Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy on Trial: One Major Piece of Evidence Could Doom the Rapper

Episode Date: June 4, 2025

Prosecutors who accuse Sean “Diddy” Combs of running a criminal enterprise focused on sex trafficking have circled back to damning video of Combs and ex-girlfriend Cassie. Witnesses this week testified about Combs’ substantial efforts to get his hands on surveillance video of an attack that happened inside a Los Angeles Intercontinental hotel. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber discusses the latest with criminal defense attorney Mauricio Padilla.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you received Depo-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. Visit https://forthepeople.com/lcdepo to start a claim now! HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:AYouTube 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 Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify. The 2016 footage of Sean Diddy Combs appearing to push, kick, and drag Cassandra Ventura fine, and the circumstances surrounding that event may in fact be the most crucial piece of evidence in this whole trial. Four weeks into testimony and has this one episode at the Intercontinental Hotel just proven almost all of the charges that Combs faces, we're going to break down all the major ways this event has been brought up in testimony and has been used to prove the elements of the crimes and how the defense is fighting back. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Hey, everybody, this is another law and crime legal alert. If you received Depro-Provera birth control shots and were later diagnosed with a brain or spinal tumor called meningioma, you may be eligible for a lawsuit. That's right. Morgan and Morgan, they are investigating claims that patients weren't properly warned about this risk. It's free to check. Just takes a few minutes and you don't pay unless they win. So scan the QR code on screen, click the link below or head over to for the people.com slash LC Depot to see if you qualify. Look, we knew it was going to be an important piece of evidence, but could the video of the 2016 alleged attack on Cassie Ventura by Sean Diddy Combs and all the circumstances surrounding it, could this be the crucial piece of evidence?

even prove the prosecution's whole case? I'm talking proving racketeering, sex trafficking, transportation to engage in prostitution. Does it help to fit all of the pieces to each criminal charge? Might be a bold statement, maybe, but at the same time, what have we heard regarding the footage and the circumstances surrounding it, including bombshell testimony yesterday about a security officer allegedly being paid off? I mean, there is a lot here to this. And I believe that when closing arguments come down the line, in four weeks or so, prosecutors are going to focus on this so much. So I'm going to break down the most critical times that this 2016 event and the circumstances surrounding it were mentioned so far in this trial and how it can be used

by the prosecution to potentially convict combs of racketeering, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. Let me give you an idea about what I'm talking about. Let's go back to opening statements. This is what the prosecution said. The defendant's physical attacks on Cassie happened at freakoffs too. As you will see on video during this trial, the defendant hit and kicked Cassie in the hallway of an LA hotel trying to drag her back to the room where they had been with an escort. The defense said, first, what Combs did to Cassie on this videotape is indefensible. It is horrible. It's dehumanizing. It's violent. It's virtually every bad word you can think of. And while it is dehumanizing and violent and terrible,

The second most important thing is that it is not evidence of sex trafficking. It is evidence of domestic violence. You will see that, which is also evidence of the central theme in this case, jealousy. That's what this videotape shows you. So it was so bad that the defense really couldn't argue against it. They basically had to say, yeah, he's doing what it appears he's doing in this tape, but there's different context to it. I think that's a fair argument.

I'm going to bring on right now criminal defense attorney Maricio Padilla to talk. more about this. Marie, so much for coming on. A lot of layers to this. We're going to go through every time it was mentioned or, you know, the most critical times it was mentioned. First thing I have to ask you about this video is, and by the way, the defense was trying to make sure that it wouldn't come in, right? They were trying a lot of different ways saying the footage was altered and whatnot. But the first thing I have to ask about the video is before we even get into how it supports the elements of the charges, is this video so bad that the jury, Human beings may convict Combs of something because of how he appeared to treat Cassie on this video.

They're not allowed to base their decision on emotion. They have to look at the facts on the law. But are they going to look at this tape and say, it was so bad, we're going to convict them of something. Yeah. And I've always said that about the video. At the end of the day, jurors are not robots. Jurors are not AI, chat GPT. Jurors are human beings.

Well, not yet. Not yet at least. Yeah. Yeah, right. But listen, human beings are emotional. And when you show that to someone in the back of their mind, they're like, you know what? I don't like this guy. And if they don't like you, that's already step one to them convicting you. So I think that that played a huge role for the prosecution before this even started. When it got released months before the actual indictment came down, public opinions started to change. And I think it's something that the jurors are definitely going to use against them at all time. during the trial and during the deliberations well look I mean this was the first piece of evidence the prosecution introduced into this trial they know the value of it and at the same time during jury selection jurors were asked about the video had they seen it what were their thoughts on it could they put it aside and

basically look at the facts and the evidence of the case easier said than done but assuming for a moment the jury is not going to make base their decision on a motion put that to the side we have to now do a critical analysis of it okay so the first question I have is, does this support sex trafficking? Okay, so sex trafficking, as you know, is a standalone charge with respect to Cassie, and it's also an underlying predicate crime for racketeering. And we're going to talk more about the underlying predicate crimes for racketeering, but essentially in order to prove that there was a criminal enterprise for racketeering conspiracy, there was Combs and his inner circle who came together for a common

purpose of fulfilling his desires, that they engaged in a pattern of criminal action. activity, and the prosecution has to prove at least two underlying predicate crimes, one of those, sex trafficking. There's also bribery, kidnapping, forced labor, all that. Now, to prove sex trafficking, both for racketeering or just the standalone charge, sex trafficking, the prosecutors are going to have to show that Combs used force, fraud, or coercion to induce Ventura to engage in commercial sex acts, sex acts, namely with sex workers. And here, the argument is, she was leaving that hotel room after a freak off and was attacked and dragged in the direction back to that room. And Cassia testified that an escort named Jules was in that room, that she gets hit by

Combs during this whole affair. And when he's distracted, she leaves. She gets her stuff and leaves and heads to the elevator bank. And that's when Combs allegedly runs up behind her and attacks her. Now, talking force, fraud, coercion, what was going on this time? Why did she even engage in a freak off at this time? Well, going back to the idea of a lack of consent, she also testified that she was about to have her first big movie premiere and Combs had wanted a freak off. But she claimed, you know, she was concerned that this would mess her up, mess her body up, she didn't want to do this. So as a way to get out of it, but also not get Combs angry, she texted him at one point, baby, I want to FO so bad, but I don't want

to bleat myself up. What am I to do? And she testified that she thought if she pleased him with a freak off, that her premiere would run smoothly. That's her testimony. So Maricio, I laid it out, Is this textbook sex trafficking, this 2016 event? I mean, it can be argued that it is. At the end of the day, in a universal sense, the prosecution, the government is saying that that did he used force, coercion, and all of a sudden this video's got him in a towel,

beating up Cassie. I mean, it's checking off a lot of boxes to satisfy what they want this jury to believe. So I think it is evidence of a lot of the elements of sex trafficking. The hotel was in California or was in another state? No, it was in LA. L.A., and by the way, I should tell you that Jules, right, this alleged sex worker, Cassie had

testified that he had been used in L.A. and New York and Miami and Vegas. So he was apparently this commercial sex worker. So you're having it, by the way, and I'll talk about this a little bit later, but I also think it proves transportation to engage in prostitution, right? If you're talking about transporting victims and transporting sex workers for the purposes of prostitution, Doesn't even have to be a freak off for the purposes of prostitution. If he was paid for it, it was used in these different locations. Isn't this clearly prove that too? Yeah, and I think we've discussed this before.

There's going to be evidence of the credit cards, of the purchase flights. Those are things that he can't get away from because at the time that he was doing this, he was acting like if this wasn't illegal. So it wasn't like he was covering up buying the air travel for these prostitutes. These are things that were pretty much illegal, but were happening like if it was a normal corporate expense. So I think you're going to see a lot of evidence to justify and to solidify the government's position that he was paying these prostitutes to travel to have sex. So yeah, the video does check off a lot of boxes. It was interesting. The CFO, former CFO had testified

yesterday and we didn't get that concrete evidence. We got an understanding that Combs had some personal accounts that his staff had carried cash. They were also talking about the success of the businesses. And it was interesting under cross-examination. He was questioned about, you know, you didn't see any criminal activity. None of this alleged criminal benefited the business, so kind of going against the racketeering charge. But going back to this, going back to 2016, I don't want to get off topic. Can the prosecution rely on this episode alone to prove the sex trafficking count in the indictment? In other words, you know, they have been saying that Cassie had engaged in a number of freak-offs

that she didn't want to, that violence was quite pervasive in this relationship. But if they focus purely on this, can you convict somebody on sex trafficking on one event or do you need multiple events? You can convict somebody on sex trafficking of one event, and I believe that the video cooperated with her testimony, that's sufficient. And now, I don't think the government wants the jury to make their decision with that limited amount of evidence, and I think they're going to have a lot more, but I agree with you. And I believe that that video, that incident with her testimony is sufficient to convict

a ditty of sex trafficking. Now, with racketeering, if you're seeing him being violent, it's one thing to have testimony about him being violent or from different people or it's photographs, very important piece of evidence, injuries on Cassie or alleged injuries on Cassie. But if you have this video proof of him being violent and you are the prosecutors and you're telling this jury as part of racketeering that Combs engaged in a pattern of abuse of women and that he used violence to get victims to engage in freakoffs and used violence as a criminal enterprise leader, right? They're trying to sell this idea that he was basically a mafia boss that used threats and violence to get his way.

Doesn't it kind of also help the building blocks of racketeering? Yes, it definitely does. And pretty much what the government is going to sell to these jurors is he was acting like a villain from a Marvel movie, you know, like, and that's basically what he was doing. It was out there. And when we say like acting like a mafia boss, a wannabe mafia boss, and he was doing this for his own pleasure.

and he was exploiting women, and I think that the video is pretty bad. Like, listen, if he was my client with that type of evidence, I really would have explored what type of settlement offers they had. I would never want to go to trial, any trial, where video of my client being that abusive to a woman is going to surface because it's just so damning when it comes to how a jury is going to eventually, you know, decide the case. Well, look, they say they can't run away from it.

They have said this is purely an episode. of domestic violence. It's wrong, it's tragic, but it's domestic violence. And domestic violence can be a state crime, but it's not sex trafficking, it's not racketeering. And they had pointed to this, you know, just a few days after this happened. Combs had texted her seemingly propositioning her for sex. And she responds, not a good vibe, and then we need a different vibe from Friday, so apparently from when this happened. And they couple that with the testimony and evidence that she had coordinated these freakoffs or set them up, that she was jealous of Kim Porter. And they basically say this was a relationship of jealousy, love, anger. Is that going

to be a viable defense that this is, look, we're not running away from it, but this is domestic violence, that the government is transforming what is a really dark and violent relationship into a federal case that doesn't make sense? Well, I mean, the big distinction there is, is it domestic violence? It didn't happen at their house. It happened at this one. It happened at this hotel, it happened at this hotel where there was a prostitute in the room waiting for Cassie. They weren't by themselves, according to Cassie's testimony. So there's a lot of distinctions between what occurred the night of the video and what people understand to be a normal domestic violence situation. So I think it is distinguishable. And I think the prosecution

is going to spend a lot of time making those distinctions in closing argument regarding specifically the video that we're talking about. How do they argue against transportation to engage in prostitution with respect to this event. Again, you allegedly, Jules, a sex worker, was in there. Again, Cassie said he had been used in multiple locations. She claims that they were engaging in essentially commercial sex. Is there ways that the defense could say, hey, it doesn't meet the elements of this? I remember in the defense opening, if I recall correctly, that he paid people for their time and experience and it wasn't necessarily prostitution. Do they say he didn't make the payment? Cassie made the payment. How do they basically?

say this is not transportation to engage in prostitution. Well, the first defense is, and I don't know this because I don't know, do they have jewels? Is Jules a government witness? Would be my first question. If Jules is not a government witness, you can say, listen, all we have is the self-serving testimony of an ex-girlfriend that hates my client or getting, right? So they could challenge Cassie's testimony if they don't have Jules. And then ultimately, if they do have Jules, yeah, the defense of he wasn't paying him for sex. He was buying his flight because he liked this company. And he's a billionaire. So it's not abnormal for a billionaire to buy plane tickets for people that he wants to hang out with. He wasn't

paying them for sex. You can argue anything. It's whether or not it's going to be something that's palatable for the jury if they're going to really listen to it and if they're going to believe it. And unfortunately, I don't think, well, unfortunately for Diddy, I don't think that that they will. I think that defense can say whatever they want. But at the end of it, juries are not that complicated injuries will look at that and say, if you're someone that's that abusive to a woman, we're going to convict you. And that's as simple as I could put it. Now look, this goes beyond just the footage because we talked about this, but we're focusing not just on the actual footage, but everything surrounding the footage and the event too, because so much potential evidence

flows from this. Why? Because after the attack or the alleged attack, Combs apparently texted Cassie. Yo, please call me. I have six kids. Please call me. I'm surrounded for my kids help. The cops are here. You're going to abandon me all alone. So Mauricio, that didn't really happen, right? He wasn't arrested. He wasn't surrounded by police. Is this evidence of manipulation? Does this go to the larger idea of coercion? Force fraud, coercion for sex trafficking, the idea of this is an example of the coercion that he used, how we tried to manipulate Cassie. And if the jury looks as this as coercion, that evidence of coercion he may have used to induce Cassie and Jane, by the way, alleged victim number two, into freakoffs. This could be an independent

piece of evidence now. Yes, and not only that, it shows that he took steps to cover his crime by bribing hotel staff, which is consistent with all the allegations that are made against them, that he's the type of person that he was manipulating everything at every point, including trying to cover up his crimes. So I do believe that the incident that happened in 2016 is sufficient to convict them of the sex trafficking, and it goes way beyond the actual video. And it is evidence of multiple elements that the government needs to prove. You want to talk about it? Let's talk about it. Let's talk about what happened yesterday. Bomb shell testimony. Remember when I said, and Marisa said it too, that bribery is one of the underlying crimes that prosecutors are hoping to prove to convict Sean Combs of racketeering conspiracy.

was it proven yesterday? Well, Eddie Garcia, former security officer from the Intercontinental Hotel at that time, took the stand. Actually, he wanted to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination granted immunity to testify. And what does he say? He claims he saw the surveillance footage of Combs and Cassie, receives a call from Combs Chief of Staff, Christina Corum, although Elizabeth Milner are in-court reporter said Christina Coram. So I'm not exactly sure, but I'll just go with Christina Corum at this point. And KK, let's say that. KK., who asked for the video, tells her off the record, it's bad. She calls back at one point with Sean Combs on the line who asks for the video too.

Garcia even emails management about this, and apparently that email was shown to the jury, a copy was shown to the jury. Combs allegedly says to him that he would take care of him. Garcia reaches out to his supervisor who seemingly agreed to hand over the video for $50,000. Combs calls Garcia, Eddie, my angel. In the end, Garcia testifies that Combs gave him. him $100,000. He signed an NDA. He splits the money with his supervisor and another officer on duty, kept $30,000 for himself, was apparently told by Combs not to make big purchases,

and apparently Garcia didn't deposit any of the money into a bank account or reported on his taxes. So you wonder why he might have needed immunity here. Well, not only that, but he claims that Combs reached back out a short time after, said, happy Easter, Eddie, my angel, God is good, God put you in my life for a reason. And Garcia also testified that when authorities contacted him in June of 2024, so this is after CNN had published a copy of the Intercontinental Video, he claims he wasn't truthful with them about his role in all of this, that he allegedly deleted messages with other security officers and only allegedly came clean about the payout with the government when he got an attorney.

Maricio, if they're trying to prove bribery of a witness, is this a clear-cut, case of that for racketeering? My answer is yes, and clearly that testimony was damning, and it's one of the predicate crimes. It's not that easy for them to prove these crimes when apparently he was out there committing a multitude of crimes. So it's very simple, and based on the testimony that you've, that gentleman provided in court, now I'm sure the defense beat him up and cross-examine them regarding deleting

evidence and things of that nature. But at the end of the day, if the guy was truthful and came off as a viable witness, I think that that's definitely going to hurt Diddy's defense. Well, they basically were like, hey, you signed this NDA, but you know what? There was a provision in there that allowed you to speak with law enforcement. You know, we weren't telling you you couldn't speak with law enforcement. It's not like Diddy was trying to cover up a crime. And I think they were also trying to emphasize that this was a way for him to protect both him and Cassie from embarrassment, not him trying to cover up a crime.

Well, listen, they can say whatever he wants, but it is covering up a crime. And it's covering up a really drastic violent beatdown. A lot of people wouldn't have taken the 50 grand. And a lot of people in his position, I think, would have not taken the money simply because there's a woman's literally life can be on the line. Violence escalates. And someone that beats a woman up the way that that Diddy did in that video, in my opinion, is capable of anything. A lot of people may have not taken those steps. I think that depending on how he testified, he could have explained the reasons why he did that.

People are greedy. People, you know, would take money. But it's definitely something that can satisfy the bribery requirement. And listen, it makes them look really bad. Everything that the government is saying, I feel like. they're proving it. One piece of a lot all the time. It wasn't, by the way, this was the second alleged bribery here connected to this event. Hotel security guard Israel Flores testified too, testified about responding to that incident in the hotel that after Cassie left, he said he was

getting ready to leave their room when Combs called him back, held a stack of money with $100 on top and said, don't tell nobody. Flores claims he thought it was in fact a bribe, responded, I don't want your money, just go back into your room. So now you have two examples of alleged bribe all flowing from the same event. Again, I'm highlighting how important this event is. Yeah. And I've heard that even while in custody, they have them on jail calls, trying to manipulate witnesses.

I mean, I haven't heard any of these calls, but we've discussed it before that they claim that they have them on jail calls, trying to manipulate witnesses or talk about putting stuff up on social media. So I feel like if someone like him that's been acting the way that he's been acting for two decades, I think that there's going to be plenty of evidence for the government to prove, not only the bribery, but the sex trafficking and the racketeering, I think it's going to be all there at the end. By the way, let's talk about racketeering. So even if they prove, right, that he was involved in bribery or forced labor or, you know, kidnapping, right? You know, there was an

agreement to commit these crimes, at least two, right? They still have to prove there was a criminal enterprise. And the very first paragraphs of his indictments say that he used basically his resources and his staff to further criminal activity. And That is why I think the mention there of Christina Corum, KK, by Eddie Garcia, is so important because she has been mentioned quite a few times in this case. I dedicated a whole sidebar episode to the major moments when she was mentioned in this trial in a racketeering conspiracy case, criminal enterprise agreement to engage in criminal activities for a common purpose.

You know, you need an agreement with others. It feels like she may be the key, the chief of staff, who may or may not be a knowing co-conspirator, right? This, I feel, is an argument that could be made. maybe they won't be made. I'm not sure. She hasn't testified. But I feel like she's going to have to testify the more that we hear about her. And going back to why this event is so important, mentioning KK, that she was getting Combs on the line. She was trying to get the tape. Doesn't this go to the idea of Combs allegedly using his staff or agreeing with others

to further criminal activity? Yes. And I think something that's indicative is that he's the only one charged with conspiracy. The way that I look at that, that means that everybody that you fired with is not going to testify against you. That's why there's no other co-defendant. So I think that they're going to have plenty of people because that's the kind of guy that he was. I mean, that's basically sending out orders and having people, you know, do all these things for him

that were not legal. And I think that that is going to show and highlight, not only during the trial, but especially in their closing. Listen, they're closing, their closing is probably going to start off with that video. 100%. It's like I said, it all flows from that. And this is why I'm dedicating a full episode to it.

This is why they started the case with it. why they wanted it in so badly and why the defense, you know, might have trouble arguing against it. But look, this, by the way, wasn't the only time that KK was mentioned connection with the 2016 alleged incident. Why? Let's go back to the testimony of Cassie's former best friend, Kerry Morgan. So she testified about what happened after this hotel incident. Reading from the transcript, quote, question, after Cassie arrived at the apartment, who, if anyone else came to the apartment? Sean Combs came. And how much later did he come? It was probably like 30 minutes, I guess. Can you describe what happened when he arrived? Um, yes, he was hitting the door with a hammer to try

to open it. And how did you know it was Mr. Combs? He was yelling. I could hear him. There was a peephole. We could see through. And Morgan testified about calling Christina Corum after this happened. So Maricio, you have now another event connected to the 2016 alleged attack. Why? is this hammer event or this alleged hammer event and the calling of KK, the alleged calling of KK. Why is it so important to the overall case? Well, because it shows a consistent pattern of violence, threats of violence, you know, and it's directly related with the time frame. So the incident on 2016 and then all of a sudden he's hitting the door with a hammer and yelling. It's the kind of evidence from a defense standpoint that is damning and that you say to

yourself, I can't believe I'm in this position as this lawyer that I've got to deal with. with this type of damning evidence of him hitting the door with a hammer like if he's in the movie the shiny this is like really bad evidence it's consistent it's related in time and it highlights the type of violent behavior that did he was using throughout not only in 2016 but all the way through so i think it's a very very important evidence for for the government and it's extremely damning to the defense it is interesting how it's going to maybe be used by the prosecution in different ways. But I do wonder, at the end of the day, and I'll just leave it with this, and I'll ask you this real quick, when you're hearing the cross-examination, look, I think

Combs has great lawyers, great lawyers. They are really questioning the credibility of these alleged victims. You know, they question Mia about these glowing social media posts and text messages she had of Combs after she claims he sexually assaulted her multiple times. There was evidence from Cassie that she set up the freak-offs, encouraged the freak-offs. She will say that none of it was actually consensual was not what she was really feeling. There was evidence that she claims Combs raped her and then she had one more consensual act after that with him. Even after something like this, as bad as it is, is the jury going to be left wondering, is she a victim of domestic violence or is she a victim of sex trafficking? I mean, as much as we build it up that

it is an important piece of evidence, do you think the defense has raised enough reasonable doubt even with respect to what happened in 2016. I think that it's going to be very difficult for the defense to overcome, like, a universal sense of hatred that the jury is going to have for somebody like Sean Diddy Combs. And in the end, I've said it many times in my career, and I've said it many times regarding this particular case, if the jurors do not like you, if the jurors hate you, they will convict you. That's simple. I've been dealing with that for the 23 years that I've been practicing.

seeing law. I understand that he has a very talented defense team, but it's just very hard to overcome the allegations made against them and the overwhelming amount of evidence that links him to the type of behavior. At the end of the day, this wasn't regular domestic violence. It wasn't. It was domestic violence tied with male prostitutes, pressure, getting videotaped, you know, and even the text messages that we discussed today regarding, oh, babe, I want a F-O-so-bad. when you hear that it doesn't sound like someone that is voluntarily part of it it's like she's trying to ask for his permission it doesn't sound like a regular relationship because at the day i don't think it was i don't think it was i think that he was using his power and control over her and i think in the end

the jury is going to understand that and i think in the end the jury's probably going to come here marisa pedia thank you so much for taking the time appreciate it so much for having you thank you so much and that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar everybody thank you so much 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.