Shaun Kent

I thought the direct testimony was actually perfect. I thought the government did what they are supposed to do. People don't understand in the United States when you're looking to get a conviction, you have to go with elements is what we do. We have elements of our offenses. And so the government's doing what we talk about. Believe it or not, they're working on their closing argument right now.

I thought the direct testimony was actually perfect. I thought the government did what they are supposed to do. People don't understand in the United States when you're looking to get a conviction, you have to go with elements is what we do. We have elements of our offenses. And so the government's doing what we talk about. Believe it or not, they're working on their closing argument right now.

I thought the direct testimony was actually perfect. I thought the government did what they are supposed to do. People don't understand in the United States when you're looking to get a conviction, you have to go with elements is what we do. We have elements of our offenses. And so the government's doing what we talk about. Believe it or not, they're working on their closing argument right now.

You're like, what do you mean? Because at the end of the trial, the very end, the judge is going to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for you to convict Mr. Combs of these charges, the government has to prove this, this, this, this, and this. And so what the government is doing through the testimony of Cassie is going through this, this, this, this, and this.

You're like, what do you mean? Because at the end of the trial, the very end, the judge is going to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for you to convict Mr. Combs of these charges, the government has to prove this, this, this, this, and this. And so what the government is doing through the testimony of Cassie is going through this, this, this, this, and this.

You're like, what do you mean? Because at the end of the trial, the very end, the judge is going to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, for you to convict Mr. Combs of these charges, the government has to prove this, this, this, this, and this. And so what the government is doing through the testimony of Cassie is going through this, this, this, this, and this.

And so when you watch the closing argument, I promise you what they're going to do is they're going to say, ladies and gentlemen, do you remember when Cassie testified? She testified about force. She testified about coercion. She talked about abuse. She talked about a history abuse. She talked about going across county lines because they're just going through the elements.

And so when you watch the closing argument, I promise you what they're going to do is they're going to say, ladies and gentlemen, do you remember when Cassie testified? She testified about force. She testified about coercion. She talked about abuse. She talked about a history abuse. She talked about going across county lines because they're just going through the elements.

And so when you watch the closing argument, I promise you what they're going to do is they're going to say, ladies and gentlemen, do you remember when Cassie testified? She testified about force. She testified about coercion. She talked about abuse. She talked about a history abuse. She talked about going across county lines because they're just going through the elements.

And that's the problem is when everybody's got an opinion, but people don't rely on the law and the law. And we're making these assumptions that all the government is doing is proving a case of domestic violence, which, yes, they have. This is domestic violence. But as I mentioned, the judge is going to tell the jury there are certain things required for sex trafficking and it's not a lot.

And that's the problem is when everybody's got an opinion, but people don't rely on the law and the law. And we're making these assumptions that all the government is doing is proving a case of domestic violence, which, yes, they have. This is domestic violence. But as I mentioned, the judge is going to tell the jury there are certain things required for sex trafficking and it's not a lot.

And that's the problem is when everybody's got an opinion, but people don't rely on the law and the law. And we're making these assumptions that all the government is doing is proving a case of domestic violence, which, yes, they have. This is domestic violence. But as I mentioned, the judge is going to tell the jury there are certain things required for sex trafficking and it's not a lot.

He's going to say at the beginning of trial, you took an oath to follow the law. This is that law. One, is there a person involved? Check. That person is Cassie. Did somebody use force, coercion, or something to get them to engage in a commercial sex act? Yes, she testified force was used. What is a commercial sex act?

He's going to say at the beginning of trial, you took an oath to follow the law. This is that law. One, is there a person involved? Check. That person is Cassie. Did somebody use force, coercion, or something to get them to engage in a commercial sex act? Yes, she testified force was used. What is a commercial sex act?

He's going to say at the beginning of trial, you took an oath to follow the law. This is that law. One, is there a person involved? Check. That person is Cassie. Did somebody use force, coercion, or something to get them to engage in a commercial sex act? Yes, she testified force was used. What is a commercial sex act?

A commercial sex act is basically engaging in sex for money or anything of value. They're going to say, yes, they did. And then the last thing is, and this is what I think is interesting, is the entire defense is going to come on, knew or should have known. Meaning, did the defendant know that he was engaging in coercion?

A commercial sex act is basically engaging in sex for money or anything of value. They're going to say, yes, they did. And then the last thing is, and this is what I think is interesting, is the entire defense is going to come on, knew or should have known. Meaning, did the defendant know that he was engaging in coercion?

A commercial sex act is basically engaging in sex for money or anything of value. They're going to say, yes, they did. And then the last thing is, and this is what I think is interesting, is the entire defense is going to come on, knew or should have known. Meaning, did the defendant know that he was engaging in coercion?

Or should he have known that what he was doing was coercing through physical activity? And that's it. That is all they've got to prove. And I guarantee you, if you go back to the testimony now in your head, you're like, yeah, that's why they asked that question. That's why they asked that question.

Or should he have known that what he was doing was coercing through physical activity? And that's it. That is all they've got to prove. And I guarantee you, if you go back to the testimony now in your head, you're like, yeah, that's why they asked that question. That's why they asked that question.