Law&Crime Sidebar - O.J. Simpson’s Lawyer Reacts to P. Diddy's Disturbing Trafficking Allegations

Episode Date: April 2, 2024

An arrest and indictment against music icon Sean “Diddy” Combs could come at any time. The Southern District of New York is reportedly looking into allegations of sex trafficking involving the rapper. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses the implications of the investigation with famed criminal defense attorney and author Alan Dershowitz. PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW:If you’re ever injured in an accident, you can check out Morgan & Morgan. You can submit a claim in 8 clicks or less without having to leave your couch. To start your claim, visit: https://www.forthepeople.com/LCSidebarHOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest 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. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. There is a lot to make sense of in the Sean Diddy Combs scandal. And now we get to sit down with somebody who has made a career of representing high-profile celebrity clients in criminal cases. renowned attorney, Alan Dershowitz. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. We have been interviewing a lot of people recently

about the latest in the Sean Diddy Combs case. And now I'm going to sit down with somebody who is no stranger to representing high-profile people accused of some very bad things. But before we even get to that, let's do a recap for you. So we know that Sean Combs' residences in Miami and L.A. were rated last week by federal agents. This was reportedly pursuant to an ongoing sex trafficking investigation from the Southern District of New York.

Now, we know that agents from Homeland Security, which has a specialization in human trafficking, were the ones that actually conducted the raid. It's being reported by NBC that federal prosecutors interviewed several people in relation to sex trafficking, sexual assault, and the solicitation and distribution of illegal narcotics and firearms. And sources also say that firearms and electronics were recovered from Combs's residences. But yes, we are in the dark as to a lot of what is going on right now. While an associate of Mr. Combs was arrested on drug possession charges on the day of the raids, neither Combs nor his family nor associates have been arrested or charged in connection with this purported sex trafficking investigation. But we can't forget, as we theorize who may be cooperating and providing information to federal authorities, that these raids come on the heels of multiple bombshell lawsuits filed against Combs,

lawsuits that make chilling claims of violence, sexual assault, drug use, trafficking, and there's a lot, lot more. One was filed by Diddy's ex, artist Cassandra Ventura, or Cassie. Cassie claims that she was beaten, sexually assaulted, forced to have sex with prostitutes while Combs watched and filmed her. She ended up settling with Diddy the day after that lawsuit was filed. And then there's another lawsuit that was filed by a woman named Joy Dickerson Neal. She claims that Combs drugged and sexually assaulted her when she was in college,

back in 1991. She alleged that Combs filmed the rape, shared the video with others as a form of revenge porn. Dickerson Neal claimed that this severely affected her mental health and resulted her in having to leave college. There was another lawsuit that came out in New York this time from an unidentified woman who claimed that Combs and singer-songwriter Aaron Hall raped her 30 years ago. And then, of course, there was this one that was filed relatively recently by Rodney Little Rod Jones. This is a former producer of Combs. And he claims that he was assaulted, harassed, and threatened by Combs. He also references to shootings that Combs was allegedly a part of, and even claims that

he was sexually assaulted by actor Cuban Gooding Jr. on a yacht and says that Combs help set this whole situation up. All right. So to make sense of all of this, joining me right now is a very special guest, acclaimed attorney Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law Professor Emeritus, author of a new book. It's called War on Woke, Why the New McCarthyism is more dangerous than the old. Professor, good to see you. Thanks for coming on here on Sidebar. It was a pleasure. Thank you.

So what is your overall take on the Sean Diddy Combs' raids in general? I mean, we were all shocked to see it. What was your reaction when you saw it? Well, two reactions. First, one should totally ignore the civil lawsuits. Anybody can bring a civil lawsuit. When you bring a civil lawsuit, you immunize yourself from any defamation claim. Judge Cabranus of the Second Circuit issued a warning recently saying, please, please, media report accurately on civil suits that are brought because they don't prove anything. Lots of lawyers get very, very, very wealthy. By bringing these suits, some of them are extortionate in nature. I have a friend in California who represents a lot of Hollywood stars,

and she told me she was writing checks every week for $100,000. Just people walked in off the street and said, unless you give me money, I will say that your client did this or that. So don't take seriously the civil suit, but take very seriously the fact that there was governmental action, that the United States government engaged in what is a pretty extensive search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment, which requires reasonableness and probable cause. So I think there's a dichotomy. Ignore the civil suits, take seriously the federal search. I'm very interested that you said that, because I think the timing of that suggests that the suits

could impact this investigation. What do I mean by that? Out of all times to Ray Diddy, it comes right after this flux of lawsuits. And we know that there's reporting from NBC that federal authorities, prosecutors have maybe been interviewing several people that could potentially be the plaintiffs in these cases. So do you say that the lawsuits have no effect on the criminal case? Because these people might be cooperating. They also might be the worst possible witnesses. First question on cross-examination is how much money are you seeking?

And why didn't you do this earlier? did you wait until there was a window of opportunity under the New York statute, which is now expired? A witness who can benefit financially from a conviction is often a weaker and more tainted witness. That's why prosecutors often prefer to bring the criminal prosecution first and tell the plaintiffs not to sue until after there's a criminal prosecution, because when they become witnesses and they have a financial stake in the outcome, they're not particularly strong witnesses. Well, let's take that as true. These are the feds, right? And they wouldn't go in with that level of manpower, have Homeland Security go in with that level of manpower. If they were relying

on what we, if we take this proposition as true, as questionable sources of information, do you feel that the feds are working on more than just the accounts of, let's say, potential plaintiffs in these civil cases? Well, first of all, the fact that they went in with massive armament. really is a function of the fact that the potential defendant in the case has security guards and they have weapons. And so I can understand that. That isn't necessarily a sign of increased guilt. And of course, we don't know whether there are other witnesses. If there are witnesses who have not sued and who can corroborate the accounts of those who have sued, that would obviously strengthen the case. But, you know, we live in an age where

There have been lots and lots of true, but lots and lots of false accusations for money. The Me Too movement has produced some very, very good positive results, but it is also encouraged lots of lawyers, particularly lawyers, sleazy lawyers, to push former girlfriends, people who are angry, and say, look, bring a lawsuit, you have nothing to lose, probably it'll be settled and we'll make a lot of money down and dirty. So a lot of lawyers are profiting from this new not only Me Too movement, but the window of opportunity to bring old, old lawsuits within a period of time in New York and a few other jurisdictions. So take them with a grain of salt. That doesn't mean they're false. It just means you need corroboration. And every woman should be believed, but every claim should be investigated. And so it's very important.

Look, I experienced that myself. I was falsely accused. and ultimately the woman who falsely accused me publicly admitted that she may have made a mistake and misidentified me and confused me with someone else and that was for lots of money and of course I didn't pay a single penny and all the lawsuits against me were dropped because I was able to fight back because I have a clean record. I have nothing to fear from any kind of deposition. But when you go after somebody who has a sorted record sexually, even without regard to that, they're more willing to settle because they don't want a deposition to be conducted.

That may explain why Prince Andrew, for example, settled his case for so much money. It doesn't prove that he did what he was. It only proves that he didn't want to sit for a deposition. I, on the other hand, was perfectly willing to sit for a deposition because I had nothing to hide. So it depends on who the defendant is. And in this case, the defendant is obviously somebody

with a record that others might come forward to corroborate. That, I think, is the hope of the prosecution that by bringing this public rate, others will come forward without financial incentives and perhaps corroborate those who have financial incentives. And there is reporting that subpoenas are being issued to other individuals. I saw TMZ or another outlet saying that it's possible, Ashton Coucher, who had a connection to Sean Combs might be subpoenaed as well. I wanted to ask you this. Look, you have represented some incredibly high-profile individuals in your life, O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson, Jeffrey Epstein, people who, whether they were found guilty or not of crimes,

were automatically seen by many to be guilty. And I think that's what's happening a lot with Diddy right now. He hasn't even been criminally charged. He has been accused of things in these different lawsuits, but people feel he is already guilty of something. If you were representing Sean Combs right now, what would you advise him to do, A, with respect to the lawsuits, because he already settled one, and then several lawsuits came out,

And B, what would you advise him to do with respect to the criminal investigation? Well, I would not urge him to settle any for the lawsuits. I think he settled one lawsuit, but there's no real reason for settling the other lawsuits unless the evidence were to be overwhelming. As far as the criminal case, he has to start conducting a very thorough investigation of people who can dispute what went on. For example, I was very influenced by the fact that. that in the complaint, I think I have this right, but I read it, so that in the complaint,

the major victim alleges that he raped her and insisted that she carry a gun. That seems a little inconsistent. If you're going to be raping somebody, the last thing you want is to have them carrying a gun, which they could use to protect themselves, against being raped. There's a lot of investigation that can be conducted. Now, there's a problem. When you start conducting an investigation of women who claim that they are victims of sexual assault, you get attacked by the media for attacking the victims. But it's absolutely essential that a thorough investigation be conducted and that his lawyers not be concerned with being accused of somehow attacking the victims if they do a thorough investigation under the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution, he is entitled

to have a complete and thorough investigation and to be confronted and to have an opportunity. opportunity to cross-examine and challenge all the witnesses against him. So if I were defending him in the criminal case, I'd be thoroughly preparing for the potential for a criminal trial. Obviously dealing with some very serious subject matter right now. And look, I know when we talk about some of these cases, the law can be a bit complicated. I get it. I'm an attorney, I understand, it can be difficult to sort through. I will tell you, one of the areas of law that can be especially difficult to navigate is personal injury cases. And if you should find yourself in that position where you got hurt and you need legal counsel. Let me just highlight for you our incredible

sponsor, Morgan and Morgan. They are the largest injury law firm in America. And you know, one of the things that I really like mentioning about them is how easy they make it for their clients during this whole process. They have streamlined the whole thing from submitting your claim to signing contracts, to uploading documents, to talking to your whole legal team. You can do it all from your smartphone. That's it. An attorney will review your case and eight clicks or less. It's that easy. And also with Morgan and Morgan, there's no upfront fee. You only pay them if you win. They put their clients first. I can't besides that enough. Morgan and Morgan, they are all about fighting for the compensation you deserve, even if that means refusing lowball insurance offers and

having to go to trial. In fact, they've recently secured verdicts of $12 million in Florida, $6.8 million in New York, and $26 million in Philadelphia. All of these, by the way, significantly higher than the highest insurance offers in these cases. So if you're in you can start by easily submitting a claim at for the people.com slash lc sidebar or by dialing pound law that's pound 529 on your phone well something you said was interesting um you would encourage him not to settle any more suits we know that he settled the cassandra ventura suit lawsuit which i believe was the first one to start and then after that was the we saw several lawsuits now you could say well you know once you settle one then everybody comes out of the woodwork but the other way to say it is if one person comes forward and this was a very very very public lawsuit, more people might feel comfortable to come forward. If the idea was, do you think it was a mistake for him to settle the Ventura lawsuit? I don't know enough of the facts to say it was a mistake. I do think that settling a lawsuit is seen by the public as an admission of guilt,

even if the lawsuit ends by saying, oh, no, no, no. But if you pay money to prevent depositions from occurring or a trial from occurring, the public will look at that decision. as somehow evidence of guilt. Now, whether or not prosecutors look at it as evidence of guilt is an even more important question. But I don't see any advantage in now beginning to settle these lawsuits. First of all, having civil lawsuits against you gives you a tremendous advantage in getting discovery. You can get much more discovery in a civil case than you can in a criminal case. So there may be some advantage in going forward with the civil cases. In retrospect,

it was probably a mistake to settle the civil case if he knew that there'd be a criminal investigation but he may not have known that at the time you may have thought that settling the civil case would prevent the criminal lawsuit from going on i've seen that happen in many cases and i've seen it backfire in many cases and that brings me to my next point because when the when the raid first happened there was a whole question of where is sean combs there was speculation that he might have left the country did he fly out on his private jet as we've seen Recently, there are videos and photos to suggest that he is still in Miami, that he didn't flee the country, that he went to a top golf with his daughters.

In fact, over the weekend, a picture was posted on his Instagram of his 17-month-old daughter with the caption, Happy Easter from Baby Love. And the videos that are posted, he seems to be happy throwing the peace sign. What is your perspective on that? Because you mentioned what he might be doing with his legal team behind the scenes to prepare for a potential criminal indictment. What did you make of his reaction, his behavior this past week after these massive raids? Well, I can understand lawyers advising him to be natural and to not seem concerned about these

raids. He's also said through his lawyers that he's going to cooperate. And those are indicia of innocence, whereas settling cases are indicia of guilt. And I think what his legal team is trying to do now is neutralize the effect of the settlement and neutralize the effect of all these multiple accusations against him in civil cases, and that seems to me to be the right approach. Do you think the feds will charge him? It's impossible to know. You have to know exactly what the allegations are. Remember, as the chief judge of New York once said, a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich, and particularly if the ham sandwich is a famous person. So it would not be hard to get an indictment based on the civil lawsuits, but a good prosecutor would require

much, much more proof to bring an indictment in a criminal case than is required to file a complaint in a civil case. So I don't have the information to know whether or not there'll be an indictment. I can only tell you based on experience that when you get a raid of this kind, in many cases, it's followed by an indictment, though not in all cases. Right. Now, talk to me about, you know, look, some of the companies that he's affiliated with, it's being reported or being issued subpoenas that could be private charter jet, phone providers, computer companies. It's also being reported that subpoenas will be issued to commercial airlines and the FAA. It seems that they want to know when he traveled, where he traveled to who Combs

may have been traveling with if he flew anybody else out. And there have been comparisons made to Jeffrey Epstein and his private jet. Do you see comparisons here? And again, Combs has not been charge, but by the way of the allegations in the lawsuits and the federal response on them last week, do you see similarities in Combs's case with the Epstein case? There are certainly similarities, both famous people. Of course, Epstein wasn't famous until he became famous as a result of these accusations, whereas Combs was very famous before that. The accusation seemed to be based in part on the Epstein case. That is sex trafficking, sending the women to other people. So somebody is looking at the Epstein case.

and try and create parallels. There are some parallels and there are some differences. Every case is different and every defendant has to be presumed innocent based on their own conduct, not on the fact that they're celebrities or they may look like they're engaged in activities like Jeffrey Epstein. So there are similarities, but the similarities may in some instances be contrived. That is, there may be accusations that are modeled on the Epstein case, because the Epstein is, of course, the poster person for horrible, horrible accusations involving sex trafficking. So, yes, there are similarities, but be worried about them. If Combs was hit with federal

sex trafficking-related charges, how would you defend them against those? You mentioned going after the credibility of some of the witnesses or the alleged victims, but when you're talking about federal sex trafficking-related charges, how would you specifically defend them against that? Well, you need to know the facts. For there to be sex trafficking, it has to be transportation and interstate commerce, a variety of elements. One of the reasons that Epstein was able to get the deal he got originally in Florida is that they couldn't prove any interstate transportation. All they were able to prove was that he had sexual contact with lots and lots of young women in Palm Beach County, but they couldn't prove interstate. The Combs case, they seem to be

looking to establish interstate with the subpoenas to the transportation companies, etc. So you have to know everything about the case before you can come up with a defense. But this is not a case for a guilty plea because the charges are so, if he's indicted for sex trafficking, the potential sentences are so high that they would not, I think, be room for a plea bargain. So his lawyers have to be prepared for a knockdown, drag out a criminal case, which is often a zero-sum game. There's going to be a winner and a loser. Professor, before I let you go, I wanted to ask you one final question about this. So since this news has come out, and I would say even since the lawsuits had come out,

you're not seeing a ton of response online in the media from people who are defending Diddy. What you're actually seeing are a lot of videos that have resurfaced from years ago or recently where people were talking about Diddy in strange ways. You've seen some celebrities be quite vocal about what they believe is happening and are coming out and saying, you know, in other words, that justice is due, and one of them has said that the former artist that work with Diddy says that she is one of the victims, 50 Cent, who has had a long rivalry with Sean Combs, has been trolling him. What is your response to that?

And is there any way, if you, again, if you were representing Diddy any way that he should be responding to that, anyway, you should be responding to that. Because I think it is odd for a lot of people that you haven't seen a lot of support for diddy in light of all of this. Not a lot of people coming out saying this is all made up. These are all fake. It's more people piling on to it and confirming what the allegations are in the lawsuits. Well, here we do see a parallel to the Epstein case. People understand that would happen when anybody defended Epstein, whether they be a lawyer like me or a friend or an associate, they got hurt very badly, slammed in the media, bar charges brought against them. So the

have seen case showed that there is a real risk in coming to the defense in any way of somebody accused of sexual misconduct. That's one of the reasons. Other reasons may be that people have information that is not positive, and they don't want to be associated with somebody, whether he's guilty or innocent, of these charges, who has done other things. So there are multiple reasons for that, but we live in a day and age where, look, the ACLU no longer defense people charged with sex crimes. It's become extremely risky to do that. When I defended Jeffrey Epstein legally in court, as a lawyer, I got criticized, I got falsely accused. It created an incentive for people to come forward. So I fully understand why even people who might be on his side

don't have the courage to come forward and speak up on his side for fear of retribution. them. So it's very important to exercise caution when you have a situation like this as to the silence of people who you would normally expect to come and support him. Alan Dershowitz, always appreciate your insight. You can check out his new book, War on Woke, why the new McCarthyism is more dangerous than the old. Appreciate you coming on, sir. Thank you. Thank you. All right, everybody. That is all we have for you right now here on this episode of Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcast, Spotify, YouTube,

wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time.