Return to Transcripts main page
Laura Coates Live
Laura Coates And Guests Discuss The Latest In The Federal Trial Of Sean "Diddy" Combs. Aired 11p-12a ET
Aired July 01, 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]
BAKARI SELLERS, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: Like, I am -- let's send Congress home and state legislatures home and city council home for two years, the country would be a better place
PETE SEAT, FORMER WHITE HOUSE SPOKESMAN FOR FORMER PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I know --
ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: I think that's --
SEAT: -- want to restrict this.
PHILLIP: I'm -- I'm kind of with you on that, Bakari. Scott, last --
SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: I think -- I think we need restrictions on if you're over the age of 21 and you go to Disneyland or Disney World and you don't have children straight to 'Alligator Alcatraz,' El Salvador --
PHILLIP: -- you've ever been to Epcot.
JENNINGS: I'm just saying this is weird. And talking about people that get in the way of things, you're trying to take your kids there, you got these weirdos walking around. I'm just saying.
PHILLIP: Go to Epcot. It's great for grownups. Okay?
Everyone, thank you very much. Thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me any time on social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live," it's right now.
LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: A cliffhanger in the trial against Sean "Diddy" Combs. Four counts reached. One big one still left to go. On a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial."
Good evening. I'm Laura Coates right here in New York City where tonight, Sean "Diddy" Combs is no doubt asking himself these questions from a jail cell. Will the jury be able to reach a verdict on that top charge against him? And what did they decide on the other four counts?
Now, I was at the courthouse in Lower Manhattan when those eight men and four women revealed they had a partial verdict in his racketeering, RICO, sex trafficking and prostitution case. And to say it was dramatic is an understatement. The entire mood in the courtroom changed at 4:05 in the afternoon when the marshal came in with a note from the jury.
Now, Diddy, he looked serious. He was slumped in his chair. His legal team was huddled all around him. And at one point, his lead attorney, Marc Agnifilo, got the note and gave it to Diddy to read for himself. And while everyone was waiting for the judge to come in, you could actually hear thunder inside the courtroom as storm clouds were rolling into Manhattan.
Now, eventually, the judge, he did enter, and he did read aloud the jury's note, and it said, we have reached a verdict on counts 2, 2, 4 and 5. We are unable to reach a verdict on count 1 as we have jurors with unpersuadable opinions on both sides.
Now, in a moment, my team of legal experts, they're going to help walk through every detail of this partial verdict and set the stage for what we might learn tomorrow.
But first, let me remind you what the jury is weighing. Count one is the most serious, racketeering conspiracy, and that's the alleged criminal enterprise case. Right? It has a maximum sentence of life in prison.
There are counts two and four, and they're for sex trafficking. One related to Cassie Ventura, the other to Diddy's ex-girlfriend who testified under the pseudonym "Jane." Now, that charge has a maximum sentence of life in prison, a minimum of 15 years.
And counts 3 and 5 are for transportation to engage in prostitution. Again, one for Cassie, one for Jane, and that charge carries up to 10 years.
But even though the jury said they reached a verdict on counts 2 through 5, they did not announce what they decided. That's because a judge told them to go back and keep deliberating. He brought them into the courtroom for a moment, reminded them of his instructions, including this one, no juror should surrender his or her conscientious beliefs for the purpose of returning a unanimous verdict.
Shortly after that, the jury left the courtroom, sent another note to the judge saying they'll continue deliberating tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
And here we are to begin with CNN correspondent Elizabeth Wagmeister. This was an incredible moment. We were wondering when something might come in. There have been a series of notes already. But when this happened and there was the reaction of a partial verdict, walk me through this.
ELIZABETH WAGMEISTER, CNN ENTERTAINMENT CORRESPONDENT: Yes. So, you and me, we were getting ready to dive right into our live coverage. We were together outside of the courthouse where immediately you felt the energy shift. Chaos was kind of ensuing outside. But our colleague, Kara Scannell, was inside the courtroom, and I want to tell you exactly what she observed. She said that Sean Combs was surrounded by his attorneys, that they were huddling around him. She said that Sean Combs looked a bit confused, as if he was grappling with what his attorneys were trying to tell him.
And then, of course, soon after that, the judge took the bench. And, as you said, that is when he did announce that they had reached a partial verdict. They had reached a verdict on four of the charges, but were deadlocked on that most serious charge.
So, tensions were high. And we both have been in court many days throughout this trial. Tensions weren't always high.
[23:05:00]
Combs has been in upbeat spirit some days, even through the tough testimony. So, this was certainly a change for him. He knows just how high the stakes were. They knew that that note had some serious consequences.
COATES: This is when a defendant is at his most vulnerable point. His family also -- we saw them returning, racing into the courthouse, trying to hear whatever might happen because the judge could have asked them to give the verdict on 2 through 5. He did not, but to deliberate. Tell me about the family.
WAGMEISTER: Yes. So, as we know, the family has been there for most days. His six adult children have been in court for the past week, supporting him. We saw their car roll up, and they rushed into court, as you said, in case that verdict was going to be read.
But it was Combs's mother that he really had a moment with. And he has had many moments with her. Every day, during the trial, we observe him turning around, showing her a heart with his hands, blowing her kisses. Well, today, he said to her, relax, it will be all right. That's what he said to her this morning when they first came in. Well, when that note came in from the jury, he said something similar. He said, I'll be all right, I love you.
I have to tell you though, a few hours before, at the lunch break, I actually saw his mom. I spoke to her briefly in the cafeteria at the courtroom. She was in good spirits then. But, of course, just how quickly things can change from when you're waiting to when you know that something is happening.
And remember, we've been talking about this a lot. The human element gets lost in this a bit. Regardless of how egregious the allegations are against Combs, which he denies, he has pleaded not guilty, he is still a son, he is still a father to seven children. That is a mother in there, and you can just imagine how terrified she was.
COATES: That and, of course, the human element there are witnesses, alleged victims who are also waiting, probably with baited breath, to figure out what happens next. Elizabeth, thank you. Come over to the table with me. I've got a phenomenal panel of people who I want to help break down everything we're seeing. We've got our rock star legal analysts who are back with me right now.
We've got former Manhattan prosecutor Jeremy Saland. We also have defense attorney Misty Marris and jury consultant Renato Stabile. So, let me go through all this.
First of all, whew, today was a day. People have been thinking themselves, like, when are we going to hear a verdict? What's going to happen? Everyone thinking about their intellectual over under and what could happen here. But the jury has this, and it's -- they are running the show right now.
Renato, how often do jurors not only have these many notes, but have this sort of split verdicts? What's going through the minds of these jurors, you think?
RENATO STABILE, JURY CONSULTANT, ATTORNEY: So, look, notes are very common. Every trial, you're going to get a bunch of jury notes. There's not much you can read into it because you don't know if that's coming from all of the jurors, one juror, two jurors. It's really hard to read into it. Split verdicts are not that common. But I think we've all thought that the RICO charge is the most difficult one. It's a complex charge.
You know, in the jury instructions alone, just on one of the predicate acts, the kidnapping, the instructions on that alone is six pages long. And there are multiple predicate acts that they have to go through. So, they might just be, you know, frustrated with how much they have to read just to understand the RICO charge.
COATES: That's an important point because if you're the judge and you hear a jury saying, we're deadlocked, we're done, it could be we're done for today, I'm over this right now, it has been seven weeks and we're tired. Remember, they just started liberating yesterday. So, the judge has to essentially assess whether it's really deadlocked, 12 hours in, or you can be clarified in some way.
But Misty, before the lunch, the jury sent a note. And every single note, right, we are hanging on every single word, we are parsing throughout the language.
And in this first note before the lunch, it was asking for transcripts of Cassie Ventura's testimony about the hotel surveillance video. We know the infamous what now. It was surrounding events that happened in Cannes when she was taken off of a boat. And then when they flew back, she alleges that Diddy was squeezing her leg, was -- had been abusive, and had withheld her passport. And when they were on the plane, played actual sex tapes to taunt her.
And then you had testimonies surrounding the freak-offs and Daniel Phillip, who was one of the first escorts to testify, who said that he was able to sexually perform after he heard violence happening around him.
Read into that for me. That's the note where you're thinking.
MISTY MARRIS, DEFENSE AND TRIAL ATTORNEY: Yeah. When that note came out, and I know we can never truly know what the jury is thinking, but I thought this was really relevant. And Laura, think about that particular testimony that the jury was looking to see. That matches up perfectly with the three incidents that prosecutors said in their closing argument were very obvious sex trafficking. So that meant a lot.
And look, earlier in the day, you could say, well, this is maybe good for the defense because this means the jury, at least somebody, is perhaps grappling with whether or not this rises to the level of force, fraud or coercion.
[23:10:00]
But then when you get to there's a verdict on that count, I think the defense is probably pretty nervous tonight.
COATES: Is he?
JEREMY SALAND, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No doubt. No doubt. I think regret is setting in on Sean Combs in a horrible, horrible way. Those are questions that maybe, to Misty's point, there could be one juror who is saying, I'm not so convinced.
But you're seeking out those specific parts of the testimony and evidence that really corroborate and demonstrate the exact point the prosecution is trying to prove. And then relatively quickly, on a seven-week trial, not relatively quickly, extremely quickly, we have a partial verdict.
The -- the writing is on the wall. This is comping, and it's going to be something potentially very ugly for Sean Combs beyond just the sex trafficking. But even if they don't get there, to that RICO charge, it seems like they've made their mind up in a way that's not good for the defense.
COATES: I take an alternate position, of course, because I'm a contrarian, but also because --
SALAND: That's your right.
COATES: -- I think about how I would see it as a prosecutor. I'm thinking about the two sides. And one of the things I've been thinking about and grappling with all you're saying is that if I've made my case so clear as a prosecutor, if I have a juror note about an issue that I made clear, that I said was obvious, I might take a step back and wonder, well, hold on a second, why would that be the thing you're questioning? Are you trying to convince someone of something?
That might be what's happening. We don't know. But take me back a little bit in the consultant mind that you have.
STABILE: Right.
COATES: If you have the clear-cut case they're presenting and then there's a jury note about the thing that you told them to be -- that was obvious, where do you go? STABILE: Jurors want to do the right thing. They are very conscientious. It could just be not that somebody was holding out or needed to be convinced. They just wanted to see it again. Again, I would not read too much into it. I think the most critical word, and I know this is the other note, but the most critical word of today was the word "unpersuadable."
COATES: Oh, let's get to that. Tell me more why that's -- why that's --
STABILE: I've never seen that word in a jury note. I've seen notes come out saying, judge, you know, we can't agree, where I've even seen deadlock. Unpersuadable is a very deliberate and specific word that somebody wrote down, hand wrote on a piece of paper to a federal judge. I don't think they're going to reach a verdict on count one. I think they're going to come back tomorrow, tell the judge, we can't do it, he's going to have to declare a mistrial on that, and that's where we're going to be.
COATES: Well, flush that out for us, Misty, because a mistrial, people might think the entire case goes away. No, no, it might be a mistrial on a particular count that you cannot reach a verdict on. But tell me about that point, the idea of the unpersuadable, because one of the judges' instructions after they said they could not be was, I'm paraphrasing here, look, you can't just browbeat somebody into submission and make them agree with you, they have to have their own conclusion.
MARRIS: Right because the judge read what was really a watered-down Allen charge. And that's what the judge reads when the jury says they can't come to a consensus. And the judge says that, hey, listen to the majority. If you're in the minority, keep an open mind. Listen and see if you can come to a consensus. It's really specific language because you don't want it to border on coercive, then you've got an appellate issue.
But Laura, tomorrow, what's going to happen, those jurors are going to come back and it's going to be 9 a.m., go back and deliberate, and then we'll hear -- we'll either hear that they've come to a decision and there's a verdict or we'll hear the same thing, that they continue to be deadlocked.
What struck me about the note was the plural, though. To me, that read -- and I don't know. Maybe that's just somebody quickly writing. But it was unpersuadable opinions or it was -- it was plural. And so, does that mean it's not just one holdout, that it's more than one juror who is on the other side of the equation when it comes to the RICO charge?
COATES: A good point, too. I want you to address, Elizabeth, because -- and I want to hear from you too, Jeremy, on this. This is -- you can't look at this in a vacuum. Yesterday, there was a note, the very first one, the first hour of deliberations after seven weeks. A foreman's note came in to say that they had concerns about a juror being able to follow the judge's instructions, which immediately set into motion the thought, uh-oh, is unanimity possible here? WAGMEISTER: Look, that issue, as far as we know, has not been resolved. It may be resolved. But we have no idea. All that we know is that this jury continued on with their deliberations and clearly has been able to continue quite effectively if they've reached a verdict on four of these charges out of five.
But that's in the back of all of our minds. I can't tell you the amount of people who threw our reporting today, Laura, have asked me what is going on with juror number 25, were they able to cooperate or not.
So, I'm wondering, is that the one holdout on the RICO charge or to your point, Misty, with the plural, is it multiple? And look, we are not in the business of predictions here. At least I am not.
(LAUGHTER)
But if I get in trouble here, that's okay. I have been saying from day one that I think racketeering is going to be a hung jury. And just because it's so complex and you have 12 people, that is very hard to reach, a unanimous decision there. So, I have not been surprised by this today.
[23:15:01]
And I think that you make an excellent point, which is they may never be able to reach a unanimous decision, then the judge will have to decide what to do about that charge.
COATES: So, Jeremy, knowing how complex a RICO charge can be, seeing if there's still, right now, a hung jury on that point, a black eye for the prosecution?
SALAND: It is a win for the prosecution to get the sex trafficking. And I think it was a --
COATES: But they haven't -- so we're clear, we don't know they have that.
SALAND: Hundred percent. We don't. But I think it's a logical conclusion. If there is -- if there is an inability for them to work together and you can't move immovable people, yet they come back with a verdict so quickly, that they all say let's acquit, it's not likely scenario. I think the likely scenario is more he's being convicted of and there's proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But to your point, this was absolutely an overcharge. And I think a lot of people, including the defense, said out of the gate, this is really more akin to a state domestic violence case. And we look at Harvey Weinstein who had multiple jurisdictions. Close -- you know, New York and California being charged with some ugly crimes. And maybe that was more appropriate.
COATES: So, was RICO a mistake to charge?
SALAND: Well, RICO wasn't a mistake strategically because it allowed the defense -- pardon me, the prosecution to bring in a lot of evidence that may not otherwise have come in. And then also, theoretically, if there is a conviction on these other charges, they could potentially bring some of that in when it comes to these times for sentencing about these other acts that are involved. So --
COATES: But you know my mind is going --
SALAND: -- it's a win. It's a win for them.
COATES: You know where my mind is going, though. My mind is going to the appellate issues. If -- if -- and I'm not saying they have done this. You know, I was a former prosecutor myself and I would not begin to try to impugn their integrity if they believe in their case.
However, if it's a strategic reason to bring in RICO, if you brought it in strategically as opposed to being able to prove your case beyond a reasonable doubt, I immediately wonder if on appeal, if he's convicted, and that's a big if, if on appeal, he could argue this was a pretextual basis to bring this. And now this jury heard everything else and thinks I am somebody capable of every predicate crime. But you only had a panel on for sex trafficking and prostitution. Misty?
MARRIS: Yeah, of course, those will be the appellate issues because the defense has tried to get rid of the RICO from the start.
COATES: Right.
MARRIS: You heard them ask for a judgment on acquittal. Part of that -- which means there's not enough evidence for this charge to stand after prosecution presents their case. And the reason they do that is they're preserving that appellate record.
COATES: Right.
MARRIS: So, all of those things will be appellate issues.
But Laura, something that strikes me is when it comes down to the charges and what we know, that they're unanimous on, one of those is prostitution across state lines, the Mann Act. We've all said that's kind of the low-hanging fruit of this trial. Right? And what I think is interesting is those would also be predicates for RICO. So, is the issue the predicates or is the issue was there an enterprise at all?
COATES: Talk to me about the complexity of a jury verdict form because, just to remind the audience here, indulge me for a second, the verdict form for the RICO charge is you find them guilty or not on RICO, but then you have to -- if you find that, you have to go through the predicate crimes. Kidnapping, arson, bribery, witness tampering. The list goes on and on.
You have to say for each of those whether they prove their case or not. So, it could be they're hung up on whether they've established those predicate crimes, a pattern within 10 years.
STABILE: Right. So, they don't have to prove all of those predicate crimes. COATES: Right.
STABILE: They only have to prove two. You would think though that if he was already convicted of the prostitution and the trafficking, the RICO would be relatively easy because then you would have the two predicates. It is possible. And I think most people believe he has been convicted at least of something, if not of all four counts.
But it is possible that he has been acquitted of all four counts, and now they're saying, okay, well, we don't have those predicates, let's now go through the other predicates. I think that's --
COATES: Like arson or bribery --
STABILE: Correct.
COATES: -- kidnapping.
STABILE: Kidnapping and all of those. I think that's an unlikely scenario. But that is a legally possible scenario that we could be looking at, that he has been walked on four counts, and now they're considering the other predicates.
COATES: Exactly. Of course, if you're the defense, that's your dream scenario. And yet the prosecution, this was a seven-week trial, and even for the closing arguments, they were creating a jigsaw piece -- a jigsaw puzzle that seemed far more clear on day, what, seven times seven, 49, than it was on day one.
WAGMEISTER: Absolutely. And we spoke about this on the night of the prosecution's closing on this very show. They really created a simplified road map. In fact, they had a PowerPoint that showed quite literally a road map, step by step, where they said, here is what you have to do and it's very simple. You only have to agree on two of those predicate crimes, as you said. And here is how what we are arguing meets the law.
And it -- again, I keep using this word, but they really simplified it effectively. Then you compare that to the defense's closing, and it was not a clear road map. It was not a concise, cohesive argument, which also perhaps that works on some jurors because Marc Agnifilo, who is Sean Combs's attorney, he was a little bit more human, a little bit more real. He was laughing, he was sarcastic, he was making jokes. That could not have been more of the opposite approach that the prosecutors took.
[23:19:57]
But it's so interesting to hear this panel's different opinions, expert opinions. It could mean that he is acquitted on all of these four charges. It could mean that he is convicted on all of these four charges. We have no way of knowing.
But the one thing that I have observed through my coverage of cases like these, you all know better as attorneys, is that if there's a quick verdict, it usually means one or the other. The longer that it goes on, the longer that it could be a hung jury.
So that's why today outside of court, I said, could he be acquitted on all? Could he be convicted on all? So, we don't know. But in my experience from covering these trials, you either have the defense or the prosecution very happy when there's a quick verdict.
COATES: Yeah. Today, it seems that everyone is biting their nails. Stand by. Don't go anywhere. I have a lot more questions for this panel. We have much more ahead tonight as we take your questions live right here on the show. I know you've got them. A lot of them coming in already. And still plenty of time to send in more at CNN.com/diddyquestions. My panel of legal experts will help me answer all of them.
Plus, what is it like to be a juror in that room? Prospective tonight from someone who knows. The man who served as the jury foreman in the Young Thug RICO trial down in Atlanta is going to join me next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:25:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Today's dramatic twist in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs is a reminder of how difficult it can be to secure a conviction out of the gate on racketeering.
My next guest knows the challenge that's facing this very jury. He served as the foreman on the trial of Grammy-award winning rapper Young Thug. Remember, he was charged on the 28 codefendants of dozens of counts, including racketeering and murder.
The YSL trial, as it came to be known, was Georgia's longest trial ever, lasting more -- get this -- more than two years. But it ended with a plea deal for Young Thug, who received 15 years of probation. A few others were convicted of lesser crimes. But none were convicted of murder or racketeering.
Jason Collins was the foreman for that trial, and Jason joins me now. Jason, I have to pick your brain here, my friend. When you heard --
(LAUGHTER)
-- the jury was stuck on the racketeering charge, tell me what went through your mind.
JASON COLLINS, JURY FOREMAN IN YOUNG THUG'S YSL RICO TRIAL: This is a repeat only because we had the same situation during our deliberation as well. It always boiled down to about three or four individuals through -- during each count. So, this was like kind of a deja vu moment. And what I can say is that you have to give jurors time to process things.
And even though that I was a foreman, I was able to rely on some of my colleagues in there, to be able to talk to each other and communicate with those individuals who were either for or against.
And so, right now, I can understand what's going on their minds. I know some people are probably ready to go home and be with their families, to go back to work, to enjoy their regular life. But, fortunately, right now, they're at a situation right now that, quite frankly, it's all deja vu for me.
(LAUGHTER)
COATES: Well, talking about the time issue, the judge told them to go back and deliberate. In your experience as a foreman of a complex case like racketeering, what is it that they get hung up on? Is it an enterprise deciding that there's a group of people? Is it the pattern? Is it those what they call predicate crimes, where they list through and figure out whether the prosecution has proven them? What was the hang up?
COLLINS: I think the -- what -- what really puts it in perspective is the word enterprise because that's what I got caught up on as well. You're looking at someone who is successful, a successful businessman. And when the state right brings up an enterprise and it's in the language, that can throw individuals off.
And so, when you look at someone who's so successful, you look at them, okay, then how are they able to -- to -- to be able to commit or possibly commit some of these crimes that are being presented in front of them?
So, I think that you have some folks who are very analytical thinkers and you have those who are emotional. And right now, I think that is the battle that's going on with some of the jurors right now.
COATES: Take me behind the scenes in your case. You were the foreman. When you get back there, you're deliberating. I mean, obviously, your case was two years. This has been, like, two months, so not comparison length of time. But walk us through what -- what -- what happens back there. Is it a matter of people getting to know each other for a second? Do you launch right in? Is there somebody who is essentially the persona non grata? What goes on?
COLLINS: So, how we did things is that, one, when we went back to the back -- I wasn't originally supposed to be the foreman, someone else -- and when we just had discussions, because we became a family just about -- for being together for so long, you get to understand how people think based on topics unrelated to the court case. So, you kind of know how folks are going to lean towards whether -- you know, just why private conversations were unrelated to the case.
I know that when we did, when we went to the back of the chambers or into our jury room, the first thing I did was I put on the board, we had the -- sitting in the U-shape, and I got on the whiteboard with the Expo marker, and I wrote down the counts for each individual or the folks that were on trial.
And what I did, as I said before, we have a discussion, I need for you to raise your hand. And I broke it down to three columns. It was not guilty, undecided, and guilty. Those are the only three columns that we had to work with.
Before anyone could actually deliberate, I'd had everyone to raise their hand, and I said, how many of you believe in this count? We had hands that were raised up for undecided.
[23:30:00]
We had folks who raised their hand for guilty and not guilty. But my goal was to get the undecided in either to guilty or not guilty. So, it was well organized when I was the foreman.
And then we -- once we were able to get through and everyone saw the numbers, where things were, then that's when we began to start deliberating, began to talk. So, those individuals who believe that individuals were guilty, they had to explain to others why they thought that they were guilty and also if they were not guilty. That was what I did.
And so, at the moment, folks had to just really work as a team, and that's how organized I was with the group of individuals that we worked during our -- as we were trying to get to a verdict.
COATES: Wow. A masterclass. I'm wondering if they want you on this jury or not, if you're the prosecution of the defense in this one.
(LAUGHTER)
But talk to me. I mean, obviously, it was two years. Young Thug, a rapper, a celebrity in Georgia. Diddy, obviously, the success that he has is quite evident in that space. How impactful, if at all, was the celebrity function here in your case?
COLLINS: You know, it's -- it's -- it depends on the individual. You know, some -- some people may get caught up in the celebrity status and others are just looking at folks as regular-day individuals. I think that for this particular court case, in this high-profile, you have someone who is well known across not only here in the states, but also across the world.
COATES: Uh-hmm.
COLLINS: And so, you know, for individuals who -- you know, it's just -- it depends on the person itself, though. I mean, you know, as you sit in as in a jury pool and you're looking across the courtroom and you do see Mr. Combs across from you, a lot of things go through your head. And you're looking at him. You look at his emotions. You're looking at his body language, looking at the state side, looking at the defense team, and you're looking at witnesses that are coming in.
At the end of the day, I think that jurors should just come in and these -- you're looking at your peers, looking at someone who is high- profile. But no one is above the law. You should treat each individual person as equal. And so, I hope that is what the jury and the jurors were doing while they were sitting in that courtroom.
COATES: You know, one person who was maybe not worldwide famous but familiar to you is somebody whose name also came up in this trial here in New York. I'm talking about a defense attorney, Brian Steel. He was one of Young Thug's lawyers as well. He joined this defense team later in the game. But what is he like in court? Did you find him persuasive?
COLLINS: Well, I -- I -- I would say Attorney Steel is a very, very smart individual. You have someone who can flip things around and can make you think outside of the box. And I will say he's a smart attorney. I give him his props.
You know, there are times when we were sitting in the courtroom, I was in the courtroom, and -- and I'll make notes in my notepad for questions that I may have, and I don't know how he was doing it, but he was able to answer those questions and be -- and be able to take you back and to tell a story. So, anyone, I believe, that goes against Attorney Steel, I believe that you have an uphill battle because --
COATES: Hmm.
COLLINS: -- he has a way of taking you out of the norm and putting you outside of the box, gets you to think and to tell and to give a narrative that will probably question your train of thought as far as -- he gives you the facts, he makes you wonder, and he presents those facts, and then all of a sudden, it allows you to be persuaded. So --
COATES: Uh-hmm.
COLLINS: -- my thought process with Attorney Steel is that his way of questioning and how he delivers, he executes it very, very well.
COATES: Jason, final question for you. How should we be evaluating jury notes? What happens? Is it only by consensus that you would hand one over to a judge? Or if one juror had a question, would you pass that along?
COLLINS: Pretty much that probably did it. If one person had a question, we pretty much put it together. I -- I wouldn't look too much into the note. I will say that you have someone who is thinking outside of the box. I think that it's going to be shocking to figure out what if -- if that one individual is going to persuade the other jurors, one way or the other.
But I wouldn't look too much into it because right now, I believe that people are getting their thinking caps on and it's too hard right now to judge which way they're leaning towards.
COATES: We're reading those tea leaves nonetheless. Jason Collins, thanks for joining.
COLLINS: Thanks for having me, Laura.
COATES: Still ahead, a reminder to get your questions into us at cnn.com/diddyquestions. The panel is standing by to answer them moments from now.
But first, a member of Danity Kane speaking out about the trial and why she says a guilty verdict won't heal her. Toure is standing by with his reaction to that and the rest of the trial next.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:35:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Well, we have reaction tonight from one of the former members of Danity Kane, Diddy's famed girl group in the mid-2000s. D. Woods telling New York Magazine, I can't wait until I am on the other side of all of this. Maybe this is what I need to do -- to do to write a new experience. I just don't want to be in fear of his retaliation. We're talking in this hotel instead of my home because I don't know what he's capable of.
[23:40:02]
D. Woods never testified, and she has not sued Diddy. But her former bandmate, Don Richard, has sued Diddy and did take the stand in the trial, and pretty early on.
I want to bring in the host of "Truth Talks" on YouTube, Toure. Toure, let's talk about this because D. Woods also told New York Magazine that she wasn't surprised by Dawn's allegations nor was she surprised at Cassie's allegations. So, what does it mean to have another woman in the court of public opinion, of course, corroborate feelings of fear of Diddy as a jury right now and tomorrow at 9 a.m. is debating his fate?
TOURE, YOUTUBE HOST: I mean, we knew that a lot of people over there were afraid of him. They've been telling us for a long time, I'll never get over Freddy P saying that he was -- that Diddy was addicted to breaking people.
I mean, like, we've been hearing, especially from this latter generation. The prior generation talks about financial misconduct although certain things were going on because Diddy was still like this then. But this later generation is, like, he was just -- just signing us with the hope and that he could get more out of us.
COATES: I mean, I remember making the band. We all remember that famous Junior's Cheesecake Run and, of course, many other things that was sort of the more benign things. But you heard on the stand many people who work with him talking about him being a kind of business school all to himself, and the defense tried to seize on that and address that in the closing arguments. And here we are. The jury has not reached a verdict on the most serious charge yet. So, tell me your take and what you've been thinking about.
TOURE: So, okay, here is what I think. You and I have been doing this in the hallways of the courthouse --
COATES: Oh, yes.
TOURE: -- so it's great to do this on the air at this stage. The -- the data point that makes -- that sings the loudest to me is that there is a number of jurors who believe what the government is saying about their racketeering theory, that everyone believed racketeering was the hardest thing for the government to prove.
And to see multiple jurors say, we believe the government there, even if they don't get there, it's like that thing like on election night when they're, like, Trump is doing well in this Blue County. That is a terrible omen for Democrats in other places.
If they can get to multiple jurors believing that it's RICO, even if they don't get all the way, it has to be sex trafficking because otherwise, the RICO then -- the RICO would mean nothing. Right?
So, I think we would agree sex trafficking, with respect to Cassie, probably guilty. That's probably what this is saying. I think we agree sex trafficking with result to -- with respect to Jane, probably not. The two transportation charges, everyone thought those were slam dunks. But sex trafficking, with respect to Cassie, I believe that what we can read -- the tea leaf I read out of this is they've already decided on that, and thus, this comes into play.
COATES: Well, it's probably no surprise, since all of our hallway conversations, I have a different cup of tea. And I think to myself, it could be an alternate explanation here. It could. It could. We don't know, which is why I'm so eager for tomorrow to hear what they're thinking and deliberate and, hopefully, a verdict on that count.
But there's a lot to unpack in terms of whether sex trafficking was, in fact, proven and how it relates to the RICO charges and beyond. But one of the things that, of course, a juror and those jurors have to look at as the so- called fact finders, they're weighing testimony all the time. They're assessing credibility all the time of those who testified. But also, there were those who did not testify, Toure.
And when we spoke at the end of the trial, there were many people, yourself included, who were convinced that Diddy's former chief of staff, Kristina Khorram, who, as I've said every single time I've mentioned her name, has not been charged with any crime and denies any wrongdoing -- people thought that she would still nonetheless be a key witness to corroborate that RICO charge. We never saw her. She didn't appear. Were you surprised?
TOURE: We heard quite a bit from Kristina Khorram, especially in the last weeks of this trial when we had the -- some of the summary witnesses and some of the other witnesses who are playing conversations with Kristina.
COATES: You mean text messages, audio notes. Okay.
TOURE: Text messages from Kristina. Yeah. I mean, like, we heard quite a bit of her. I mean, like, you made the great point about why you think she herself didn't get on the stand. But we know how deeply connected she is in his operation.
[23:45:00] We don't need to hear from her any further to know that she was probably part of the bribery plot out of the hotel from the original videotape of Cassie. I mean, you know, we know she knows. We see her talking in texts about Anton and Paul coming and going. We know she knows everything.
This is -- when the government says that's the number one co- conspirator, I saw enough of the story from other texts to say, yes, I understand that, I believe that.
COATES: It is true they talked about her as an alleged co-conspirator. But there's still that notion. And the prosecution tried to say, look, these people who were not called by us were equally available to both the defense and the prosecution, hoping that the jurors would see this as maybe the defense's failure to call this person. We'll have to see because they still carry that burden.
But interesting enough, as you point out, the way we have technology these days, text messaging, audio notes, etcetera, that is one way for the jury to hear from the people even when they do not testify. But I suspect -- I don't know that she would have been the best witness for the prosecution given we didn't hear from her and there's no -- as far as I know, in court, unlike other witnesses, she hadn't been granted support of immunity as well.
But Toure, I know we -- I know we have to go and they're going to kill me about this, but I got to ask you because it has been a big question that people have asked, and I wonder from this. Did you think it was surprising that Diddy didn't testify?
TOURE: I mean, look, from a legal perspective, no. All the legal people I know are, like, I would jump in front of the train before I would allow him to testify. From a cultural perspective and knowing him for 30 years, I was a little surprised because I thought he's running that ship over there, he's the boss, he's not going to let them tell him no. Maureen Comey said over and over, you can't say no to this man. And that is something we've known about him just in business for 30 years.
I thought he would want to get on the stand and defend himself and make and charm the jurors. Right? I don't believe as though he's going to talk about other people. He would go up there and charm the jurors. He always felt, like, I can make you love me. That was one of his big tag lines in the 90s. I'm going to make you love me. So, he could get up there, look them in the eye, smile and charm them and win them over.
I'm sure he thought that he could do that. And I'm sure that Marc Agnifilo had to, like, fight him to say, no, please, trust me, don't do that.
COATES: Well, what did Bonnie Raitt say? I can't make you love me if you don't. Also a 90s hit. Toure, thank you so much.
Much more on the trial ahead as we get ready to answer your questions on this special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial." (COMMERCIAL BREAK)
[23:50:00]
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
COATES: Wow, you all sent in a ton of questions about the case. So now it's time for America asks Diddy on trial edition. And for those of you who are at home, who want to participate, you can send us your questions as well by going to cnn.com/diddyquestions.
My panel is back. First one out of the gate, Jeremy. Mike from Upstate New York asked, if the jury remains hung on count one, that's the RICO one, can Combs still be convicted on the remaining counts 2 through 5?
SALAND: Absolutely. A 100%. And if the judge -- pardon me -- if the prosecution wants to retry, which likely would not happen, if it's hung on one and conviction on the others, they could potentially do so. But absolutely, conviction, even if there's a hung and mistrial, on the top count.
COATES: And mistrial only for that one count?
SALAND: Correct.
COATES: And they wouldn't try to reprocess because it's sued.
SALAND: That wouldn't make any sense for a practical purpose.
COATES: All right. Misty, Chris from Florida asked this question. Excuse me, Harry from Washington, D.C. asked this question. What do you guys estimate if he is convicted on his charges? How many years could he get?
MARRIS: So, the heavy hitter is sex trafficking. If he's convicted on that, it's 15 years. If he's convicted on RICO and the predicate is sex trafficking, it's probably still 15 years. If he's only convicted on Mann Act, that's up to 10. I think he only gets two or three.
COATES: Really?
MARRIS: Oh, yeah.
COATES: Is that normal?
MARRIS: Yeah. That would be what -- the sentencing guidelines for a first- time offender on a Mann Act case would be around there. A maximum is not -- it's different than the minimum on sex trafficking. That's why that's the scariest one for the defense.
COATES: Interesting. Imagine an almost eight-week trial and the idea of maybe two years. We'll -- we'll see what happens on that if he's convicted. We don't know. All right, I've got another question. Let's see here. Jeremy -- excuse me, Renato. Brian asked this question. Can Sean Combs be tried on any state charges like the drugs that were found during the raid in his homes? Can he be charged with any of the domestic violence cases?
STABILE: He can be. It depends on the statute of limitations. But that's a possibility. I think if he were acquitted across the board, you might see some of the states going after him.
COATES: Jeremy, a question about K.K. Samantha from Texas asked this about her in terms of why she didn't testify. What do you think?
SALAND: Yeah. She may have been looking at some exposure. She may not have been cooperative. And for that matter, the prosecution may simply not have wanted her and get what they wanted from her via text and other people. And you don't want that messy witness on the stand.
COATES: And she, of course, has denied any wrongdoing and has not been charged. Okay, Misty, Martine from South Florida asked, how in terms of Cassie and Jane does sex trafficking and/or prostitution charges apply as they were both his girlfriends?
MARRIS: Yeah. This is central to the defense. That speaks to that force, fraud or coercion. Was this force or was this just romantic relationships, an alternative lifestyle? It's actually the critical question for that charge.
COATES: Okay. Finally, let me ask you this one, Renato. Jim from Fresno, California asking, it seems a lot of the evidence is circumstantial or people referring to Diddy doing illicit drugs or partying. What crimes exactly have been proven or shown in court?
[23:55:01]
STABILE: Well, the prosecution says all the crimes have been proven or shown in court, and the defense says none of them have but you can be convicted just based on circumstantial evidence alone.
COATES: Tell me more about that, though, because the idea is that's a harder case to prove, and yet that can be, including in the instructions to begin with. The judge says that is possible as well.
STABILE: Yeah. They're instructed that direct evidence is something that somebody observes, or a document or something tangible and circumstantial are conclusions that you can draw. Like, if somebody were to walk in here, the classic example, with a wet umbrella, we would conclude that it was raining outside even though we don't have direct evidence of that.
COATES: Indeed, it is raining outside. Thank you so much, everyone. Much more on the trial at the top of the hour, so stay with us.
(COMMERCIAL BREAK)
