Front Burner - How the Diddy case fell apart

Episode Date: July 4, 2025

After a long and very public trial, producer and music mogul Sean Diddy Combs has been found not guilty of the most severe charges against him.On Wednesday he was acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking, but found guilty on lesser charges - two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. This was widely considered as a huge victory for Diddy.During the trial, prosecutors had accused him of running an extensive sex trafficking operation. And that he did so with the help of a network of employees.Diddy's lawyers argued all the sex at issue in the case was consensual.Anoushka Mutanda-Dougherty is a BBC journalist and host of the podcast, Diddy on Trial. She talks to Elaine Chau about the verdict, what led to this win for Diddy in federal court, and what it might mean for the #MeToo movement more broadly.For transcripts of Front Burner, please visit: https://www.cbc.ca/radio/frontburner/transcripts

Over 613,000 Canadian small businesses use TikTok to grow and succeed. Like Chez Mag Fine Canteen on Ile d'Orléans in Quebec, who went from feeding crowds to feeding the local economy. Or Smudge the Blades in Fort Saskatchewan, Alberta, who uses TikTok to grow their business while supporting Indigenous youth. Visit TikTokCanada.ca to learn more about how TikTok is helping small businesses in Canada make a big impact. This is a CBC Podcast.

Hi, I'm Elaine Chao and for Jamie Poisson. After a long and very public trial, producer of music mogul Sean Diddy Combs has been found not guilty of the most severe charges against him. On Wednesday he was acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking, but found guilty on lesser charges – two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. This was widely considered as a huge victory for Diddy. Today is a great day. Today is a win. Today is a victory of all victories for Sean Combs and our legal team. During the trial, prosecutors had accused him of running an extensive sex trafficking operation. They alleged that he coerced two former girlfriends,

R&B singer Cassie Ventura, and a woman who went by the pseudonym Jane, into unwanted sex with male prostitutes at drug-fueled sex parties that he would host, known as freak-offs, and that he did so with the help of a network of employees. Diddy's lawyers argued that all the sex-hat issue in the case was consensual.

Anushka Mutanda-Dowry is a BBC journalist and host of the podcast Diddy on Trial. She's here to talk about the verdict, what led to this win for Diddy in federal court, and what it might mean for the Me Too movement more broadly. Hi Anushka, welcome to Front Burner. Hi. So before we dig into how we kind of arrived at this mixed verdict,

I just wanna take a moment to talk about the scenes that we saw inside and outside the courtroom throughout this trial. It's been a real frenzy, especially on Wednesday after the verdict came down. Can you describe and contrast that for me? Yeah, I think the thing that you can't help but notice is the juxtaposition between what's going on inside the courtroom and what's going on outside, which is just pure lunacy. I mean, I can't even describe some of the stuff we were seeing after the verdict was announced, people stripping their tops off, spraying baby oil on each other, giving out shirts that say,

it's a freeco, not a Rico. I mean, this turned into almost an entertainment level event. This is a criminal trial that the federal government has accused a private individual of very serious crimes but outside you could have mistaken it for a party. I mean there was dance circles, people were rapping to his music. Inside the courtroom it was extremely tense, it was a similar atmosphere that we've seen on those big days, Cassie when she testified, when she testified, as we all waited to hear the verdict, the jury were very prompt with getting that back to us. But actually, after it was read out, there were cheers and claps in the overflow room,

which is not something you usually see. There were cheers and claps inside the actual courtroom itself. So serious intense before it was read out. But then after that, there was a jubilant atmosphere at the court, which was extremely interesting to see. And the support for Diddy became even more vocal than it had been in previous weeks. What were some of the things that you heard inside the court room? Yeah. So I think that the first thing that really stands out is after the verdict was read. I mean, when Diddy was hearing the verdict, he kept his head down, he was kind of slouched in his chair. But afterwards, while his defense team were all

congratulating each other, he got onto his knees, faced his chair, put his head on the leather pillow and began to pray. So the reaction from that for a lot of people in the courtroom was, you need to make yourself right with God. Yes, it's right. He needs to talk to God. Right now, this is between him and God. So there was a lot of sort of positive response to him taking a time to pray after the verdict. And then people were saying on one half of the room, this is terrible. This is going to reverse everything that we worked for with Me Too and the cultural shifts that we saw with that. And then the other half, it was really, look at what the federal government has done. The overreaching power, the overreaching arm of the federal government prying into a private

individual's sex life and casting judgment where it has absolutely no business being. So impassioned opinions on both sides. And of course it did get quite heated, which is why they ultimately locked down the block. I mean, there were many, many NYPD officers there, and they were worried about it becoming physically aggressive. And there were instances where it did bubble up. So impassioned opinions and people willing to fight for them. Help me understand the mixed verdict here. So starting with the charges that Didi has been found guilty on. So that's transportation to engage in prostitution. And what does that mean? Yeah, so transportation to engage in prostitution is arguably, I don't think anybody would disagree

here, the lightest one, it carries the lowest sentence. It is literally does what it says on the tin. He was transporting people for the purposes of prostitution. In this case, it pertains to Cassie, a former romantic partner, and Jane, who's also a former romantic partner, who's using a pseudonym to a former romantic partner, and Jane, who's also a former romantic partner, who's using a pseudonym to protect her identity. And they're saying that he was moving people over state lines and in different countries as well for the purposes of engaging in prostitution. And they outlined that these freak-offs, these days-long drug-fuelled orgies with male commercial sex workers, that was the prostitution. That's where it was happening. And the defense, you know, rebutted this from day one, saying, you're accusing his former romantic partners of being prostitutes.

That's kind of a misunderstanding of what the government is saying. There are laws that are broken there, and then of course, that is what the jury ultimately found. There was enough evidence to convict him of that specific crime. And that he could face up to 20 years in prison over those particular charges, right? Yes. I mean, we have to wait to see what happens with sentencing because they're both going to put up very robust arguments for why he should get a lot less time.

They started to do that yesterday in the bail hearing. The prosecution are kind of coming very hard and talk about the extenuating circumstances and factors, particularly the fact that he has admitted to being so violent over so many years, that's going to come up. So we have to wait and see at sentencing what the judge decides. You were mentioning earlier kind of the jubilance in the courtroom when the verdict was announced and this has been really largely seen as a big victory for Diddy and his legal team. You know, he's been acquitted of racketeering and sex trafficking. The jury was really in a deadlock over the racketeering charge in particular, that he was accused of racketeering conspiracy under the RICO Act.

This is, of course, just as a reminder, the statute that was originally created to take on mob bosses. And Anoushka, can you remind us of what the prosecutor's case was for this? And what evidence were they presenting for it? Emma McAllister All right. So RICO, racketeering with conspiracy, is an extremely difficult charge to understand. And nobody should feel bad about that because even when it was introduced by the federal government, they didn't quite know what it was. It is a charge designed to take down the mob, criminal enterprises, organized crime networks, and target the person at the top. So in order to take somebody down with a RICO charge, you need predicate offenses. And you need

to prove that there were two and there was a pattern of racketeering and that that person had a co-conspirator. So as the prosecution were building their case, they were outlining what these predicate offenses were. We have arson on there, we have forced labor on there, sex trafficking is on there as well, even though that was also a substantive charge separate to the RICO. We have drug trafficking on there. So they were going through these predicate offences and trying to prove that more than one was committed. And then they have to substantiate the idea that Diddy, in this case, had a co-conspirator. So they introduced this, what they referred to as loyal lieutenants, this inner circle of his security guards and particularly his chief of staff, Christina Quorum, who they

said was his right hand. She knew everything about him. They worked together very closely. And they said that they conspired to run this criminal enterprise that was specifically there to facilitate Diddy's sexual proclivities. So already there, you have about a million caveats, a million different things you have to find him guilty of, and then it has to be another part and another part. So it's very tricky for the jury to listen to all of that evidence, break it down in their heads. They're not legal analysts and then come out with a verdict. So this is why this has to be the most robust one when it's argued and clearly they found that just the evidence to just not meet the

burden of proof. And it was not there to say that this man ran a criminal enterprise from 2004 to 2024. Anushka, some attorneys and experts say that the racketeering charge was an overreach by the government. And is that an argument that you heard as well? Absolutely. I think from day one, people were saying, how is this a criminal enterprise? First of all, they didn't call any co-conspirators to the stand. So he was charged by himself in a RICO case, which is very, once again, very confusing for a jury and led to a lot of very vertical critique where they're saying, well, clearly they can't prove that there's co-conspirators. And if they can't prove that there's co-conspirators and if they can't prove that there's co-conspirators, then they shouldn't be raising this charge

against them. And they felt, a lot of people felt, you know, yes, he ran companies, he was a boss, he asked people to do certain things as part of their job. That's not beyond the pale. Lots of bosses do that. I'll go and pick this up from the store for me. And so when the prosecution are arguing, when a specific assistant has picked up a bottle of baby oil, that is them facilitating the sex trafficking of these women, that's that a lot of people felt that was quite a leap. And when you reword it and you rephrase it and you look at it from another angle, which is, of course, what the defense were working to do in their closing arguments,

you can present the idea that this is completely normal. These people were doing this, it was Diddy's personal life, but you picking up a bottle of baby oil from a corner shop does not make a co-conspirator. So there's a very vocal critique about the fact that they charged him with RICO from the start. And legal analysts will tell you that that was what people were most skeptical of and didn't think that they were going to get him on. Which of course they didn't. And over the course of the trial, what did we hear from the defense to persuade the jury that this wasn't racketeering?

I mean the thing that they went hardest on in particular in their closing arguments, because obviously they didn't really introduce much of a defense, it was about 30 minutes, was re-narrativizing some of the stuff we'd heard about people like Christina Coram. The prosecution were clearly going for Christina Coram as the co-conspirator, his chief of staff. And so when Mark at Ignifilo, Diddy's lead counsel got up there on closing arguments, he said, everybody should have a KK. They call her a KK. She's the sweetest person. She's the most helpful person in the world. She can't do enough for people. And her name has been dragged through the mud. And she's not like that at all. And all she wanted to do was make everybody happy.

And then they pull out different parts of people's testimony that's sort of aligned with that presentation. So Cassie's former best friend, Kerry Morgan, she also said that Christina Quorum was very sweet and very nice and very innocent. So it was really picking away at the key elements of Rico that the prosecution had tried to establish. And of course, you can't have Rico without a co-conspirator. So painting Christina Quorum as this lovely person who could just wanted to help and just wanted to do anything to make her boss happy well that really damaged the idea that she was part of a criminal enterprise and a key part of a criminal enterprise.

Welcome to the Dudes Club, a brotherhood supporting men's health and wellness. Established in the Vancouver downtown Eastside in 2010, the Dudes Club is a community-based organization that focuses on indigenous men's health, many of whom are struggling with intergenerational trauma, addiction, poverty, homelessness, and chronic diseases. The aim is to reduce isolation and loneliness, and for the men to regain a sense of pride and purpose in their lives. As a global health care company, Novo Nordisk is dedicated to driving change for a healthy world. It's what we've been doing since 1923. It also takes the strength and determination of the communities around us, whether it's through disease awareness,

fighting stigmas and loneliness, education, or empowering people to become more active. Novo Nordisk is supporting local change makers because it takes more than medicine to live a healthy life. Leave your armor at the door. Watch this paid content on CBC Gym. Book club on CBC Gym. have a routine. And it's good for your eyes too, because with regular comprehensive eye exams at Specsavers, you'll know just how healthy they are. Visit Specsavers.ca to book your next eye exam. Eye exams provided by independent optometrists.

And what about the sex trafficking charges? How did the prosecution and the defense make their cases on that front? So the sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion is so important. We remember the methods through which they alleged sex trafficking took place because the key piece of evidence here, which wasn't a shock to anybody, was that CNN footage of Diddy assaulting Cassie in the hallway of a hotel in 2016. Now the prosecution pointed to that as a direct example of sex trafficking by force. They're saying they alleged that that was taking place

in the middle of a freak-off, and that when you see Diddy dragging Cassie back down the hallway by her hair, he is literally dragging her back to one of those sexual encounters. And they're saying that is the clearest presentation you could get of sex trafficking by force. Now, sex trafficking by coercion is trickier,

and sex trafficking by fraud is trickier. They're far more intangible concepts. But for instance, with Jane, who was the second romantic partner we heard from who's using a pseudonym to protect our identity, they were saying Diddy would promise her trips, he promised her alone time, he'd promise her quality time with him, date nights, et cetera, to get her to do these freak-offs. Hey baby we had a great time, stay in the light, get your rest, you are the crack pipe. That's my new name for you crack pipe, or should I call you CP. Now go rest up, get

in your bag, got your contract and yeah, I had a great time. And he would reiterate these promises, he'd repeat them multiple times and he knew that she believed, this is what they allege, that this was going to happen and they say she was frauded into taking part in these freak offs because she thought after she did it, she would get this one on one time, this quality time, this romantic side of him that she loved so much, but that never really came. And so that is sex trafficking by fraud. And then coercion, of course, they spoke a lot about financial coercion, particularly with Cassie. He was her boss. He controlled her career. She'd signed to a 10 album deal with him. So he had her phones, her cars, her houses were all paid for by him. And they say that is a clear example of financial coercion because she couldn't say anything

or speak out. Otherwise, she would literally be left destitute. So that's kind of how they unpacked force, fraud, or coercion as methods of sex trafficking. And the defense's rebuttal around that was to really portray, you know, using a series of text messages that the relationships were consensual and that there was no coercion going on, right? Yeah. And I think the important thing that we have to remember is if a Diddy, it's new or should have known. Did he know or should he have known that these women didn't want to participate in these freak-offs, these hotel nights, these

wild king nights. How was he supposed to know if the messages that they're sending him are extremely graphic and they talk about being sexually aroused by these very encounters and they describe sexual fantasies and the defense presented so many of them. It makes you pause and consider, well, maybe he didn't know. And that pause and that consideration, that's reasonable doubt. And if they could make it, even just one of the jurors have reasonable doubt that he knew or should have known, then you have your way in to say, this isn't sex trafficking because these women are repeatedly expressing their desire to participate in these sexual encounters.

One thing that really stood out to me during the course of the trial is the defenses owning up to the fact that there was violence, that they didn't dispute that he's history of domestic violence and really acknowledged that he had arranged the drug-fueled freak-offs and how big of a role do you think that play, that acknowledgement played in the outcome here? Yeah. I mean, I think they did a very good job in convincing people that if this was a domestic violence case, that we wouldn't be sat in that courtroom. This is a direct quote. We wouldn't be sat here because he would have owned up to it and putting his hands up and saying, I'm a flawed individual, but a flawed individual does not a sex trafficker make. And saying that, you know, kind of telling the jury everything

bad about him before somebody else could say it. It's a tactic we see a lot. Defense attorneys do this a lot. But you know, words in a court of law can and will be used against you. So it might have got him off those two very serious charges that he was facing, recurrent sex trafficking, but in the bail decision making that the judge made, he cited and quoted the defence attorneys multiple times saying, how am I supposed to release this person on bail? The burden of proving that he's not a threat to the community now lies with the defendant. And you have repeatedly through this trial told me that he was a violent individual, told me that he had a hair-trigger temper, told me that he could lose it with romantic partners. So that's kind of intimate violence behind closed doors that we don't usually see and can't protect against. The judge was saying,

you said these things and you put your hands up and say, we make no scruples about saying that this man has committed instances of domestic abuse and therefore he will not be released on bail. So it both worked for them and now of course against them as he has to stay in the Metropolitan Detention Center, a notorious jail that is known for its sub-par conditions. We spoke with your BBC colleague, Nara Tafeek, last time that we covered this trial. And it was right around the time that the rapper Kit Katty was testifying in court. And I know that he testified that he at one point broke into his home after finding out that he was in a relationship with Cassie. And just before we get into kind of what comes next with this trial, I just wanted to get

a sense of, you know, what else stood out to you about that particular testimony and how much of an impact do you think it might have made at the time? I think it's just interesting. You never know what somebody's going to get up on the stand and say. And of course, Kid Cudi detailed this series of events where he alleges he broke in. He alleges that he got somebody to drop a molotov cocktail into his car and commit arson. He alleged that Diddy came in and opened his Christmas presents that he got for his family. Nicole Sattel That was such a strange detail, yes. Angele Cushman It's a very peculiar detail. And of course,

all of these things, there were many times that we were left absolutely baffled in the courtroom by stuff we were hearing. But then he spoke about meeting Diddy afterwards at Soho House to have a conversation about the relationship with Cassie and just sort out because Cuddy thought he'd blown up his car and he described Diddy as looking like a Marvel supervillain facing the window and looking out across his domain from Soho House. So I think that stood out because for a defense attorney, that is not what you want somebody to say when they get on the stand, even though it might not be evidence and it's not saying that this actually

happened. Introducing the idea to the jury that Diddy was stood like a Marvel supervillain is less than helpful, although in this case seems to have not had much of an impact because of course, to Cassie Ventura's lawsuit back in 2023. In it, the R&B singer who dated Diddy on and off for about a decade accused him of physically abusing her and forcing her into sexual encounters with escorts. And that lawsuit in itself was settled for $20 million. And of course, there was really a deluge of accusations that came after that lawsuit came out. And what have we heard from Cassie in particular, or her legal team after this verdict?

So we've heard from her lawyer who said, you know, it was extremely brave what she did and they are pleased that he's been found guilty of a very serious federal crime. A lot of the different organizations that support survivors have reached out to her and to us because she is really, you know, not the official spokesperson, but what she did was so brave and courageous. And so people see that and they have shown fortitude in coming forward as well. He said that when she took the stand and what she did was tell her story and that it was extremely brave to do that both nine months pregnant and also in a trial where

you know the eyes of the world's media is watching. But we actually hear from Cassie directly as well writing an essay to the judge when he was making his considerations about releasing Didion Bale saying, please don't release him. I and other people who've testified in the trial would feel unsafe. He is a danger to the community and to individuals. And so her and also some of her other friends like Deontay Nash, who testified as well, wrote these letters that the judge then considered and ultimately used the sentiment in those letters, part of the sentiment, to make his decision. Anushka, I know that you've been following the civil lawsuits as well.

And, you know, this verdict that we got this week is for this federal case. There are, I believe, over 70 other lawsuits accusing Diddy of sexual assault of rape claims that he denies. And what do we know, broadly speaking, kind of about how those cases will proceed? So for a lot of those cases, it's not just Diddy that's accused in them, it's Diddy and Crone's Enterprises, or it's Diddy and another music group. So Diddy still has to go through all of the federal proceedings first. That's the list of importance, right? So he has to have his sentencing first, and then they will start to deal with the civil lawsuits, which means he needs to be deposed. A lot of them have been stalled waiting for this federal trial to happen. More are

being filed. Three more were filed two weeks ago by Tony Busby, who's obviously filed many against Diddy. So we'll start to see some of those spring into action. We'll also start to see some of them being dismissed. I mean, a lot of the issues that they're going to face with the civil lawsuits is that a lot of them are Jane and John Doe's, and it will be whether a judge lets them proceed as Jane and John Doe's. And if not, whether they want to continue to file their lawsuits. So there's still going to be a lot of activity going on in the civil area when it comes to Diddy. Nicole Sade And do you think this verdict in federal court

has the capacity to affect those cases in any way? Emma Watson They can use testimony in his depositions. They can speak about stuff they heard in the trial. They can question him about stuff they heard in the trial. But ultimately, it will be different instances with different evidence. But I will say that the burden of proof is much lower in a civil court.

You just have to, um, you just have to convince them that you don't have to do it beyond a reasonable doubt. It has to be a preponderance. So in terms of the burden of proof, it's much, much lower. So you might see more successes in a civil court than you see in the federal court. Anushka, you know, this case really didn't play out in the vacuum, you know, for years now. There was really a lot of hope around how the Me Too movement would spur change and how sex crimes are prosecuted. You know, they've historically been very hard to convict and many people, including survivors of sexual assault, have been asking if maybe the legal

system is, you know, too rigid to recognize how complex these cases can be, right? Like where the accusers have sometimes consensual and romantic interaction with the accused. And where do you think, as someone who's been reporting this particular trial out and thinking about this case, where do you think Diddy's trial fits into kind of that bigger conversation? I think that there's an intangibility around ideas of coercive control and consent. I think that what we've seen with this trial in the ecosystem, social media, is almost the memeification of very serious accusations. And like we all, hey, everybody know, ain't no party like a Diddy party, so. Yeah, that's what's up.

I think that there's an issue with that, that this will now almost pass into joke rather than us examining the severity of what he was accused of and some of the things that he admitted to in court. And that of course can deter other people in other trials from stepping forward because they just don't want to face the ridicule, the memes, you memes, the constant conversation and topics on TikTok and Instagram, et cetera. But I also think in relation to this case, and we must remember this, we have to respect what the jury have decided and we have to respect it even more so in this instance because we watched a totally different trial to what they watched. They were privy to all of the

evidence, all of the discovery, the freak-off tapes, the pictures. So, you know, they're hearing about these freak-offs for seven weeks. And then finally, towards the end of the trial, they actually start to see what was going on inside those rooms. And I mean, one of the alternate jurors has just spoken to Laura from CNN, Laura Coates from CNN saying it was actually very tame. There was sexual activity, but I mean, it wasn't really... Was it force? Did it appear?

No, it didn't seem force. It was actually pretty tame. Really? Yeah. Did she? It was just a lot of rubbing oil and stuff on there. It wasn't anything too graphic. I mean that's one person's perception of what he saw, but that is an indication of the

fact that perhaps, you know, this is a completely different child that they saw. They'd heard all of this stuff about these freakoffs, these wild king knights, and when they actually saw what was on the video, it showed nothing more in their opinion than a consensual sexual interaction. So I think that this will both set us back. I do believe it's going to set us back in some of the progress we made after Me Too, but I also think that that reversal had begun long before the Diddy trial started. And it cannot be, it might be a catalyst, but it's not a cause. It strikes me that none of Diddy's charges or convictions relate directly to abuse. And I'm

just curious as to your thoughts on how significant is it that Diddy hasn't faced criminal prosecution for sexual assault allegations? They're not federal crimes. They're state level crimes. And they were outside of the statute of limitation. That's all I can say to that. I mean, I appreciate that a lot of people have that question. It's really rather frustrating that the jury could consider that perhaps he did commit sexual assault. I mean, we had allegations of rape from Mia and Cassie that he did commit domestic abuse. But even if they found they thought that they were telling the truth when they testified to that on the stand, that's got nothing to do with what he was actually charged with. And those are state level crimes

that should be prosecuted in a state court. And for instance, the e-violence we saw on the CNN video, it's outside of the statute of limitations. So it's good to clear that up because they feel a lot of people like, well, why aren't they talking about that? But it really is just a simple answer. And it's frustrating. And I appreciate it's frustrating because it can almost paint domestic abuse as like, oh, well, he was only a domestic abuser. It wasn't a sex trafficker, which is a terrible narrative to have. But unfortunately, in the way it's played out in the court, it's the narrative that worked in his favor. Anushka, thank you so much for your time today.

Thank you. That's it for this week. Frontburner was produced by Matthew Amha, Cecilia Armstrong, Lauren Donnelly, Joytush Ngupta, Matt Muse, Marco Luciano, and Mackenzie Cameron. Our YouTube producer is John Lee. Our music is by Joseph Shabason. Our executive producer is Nick McCabe-Lokos. I'm Elaine Chao. Thanks for listening to Frontburner. Jamie will be back Monday. Monday.