Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp’s Lawyer on P. Diddy’s Biggest Wins So Far in Sex Trafficking Trial

Episode Date: June 10, 2025

The prosecution in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ federal trial is presenting damning evidence against the one-time titan of the music industry. But the defense has scored some wins – and courtroom insiders tell us some jurors could be on the rapper’s side. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber analyzes some of the biggest cross examination moments with celebrity defense attorney Ben Chew, who represented Johnny Depp in his civil trial against Amber Heard.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: Check out americanfinancing.net/onthecase or call 866-891-3262 to learn how homeowners are saving $800 a month on average. NMLS 182334, www.nmlsconsumeraccess.orgHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. The prosecution in Sean Diddy Combs' federal trial is presenting arguably damning evidence against the one-time Titan of the music industry. But the defense, they've scored some major wins. And courtroom insiders tell us some jurors could be on the rapper's side. In this episode, we're going to take a closer look at some of the cross-examination wins so far, as the feds worked their way through a long witness list. Welcome to Sidebar.

Presented by Law and Crime, I'm Jesse Weber. Okay, before we get things started, I want to tell you about something very exciting that's happening here at Long Crime. We have partnered up with On Patrol Live to bring their show to you on YouTube. That's right. If you're unfamiliar with On Patrol Live,

you know, Dan Abrams, you're really missing out. It is truly one of the best shows they follow police officers across the country in these high-stakes ride-alongs with over 50 cameras rolling live. And as you can imagine, the instance they catch on camera pretty wild from high-speed chases to daring rescues to intense standoffs and everything in between, the action never stop. So head over to On Patrol Live's YouTube channel. Make sure to subscribe. That channel link is in the description.

And by the way, the channel officially launches on Monday, June 16th. Trust me, you will not want to miss it. Believe it or not, we have now reached day 20 of Sean Combs' federal racketeering sex trafficking prostitution trial out in New York. And while we've heard about some testimony and evidence that's arguably pretty incriminating through the prosecution's case, Combs has a very high-powered defense team, and they are not taking this lying down. They haven't even gotten to their case yet. It's all been about cross-examination. And I got to tell you, I think they have scored some major wins over the past five weeks through cross-examination of key witnesses.

And that's what I want to talk about, these perceived potential wins by the defense. So to do that, I want to bring on trial attorney Ben Shue, who is very famous for successfully representing Johnny Depp during his civil trial against his ex, Amber Heard. Ben, so good to see you. Before you even dive into the specific cross-examination points of some key witnesses, overall, and I know this is tough because we're still in the prosecution's case, but I like to ask this question nonetheless. But overall, who's winning this? How do you think it's going overall? I go back to an excellent point that you made a few weeks ago, which is the outcome of this case may depend upon closing arguments and who frames it the best. I think that was quite

prescient because I think that's holding true. I do think the prosecution has made some real points here. But as you say, the cross, particularly of Brianna, was especially winning for the defense, specifically the allegation of her being held out by did. over the railing, perhaps occurring at a time when Diddy was in New York, a continent away, that was very damaging for the prosecution. You know, look, I still stand by that. I said, we're going to get to Breonna Bungolan in a second, but yeah, I still stand by this is closing arguments because at the end of every day, I'm an attorney, takes me a minute

to figure out where was the prosecution going here? How's that testimony going to fit into that? I have to do a little bit of mental gymnastics a little bit and figure it out. If you're the jury, you might be wondering, I don't know how any of this all fits together. You know, one minute they're calling this witness, one minute they're calling this witness. Do they know the elements of racketeering that there needs to be a criminal enterprise and underlying predicate crime? Sure, they were explained some of it in opening statements, but they haven't been given jury instructions yet where the, what the law is. And you wonder how confusing this may be.

So I really do think it's going to be up to both sides to properly articulate this case in closing arguments. And I guess for the defense point of view, since we're focusing on the defense and we'll get into the cross-examination, what they should do, Ben, and tell me if I'm wrong, shouldn't they have a list of all the elements of each charge and say, like list it out and say why it doesn't match up, like literally do an X on each one? Yes. I think that's very effective. And that's exactly what they should do. And that could be extremely effective in securing an acquittal at least on the racketeering charges, if not the other ones. Hey, everybody. This is another law and crime legal alert. Recent allegations against the multi-billion dollar video game industry claim that video games are engineered for addiction. The claims include trying to make sense of the hold that video games seem to have over people where they just can't put the controller down. Every win triggers that hit a dopamine and that creates a cycle of compulsion which disrupts daily life and it harms mental health.

but our legal sponsors, they are taken on the industry that is at many times put profit over safety and they're working to potentially get compensation for all of those impacted. So if you were a loved one have suffered physical or mental health issues due to video games, then visit vGclaims.com slash sidebar to answer less than 10 questions and check your eligibility to file a claim. And I think there's evidence of racketeering. I think they talk about forced labor and kidnapping and sex trafficking and drug offenses and this idea of all the assistants helping out of the bodyguards and the security

and you talk about an association of people. I see them ticking the boxes. I see them, you know, trying to prove the different elements. I don't know what the jury will think, but I can kind of get it. Now, here, okay, let's talk about cross-examination, okay? It's an art form. It's an art form, and I have the master at it of cross-examination. So let's talk about it.

Cassie, arguably the most important witness in this whole trial. I think the case rises and falls with her. She's alleged victim number one in the indictment. And the defense challenged Cassandra Ventura's allegations that she was a victim. of sex trafficking because they challenged, for example, the timeline of an alleged rape of Ventura because she testified that this happened in August of 2018 after dinner with Combs, but the defense says she told the government previously that it was September. Did she want to participate in freak offs or not? These sexual experiences with commercial sex workers, for sex trafficking, you need to

prove force, fraud, or coercion. It cannot be consensual. Now, she claimed on the stand that she was in love with him. Was he forcing her? Well, there's a text message where she writes, I'm always ready to freak off. L-O-L-O-L-L. There's another message, baby, I want to F-O so bad. There was lots of explicit messaging text about planned sexual encounters. Combe said, I want to see. I can't wait either. I feel like I want to bleep. Combs says, I'm so basically turned on. I can't concentrate. I'll go to Dwayne Reed for candles and then set up the room. She was confronted with evidence that she was still communicating with him after they broke up after he allegedly raped her. And by the way, she also testified that she had one more consensual encounter with him after the alleged rape.

She testified or was pushed about potentially hiding her relationship with rapper Kid Cuddy from Combs. She was asked, while you were on a break, you were still having a freak off. Is that the idea? Yes, that was a job. Even though you were on a break from Mr. Combs, you still wanted to use a burner phone. Yeah, because you didn't want him to find out about Mr. Cuddy, right? I did not want him to find out, no. And you did not want to tell him about this, right?

no, I thought it would be way too dangerous to tell him about that. She also testified about how the lawsuit that she filed against Sean Combs essentially ruined his career. When your lawsuit was publicized in November of 2023, you understood that his career was ruined at that point, right? I could understand that. Yeah. Ben, was this effective? Yes, I do think it was effective. I'm not sure the discrepancy and the date in that instance between August and September is that probative, but I do think those texts were very damaging to the prosecution. Contrast Jane. Jane produced a number of texts where she said things like, this doesn't feel good to me at all. Jane didn't have that problem, but Cassie

certainly does. And I think in some jurors' minds, that could create a reasonable doubt. But when they look at the video of her, of Combs appearing to beat her up, can they say that changed everything? There's no possible way she really, really in her heart consented, or at least could vocalize her reluctance to engaging in this material. You know, a lot of the messages that she was confronted with, she came back and said, you know, I'm just saying what I have to say. You know, I'm just saying what I have to say. I have to be careful because I don't want to upset him. And the jury, and I wonder if the prosecution could say, you know, why she didn't speak up, because that could happen to her. What do you think? Yeah. I mean, that's where you go if you're

the prosecution. That's why they've shown that video at the very beginning, why they continue to show it and why they'll continue to show it in the closing. That is, you know, of course, she's not being charged with domestic abuse, but it certainly goes to that point that nothing she could have done would be truly voluntary. And going back to your point about Kid Cuddy, it was pretty borne out that it would be dangerous for him to find out about Kid Cuddy because look at what he did. Allegedly, he kidnapped one of his employees, and allegedly, although there's no real proof of it, but a few weeks later, of course, his car gets firebomb. So you've got arson in there too. If you make the logical leap that it was Did he who ordered that? As you say, there are things going on both sides here.

Let me ask you this. General question, general form of cross-examination, because I imagine this could come up in closing arguments. Obviously, the defense is hitting every single point they should be hitting with these witnesses. But aren't they also asking the jury to believe every one of them is lying? Is it every one of them is lying and has an incentive to come after Sean Combs? And you tell me what the incentive would be for Cassie to come out against Sean Combs now after she settled her lawsuit with him. It's not like she has, you know, more money in the wake of this. What would be the incentive for her to do that? Or is the alternative you have these women who had unfortunate circumstances with Sean Combs and it's the government who's pressuring them to testify and it's the government who's transforming their testimony into federal charges.

So it's not like you're attacking the women per se, and we'll take each one individually. It's not that you're attacking them. They have something to gain by going after Sean Combs, but it's that the government is subpoenaing them, forcing them to testify, and they're transforming their testimony into a case that doesn't make sense. I mean, again, I'm trying to understand what the argument could be. Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. If I were the defense, I would go to the blame the government rather than blame the alleged

victims, particularly in the case of Jane, I think she's come across quite well. She has a lot of texts that support her view on causation, and to go hard at her, and we'll see how they go at her, could cause a lot of backlash from the jury. So I think they have to be careful with Jane. Do you think there's alternative explanation, right? This idea of, hey, there's a lot of things that Cassie did and was pressed about on cross-examination that may look inconsistent with somebody who was sexually abused, inconsistent with somebody who's a victim of sex trafficking. But when you look at the complicated relationship between an abuser and a victim, and I know we've talked about this before because the prosecution called Dr. Don Hughes

and these complicated matters of trauma bonding and love bombing and financial control and the power and balance and the age imbalance, are those important factors that survive any kind of cross-examination? Well, that will, you know, a lot may depend, as you say, on whether they like Dr. Hughes. I mean, it really is up to the jury whether they buy the Stockholm syndrome argument, which is a real thing, but a lot will really depend on their discretion and how much, how convincing they thought Dr. Hughes was and whether there are any additional experts who may testify before the prosecution closes its case.

That's a good point. Okay. Let's talk about her. Let's talk about Breonna McGollin. Okay. And apologies if I'm mispronouncing her name. It seems like everybody says her last name in different ways. But she was cross-examined by Nicole Westmoreland. And I will tell you, in my opinion, and Ben, it sounds like you agree, this was arguably the strongest cross-examination of this entire trial. Because they hit her on a lot of points. So this is, again, somebody who claims that she was dangled off of a 17-story balcony by Sean Combs. But They called her out for memory problems. And you wonder, what was the advantage of her testifying after this? So she was asked, did you seek any additional medical care at this time? Not right away. And why didn't you seek more medical care at this time? For two reasons, I was scared and the other one, to be honest, all the drugs pumped in me.

You know, you don't really feel a lot of the pain right away. She was asked, did you report this incident to the police? No, why not? Because I was scared. Why? Because of everything I've seen and had gone through at that point. Who were you scared of? Puff.

After the balcony incident, what was your relationship like with Mr. Combs? Like we tried to be cool. Did you hang out with him? Some after that? Yes. What was your relationship like with Cassie? We were still friends. Did you still hang out with her?

Yes. When was the last time you spent time together with Cassie and Mr. Combs, January 2nd, 2018? How do you know that precise date? Because I tattooed it on my neck? Why did you tattoo it on your neck to make a commitment to get sober and not go back? She was confronted by a text message about seemingly offering to buy him a sweatshirt two weeks after this allegedly happened. She was confronted with a bill from a hotel in New York where Combs was purportedly checking

in on September 24th and checked out September 29th. There was breakfast charges. So how could he be in LA when this attack occurred? And she was questioned, do you know exactly when this happened? And she couldn't provide a clear answer. She goes, no, I don't know exactly when it happened. But she doubled down on the stand and said it did happen. There was a photo of her injuries or her perceived injuries, but the metadata shows it was September 26th.

She was asked, quote, Mr. Combs did not cause you the injuries that you showed us that we saw on your phone with the metadata from September 26, did he? I can't agree with you. You do agree with me that you gave the photo. Can you pull the photo up one more time? Thank you. Zoom out. Let me see the full photo.

Please. Ma'am, you provided this photo to the government, didn't you? Yes. Okay. And you understand that metadata, you didn't create the metadata. Did you? No, no. So you gave this photo to the government with the metadata showing that this picture was taken on September 26, 2016.

True? Yes. And you would agree with me that one person cannot be in California and in New York at the same time. My answer is still the same. In theory, yes. Ma'am, you came in here and you lied to the ladies and gentlemen of this jury. Isn't that true? I can't agree with you.

I have no further questions, Your Honor. She apparently also had trouble remembering if and when she told the government things. Let me ask you this. Mr. Combs saying, I can kill you. That would be something really important to tell the government. Do you agree with that? Yes. Okay. And I just want to make sure I'm clear. You don't remember if you told the government that or not. I remember telling them. Just I don't remember when we met. So you agree with me that you may have done your first interview and didn't mention that at all to the government. Could you explain that question again? She was questioned all about her lawsuit and how her first attorney Tyrone Blackburn, who was fired, what was going on here? What were the allegations that were first made? She was asked, and is Isn't it true that in your first demand letter dated January 31st, 2024, you said it was alleged that Mr. Combs said, I can kill you while you were hanging over the balcony, true? My lawyer said that, and that was not true, was it? Those are not my words. Those are not your words because Mr. Combs, he didn't do that, right?

He did. He did? Just not at the same time. Right. She also seemed to potentially be confused by simple questions. Like, you agree with me that Mr. Combs told you that you were giving Ms. Ventura too much drugs, right? Could you restate that question, please?

Mr. Combs told you that you were giving Ms. Ventura too much drugs. True? I don't remember when he said that, and that would be important because, again, they're saying that Sean Combs supplied his victims with drugs to make them more compliant. Ben, this was a problem for the prosecution, right? Yeah, I thought she was a terrible witness, and I was asking the same question you posed. Why did they bring her? Because they should have known in advance, at least some, if not all of the problems which arose.

Is there any way for the prosecution to rehabilitate this and say she might not remember details, it was a traumatic event, or is there just too much data here and too much information that that might not work? I don't think it will work. I think that's what they're going to have to say. They're going to have to say she may have gotten some particulars wrong, but the bottom line was that he was abusive to her, the same way he was abusive to Jane, the same way he was abusive to Cassie Ventura. And you've seen that with your own eyes. So I think they try to minimize her and move on to the stronger witnesses, but they should not have called her. Do you think it's difficult for the jury to believe that someone would lie about something like this on the stand? Because that's, again, what the defense, I think in this instance, they're saying she's not telling the truth. I think that's one you do go hard after.

I think they were wise to go after her because there were real inconsistencies. Do you think Brianna's testimony could jeopardize the totality of the prosecutor? case? I don't think so. If the jury really focuses on the particular charges, I think it's going to be hard for that to undercut the forcible prostitution. Yeah, I agree. You know, that's a good point. Two things there, right? They can still prove transportation to engage in prostitution, basically on Jane's testimony alone, because she basically testified that she was witnessing assistance and herself paying, transporting sex workers to different areas, where she engaged in these essentially commercial sex acts, prostitution, and that's all you really need.

And then for racketeering, you don't even need sex trafficking. Sex trafficking is one of the underlying crimes, but couldn't they prove sex trafficking if they believed Sean Combs formed a criminal enterprise with his bodyguards and assistants, and he engaged in kidnapping, or engaged in arson, or engaged in drug offenses, or engaged in forced labor, or bribery, bribery, allegedly buying the tape off of the LA Intercontinental Hotel Security Guard paying $100,000. They don't have to believe Brianna. They don't have to necessarily believe Cassie. And they, prosecution could still get a conviction here, right? Absolutely. And, you know, they, I think they have to go back to the theme that they, they went within the opening,

which is to say, this is a domestic violence case dressed up as a RICO action. And what they've shown with you about these alleged movement of drugs across state lines, California, Florida, New York, Turks and Caicos really was just about an alternative lifestyle, which you may not like. And you don't have to like our client, but he's not guilty of RICO. I mean, it's not a great argument, but they only need one or they just need one. So let's now talk about the cross-examination of Mia, former employee of Sean Combs using a pseudonym. Brian Steele did the cross-examination. And remember, she claims that Combs sexually assaulted her, which goes to, you know, alleged pattern of abuse towards women, maybe even goes towards forced labor.

And she claims that Combs raped her, but still worked for him, praised him on social media, texted him. Things like, just thinking of you today and every day. Last night, I had a nightmare. I was trapped in an elevator with R. Kelly. And I screamed for you and you came to rescue me. Thank you for that, too, sending you love. Can you tell the jurors what you wrote under the image that they see?

what we do when you're not around at I am Diddy, hashtag Sarak. So here it is approximately four years after you've started to work with Mr. Combs, right? Yes. And you have been at this point sexually assaulted by him, you claim, right? Yes. You've been abused by him mentally, right? Uh-huh. Yes.

Physically, right? Yes. And emotionally, right? Yes. On your personal account, you're tagging him saying, this is what we do when you're not around. True? True.

She also apparently posted a video on Diddy's birthday. Happy anniversary to your birthday last year. Since this year, you've changed your birthday date on some real Puff Daddy S. Thank you for constantly inspiring me and giving me an extended family for life. You are forever one of my greatest friends. Thank you also for being funny because you're bleeping funny, like really, really, really funny. I love you at I am ditty. And she was asked, and you're proud of Mr. Sean Combs.

That's why you wrote this, right? No, I wrote this because Instagram was a place to show how great your life was, even if it's not true. And because I had his fans following me as well. well as this official Diddy fan site. And I also didn't want my family and friends to know the misery I was in. So of course, you post the great times. Ben, what do you think? I think it gives good fodder for the defense in closing argument. And it goes back to why they brought Don Hughes to try to explain to the jury why you have this discordant behavior after these

alleged horrific acts. But again, it goes back to the age in the whole for the prosecution, which is the video, because who do you believe? me or your lying eyes. So it's, it's a tough one. Yeah, after that video came out, after the jury saw that video, they may believe that he's capable of anything. I mean, if he's going to run down a hallway, a hotel hallway in a towel and beat up Cassandra Ventura and drag her back, not thinking about the consequences, able to buy the tape, they may believe everything. So it does become a question, even though there are some irregularities with what happened here with Mia's account, it could all be true. And like you said, the jury could believe Dr. Don Hughes and say

that there is situations where people are abused and stay in contact and praise their abuser. It's not uncommon. Let's talk about a different Don. Let's talk about Donne Rashard. So this is the former Danity Kane band member, also part of Diddy's a dirty money group. She was questioned about inconsistencies in a skillet story, right? A skillet being thrown. You would agree between hitting someone with a frying pan and throwing a frying pan, correct? Correct. But you gave two different stories, didn't you? I did the best that I could to recall. How about you gave another interview? Would you have reason to disagree with me that your next interview was on March 18th, 2025? I wouldn't disagree with you. That sounds right. And in that interview,

isn't it true that you told the federal prosecutors that Mr. Combs actually threw eggs at Miss Ventura? No, I don't recall that. You don't recall that. And that after throwing eggs at Miss Ventura that he actually set the pan back down. Do you remember saying that? I don't recall that. By the way, real quick, Ben, the questioning about why didn't you tell prosecutors this first, you only said things later, inconsistencies and accounts. Is that just natural human behavior? Sometimes people remember things, particularly about traumatic events. Sometimes they leave out details.

It's nothing necessarily nefarious, like you're adding more details to make it sound worse. But could there be alternative explanations for this? Yeah, I mean, there could be. And slight inconsistencies are much easier to explain away. But there is a real material difference. as you suggested between somebody throwing eggs at you and somebody throwing a skillet at you. And the implications are a lot different and more serious because somebody throws a frying pan at you, they could kill you or give you a concussion.

Somebody throws an egg at you. I mean, it's almost, it seems more frivolous. It seems like more like a joke. And they also really, really focused on that she didn't tell or didn't allegedly tell the prosecution about Combs, allegedly carrying guns despite eight interviews. She was asked out of eight interviews, you didn't tell the prosecution, hey, I saw. a gun. It was at the studio at Daddy's house. You didn't tell them that? I answered what was asked of me. They didn't ask you any detail. That wasn't asked at the time. Well, when you say at the

time, I'm talking about eight times, it wasn't asked. I'm sorry. She was also questioned that she wanted to be in another music group, despite alleged death threats made by Combs. And you're telling us that you initiated contact with Mr. Combs, right? To restart a group, uh-huh, right? That you are fully aware that you would spend a lot of time with Mr. Combs, right? Yes. Okay. even though you're telling us that he made death threats. Yes, that's an interesting question. It came up during the Harvey Weinstein trial too, that if people were assaulted or threatened,

that they still would stay in touch with the abuser because they're important for their career. You know, aside from the idea of the complicated relationship between an alleged victim and an abuser, the power of Diddy, the power of a Harvey Weinstein, that might be a reason that people may still stay in touch with them or try to benefit from them, even though they are alleged victims.

right yeah absolutely i mean in in this area he he was all powerful he had the opportunity to give and he had the opportunity to take away but do you think the jury you know the jury will be asked to use their common sense what do you think because this is strange yeah and even if you get a majority that's not obviously that's not good enough for the prosecution they have to hit everyone and you just need one that's right for for a hung jury uh which potentially would be a win for Sean Combs. Let's just end this by talking about Jane. Okay. So you mentioned Jane before. At the time of this recording, they have just begun her cross-examination, but I do wonder what they're going to focus on. But remember, Jane had testified that basically she didn't want to participate in these

sexual encounters with other men. You had mentioned before that there was a number of messages where she's writing Sean Combs, that she feels like she's being used, that she's not a porn star. She was particularly, particularly vocal after Cassie Ventura filed her lawsuit. She said, of like woke her up to the trauma she was in. There does become a question of how impactful her testimony was because she apparently was still Combs' girlfriend all the way up until a few weeks before he was arrested or still was in some sort of relationship with him.

He was paying her rent. He was giving her gifts. He's still apparently paying her rent and paying for her lawyer. She had given graphic testimony about these sexual episodes. She talked about violence. But again, there were certain problems that she arranged the sex events. she picked the workers. There were graphic text messages to sex workers in Combs. She said just to

play the part, to please her partner. She didn't apparently break up with him as much as maybe some people will say she should have. That might not be fair. There was one message at least where she claims that on the tapes of her she was consenting. And by the way, so far I looked really quickly before we came on air. What is she being cross-examined about? She was cross-examined about how Combs was her partner for a period of time, for a long period of time that she didn't break up with him, that she was questioned if she loved him, that she wanted to cuddle with him. Do you think that there's a lot of avenues here to question her account? I'll play devil's advocate on this one. I think she had some details that were quite compelling. For example, although she conceded

that Diddy did consent to have the sex workers, the porn stars, use condoms as she requested. there were times when he didn't comply and she was left unprotected and she had UTIs, she had yeast infections. And if I were the prosecution, I would really push that hard that he cared so much about his own pleasure and so little about her that he put her health in jeopardy. So, I mean, I think there were some real pluses for the prosecution. Also, I think she takes away the argument that I would have used for the defense, which is, Yes, you've seen this horrendous video. You can't get that mental image out of your mind.

But that was 10 years ago. Our client, you know, terribly contrived about this. He's very sorry. He's a different man now. I think Jane takes that away because I think Jane, it's the arc from Cassie to Jane. And he's still engaging in this activity over a period of a decade. Again, that's if you believe her and if these things really happen. It's not the clearest cut case of sex trafficking.

I've said it before, like, you know, where you have a situation. There was a shadowy organization that kidnapped girls, you know, sold them off to clients. Authorities come in. They rescue the girls. They then testify against the people who kidnapped them. I mean, that's a more clear-cut case. It's a little grayer with a relationship. But one of the things that came out during the course of her testimony, she said that she was

basically coerced, I guess is the right way, into performing even after she threw up or even if she was tired. But this one where Combs allegedly told her, take this bleepin pill, you're not going to ruin my bleepin' night. go out there and bleep his bleep, and she claims that she didn't want to do this. She claims that there was a sex worker that was brought in who was smelly and sweaty, and he was like hovering over her as Combs had sex with her. And you wonder, was there opportunities for her to embellish the story, right? If she really was not telling the truth, embellished the story,

make it sound even more like a clear-cut case of sex trafficking, and she didn't. She was very detailed. To me, Ben, I do wonder, I do wonder if the defense will have an avenue to say, she's not lying. She's not lying about what happened to her. But again, this is a situation where the prosecution is transforming her testimony of what might be a disturbing relationship about what might be domestic violence, about what might be a state crime and transforming it into sex trafficking and racketeering. She didn't want to testify. You forced her to testify and transformed her testimony into something that he's not guilty of. I think more with her, I could see that

then, let's say, a Mia or Brianna-Bongolan? Yeah, I agree with you. But there's another detail that's particularly disturbing and difficult for the defense if the jury believes the testimony, and it goes to the point of coercion, if the jury really believes, as Jane testified, that he kept her in line by saying, I'm going to show sex tapes to the father of your child, that, you know, smacks of extortion. And that's about as evil as you get. again, we don't know whether it happened and we don't know whether the jury's going to believe

that. But that's pretty powerful stuff. And I don't know how the defense goes at that. Well, I think they have been trying to say that he's been buying up tapes and making sure they don't come out. And when she was allegedly extorted by, you know, somebody else like a sex worker, I guess the question becomes like if he was so Adam in Combs about making sure it doesn't come out, is this the guy that's really going to actually release the tapes? Is this threats real? The financial control, right? You talk about her. You talk about Cassie. He didn't want her to do only fans. He's paying her rent. He's giving her gifts, giving her cash. That's an aspect that I think complain to sex trafficking too. You know, you have this kind of control on somebody in their

appearance, and it's manipulating them and inducing them into performing these acts. It's very complicated, but I will say, I think the defense has done quite the job cross-examining these witnesses. And it's hard to know the style by which they're doing it based on the transcript, but you think Ben, they're doing it the right way. Yeah, I think, but again, as you said, I think you have to be really careful when you're dealing with alleged victims and you have to pick and choose who you go hard at because it can backfire, as you know. Ben Shue, great seeing you. Thank you so much for taking the time. Really appreciate it. Thank you, Jesse. And that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar. Everybody, thank you so much for joining us. And as always,

please subscribe on YouTube, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you should get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.