Opening arguments were set to begin today in a highly anticipated federal trial for hip hop mogul Sean Diddy Combs.
Colmbs has been accused.
Of sex trafficking by force, transportation to engage in prostitution, and racketeering conspiracy as part of a federal indictment originally filed in September of last year. The Feds later added two more superseding indictments. Combs and his legal team have pleaded not guilty to all of the chargers.
Joining me now to break this all down.
As a friend of the program, He's an outstanding attorney who moonlights as a sports center anchor for ESPN.
He's also a legal analyst for ABC News.
All over the Disney family, the one and only Ryan Smith is right here with yours, truly. Ryan, always good to see you, my brother, always good to see you.
Let's get right to it.
The trial started today with six female prosecutors presenting the case against Colmebs.
What impact, if any, could that have on a jury.
Well, that has a big impact, And the goal of that is not only to use some of the top prosecutors in the land to prosecute the case, but it's also to show that this case is not just about Seawan Didy Combs, but it's about what he did to primarily women. And when you show that kind of front in the prosecution all women prosecution team prosecuting this case, it focuses the jury for prosecutors on what they want
them to be focused on. This was a man who might not have done every single elements of the crime, but racketeering is not about that. This kind of charge of conspiracy is not about that. It's about a man who used his power to force women into sexual situations. And so that is part of what they're trying to show. But I don't want it to be missed in all of this. Stephen A that these are some of the
top prosecutors in the land. So I think sometimes in a tendency to say, oh, it's all women, they're doing that to put on a show. No, they're using some of the best prosecutors in the land to make the case by their presence that this is about holding someone accountable.
Okay, Ryan, you said top prosecutors in the land. That resonated with me, because is that to imply these ain't just the top prosecutors in New York.
This is not a local thing. They went all over the country and.
Got six of the best prosecutors in the country who happen to be female.
Is that what you're saying, No, it's more like the top the prosecutors in New York. The New York Office is one of the best in the world, and so these are their best. These are their top These are people who have handled cases like just Lady Maxwell connected to the Epstein case. That's the lead.
Prosecutor in this case, handle that case.
So these are some of the best women in some of the best office in the world.
Break down the demographics, the dynamics and the demographics of this jury. How many females, how many males, how many blacks, how many whites? What can you tell us about the actual jury and the alternates that have been assigned to this case.
Yeah, you've got a full jury. You've got six alternates. There are all over the map, and I think that's what you want in a case like this. Men and women different hues, different colors, different races, but they also come from different socioeconomic backgrounds. Some come from different higher level jobs. Other there's one juror who's a clerk at a store in New York. So I think that's what prosecutors wanted to paint here, a broad swath of New York society, of people who are there to try to
judge this case. It can be an advantage for prosecutors. It can also be an advantage for the defense, because the defense can look at this and say, we are going to try in many ways to show you that Shawn Combs might not be a great guy, might be a dirk, might be angry, might have committed domestic violence, But was he a racketeer? Was he someone who we should hold accountable for what the prosecution is saying. So this jury is a diverse, broad swath of people in
New York. But we will see how that plays out on either side.
One of the things I'm looking at right now, this is called the fresh CNN update. I wanted to know what you could validate, what you can elaborate upon, if at all it says the jury was shown additional footage from the hotel hallway.
The jury is.
Being shown footage from the north hallway of the sixth floor of the Intercontinental Hotel. This is where p Diddy ran around, ran out in the hallway with just a towel wrapped around himself, naked up top going after cast inventury, trying to prevent her from getting on the elevator. He grabbed her, he shoved her down, he kicked her, et cetera, et cetera. He acknowledged, you know how hainus the video was in his own social media posting in the aftermath
of this being publicized. Could you tell us what happened today inside that courtroom as it pertains to evidence that was shown to the jury and any testimony that was given.
Yeah, that evidence that that video right there, that is the most powerful piece of evidence the prosecution has, and they put it right up front. First witness in the trial, they called they put that on full display. You talk about the extended view of this. What they're trying to show is the defense will try to say, hey, this was an argument, This was an argument between a couple that went awry. Yes there was domestic violence here, but
this isn't any evidence of racketeering or conspiracy. So the prosecution year is trying to show an expanded view. What that does is it kind of undercuts any defense argument that says, you're not showing the whole context of what happened.
You're not showing what really happened. And there was so much more that went on that tells a story of more of some a couple that got into an argument, rather than something that builds more into a criminal racketeering conspiracy or something that is a broader issue that comes from it. So that's what they're showing there, Steven.
The big part of today Gough was opening statements.
The prosecution gets up first and lays out their case, and their case is essentially this Son Comb's big music mogul, committed these crimes, had these freak costs, had coerce women into force sex, all as a part of a criminal enterprise, and others were involved to facilitate that enterprise. But the defense part of this they come second. And how they contrasted it, I think is very interesting. They didn't try
to say on Colmes did none of this. They said, look, he's a bad guy, he's a jerk, he has anger issues, he took drugs, and they even took the step of saying that he had some domestic violence in his past. That is important because in a way you put to the jury, hey, if he had these things, doesn't that build into what the prosecution's saying. What the defense is going to try to do here is say, just because he is a bad person doesn't mean he is a person who did illegal things.
We commit.
We do not convict people for being bad people. We convict people for doing illegal activities. So was what we're seeing here in this case? Jury? Is what the defense is trying to say, was what we're seeing here evidence of a racketeering enterprise, conspiracy things like that? Or was this a person with anger issues that you or I might have septual proclivities that we may not understand or agree with.
But are these things that should lead to a conviction in this case?
And I think that's a risky thing to do in some ways, but it's what they have to do because they've got a very imperfect client.
That that word risky that you just threw out there, I would imagine you've surmised and deduced that this is risky because of the times that we're living in. This is not the nineties, this is not the eighties, This
is not even the early two thousands. This is a time where domestic violence has really really come to the forefront of the mind's eye of American citizens and beyond because of the heinous behavior of a lot of people, most of them being men against women, the Me Too movement, the aftermath of all of that, and what have you.
You're looking at those kind of things, and I find myself saying, why in God's name with the defense team believe that that's a strategy to employ in light of how sensitive we are to those things in these times compared to how we were in years past.
Is that why you use the word risky?
It is? It is because we are in a time where we are believing people who are accusing big titans of industry like Sean Combs. So in the past, a lot of times you could undercut that in so many ways as the defense team. You could try to dismiss a victim, You could try to attack people who are accusing people of other things. That is a much tougher thing to do today. That's why it's risky. And in a way it's risky because you're painting part of the
prosecutor's picture. The prosecution is trying to show this was a man who had these freak offs, did all these coerced women into sexual, horrendous sexual engagements, all because he's trying to further this enterprise. And then you're getting up and saying, yeah, you're seeing a video. He did do some domestic violence, he did have angers whose he did take drugs for example, even the drugs part if he took drugs part of the prosecution cases he drugged women
to do some of these things. That helps a jury build into the prosecution's case. But you do this because in some ways you don't have another choice. You do this because you know there's a video out there that jurors are seeing today in that courtroom that shows what he did. You see that there is information they're gonna see evidence in that jury of these freak offs and things like that. So you know this is the situation.
The way you can paint this is to try to humanize Shawn Combs to this jury and say.
Look, I know you might not engage in these things.
I know he might live a different life. But just because he lives a different life, would you want someone coming in and saying, hey, you live a different life, so now we're gonna prosecute you. I think that's what they're trying to do. But you make the great point, stephen A. In this day and age. Doing that is a tough needle to thread, because when you do that, you open the door of well, are we not supposed to believe these women?
Are we not supposed to believe what they say Shawn Combs did?
Are we not supposed to believe what we're seeing on video and how Shawn Combs in our minds?
Yes, he could have paid off.
People at the hotel or done certain things to try to cover some of this off. And isn't that part of the criminal enterprise they're trying to prove? So that's where it becomes risky.
Define for our audience the word racket hearing and the word enterprise, because those words are thrown out obviously as a part of this indictment, of course, but I don't think people understand those two words when you say criminal and they understand it where criminal, criminal enterprise, racketeering, explain enterprise, explain racketeering for the purposes of these specific charges against Sean Diddy Goombs.
Okay, that racketeering and criminal enterprise.
I think people can look at it as where it started from years and years ago, when the government was trying to go after organizations like the mob. It was so tough because in that kind of situation, the person you're trying to accuse of the crime didn't do every part of the crime. So let's say a mob boss ordered to hit on somebody, They might not have done the actual hit, So how do you connect them to that racketeering?
And when you talk about criminal.
Enterprises is where the government tries to set up a scenario where they say and enterprise was set up to.
Do the crime.
In order to do the crime, must people had to be involved, but there was somebody at the top who started the whole thing. So we're going to try to get all of those people to paint the picture of the enterprise and convict the person who started the thing. So when Shawn Combs' case, the way it breaks down is to say he set up a criminal enterprise. He wanted to do things like freak offs and this coersion of women and these abusive things that they're accusing him of,
So he set up an enterprise. That enterprise had people going to get the women, had people procuring the drugs, had people paying off people. When evidence got out, and then prosecutors can take all that information and paint a picture of an enterprise that was all set up to further Sean Colmes's freek coffs or proclivities sexually. So that's
how it breaks down. It's almost helpful to look at it like the person you're trying to convict didn't touch every element of the crime that you're trying to convict him of. So you're trying to show that he set up an organization all in furtherance of that criminal purpose, and when you do that, you can get him on that racketeering charge.
We've heard about him being charged, we haven't heard about anybody else being charged. Is that because they can't find these other people they can't find enough evidence against these other people, or is it because they're utilizing those people to make the case against him.
I would say it's probably part of the latter, which is using people to make the case against him. I would say in some ways, they're probably speaking all these people who are involved in what they see as the enterprise. They got these people in they try to see who could flip in different areas, and that's why in this case, everybody should be watching the witnesses that testify and look at the witnesses if they have any that relate to
people who are incomes as organization. Those are the people that you're talking about, the people.
That in some way might have been involved with.
What they're saying is this criminal enterprise who are in a sense flipping on Diddy. Now, the other side of it is not being able to find people. I always like to say when you talk about prosecutors and government cases, the key for them is patience. They need to have evidence to win a case if they believe there's a good faith basis in which a crime has been committed. That takes time, like even in Ditty's case, it took
years to try to iron this thing out. So I think sometimes when you think of Ditty's case, you think, well, is there gonna be another start coming next month or the month after. I think for them, it's about let's prosecute this case and what we learn here, if we can use that for other people, we will do that. But we need to preach patience because, just like in Ditty's case, if we do not have all our ducks in a row, then you are not going to get
a conviction. And if you don't get a conviction, it becomes harder to bring other cases like this where you think crimes have been committed.
Any idea how long you anticipate this struggle.
I think weeks. It could be anywhere from six to eight weeks, and it could be a little bit shorter. But the key is the prosecute is going to take all the time they need to lay out all their evidence. I think one thing you can look for is the defense is not going to need nearly as much time as the prosecution because their idea is going to be a try to shoot down a lot of what what the prosecution has. But I think this is going to
be a week's long trial. You are going to see a lot of evidence come out because what the prosecution has to do is, like what we talked about, tain't this entire picture of an enterprise, But here are the key Stephen, And they got to do it in a way that makes it simple for the jury. It can't be so complicated that jurors sit back and say, I can't really get what they're trying to do here. I mean, what are you trying to say to me? What prosecutors are trying to say is here's a broad picture of
an enterprise, all the further into of a crime. They've got to be able to focus on that every step of the way and not make it too complicated. And for the defense, the key is going to be poke holes. They want to show a man who was maybe mean, maybe angry, maybe had unconventional sexual proclivities. That would be their way of wanting the jury to look at it, but never force anybody to do anything. They're going to
poke holes. They're going to try to knock down a lot of the witnesses by saying they willingly participated in a lot of the conduct, maybe even in some ways try to facilitate some of the conduct if Combs asked for it, And they're going to try to paint the picture of he may be a bad guy, but he's not a criminal.
Last couple of questions.
We know how eccentric showan p Diddy Combs was, and particularly with his wardrobe, how fly he liked to look, et cetera, et cetera.
Yet he shows up the.
Court today he's dressed down, wearing a white dress shirt, a light colored pullover and khaki pants. Is not how the public is used to seeing the music mogul, what do you make of that?
That's by designs and it's always by design I don't want people to think that, oh, he's doing that, That's not what we would see with other people.
This happens in every single case.
The defense is trying to humanize him, and in order to humanize him, they got to make him look like other humans. And other humans don't come in look and fly wearing ten thousand.
Dollars watches or more.
You know, other humans are wearing regular clothing, a suit, a tie, just there to be humble. And one of the pictures that the defense is trying to paint with Ditty is to say, and you saw this in Diddy's video, I know I did something wrong. I know I was not always my best. And so what they're trying to do is in his appearance, haint a man who is humble, who is just there. I will sit through this case, but I did not do what prosecutors said, and that's
the image they want to show. So I think when people say, well, where's all that flyiness that we used to see him, you would never want to have that in court because that would make him look less human to the jury. You want the jury to almost look at him and say, even though we know he's a billionaire, he's a music mogul. When I look at that man in that defense chair, he looks like a man who did the wrong thing, but isn't a criminal.
That's what the defense wants to show in his appearance.
The jury opted to choose the jury.
The judge rather, I'm sorry, opted to choose the jury today out of concern that if given the weekend to think about it, jurors may have second thoughts about serving could move on a part of the judge.
Yeah, excellent move on the part of the judge. You want to get this thing underway fast. And I know a lot of people actually said to me today, wowy, just see to the jury and now we're getting going right away. That happens all the time. This is a big commitment for jurors. And I know the jurors' names won't be revealed. That's a big part of this. That's a big part of our justice system. But think of
the pressure these men and women face. Think of the fact that they have to sit through six to eight weeks of a trial, pay attention to every detail of perhaps the biggest trial.
In the world right now.
And so for them there might be feelings of I don't want to be a part of this. You know what I'm gonna do. I'm gonna go home and I'm not gonna come back. Let him say something about that. Use one of the alternates. No, this judge is looking at this saying, we have a jury. Let's get this thing going. And at every stage you will see this
judge trying to move this case along. If he has to stop it, he will, but his key is not to elongate it because the longer it goes, the more a chance that you might lose a juror, and that's the last thing you want. Yes, you have the alternates, but the people sitting on that jury right now, they are focused on making a decision, and you don't want to lose one of those decision makers.
Bring in an AlterNet or worse, have.
It happen to multiple people, and then you start opening this case up to questioning. So the faster you go, the better off you are. And this judge is handling that right.
Last question, we've heard about character witnesses for showing Didny combs A have you heard of any B If you haven't heard, what kind of effect could that potentially have on a case of this magnitude and sensitivity.
I have not heard yet, but I think it could have a huge effect. The question is who are those witnesses and what do they say? Now? If they use a character witnesses, the defense decides go that way and use a character witness that's a member of his family. You have a jury looking at that person and you say many juries might think, well, that's self serving. You know him, you want to get him off, You're gonna
say nice things. Of course, the question would be do you have character witness who in some way could transcend that for curves and make them think, hey, this is somebody who I wouldn't expect to say this about him, or somebody who I believe and support everything they say. And here they are saying that Diddy is not guilty of the things that the prosecutor is trying to prove here.
So it's always a little bit of a risky proposition with character witnesses because if it just seems self serving, then the jurors are starting to hear witness after witness, especially if you have multiple ones, and they're saying, well, what are you doing here? You're just telling me like what I expected you to tell me, which is the great guy shouldn't be convicted, and the more you hear that,
the less you believe the defense's case. So I think in many ways it's going to be a tough road to hoe for these defense attorneys because you want somebody to bolster Diddy. But at the same time, the more you have somebody who's in his corner, the more you open yourself up.
To jurors saying, can I really believe these witnesses?
One of the best in the business, leg the Landalysts, extraordinary, Ryan Smith right here with Steven A.
Smith and Steven Ny Smith. Shall appreciate you, buddy man. Thank you so much.
You know I'm going to call you back because I want to hear more of what you have to say as you continue to monitor this drial.
Thank you so much.
Anytime, man, I'll hop my island you go right