The Trial: A Heated Cross

A silly masages can

be extravagant.

Ocho configuraciones different configurations, intensidad gustable intensity to more calendar,

and

also

masages can be parcel extravagant, and

a mass.

But when these masages biennal

self-ante practices, the new Volksbagen Teguando 2015 with functions first, like the

masages disponible, solo parents extravagant.

This is Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy.

I'm Brian Buckmeyer, an ABC News legal contributor and practicing attorney.

This episode, a heated cross.

Here we are, week four of what was originally expected to be an eight-week trial for Sean Diddy Combs, but now maybe closer to six since the prosecution says it's running a bit ahead of schedule.

This week, the trial picked up where it left off last week, with the cross-examination of the prosecution's 21st witness, Mia, an alleged victim, testifying under a pseudonym.

She's also known as Victim 4 in the federal indictment.

Last week, Mia told jurors the rap mogul threatened her for years, threw objects at her, and sexually assaulted her on three occasions, including raping her her while she was sleeping in his Los Angeles home.

Brian Steele led the defense team's cross-examination of Mia.

You'll recall him as the hotshot attorney from the young thug Rico case in Atlanta that wrapped up at the end of 2024.

Steele joined the Combs team shortly before the trial started, and his cross has put a lot of pressure on Mia.

He questioned why she waited until June of last year to tell prosecutors she had been sexually assaulted by Combs, noting that was six months after she began meeting meeting with prosecutors and seven months after Cassie filed her, quote, viral lawsuit.

He also asked Mia about a story she told jurors last week about how she and Cassie escaped Combs by powderboarding out to sea on a trip in Turks and Caicos.

There aren't any texts, emails, or photos to support her story.

Was that just made up by you?

Steele asked.

No, Mia said.

Steele also asked Mia whether she hired a lawyer in 2024 because she wanted to join the Me Too money grab against Sean Combs.

The prosecution objected to that, and the judge agreed, so Mia didn't answer the question.

Outside the jury's presence, the prosecution said Mia had endured a humiliating cross-examination, quote, crossing the threshold into harassing and unduly embarrassing.

Judge Arun Subramanian said he saw no improper treatment, but he did caution Steele about the form of his questions.

I loved answering listener questions a couple weeks ago, and you all have continued to call in.

We've even had international callers.

So it's interesting to hear what parts of this trial and our legal system stick out to you all.

So this episode, we'll spend some more time getting to the heart of what you want to know.

Non-disclosure agreements or NDAs, consent, and why one of the alleged victims expected to testify may be a no-show.

And at the end of the episode, we'll also get an update straight from President Trump about the possibility of a pardon for Diddy and hear from Diddy rival Suge Knight.

ABC spoke to him in prison about what he thinks should happen to Diddy.

All right, let's dig into these questions.

Hi, Brian.

My name is Samani, and I had a quick question that I was hoping you would clarify.

So I'm curious how Cassie's settlement plays into the situation.

Since she settled, I think you said in 2023, I assume she also signed an NDA.

Is that a breach of contract now that she's speaking publicly?

Or does the settlement not at all count towards what's happening now?

That's a great question.

And as a reminder about Cassie's civil lawsuit in 2023, it was settled in a day with no admission of guilt.

And we learned at trial they settled for $20 million.

Now,

we don't know whether or not Cassie actually signed a a non-disclosure agreement.

But when it comes to the general practice of cases like this, the parties typically do sign an NDA.

It's probably why Cassie hasn't spoken about this case outside of a criminal setting.

And it's probably why, for example, when Sean Combs gave that apology to Cassie after the Intercontinental video came out, he didn't mention her name.

Now, when it comes to criminal activity, you cannot NDA those away.

A person cannot, for example, commit a crime against an individual and say, you know what, I'm going to give you a million dollars.

And if you sign this contract, you take the money and you can't talk about this.

Because if a state or federal prosecutor's office files a subpoena and requires you to testify about a criminal action, that NDA cannot stop you from testifying.

And that, at least if there is an NDA in the civil lawsuit between Cassie and Cohn's, she would still be required to testify without any form of breach of contract to that NDA.

Okay.

Next listener question.

Hi, this is Kelly from Ohio.

My question is around the consent part of this case and the burden of proof as it relates to the rest of the case.

My understanding is consent isn't a blanket permission flip and that consent can be revoked at any time.

So at any time, if someone says no, that's enough, then it has to stop.

So even if she did seemingly consent frequently, does the prosecution just need to show that consent was not given or revoked at least one time?

And if so, does that lack of consent have to directly tie to the transportation across state lines, et cetera?

Do they have to show illegal activity from start to finish for at least one of the free golf sessions?

Or can it be bits and pieces proven in different states?

Thank you.

Great work on the show.

Kelly from Ohio.

What a question.

Let me see if I can break it down and answer every piece of it.

I love it.

I love it because you're really thinking.

And I appreciate the question.

So, yes, you are 100% correct that consent is not a blanket permission slip.

It does have to continually happen throughout the action.

So to give you a more PG version, if my wife and I are holding hands from the time that I grab her hand until the time that I let go of it, if she lets me, I have to have consent of that the entire time.

If halfway through holding her hand, she revokes that consent and I keep holding her hand, then yes, that would be an unconsensual touching.

What the defense is attempting to say is that through that entirety of that, using the example, hand-holding, consent was always there.

But when the action stopped happening, the person then looked back and said, you know what?

I think I was uncomfortable.

I think I gave or I took away consent.

That's the argument the defense is making.

But you are 100% right that consent must occur throughout the entirety of the course of action.

When it comes to the consent and it applying directly to the transportation across state lines, again, you're really hitting the nail on the head here when it comes to the fact that that's a federal crime and not a state crime.

The consent would have to touch on both the wanting to participate in the freak offs, going to the freak offs, participating in the freak offs.

It would have to be there the entire time.

But the argument the defense is making here is she wanted to go.

And I think in one of their questions and answers that she gave was, well, I didn't like the freak offs, but I liked the time that I spent with Sean Combs.

And the defense is saying that Cassie and those who are following with these charges wanted to participate in these actions, but it's after the fact that they have remorse.

The prosecution is making the argument that there was never consent here, that Cassie could not choose for herself to participate in this, and they're also highlighting the massive degree of violence to showcase that no one would willingly participate in this.

So they're taking out the idea of consents altogether.

All right, next listener question.

This is Sarah from South Carolina.

And earlier on the podcast, you talked about Diddy possibly taking the stand.

In what ways would that benefit the prosecution team?

And in what ways would that benefit the defense team?

Thank you.

Bye.

Sarah, thank you for the question.

Now,

as the case continues on, I'm less and less sure that Sean Combs is actually going to take the stand, but it is everyone, including Sean Combs,'s constitutional right as to whether or not he takes the stand.

As an attorney, you can only advise your client as to whether or not it's a smart idea or a bad idea, and they ultimately make that decision.

So we'll see what he decides.

The way that defense is arguing the case, if Sean Combs was to take the stand, I guess he would follow in line with what his attorneys are now saying, that there was domestic abuse.

At least it applies to Cassie.

But Sean Combs could potentially get up there and be very apologetic, very charismatic.

He could admit to the domestic abuse in a way that he's never done before.

Because, again, he's always said that the sexual contact was consensual and he's never sexually assaulted anyone.

Maybe he gained some credibility by admitting to some things, but then denying the actual charges he's facing.

That could help him if he testifies.

Okay,

let's get to our next listener.

Hi, good afternoon.

I'm calling from Atlanta, Georgia.

And I was wondering, when it comes to the question of sex trafficking

and prostitution, I thought that it was the person that's providing the service, if you will, that is charged with prostitution or trafficking, and that the person that's receiving the services would be charged with solicitation.

So, in the case of Diddy, if he is the quote-unquote client, do they still define that as

engaging in prostitution and and trafficking.

Thank you.

Thank you for the question and I understand why there might be a little bit of confusion.

So let me try to see if I can do this.

You ask about sex trafficking and prostitution.

I understand why you're asking about prostitution, but Sean Combs is not being charged with that here.

He might have engaged in some of those actions, but to be more specific, he's being charged with transportation to engage in prostitution.

So the moving of people across state lines to engage in this act.

You are correct that if someone solicits the work of a sex worker, that would be solicitation or prostitution, but that's not how he's being charged here.

When it comes to sex trafficking, it's not that you're soliciting the services of a sex worker, it's that you are forcing someone to participate in that role through force, fraud, or coercion.

Oftentimes, when you buy the services of a sex worker, you're not using force, fraud, or coercion.

You're just giving them money to do that service.

That's why sex trafficking and prostitution are very different.

It might be the same outcome, but how you do it is very different.

And the government feels that the charge of sex trafficking is more precise as to what Sean Combs has allegedly done, and prostitution on its face is generally more a state charge, not a federal one.

Just ahead, what's going on with Victim 3, and could the jury consider lesser charges?

More after the the break.

So good, so good, so good.

Ready to rack to school and save big?

Get to your Nordstrom rack store today for thousands of deals from just $20.

Cause I want to look fresh.

How did I not know rack has Adidas?

I got a new backpack.

Score everyone's favorite denim, sneakers, boots, and activewear from Nike, Levi, Steve Madden, Madewell, and Free People.

Great brands, great prices.

Everyone's got a reason to rack.

Shop Nordstrom rack and make it the best school year ever.

Hi, I'm Dustin, your friend and jeweler at Shane Company.

If you're shopping for an engagement ring, we want you to feel like a kid in a candy store.

All of our diamonds are in stock, in-store and online, so you get to use your eyes, not your imagination.

Come in and look at marquee-shaped diamonds right next to ovals and pairs.

As your friend and jeweler, you can trust you'll get your dream diamond at an everyday competitive price.

We have the widest selection in store and at Shaneco.com because a friend knows choosing a diamond is personal.

Shane Company, your friend and jeweler.

Make your next vacation unforgettable.

On Royal Caribbean's newest ship, Star of the Seas, it's everything you've loved about every family vacation you've ever been on with mind-blowing thrills at the largest water park at sea, seven onboard pools for every level of chill, more than 40 ways to dine and drink, and even more to enjoy at our award-winning private island perfect day at Coco Kay.

This is the new star of the seas.

Click or tap the banner to find out more.

Here's a question a few of you seem to be curious about based on the questions we've gotten.

The alleged victim, referred to in the case as Victim 3.

Victim 3 was in the indictment and she was expected to testify in court.

But there's been some reporting these last couple of weeks that even even though she was served a subpoena to appear as a witness for the government, she's not going to show.

You might be wondering, how is that possible?

How can someone just ignore a government subpoena like that?

Well, first,

we don't know if she's ignoring it, but ignoring a government subpoena is considered contempt of court.

That is a crime.

Could the federal government force her to come in, send the marshals, and go get her?

Yes.

Could they get her on the stand to testify?

Absolutely.

But this is an alleged victim by the very definition of the government.

And so do you want to force someone who you believe was the victim of this type of crime to take the stand and force them to testify like that?

I don't think so.

And so they may not just call her.

And they may not try to prosecute her for contempt of court.

Okay, last listener call for today.

Hi, my name is EJ.

I'm calling from Los Angeles.

And my question for you is this.

When instructions are given to the jury after the trial is completed, is it possible that they are allowed to consider lesser versions of the charges that are being brought against Diddy?

Generally speaking, are the jurors going to be allowed to consider variations of the charges that are being brought against Diddy?

Thank you very much.

Really enjoying the contest.

E.J.

from LA, I love this question.

Anytime I can be a little bit of a legal nerd, I love diving into it.

So I appreciate you for this.

EJ, you and I might be a little bit ahead of the class.

So let me first explain what a lesser included crime is.

A lesser included offense in criminal law refers to a crime that is encompassed within a more serious crime.

What does that mean?

I think most people know what petit larceny is and what grand larceny is.

Well, In the state of New York, petit larceny is theft of anything under $1,000.

Grand larceny, therefore, is anything over a thousand dollars.

And if you want to get really to the top, like grand larceny in the first degree in New York, that's over a million dollars.

So let's say EJ and I, EJ, we're partners in crime now, we go and steal a million dollars, right?

In order for us to steal a million dollars, we must have obviously stolen a thousand dollars.

And so if the government catches us and they charge us with this crime, they would charge us with both grand larceny in the first degree and petit larceny.

And of course, all the larceny is in between, because the petit larceny would be a lesser included crime of the grand larceny, because in order to commit grand larceny, you have to commit petit larceny.

But the reason why I don't think that's going to happen here in these charges is because there are no lesser included crimes to RICO.

There are no lesser included crimes to sex trafficking.

There are no lesser included crimes to transportation to engage in prostitution.

Those are just the crimes.

You can't do something like less of transportating.

You can't like get someone just up to the state line and then not bring them over to the state line and be like, well, it's a lesser included to transportation to engage in prostitution.

Some crimes have lesser included, some don't.

The one that Sean Combs is facing doesn't appear to have them.

But great question.

Thank you so much.

To circle back to a listener question from a couple episodes back, a listener asked if President Trump could pardon Sean Combs.

The answer was yes.

This is a federal case.

The president has that power.

At the time, we'd asked ABC's political team to check with the White House to see what they could find out about the possibility of a pardon.

They spoke with a source who said that a pardon for Diddy was not being considered.

But we have an update.

President Trump was asked last Friday if he'd considered pardoning Diddy.

Here's what he said.

First of all, I'd look at what's happening.

And I haven't been watching it too closely, although it's certainly getting a lot of coverage.

I haven't seen him.

I haven't spoken to him in years.

He used to really like me a lot, but I think when I ran for politics, he sort of that relationship busted up from what I read.

I don't know.

He didn't tell me that, but I'd read some little bit nasty statements in the paper all of a sudden, you know.

The president wrapped up his remarks suggesting a pardon for Sean Combs isn't out of the question.

I don't know.

I would certainly look at the facts.

If I think somebody was mistreated,

whether they like me or don't like me, it wouldn't have any impact.

And in another interesting development outside the courthouse, our ABC colleagues got an interview over the weekend with one of Diddy's longtime rivals, whose name has come up at least 50 times in the trial so far.

Marion Shuge Knight, who once led Death Row Records, was viewed by many as Sean Combs' chief competitor when he was at his peak in the hip-hop world.

Knight is currently serving a 28-year sentence for voluntary manslaughter, stemming from a 2015 fatal hit and run that's not connected to Combs's case.

Shuge Knight.

An incarcerated individual act.

In a series of phone interviews from prison Saturday, Shuge described what he alleges was a toxic culture of abuse in parts of the hip-hop industry that he said certainly to not start with Combs.

Don't get me wrong.

He did terrible things, but he just didn't come up with those stuff and those ideas on his own, you know?

But Shuge doesn't think Combs should spend the rest of his life in prison.

That's why I don't feel that they should take Pumpy and lock him up and throw away the key.

I think he can do so much good right now.

Him telling the truth about the industry.

You can find the full Shuge Night story on the ABC News website.

You've been listening to Bad Rap the Case Against Diddy.

Thanks to all of you who called in and left a question.

If you have a question for me, I'd love to hear it.

Leave a message at 929-388-1249.

We'll try to play as many of them as we can and answer them on this podcast.

If you appreciate our coverage, please share the Bad Rap podcast and give us a rating on Apple Podcasts or Spotify.

If you're looking for more analysis of the Diddy trial every night of the week, you can check out Burden of Proof, the case against Diddy.

It streams weekdays at 5.30 Eastern on ABC News Live.

You can also find it on Disney Plus, Hulu, or on most of your favorite streaming apps.

The top stories, biggest headlines, entertainment buzz, and viral moments.

You give us less than 10 minutes and we'll give you what you need to know.

Your new daily must-have habits.

Start your day with what you need to know.

Now streaming on Disney Plus.

In March 2017, police in Ketchiken, Alaska got a worried call.

And I haven't heard from them, so I'm getting worried.

It was about a beloved surgeon, one of just two in town, named Eric Garcia.

When police officers arrived to check on the doctor, they found him dead on a couch.

Is it a suicide?

Is it a murder?

What is it?

From ABC Audio and 2020, Cold-Blooded Mystery in Alaska is out now.

Listen wherever you get your podcasts.