Moira Penza
speaker
110 appearances
2 recordings
2 series
first heard May 2025
last heard May 2025
Moira Penza’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsNo recordings in the last 12 months.Older appearances are listed below; set an alert to hear about the next one.
Appearances
So there can be additional nuances to that as well, but I think the government's going to want to make it easy for the jury and say, here are all these instances where the crime that... Mr. Combs committed required other people's involvement. So that's, I think, the way that the government is going to lay it out. And in terms of whether they're there yet, I think they're getting there.
I think we've heard testimony. that showed the involvement of other individuals. We also had testimony from one of Mr. Combs' assistants, and he was going to take a fifth, so he was not going to testify, saying that he would be incriminating himself if he took the stand. And so he was actually granted immunity so that he would, in fact, testify.
And so having individuals who the government is actually saying were were part of this conspiracy testify about what they saw, what they did, that's going to be powerful evidence. And we still have weeks of trial to go.
Well, I think this is one of the toughest parts of the job as a prosecutor is really exercising that prosecutorial discretion. So just because somebody did engage in criminal conduct, just because somebody may have been a lower ranking member of a criminal conspiracy, you may choose not to charge them with crimes, right?
In other situations, you might actually charge somebody with a crime and then they cooperate with the government and testify in exchange for the government eventually seeking leniency on their behalf. In other situations, and I can't speak to the exact specifics of how the government made the decision that they made, but in other situations,
what you're going to say is, this isn't necessarily somebody who I think should be charged for a crime, or there may be other reasons why you don't want to charge them with a crime. But they themselves might say, or through their lawyers, I'm not going to testify because what you want me to say is going to incriminate me.
And so in that situation, the government makes a calculus that you don't want to prosecute the person, but it is also worth having them testify. And you always want to be doing that when it is helping you get the person who is significantly more culpable. And here, there's clearly no dispute that the defendant, Mr. Combs, was the head of this organization.
So the government is going to make certain decisions to make sure that they can hold him responsible.
I think that's totally fair, and I think that's the way that the system should work. I think that prosecutorial discretion is a very important part of the system. And certainly there can be cases where for a variety of reasons, maybe because somebody was such a victim him or herself that you choose not to prosecute them.
So I think that there are a lot of similarities in the cases in that you have an individual who within his community is very high powered. Now, of course, far more people know Sean Combs than knew Keith Raniere at the time that I prosecuted him. But they were both men who have significant influences in the spheres in which they operated. And
The way that I charged the NXIVM case was recognizing that the crimes that Keith Raniere committed, he was able to commit over such a long period of time and with so many victims because he did have the involvement of other people and because he was part of this organization where A lot of individuals were benefiting financially, emotionally from being with him.
They aggrandized him and were willing to participate in the victimization of other people on his behalf. In the Naxium case, for the sex trafficking piece, there were a number of different ways in which we proved the elements. But Basically, what we were saying was that women were collateralized. So there were women who thought they were joining a female empowerment group.
And as part of joining that, they were forced to hand over women. nude pictures, damning information about themselves, either true or false. Once they had handed over that information, only later, once that blackmail material was already obtained, did they learn that part of this organization was requiring them to have sex with Keith Raniere.
So that was the coercion that you see in terms of the sex trafficking movement charges that we have there. And then in terms of the rack tearing charges, again, we had other individuals who were helping groom women and who were involved in other crimes for Keith Raniere, including covering up different pieces of it.
In terms of showing that the victims were under the coercive control of the defendant, again, there were a lot of similarities. So the women in my case were controlled in every aspect of their life. And their whole lives had really become this person, this organization. Their careers, they were really separated from people who could really serve as sounding boards for what was going on.
One difference that we do have is the level of alleged physical violence in the Sean Combs case. In the Naxiom case, there was a little bit of that. And of course, the sex crimes themselves are inherently violent. But this sort of brutal physical violence is something that we didn't have in my case, but that you do have in this case and that I think is very powerful evidence for the prosecutors.
Mark and Tenny were the team in the NXIVM case, so I know them well. Ms. Garagos did not have as much of a stand-up role during the NXIVM trial. I certainly think she's a talented lawyer. And I do think optically it was...
a good decision on the part of the defense team to have a young woman who was a contemporary of the prosecution team standing up and showing that she was on the defendant's side and advocating for the defendant. So I think to Mark and Tenny's credit, um, I don't think they're necessarily following the same playbook that I saw in their defense of Keith Raniere.
And I think that reflects, you know, probably their own evolution in how to defend these cases. But also I think likely, I think Mr. Combs is maybe more willing to allow them to take certain approaches like, you know, accepting responsibility for being a bad boyfriend for domestic abuse.
So I think right now, where I think we're going to see closing arguments go is really a bookend of what we saw in opening. I think we're going to see the defense say, We've heard a lot of stuff you might not like, jury, but it's not the crimes that the government has charged.
Showing 21–40 of 110 · page 2 of 6
← Previous
Next →