‘Jane’ tells court of sex night with different famous rapper - Diddy on Trial, BBC World Service

Key Concepts

• Sex trafficking, transportation for prostitution, racketeering with conspiracy (charges against Diddy)
• Victim testimony (Jane/Victim 2)
• Cross-examination
• Agency
• Consent vs. coercion
• Immunity
• RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act)
• Lack of candour
• Mistrial
• Witness intimidation
• Prior bad acts
• Prejudicial vs. probative evidence

Victim 2 (Jane)'s Testimony and Cross-Examination

• Initial Delay: The day's proceedings began with a two-hour delay due to a debate over whether a famous rapper could be named in connection to Jane's testimony. Diddy's lawyer complained that Diddy and the public weren't able to hear the conversation between the judge and the parties.
• Las Vegas Incident: The defence focused on an incident where Jane flew to Las Vegas with a famous rapper and his girlfriend. She testified about a sexual encounter involving multiple people, including a male escort and the rapper's girlfriend.
  • Jane admitted the rapper was an "icon of the music industry."
  • She admitted to dancing and flashing her chest.
  • The rapper expressed his desire to have sex with her.
• "Swinger Lifestyle" Argument: The defence used this incident to suggest that Jane was involved in a "swinger lifestyle," implying that such behavior was normal in the music industry and for people like Diddy.
• Financial Gifts and Jealousy: The defence highlighted the gifts and financial support Diddy provided to Jane, suggesting she was jealous of gifts given to other women.
  • Diddy invested in her company, paid for her house, and gave her expensive items.
  • Teny Geragos, Diddy's defence lawyer, questioned Jane about her jealousy regarding a Chanel bag.
  • Jane responded with "I only got trauma" and "how much is my body worth?"
• Agency and Control: The defence argued that Jane had agency and control in the relationship, pointing to a birthday trip Diddy took Yung Miami on.
  • Jane was angry that Diddy took Yung Miami to Turks and Caicos, a place special to Jane.
  • Jane texted Diddy angrily, and he returned from the trip a day early and took her on another trip.
• Gifts and Generosity: The defence emphasized Diddy's generosity, citing expensive jewelry (Van Cleef bracelet and necklace), restaurant meals (over $15,000), and trips (over $50,000).
  • Jane admitted Diddy was generous and a good boyfriend/lover at times.
• House and "Hotel Nights": The defence questioned Jane about whether she would give up the house Diddy paid for to avoid the "hotel nights."
  • Jane found this a difficult question, as the house was where she lived with her son.
  • Jane felt the threat of losing her home if she refused the "hotel nights."
• Participation in "Hotel Nights": The defence tried to portray Jane as an eager participant in the "hotel nights."
  • She sometimes booked male escorts and bought them items.
  • She bought Rhino performance-enhancing pills for Diddy and the escorts.
  • Jane claimed she was trying to make the best of a situation where she felt she couldn't say no.
• Fight in June 2024: Jane admitted to instigating a fight with Diddy due to his relationship with another woman.
  • She called him a paedophile and slammed his head on a marble countertop.
  • Diddy chased her, kicked down doors, and put her in a chokehold.
  • After she returned home, he allegedly beat her, gave her ecstasy, and forced her to have sex with a male escort.

Shaun Kent's Legal Analysis

• Jane's Immunity: Shaun Kent believes Jane was granted immunity to testify against Diddy, likely because she admitted to crimes like drug trafficking and transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution.
  • He suggests the government may have threatened her with co-conspirator charges to secure her cooperation.
• Federal Government Tactics: Kent explains that the federal government often offers immunity to "underlings" to build a case, as the potential penalties are so severe that no one would testify otherwise.
• Strength of Prosecution's Argument: Kent expresses surprise at the effectiveness of the defence's cross-examination, noting that all the prosecution's fact witnesses have "warts" or credibility issues.
• RICO Expert: The prosecution plans to bring in an expert on RICO to tie the case together for the jury.
• Juror Dismissal: Kent clarifies the reasons for dismissing a juror mid-trial, emphasizing that it's difficult to do so and requires more than just expressions of opinion.
  • "Lack of candour" refers to a juror being untruthful on their questionnaire, such as failing to disclose relevant information about their background or connections to Diddy.
• Mistrials: Kent discusses the two mistrial requests from the defence, one related to the Kid Cudi incident and the other to discrepancies in Bana Bongolan's testimony.
  • He notes that the judge likely denied the mistrial motions because the defence had the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and expose the inconsistencies.
  • He explains that defence attorneys have a duty to object and move for a mistrial when they believe the prosecution has acted illegally, to protect their client's rights and preserve the issue for appeal.
• Anonymous Witnesses: Kent explains that while it may be possible to deduce the identity of an anonymous witness like Jane, disclosing her identity would be a violation of a federal court order and could be considered witness intimidation.
• Prior Bad Acts: Kent explains the rule against introducing prior bad acts in a current trial, as it can be prejudicial and lead the jury to believe the defendant is more likely to have committed the current crime.
• Diddy Taking the Stand: Kent initially believed Diddy would testify but now advises against it, as the prosecution has already presented his defence through text messages and other evidence.
  • Diddy's defence is that the relationships were consensual, even if they were "bad."

Conclusion

The episode provides a detailed update on the Diddy trial, focusing on Victim 2 (Jane)'s testimony and the defence's strategy to undermine her credibility. Legal expert Shaun Kent offers insights into the prosecution's tactics, the challenges faced by the defence, and the potential outcomes of the trial. The key takeaway is that the trial is complex, with both sides presenting compelling arguments and the outcome remaining uncertain.