Brian Buckmeyer

I see what Peter is saying here. Why not just put the witnesses in a more linear order? Well, it's not always possible given witnesses' schedules and travel needs. Plus, the ordering might also create a foundation of evidence and testimony for later witnesses to build on or corroborate. Let's take a short break.

I see what Peter is saying here. Why not just put the witnesses in a more linear order? Well, it's not always possible given witnesses' schedules and travel needs. Plus, the ordering might also create a foundation of evidence and testimony for later witnesses to build on or corroborate. Let's take a short break.

But when we come back, some of the biggest moments in the Sean Combs trial this week, including the defense team's request for a mistrial.

But when we come back, some of the biggest moments in the Sean Combs trial this week, including the defense team's request for a mistrial.

Peter, let's talk about some of the biggest moments from court in the past few days. It seemed like prosecutors this week were trying to put a button on the arson charge, putting additional witnesses on the stand who they hope could corroborate Kid Cudi's testimony from last week.

Peter, let's talk about some of the biggest moments from court in the past few days. It seemed like prosecutors this week were trying to put a button on the arson charge, putting additional witnesses on the stand who they hope could corroborate Kid Cudi's testimony from last week.

There was a bit of testimony that struck me, and I'm curious if you felt the same way, with LA Fire Department arson investigator Lance Jimenez testifying about a black Cadillac Escalade that he saw leaving the scene that was registered to Sean Combs' company. bad boy. Now, did that stand out to you?

There was a bit of testimony that struck me, and I'm curious if you felt the same way, with LA Fire Department arson investigator Lance Jimenez testifying about a black Cadillac Escalade that he saw leaving the scene that was registered to Sean Combs' company. bad boy. Now, did that stand out to you?

Let's give a little bit of context as to how this came about. There are no allegations that the person who committed the arson or allegedly committed the arson was inside the home, but it was explained to us there was a prior event that had a burglary in the home. They took those fingerprints, they made fingerprint cards, and they stored them as evidence. Now,

Let's give a little bit of context as to how this came about. There are no allegations that the person who committed the arson or allegedly committed the arson was inside the home, but it was explained to us there was a prior event that had a burglary in the home. They took those fingerprints, they made fingerprint cards, and they stored them as evidence. Now,

Evidence gets destroyed all the time. A case gets resolved. The person's found guilty. The case is done. The lead investigator says this person is no longer a suspect. There are many reasons why evidence gets destroyed. But when a case or an investigation is still ongoing, that's supposed to be saved.

Evidence gets destroyed all the time. A case gets resolved. The person's found guilty. The case is done. The lead investigator says this person is no longer a suspect. There are many reasons why evidence gets destroyed. But when a case or an investigation is still ongoing, that's supposed to be saved.

It's supposed to be saved for some 10, 20, how many ever years until the lead investigator decides that it no longer is necessary to keep. And the lead investigator who was on the stand is saying, I did not ask for it to be destroyed. No one contacted me saying it was supposed to be destroyed.

It's supposed to be saved for some 10, 20, how many ever years until the lead investigator decides that it no longer is necessary to keep. And the lead investigator who was on the stand is saying, I did not ask for it to be destroyed. No one contacted me saying it was supposed to be destroyed.

And the issue here was, I think in my opinion, and I think the judge agreed too, that at that point, the conversation should have been done. They did an investigation, they collected evidence, it was destroyed, they don't know why, and then move on.

And the issue here was, I think in my opinion, and I think the judge agreed too, that at that point, the conversation should have been done. They did an investigation, they collected evidence, it was destroyed, they don't know why, and then move on.

But the government kept going and kept going to the point that it seemed like a very strong insinuation that it's very unusual for this piece of evidence to be destroyed. And so I think the government got far too dangerously close to that implication. But that question of it being unusual is never answered. And so the judge ultimately said, we're going to strike this line of questioning.

But the government kept going and kept going to the point that it seemed like a very strong insinuation that it's very unusual for this piece of evidence to be destroyed. And so I think the government got far too dangerously close to that implication. But that question of it being unusual is never answered. And so the judge ultimately said, we're going to strike this line of questioning.

We're going to give what's called a curative instruction, meaning we're going to tell the jury that this line of questioning as to the loss or destruction of this evidence has no bearing or relevance as to this defendant. And then we're going to move on.

We're going to give what's called a curative instruction, meaning we're going to tell the jury that this line of questioning as to the loss or destruction of this evidence has no bearing or relevance as to this defendant. And then we're going to move on.