NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
The decision by Sean “Diddy” Combs’ lawyers to not call any witnesses to testify in his federal trial for sex crimes comes down to the prosecution’s burden of reasonable doubt, according to legal experts.
Diddy’s lawyer, Marc Agnifilo, indicated Monday in court that the defense plans to review evidence with the jury, and won’t require witnesses to testify on the rapper’s behalf. The rapper’s legal team expects to rest its case Wednesday, with closing arguments expected to begin the following day.
“The decision whether or not to call witnesses during the defense case is a calculated risk,” criminal defense and civil attorney Adanté Pointer of Lawyers for the People LLC told Fox News Digital.
DIDDY DEFENSE NOT EXPECTED TO CALL ANY WITNESSES IN SEX TRAFFICKING TRIAL
“Not calling any witnesses means the defense is essentially telling the jury there is no one they know in the whole universe who can speak on Diddy’s behalf to aid his defense. On the other hand, calling a witness can open that person up to questioning and perhaps elicit damaging testimony against Diddy, depending upon their interactions with him and their knowledge of these women.”
Pointer likened the defense’s decision not to call any witnesses to a “Pandora’s box.”
“Given the defense is signaling they do not intend to call a single witness, they do not think any potential defense-friendly witnesses will result in a net gain for Diddy. His lawyers have essentially determined the juice is not worth the squeeze.”
MISSING WITNESSES AND LINGERING QUESTIONS PLAGUE PROSECUTION AS DIDDY TRIAL NEARS CONCLUSION: EXPERT
Judge Arun Subramanian will likely ask Diddy to confirm his decision not to take the stand.
“Diddy testifying would just allow the prosecution to retell their case and put the previous items of evidence in front of the jury for a second or third time,” Pointer explained. “The prosecution would have a field day going through each and every video, text and witness statement made at trial against him and force Diddy to admit the authenticity of the videos, the receipts and invoices, items recovered at his homes and hotel rooms, and that he was present during the events described in prior testimony.
“In light of the evidence already presented at trial, this would most likely be an excoriating and humiliating cross-examination, the kind prosecutors wait their whole career to conduct.”
Closing arguments for the trial, which began May 5 with jury selection, are expected to begin Thursday after Diddy’s lawyers explained they would only need two days to defend their client.
Trial attorney Tre Lovell told Fox News Digital that the defense likely wants to double down on reasonable doubt, and that Diddy’s “exotic lifestyle” does not equal what the prosecution has proposed, which is that “Diddy formed a criminal enterprise to pleasure himself, the Tony Soprano of baby oil.”
LIKE WHAT YOU’RE READING? CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS
“The only reason to not call witnesses in your defense is if you absolutely believe there is reasonable doubt, and you don’t want to do anything to take away from this, including calling your own witnesses,” Lovell said. “It would make sense to call a psychiatrist to explain that the behavior of Cassie and Jane is more reflective of a consensual relationship, based upon the autonomy each woman had, the benefits they received and the love they had for Diddy.
“Further, calling executives at Bad Boy Entertainment would be helpful to distance the corporations from Diddy’s more personal behavior, to dispel the criminal enterprise element. Finally, possibly an industry or legal expert to distinguish the aspects of ‘sex workers’ versus ‘prostitution,’ to counter the prostitution charge.”
Lovell added, “However, the defense felt even calling witnesses such as these would have the potential of adversely affecting reasonable doubt, and chose not to.”
Mark Chutkow, who previously led the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Detroit, believed Diddy’s decision not to testify was “a smart one.”
“It’s a real big gamble to testify in a case like this where the prosecution has brought racketeering charges, which allows them to bring this wealth of bad acts evidence there,” Chutkow said. “By taking the stand, he would just subject himself to even more bad acts that were prohibited by the court. And so that was probably the right call.”
“Diddy’s decision not to testify can also be considered savvy, as well, because he can say in closing, ‘Look, to the jury, the prosecution had six weeks of time to show you, to try and prove their case.’ The defense lawyers are going to say this: ‘We showed the reasonable doubt through our cross-examination, and we don’t want to waste any more of your time. You have enough now to know that there’s reasonable doubt in this case, and that’s why we didn’t bring a case.’ And to remind the jury that the presumption of innocence always goes to Diddy as the defendant in this case.”
Chutkow noted how the burden of proof is on the government, not on the Bad Boy Records founder or his team.
“When you present a case, if you’re on the defense side, you better be good, because if it falls flat, then you kind of move back the marker, and you might be in a worse position,” the lawyer said. “So sometimes less is more. I know that some people are suggesting that, ‘Well, wow, doesn’t he have something he could put on?’ It may be in some ways an opportunity for the defense to say, ‘No, we didn’t need to.'”
WATCH: LEGAL EXPERT EXPLAINS DIDDY’S DEFENSE MOVES
With the case nearing its close more than seven weeks after it began, and nine months after Diddy was arrested and charged, Chutkow thought both sides did “what they sought to accomplish.”
“The prosecution has put in all the evidence. It wasn’t excluded. The defense, though, has done a nice job in the cross-examinations,” he said. “They’ve brought in a lot of additional communications between Diddy and these other women to show that the relationship is a lot more complex.
“One of the things I think the prosecution is going to have to do at the closing argument is to basically say, ‘Look, this is not like a trafficking case that you would see on television. It’s not, you don’t have a situation of someone being kidnapped and chained on a basement radiator. It’s, in essence, it’s a golden cage. It is one with luxury and glamor, but it’s still a cage.'”
Chutkow added, “The other area that I think that they would want to emphasize is the blackmail in this case. That the use of the tapes and threat of exposure of those tapes to get the women to comply with what Diddy wanted to do is an element of coercion in and of itself. And if I was on the prosecution side, I would look to that as compelling evidence.”
Combs was charged with racketeering conspiracy (RICO); sex trafficking by force, fraud or coercion; and transportation to engage in prostitution in a federal indictment unsealed Sept. 17. He faces 15 years to life in prison if convicted. Diddy has maintained his innocence throughout.
Read the full article here
