Lou Shapiro

No, I don't think they're going to be sequestered like in the OJ case where they're taken to hotels and being given food and no access to television and so forth because back then, You could actually have a chance at sequestering a jury, meaning cutting them off from the media and so forth, so it won't influence their decision-making in the trial.

No, I don't think they're going to be sequestered like in the OJ case where they're taken to hotels and being given food and no access to television and so forth because back then, You could actually have a chance at sequestering a jury, meaning cutting them off from the media and so forth, so it won't influence their decision-making in the trial.

These days, with phones, tablets, and computer systems, which we all rely on, it's just unreasonable to expect a juror to not be able to know what's going on in the public. Because it's unreasonable, I don't think a judge would even bother with sequestering these days. And that's why we don't hear about it anymore.

These days, with phones, tablets, and computer systems, which we all rely on, it's just unreasonable to expect a juror to not be able to know what's going on in the public. Because it's unreasonable, I don't think a judge would even bother with sequestering these days. And that's why we don't hear about it anymore.

Yeah, the judge will admonish them when every every break and when they go home, do not read, speak about, talk about. or watch any materials related to this case. If you've ever been on jury duty, you want to keep that honor as much as you can.

Yeah, the judge will admonish them when every every break and when they go home, do not read, speak about, talk about. or watch any materials related to this case. If you've ever been on jury duty, you want to keep that honor as much as you can.

Yeah. Like I said, I don't think we're ever going to see something like that again.

Yeah. Like I said, I don't think we're ever going to see something like that again.

I think it's really not in Diddy's hands, even how he's looking to that extent, because it's not like he can go get his hair done in the cell there, right? So he has to play with the hand that he's dealt. I don't think he's intentionally looking for sympathy or anything like that. It's just the nature of having to defend a case from the inside. It's very challenging.

I think it's really not in Diddy's hands, even how he's looking to that extent, because it's not like he can go get his hair done in the cell there, right? So he has to play with the hand that he's dealt. I don't think he's intentionally looking for sympathy or anything like that. It's just the nature of having to defend a case from the inside. It's very challenging.

I'm sure he'll be wearing a suit and tie at the trial itself. He'll be well-groomed, shaven, and so forth. I'm sure it's very stressful leading up to the trial, obviously. Oh, I mean, yeah, just all sorts of thoughts are going through somebody's mind. The defense is going to be that this is all consensual. So it's going to come down to credibility. Who is believed? Who has motive?

I'm sure he'll be wearing a suit and tie at the trial itself. He'll be well-groomed, shaven, and so forth. I'm sure it's very stressful leading up to the trial, obviously. Oh, I mean, yeah, just all sorts of thoughts are going through somebody's mind. The defense is going to be that this is all consensual. So it's going to come down to credibility. Who is believed? Who has motive?

And just all sorts of thoughts are going through somebody's mind. What the jurors are going to think, what the judge is going to do. It doesn't get more stressful than this, especially because it's federal, not state. So there's a lot of time on the line here for him.

And just all sorts of thoughts are going through somebody's mind. What the jurors are going to think, what the judge is going to do. It doesn't get more stressful than this, especially because it's federal, not state. So there's a lot of time on the line here for him.

Meaning the prosecution may want to call her and we'll see if she wants to have any kind of involvement for that matter in this case. But certainly she's not going to be testifying on Diddy's behalf. That we know.

Meaning the prosecution may want to call her and we'll see if she wants to have any kind of involvement for that matter in this case. But certainly she's not going to be testifying on Diddy's behalf. That we know.

Yes. So Diddy and Kanye speaking, it won't have any effect whatsoever. In the trial itself, only acts or evidence that took place during the incidents will come into play. But it does show you, moreover, how Hollywood is really not behind Diddy on this one, because if Kanye is the one that he's sort of resorting to speak with, it shows you much that he's pretty much on his own at this point.

Yes. So Diddy and Kanye speaking, it won't have any effect whatsoever. In the trial itself, only acts or evidence that took place during the incidents will come into play. But it does show you, moreover, how Hollywood is really not behind Diddy on this one, because if Kanye is the one that he's sort of resorting to speak with, it shows you much that he's pretty much on his own at this point.

And all he's got is Kanye in his corner.

And all he's got is Kanye in his corner.

Yeah, so the idea is, again, we haven't seen the actual evidence in the case. We did see that video regarding Cassie, and that is so offensive and disturbing. The greatest of lawyers... I don't know how one can get around that. I guess the only argument will be that he's on trial for sex trafficking and racketeering, not for domestic violence. But this is not evidence

Yeah, so the idea is, again, we haven't seen the actual evidence in the case. We did see that video regarding Cassie, and that is so offensive and disturbing. The greatest of lawyers... I don't know how one can get around that. I guess the only argument will be that he's on trial for sex trafficking and racketeering, not for domestic violence. But this is not evidence

of sexual abuse and so forth. So that's the main piece of evidence that we know is out there. It's going to be tough to get around, but that's the only way to address that. Overall, Diddy said this is going to be about consent. We can expect a large part of the argument by the defense will be, where were these three accusers 10 years ago or five years ago?

of sexual abuse and so forth. So that's the main piece of evidence that we know is out there. It's going to be tough to get around, but that's the only way to address that. Overall, Diddy said this is going to be about consent. We can expect a large part of the argument by the defense will be, where were these three accusers 10 years ago or five years ago?

Why are they all coming out of the woodwork now? These were not children. These are adults. So that's where it gets a little gray. And Diddy's going to say it was all consensual. They're going to have to say otherwise.

Why are they all coming out of the woodwork now? These were not children. These are adults. So that's where it gets a little gray. And Diddy's going to say it was all consensual. They're going to have to say otherwise.

And unless there are percipient witnesses to those incidents to say, yeah, I was there, I can tell you that this person was not consenting, this person was, and so forth, it's going to come down to a real he said, she said case. And we don't know how those alleged victims are going to come across on the stand under cross-examination. But we can expect that Diddy's counsel

And unless there are percipient witnesses to those incidents to say, yeah, I was there, I can tell you that this person was not consenting, this person was, and so forth, it's going to come down to a real he said, she said case. And we don't know how those alleged victims are going to come across on the stand under cross-examination. But we can expect that Diddy's counsel

We'll be putting up some serious, ferocious, and fearsome cross-examination because that's the only hope of trying to get Diddy out of this situation.

We'll be putting up some serious, ferocious, and fearsome cross-examination because that's the only hope of trying to get Diddy out of this situation.

Yes, uncharged victims or witnesses can be brought in. At the same time, a judge is going to perform a balancing test. Because if too many are brought in, then it could be deemed more prejudicial and probative and basically not allow the jury to focus on these three victims. They're just going to get lost in the overall evidence that's being presented.

Yes, uncharged victims or witnesses can be brought in. At the same time, a judge is going to perform a balancing test. Because if too many are brought in, then it could be deemed more prejudicial and probative and basically not allow the jury to focus on these three victims. They're just going to get lost in the overall evidence that's being presented.

Like we saw in the Cosby case, Cosby was the hung jury the first time. Second trial, the judge let in more witnesses testify against previous conduct. But the Court of Appeal ended up reversing that conviction, saying that was just too much for a jury to have to swallow.

Like we saw in the Cosby case, Cosby was the hung jury the first time. Second trial, the judge let in more witnesses testify against previous conduct. But the Court of Appeal ended up reversing that conviction, saying that was just too much for a jury to have to swallow.

I think it's going to take minimum two to three weeks, but federal cases do tend to run quicker than state cases. They go longer hours. Lunches are less in terms of the time of the day, not an hour and a half lunches like in state court. So it moves. So while a state court case like this might take four to five weeks, this could take two to three. We're assuming it's not a lot of witnesses.

I think it's going to take minimum two to three weeks, but federal cases do tend to run quicker than state cases. They go longer hours. Lunches are less in terms of the time of the day, not an hour and a half lunches like in state court. So it moves. So while a state court case like this might take four to five weeks, this could take two to three. We're assuming it's not a lot of witnesses.

If it's anywhere from like five to 10 witnesses in total, we're talking about two, three week trial max. It's 20 witnesses. on the four-week track.

If it's anywhere from like five to 10 witnesses in total, we're talking about two, three week trial max. It's 20 witnesses. on the four-week track.

Those cases are staged. They're basically frozen, pending what happens to the criminal case. And that's routinely done when somebody has both a criminal and civil case going at the same time. The criminal one takes precedence.

Those cases are staged. They're basically frozen, pending what happens to the criminal case. And that's routinely done when somebody has both a criminal and civil case going at the same time. The criminal one takes precedence.

Yeah, it's very likely there's overlap.

Yeah, it's very likely there's overlap.

Well, they're making sure that all the witnesses that they intend on calling, that their testimony is organized, how they come across that they might be running what's called mock jury proceedings where they have other jurors that are being paid. To hear how these witnesses come across so they can figure out maybe how to tweak the form or things that they're saying or how they say it.

Well, they're making sure that all the witnesses that they intend on calling, that their testimony is organized, how they come across that they might be running what's called mock jury proceedings where they have other jurors that are being paid. To hear how these witnesses come across so they can figure out maybe how to tweak the form or things that they're saying or how they say it.

Also in terms of timelines, exhibits, what will be presented to the jury. Are they clean? Are they easy to understand? PowerPoint slides, checking out, making sure grammar spelling is correct. All those factors are being put into place right now.

Also in terms of timelines, exhibits, what will be presented to the jury. Are they clean? Are they easy to understand? PowerPoint slides, checking out, making sure grammar spelling is correct. All those factors are being put into place right now.

Yeah, part of it is the voir dire, all the questions that are going to be asked to the jury, as well as questions that are going to be asked of witnesses. When you start a trial, you basically work from the end backwards. So you know where you want to get to, and based on where your end game is, you think, okay, how do I get to this goal of proving that everything was consensual?

Yeah, part of it is the voir dire, all the questions that are going to be asked to the jury, as well as questions that are going to be asked of witnesses. When you start a trial, you basically work from the end backwards. So you know where you want to get to, and based on where your end game is, you think, okay, how do I get to this goal of proving that everything was consensual?

What witnesses, what pieces of evidence, what timeline, what arguments, what jury instructions? What questions in voir dire? For example, a question in voir dire would be, does anybody believe that an alleged victim of a sexual assault crime could be lying? Could you see that as a possibility? Why would somebody lie?

What witnesses, what pieces of evidence, what timeline, what arguments, what jury instructions? What questions in voir dire? For example, a question in voir dire would be, does anybody believe that an alleged victim of a sexual assault crime could be lying? Could you see that as a possibility? Why would somebody lie?

And if a juror is going to say, no, I always would believe a victim no matter what, then they wouldn't be able to sit on a jury like this. This jury would be for only open-minded impartial individuals that can hear both sides. And then after hearing all the evidence, make a fair decision.

And if a juror is going to say, no, I always would believe a victim no matter what, then they wouldn't be able to sit on a jury like this. This jury would be for only open-minded impartial individuals that can hear both sides. And then after hearing all the evidence, make a fair decision.

Right. So the question that's going to be asked to the jury is, of course, they've all heard of him, but even though they have heard of him, Can they set aside what he has achieved in terms of his profession and just be impartial and apply the facts to the law in this case? That's what they will be asked to do.

Right. So the question that's going to be asked to the jury is, of course, they've all heard of him, but even though they have heard of him, Can they set aside what he has achieved in terms of his profession and just be impartial and apply the facts to the law in this case? That's what they will be asked to do.

Yeah, it will be here before we know it.

Yeah, it will be here before we know it.

My pleasure. Good to be with you again.

My pleasure. Good to be with you again.

Yeah, sure. I'm a criminal defense attorney, formerly worked for the government Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office. Since then, I've started my own criminal law practice 10 plus years ago where I do state and federal criminal defense.

Yeah, sure. I'm a criminal defense attorney, formerly worked for the government Los Angeles County Public Defender's Office. Since then, I've started my own criminal law practice 10 plus years ago where I do state and federal criminal defense.

Yeah, it seems like the judge is trying to keep the trial timeline on a shorter leash now. The final pieces of discovery and names of the alleged victims are being provided. So we are definitely nearing the finish line in terms of the pretrial phase.

Yeah, it seems like the judge is trying to keep the trial timeline on a shorter leash now. The final pieces of discovery and names of the alleged victims are being provided. So we are definitely nearing the finish line in terms of the pretrial phase.

Right. So when it comes to victims, of sexual abuse or domestic violence, the courts tried to make all efforts to protect those names, keep them confidential to prevent further harassment or embarrassment and so forth.

Right. So when it comes to victims, of sexual abuse or domestic violence, the courts tried to make all efforts to protect those names, keep them confidential to prevent further harassment or embarrassment and so forth.

So that's why the judge said to the attorneys, you can have this information, you can do what you want with it in terms of investigating their backgrounds, their statements and so forth. You just can't release that information to the general public.

So that's why the judge said to the attorneys, you can have this information, you can do what you want with it in terms of investigating their backgrounds, their statements and so forth. You just can't release that information to the general public.

So even if they were previously disclosed by counsel, because the judge made an order from here on moving forward, they won't be able to say the names of those individuals out loud, even if it's obvious.

So even if they were previously disclosed by counsel, because the judge made an order from here on moving forward, they won't be able to say the names of those individuals out loud, even if it's obvious.

Yes, typically witness lists are provided shortly before trial. People at both sides are making last minute changes to who they're going to be calling or not. And in that sense, they're provided to the court And I don't see why the judge wouldn't allow those witness names to be at least provided to the public.

Yes, typically witness lists are provided shortly before trial. People at both sides are making last minute changes to who they're going to be calling or not. And in that sense, they're provided to the court And I don't see why the judge wouldn't allow those witness names to be at least provided to the public.

I think the judge is going to be conducting a balancing test because there is the right of the public also to the press to understand the court system and right of information. So he'll be balancing that or she'll be balancing that.

I think the judge is going to be conducting a balancing test because there is the right of the public also to the press to understand the court system and right of information. So he'll be balancing that or she'll be balancing that.

Well, it also depends on who's willing to cooperate with the government in this case. I don't expect a lot of witnesses on Diddy's side. I expect a longer witness list on the prosecution side. But again, They probably would want to call some A-listers, but A-listers probably want to stay as far away as they can from a proceeding like this. So it's not to be associated with Didi in any way.

Well, it also depends on who's willing to cooperate with the government in this case. I don't expect a lot of witnesses on Diddy's side. I expect a longer witness list on the prosecution side. But again, They probably would want to call some A-listers, but A-listers probably want to stay as far away as they can from a proceeding like this. So it's not to be associated with Didi in any way.

Right. It depends. how comprehensive the judge wants to make that order. He could tell everybody in the room, whoever is in the trial, that they're not allowed to release any information about the witnesses or the victims in the case. We have to see how the judge plays that. We don't know yet.

Right. It depends. how comprehensive the judge wants to make that order. He could tell everybody in the room, whoever is in the trial, that they're not allowed to release any information about the witnesses or the victims in the case. We have to see how the judge plays that. We don't know yet.

Yes, the judge can order that everybody else except for the parties involved, exit the courtroom and have that part of the proceedings closed.

Yes, the judge can order that everybody else except for the parties involved, exit the courtroom and have that part of the proceedings closed.

Does that happen often? Yeah, it does happen, especially when it's requested by the victims. It's certainly something that is common, yes.

Does that happen often? Yeah, it does happen, especially when it's requested by the victims. It's certainly something that is common, yes.

So the testimony would be public, just their names would not be.

So the testimony would be public, just their names would not be.

Right, because some wanted, I think, send a message to the public and stand for what they were testifying about and wanted to be reached out because they have a story to tell and they wanted to tell it. But others wanted to remain under the radar. So it's a personal decision made by the accusers.

Right, because some wanted, I think, send a message to the public and stand for what they were testifying about and wanted to be reached out because they have a story to tell and they wanted to tell it. But others wanted to remain under the radar. So it's a personal decision made by the accusers.