Moira Penza
Appearances
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so having individuals who the government is actually saying were were part of this conspiracy testify about what they saw, what they did, that's going to be powerful evidence. And we still have weeks of trial to go.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Well, I think this is one of the toughest parts of the job as a prosecutor is really exercising that prosecutorial discretion. So just because somebody did engage in criminal conduct, just because somebody may have been a lower ranking member of a criminal conspiracy, you may choose not to charge them with crimes, right?
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
In other situations, you might actually charge somebody with a crime and then they cooperate with the government and testify in exchange for the government eventually seeking leniency on their behalf. In other situations, and I can't speak to the exact specifics of how the government made the decision that they made, but in other situations,
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
what you're going to say is, this isn't necessarily somebody who I think should be charged for a crime, or there may be other reasons why you don't want to charge them with a crime. But they themselves might say, or through their lawyers, I'm not going to testify because what you want me to say is going to incriminate me.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so in that situation, the government makes a calculus that you don't want to prosecute the person, but it is also worth having them testify. And you always want to be doing that when it is helping you get the person who is significantly more culpable. And here, there's clearly no dispute that the defendant, Mr. Combs, was the head of this organization.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So the government is going to make certain decisions to make sure that they can hold him responsible.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think that's totally fair, and I think that's the way that the system should work. I think that prosecutorial discretion is a very important part of the system. And certainly there can be cases where for a variety of reasons, maybe because somebody was such a victim him or herself that you choose not to prosecute them.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So I think that there are a lot of similarities in the cases in that you have an individual who within his community is very high powered. Now, of course, far more people know Sean Combs than knew Keith Raniere at the time that I prosecuted him. But they were both men who have significant influences in the spheres in which they operated. And
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
The way that I charged the NXIVM case was recognizing that the crimes that Keith Raniere committed, he was able to commit over such a long period of time and with so many victims because he did have the involvement of other people and because he was part of this organization where A lot of individuals were benefiting financially, emotionally from being with him.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
They aggrandized him and were willing to participate in the victimization of other people on his behalf. In the Naxium case, for the sex trafficking piece, there were a number of different ways in which we proved the elements. But Basically, what we were saying was that women were collateralized. So there were women who thought they were joining a female empowerment group.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And as part of joining that, they were forced to hand over women. nude pictures, damning information about themselves, either true or false. Once they had handed over that information, only later, once that blackmail material was already obtained, did they learn that part of this organization was requiring them to have sex with Keith Raniere.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So that was the coercion that you see in terms of the sex trafficking movement charges that we have there. And then in terms of the rack tearing charges, again, we had other individuals who were helping groom women and who were involved in other crimes for Keith Raniere, including covering up different pieces of it.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
In terms of showing that the victims were under the coercive control of the defendant, again, there were a lot of similarities. So the women in my case were controlled in every aspect of their life. And their whole lives had really become this person, this organization. Their careers, they were really separated from people who could really serve as sounding boards for what was going on.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
One difference that we do have is the level of alleged physical violence in the Sean Combs case. In the Naxiom case, there was a little bit of that. And of course, the sex crimes themselves are inherently violent. But this sort of brutal physical violence is something that we didn't have in my case, but that you do have in this case and that I think is very powerful evidence for the prosecutors.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Mark and Tenny were the team in the NXIVM case, so I know them well. Ms. Garagos did not have as much of a stand-up role during the NXIVM trial. I certainly think she's a talented lawyer. And I do think optically it was...
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
a good decision on the part of the defense team to have a young woman who was a contemporary of the prosecution team standing up and showing that she was on the defendant's side and advocating for the defendant. So I think to Mark and Tenny's credit, um, I don't think they're necessarily following the same playbook that I saw in their defense of Keith Raniere.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And I think that reflects, you know, probably their own evolution in how to defend these cases. But also I think likely, I think Mr. Combs is maybe more willing to allow them to take certain approaches like, you know, accepting responsibility for being a bad boyfriend for domestic abuse.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So I think right now, where I think we're going to see closing arguments go is really a bookend of what we saw in opening. I think we're going to see the defense say, We've heard a lot of stuff you might not like, jury, but it's not the crimes that the government has charged.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And I think in that respect, it will be a little bit more matter of fact than we might have seen in the NXIVM case, where I think Mark...
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
made more of an effort to try and paint Keith Raniere as actually a good man with good intentions, as opposed to here where I think they realize it will be a more effective strategy to admit that Mr. Combs is a deeply flawed individual and just try and get the jury to stay focused on the narrow issue of, are these crimes actually proven?
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So I think in both cases, Dr. Hughes's testimony is being used very similarly. I think the NXIVM case is actually the first case in which Dr. Hughes testified, and she's now testified quite a bit on behalf of the government and on behalf of victims of abuse and sex trafficking.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
The reality is that victims of sex crimes, victims of domestic abuse often behave in ways that may seem counterintuitive to a lay person, to a jury. We often see victims writing text messages talking about how much they love their abuser. We see them going back, having consensual sex after they've been raped.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And that sort of behavior can sometimes, for somebody who is not familiar with the psychology of it, seem like it goes against the credibility of the victim. In reality, those behaviors are very common. I've seen it in... every sex crimes case that I was involved in. And, you know, now as somebody who comments on these sorts of cases, it's something that you see in basically every case.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And what Dr. Hughes does is not talking about the specifics of the case at all can explain why this sort of victim behavior and the psychology of it and why we can see that and put it into terms that are understandable for a jury. And then the jury can apply what they've heard from Dr. Hughes to what they've heard the victim say. And then it may be a lot more understandable.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So, for example, Dr. Hughes talks about the fact that there's often love in these long-term relationships where there's abuse. But there's these trauma bonds that keep people coming back, even in situations where a lay person who, you know, thankfully has not experienced this sort of behavior thinks, why didn't she just leave? The door was open. Yeah. She had family. She could have gotten help.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And Dr. Hughes can explain how difficult that can be in a situation where you've been abused repeatedly, especially where you have an individual who is extremely famous, who has enormous power over your career. And that can be really helpful for the jury in answering some questions that they might have.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I don't think that consent is a real challenge in this case because of the level of physical violence that you have and because of the coercive elements, the threats of blackmail. It's something that is a challenge for the government, but certainly something that can be overcome. And I think it's just something for the government to address head on. But this isn't a he said, she said case.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
It's really going to come down to the legal standard. And I think the government is going to be able to show how... Regardless of what Ms. Ventura may have said on any occasion or what the text messages say, that the elements of sex trafficking are met, that's what we're going to hear the government say about these alleged crimes.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think that's one of the most challenging aspects of being a prosecutor because you are really asking these alleged victims to relive some of the most traumatizing events of their life. What I like to do is remind our victims back when I was a prosecutor that this individual doesn't have power over you anymore.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
It's very different to see them in a courtroom when they've been charged with a crime and you're in the witness stand versus when you may have last seen them and all they are is this super high-powered individual. And then always reminding people that they are not here to be an advocate for the government. They're just there to tell the truth.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I also like to remind victims that there's a lot of corroboration that we can't tell them about. So there's going to be a lot of other evidence that helps support what they're saying. And we can't tell them the specifics of that, but we can tell them that they're not out there alone.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And then in terms of cross-examination, just, again, tell victims to tell the truth, to answer questions posed by the defense attorney the same way they're answering questions by the prosecutor. And, you know, we talk about what to expect. We would talk about you're going to see text messages saying that you loved him. And just try and take away as much of the surprise element as you can.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Well, I think the prosecution is being very methodical. They are trying to elicit testimony that is really going to meet the elements of the crimes. And so where they have salacious details, I think they are keeping it narrowly focused on what they actually are going to need to prove. And I think that's the right approach for the government. I also think the defense is doing a good job as well.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think that they have an uphill battle because there is so much evidence here. We have pictures. We have a lot of corroboration. We have video. But what's standing out to me from the defense side is that they're really not defending the indefensible.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So they're taking responsibility for things that they know they have to take responsibility for, like the fact that the defendant engaged in domestic violence. It's on tape. So by standing up and taking responsibility for that on the defendant's behalf... That's preserving their credibility with the jury so that they can actually make other arguments about the law.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I also thought the defense was smart to not be overly aggressive with Ms. Ventura. We've seen defense attorneys make that mistake. in other sex crimes prosecutions. And I think what they were trying to do is just allow the messages to speak for themselves. So regardless of what Ms. Ventura may have said on any occasion or what the text messages say,
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
to the extent the jury is going to be persuaded by those messages, that's enough. They don't need to be standing up there attacking Ms. Ventura, who's eight and a half months pregnant and was clearly the victim of crimes, even if, according to the defense, not sex trafficking or racketeering.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Well, I'm a former prosecutor and I've prosecuted very similar crimes back when I was at the Eastern District of New York. And what we've seen is that the government has really laid out a strong case of of the elements of sex trafficking. I think we've also seen them lay out a strong case for the RICO conspiracy charges as well.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
But talking about the sex trafficking first, the most important things for the government to prove there is that there was commercial sex that was compelled through forced fraud or coercion. And so in this case, we have very clear commercial sex. So commercial sex is any time there is sex exchanged for a thing of value.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
In a lot of sex trafficking prosecutions we've seen recently against high-profile individuals, we're not talking about an actual exchange of sex for money as one might traditionally think about sex trafficking. For example, in the Harvey Weinstein cases, you're talking about an exchange of sex for a position in the entertainment industry.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
That's really what you're thinking about in terms of thing of value. Here, this is a somewhat unique case in terms of recent sex trafficking prosecutions in that we actually have participants in the Sex Act. We have the escorts who actually are being paid. Then you need the force, fraud, or coercion. And there, I think the government's laid out a very clear case as well.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
We have incident after incident of physical violence against Ms. Ventura surrounding these freak-offs. We also have strong evidence of coercion. So where you have an individual who is... in a dynamic with an abuser, where that abuser really has control over every aspect of her life.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So her career, all the way down to what color she's painting her fingernails, that's going to take away an individual's agency. And so in that situation, it is much easier for somebody who intends to hurt somebody to do so. We also have the government introducing evidence of the threats against Ms. Ventura that the tapes of the freak-offs would be used if she were to leave him.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so that's another really strong piece of evidence that we see as to the sex trafficking elements.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Absolutely. So racketeering laws do prosecute criminal organizations. That's absolutely true. And that's what the government is saying here. The government is saying that Sean Combs was able to operate the way that he did because he was in fact part of a criminal organization. that there were other individuals who helped facilitate the crimes that he is charged with.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And that expansion of the racketeering laws to prosecute crimes other than mob cases has been going on for a long time. So in the Eastern District of New York, you had the prosecution of soccer corruption under the racketeering laws. We've seen various opioid cases that are brought under the racketeering laws.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And in fact, I used the racketeering statute when I prosecuted Keith Raniere, who was the head of the NXIVM, what's colloquially called a sex cult. But there— My argument was, in fact, that Keith Raniere was running a criminal organization. He wasn't a cult leader. He was a crime boss. And that's really what you hear the government doing in this case as well.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And that's why we're getting testimony from assistants, other people in his entourage, other people who were employed by him, who saw what was happening and helped facilitate it, including by covering up his crimes.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Yes. So when the government is charging racketeering, they can say that an organization is entirely criminal or they can say that there is an association of individuals who together are committing crimes. And sometimes... an organization or the way that somebody is operating their businesses can help facilitate crimes.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So again, similarly in the case that I prosecuted, even though we talk about it as the NXIVM case, I did not charge NXIVM as a criminal organization. I charged Keith Raniere and his associates together as a criminal organization who were using NXIVM classes, the individuals who were taking NXIVM courses. to commit these crimes, sometimes as participants in the crime, sometimes as victims.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so just because there can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, same thing with the FIFA case, right? There can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, but where an individual is working with others to commit crimes, even if they are also doing things that are legitimate, that can still be racketeering.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So they've charged Sean Combs with racketeering conspiracy. So they have to show that he agreed with at least one other person to engage in racketeering. Then to actually figure that out, what you're looking for is two predicate acts of racketeering that other people were involved in facilitating.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So there can be additional nuances to that as well, but I think the government's going to want to make it easy for the jury and say, here are all these instances where the crime that... Mr. Combs committed required other people's involvement. So that's, I think, the way that the government is going to lay it out. And in terms of whether they're there yet, I think they're getting there.
20/20
Bad Rap: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think we've heard testimony. that showed the involvement of other individuals. We also had testimony from one of Mr. Combs' assistants, and he was going to take a fifth, so he was not going to testify, saying that he would be incriminating himself if he took the stand. And so he was actually granted immunity so that he would, in fact, testify.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Well, I think this is one of the toughest parts of the job as a prosecutor is really exercising that prosecutorial discretion. So just because somebody did engage in criminal conduct, just because somebody may have been a lower-ranking member of a criminal conspiracy, you may choose not to charge them with crimes, right?
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
In other situations, you might actually charge somebody with a crime and then they charge cooperate with the government and testify in exchange for the government eventually seeking leniency on their behalf. In other situations, and I can't speak to the exact specifics of how the government made the decision that they made, but in other situations,
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
what you're going to say is, this isn't necessarily somebody who I think should be charged for a crime or there may be other reasons why you don't want to charge them with a crime, but they themselves might say, or through their lawyers, I'm not going to testify because what you want me to say is going to incriminate me.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so in that situation, the government makes a calculus that you don't want to prosecute the person, but it is also worth, having them testify. And you always want to be doing that when it is helping you get the person who is significantly more culpable. And here, there's clearly no dispute that the defendant, Mr. Combs, was the head of this organization.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So the government is going to make certain decisions to make sure that they can hold him responsible.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think that's totally fair. And I think that's the way that the system should work. I think that prosecutorial discretion is a very important part of the system. And certainly there can be cases where for a variety of reasons, maybe because somebody was such a victim him or herself that you choose not to prosecute them.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So I think that there are a lot of similarities in the cases in that you have an individual who within his community is very high powered. Now, of course, far more people know Sean Combs than knew Keith Raniere at the time that I prosecuted him. But they were both men who have significant influences in the spheres in which they operated. And
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
The way that I charged the NXIVM case was recognizing that the crimes that Keith Raniere committed, he was able to commit over such a long period of time and with so many victims because he did have the involvement of other people and because he was part of this organization where A lot of individuals were benefiting financially, emotionally from being with him.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
They aggrandized him and were willing to participate in the victimization of other people on his behalf. In the Naxium case, for the sex trafficking piece, there were a number of different ways in which we proved the elements. But Basically, what we were saying was that women were collateralized. So there were women who thought they were joining a female empowerment group.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And as part of joining that, they were forced to hand over women. nude pictures, damning information about themselves, either true or false. Once they had handed over that information, only later, once that blackmail material was already obtained, did they learn that part of this organization was requiring them to have sex with Keith Raniere?
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So that was the coercion that you see in terms of the sex trafficking charges that we have there. And then in terms of the racketeering charges, again, we had other individuals who were helping groom women, and who were involved in other crimes for Keith Raniere, including covering up different pieces of it. In terms of showing that the victims were under the coercive control of the defendant...
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Again, there were a lot of similarities. So the women in my case were controlled in every aspect of their life. And their whole lives had really become this person, this organization. Their careers, they were really separated from people who could really serve as sounding boards for what was going on. One difference that we do have is the level of alleged physical violence in the Sean Combs case.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
In the Naxiom case, there was a little bit of that. And of course, the sex crimes themselves are inherently violent. But this sort of brutal physical violence is something that we didn't have in my case, but that you do have in this case and that I think is very powerful evidence for the prosecutors.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Mark and Tenny were the team in the NXIVM case, so I know them well. Ms. Garagos did not have as much of a stand-up role during the NXIVM trial. I certainly think she's a talented lawyer. And I do think optically it was...
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
a good decision on the part of the defense team to have a young woman who was a contemporary of the prosecution team standing up and showing that she was on the defendant's side and advocating for the defendant. So I think to Mark and Tenny's credit, I don't think they're necessarily following the same playbook that I saw in their defense of Keith Raniere.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And I think that reflects, you know, probably their own evolution in how to defend these cases. But also, I think likely, I think Mr. Combs is maybe more willing to allow them to take certain approaches like... accepting responsibility for being a bad boyfriend for domestic abuse.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So I think right now, where I think we're going to see closing arguments go is really a bookend of what we saw in opening. I think we're going to see the defense say, We've heard a lot of stuff you might not like, jury, but it's not the crimes that the government has charged.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And I think in that respect, it will be a little bit more matter of fact than we might have seen in the NXIVM case, where I think Mark...
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
made more of an effort to try and paint Keith Raniere as actually a good man with good intentions, as opposed to here where I think they realize it will be a more effective strategy to admit that Mr. Combs is a deeply flawed individual and just try and get the jury to stay focused on the narrow issue of, are these crimes actually proven?
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So I think in both cases, Dr. Hughes's testimony is being used very similarly. I think the NXIVM case is actually the first case in which Dr. Hughes testified, and she's now testified quite a bit on behalf of the government and on behalf of victims of abuse and sex trafficking.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
The reality is that victims of sex crimes, victims of domestic abuse often behave in ways that may seem counterintuitive to a lay person, to a jury. We often see victims writing text messages talking about how much they love their abuser. We see them going back, having consensual sex after they've been raped.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And that sort of behavior can sometimes, for somebody who's not familiar with the psychology of it, seem like it goes against the credibility of the victim. In reality, those behaviors are very common. I've seen it in... every sex crimes case that I was involved in. And, you know, now as somebody who comments on these sorts of cases, it's something that you see in basically every case.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And what Dr. Hughes does is not talking about the specifics of the case at all can explain why this sort of victim behavior and the psychology of it and why we can see that and put it into terms that are understandable for a jury. And then the jury can apply what they've heard from Dr. Hughes to what they've heard the victim say. And then it may be a lot more understandable.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So, for example, Dr. Hughes talks about the fact that there's often love in these long-term relationships where there's abuse. But there's these trauma bonds that keep people coming back, even in situations where a lay person who, you know, thankfully has not experienced this sort of behavior thinks, why didn't she just leave? The door was open. Yeah. She had family. She could have gotten help.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And Dr. Cuse can explain how difficult that can be in a situation where you've been abused repeatedly, especially where you have an individual who is extremely famous, who has enormous power over your career. And that can be really helpful for the jury in answering some questions that they might have.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I don't think that consent is a real challenge in this case because of the level of physical violence that you have and because of the coercive elements, the threats of blackmail. It's something that is a challenge for the government, but certainly something that can be overcome. And I think it's just something for the government to address head on. But this isn't a he said, she said case.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
It's really going to come down to the legal standard. I think the government is going to be able to show how... Regardless of what Ms. Ventura may have said on any occasion or what the text messages say, that the elements of sex trafficking are met, that's what we're going to hear the government say about these alleged crimes.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think that's one of the most challenging aspects of being a prosecutor because you are really asking these alleged victims to relive some of the most traumatizing events of their life. And What I like to do is remind our victims back when I was a prosecutor that this individual doesn't have power over you anymore.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
It's very different to see them in a courtroom when they've been charged with a crime and you're in the witness stand versus when you may have last seen them and all they are is this super high-powered individual. And then always reminding people that they are not here to be an advocate for the government. They're just there to tell the truth.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I also like to remind victims that there's a lot of corroboration that we can't tell them about. So there's going to be a lot of other evidence that helps support what they're saying. And we can't tell them the specifics of that, but we can tell them that they're not
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
out there alone and then in terms of cross-examination just again tell victims to tell the truth to answer questions posed by the defense attorney the same way they're answering questions by the prosecutor and you know we talk about what to expect we would talk about you're going to see text messages saying that you loved him and just try and take away as much of the surprise element as you can
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
No problem. Thanks for having me.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Well, I think the prosecution is being very methodical. They are trying to elicit testimony that is really going to meet the elements of the crimes. And so where they have salacious details, I think they are keeping it narrowly focused on what they actually are going to need to prove. And I think that's the right approach for the government. I also think the defense is doing a good job as well.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think that they have an uphill battle because there is so much evidence here. We have pictures. We have a lot of corroboration. We have video. But what's standing out to me from the defense side is that they're really not defending the indefensible.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So they're taking responsibility for things that they know they have to take responsibility for, like the fact that the defendant engaged in domestic violence. It's on tape. So by standing up and taking responsibility for that on the defendant's behalf... That's preserving their credibility with the jury so that they can actually make other arguments about the law.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I also thought the defense was smart to not be overly aggressive with Ms. Ventura. We've seen defense attorneys make that mistake. in other sex crimes prosecutions. And I think what they were trying to do is just allow the messages to speak for themselves. So regardless of what Ms. Ventura may have said on any occasion or what the text messages say,
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
to the extent the jury is going to be persuaded by those messages, that's enough. They don't need to be standing up there attacking Ms. Ventura, who's eight and a half months pregnant and was clearly the victim of crimes, even if, according to the defense, not sex trafficking or racketeering.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Well, I'm a former prosecutor and I've prosecuted very similar crimes back when I was at the Eastern District of New York. And what we've seen is that the government has really laid out a strong case. of the elements of sex trafficking. I think we've also seen them lay out a strong case for the RICO conspiracy charges as well.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
But talking about the sex trafficking first, the most important things for the government to prove there is that there was commercial sex that was compelled through forced fraud or coercion. And so in this case, we have very clear commercial sex. So commercial sex is any time there is sex exchanged for a thing of value.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
In a lot of sex trafficking prosecutions we've seen recently against high-profile individuals, we're not talking about an actual exchange of sex for money as one might traditionally think about sex trafficking. For example, in the Harvey Weinstein cases, you're talking about an exchange of sex for a position in the entertainment industry.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
That's really what you're thinking about in terms of thing of value. Here, this is a somewhat unique case in terms of recent sex trafficking prosecutions in that we actually have participants in the Sex Act. We have the escorts who actually are being paid. Then you need the force, fraud, or coercion. And there, I think the government's laid out a very clear case as well.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
We have incident after incident of physical violence against Ms. Ventura surrounding these freak-offs. We also have strong evidence of coercion. So where you have an individual who is... in a dynamic with an abuser where that abuser really has control over every aspect of her life.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So her career all the way down to what color she's painting her fingernails, that's going to take away an individual's agency. And so in that situation, it is much easier easier for somebody who intends to hurt somebody to do so. We also have the government introducing evidence of the threats against Ms. Ventura that the tapes of the freak-offs would be used if she were to leave him.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so that's another really strong piece of evidence that we see as to the sex trafficking elements.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Absolutely. So racketeering laws do prosecute criminal organizations. That's absolutely true. And that's what the government is saying here. The government is saying that Sean Combs was able to operate the way that he did because he was in fact part of a criminal organization. that there were other individuals who helped facilitate the crimes that he is charged with.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And that expansion of the racketeering laws to prosecute crimes other than mob cases has been going on for a long time. So in the Eastern District of New York, you had the prosecution of soccer corruption under the racketeering laws. We've seen various opioid cases that are brought under the racketeering laws.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And in fact, I used the racketeering statute when I prosecuted Keith Raniere, who was the head of the NXIVM, what's colloquially called a sex cult. But there— My argument was, in fact, that Keith Raniere was running a criminal organization. He wasn't a cult leader. He was a crime boss. And that's really what you hear the government doing in this case as well.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And that's why we're getting testimony from assistants, other people in his entourage, other people who were employed by him, who saw what was happening and helped facilitate it, including by covering up his crimes.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
Yes. So when the government is charging racketeering, they can say that an organization is entirely criminal or they can say that there is an association of individuals who together are committing crimes. And sometimes... an organization or the way that somebody is operating their businesses can help facilitate crimes.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So again, similarly in the case that I prosecuted, even though we talk about it as the NXIVM case, I did not charge NXIVM as a criminal organization. I charged Keith Raniere and his associates together as a criminal organization who were using NXIVM classes, the individuals who were taking NXIVM courses. to commit these crimes, sometimes as participants in the crime, sometimes as victims.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so just because there can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, same thing with the FIFA case, right? There can be legitimate purposes to an enterprise, but where an individual is working with others to commit crimes, even if they are also doing things that are legitimate, that can still be racketeering.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
So they've charged Sean Combs with racketeering conspiracy. So they have to show that he agreed with at least one other person to engage in racketeering. Then to actually figure that out, what you're looking for is two predicate acts of racketeering that other people were involved in facilitating. So, you know, there can be additional nuances to that as well.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
But I think the government's going to want to make it easy for the jury and say, here are all these instances where the crime that Mr. Combs committed required other people's involvement. So that's I think the way that the government is going to lay it out. And in terms of whether they're there yet, I think they're getting there.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
I think we've heard testimony that showed the involvement of other individuals We also had testimony from one of Mr. Combs' assistants, and he was going to take a fifth, so he was not going to testify, saying that he would be incriminating himself if he took the stand. And so he was actually granted immunity so that he would, in fact, testify.
Bad Rap: The Case Against Diddy
The Trial: Prosecutors Go for the Big Fish
And so having individuals who the government is actually saying were were part of this conspiracy testify about what they saw, what they did, that's going to be powerful evidence. And we still have weeks of trial to go.