I'm Laura Coates and this is Trial by Jury. And for the last seven weeks now, almost two months, we have been following the twists, the turns, all the graphic details of this trial. We have heard some incredibly shocking testimony from witnesses. We've heard violent testimony, we've heard lurid details and we have seen the impact of celebrity in a case. And after that... Today, we heard the final words from the lawyers. They gave their closings, they gave their rebuttals, which means that on Monday, all that's left to do is for the judge to do kind of the mundane part where you gotta read through the jury instructions and then they go back to that room and they begin to deliberate.

So we're kind of in this holding pattern where we're wondering and reflecting, gosh, how did all of this hit? Did anything hit home? Did they all somehow make their case? Who made the stronger one? I want to dig into it because you know who has been there from the beginning? I'm talking about, of course, Elizabeth Wagmeister. I call her Wags at this point, because we are like partners in this courtroom and she's always there. And every nuanced detail, she is there. And I wanna just get your brain working on this because we had a couple hours now to reflect on what happened in the courtroom yesterday for the prosecution's closing argument. And of course today. Give me like your overall impression here, just stylistically, the prosecution versus the defense.

Stylistically, I actually think this is one of the most important pieces of this. You know, I keep trying to put myself into it. If I were a juror, what would I be thinking?

Me too.

And the prosecution, of course, they went on Thursday with their closing argument. It was methodical. I mean, they're by the book. They had a PowerPoint presentation. They actually started off by telling the jury. I'm going to talk to you for a long time. It's going to be a few hours, and here's what we're going to to talk about. And they quite literally brought up a PowerPoint slide and had a roadmap. And it was very easy to follow. And I know I keep saying this to you this week, but again, it's because I keep trying to put my mind in the juror's mind. They are not attorneys. They have probably never deliberated or served on a jury, at least of this scale, before. So they don't understand the nuance and the breakdown of the law. I thought it was very smart that the prosecutors were so clear of, here's the roadmap. Here is how you tie what we are calling these egregious crimes to the law. They basically said, it's not that complicated. It's very simple. You can find him guilty if you just think that one freak off was not consensual. You can find him guilty of racketeering if you think that on two separate occasions, he gave Cassie drugs. I mean, that is really simplified after hearing seven weeks of testimony.

'A second a second crime for that pattern to happen but you know while you were talking it occurred to me, when you said the word roadmap, my immediate thought went to — it's almost like the end of a semester for these jurors, and they've had their syllabus this whole time, they've been listening to all the lectures they've had do all the required reading, they've had to converse and think about things, but they've done it in sort of a silo, and they can't talk to anyone else. And now all of a sudden, they're getting ready to have a final exam in the form of a deliberation, and it's kind of open book, because they've got all the exhibits and stuff, but they have to have that roadmap to remember all of the salient points. Like they wanna know from the professors, AKA the prosecution or the defense, what is it you want me to focus on? What's on the exam? And that's where those elements come in, right? That roadmap of, here are the five felony charges. Here's what's required for each of us to prove, and then here are the pieces that fit. And a lot of these jurors, I mean, I'm not knocking anyone's age because I haven't been in school a long time myself. But that's not normal for most people on an everyday basis to deliberate, let alone to recall the last two months of lecture-based information.

That's such a good analogy, and I also have to tell you that I'm skipping ahead now, so I'm not following the PowerPoint, I'm jumping all out of order. But Maurene Comey, the prosecutor, she did the rebuttal, so that came after Mark Agnifilo's closing argument for the defense, and I still do want to comment on that.

We'll get to his tile as well, sure.

'But when you said the professor — this is Professor Maurene Comey. I mean, she looks and sounds and presents like she could be giving a lecture at a university. And I bring that up because the different styles, and this is why I say, to me, if I were a juror, of course it's the evidence, but it's also who you're receiving this information from. Do you relate more to the buttoned-up woman who is presenting, such as a professor. Or do you respond more to the goofy dad, the man, Mark Agnifilo, he was up there kind of cracking jokes, being sarcastic. Now, he was doing that as he was saying that Cassie, Mia, and Jane are liars. He was doing as he saying, Cassie's a beautiful woman and she loved to have sex, and good for her, she should. So you would maybe think that the closing could have gone to one of the female attorneys on the defense. You know, I've heard some people in the courthouse saying that, shouldn't this have been a woman?

Because the opening was done by Teny Geragos.

'Yes, but you know, I think that there are some things that can be received differently, whether it's said by a woman or a man. And Mark Agnifilo, he's good cop. You know? He has been kind of the jokester. And I said the goofy dad, that is his persona. So does that come off fun and relatable? Or does the prosecutor come off almost too professor-like? So I think who you receive that information from and how you receive it is almost just as important as the words coming out of their mouth.

'1000% because it's really about psychology at this point, and about frankly we hope as a part of a civic duty, that jurors follow the instructions and they put all of the outside world aside They'll have a similar instruction to that very point, only focus on what you've heard. But then they're told not to leave their common sense at the door and part of their common sense is comprised of their judgmentalness. And I thought It's always a fool's errand, as you know, to predict how the jurors will decide in the end. But stylistically, Agnifilo could not have been more different than the prosecution team. He was folksy. He was meandering. At times he was disjointed. It was not a linear focus. And yet, he was the only one, really, throughout the trial to sort of pace back forth, not from an obvious nervousness, but to pace as in, I'm going to try to engage with this jurors. He even said multiple times, I am not doing tech-based things. I'm just going to talk to you. I'm talking to you! I'm just talking to you. And for some jurors, that might have been like, finally, after seven weeks, someone's just talking me. I'm a real person. I'm not a lawyer. I'm not a witness. I'm all of the things I've had to hear in the trial, whether it's business records and the, the dialog and script that has to be used to get things in, and objection. And it's not like Law & Order. Finally, someone's talking to me.

And by the way, just being in a courtroom.

Yes.

You are a former federal prosecutor. You've spent a lot of time in a courtroom. But I remember the first time that I covered a big court case as a journalist, it was actually my first time in the courtroom. I had never been called for jury duty or anything like that. And I walked in.

Some would say lucky you.

Although every case I cover, I'm like, ooh, I would want to serve on that jury. They'll probably never let us. But anyway, I remember walking in and thinking, this literally looks like Law & Order. And I was like, oh my god, like, there's the judge and he's wearing a robe and it feels almost artificial and archaic because you don't think that in 2025 that the courtrooms look like they look in movies. And it looks exactly like that. So I think you bring up an excellent point, which is these jurors are sitting here every day and they are probably sometimes bored, sometimes just getting, you know, what I call shpilkes, like they need to move and they're just sitting there thinking, you can't say anything, it's so formal. So someone like Agnifilo who has this, I'm gonna use your word, meandering presentation, it is not a PowerPoint, it is a not a roadmap, but sometimes that's how people talk. So maybe that actually, for some jurors, can come off as, oh wow, this is relatable. Now other jurors may think, I'm lost, and the PowerPoint actually really helped me understand it, and again, they simplified it. But moving on from the style, just one thing that I was thinking about today is the defense has really stayed consistent. So was the prosecution. But I was just thinking of Agnifilo's closing argument. And he started off by saying, this is a tale of two trials. You have the trial of the evidence and you have the trail of the prosecutors, and what they are trying to tell you and what are they are doing. His exact quote was, it is badly exaggerated. Then he said, what does the evidence show you? Well, it shows you a lifestyle of whatever you wanna call it, swingers or threesome. And it reminded me that on day one of this trial, which in some ways feels like a long time ago and some days feels like yesterday, you and me, we were there together outside the courthouse. And I remember that I called over Sean Combs', one of his representatives. And I said, can I get a comment from you? Like, what are you thinking going into this trial? And she looked at me and she said, it's kinky, not criminal. And I was almost shocked to hear that. I remember I said, can I print that? Is that an official statement? She said, of course. Yes, that's an official statement. And I was almost shocked that "kinky, not criminal" was the official statement from Sean Combs' spokesperson as he's starting on a criminal trial. But that's exactly what Mark Agnifilo did today. He said it's a threesome. It's a swinger. Whatever you want to call it. This was their lifestyle, but he's not a criminal. So they've really leaned in and owned that, that he may have a lifestyle that you think is weird. And I remember Teny Geragos during opening statement, she said, our client's sex life is weird, and then she kinda chuckled and said, I'm telling you, it's really weird.

And, you know, remember even during the closing today, Agnifilo made the comment, you know, they had crime scene tape around his bedroom, right? The bedroom is now a crime scene, and no one invited the government into it. And was very flippant about the idea of congratulations, they got the lubricant, Astroglide, it's called. Congratulations, they found the baby oil. To suggest now the streets of New York are safer, everyone. And that actually got kind of a chuckling from the audience. They were laughing because it was one of those, hallelujah, they got that. And it was a moment of breaking from that formality of the court that allowed the jurists to perhaps just listen for a second and also test how they felt. I just wonder when you were watching and listening to all the testimony at the time, particularly when you had Mark Agnifilo say, she's no victim, talking about Cassie Ventura. She played Kid Cudi in the past. And oh, by the way, she's the winner here because she got $20 million out of this. And it's what she wanted. You compare that to what Maurene Comey is actually saying, it was obvious that no one would have wanted this lifestyle. The urination on someone during sex, the having sexual intercourse with an inflamed pelvis or urinary tract infections. That was quite the split screen. And I wonder how the jurors will see it.

I agree, and I think to even dig a little deeper on what Maureen Comey was saying, she took a moment in her rebuttal to remind the jury what this really was according to these women and according to the government. This was not just a quote, swinger's lifestyle. This wasn't just a threesome. This was three days per week for 11 years of Cassie Ventura's life that she was locked inside a hotel room. This is what they're saying.

Yes.

Locked inside a hotel room.

No sleep, and drugged.

No sleep. Drugged to be fueled, so you don't have to sleep. Having sex with strangers, often with no condoms, even when they asked for condoms. And it reminded you, because this is a long trial. You almost, remember, Cassie was one of the first witnesses. This was six, seven weeks ago that she testified. People forget. So it is really, it's a tale of two trials, to use Mark Agnifilo's words. You hear mark Agnifalos say, this is nothing but like, fun, crazy sex. You may not like it, but he did and so did she. And then Maurene Comey says, no, no no no. She used the word preposterous. She said this is nonsensical. It is ridiculous. They did not want this and Sean Combs knew it. How could you have a male escort who's a stranger urinating in your mouth and want that? So I thought that was powerful. I think what Mark Agnifilo did, to answer your question could be powerful. When he is saying she ran away with tens of millions of dollars, she is the winner here, he essentially made her sound like a really savvy con artist.

Well, she'll and he also added her own text messages and those of Jane to suggest that they did not put Sean Diddy Combs on notice that they did not want to engage in this, that their messages and words seem to belie how they truly felt.

Right. So on one hand, it could be effective what he did, because as you always say, Laura, it just takes one. If you have one juror who says, wow, this was 20 years ago and she did get $20 million and huh, she seems fine today, maybe it's not so bad. I also think it could really dangerous. And I have to be honest, you never know what any closing argument is going to be, but especially with the defense. When it started, I have to be honest, just, this is based on my past reporting, I was fairly shocked. He really went after Cassie, and I say I was shocked because she is a sympathetic witness. She was on the stand nine months pregnant. She has a newborn baby boy at home who was not born at the beginning of this trial.

Gave birth days after her own testimony.

Days, so she's a sympathetic witness, and here he is saying she wanted it. Not only did she want it, but she...what was the word? Played. She played Sean Combs and Kid Cudi. She was so smart that she had a burner phone to hide her relationship with Kid Cidi from Sean Combes. And she's the winner here.

And to be clear, when he spoke about wanting it, he didn't mean the violence, right? He was talking about the sexual lifestyle that made the two of them intimate. That was their thing. But you picked up on a really good point earlier when you were talking about this notion that the reason he loved her was because she matched him. She was his equal in sort of wit and grit.

And street smarts.

Which is not at all the impression that the jury, I think, had from her testimony, perhaps.

'Right, or from the prosecutors. Because remember what Cassie's testimony laid out, which was of course supported by everything the prosecutors have said, she was 19 years old when she met Sean Combs, who I believe was 37 or 38. But they had about a roughly 20-year age gap. Of course she was of age, she was legal, but 19. And very young.

And had a boyfriend ten years her senior. But still, she said she was very naive.

Yes, and the defense brought that up today, that her boyfriend before Sean Combs was 10 years older than her. This was not new. But still, she was 19 years old when she met him. He was a huge global celebrity, head of a record company that was his company. She was a aspiring artist, but a complete unknown. He signs her to a 10 record deal. She said, she knew nothing about sex, that she really didn't do drugs. I think she said she had smoked weed a few times. So he introduced her, according to her and according to the prosecutors, to this lifestyle of drugs and sex that she basically was groomed into. And then you hear from the defense today, and it's a complete opposite. It's, don't believe that. They literally said, verbatim, she is not a victim. She is not naive. She matched him. That's why he fell in love with her.

I want to say there's one piece of evidence that I had forgotten about that was brought up yesterday during the prosecution's closing. And for me, I was like, wow. And I wonder if the jury thinks this. There's one photo of Sean Combs and Cassie when they first met. She looks so young, so young that it reminds you, this is not the Cassie that we heard from who's a grown woman and a mother on the stand. I mean, you look at them next to each other. Again, she was of age, of course, but she looks like a girl.

What was and you know actually her testimony talked about how she felt that her body was still developing when they met. That was, it was one part of the conversation But again, not at all intimating that she was not of age. She was as always with him of age. And yet the word pedophile came up today in court a lot. Why? Because the closing argument of the defense was talking about that horrible term being thrown against Diddy by Jane. That their first instance when he was physically violent towards her was following her hurtling that accusation, even though she knew that was not true, about his sexual predilections. And he seemed to suggest, what was that about? Was she trying to provoke him? And there was a moment when she let that linger. The idea of the money grab coming back, the idea of I need to file this away in case there's violence, for whatever thing I might need for in the end, which came full circle for how Comey in her rebuttal and others talked about, well, this is not a money grab. And if it is a money grab, that's a ridiculous notion because none of the women, she said, which I think makes some people — anything in absolutes makes you a little bit reluctant — none of the woman have any motive to lie. None of them have any incentive to lie. Now it makes you bristle because again, those certainties, you can find some nuance, but she said if it's Cassie, what motive does somebody who already got her money have to do with her testifying? When it came to Jane or Mia, she said, she settled years ago from a case with him.

And said she's not looking for fame. In fact, she testified under a pseudonym because she so didn't want people to know her identity.

Although, Agnifilo claimed that she had an affect that was feigned during the courtroom. And then finally, when it came to Jane, she said she hasn't sued him, has no intention of suing him. That's what Comey said. But, and then also, interestingly enough, she had a direct incentive to be flattering to him because he still paid her rent and her lawyers.

'That was a really interesting argument, and I want to flesh it out a little bit more, where Comey said, because let's backtrack and let's be honest, the admission on the stand from Jane of Sean Combs today, as I'm testifying against him, in a criminal trial where he is facing life in prison, he's paying for my rent. That was shocking for anyone in that courtroom, and certainly the jury. And of course, that has been weaponized by the defense, where they have said. She may not have wanted the freak-offs. She may have not wanted any of this, but guess what? She did it. And do you know why she did it? Because she wanted the lifestyle. She wanted the lifestyle of being Sean Combs' girlfriend on a private plane going to Turks and Caicos with her rent being paid for.

And they talked about how they used it to say he was a great guy, that this was evidence that everyone should, he felt, Agnifilo said in open court, he thought that the child support payments being received by Jane were woefully inadequate, he was suggesting, such that Diddy was supplementing it out of the goodness of his heart. You gotta wonder about how it's gonna be received by the jurors and going forward. Finally, before we go though, I have to mention this because there was a lot of moments when the jury was out of the room, and the prosecution did not object during any part of the closing in front of the jurors, but they took issue with one huge point, and that was any intimation that the government had targeted Sean Diddy Combs or any intimation that the government had engaged in selective prosecution. Because Agnifilo posed a question essentially of, gotta ask yourself why they would have brought this case of say kidnapping when the evidence ran counter. The judge was very clear that they had to give a curative instruction, essentially meaning listen, the jury is supposed to know that your words are not the arguments themselves, they're only argument not proof, and also that you are to rely on my instructions and not look behind the sort of, cloth, and figure out why they have decided to charge someone. Real quick, how did that play for you in those moments? Did you, if you're a juror, you're hearing an instruction that says, the defense made a statement, ignore this comment — how does that play it for you?

If I'm a juror, I have no idea what the judge just said. Truly. It's like, I keep saying formal speak. You're sitting there as a normal everyday person. You have no what it means, because — you just explained it really well, but the judge can't do that. So the judge gave maybe a 10 word sentence, right? Where he, and of course I'm being a little facetious here.

Which may prompt me to go, oh, what? Wait, wait, why is government so mad?

Right, exactly. So I think, you know, there's this phrase, you can't unring that bell. Mark Agnifilo said it. He essentially got across the point. The government had no business doing it and they did it anyway because they're trying to take down a powerful black man. And he did that when we are in a time of great distrust of the government. No matter which side of the aisle you are on, that is a fact right now. So the defense knows that. They know that this jury, who comes from every which background, um, financial, political, they're all very different, that that's still gonna resonate with at least some. And remember that earlier this week with the final witness on the stand who was a special agent, remember Teny Geragos said thank you so much, agent, for your time, please go back to fighting terrorist threats in New York City. They're dropping these little pieces of information because again you can't unring that bell, and they're hoping that the jury is thinking, wow, this really, maybe this isn't that important. Like, why are they spending so many resources on this? And that's why the judge gave that curative instruction to say you have no business in considering at all whether the government should pursue this case. All that you're deliberating on is whether they have proved their case. But again, we just spoke 10 times more than the judge was able to tell them. So I don't know if it landed. They may have been like, huh, what was that all about?

Well, you know what? We are closer than ever to finding out how they really do think about this because come Monday, they'll get the jury instructions and then they will be the 12 of them, the identified alternates will step aside, and 12 jurors will deliberate. And there's one Sean Diddy Combs who will spend the next 48 hours wondering what they're thinking. Wagmeister, it's always so great to hear your thoughts. And everyone out there — such a unbelievable last almost two months. Now, what will the jury find? This episode was produced by Emily Williams, Eryn Mathewson, Graelyn Brashear, Alexandra Saddler, and Rachid Haoues. Our technical director is Dan Dzula, and the executive producer of CNN Audio is Steve Lickteig. With support from Andrea Lewis, Mike Figliola, Hank Butler, Robert Mathers, Alex Manassari, and Lisa Namerow. I'm Laura Coates, and I'm here for it.