Sean "Diddy" Combs, a music titan, a cultural icon,
a criminal defendant.
Music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs
goes on trial today.
Indicted with multiple federal crimes,
the worldwide mogul is the sole person
charged in this case
and maintains his innocence.
Every week, we take you inside the trial,
using actors and court transcripts...
Raise your right hand.
...to chronicle every crucial moment...
- You promise to tell the truth. - ...word for word.
Is the government prepared to proceed?
Diddy on Trial: As It Happened.
Thank you for joining us.
I'm your host, Sunny Hostin
and welcome to Diddy on Trial: As It Happened.
It's week seven in the trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs,
where the prosecution wraps up
their case against the defendant,
who has pleaded not guilty and denies all charges
of racketeering conspiracy, sex trafficking,
and transportation to engage in prostitution.
The government called another personal assistant,
26-year-old Brendan Paul.
Paul testified to a rigorous and demanding schedule.
Mr. Paul, can you describe the work environment
when you were Mr. Combs's assistant?
I mean, it was intense.
There was a lot to get done, but we managed.
How would you describe the mission
as Mr. Combs's personal assistant?
Just make sure he's always happy.
And what happened if Mr. Combs wasn't happy?
I mean, we would just do whatever we could
to make sure that that didn't happen.
What, if anything, did Mr. Combs say if you told him "no"?
That he doesn't take no for an answer.
What was Mr. Combs's expectation of his assistants?
He used to say that he wants us to move like SEAL Team Six.
What was your understanding of what he meant
by moving like SEAL Team Six?
Just being militant.
Get things done without him asking.
Nothing taken by surprise.
Nobody fooled you about how hard it was going to be
to work with such an iconic person as Mr. Combs, right?
No.
And you welcomed that.
- I did. - Because you wanted to learn
the business side of music, true?
Yes.
The music side of music, the actual songs, true?
Yes.
The production, right?
Yep.
You also were going to be with a billionaire
and see what that lifestyle is like
and how to react
and how to attract good people, right?
Yes.
And you're how old in 2022?
Twenty three years old.
And you're making $75,000 a year.
- True? - Yes.
And you are getting unbelievable opportunities
because of Sean Combs, right?
Yes.
Mr. Paul was testifying under an immunity deal,
and the prosecution worked to try and tie
his drug arrest in 2024 to the Combs empire.
What happened on March 25, 2024?
I was arrested at the Opa-Locka Airport
when we were on our way to a family vacation.
- Where is the Opa-Locka Airport? - Miami, Florida.
Why were you arrested?
Possession of cocaine.
Why were you in possession of cocaine?
It was in my Goyard,
which was my bag for personal assistant duties.
Why was cocaine in your Goyard bag?
I was sweeping his room early that morning
and put it in my bag to put it elsewhere
and forgot about it while I was packing.
When you say "his room," whose room are you referring to?
Mr. Combs.
- Whose cocaine was it? - Mr. Combs.
Mr. Paul, you were arrested that day.
I was.
What is the status of your criminal case?
My charges have been dropped
because I have a really good lawyer.
Sean Combs didn't ask you
to bring these drugs with you, right?
He did not.
He didn't even know you had them on you.
- Right? - No.
And KK didn't ask you to bring these drugs with you, did she?
No.
It was a mistake, right?
Yes.
So, when you told the officers,
"Everything in that bag belongs to me,"
you did not realize that you had left this small amount
of drugs, in the bag, right?
That is correct.
And then when they pulled it out,
you're like, "Oh my God,
I forgot I put it in there," right?
Heart drop.
That's it. That's the whole case, right?
Yes.
And that case is dismissed.
Correct.
Though Paul was described
as a drug mule by the press,
he denies that characterization.
Mr. Paul, were you ever instructed
to obtain drugs for Mr. Combs?
I was.
Who instructed you to obtain drugs for Mr. Combs?
He did himself or other assistants.
What types of drugs did you buy for Mr. Combs?
Marijuana, 2C, cocaine, ketamine, ecstasy.
Joining me this week,
writer and cultural critic Touré,
and criminal trial attorney Sara Azari.
Thank you so much for being here again.
Now, we just heard Brendan Paul testify.
He was arrested on drug charges
that were later dropped, actually,
uh, and he's been accused of being this drug mule.
The prosecution has charged
as a predicate act drug distribution.
Does that make it that testimony?
That's the significance, Sunny,
and the idea that typically,
when we think of racketeering activity,
we're thinking of drug trafficking organizations.
So this labeling by the press
really fits in with the prosecution's narrative.
But at the end of the day, he clarified that this was
like a small amount of cocaine left
in the hotel room that he picked up
and forgot that it was on him when he got arrested.
- So I think that took... - He forgot.
That took a little bit of the air
out of the drug distribution.
But if the jury gets very technical,
you know, two drug distribution acts
opens the door to the racketeering.
That's not technical.
The prosecutor made it clear.
If I give a drug to-- one piece of drug...
The amount does not matter.
The amount of times does not matter.
If I give it to you twice, that's drug trafficking.
But you know what could matter?
The fact that Paul testifies, very clearly,
that Sean Combs
- did not ask him... - Correct.
...to take the drugs to the airport,
did not ask him to put the drugs in the bag.
Sean Combs didn't even know.
- Who did? - He was cleaning...
He said no one.
Sean Combs didn't even have knowledge
that the drugs were on him.
Brendan... There's a group of people that he's working with
and for, for the benefit of Diddy.
Though Combs has pleaded not guilty to all charges
and is the only one charged,
prosecutors argue that an inner circle of employees
helped facilitate the sex trafficking of women,
among other crimes, for Combs.
What was your understanding of KK's job responsibilities
as Mr. Combs's chief of staff?
She basically ran the enterprise,
maintained all of the schedule,
helped out with the family, things of that nature.
How often did Mr. Combs and KK
communicate throughout the day?
Like, all day, every day.
How did they communicate?
Texts, phone calls, in person.
What, if any, access did Ms. Khorram, or KK,
have to Mr. Combs's electronic devices?
I believe... I mean,
full access to his business phone.
Did you observe KK use Mr. Combs's business phone?
- I did. - In what way?
Just responding to all the texts he would get
because it would be thousands and thousands a day.
I want to direct your attention to the third line
starting with Wednesday, 2/8.
Could you please read that from there until Friday, 2/10?
"Finance meeting at house, then no other work for the day.
Jane arrives early Wednesday morning
and going to hotel.
PD doing dinner with Jane for her birthday,
Brendan working on reservation.
Be ready for a wild king night at her hotel.
Just finalizing hotel today."
You mentioned on your direct examination,
I believe, that KK ran the enterprise.
Do you remember something like that, you saying?
Around there.
Now, you're not saying a criminal enterprise, are you?
- Objection. - That's overruled.
No.
You're saying because the title of the company
you got paid for was Combs Enterprises, right?
Yes.
And you would not work for a criminal, would you?
- Objection. - That's overruled.
Absolutely not.
And you didn't work for a criminal
as you sit here today looking back, right?
- Objection. - Sustained.
Am I right?
- I didn't hear you, Your Honor. - Sustained.
You never thought that the king night
included anything that was criminal, did you?
Objection.
Overruled.
No.
So now the prosecution presents evidence
that links Combs's chief of staff,
KK, or Kristina Khorram, to many of his activities.
Now, Brendan Paul testified
that KK basically ran this enterprise.
She denies any involvement in any criminal activity,
but what do you think this showed to the jury?
That she's intimately involved in all these things,
that when somebody needs to get a tape back, she's part of it.
When somebody wants
to bribe somebody, she's part of it.
There seems to be times
when she seems to think
that this is not the right thing to do,
but she still helps facilitate it.
She knows where all the bodies are buried.
But Sara, you know, what's interesting to me is
you have all of the other witnesses
testifying under immunity deals.
Where was KK? Why did she not take the stand?
And that is gonna be the million-dollar question
for the jury, and it's gonna matter to the jury,
because remember that a big part of the defense's argument
in closing is that the government was overreaching.
"Look at how ridiculous
these raids were on Diddy's homes."
They're mocking these raids.
They're mocking the whole prosecution
and the overcharging
of Sean Combs because he's a celebrity.
So when you take it in that context,
you go, "Wait a second,
you're missing the co-conspirator?"
That's a big deal to the jury.
Why couldn't she take immunity and take the stand?
After nearly seven weeks of testimony and 34 witnesses,
the government finally rested its case
against Sean "Diddy" Combs.
Mr. Combs, how are you feeling today?
I'm doing great. How are you, Your Honor?
Good.
I want to tell you thank you. You're doing an excellent job.
Okay, I appreciate that.
In the last 48 hours,
have you taken any drugs, medicine,
pills, or had any alcohol?
- No, I have not. - Is your mind clear today?
Yes, sir.
Do you understand what is happening
- here in the courtroom? - Yes, sir.
Do you understand that as a defendant
in a criminal case,
you have the right to testify on your own behalf
- if you wish to testify? - Yes, Your Honor.
Have you discussed with your lawyers
whether you should or should not
- testify in this case? - Yes, thoroughly.
Have you had enough time to talk with your lawyers
and to think about whether to testify and the advantages
and disadvantages of that decision?
Yes, we have discussed it.
Is it your decision not to testify in this case?
That is my decision, Your Honor.
Sean "Diddy" Combs does not testify.
Touré, how difficult do you think
it was for the defense
to convince Sean "Diddy" Combs
that he could not charm this jury
and that it wasn't in his best interest to testify?
I'm sure that was
a spirited topic of conversation.
And I know the lawyers are like, "Don't do it."
But just knowing him and knowing how he's a fighter
and how he feels he can charm anyone anywhere
and how he wants to be the captain of his own ship,
I'm sure he was like, "Let me get up there."
"I can charm them."
"I can make them-- I'm going to make you love me."
So yeah, I think he thought that he could do that.
And clearly, you know, he listened to his defense team,
who was like, "No, no, you have a seat. We'll take care of it."
Yeah, and I think that ship would sink
real quick if he took the stand.
Well, we know as lawyers,
defendants rarely, in a criminal case,
- testify. - Hardly ever testify
unless they are very sympathetic,
which he's not...
...and that they could humanize themselves,
and there's some sort of evidence
that they need to introduce that we can't get
from anywhere else to argue.
That's the only reason, and I don't see that here.
In fact, it's the opposite.
So what about the civil lawsuits
that are still pending against Sean Combs?
That old adage,
"Anything you say can and will be held against you
in a court of law."
Did that perhaps factor
into the reason why he didn't testify here?
Yeah, I think so, Sunny. I mean, that would be,
like, you know, the second factor.
Because, I mean, Sean Combs is fighting for his life here,
and that's really the priority.
But, of course, he's got huge civil liability
across the board,
and anything he says here could be used
in those depositions and in discovery.
After more than six weeks
of emotional, often graphic testimony about sex,
drugs, and violence...
Ms. Johnson, you may proceed.
...federal prosecutors rested their case
against Sean Combs.
Over the last several weeks,
you've learned a lot about Sean Combs.
He's the leader of a criminal enterprise.
You heard all about how the defendant
again and again forced,
threatened, and manipulated Cassie and Jane
into having sex with escorts for his own entertainment.
Across all these crimes, the same thing was true.
The defendant used power, violence,
and fear to get what he wanted.
Dozens of witnesses agreed.
He doesn't take no for an answer.
The sex trafficking charge
is about the multiple occasions when the defendant made Cassie
and Jane have sex
when they didn't want to by threatening them,
drugging them, lying to them, and being violent with them.
Cassie takes off so fast,
she doesn't even have time to put her shoes on.
He attacks her.
He throws her to the ground.
He kicks her repeatedly.
She doesn't fight back.
And then the defendant tries to drag her back
to the room where Jules is waiting.
He was using force to cause Cassie to continue
to engage in the freak-off.
She could have said anything about the video.
She could have said sex trafficking is the issue.
She could have said
having coerced sex with men is the issue.
She could have said
running away from freak-offs is the issue.
She was very precise and very clear
about what the issue was for her.
Her, who was there.
The prosecutors weren't there.
The issue for her, who was there,
domestic violence is the issue.
Her words to the world in an Instagram post.
And as they say,
and as I ask you to do as well, believe her.
The prosecutor kept saying, as a refrain in her closing,
he wouldn't take no for an answer.
And here is visual evidence of a woman
trying to run away from him,
and he is physically bringing her back
to where he wants her to be.
Now, Sara, the defense will undoubtedly argue
this was consensual.
She agreed to participate in these freak-offs.
How damaging do you think
that hotel surveillance video will be?
That's the whole case, Sunny.
That's the worst piece of evidence
because the defense's arguing-- closing argument,
that this was domestic violence and we own it,
but the problem is it was domestic violence
in the course of a freak-off.
The idea that she wanted to leave and she couldn't leave.
So it really depends, you know,
this jury looking at this with the instruction that,
"Hey, even if we find one or two that are coerced
and there was still, historically, consent,
we could still find this to be trafficking."
They don't have to believe
that all of the freak-offs were coerced.
Prosecutors allege that Combs used an inner circle of staff
to carry out a pattern of criminal activity.
The defendant was at the top of this enterprise.
Remember, it's his kingdom.
Everyone was there to serve him.
Now, defense counsel suggested to you
in the opening statements that there was no criminal enterprise
because no one testified
that they were part of a criminal enterprise.
But members of the jury,
use your common sense and look at the evidence.
They facilitated the defendant sex trafficking
Cassie and Jane.
They assisted the defendant
obtaining labor by force and threats.
They helped the defendant arrange travel
for the defendant's girlfriends and male escorts
for the purpose of commercial sex.
And they helped the defendant cover up his crimes.
And what the evidence shows is that over and over,
the defendant and his inner circle
agreed to commit crimes together.
That's what a racketeering conspiracy is.
What did the government say his businesses are?
A racketeering enterprise?
Are you kidding me?
You heard-- did any witness get on that witness stand and say,
"Yes, I was part of a racketeering enterprise,"
"I engaged in racketeering as part of an enterprise"?
You didn't hear that from the evidence.
You didn't hear that from a witness.
You heard that from the prosecutors alone.
The witnesses are testifying
there's personal use drugs around,
but was he using his enterprise?
Is this really a part of a racketeering conspiracy,
where he's using his enterprise to sell drugs, move drugs,
have drugs, possess drugs,
possess with intent to distribute drugs?
I submit to you the answer is no.
So let's talk about the racketeering charge.
The prosecutors are now alleging
that Combs and this "inner circle"
that we hear about often,
KK, D-Roc, they have not been charged.
They helped facilitate sex trafficking,
that they helped cover up Combs's crimes,
that they arranged travel.
Do you think that the prosecutors did enough
to prove that Sean Combs
was the head of this criminal enterprise
and his inner circle helped him commit crimes?
- I mean, yes. It's quite clear. - Oh, come on.
There's years of sex trafficking that could not happen
without this operation that allows him to set this up
and control these women.
This has happened to Cassie, this happened to Jane.
He could not pull this off without all these assistants.
Combs is also charged with transportation for prostitution,
a charge he denies.
To engage in freak-offs or hotel nights,
we know now the defendant paid escorts.
You heard both Cassie and Jane testify
that after every freak-off or hotel night,
the escorts were paid with the defendant's money,
usually thousands of dollars.
On top of that,
the defendant caused interstate and international travel
for the freak-offs and the hotel nights.
The defendant himself often arranged
and paid for travel for these escorts.
Let's talk about Cowboys 4 Angels
Cowboys 4 Angels.
There's documents and evidence.
It's been around for a while.
It's around today.
And if anybody wanted to order a cowboy tonight,
operators will take your call, okay?
They are open for business. They are doing fine.
They don't seem to be going anywhere, okay?
Why is he supposed to know more than them?
Why is-- If they're in business and they are sending escorts,
do a lot of the escorts have sex?
I think so. I don't know.
I wouldn't know. I think so.
But if it's that you're paying for time,
and if the two adults meet because you're paying for time
and they choose to have sex,
it looks like that's not illegal,
because there are all these companies
around the world doing this,
and Cowboys 4 Angels is one of them.
How is he supposed to be
the only one in the room knowing,
"Oh my goodness, this is prostitution?"
Now let's talk about transportation
to engage in prostitution.
The Mann Act specifically makes it illegal
to transport people across state lines
for the purposes of prostitution.
Is a violation of the Mann Act
just a slam dunk here for the prosecution?
All the elements are met beyond a reasonable doubt.
There's receipts, there are Amex records,
there are flight receipts. They had their favorite,
like that dude that was in Atlanta, right?
That they were flying in all the time.
They met their burden on that.
We got Diddy texting directly with the sex workers,
"Hey, what's your full name
so I can get it for the flight records?"
"Here's my Bad Boy Amex."
Like, I mean, this is a math problem.
But there's also the possibility with a really unlikable,
unsympathetic defendant
that's done some really bad things
and never been prosecuted for it,
there's this-- there's this desire to get him on something.
And so having that charge in the mix allows the jury
to find him guilty of the Mann Act violation
but not the other stuff.
All of this evidence paints a clear picture
of how the defendant committed crime after crime
for two decades.
How he didn't take no for an answer.
The evidence showed you how he and his inner circle
helped him carry out these crimes
and how far they would go to cover them up.
That evidence proves to you that the defendant is guilty
beyond a reasonable doubt.
Up until today,
the defendant was able to get away with these crimes
because of his money, his power, his influence.
That stops now.
It's time to hold him accountable.
It's time for justice.
It's time to find the defendant guilty.
The trial of the evidence is a lifestyle.
You want to call it swingers?
You want to call it threesomes.
Whatever you want to call it, that's what it is.
That's what the evidence shows.
That is not what the prosecutors are saying to you.
The prosecutors have charged
one of the most serious, complicated,
comprehensive statutes on the books.
So anyone who's telling you, "Yeah, Cassie, she's a victim."
"Cassie, she's naive."
"Cassie, she couldn't see what was coming."
Let's look at the facts.
That's why he loved her.
Cassie's no joke.
And that's why he loved her.
She matched him.
She was like him.
He was at a certain level.
Cassie was at a certain level.
They were in love with each other.
And in my opinion...
It's one of...
it's kind of a great modern love story.
It takes a lot of courage to acquit.
And I'm asking you...
to acquit Sean Combs...
of all the counts in this indictment.
He is not a racketeer.
He is not a conspirator to commit racketeering.
He is none of these things.
He is innocent.
He sits there, innocent.
Return him to his family...
who have been waiting for him.
So let's wrap this up.
In closing arguments, the defense flat out denied
that this case was about sex trafficking,
about racketeering,
or transportation to engage in prostitution.
They did own the domestic violence,
but they say that this is a modern love story.
They say this is about a sexual, polyamorous lifestyle.
And they say that this case is about jealousy and infidelity.
Sara, did the prosecution prove this case
beyond a reasonable doubt?
Transportation for prostitution, absolutely guilty.
Sex trafficking of Jane, not guilty.
Sex trafficking of Cassie is a toss-up.
I think it might be a hung jury.
- Mm-hmm. - And, um,
racketeering, not guilty.
Uh, clearly,
slam dunk on transportation for prostitution.
Clearly, Jane's story is very complicated.
They probably can't decide that, not guilty.
I have been seeing
sex trafficking with Cassie since day one.
And I keep arguing, like--
my smart lawyer friends are like, "No, I don't see it."
But I see it, and I listened to the prosecution.
She is controlled in at least five different ways.
- Mm-hmm. - Um...
- What about racketeering? - Racketeering...
I see it. I listen to the closing.
I hear the argument. I'm like, "That makes perfect sense."
Let me ask you this, Touré.
Let's say Diddy is found not guilty on all counts.
What does his future look like?
Your image and reputation are still destroyed.
We all saw you beat the crap out of that woman.
So you are persona non grata.
You cannot return to the entertainment industry
and being sexy Puff anymore. That's over.
Sara.
What if Diddy is found guilty of any of the counts?
If it's the count we all agree on,
which is the transportation for prostitution,
the maximum is 10 years. There's no minimum.
And then racketeering is 20 years to life.
- That's right. - So his life could be over.
And by the way, the 400 million-dollar estate
that he-- is his net worth, all of it could be gone
if he's found guilty of racketeering.
This week, the jury of eight men and four women,
ages 30 to 74, will begin deliberating the fate
of the global superstar.
If convicted on all counts,
===Sean "Diddy" Combs faces life in prison.
But even if acquitted,
his reputation is forever tarnished.