Danny Savalos

of sort of threatening, harassing, hostile environment where these witnesses saw not only Combs be nasty to people, but physically violent as well. It's all part of the big picture and it helps the government.

of sort of threatening, harassing, hostile environment where these witnesses saw not only Combs be nasty to people, but physically violent as well. It's all part of the big picture and it helps the government.

Yeah, the mistrial request today, they preserved it for the record. But if Combs is convicted, I don't see this being a particularly appetizing appellate issue. It seemed to me that the prosecution was basically trying to ask questions that to confirm that that witness didn't lose the fingerprint cards. I understand the defense's argument, and they have to make that argument.

Yeah, the mistrial request today, they preserved it for the record. But if Combs is convicted, I don't see this being a particularly appetizing appellate issue. It seemed to me that the prosecution was basically trying to ask questions that to confirm that that witness didn't lose the fingerprint cards. I understand the defense's argument, and they have to make that argument.

Yeah, the mistrial request today, they preserved it for the record. But if Combs is convicted, I don't see this being a particularly appetizing appellate issue. It seemed to me that the prosecution was basically trying to ask questions that to confirm that that witness didn't lose the fingerprint cards. I understand the defense's argument, and they have to make that argument.

And in fact, I don't think even the defense expected that their mistrial motion would be granted. Virtually none of these motions are granted. But they got this benefit of having some of the testimony stricken. So it's the old theory of if you ask high, you might get what you want, even if that ends up being somewhere in the middle.

And in fact, I don't think even the defense expected that their mistrial motion would be granted. Virtually none of these motions are granted. But they got this benefit of having some of the testimony stricken. So it's the old theory of if you ask high, you might get what you want, even if that ends up being somewhere in the middle.

And in fact, I don't think even the defense expected that their mistrial motion would be granted. Virtually none of these motions are granted. But they got this benefit of having some of the testimony stricken. So it's the old theory of if you ask high, you might get what you want, even if that ends up being somewhere in the middle.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hey.

Hey.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Racketeering is having an enterprise with multiple people and conducting unlawful affairs through that enterprise. Combs is charged with racketeering conspiracy. And this is a really, in my opinion, very easy crime to prove. All you need to prove is that the defendant agreed to participate in this enterprise with the addition of two crimes that are enumerated in the racketeering statute.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Kidnapping, arson, violence, drug trafficking. You don't have to prove that he actually participated in them. You don't even have to prove that he was physically present when these crimes were committed. The mere agreement is enough for a conviction on racketeering conspiracy charges.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

Right. All of this testimony about allegedly firebombing a car or drug use during the freak-offs or his former assistant claiming that she was kidnapped, those are critical to the elements of the case the prosecution must prove. But... importantly, they don't need to show that Combs kidnapped anyone. They don't need to show that he threw the Molotov cocktail.

They just need to show that he agreed to participate in some criminal enterprise and that these crimes were committed in furtherance of that enterprise.