The Trial: Abuse or Coercion?

This episode is brought to you by KPMG.

Making an impact is how KPMG helps make the difference.

KPMG applies advanced tools and strategic thinking to convert data into actionable knowledge and deliver value by improving performance through transformation, modernizing processes with technology, harnessing the power of data, navigating complex MA transactions, and enhancing trust among stakeholders.

Go to kpmg.us/slash advisory to learn more.

KPMG Make the Difference.

It is Monday, May 12th, and we're about an hour away before the jury is finalized in the case against Sean Combs.

There's quite the line.

From what I've been told, people have been waiting outside since yesterday at 2 p.m.

to get in when courts are not even supposed to start till 8.30.

By some miracle slash by me using my ID as an officer of the court, I was actually one of the first members of the media to walk into the courtroom.

A ton happened the first day in USA v.

Sean Combs.

We got a jury, and as soon as they were seated, we raced into opening statements from both the prosecution and then the defense.

We've even had the first two witnesses take the stand.

In this episode, I'm going to share all of my impressions of day one of Diddy's trial.

My first look at the jury, the arguments each side laid out in their opening statements, and why the defense's argument might be stronger than I originally thought.

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

You're listening to Bad Rap, The Case Against Diddy.

This episode, abuse or coercion.

On the day of opening statements, I see a line that stretches for almost half a block.

Some people are excited.

Some people are furiously scribbling notes.

It's a combination of the press and the public waiting in the same line as we attempt to get into this courtroom that Max only holds about 85 people.

I go through the entrance where Tenny Garagos, Mark Ignifilo, Brian Steele, and all the other defense attorneys walk in.

In fact, I did walk in with them.

As Sean Combs walked into the

with a khaki sweater, white button down underneath, and grey slacks, he immediately started to beam with happiness as he saw his children, smiling, holding his hand over his heart, making a heart symbol to his daughters with both hands as they replied the same way and blowing kisses to his family.

His sons, his daughters, his mother, and at least two rows of family members filled, all in support of Sean Combs, just feet behind him.

Shortly after sitting down, I could tell by looking over his shoulder that he opened up a Bible and began to read before court proceedings began.

The first order of business was to pick a jury to go from 43 prospective jurors to 12 and 6, 12 to deliberate and 6 potential alternates.

It was very quick.

The judge went first to the prosecution: who do you want to eliminate?

They gave a number.

Then to the defense, they gave two numbers and back and forth and back and forth.

Until ultimately, we have 12 jurors and 6 alternates.

All 18 people came into the court.

Once everyone was seated, the judge began to give the jury instructions.

And as he did, I looked from left to right, looking at the different people that encompassed this jury.

Eight men, four women.

But even beyond their gender, the thing that probably stood out to me the most was the age of these jurors.

At least half of the jurors were from the ages of 51 to 74.

And if you take out the 51-year-old, five of them are 67 years old and older.

And the idea that came to me is, not necessarily just from gender, but from age, this could benefit the defense.

Consent is going to be a very big issue in this case, as it's the difference between domestic violence and trafficking.

And if you're asking the question of,

is this consent or not, from my experience,

The older person is, they have a stricter understanding of consent than that of a younger person.

And the definition the defense seems to be working on in this case, it may benefit them more to have an older jury.

And the issue of sex and violence came up in opening statements.

The government began first, painting the picture of Sean Combs being an icon, a leader, someone who people might have even looked up to, but having a very dark side that many did not see, at least not until this case.

They talked about how Sean Combs and Cassie were in a relationship that turned violent.

They also talked about another alleged victim by the name of Jane and Mia.

They said that these individuals, Jane and Cassie, were in a relationship with Sean Combs, and Mia was an employee.

But each one of these individuals were impacted by violence, sexual abuse, or harassment in some way, shape, or form to compel them to do an act, like participating in a well-orchestrated freak off at the behest of Sean Combs.

For the defense, it was an interesting opening statement by Tenny Garragos.

And remember, Sean Combs, he's pled not guilty to all of the charges he's facing.

Unlike many opening statements by the defense, this wasn't the defense simply saying, all of this isn't true.

Instead, Garagos took the position of

Sean Combs is a domestic abuser.

You're going to see things in this case where you're going to say, he's not a good person.

I don't like him.

He did a horrible thing.

And Garrigos said a thing that most defense attorneys don't say, that the actions of her client are indefensible.

But she drew a very fine line between what he did,

saying if this was a domestic violence case, we would not be on trial, and what he's accused of,

saying that these were isolated incidences of domestic abuse and not a 20-year-long criminal enterprise of coercing, forcing, or using fraud to traffic individuals.

That Sean Combs may be guilty of some things, but not the things that he is accused of.

Because at the end of the day, there's a video that the defense cannot get away from, but must instead explain in a way that does not convict Sean Combs, and that seemed to be at the heart of the defense's opening statements.

I was somewhat surprised by the defense's opening statements, because I thought this would have just been an easy, open and shut, nothing to interpret type of defense, where they simply just say, these people are lying, I challenge their credibility, they're making stuff up.

But instead, we're going to have to look at these facts in the case and say,

well, is this an isolated incident of domestic abuse between two people, according to the defense, that are in a violent relationship?

Or was this a pattern in order to coerce, force, or use fraud to control and traffic individuals?

It's a much deeper question to think about than than I thought I would have to in a trial like this.

So for example, this defense was so interesting because while we've seen that intercontinental video so many times, the defense's interpretation of it was that Cassie had seen something on Sean Combs' phone and that this was a violent interaction in which Sean Combs was trying to take back his phone after some sort of jealous argument.

Now, we've all seen that video, but we've never seen it in that light.

And it made me think, do I need to go back and look at this video to better understand it?

And if you can get someone to that point where they can slightly change their perspective of probably the most damning piece of evidence, to me, as a defense attorney, you might be on the right path.

Now, could Cassie testify in a way that obliterates that argument?

Could we look at that video and not see it in the way the defense is arguing?

Absolutely.

But if you can get a jury to second guess, to look again and think, could there be something?

In most worlds, that's the beginning of a good defense.

There were two witnesses that testified at the end of the first day of trial.

First, a former security guard at the Intercontinental who interacted with both Sean Combs and Cassie and what we saw in that very violent interaction on that security camera footage.

The second witness was a male escort that testified they came to New York City under the guise of believing they were going to perform at a bachelorette or a bachelor party, but instead found themselves in a hotel with just Sean Combs and Cassie.

Now, The first witness laid out a few important facts.

First, this was the individual that apparently had videotaped the actual video footage of Cassie being violently beaten by Sean Combs.

He testified about looking at that video, making an incident report, and an interaction with Sean Combs where he alleges Combs had put some wad of money in his hand, which he believed was a bribe to make sure that video footage never got out.

Again, another aspect the government will argue is a form of hiding the evidence, obstructing justice that goes into that racketeering conspiracy.

The second witness talked about the interaction with Cassie.

That again, he thought he was going to be an escort for some form of a party, but instead was directed to have sex with Cassie while Sean Combs directed and watched the incident.

Sean Combs, according to the escort, also violently assaulted Cassie, pulling her by the hair as he said nothing.

Both witnesses described shocking violence.

The former security guard mentioning a malicious or menacing stare by Sean Combs.

The escort talking about the violence and brutality, all to push back on the arguments from the defense that there was no malicious look,

there was no trafficking in this.

That this, as they argued, was domestic violence and not a form of trafficking.

At the end of the day,

the court doesn't get up and tell us, and this witness will testify next, and then that witness will testify next, but there are some clues as to who will be the next witness to testify.

Before the trial began, we heard arguments that Cassie Ventura would be the third witness to testify, but we've already gone through two.

There's also rules of evidence that a person cannot testify to evidence or certain observation that have not already been put into evidence.

What do I mean by that?

Before Cassie can testify about the video, someone has to help bring that video into evidence, like the former security guard who recorded it.

Before Cassie may be able to describe events that a third party viewed and their interpretation of it, that third party may have to testify to it first, the male escort.

Those people are already out of the way.

So after laying that foundation, the next thing that makes the most sense is to have Cassie Ventura herself now fill in the gaps, go beyond what those two witnesses testified, and give her side of the story.

The other very real-world application as to why Cassie Ventura will more likely than not be testifying this morning, by all accounts, she is pregnant.

Pregnant to the point that one would assume she needs to testify sooner rather than later so she can go home and give birth to her third child.

It's probably why court is going until 5 p.m.

this week and only 3 p.m.

for the rest of the trial, in order to give this woman the ability to testify, have her day in court, and then go be with her family.

Hello, Nigel here.

I couldn't help noticing that you're still awake.

Now, I'm an owl.

I'm supposed to be up at night, but you need your sleep.

So, if it's your allergy symptoms that are keeping you up, here's a word to the wise: Try Xyzole.

You see, Zyzole works fast to relieve sneezing, runny nose, itchy watery eyes, and itchy nose and throat.

And it keeps going strong for 24 hours so you can get your sleep and wake up refreshed and ready for a productive day ahead.

Be wise, all.

Take Zeisall at night.

Users direct and start working in 45 minutes.

When you travel well, your KLM Royal Dutch Airlines ticket takes you to more than just your destination.

It takes you to winding streets, spontaneous detours, and the realization that neither of you is actually good with directions.

Recalculating route.

And when the final shortcut taken isn't exactly short, welcome aboard KLM Royal Airlines.

Our crew is here to give you a trip home that goes just as planned.

KLM Royal Dutch Airlines.

When you travel, travel well.

Church's Smokehouse Chicken is back, but not for long.

Get an original or spicy ham chicken with a honey butter biscuit and a jalapeno starting at $5.99.

Offer valid at participating locations.

Tax extra.

We have a brand new phone number where you can call in and leave us messages with your thoughts and questions about the case.

We've had a great response so far, including a question we're going to dig into today.

Andy G from Reno, Nevada sent in this question.

Hi, Brian.

Thank you for all your updates and information on the Diddy case.

I have been just fixated since I heard about his charges.

My question is, how come Sean Combs was present during jury selection?

What part does he have in selecting prospective jurors?

Well, thanks, Andy.

So to answer that question, a criminal defendant has the right to be part of each and every part of the proceeding against him.

And so Sean Combs can be there during jury selection.

And the part that he has in playing in it is that he can contribute.

He has the ability to say to his attorneys, I feel good about this prospective juror.

I don't feel good about this juror.

He can look and see and weigh in on how he thinks these jurors should be sculpted based on their responses, based on their body language, whatever it may be.

Now, ultimately, the defense attorney has the final word, but they're your client.

You help them defend their case.

And so participation is a big aspect of being a part of a case for both the defendant and their attorney.

Thanks, Andy, for the question.

So.

If you have any questions for me, I'd love to hear them.

You might even hear me answer your question on the air.

Give us a call at 646-504-3221.

That's it for Bad Rap, The Case Against Diddy.

I'm Brian Buckmeyer.

If you're looking for even more coverage of the Diddy trial, you can check out ABC News Live's daily show, Burden of Proof, The Case Against Diddy.

The show streams weekdays at 5.30 p.m.

Eastern on ABC News Live.

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

We'll be back in your feed with more updates later this week.

Bad Rap, The Case Against Diddy, is a production of ABC Audio.

Thanks for listening.

Take your fantasy football draft to the next level.

With 95-7 the game and splash at Thrive City in San Francisco, you and 14 friends could score your own private view lounge.

The best seat in the house for game day energy.

Two full hours of draft time with complimentary Wi-Fi power for your laptops, a loaded draft day food station with non-alcoholic drinks, plus a dedicated server, all of $1,500 value.

And here's the kicker.

Willard and Dibs will be broadcasting live that night, then hanging out with you and your guests after the show.

Listen this week for your chance to win.

And join us Tuesday, August 26th.

Get details at 957thegame.com.

Fridays, Project Runway is back in dramatic fashion.

This is more stressful than Cinderella at the ball.

Welcome to the runway.

Heidi Klum returns as host.

One day you're in, and the next day, you're out.

I'm here to show them who's the queen.

With Christian Siriano.

I'm excited.

And judges Nina Garcia and Law Roach.

I hated your dress.

Hate is such a big word.

It's a short word, it's only four letters.

Project Runway, new episodes Fridays.

Stream on Hulu and Disney Plus.