at that point. There was a dragging. There was a pulling. There was threats. There was violence used. So I think that that video was pivotal.
SPEAKER_04:And for people who were not in the courtroom, the jury was told you only need to find one instance where this happened. I wonder if that was hard for jurors to even wrap their heads around after seeing days, weeks of testimony where there's a narrative that contradicts this idea that this was consensual, that people were not manipulated, that there wasn't just force involved on one party, but force involved when we talk about the incident involving Jane, where she says in the beginning, well, listen, I took the first blow by knocking his head up against the table. And then the fight continued after that. So without having spoken to any jurors, and that's something we obviously want to do, what do you think was it for them that they just were like, nope, we don't see sex trafficking even once on Cassie or Jane?
SPEAKER_05:It takes a lot to try to get This, you know, these observers to now look at the length of these long relationships when you have violence, this intimate partner violence. And the jury had before them, you know, not only the visual of Miss Ventura. seeing her now pregnant, watching her testify. But then you had the cross, Mr. Combs' attorneys get up and really kind of paint a totally separate picture. And I think that, you know, chipped away at that whole idea of, well, sex trafficking, is it really sex trafficking? There's so many other things that cloud that. Just by way of one example, I've been involved in cases where they're a little bit less clouded. So for example, you have instances where the parties don't know each other, or there's some type of employer-employee relationship, They don't they're not seen on in photos together. They're not seen, you know, smiling together for several years to that. That that that I think really takes down the volume, so to speak, on this whole idea of sex trafficking. Just those two words of itself, sex trafficking, you know, that makes ears perk up that whole trafficking idea. So, you know, in. The common parlance of that word, when we hear trafficking, we expect this type of, you know, dark, hooded, you know, unknown to each other. You don't want to hear about... I think of the
SPEAKER_04:movie Taken. Exactly. Someone grabbing you off the street without really knowing the law. I think you're right. That is the first thought. It's not necessarily someone that you loved, cared about, was in a relationship with. Exactly. What are you hearing in terms of from people that you represent? I mean, what is the community of advocates of, you know, people again in your lane who cover human trafficking? What are they saying and what does this case mean for you?
SPEAKER_05:It's layered. I think that there's certain subgroups or subsets in the world and the universe that I operate in. So you'll have the initial reaction. And I did have actually unsolicited, you know, clients that I've worked with. It was only a small number. They were just talking about how they were watching the trial and how it had triggered some of their past trauma, especially that visual of the video that we all have seen. I think that was really hard for survivors to see and then kind of learn more about the context that that video was in. So that's kind of the initial reaction from survivors. When I speak to other practitioners like myself, other attorneys there's a sense that, yes, this trial was impactful, but did it really, when we think about some of the cases that we deal with, they're not necessarily going to involve celebrated figures and all of them being idols. A lot of the cases that most of us deal with have to do with whether it's church abuse, whether it's institutional abuse. So that's a difference. And within those circles, you think about how much is this media coverage and what was brought out, how much will it really impact this area of law? So it was a varying range of opinions. Do I think that what happened As far as ruling and what we call, you know, making law and procedure, I think that some of what happened, some of the rulings, some I think it will impact how we the laws will be interpreted going forward when you deal with especially these charges in the criminal realm.
SPEAKER_04:How do you think this will impact the government's movement on other potential federal charges as it pertains to racketeering conspiracy? Because while there was a conviction with R. Kelly, This is a moment I would imagine for them to reflect and ask themselves if maybe this wasn't the appropriate charge. I mean, what do you think those conversations are like?
SPEAKER_05:This is definitely an opportunity to educate themselves when they're looking back over, and I'm sure they're doing this, but when they're looking back over this RICO charge, when they're looking over the evidence that they'll use to support it, you know, Some of us, and I would say, you know, colleagues, we've talked about this is an overcharge. And that's always, as a prosecutor, you're always thinking about, you know, are you hurting your case by overcharging it? And I think that that could have been an issue here for them. That in and of itself. And this also being such a highly, you know, publicized trial, you know, seeing the search warrants that were executed. So you'd have to think about maybe going forward and being a little bit more deliberate and slow to charge something like this RICO going forward.
SPEAKER_04:Tomorrow, and hopefully our episode will drop tomorrow, but Tuesday, July 9th, 8th. Combs is expected to appear in court because his attorneys would like them to move up the sentencing day. I mean, initially, as you know, there were questions about whether or not he would go home on the day that the jurors found him guilty on just the Mann Act, two counts. Do you think that's likely to happen? No.
SPEAKER_05:And I know that his attorneys, they make a very persuasive argument. I put the footnote and the reason why I think that it's unlikely, I guess it's not impossible. The reason why I think it's unlikely is because... The very real reality is this is an African-American defendant in the American criminal justice system. And I think that regardless of the resources, I think that that's a very real reality. So, you know, I think that that's impactful and, you know, will. So
SPEAKER_04:are you saying that if Sean Combs was a white man in the same situation, he would have a either gone home or be. Sentencing would
SPEAKER_05:be moved up. I think that it would be more likely. Now, I could stand to be corrected. You know, we'll find out. But I I just when you look back and I am a student of history, when you look back over the the historical context of the criminal justice system, I think that it's unlikely.
SPEAKER_04:So and again, sentencing also not moved up and he doesn't go home.
SPEAKER_05:Right, that's what I think will, I think that's more probable than that will happen.
SPEAKER_04:If you could speak to a juror, what would you ask them? What
SPEAKER_05:witnesses did you need to hear from to return a verdict of guilty on the racketeering charges? I would be interested in learning more What was the gap? I'd also be, I'd want to find out about the charges and also, well, the sex trafficking charge. What other witnesses, what other evidence that was needed? Which witnesses that they heard from that they didn't find credible? that they didn't find believable. Those are also things, you know, and those are things that you learn from and you think about on your, you know, the next case that you're going to bring in this kind, of this kind.
SPEAKER_04:Predictions for what happens to Sean Combs after this?
SPEAKER_05:If I remember correctly, I think that he's, you know, he can get anywhere from 10 to 20, depending how they run these sentences, run the sentence. I'm going to predict somewhere, in the span of five to 10. There is a small part of me that thinks it will be less than five. I won't be surprised at all if it's less than five.
SPEAKER_04:In terms of his legacy, do you see him getting in trouble again with the law? Do you feel like at this moment in time after he serves his time, we don't hear about him? Ever? Like, does he come out with an album? Does he, is there, I mean, there's a lot of civil cases. So he has that also. There's one that I'm watching closely involving a guy by the name of Little Rod. He is a producer who helped Combs with the Love album and said that he lived with Combs for about 13 months. What do you see for him after Prison? A redemption album.
SPEAKER_05:A... a story, a rebranding that once again, I've been tried and this is now speaking and, you know, potential combs, you know, they tried to take me down. They tried to take me out very much a vilification of the government and its case, if not also a vilification of, um, you know, the individuals that testified against him. But I anticipate very much a redemption story. Does he deserve that opportunity? Not in my opinion. Absolutely not. The reason why this, you know, this criminal case was essential is because up until this point, you didn't have a survivor that felt free from retaliation, free from violence enough to speak out and disclose what was happening. It seems to me from the evidence that was brought out, this individual had a reign of terror for decades. For decades, he was on a rip. And whether it was men, men or women, they lived in constant terror. So, you know, Is someone that behaves like that deserving? Absolutely not. Are they deserving of a redemption story? No. One would think and hope that maybe he would take up life in a very quiet way, allow for these survivors to heal and to process. But I know better than that to think that an individual that appears to have this type of ego is going to go quietly.
SPEAKER_04:Judy Saunders, thank you so much for your insight and going through this process with us. The last eight weeks have been pretty heavy and you've been great at just breaking down the other side of this. So we appreciate you. Thank you. Thank you. As for Sean Combs' defense team, this was a win. Here are some of what they had to say after the verdict.
SPEAKER_02:Thank you all for being patient. Am I speaking loud enough? You all can hear me okay? All right. Today's a great victory. It's a great victory for Sean Combs. It's a great victory for the jury system. You saw that the Southern District of New York prosecutors came at him with all that they had. They're not stopping But one thing stands between all of us and a prison, and that is a jury of 12 citizens. And we had a wonderful jury. They listened to every word, and they got the situation right, or certainly right enough. They acquitted him of the sex trafficking, which he was absolutely innocent of. They acquitted him of the racketeering conspiracy that he was absolutely innocent of and all of the components to it. The kidnapping, he was innocent of that. The arson, he was innocent of that. The obstructing justice, he was innocent of that. And that is no longer just me saying that. That is the verdict of our jury. So today is a great day. Today is a win. Today is a victory of all victories for Sean Combs and our legal team. And I want to say one thing. There are very few people around whom a legal team could coalesce and become one. And Sean Combs is that person, and we are all blessed to be part of it. And I am now done speaking to you, and I'm going to turn it over to Ms. Garagos.
SPEAKER_01:All right, I first want to thank my client, Sean Combs, for trusting us, myself and everybody here, this incredible dream team that he put together. Without him, we would not have been able to do this. He is incredible and I want to thank him. I want to thank the jury for putting such great care into this case. They came early every single day and I want to thank them. As I said in my opening, standing between all of us and the drastic consequences of the criminal convictions of sex trafficking, Enrico is a jury of our peers and I thank them. I want to thank the judge and I want to thank I want to thank, despite the terrible conditions at the MDC, I want to thank the good people who work there, who ensured that we had sufficient amount of time to prepare for trial. It is extremely difficult to prepare for a federal case in the conditions at the MDC, and they did everything they could to make that happen. I want to thank them. I also have been saying this since the beginning of this case. Sean Combs has not sexually assaulted anybody. I've been saying this for months. We've said it with each lawsuit that came out, and today that was proven true. The media got it wrong about Sean Combs every single day for nearly two years. I ask that for every time you guys see a civil lawsuit, criminal complaints or criminal indictments, you actually take a look and analyze these and see whether or not these are actually going to stand up So as we just heard
SPEAKER_04:from Judy Saunders, who is a victim's advocate, I thought it was important to also bring on a defense attorney. And today we're going to speak to the one and only Steve Greenberg, who you may know his name because he represented R. Kelly in the beginning of the federal trial in which he also, Kelly, faced racketeering. charges and was convicted of them. Steven Greenberg, thank you for joining us. So what were your thoughts about the outcome?
SPEAKER_03:Well, I think what I said early on was I thought that the government was overreaching here, that I thought that they were invading a relationship. It may have been a toxic relationship, but it wasn't something that should be a crime. And I think that the jurors saw it the same way. The jurors said, look, He hired prostitutes. He took those prostitutes across state lines. He paid for them to go across state lines. They convicted him of doing that. But as far as the rest of it, it was a bad relationship. Did he beat her? Yes. Did he give her drugs? Yes. But are we going to say that this was some sort of a criminal enterprise? No, it wasn't a criminal enterprise. It was a bad relationship. And that's what the jurors saw it as, not a criminal enterprise.
SPEAKER_04:The attorneys for Combs obviously say this was a win for them. They were all smiles after the verdict. They spoke and they said, listen, look at those civil cases that he's facing. If you really look at them closely and carefully, you'll see that he has not done these things that he's accused of. While we were able to help him in this criminal trial. And I'm paraphrasing from the defense team. They believe in Sean Combs and that he is innocent of not only the crimes that he was alleged to have done against Cassie Ventura and the woman we'll call Jane, but there was a challenge to some of those civil cases that still exist. Where do you expect things to go from here?
SPEAKER_03:Well, the civil cases have a different burden. So those are just a preponderance. And a lot of times we see people win in criminal court and lose in civil court. He may very well lose those civil cases. I don't know enough about the facts of those cases. And of course, those are different theories in the civil cases. But it's much the same. I think in a lot of those cases, we have people who were in consensual relationships or consensual acts. And now later on, I think a lot of them are money grabs. They weren't forced to do things. I don't think you're gonna see a lot of evidence of people being forced to do things. These are situations where people years later claim they were mentally coerced to do things. And when the law starts to get into criminalizing or assigning liability to mental coercion, we're sort of asking people to almost be fortune tellers, to get into people's thought process and go back in time and say, was this person in someone else's mind? And could they twist their mind to get them to act in a way that they wouldn't have otherwise acted? That's a very big stretch.
SPEAKER_04:As a defense attorney, and I asked Judy Saunders the same question, what's the conversation like among people that you speak with, other defense lawyers, who are looking at this case, as many people are, including the government, and they're thinking, where did we go wrong? Others are going, wow, what a team. And how did they get this to this point in terms of representing Combs in a way where he is not facing that life in prison that he was facing had he been convicted on racketeering conspiracy?
SPEAKER_03:Look, he had great resources. He had great lawyers. Unfortunately, you said I had represented R. Kelly. R. Kelly, You know, we didn't actually represent him at trial. He unfortunately made some bad choices.
SPEAKER_04:In the beginning, though, you were still with him at the federal, at the very beginning.
SPEAKER_03:We were with him at the beginning in the federal level. We weren't with him at trial. I think if we had represented him at trial, I think you would have seen the same outcome. These laws... Really? Because it was such a different case. But it wasn't that much different. The prosecutors in these cases are taking... discrete acts and small acts, and they're blowing them up. This is not what the laws were intended for. Now, I know everyone says RICO was intended originally for mobsters, but it's used on gangs, and it is intended to be used on more than mobsters. But when you've got things like sex trafficking, sex trafficking was not intended to be used for relationships. Sex trafficking was intended to be used when people are getting the sex workers and they're taking these women and they're holding them hostage and they're making them work and they're transporting them across state lines and they're holding them and forcing them to engage in labor. And I think what we're seeing here is we're seeing that the prosecutors are pushing the laws beyond what they're intended to use them for. The government lawyers said that they're going to keep pressing forward I think they need to reassess and really decide if they're taking the Me Too movement a little bit too far and trying to be the morality police.
SPEAKER_04:You say it was meant for sex workers and people being forced to go across state lines, but we know more about the dynamics of abusive relationships and the psychology involved. Even though he was not found guilty of sex trafficking, some have argued that that that video of her leaving what appeared to have been a freak off where there was an escort in the room is a form of being forced or coerced into something that she did not want to do. So for the people out there, and I'm just, I want to get perspective who are looking at this and thinking, here we go, can't be believed because in this case, oh, she was in a relationship or, oh, she did consent to this other times. And the government kept saying, you only need to prove that there was one time within a racketeering conspiracy statute that you were sex trafficked. How do you answer, I guess, those folks?
SPEAKER_03:Well, and that's where I'm saying that they have to exercise some discretion here. It was obviously a bad relationship. Should he have been prosecuted for beating her up back then? Yes, but we have statutes of limitations. And the statute of limitations on that unfortunately expired. Whether he paid off the people or whatever happened, she didn't come forward back then. And sometimes things can't be prosecuted. And what they're doing is they're taking laws that weren't intended to be used in these ways to get around incidents like that. And they're only using them on certain people. They're using them on celebrities. They're using them on high profile people. to sort of get these trophy prosecutions. That's what we're seeing. And I think that's just an abuse of the law, and that's not what the law was intended for. So they're creatively going after certain people. If it had been Joe Truck Driver, you wouldn't see them do that.
SPEAKER_04:What should we take away from this case?
SPEAKER_03:Well, I think there's a few takeaways. Sean Combs is a bad guy, and he should be absolutely canceled. And you see some people say, oh, is he going to make a great comeback? He should never make a great comeback because he's an awful human being. I think the government should reassess what they're doing with these prosecutions. Maybe they should pass some different laws if they think that these prosecutions should go forward and prosecutions that fit this kind of behavior instead of trying to abuse the laws that are already on the books. And I think that... that everyone should just move forward from here. I
SPEAKER_04:know it's tough to predict, but would always like to get perspective from those who've been in this field for a while. What do you think he'll be sentenced to? He's already served about 10 months behind bars, and we know that he'll get time served in terms of his sentence, which is slated for October. Of course, that could change. How much time do you think he'll face?
SPEAKER_03:Well, in federal court, they have a point system, which is called the federal sentencing guidelines. And it was interesting to see how diverse the two sides thought the guidelines fell here. He doesn't have any criminal history, so he's what they call a first-time offender. The defense think that his guidelines come in somewhere around two years, give or take a few months. The government thinks that they come in somewhere around four years, give or take a few months. There's a lot of different factors. that go into play. The judge, when he was asking to be released on bond, said, your lawyer admitted that you're a violent person. That sort of flags what the judge thinks. So that makes me think that the judge is leaning more towards the government's view because the government's view took into account some of the violence, even though he was acquitted of those charges. And a judge can take into account its sentencing conduct that you were found not guilty of, even though you were found not guilty of it. I think the judge is going to come in seeing it more in the government's view, so more around the four-year range. Now, the government also said that they're going to ask that he be sentenced to consecutive terms, and the judge can do that, but I don't think he's going to do that because it would have to be an awfully egregious case to do that, and he was found not guilty of the conduct So the judge is unlikely to do that. I think he's going to get something around 40 to 44 months in jail.
SPEAKER_04:Steve, it's always a pleasure to speak with you. I guess we'll see you on the next one because I feel like there probably will be a next one.
SPEAKER_03:I'm sure there will be and I look forward to it.
SPEAKER_04:Thanks so much. Thanks. And one more thing, and we'll see if you get to the end of this episode to find out what the one more thing is, but I have a question for you. As a listener, did you enjoy this podcast series? And would you like to hear more? And if we were to continue on the path of offering podcasts on a specific subject matter, what do you want to hear about? Send me your answers on Instagram by searching I am that reporter JD. And this may be the end of this part of my coverage on the Diddy Trial, but it is not the end of this podcast. There's more to come, so stay tuned. Until then, I thank you so much for your love and support. Thank you for listening. 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.
