Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Dawn Richard's Attorney Speaks Out On Her Testimony; Diddy's Empire Is At Risk As Government Eyes Seizing Assets; Laura Coates Interviews Sketch Artist Christine Cornell. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 19, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST: Good evening and welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial" on day six of the criminal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs.

The prosecution honed in on Diddy's abuse of Cassie Ventura while zeroing in on a theme that is at the heart of their very case, the level of control that Diddy allegedly exerted over Cassie Ventura.

In just a moment, my team of legal experts and court insiders will break down all of that very critical testimony today. And there was no shortage of it, frankly. The prosecution put three witnesses on the stand. Two of them corroborated Diddy's alleged abuse of Cassie.

Former Danity Kane singer Dawn Richard said that she witnessed multiple attacks. The other is Cassie's former best friend, who testified that she begged Cassie to leave Diddy, that the rapper controlled every aspect of her life.

The prosecution also called someone who was employed by Diddy directly. I'm talking about his former assistant, David James, who told jurors that Cassie confided in him, saying she couldn't get out of what she called a crazy lifestyle.

The day started with Dawn Richard finishing her testimony from Friday, and she recalled more instances of Diddy attacking Cassie, including once punching her in the face with a closed fist and another time where she says he punched Cassie in the stomach.

The defense tried to undermine Richard's credibility multiple times over an incident where she said she saw Diddy attack Cassie with a skillet. The defense suggested her account would have changed one too many times over time.

The next witness, Cassie's former best friend, Kerry Morgan, we heard a lot about during trial so far even through Cassie. She also detailed Diddy's abuse, testifying about two times that she actually saw him get violent with Cassie. The prosecutor asked -- quote -- "What types of things did you see him do to her? Well, Morgan said, hit her, pull her hair. I've seen him kick her, push her. When the prosecutor asked her if did Diddy appear to be intoxicated or high, Morgan answered, no.

Morgan claimed she was personally assaulted by Diddy, saying that he threw a wooden hanger at her head back in 2018, testifying that Diddy sent her 30,000 bucks, and she signed an NDA. She cut off her relationship with Cassie right after that.

Now, it wasn't just physical abuse that Morgan actually described in court. She also described power, control. During their friendship, she encouraged Cassie to leave Diddy, but Cassie said that she could not. When they asked her why did she say she couldn't, Morgan responded -- quote -- "Because of her job, her car, her apartment. He controlled everything. She would have lost all of her livelihood."

Now, the next witness up backed up the idea that Cassie did indeed feel trapped. David James is a former personal assistant to Diddy, saying that Cassie told him once -- quote -- "Man, this lifestyle is crazy." He asked her why she didn't leave, and he testified -- quote -- "She was, like, I can't, I can't get out, you know. Mr. Combs oversees so much of my life. He's -- he controls my music career, he pays for my apartment, he gives me an allowance, essentially a salary. I just didn't think that she could easily leave."

James also spoke about trying to get the job as city's assistant, and he recounted a meeting with executive when this happened. She pointed at the wall and she said, this is Mr. Combs's kingdom. We're all here to serve in it. Now, he will be back on the stand tomorrow.

And we're learning a lot about who the prosecution intends to call next, including an escort, Cassie's mother perhaps, and Diddy's former personal chef.

Here right now is CNN's Elizabeth Wagmeister, who was in court today and following this so closely. Elizabeth, what was the through line for today?

ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Laura, it's a great question. So, the through line between Dawn Richard and Kerry Morgan, they, of course, were both there to help corroborate pieces of Cassie's account.

[23:05:03]

These two women are completely unrelated, but the through line between both of their testimony was not only that they witnessed abuse, that they alleged they saw Combs violently abuse Cassie, but they both also testified that Diddy then threatened them to stay silent.

So, in the case of Dawn Richard, there was this incident with a skillet, where she said that Cassie was cooking in the kitchen at Diddy's home in Los Angeles, and that Diddy came downstairs, was very angry and -- we'll get into this because there were some inconsistencies, Laura -- COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: -- which I know we want to talk about. But basically, what she said is Diddy threw -- tried to hit her with the skillet, and then Cassie fell to the ground. After that, she says that Diddy then said to her that where he is from, and this is a direct quote, where he comes from -- quote -- "people go missing." So, she said on the stand, she took that to be a death threat.

Now, when you go to Kerry Morgan, she said that after she saw Cassie beat by Diddy on at least two different occasions, that she was then offered a $30,000 NDA which, of course, she took as a way to silence her.

COATES: Well, talk to me about these inconsistencies. Obviously, on cross, the defense wanted to point those out, wanted to try to undermine and suggest that their memories were somehow suddenly better now years later than they had been on multiple occasions. Was the defense effective in trying to highlight that?

WAGMEISTER: You know, I think that they were, Laura. And you and I all last week were sitting --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: -- together in that courtroom, and we were paying close attention. It is so hard to tell what these jurors are thinking. And I have to tell you --

COATES: Hmm.

WAGMEISTER: -- it was still difficult to tell what they are thinking. But when this cross-examination of Dawn Richard was happening, I did see a few jurors kind of, you know, perk up a little bit and notice that there were some inconsistencies.

So, let me take you back to this incident from 2009 where Dawn Richard -- again, she alleged that at Diddy's Los Angeles home, that he got mad when Cassie was in the kitchen cooking eggs or the chef was cooking eggs, but Cassie was handling the skillet. Okay? And at first, she said that this skillet had been thrown.

And then the prosecute -- the defense rather, sorry, said that when you met with prosecutors and she met with them eight times over the course of a year plus in preparation for her testimony, they said that her story changed.

So, I want to read you what they said. Okay? On March 18, the prosecutors, here's what they alleged Dawn Richard said, that he threw the eggs at Cassie and set the frying pan down. Now, today, May 16, to the jury, she said that Diddy -- quote -- "took the skillet and tried to hit Cassie over the head with it."

So, a small difference but a big difference when you are talking about abuse. But I have to tell you that Dawn Richard said that she sticks to her core allegation, which is that she saw Cassie be physically abused, and she was threatened. She said that over time, as she talks about her story more, that she remembers more details. She said, I'm being honest and I'm doing the best that I can.

COATES: There were people who we know were in the courtroom last week. We saw namely Diddy's family. They weren't there. Do you know why?

WAGMEISTER: I do, Laura. So, this was the first day that his family wasn't there. As you said, they have all been there to support him, everyone from his mother to the three mothers of his children to his six adult children. Well, none of the family was there, and I did find out from a source. It is because his two twin teenage girls, they had their prom last weekend.

COATES: Hmm.

WAGMEISTER: They posted their photos on their Instagram looking beautiful, and the family went out to celebrate their prom. So, I do hear that they are flying back tonight and that they are expected to be in court tomorrow and for most of this week. So, the family is supporting Sean Combs. They will be there.

I hear that not every family member will be there every day, but my source does tell me there's nothing going on, there's no funny business, they were going back home for their prom, which also again underscores that Diddy still has young children.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

WAGMEISTER: Yes, they are adults, but they are teenagers. And to go through this and to see your father on trial, you know, that's got to be tough for them. There is a human element to this, Laura.

COATES: And, of course, they were at times in the courtroom when you had very graphic testimony being described. I know the twin daughters, and I think actually a third daughter, also left during the male escort testimony. Now, they're coming up again. We will see if they remain.

Elizabeth Wagmeister, thank you for your reporting as always.

I've got three brilliant legal minds joining me now. Allison Leotta, former federal sex crimes prosecutor, attorney and legal analyst Monique Pressley, who represented Bill Cosby, and criminal defense attorney Mark Petrovich, who represented D.C. sniper John Boyd Malvo.

We've got so much to talk about. I --I want to get right to a question that's on a lot of people's minds. We are hearing so much information about the violence and the allegations of domestic abuse.

[23:10:03]

In fact, the counsel for the -- for Diddy has already owned this in the opening statement, saying, yep, he has done these things, he is a domestic abuser. But they said this is not the crime he is charged with. I wonder, from your perspective, Allison, is the testimony focusing too much on the violence or is it enough to prove the elements of what he is charged with?

ALLISON LEOTTA, FORMER SEX CRIMES PROSECUTOR: Yeah. Great question, Laura. I think that the testimony that's going on right now is an introduction.

COATES: Hmm.

LEOTTA: We've been in trial one week. They say it's going to be eight to 10 weeks. But they're painting a picture of the violence that has come, just the way that Sean Diddy Combs lived his life. He's not just beating up his girlfriend, his -- his -- the girl he loves, he's beating up her friends, he's beating up singers, that he -- he's threatening singers that he is working with. He -- it is his kingdom. Everyone else just lives in it.

And I think that sets it up for those of RICO violations --

COATES: Hmm.

LEOTTA: -- for the idea that he is running basically a hip-hop mafia.

COATES: Tell me, Monique, when you look at that and think about the enterprise, which has to be part of the RICO, a very serious Kerry's (ph) life in prison if he is convicted of this, when you hear that and you look at things like Kerry Morgan, who is the former best friend, who got this payment and this NDA, they're going to use that in part, I would assume, to suggest that this is all part of the machinations of trying to control and make sure that sex acts and beyond can still be done.

Do you see those NDAs or those payments as problematic for the defense or helping?

MONIQUE PRESSLEY, TRIAL ATTORNEY, YOUTUBE HOST: Neither. I think that actually, the other episodes of violence with people with whom he was not involved sexually or romantically work against the prosecution because it makes for an air of violence. It makes for kind of a mood swing emotional- type person who is not in control of impulses. And that's not the same thing as the mastermind --

COATES: Hmm.

PRESSLEY: -- who is doing things for a specific purpose, and the specific purpose is the sex trafficking of one person. That's not what comes off.

And -- and for the same reason, I do think that there's -- it's -- it's a shame that -- that you have to say it in a trial. But I do think we're heavy on domestic violence that's uncharged at this point.

And from everything that people say about the jurors, they're -- they're not leaning into it. And I think that's because they credited Ms. Ventura in the first place. COATES: Hmm.

PRESSLEY: So, unless they understand why we're hearing the more and why we're hearing the more when we already believe her -- we saw the video with our own eyes. She was a credible witness. And now, the witnesses that are coming behind her aren't as credible as she was.

COATES: Hmm.

PRESSLEY: And that makes for a different type problem. So, I'm interested to see what comes next.

COATES: A fascinating point, basically, because you've got this sweet spot, right, Mark, where on the one hand, you want to give enough to connect the dots later. Obviously, probably the end of trial. It's not chronological. On the other hand, you've got testimony coming in from people like Morgan, the former best friend, who suggested that Cassie Ventura downplayed some of the violence to at least her.

When you've got essentially a corroborating witness who's coming in, the prosecution wants to call, then you've got her testimony suggesting that Ventura did not speak to her about it in the same way perhaps as she described now, how does that play?

MARK PETROVICH, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think there are a couple of things that came out with regard to that testimony. I think the defense did a good job pulling -- pulling apart some points. First of all, she testified and said she didn't want to be testifying. She said, I want to move on from these people.

COATES: Yeah.

PETROVICH: Both. Not just Combs, but these people.

COATES: And their -- and their problems, she said.

PETROVICH: And their problems.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PETROVICH: And then she -- that's consistent with another statement she made, which was with regard to what happened after the incident, that she accused Combs of assaulting her.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

PETROVICH: She ended the friendship with Ms. Ventura based on the fact that Ms. Ventura didn't back her up. And again, there's a cohesion between Combs and Ventura, and that's what the defense wants to establish, a true cohesion between those two people.

She also brought out a number of other points. For instance, she pointed out that the victim was jealous of a couple other women --

COATES: Uh-hmm. PETROVICH: -- who Mr. Combs was seeing at those times. And she also testified and said that they loved each other. These are things that are common emotions in a common relationship. They point to this being more of a normal relationship than the way the prosecution is trying to paint it out.

COATES: Hmm.

PETROVICH: And I think there are a number of things that the defense brought out to help them along those lines.

COATES: I don't know if normal is the word I would describe or what we've heard so far, but I get your point about --

PETROVICH: New normal (ph).

COATES: -- the idea of the text messages coming in to describe if there were different ranges of emotions inscribed here.

[23:15:04]

Really quick, though, we're going to talk more about all of this, but we've just now heard from an actual employee, a former employee of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Up till now, we've been hearing about -- about the enterprise, about people in this inner circle, bodyguards, high-level employees, former assistants. What's the impact of now finally hearing from someone and who actually says that he believes that Cassie couldn't get away?

LEOTTA: Yeah. So, I write novels now.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

LEOTTA: I write crime novels, romantic, suspense --

COATES: Great novels, by the way.

LEOTTA: Thank you. I -- that means a lot, coming from you. This was, in her mind, I'm sure, the beginning of a great romance. It's the story that everyone is hoping for, to get swept off her feet by this, you know, white knight on a shining horse. And then it turned out that he was fighting demons of his own and he kind of drags her into it.

You're, like, with her, this character for a moment, and then suddenly, you see the world that's all around her. And I think we're about to see this world that he has created and it feels like -- it's going to feel like a prison. He has -- everyone there is reporting to him. Everyone's job there is to make him happy, to fulfill his sexual desires, to make him seem like a big man. And she's an important piece in that. But she is living in this gilded cage, and we're about to see all the keepers of that cage.

COATES: Monique, I know you and I talked about this in the past. We're going to get more about this and the idea of how the prosecution is going to try to connect the dots to -- to build that, and the defense is going to tear that down. We have a lot more to talk about. So, everyone, stand by, including -- we have testimony from Dawn Richard. The major claim she made about alleged threats from Diddy and how the defense tried to poke some pretty big holes in her statements. Her attorney will be my guest next.

Plus, new testimony about high-ranking members of Diddy's inner circle. They're now raising the question. Will some of them take the stand?

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Former Danity Kane band member Dawn Richard taking the stand for day two of her testimony, describing multiple violent incidents between Diddy and Cassie Ventura, where the music mogul allegedly punched, choked, slapped or even kicked Cassie. But Richard's testimony did not come without some pretty tense questioning of Danity Kane singer by, of course, the defense.

With me now, Dawn Richard's attorney, Arick Fudali. Welcome, Eric. I have to ask you. I mean, she came forward in September. That was nearly a year after Cassie filed her civil lawsuit against Diddy. What is she hoping to achieve by speaking out now and, of course, testifying in court?

ARICK FUDALI, ATTORNEY FOR DAWN RICHARD: Well, I think exactly what she said today on the stand, which is she's hoping to achieve justice. She's hoping there'll be justice in her own civil lawsuit, which was a very courageous thing to do for her to -- to file. I think people don't understand how difficult and how much bravery it takes to file a lawsuit against someone as prolific, someone as notorious, someone as powerful as Sean Combs was. So that took a lot of bravery.

Then also to testify today, to look him in the eye, to be in the courtroom with Mr. Combs, who was staring right back at her, you know, watching every word, for her to testify and to testify in front of 18 jurors, two rows of defense attorneys, a row of prosecutors, it took a lot of courage.

And really what she wants out of this and what she wants out of everything she has been doing so far is really justice.

COATES: You know, I can totally appreciate what it takes to go inside of a courtroom and testify and confront someone with that power dynamic. But what you call bravery, the defense called a money grab. Can you respond to that, and why you think they're wrong?

FUDALI: I -- I can't comment on whether they're right or wrong. What I can say is I represent --

COATES: Wait. You can't comment on whether your client is doing a money grab? I think you can, Arick. FUDALI: Certainly -- well, she's certainly -- no, this is not in the money grab. I can certainly say that. What I can also say is this is a common tactic I see from defense counsel all time. As someone who represents victims of sexual -- alleged sexual assault against a lot of very high- profile people, you can imagine that I hear all the time when I'm in criminal court the defense attorneys using the civil lawsuit as sort of, you know, a reason to show --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

FUDALI: -- that she's not being truthful or something like that. I think the public for the most part, and usually juries, typically understand that when you're an alleged victim, you have the right to sue your -- your alleged abuser. That is a right Americans have, and that should not be held against her or any witness or any alleged victim.

COATES: I want to go through some of her testimony because she's -- this was day two for her on the stand. And the defense, they pressed her about her testimony that she actually gave on Friday. And then during that testimony, she talked about 2009 incident where Diddy allegedly attempted to throw a frying pan at Cassie. And Dawn testified that she was summoned by Diddy the following day, and that he warned her, and I'm quoting here, "where he comes from, people go missing."

Why didn't Dawn bring up this allegation in the previous things with prosecutors, as the defense tried to point out?

FUDALI: Well, I think it's important to understand that as -- an alleged victim's memory evolves, especially from something that took place over a decade ago. As their memory evolves, the story and their memory are going to change a bit. That's common, you see, with witnesses and victims. The more they tell the story, the more their memory evolves, the more there's going to be some slight discrepancies. And then, of course, typically, it's the job of defense attorney to make those slight discrepancies seem like big discrepancies.

But what was more important here is that her testimony was very consistent with the larger picture of what the prosecutors are laying out. So, Dawn's testimony, Ms. Richard's testimony really fit consistently with all of the evidence that the state -- the -- the government has put forward, evidence of Mr. Combs's violence, which the defense attorneys have admitted from the -- from day one of this trial.

[23:25:06]

All of the videos, all of the pictures, and pretty much almost every witness we've seen from the prosecution so far has been identifying and alleging violence between Mr. Combs and Ms. Ventura.

COATES: You know, that idea of a central theme and core is what the defense is trying to undermine and that her -- she's more than inconsistent that it has evolved to be not truthful. And they pointed out, and this is what I know you probably expected them to try to undermine these very points as I'm sure she did as well, that the defense dug in on the inconsistencies, and they pointed out a meeting in March and -- where they have her saying that Diddy threw eggs at Cassie, not a frying pan.

In that courtroom today, as she was accused of having her stories changed, the intimation that she was lying or embellishing or simply trying to embellish and buttress her civil lawsuit, what went through her mind? Do you have any idea of how she felt about that accusation?

FUDALI: Yeah. I think it's exactly as Ms. Richard said on the stand, that she has been doing her best since day one to tell the truth. She stuck to her story there on the stand, from what I could tell. I was sitting right there in the courtroom. And it was a robust cross- examination. And they pointed out the -- what -- these are -- these, you know, purported inconsistencies.

But she stuck to her story, and she kept saying, no, this is what I recall, my memory has evolved. She acknowledged that, of course, as everyone's memory evolves, especially for things that happened a long time ago. But she said, no, this is what happened, and I'm sticking to that.

And again, the important thing here, from my perspective and I believe, I would guess, from the government's perspective, is not the intricacies and the details of what the actual violence was that she's alleging, but more so that she witnessed violence and the defense has very openly stated, we are admitting that Mr. Combs was violent with Ms. Richard, and we've all seen the videos of it as well.

I think that's what was most important with her testimony. You never know how a jury will take it all in. But I think really from -- from my perspective, and I am very proud of the way my client testified, was that her testimony fit within the state's case so far consistently.

COATES: Well, Arick, it would be a fool's errand to try to guess what a juror is thinking, but I do appreciate you explaining the pressure on an individual person trying to testify to the best of their knowledge in such a case as this. Arick Fudali, thank you so much.

FUDALI: Thanks for having me.

COATES: My panel is back with me. I want to digest a little bit of what we heard. First of all, one of the things that struck me is the idea of these inconsistencies and fitting into the general theme of a prosecutor's case. But the details do matter. And if you're a defense counsel, you're going to try to chip away at every little thing you can. Right?

PRESSLEY: Yes. And the fact that a witness's testimony evolves is not what's supposed to happen. Either your -- your memory needs to be refreshed by something because your memory naturally deteriorates over time, or your memory is improved and refreshed due to something that is said to you or shown to you. And if you meet with the prosecutors eight separate times, you're going to have some discreet memories that maybe you didn't have before you met with them.

And that doesn't necessarily reflect poorly on the witness. The jury will see it that way. But to me, that reflects poorly on the prosecution because what you're supposed to do with a witness when you have a witness is provide them an opportunity to give their best recollection. You're not supposed to be informing upon the recollection with things that aren't going to come into court.

And so, to me, they set up their own witness to look bad here, and they set up a situation where the jury may be like, hmm, were the eggs thrown? Was it a skillet? And all of that, frankly, is unnecessary. Something happened in that kitchen with the skillet. It doesn't matter if the eggs were thrown. Doesn't matter if the skillet was thrown. We have this man on video kicking, hitting, punching Ms. Ventura. The jury understands that.

So, when you muddy the waters with witnesses that have their own purposes, I just think you're messing up your own case.

COATES: How do you see it it?

PETROVICH: I think the evolution of the witness's memory is one point that the defense can point to, among other points, with regard to this particular witness. It was mentioned that -- we discussed a money grab. Well, she as recently as 2020 reached out -- after all this, after all her observations and everything she witnessed, she reached out -- reached out to him as recently as 2020 to try to get together and work with him again.

Well, that that cuts against her whole story. Why would you want to reach out and work with somebody like that? Why would you possibly want to reach out and work with somebody who's involved in a criminal enterprise that involves sex trafficking, drug use, arson, and all the rest of the allegations? It doesn't --

COATES: Well, she -- just to clear, she -- I believe she testifies that she's reaching out on behalf of a friend. And part of what this is --

[23:30:00]

PETROVICH: Because that's just as bad.

COATES: Well, I -- and I -- I hear you on that and the jury will have to decide. Part of that does and could speak to the pure gatekeeping function and the power if this is the only entry point in her mind. That's part of the prosecution's case. Right? That he is so powerful, that he is removing the willpower of somebody to be able to leave because the only option and avenue for outlive is through him.

He makes a good point in the sense of, well, does that undermine your belief that he truly is that bad person?

LEOTTA: So, I actually -- you guys saw discrepancies, but I saw actually a lot of similarities between the witnesses' testimony.

COATES: Hmm.

LEOTTA: When Dawn Richard was talking about that frying pan, she was saying how he kind of brought it toward her head, and then Cassie kind of ducked and fell to the floor. And maybe it kind of hit her head, but maybe it didn't because she was able to escape that blow by curling on the fetal position on the kitchen floor.

And that struck me as the same thing that she did in the elevator bank as well. When he went to hit her, she falls down, she curls into the fetal position. And the same thing that Kerry Morgan testified, too, in Jamaica. She -- he hits her, she falls down, she hits her head on the brick, she curls into a fetal position.

And this is something -- you and I, Laura, we worked at the U.S. attorney's office in Washington, D.C. I handled a lot of cases of domestic violence. And one thing that I would see over and over is that people who are hit over and over would come up with a defense for it. And it was kind of an instinctual thing that you would do every time.

And this is what Cassie Ventura is doing, according to herself and according to three other witnesses who testified today, showing her curling into that fetal position to escape his blows.

COATES: That's an important -- I mean, thematically about the violence of force or coercion. There's a sex trafficking aspect of it. They have to prove that, though, force or coercion or threats, in order to get that link, and that's a predicate for the RICO.

But then you had Kerry Morgan, who you mentioned. She testified that she told Combs's chief of staff -- again, part of the inner circle they're articulating is maybe part of the enterprise, allegedly -- Kristina Khorram, that police were actually notified about that 2016 hotel incident you're actually speaking about where he is seen on camera assaulting her. How important then will Khorram's role be in trying to establish this inner circle enterprise?

PRESSLEY: Well, I think that it depends on what people knew and when. Right? It's not an enterprise if nobody has any idea what the actual activity is, and what they're doing is just following the boss's orders generally because --

COATES: Endgame is important.

PRESSLEY: Yes. It's -- it's a question of an employee following orders, whether it's we need a thousand bottles of baby oil or whether it's we need this person on a plane. If you have no idea about any illegality that is happening after the person gets off the plane or the reasoning or the machinations behind the baby oil, then you're just doing your job.

And I think that no matter how many times we get corroboration for violence that the jury, as I said, already accepts, what we end up getting from these witnesses is not just the one time in 2020 where Ms. Richard wants to work again. She said on the stand that she regretted that the -- the arrangement, the business arrangement ended, that she feels like it was an end for her career, that she tried multiple times after that to work with this so-called monster again.

And so, I think seeing violence, not saying anything is one thing. That sounds like fear. But then wanting to come back in, that's not fear. That's greed, that's desire to take care of yourself, and that is also a recurring theme that we're hearing from multiple witnesses.

COATES: Really quick, Mark, should the next government witness be focused on the enterprise building or the violence?

PETROVICH: I think the next government witness should be focused on the enterprise building. I think that's an important aspect of this, and that hasn't been built up as much as it should be yet. I know it's a big case and it's a long case, but at some point, the jury got to hear that. Otherwise, they're going to get trained in a direction that's not helpful to their case.

COATES: Really important. Thank you so much, everyone. A really good discussion.

Up next, it's not just prison time that prosecutors are seeking, though. It's city's financial empire as well. Tonight, a closer look at how the government may try to seize his assets. But which ones and how they're going to do it? Attorney Jim Trusty worked in this field for years. He is standing by to explain it all to us next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, right now, Sean "Diddy" Combs is not only fighting for his freedom, but also his money. Even with all his legal troubles, Forbes estimates his net worth is still around 400 million bucks. You can see it in the lifestyle that he has led for years, the expensive luxury cars, the private jet, the income from his various businesses, the multimillion- dollar properties that were rated by the feds, and, of course, his record label, just to name a few, by the way.

But if he were to be convicted, all that could be in jeopardy. Why? Because the government could actually seize his assets. Just look at what it says in the indictment under a section called forfeiture allegation. It says the defendant shall forfeit -- quote -- "any and all property, real and personal, involved in, used, or intended to be used to commit or to facilitate the commission of said offense."

[23:40:00]

With me now, someone who has a lot of experience in this area, James Trusty, who was the former chief of the DOJ's Organized Crime and Gang Section.

Jim, people might hear that and think, wait, does that really mean that all of his businesses, all the money he has could conceivably have been used to finance this? Therefore, it's all fair game?

JAMES TRUSTY, FORMER CHIEF OF ORGANIZED CRIME AND GANG SECTION, DOJ: Yeah, it pretty much is. I mean, this is a very, very broadly phrased forfeiture allegation.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TRUSTY: It doesn't look like there was any sort of pre-indictment seizures that they're counting towards it. Normally, you see things they've already gotten their hooks into. So, it's basically just saying if it is an instrumentality or a proceed, we're going to mgo after it.

And they've named the enterprise in a very broad way, the RICO. The RICO is essentially anything he touched in his business world, whether it's, you know, record labels, liquor labels, planes, trains and automobiles basically. I mean, everything is in play.

It's so vague, I have to say. If you're on the defense side, when you get to the forfeiture phase, you're saying, judge, time out, we have no notice of what they're trying to do here.

COATES: So, is it normal in, like, a RICO case? Is that why it's so vague? Because it's this enterprise or saying that's meant to sort of have its strings everywhere, or is it normally this vague?

TRUSTY: It -- it's usually a little more precise, but I've certainly seen once this broad, this vague before. I mean, what's tricky here is a couple of things. One is you've got him charged as the enterprise basically --

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TRUSTY: And that's legally permissible, but you have to explain how it's different than just the person. The way they describe the criminal enterprise here being differently than just Sean Combs is all of his business interests, and they don't limit it. They say all of this stuff was either a proceed or an instrumentality.

That makes sense if you think about it on some level, like, if a person is using their private jet to bring in prostitutes or to bring people to these freak offs, well then that's an instrumentality. If they're using a record studio to have these parties, that would be an instrumentality.

The proceeds get really weird when you're talking about a guy who is independently successful of his criminal actions. In other words, a guy that has genuinely profited from being a businessman as opposed to being a criminal gets a little tangled, gets a little difficult. That's what they're going to be fighting about someday.

COATES: So, he has all these businesses. I'm assuming he takes a salary from something. Does that salary distinguish the enterprise instruments and everything else?

TRUSTY: Not cleanly. And, you know, the other thing is there's a concept called substitute assets.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

TRUSTY: Just when you -- just when you think you're crawling out of the wreckage --

(LAUGHTER)

-- and you're down to your last 400 million, you're told, oh, we're also going for substitute assets, which means even if we can't prove that this particular car, this diamond watch, this, you know, piece of art is not connected to criminality, it still relates to our overall reward, and we're going to use it as a substitute. So --

COATES: So, who gets the money, though? Once -- once they -- if they were to decide this, does it go to the name victims in the indictment? Does it go to civil lawsuit allegation victims?

TRUSTY: Yeah, it goes to big government. I mean, here's the thing. Forfeiture is all about penalizing, basically saying you're not -- we're not going to allow you to profit from criminal wrongdoing. It is a poor cousin to restitution. It's really not the same as civil. You don't have the ability of victims to automatically recover for such things as pain and suffering.

There are some out of pockets restitution things that might get rewarded at the end of a trial, awarded if there's an actual conviction. But for most of the stuff that we think of from civil cases like hurt, harm to reputation, pain and suffering, that stuff is not part of the criminal process.

COATES: Hmm.

TRUSTY: Now, I will say this just to again make it as complicated as possible late night --

(LAUGHTER)

-- that when forfeiture is obtained by the government and there's restitution, they do behind the scenes try to coordinate that the restitution is kind of satisfied first. So, they may slough off money forfeited to the government in favor of victims.

COATES: Hmm.

TRUSTY: But this is not going to be like a big jackpot for the victims to recover finances. It could open the door for that for sure --

COATES: Yeah.

TRUSTY: -- but it's not going to be an easy one.

COATES: Jim Trusty, thank you. And I guess, you know, who's going decide that if convicted? The jury.

Up next, our eyes and ears in the courtroom, sketch artist Christine Cornell on the notes that she saw Diddy passing and the one attorney she thinks might be making a pretty big difference.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:45:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Ever wonder what it looks like inside the room where it all happens? There are no cameras allowed in court. So, all we have to rely on is a firsthand report and the incredible work of courtroom sketch artists like the images you're looking at right now, drawn by my next guest, Christine Cornell, who has been focusing her attention on all the key players of the trial from inside the courtroom day after day.

And Christine joins me now. So, Christine, what was Diddy's demeanor like during today's testimony?

CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: Diddy is very engaged in his testimony. I thought I saw him write his own post-it notes today and passed them to his attorney. This was a young woman named Westmoreland. She -- yes, this one. She was something of a firebrand of a questioner. She had a folksy manner. She would say, no worries, if the witness, you know, had a little bit of a -- needed a little bit of help with something. And -- but you -- you had the feeling that she was kind of weaving a trap.

[23:50:00]

And, of course, she was. I thought she -- I thought she was one of the most powerful ones I've seen on his behalf.

COATES: That was one of the defense attorneys. And I wonder if you notice any difference in his behavior, depending on who he was watching testify. Obviously, the Cassie Ventura testimony was very close to home. But how about the others?

CORNELL: Well, you know this last one, Kerry is another young gal that he assaulted because he knew she was very close to Cassie. And he suspected Cassie of infidelity. And he -- so we thought he'd strangle her and see if he could get the information out of her.

COATES: Hmm.

CORNELL: She didn't know anything. So, then, he clocked her on the head with a -- with a hanger and gave her a concussion. And she has not spoken to him or Cassie since that incident, frankly. Cassie offered her a payoff. She accepted it. And -- and -- and what is it now? Seven years or something? They don't speak. And they were old friends.

COATES: She described that in detail.

CORNELL: And --

COATES: Beyond those notes and those moments, watching someone like her testify and the allegations that she has stated, beyond what Diddy was doing with the notes, how was he with his team overall today?

CORNELL: You know, this is just a very tough trial because each one of these pieces of information, especially from the women who've witnessed it, all of a sudden, you're seeing it through their eyes. And so, it's a -- it's a -- you know, it's a body blow with each of them.

I think it's going to be interesting to see how they -- they structure this thing going further to let us know just how much of an enterprise indeed it was, you know?

COATES: They've got a lot to prove on that front. I mean, did Diddy seem different without his family in the courtroom today?

CORNELL: There was behind me a very large man, who I suspect was a bodyguard, because Diddy turned around and made his little insignia that, you know, I love you, I thank you for coming. And -- but this was such a big guy that I felt like he was looming over me even though he was sitting down behind me.

This man here that you're looking at is somebody who facilitated things for -- for Diddy and was told to stay in his own lane. Essentially mind your own business. Oh, Diddy is the king.

COATES: Wow.

CORNELL: And, you know, he said he learned to do that.

COATES: Did the jury have any reactions today?

CORNELL: Well, they were hearing things. You know, they were poignant from -- from these, you know, two particular women. As I said, Westmoreland went after Richard. I think it's how you pronounce it.

COATES: Uh-hmm.

CORNELL: She --she went after her because, you know, Richard wanted to further her own career. And so, she was able to look over the -- the dark side of Diddy in order to, you know, keep that going.

COATES: Christine --

CORNELL: -- to revive it.

COATES: Christine, you see a lot in that courtroom. There's a lot more to see. We'd love to hear your observations. Thank you so much for joining us.

CORNELL: Thank you, sweetie.

COATES: Much more on all things Diddy on my CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." It's available wherever you get your podcast.

Up next, we'll break away from the Diddy trial to bring you something impactful that happened in Washington that we, frankly, rarely ever see these days. (COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:55:00]

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

MELANIA TRUMP, FIRST LADY OF THE UNITED STATES: Thank you all for coming together to prioritize people over politics.

(APPLAUSE)

Today, through the Take It Down Act, we affirm that the well-being of our children is central to our future of our families in America.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: You know, it's not often you see First Lady Melania Trump speaking at an official White House event. But today, she did, joining President Trump in signing a bill protecting victims of revenge porn and A.I. deepfakes. And it came with another rarity, bipartisanship in Washington, D.C.

The Take It Down Act passed by unanimous consent in the Senate and 409 to 2 in the House. The law makes it illegal to share sexually-explicit images and videos online without consent, and it requires tech platform to take them down within 48 hours of being notified about them.

The first lady has been pushing for legislation like this since the start of Trump's second term. And the president, he credited his first lady for helping get it done.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Working with our first lady, though, we've shown that bipartisanship is possible. I mean, it's the first time I've seen such a level of bipartisanship. And it's a beautiful thing to do. I'm not even sure you realize, honey, you know, a lot of the Democrats and Republicans don't get along so well. You've -- you've made them get along, and she didn't even know about that. She didn't know we had a problem.

(APPLAUSE)

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: President Trump handed his trademark Sharpie to his wife after writing his signature, telling her she deserves to sign it.

Thanks for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

[00:00:00]

JOHN BERMAN, CNN ANCHOR: Tonight on "360," the phone calls with Putin and Zelenskyy were supposed to jumpstart the peace process.