The Ben Mulroney Show - Will Diddy go free? Could he get bail?

Episode Date: July 3, 2025

- Lorne Honickman -- lawyer If you enjoyed the podcast, tell a friend! For more of the Ben Mulroney Show, subscribe to the podcast! ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://link.chtbl.com/bms⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Also, on youtube -- ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://www.youtube.com/@BenMulroneyShow⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ Follow Ben on Twitter/X at https://x.com/BenMulroney Enjoy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

No Frills delivers. Get groceries delivered to your door from No Frills with PC Express. Shop online and get $15 in PC Optimum Points on your first five orders. Shop now at NoFriills.ca. in a row. Why? Exceptional capability, value and safety that beat all others to become Motor Trend's number one compact SUV. Right now, finance a new Rogue from just 0% for up to 60 months. That's a finance offer that's better than other Japanese and Korean competitor SUVs. Hurry into your local dealer and drive away in the award-winning Nissan Rogue. Conditions apply. See Nissan.ca for details. Welcome back to the Ben Mulrooney show. And now we are going to delve into the day after the Diddy verdict, where he was found guilty on two out of the five charges. Many believe that the three that he was not found guilty on are the more major charges.

A lot of people were hoping that he would never see another day of freedom. And now he's looking at worst at 20 years in prison here to break this down for us is Lauren Honigman litigation lawyer, former television and radio broadcaster Lauren, thank you so much for joining us. My pleasure, Ben. Nice to be here. So before we delve into the minutia of it, give me your, your view of this from 30,000 feet. Well, you know, you always have to when we do these things, Ben, when we go south of the border, we always okay, it's a little different. There's a lot of things that are the same and a little different. It's kind of interesting, isn't it?

Because this case because of the celebrity aspect to it, we go back only a mere 30 years when OJ Simpson, I think it was an of ninety five was found not guilty and everybody was watching that case of course uh... little different this time because no cameras in the courtroom as we had back for the oj case but people get into these cases been because it is a celebrity and this case of course soul much evidence about allegations of terrible, terrible acts by this individual. And you know, we always underline allegations.

But at the end of the day, at the end of the day when you look at it, you say to yourself, he got found not guilty on the most serious charges he was facing. Sex trafficking, racketeering uh... which means that a criminal enterprise in other words the allegations meaning what they what the prosecution failed to prove their that what he was doing with these to alleged victims uh... and now found to be victims was not just doing things for himself but doing it as part of some criminal enterprise. And that is what the jury said no to. So it's an interesting

part. The other interesting thing that everybody should be aware of, different back and down south of the border as to here, is people may be saying, well wait a minute, what about that video that the jury saw, if you follow this case, where he is seen assaulting in quite a violent fashion, one of the victims? Well, they have what's called a statute of limitations. So he wasn't even convicted of anything

to do with the assault. That would be completely different here in Canada. We have no such statute of limitations on those type of things. So Lauren, let's go back and compare this to, as you said, the trial of the century under with O.J. Simpson. There are some similarities in that they involved very successful black men. And so those things are, they're infused in a trial regardless of, like you can't get away from it in the states. But to me, the biggest difference is I go back to what

Chris Rock said about the OJ trial. I'm not saying he should have killed her, but I understand. In other words, every one of us can put ourselves into a position of trying to put ourselves in the heads of a person who may have gone to the extreme. I can imagine being in a position where I'd be so angry, I don't know what I would do. But this seems so complex. This seems like such an orchestrated almost enterprise that it doesn't feel like Diddy was living on the same planet as anybody in the jury pool.

Well, when you get into these cases, Ben, and of course, the reason that, to your point, when you look at these things, and it also depends on how how closely you follow it right people will come in with they'll come out but remember the prosecution in this case when this trial started back what in back in May I mean you'd have if you you pick up you'd go online and you'd look and you'd go holy cow one one anecdote after another about this guy,

about what he's doing, all these former girlfriends and staff, all the talking about the experience, and you say, okay, well this is kind of crazy that you're hearing that, but what it does point to, and this is the important thing, is that at the end of it all, and although our justice systems are very different in some ways, they're very similar in that the prosecution has this burden. They've got to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, so as awful as the evidence was, you had to go back to the charges, and that's where they failed on the most serious ones. And of course, a lot of people down there are saying

that the prosecution overreached, that they basically set themselves up for failure. Well, that's what I wanted to talk to you about next, because yesterday, right after the verdict came out, I gave my initial reaction, and it was more of a hope. My hope was that when it came time to sentencing, the judge would say, look, the worst you can get is 20 years, but I've seen enough evidence to suggest

that you are a terrible human being, and you've got the resources to go out and do this again. And so I'm gonna keep you in jail, and I'm gonna sentence you to prison for 20 years, not a day less, and no chance of parole. That was my hope of what I was going to hear. But then I hear Alan Dershowitz, the famous American lawyer who knows a heck of a lot more about this than I, and here's what he had to say. And I suspect that that conviction may very well be reversed on appeal.

So I suspect in the end, this is a good day for Sean Combs and his lawyers and not a particularly good day for prosecutors. I also think it's a good day for the law if it really strikes a difference and says, look, if you have non-consent to do sex, you've been victimized of a crime. But if you're engaging in sex voluntarily in order to get an advantage in the rap business, well, you know, maybe that's not criminal. Maybe that's just something you have to discuss with your priest and your rabbi and your mother. So, Lauren, is there really a genuine possibility that this could get reversed on appeal and in a few months from now, did he could be walking around as if nothing happened?

Well, we don't know when you talk about getting reversed on appeals. And again, just looking here in Canada take a long time, but who knows? But one thing that Dershowitz was saying that's important for all the listeners is he's talking about this issue of consent, right? Like, and consent is a very, very complicated legal issue. We have, we're waiting for a verdict here in Canada, in London, Ontario, of the hockey players trial, as it's been referred to, where consent was front and center. In particular case the the uh... obviously the jury found that whatever happened there

as bad as it may be was somewhat consensual huge huge issue there but but to your question anything be reversed sure and by the way one of the things that doesn't that does not happen in the u s that happens in canada again the prosecution doesn't have a right of appeal there to try and appeal the acquittals, which is something we have up here.

So these things happen, Ben, but who knows when they finally come to an end. Lastly, I want to ask, a lot of people are waiting with bated breath for the lists of celebrities that were apparently either tangentially involved or directly involved with these freak offs. A lot of people were expecting a download of names that was gonna blow the lid wide open on this bad behavior in Hollywood. And that did not come to pass.

What do you account for that? Well, there could be a lot of reasons and and and and and again in fairness you got a uh... if you're there in the court and you're listening to it all there there could be a lot of different reasons why a judge may have found that at at a particular point in time that did not need to be made public and again it may be something that

you're going to get a lot of people who will say well we want to get the names and whatever but did it have relevance does it have any relevance to the charges and that that's that's where you have to look well while we might want to see it and hear it and what it is a court may say say properly, by the way, well, it's not relevant to what we're doing here right now. But I don't think you've heard the end of this case. I don't think we've heard the end of the freak out party, what that means. Well, Lauren Honigman, thank you so much for being here. When, when this case rears its ugly perverted head again, we hope you join us.

Thanks for having me on Ben. Nice talking to you. Well, I want to tell you about Wagovi. Wagovi? Yeah, Wagovi. What about it? On second thought, I might not be the right person to tell you. Oh, you're not? No. Just ask your doctor. About Wagovi? Yeah. Ask for it by name. Okay. So why did you bring me to this circus?

Oh, I'm really into lion tamers. You know. With the chair and everything? Ask your doctor for Wagovi by name. Visit wagovi.ca for savings. Exclusions may apply.