Podcasts about prosecution

Defense attorney Marc Agnifilo argued that Cassie Ventura was the winner of her relationship with Combs. "She is sitting somewhere in the world with $30 million," he said. "He's in jail." And he tried to make the prosecution of Combs relatable. "They take yellow crime scene tape, figuratively, and they wrap it around his bedroom," he said. "The crime scene is your private sex life." In its rebuttal, the prosecution said the defense "just spent a whole lot of energy trying to blame his victims and the U.S. government for his lies, his threats, and his violence."If you want to read NBC's coverage of the trial, check out our newsletter, “Diddy On Trial”: NBCNews.com/Diddy 

U.S. government prosecutor Christy Slavik has delivered closing arguments to the jury. Slavik, who addressed jurors for nearly five hours, painted a scathing portrait of Diddy, casting the defendant as “the leader of a criminal enterprise” who did “not take no for an answer” and “used power, violence and fear to get what he wanted.”Jim Chapman brings you Slavik in her own words as he covers the Prosecution's closing Arguments in the Diddy Trial.#Prosecution #closingstatements #diddy #trial #exposed #podcastBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/exposed-scandalous-files-of-the-elite--6073723/support.

"He won't take no for an answer," said prosecutor Christy Slavik. She said it over and over during a summation that lasted more than four hours. She argued that the "common purpose" of Combs and his "inner circle" -- his chief of staff, his bodyguards, and some of his assistants -- was to protect him from bad press and law enforcement. And she recounted the dramatic stories told in the courtroom in the past six weeks: Goodfellas-type scenes of alleged bribery, arson, and kidnapping.If you want to read NBC's coverage of the trial, check out our newsletter, “Diddy On Trial”: NBCNews.com/Diddy

In the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, the government reminded jurors of the complex web of witnesses and evidence it has presented over the past month and a half to try to prove racketeering and sex trafficking charges. The defense team will make its closing arguments Friday.  ABC News legal contributors Channa Lloyd and Bernarda Villalona join Brian Buckmire to break down how prosecutors made their case. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Diddy Closing Arguments: 5 Damning Hours From Prosecution! The federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs has captivated the nation, laying bare unsettling allegations involving racketeering, sex trafficking, coercion, and interstate prostitution. Federal prosecutors argue that the iconic music mogul orchestrated a sinister criminal enterprise, using his fame and wealth to manipulate, coerce, and exploit vulnerable individuals under the guise of extravagant lifestyle parties. Yet, despite presenting graphic video evidence, explicit text messages, financial documents, and emotionally-charged testimonies from alleged victims such as Cassie Ventura, the prosecution surprisingly dropped significant charges—kidnapping and arson—just before closing arguments. This shocking courtroom twist has raised pressing questions about the strength and integrity of their case. Defense attorneys, in an unexpected and risky maneuver, chose not to call any witnesses—not even Sean Combs himself—to rebut the serious accusations. This bold silence raises intriguing legal and psychological questions: Did the defense confidently bet on prosecutorial overreach, or was this strategic silence a desperate attempt to avoid further incrimination? In this compelling video, we dive deep into the trial's most troubling and confusing aspects. We explore psychological dynamics at play, including coercive control, celebrity influence, and juror biases. Expert analysis from legal insiders sheds light on critical courtroom strategies, jury decision-making processes, and the implications of dropped charges on jury deliberations. Whether Diddy walks free or spends life behind bars hinges on jurors interpreting complex laws like RICO and sex trafficking statutes. Viewers will gain a thorough understanding of the intricate interplay between celebrity privilege, legal accountability, and the psychology behind criminal behavior. Don't miss this comprehensive breakdown of one of the most intriguing celebrity trials in recent history, packed with revelations, mysteries, and profound implications for justice and accountability. Stay tuned and subscribe for updates, expert analysis, and real-time developments from the courtroom. Hashtags: #SeanCombs #DiddyTrial #TrueCrime #FederalTrial #CelebrityCrime #Racketeering #SexTrafficking #CourtroomDrama #LegalAnalysis #PsychologyOfCrime Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872  

Diddy Closing Arguments: 5 Damning Hours From Prosecution! The federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs has captivated the nation, laying bare unsettling allegations involving racketeering, sex trafficking, coercion, and interstate prostitution. Federal prosecutors argue that the iconic music mogul orchestrated a sinister criminal enterprise, using his fame and wealth to manipulate, coerce, and exploit vulnerable individuals under the guise of extravagant lifestyle parties. Yet, despite presenting graphic video evidence, explicit text messages, financial documents, and emotionally-charged testimonies from alleged victims such as Cassie Ventura, the prosecution surprisingly dropped significant charges—kidnapping and arson—just before closing arguments. This shocking courtroom twist has raised pressing questions about the strength and integrity of their case. Defense attorneys, in an unexpected and risky maneuver, chose not to call any witnesses—not even Sean Combs himself—to rebut the serious accusations. This bold silence raises intriguing legal and psychological questions: Did the defense confidently bet on prosecutorial overreach, or was this strategic silence a desperate attempt to avoid further incrimination? In this compelling video, we dive deep into the trial's most troubling and confusing aspects. We explore psychological dynamics at play, including coercive control, celebrity influence, and juror biases. Expert analysis from legal insiders sheds light on critical courtroom strategies, jury decision-making processes, and the implications of dropped charges on jury deliberations. Whether Diddy walks free or spends life behind bars hinges on jurors interpreting complex laws like RICO and sex trafficking statutes. Viewers will gain a thorough understanding of the intricate interplay between celebrity privilege, legal accountability, and the psychology behind criminal behavior. Don't miss this comprehensive breakdown of one of the most intriguing celebrity trials in recent history, packed with revelations, mysteries, and profound implications for justice and accountability. Stay tuned and subscribe for updates, expert analysis, and real-time developments from the courtroom. Hashtags: #SeanCombs #DiddyTrial #TrueCrime #FederalTrial #CelebrityCrime #Racketeering #SexTrafficking #CourtroomDrama #LegalAnalysis #PsychologyOfCrime Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872

Diddy Closing Arguments: 5 Damning Hours From Prosecution! The federal trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs has captivated the nation, laying bare unsettling allegations involving racketeering, sex trafficking, coercion, and interstate prostitution. Federal prosecutors argue that the iconic music mogul orchestrated a sinister criminal enterprise, using his fame and wealth to manipulate, coerce, and exploit vulnerable individuals under the guise of extravagant lifestyle parties. Yet, despite presenting graphic video evidence, explicit text messages, financial documents, and emotionally-charged testimonies from alleged victims such as Cassie Ventura, the prosecution surprisingly dropped significant charges—kidnapping and arson—just before closing arguments. This shocking courtroom twist has raised pressing questions about the strength and integrity of their case. Defense attorneys, in an unexpected and risky maneuver, chose not to call any witnesses—not even Sean Combs himself—to rebut the serious accusations. This bold silence raises intriguing legal and psychological questions: Did the defense confidently bet on prosecutorial overreach, or was this strategic silence a desperate attempt to avoid further incrimination? In this compelling video, we dive deep into the trial's most troubling and confusing aspects. We explore psychological dynamics at play, including coercive control, celebrity influence, and juror biases. Expert analysis from legal insiders sheds light on critical courtroom strategies, jury decision-making processes, and the implications of dropped charges on jury deliberations. Whether Diddy walks free or spends life behind bars hinges on jurors interpreting complex laws like RICO and sex trafficking statutes. Viewers will gain a thorough understanding of the intricate interplay between celebrity privilege, legal accountability, and the psychology behind criminal behavior. Don't miss this comprehensive breakdown of one of the most intriguing celebrity trials in recent history, packed with revelations, mysteries, and profound implications for justice and accountability. Stay tuned and subscribe for updates, expert analysis, and real-time developments from the courtroom. Hashtags: #SeanCombs #DiddyTrial #TrueCrime #FederalTrial #CelebrityCrime #Racketeering #SexTrafficking #CourtroomDrama #LegalAnalysis #PsychologyOfCrime Want to comment and watch this podcast as a video?  Check out our YouTube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/@hiddenkillerspod Instagram https://www.instagram.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Facebook https://www.facebook.com/hiddenkillerspod/ Tik-Tok https://www.tiktok.com/@hiddenkillerspod X Twitter https://x.com/tonybpod Listen Ad-Free On Apple Podcasts Here: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/true-crime-today-premium-plus-ad-free-advance-episode/id1705422872  

"He won't take no for an answer," said prosecutor Christy Slavik. She said it over and over during a summation that lasted more than four hours. She argued that the "common purpose" of Combs and his "inner circle" -- his chief of staff, his bodyguards, and some of his assistants -- was to protect him from bad press and law enforcement. And she recounted the dramatic stories told in the courtroom in the past six weeks: Goodfellas-type scenes of alleged bribery, arson, and kidnapping.If you want to read NBC's coverage of the trial, check out our newsletter, “Diddy On Trial”: NBCNews.com/Diddy https://www.nbcnews.com/diddy-on-trial

In Episode 160, Scott Piehler's topics include: City Council approves the Pacific Fusion purchase. A would-be entrepreneur makes a head-scratching pitch. The City and Port of Oakland's Turning Basin project. AHS names its scoreboard. The Prosecution and Public Rights Unit reflects on 2024. A stronger than usual Alameda connection for Pixar's latest. Events for the weekend, and Scott digs in at some local favorites.Support the show• AlamedaPost.com • Podcast • Events • Contact •• Facebook • Instagram • Threads • BlueSky • Reddit • Mastodon • NextDoor • YouTube • Apple News •

The Prosecution took nearly 5 hours to make its closing arguments in the Diddy Trial. Amy and T.J. go over the afternoon session where Christy Slavic told jurors “It’s time to hold him accountable, it is time for justice and it’s time to find him guilty.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prosecution took nearly 5 hours to make its closing arguments in the Diddy Trial. Amy and T.J. go over the afternoon session where Christy Slavic told jurors “It’s time to hold him accountable, it is time for justice and it’s time to find him guilty.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The Prosecution took nearly 5 hours to make its closing arguments in the Diddy Trial. Amy and T.J. go over the afternoon session where Christy Slavic told jurors “It’s time to hold him accountable, it is time for justice and it’s time to find him guilty.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Elie Honig is a former Assistant U.S. Attorney and co-chief of the organized crime unit at the Southern District of New York, where he prosecuted more than 100 mobsters, including members of La Cosa Nostra, and the Gambino and Genovese crime families. He went on to serve as Director of the Department of Law and Public Safety at New Jersey Division of Criminal Justice. He is currently Special Counsel at Lowenstein Sandler and a CNN legal analyst.  For a transcript of Elie's note and the full archive of contributor notes, head to CAFE.com. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

On May 18, 2025, the Government submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian in United States v. Combs, S3 24 Cr. 542 (AS), addressing unresolved issues regarding witnesses for the upcoming trial session. The letter highlights a dispute over the introduction of text communications between Dawn Richard and the defendant, Sean Combs, from 2020 to 2023, which the defense plans to present under the hearsay exception for the declarant's then-existing state of mind (Rule 803(3)). The communications involve Ms. Richard initiating contact with Combs, discussing professional matters, and expressing affection for him. The Government objects to the introduction of these messages, arguing they are irrelevant to her expected testimony, which focuses on events from 2009 to 2011. Additionally, the Government notes that the defense's proffered evidence does not relate to Ms. Richard's state of mind during the relevant time period, nor does it support her testimony.The letter also addresses Kerry Morgan and David James, who are involved in the same issue. The defense seeks to use communications from both of these individuals, but the Government asserts that these too are irrelevant and should be excluded. The Government further argues that the text exchanges between Ms. Richard and Combs cannot be used for impeachment, as they would actually corroborate Ms. Richard's testimony. She is expected to testify that, after leaving her employment with Combs in 2011, she intentionally maintained a professional relationship with him, given his past threats. Therefore, the affectionate nature of the text messages would support, rather than challenge, her testimony. The Government requests that the Court preclude these communications from being introduced as evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.355.0.pdf

ICYMI: Hour Two of ‘Later, with Mo'Kelly' Presents – A look at the “best & worst Places for 4th of July Celebrations” according to WalletHub AND the rough rollout for Tesla's new fleet of Robotaxi's…PLUS – Thoughts on the Sean ‘Diddy” Combs trial and his chances of actually avoiding jail-time - on KFI AM 640…Live everywhere on the iHeartRadio app & YouTube @MrMoKelly

In this episode of Music for Breakfast, hosts Octavia March, J. Manning, and Kia "KC" discuss the opening arguments in the highly publicized ASAP Rocky shooting trial. ASAP Relli has filed a civil lawsuit alleging that ASAP Rocky shot at him during a confrontation in 2021. The prosecution presented text messages and video evidence, while the defense contends that Relli's accusations are financially motivated and claims the gun was a prop. The episode explores the courtroom drama, key evidence, and witness testimonies, and offers opinions on the case's credibility. Tune in for a thought-provoking discussion intertwined with music and cultural insights.00:00 Introduction to the ASAP Rocky Shooting Case00:52 Welcome to Music for Breakfast01:39 Overview of the ASAP Rocky Shooting Trial03:41 Details of the Confrontation and Evidence06:15 Courtroom Drama and Defense Arguments07:54 Prosecution's Case and Key Evidence15:06 Conclusion and Final Thoughts16:18 Outro and Where to Follow#asaprocky #courtcase #lawsuit #hiphop #rap #music #fyp #trending #youtube Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for "fair use" for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use. No copyright infringement intended. ALL RIGHTS BELONG TO THEIR RESPECTIVE OWNERS

In Colorado, Barry Morphew is arrested for the second time for the murder of his wife, Suzanne, who disappeared on Mother's Day in 2020. In Bowling Green, Kentucky, two men go on trial for the murder of mom Crystal Rogers. Updates on Monica Sementilli and former MLB pitcher Dan Serafini. Plus, we've all seen age-progressed images of missing children — can they actually help?See more of Dateline's reporting on missing persons cases in which age-progressed images are featured here: https://www.nbcnews.com/age-progressions Find out more about the cases covered each week here: www.datelinetruecrimeweekly.com

The Prosecution took nearly 5 hours to make its closing arguments in the Diddy Trial. Amy and T.J. go over the afternoon session where Christy Slavic told jurors “It’s time to hold him accountable, it is time for justice and it’s time to find him guilty.”See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The author reflects upon 35 years of being a criminal attorney both for prosecution and for the defense in high-level cases. It looks at the practice of law from being a former prosecutor to the running of a successful defense practice. It is focused on the representation on behalf of the prosecution for the state and as a defense counsel representing the accused. He reflects upon the criminal justice system, and the balance of scales on both sides of the counsel table in the courtroom. Specifically, it reveals the unfair tipping of scales in favor of the prosecution and against the accused, using real examples. He discusses the significant constitutional rights associated with the process of prosecution and defense. The book is a reflection on the specific cases in his career and the changes that resonated over that 35-year period.Suppose you face criminal charges of a misdemeanor or a felony, an indictable criminal offense, or a disorderly person's offense; your world can turn upside down.Facing any criminal charge can be highly challenging for you, whether you know you have broken the law or are dealing with wrongful accusations.Your job, your family life, and your freedom may be at risk.In any circumstances in which criminal prosecution and potential loss of your rights are on the line, it is crucial to have dedicated legal counsel on your side to defend your rights and provide due process.He is the author of Unequal Justice: The Search for Truth to Balance the Scales.https://www.amazon.com/Unequal-Justice-Search-Balance-Scales/dp/B0DHWT1N8Dhttp://www.yourlotandparcel.org

Today, after calling 34 witnesses over six weeks, federal prosecutors rested their case. After that, the defense put on their case. It took them only a half an hour. They called no witnesses. They did argue that the case should be dismissed because the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof. But the judge reserved his decision on that, and the trial remains on track for the jury to hear summations on Thursday.If you want to read NBC's coverage of the trial, check out our newsletter, “Diddy On Trial”: NBCNews.com/Diddy

Diddy's team didn't need much time to wrap up their case, and a new reality show that's right up J-Si's alley. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Count 4 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs charges him with transporting Victim 1, identified as Cassie Ventura, across state lines with the intent to engage her in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that between 2009 and 2018, Combs orchestrated and facilitated "freak-off" events—drug-fueled sexual encounters involving male escorts—which he directed, filmed, and used to exert control over Ventura. These events reportedly took place in various locations, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami. The prosecution argues that Combs used his influence and resources to transport Ventura and other women to these events, where they were coerced into participating in commercial sex acts. Evidence presented includes travel records and communications that suggest the transportation was part of a broader scheme to exploit women for prostitution.In response, Combs' defense team contends that the interactions were consensual and part of a private, non-criminal lifestyle. They argue that Ventura willingly participated in these events and that the transportation was not for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution. The defense also points to the absence of direct evidence linking the transportation to prostitution, suggesting that the charges are based on assumptions rather than concrete proof. The outcome of this count will depend on the jury's assessment of the credibility of the evidence and testimonies presented, including the context of the relationships and the nature of the events in question.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Count 5 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs charges him with transporting Victim 2, referred to as "Jane," and male commercial sex workers across state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution between 2021 and 2024. Prosecutors allege that Combs orchestrated and facilitated "freak-off" events—drug-fueled sexual encounters involving male escorts—which he directed, filmed, and used to exert control over Jane. These events reportedly took place in various locations, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that Jane was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead coerced or manipulated into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstancesIn response, Combs' defense team contends that the interactions were consensual and part of a private, non-criminal lifestyle. They argue that Jane willingly participated in these events and that the transportation was not for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution. The defense also points to the absence of direct evidence linking the transportation to prostitution, suggesting that the charges are based on assumptions rather than concrete proof. The outcome of this count will depend on the jury's assessment of the credibility of the evidence and testimonies presented, including the context of the relationships and the nature of the events in question.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Today, after calling 34 witnesses over six weeks, federal prosecutors rested their case. After that, the defense put on their case. It took them only a half an hour. They called no witnesses. They did argue that the case should be dismissed because the prosecution didn't meet its burden of proof. But the judge reserved his decision on that, and the trial remains on track for the jury to hear summations on Thursday.If you want to read NBC's coverage of the trial, check out our newsletter, “Diddy On Trial”: NBCNews.com/Diddy 

On May 18, 2025, the Government submitted a letter to Judge Arun Subramanian in United States v. Combs, S3 24 Cr. 542 (AS), addressing unresolved issues regarding witnesses for the upcoming trial session. The letter highlights a dispute over the introduction of text communications between Dawn Richard and the defendant, Sean Combs, from 2020 to 2023, which the defense plans to present under the hearsay exception for the declarant's then-existing state of mind (Rule 803(3)). The communications involve Ms. Richard initiating contact with Combs, discussing professional matters, and expressing affection for him. The Government objects to the introduction of these messages, arguing they are irrelevant to her expected testimony, which focuses on events from 2009 to 2011. Additionally, the Government notes that the defense's proffered evidence does not relate to Ms. Richard's state of mind during the relevant time period, nor does it support her testimony.The letter also addresses Kerry Morgan and David James, who are involved in the same issue. The defense seeks to use communications from both of these individuals, but the Government asserts that these too are irrelevant and should be excluded. The Government further argues that the text exchanges between Ms. Richard and Combs cannot be used for impeachment, as they would actually corroborate Ms. Richard's testimony. She is expected to testify that, after leaving her employment with Combs in 2011, she intentionally maintained a professional relationship with him, given his past threats. Therefore, the affectionate nature of the text messages would support, rather than challenge, her testimony. The Government requests that the Court preclude these communications from being introduced as evidence.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.355.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

John Maytham is joined by legal researcher Chris Oxtoby to unpack the Supreme Court of Appeal’s (SCA) scathing ruling in the Nulane case—widely seen as a litmus test for South Africa’s State Capture prosecutions. In a recent Daily Maverick article co-authored with Judith February, Oxtoby details how the SCA overturned the Free State High Court’s decision to acquit all accused, citing serious misapplication of legal principles and failure to assess the totality of evidence. Presenter John Maytham is an actor and author-turned-talk radio veteran and seasoned journalist. His show serves a round-up of local and international news coupled with the latest in business, sport, traffic and weather. The host’s eclectic interests mean the program often surprises the audience with intriguing book reviews and inspiring interviews profiling artists. A daily highlight is Rapid Fire, just after 5:30pm. CapeTalk fans call in, to stump the presenter with their general knowledge questions. Another firm favourite is the humorous Thursday crossing with award-winning journalist Rebecca Davis, called “Plan B”. Thank you for listening to a podcast from Afternoon Drive with John Maytham Listen live on Primedia+ weekdays from 15:00 and 18:00 (SA Time) to Afternoon Drive with John Maytham broadcast on CapeTalk https://buff.ly/NnFM3Nk For more from the show go to https://buff.ly/BSFy4Cn or find all the catch-up podcasts here https://buff.ly/n8nWt4x Subscribe to the CapeTalk Daily and Weekly Newsletters https://buff.ly/sbvVZD5Follow us on social media:CapeTalk on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CapeTalkCapeTalk on TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@capetalkCapeTalk on Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/CapeTalk on X: https://x.com/CapeTalkCapeTalk on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@CapeTalk567See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Just before closing arguments, prosecutors in Diddy's federal trial make a shocking move. Liver King has been arrested for allegedly making a terroristic threat against Joe Rogan, and Taylor Swift stuns fans with a surprise performance that has the internet in a frenzy. Hosts: Branson Quirke & Steph Williams Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Count 3 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs, which charges him with sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in relation to Victim 2, referred to as "Jane" Doe, accuses him of orchestrating and benefiting from the exploitation of this victim. The charge alleges that Combs used force, manipulation, or deceit to coerce Jane into engaging in sex acts for his benefit, potentially with the knowledge or complicity of his associates. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that the victim was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead forced or misled into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstances.During the trial, the government presented testimony and evidence suggesting that Combs exerted significant pressure on Jane, using both coercive tactics and the manipulation of power dynamics to force her into sexual acts. Witnesses have claimed that Combs used threats, promises of career advancement, and other forms of psychological manipulation to control Jane's actions, effectively using his position in the entertainment industry to trap her in a situation of trafficking. The defense, on the other hand, has attempted to discredit the victim's testimony, arguing that any interactions between Combs and Jane were consensual, and they are expected to continue challenging the validity of the coercion claims. With the prosecution's evidence already on the table, the key question remains whether the jury will find that the victim was truly coerced or if the defense can sway them to doubt the severity of the alleged trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The prosecution has presented a detailed case against Sean "Diddy" Combs on Count Two of his federal indictment, which accuses him of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion involving his former girlfriend, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura. Testimony from witnesses and evidence of digital communications between Diddy and Cassie have painted a troubling picture of manipulation and control. Prosecutors argue that Diddy used his power and influence to coerce Cassie into engaging in sex acts with other individuals under duress, maintaining control over her through a mix of threats, promises, and financial leverage. The prosecution also highlighted a pattern of emotional abuse and psychological pressure, underscoring the imbalance of power in their relationship and the ongoing exploitation Cassie faced during their time together. Additionally, the government introduced testimony suggesting that Diddy's management of Cassie's career was a tool to further his control over her, with career opportunities and personal favors tied to her compliance.Forensic evidence and witness statements have supported the allegations, with some individuals describing how Diddy would demand services from Cassie and other women under the guise of business or professional obligations. These claims of sex trafficking are bolstered by text messages and other forms of communication where Diddy's coercive tactics were allegedly evident. Despite the gravity of these accusations, the defense has denied the allegations, presenting their own version of events that disputes the characterization of Diddy's actions as coercive or criminal. The jury will now face the critical task of determining whether the prosecution's portrayal of exploitation is convincing enough to overcome the defense's argument, and if Diddy's actions truly amounted to trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, or if the evidence is insufficient to support such a serious charge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

The prosecution has presented compelling evidence against Sean "Diddy" Combs on Count One of his federal indictment, which alleges conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Central to the case are wiretaps, financial records, and testimony from former associates, all of which tie Diddy to a network of criminal activities including drug trafficking, extortion, and illegal weapons possession. These documents show that Diddy used his position in the entertainment industry to facilitate and protect these operations. Witnesses have described how Diddy maintained control over the enterprise, exerting influence over associates to carry out illicit activities while shielding himself from direct involvement. The prosecution also introduced evidence of intimidation and threats against those who attempted to expose or interfere with the organization's activities.In addition, the government has presented forensic evidence linking Diddy to various key figures involved in criminal conduct. Surveillance footage, digital communications, and phone records depict Diddy coordinating with known associates to orchestrate criminal acts. Testimony has pointed to Diddy's role as both a leader and benefactor of the criminal enterprise, showing that he was deeply involved in the day-to-day operations of the illicit network. This combination of wiretaps, digital communications, and witness statements serves to establish a clear pattern of criminal behavior, demonstrating that Diddy was not just a passive bystander but an active participant in the conspiracy, fulfilling the requirements for a RICO violation.As the prosecution wraps up its presentation, the question remains: will the jury be convinced by the extensive evidence linking Sean "Diddy" Combs to the criminal activities outlined in Count One of the RICO indictment, or will they find reasonable doubt in the government's narrative? The weight of wiretaps, financial records, and witness testimony paints a damning picture of Diddy's involvement, but the defense has vigorously challenged the credibility of these claims. As deliberations approach, the jury must decide whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven that Diddy's actions were not just incidental but a central part of a calculated and organized criminal enterprise, or if the evidence falls short of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

On June 24, 2025, the prosecution concluded its case in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, after presenting testimony from 34 witnesses over six weeks. Key witnesses included former girlfriends Casandra "Cassie" Ventura and a woman identified as "Jane," who testified about being coerced into drug-fueled sexual encounters orchestrated by Combs. Jurors were shown explicit videos and text messages supporting these claims. Homeland Security Special Agent Joseph Cerciello provided additional evidence, including travel and communication records.  In a strategic move, Combs' defense team chose not to call any witnesses and instead submitted agreed-upon exhibits. They argued that the alleged victims had willingly participated in the activities, citing text messages where "Jane" arranged encounters with male escorts. The defense contends that the sexual acts were consensual and part of a lifestyle choice.Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday, with jury deliberations expected to begin shortly thereafter. Combs faces charges including racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, he could face life in prison.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:(2) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial coverage | CNN

On June 24, federal prosecutors concluded their case against Sean "Diddy" Combs, who faces charges of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The defense team concluded their presentation this afternoon, and the prosecution informed the court that they would not be presenting a rebuttal case. Judge Subramanian instructed the jury to return to the courtroom before 9 a.m. ET on Thursday for the final arguments from both sides.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

On June 24, 2025, the prosecution concluded its case in the federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs, after presenting testimony from 34 witnesses over six weeks. Key witnesses included former girlfriends Casandra "Cassie" Ventura and a woman identified as "Jane," who testified about being coerced into drug-fueled sexual encounters orchestrated by Combs. Jurors were shown explicit videos and text messages supporting these claims. Homeland Security Special Agent Joseph Cerciello provided additional evidence, including travel and communication records.  In a strategic move, Combs' defense team chose not to call any witnesses and instead submitted agreed-upon exhibits. They argued that the alleged victims had willingly participated in the activities, citing text messages where "Jane" arranged encounters with male escorts. The defense contends that the sexual acts were consensual and part of a lifestyle choice.Closing arguments are scheduled for Thursday, with jury deliberations expected to begin shortly thereafter. Combs faces charges including racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking, and transportation to engage in prostitution. If convicted, he could face life in prison.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:(2) Live updates: Sean ‘Diddy' Combs trial coverage | CNNBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Count 5 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs charges him with transporting Victim 2, referred to as "Jane," and male commercial sex workers across state lines with the intent to engage in prostitution between 2021 and 2024. Prosecutors allege that Combs orchestrated and facilitated "freak-off" events—drug-fueled sexual encounters involving male escorts—which he directed, filmed, and used to exert control over Jane. These events reportedly took place in various locations, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that Jane was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead coerced or manipulated into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstancesIn response, Combs' defense team contends that the interactions were consensual and part of a private, non-criminal lifestyle. They argue that Jane willingly participated in these events and that the transportation was not for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution. The defense also points to the absence of direct evidence linking the transportation to prostitution, suggesting that the charges are based on assumptions rather than concrete proof. The outcome of this count will depend on the jury's assessment of the credibility of the evidence and testimonies presented, including the context of the relationships and the nature of the events in question.to  contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This is your afternoon All Local update on June 24, 2025.

Both the prosecution and Combs' legal team are anticipated to conclude their arguments by the middle of next week, with jurors potentially starting their deliberations as early as Wednesday.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The prosecution has presented compelling evidence against Sean "Diddy" Combs on Count One of his federal indictment, which alleges conspiracy to violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Central to the case are wiretaps, financial records, and testimony from former associates, all of which tie Diddy to a network of criminal activities including drug trafficking, extortion, and illegal weapons possession. These documents show that Diddy used his position in the entertainment industry to facilitate and protect these operations. Witnesses have described how Diddy maintained control over the enterprise, exerting influence over associates to carry out illicit activities while shielding himself from direct involvement. The prosecution also introduced evidence of intimidation and threats against those who attempted to expose or interfere with the organization's activities.In addition, the government has presented forensic evidence linking Diddy to various key figures involved in criminal conduct. Surveillance footage, digital communications, and phone records depict Diddy coordinating with known associates to orchestrate criminal acts. Testimony has pointed to Diddy's role as both a leader and benefactor of the criminal enterprise, showing that he was deeply involved in the day-to-day operations of the illicit network. This combination of wiretaps, digital communications, and witness statements serves to establish a clear pattern of criminal behavior, demonstrating that Diddy was not just a passive bystander but an active participant in the conspiracy, fulfilling the requirements for a RICO violation.As the prosecution wraps up its presentation, the question remains: will the jury be convinced by the extensive evidence linking Sean "Diddy" Combs to the criminal activities outlined in Count One of the RICO indictment, or will they find reasonable doubt in the government's narrative? The weight of wiretaps, financial records, and witness testimony paints a damning picture of Diddy's involvement, but the defense has vigorously challenged the credibility of these claims. As deliberations approach, the jury must decide whether the prosecution has sufficiently proven that Diddy's actions were not just incidental but a central part of a calculated and organized criminal enterprise, or if the evidence falls short of establishing guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Count 3 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs, which charges him with sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion in relation to Victim 2, referred to as "Jane" Doe, accuses him of orchestrating and benefiting from the exploitation of this victim. The charge alleges that Combs used force, manipulation, or deceit to coerce Jane into engaging in sex acts for his benefit, potentially with the knowledge or complicity of his associates. The prosecution's claim hinges on the idea that the victim was not participating in these acts voluntarily but was instead forced or misled into doing so under duress, a key aspect of the trafficking charge under federal law. If the prosecution's evidence is found to be credible, it would prove that Combs played a central role in exploiting Jane, using his power and influence to subject her to coercive circumstances.During the trial, the government presented testimony and evidence suggesting that Combs exerted significant pressure on Jane, using both coercive tactics and the manipulation of power dynamics to force her into sexual acts. Witnesses have claimed that Combs used threats, promises of career advancement, and other forms of psychological manipulation to control Jane's actions, effectively using his position in the entertainment industry to trap her in a situation of trafficking. The defense, on the other hand, has attempted to discredit the victim's testimony, arguing that any interactions between Combs and Jane were consensual, and they are expected to continue challenging the validity of the coercion claims. With the prosecution's evidence already on the table, the key question remains whether the jury will find that the victim was truly coerced or if the defense can sway them to doubt the severity of the alleged trafficking.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The prosecution has presented a detailed case against Sean "Diddy" Combs on Count Two of his federal indictment, which accuses him of sex trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion involving his former girlfriend, Casandra “Cassie” Ventura. Testimony from witnesses and evidence of digital communications between Diddy and Cassie have painted a troubling picture of manipulation and control. Prosecutors argue that Diddy used his power and influence to coerce Cassie into engaging in sex acts with other individuals under duress, maintaining control over her through a mix of threats, promises, and financial leverage. The prosecution also highlighted a pattern of emotional abuse and psychological pressure, underscoring the imbalance of power in their relationship and the ongoing exploitation Cassie faced during their time together. Additionally, the government introduced testimony suggesting that Diddy's management of Cassie's career was a tool to further his control over her, with career opportunities and personal favors tied to her compliance.Forensic evidence and witness statements have supported the allegations, with some individuals describing how Diddy would demand services from Cassie and other women under the guise of business or professional obligations. These claims of sex trafficking are bolstered by text messages and other forms of communication where Diddy's coercive tactics were allegedly evident. Despite the gravity of these accusations, the defense has denied the allegations, presenting their own version of events that disputes the characterization of Diddy's actions as coercive or criminal. The jury will now face the critical task of determining whether the prosecution's portrayal of exploitation is convincing enough to overcome the defense's argument, and if Diddy's actions truly amounted to trafficking by force, fraud, or coercion, or if the evidence is insufficient to support such a serious charge.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Count 4 of the federal indictment against Sean "Diddy" Combs charges him with transporting Victim 1, identified as Cassie Ventura, across state lines with the intent to engage her in prostitution. Prosecutors allege that between 2009 and 2018, Combs orchestrated and facilitated "freak-off" events—drug-fueled sexual encounters involving male escorts—which he directed, filmed, and used to exert control over Ventura. These events reportedly took place in various locations, including New York City, Los Angeles, and Miami. The prosecution argues that Combs used his influence and resources to transport Ventura and other women to these events, where they were coerced into participating in commercial sex acts. Evidence presented includes travel records and communications that suggest the transportation was part of a broader scheme to exploit women for prostitution.In response, Combs' defense team contends that the interactions were consensual and part of a private, non-criminal lifestyle. They argue that Ventura willingly participated in these events and that the transportation was not for the purpose of engaging her in prostitution. The defense also points to the absence of direct evidence linking the transportation to prostitution, suggesting that the charges are based on assumptions rather than concrete proof. The outcome of this count will depend on the jury's assessment of the credibility of the evidence and testimonies presented, including the context of the relationships and the nature of the events in question.to contact  me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Mike Marza and ABC News Legal Contributor Bernarda Villalona recap day 27 of the Sean Diddy Combs trial. With the conclusion of Monday's testimony, federal prosecutors are expected to rest their case against Sean “Diddy” Combs on Tuesday morning.    The defense on Monday notified the court they do not plan to call any witnesses but will present a brief case consisting only of evidence they plan to show the jury.    Closing statements are scheduled to begin on Thursday morning with each side expected to take about four hours.  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Dr. Jillian Peterson, forensic psychologist and professor, joins Karen Conti to discuss the recent politically motivated shootings of the Minnesota law makers as well as common criminal profiles of school shooters, and if any link lies between the two.

Attorney and animal rights activist Jane McBride joins Karen Conti to speak on animal and owner rights to wrap up National Animal Rights Week. For more information on Jane and her organization, visit illinoishumane.org.

Dave Zehner joins Karen Conti to discuss recent cases including the Karen Read settlement, jury issues in the Weinstein case, and why a juror was removed from the P. Diddy case. 

In Document 395, the Government's Filter Team submits a reply letter to Judge Subramanian in response to Sean Combs's objection concerning the production of a cellphone referred to as “Device-1.” The Government is seeking access to this phone, while Combs has claimed privilege over certain messages, specifically the “June 23 Messages.” The defendant previously argued that these messages are protected either under the common-interest doctrine or through Kovel principles, which extend attorney-client privilege to third parties such as consultants assisting attorneys.The Government refutes both of these claims, asserting that neither argument holds up under legal scrutiny. First, they challenge the application of the common-interest rule to the messages in question, likely suggesting that the communications do not meet the necessary criteria—such as a shared legal interest—to qualify for that protection. Second, the Filter Team argues that privilege does not automatically apply to communications with non-lawyers under Kovel unless strict necessity is demonstrated. The Government concludes that the messages must be produced and that the privilege claims raised by Combs are insufficient to prevent that production.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.395.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

The Government has submitted a response to the defendant's set of supplemental proposed jury instructions, which were filed on June 8, 2025 (Dkt. 388). In its letter addressed to Judge Subramanian, the Government evaluates each additional instruction the defense seeks to introduce, scrutinizing the legal accuracy and appropriateness of these proposals for the jury's consideration.In its analysis, the Government likely identifies instances where the defense's proposed instructions either misstate governing law, overemphasize minor issues, or conflict with established precedents or the Court's existing instructions. Based on those assessments, the prosecution requests that the Court reject or modify certain of the defendant's suggested instructions to ensure jurors are provided only with legally sound and properly balanced guidance.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.415.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Send us a textFairfax criminal defense lawyer Jonathan Katz daily practices the martial art of taijiquan / t'ai chi ch'uan Yang style short form, also known as Cheng Man Ch'ing (CMC) taijiquan form. This episode introduces our third taijiquan teacher, after previously introducing you to Jon Katz's vitally important teacher Julian Chu (a student of CMC senior student Benjamin Pang Jeng Lo, several of whose weekend training classes Jon has attended), and Len Kennedy, who is one of two lawyers who has inspired Jon on the taijiquan path. Taijiquan is vitally important to Jon. Courtroom defense is war, and Jon's regular taijiquan form and sparring (push hands / sensing hands) practice is just the thing to enable him to find calm in the eye of the courtroom storm, so as to keep his eye on the prize of pursuing his clients' best defense. Sifu William C. Phillips is one of CMC's junior students, and among the youngest to receive permission from CMC to teach taijiquan. Bill is among the small number of CMC's student who have written about him and his taijiquan. Bill's first book is In the Presence of Cheng Man-Ch'ing- My Life and Lessons With the Master of Five Excellences. Bill's second book is due out this year. This Beat the Prosecution episode explores the essence of CMC beyond what has already been written about him, and the further essence of Bill -- who also has advanced in several other martial arts -- beyond what is already available. Bill grew up with street fights, stumbled into a love of judo in college, and from the judo studio director learned about CMC, and the rest is history. Bill declines an invitation to speak much about how criminal defense lawyers can come closer to beating the prosecution, but he actually says it all for himself in this interview: Learn and apply taijiquan. Be patient. Be compassionate (I add to be compassionate without sacrificing the interests of the defendant, nor the fighter's firepower). Fight for justice. Practice daily. Stay true to your practice. Deeply thanking and bowing to Sifu Bill Phillips for joining this podcast episode.This podcast episode is also on Youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnAD5GGZi90 and Apple podcasts https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/winning-with-full-martial-firepower-sifu-bill-phillips/id1721413675?i=1000713682983This podcast with Fairfax, Virginia criminal / DUI lawyer Jon Katz is playable on all devices at podcast.BeatTheProsecution.com. For more information, visit https://KatzJustice.com or contact us at info@KatzJustice.com, 703-383-1100 (calling), or 571-406-7268 (text). If you like what you hear on our Beat the Prosecution podcast, please take a moment to post a review at our Apple podcasts page (with stars only, or else also with a comment) at https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/beat-the-prosecution/id1721413675

In United States v. Combs, the Government responds to the defendant's motion to strike portions of Mr. Mescudi's testimony. The defendant contends that certain parts of Mescudi's testimony should be excluded from the trial, asserting that they are irrelevant or prejudicial. The Government argues that Mescudi's testimony is both relevant and integral to its case, and it should not be excluded. They emphasize that Mescudi's statements provide important context and details that directly relate to the charges and help to establish key aspects of the prosecution's narrative.Additionally, the Government identifies disputed evidentiary issues regarding the upcoming testimony of Deonte Nash and Mia. The defense has raised objections about the admissibility of certain aspects of their testimonies, questioning their relevance and the potential for bias. The Government contends that both witnesses are critical to the case and their testimonies should be allowed to stand, as they provide essential evidence regarding the defendant's actions. The Government's position is that any objections to their testimony should be rejected, as it aligns with the facts and is necessary for proving the charges.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.406.0.pdf

Former Cook County State's Attorney, Kim Foxx, who led prosecutions against R. Kelly, Jussie Smollett, Black Souls Gang (and more) answers our pressing legal questions about the Diddy trial: What exactly is RICO, and is the prosecution proving it? What is the Defense's strategy going to be? Why exactly did the Prosecution put Jane on the stand, again? If convicted, how much of Diddy's money is the government after?  And our non-legal questions: why is Diddy so cheap? Why is Jane hugging people?! How many other Diddys are there? Why does everyone think distribution is only what they saw on Power?  Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices