On Monday, May 12, the Diddy trial officially began. Opening statements from the prosecution and the defense team followed a short but complex jury selection process in Manhattan court, where a horde of hopeful audience members are forming lines to get a sneak peek. As such, we are still in the very early stages of the trial. We don't expect everything to be immediately clear, whether that's the evidence used in court or the witnesses the jury will hear from. But even at this kickoff, there are a few questions left over from the jury selection process that are crucial to answer.
Of course, whittling the mysteries down to just five queries is limiting to begin with. There are still many more decisions left on the table, especially once we get down to brass tacks and start going through Sean Combs' charges. Nevertheless, some hazy aspects of the Diddy trial should already be clear with a seated jury, at least from the public's perspective. For example, the current makeup of the Bad Boy mogul's legal team has some asterisks, and there have been multiple other celebrities who came up as the court asked jurors questions.
With that in mind, these questions point to important aspects of not just the trial's specific procedures, but also its media propagation and its fairness. That's not even taking into account the mountain of civil lawsuits, conspiracy theories, and salacious allegations that also emerged. All in all, there will be a lot more information in hindsight that will keep the public up to speed. But these are the mysteries from this inception that could pose big consequences for Diddy's trial, and hopefully they clear up very soon.
What Was The Nature Of Diddy & Cassie's Relationship?
One of the most shocking elements of opening statements was the prosecution's allegations concerning Puffy and Cassie Ventura. They claimed he assaulted her and threatened to release videos of her engaging in intercourse with male sex workers. Allegedly, this happened because Ventura had an affair, but federal attorneys did not stop there. They accused Combs of forcing an escort to urinate in her mouth during a "freak-off." Lastly, there's the 2016 hotel footage of him attacking the singer, multiple versions of which will reportedly enter the trial.
However, the real reason why this dynamic is complex is because of Diddy's legal teams claims concerning Cassie. They seek to present their relationship as a mutually abusive one.
Furthermore, this means the prosecution and defense will clash over how jurors should interpret this romance and what relevance it will maintain during trial. A key demarcation the court must clarify is whether or not there is any evidence supporting the defense's claim. The supposedly consensual nature of the "freak-offs," according to the defense, also falls under scrutiny. Both sides of the court clearly find this context very necessary, so we wonder how far they will actually go to fight for their side of the story.
Still, this opens questions about what Cassie will actually testify on, as their relationship might not relate directly to the charges. The real matter at hand is her alleged proximity to the alleged crimes in question. If the court cannot agree on how to interpret this or rule on what's true, then both sides could diminish important parts of their arguments. The prosecution could lose some of the weight behind their allegations, and the defense could have their claims blow up in their face.
Why Did Other Celebrities Come Up During Trial?
Another question of proximity concerns multiple celebrities who came up during the Diddy trial's jury selection. Some names who came up in questions to potential jurors include Mike Myers, Michael B. Jordan, Michelle Williams, Kid Cudi, Dawn Richard, Harve Pierre, and many more. It's important to emphasize, though, that none of these individuals face any charges or allegations concerning this case.
Rather, the court wanted to know if potential jurors were familiar with them and their alleged ties to Diddy. Cudi, for example, was referenced in Cassie's original lawsuit against Combs, and so was Jordan, apparently. Others came up for different reasons concerning Puff's character, his close circle, his business dealings, and more. But why is all of this relevant?
Well, that is likely because the prosecution and defense wants to weed out the gossip and the speculation from the real case connections. Not all of these celebrity crossovers are made equal, and some situations and relationships could emerge as mere character portraits of Combs. Regardless of these differences, it's unclear exactly how much the court wants to implicitly or explicitly use these famous faces to their advantage.
The prosecution, for example, might harken back to specific connections during their arguments, whereas other celebrities in Diddy's orbit could support his legal team's defenses. Yet none of these considerations delineate how far these celebrities' rabbit holes go when it comes to alleged criminal activity. For now, it seems like the court just wants to gauge jurors' knowledge and cover all hypothetical bases. In the future, we will have to see whether or not these celebrities will actually play any significant role, whether directly or indirectly.
Read More: Diddy's Sex Trafficking Trial: Here Are The Celebrities Who Might Be Referenced In The Trial
Is Mark Geragos On Diddy's Legal Team?
When it comes to significant roles, though, none may be more important than the attorneys on both sides of the court. Celebrity lawyer Mark Geragos recently caused a scuffle in this area. On a podcast, he called Diddy's prosecutors a "six-pack of white women," something Judge Arun Subramanian admonished him for in court. With threats of a contempt citation, the public wondered whether or not Geragos is actually a part of Combs' legal team.
Presumably, he is only an advisor to the defense and a friend of the music and business executive. Mark Geragos' daughter Teny, though, is reportedly leading the defense team in court. Even if this is not a strong enough connection, the prosecution and the judge still raised their eyebrows about this.
That's because it opened a question about the presumed gag order in Diddy's trial. The court did not implement a sequestered jury, meaning that jurors only have instructions to not discuss the case with anyone or engage with media about it. A sequestered jury would've stayed in a hotel with no access to TV or the Internet, going straight to the court and back.
If Mark Geragos is actually a part of Diddy's team or is sufficiently connected to it, then this would cause skepticism concerning the gag order to arise. It's also something that could open the door for an appeal in the future due to potential jury tainting. So this could be a massive consequence for the trial moving forward.
What's Going On With A Missing Witness?
Perhaps the biggest consequence of this early Diddy trial stage, though, is the mystery around "Victim-3," one of the anonymous alleged victims testifying. In court, the prosecution revealed their skepticism as to whether or not the alleged victim would end up making it to the trial, despite a subpoena. However, they also explained that they didn't plan on referencing the woman's allegations until later in the proceedings.
Not only that, but a TMZ report also claimed that "Victim-3" never cooperated with authorities or was meant to testify in the first place. Take that with a grain of salt. But nevertheless, it suggests there are still a lot of obstacles in the prosecution's way. In this case, it seems to be a spatial issue. The alleged victim reportedly lives far away from New York City. Judge Subramanian asked prosecutors to do everything in their power to secure the alleged victim's attendance and testimony.
The question here concerns what this means for witness testimony moving forward. We still don't know of the three anonymous witnesses (the fourth being Cassie) or how they exactly relate to the charges in Diddy's trial. The loss of one could pose big complications for the prosecution, and it seems like the sort of thing that should be clear before the trial's beginning.
While this could see a swift resolution, each witness is crucial to the case. So any lingering doubts about one could change the course of how the prosecution and defense will handle the others. If there's an alleged victim on the fence, folks need more specific answers as to how this even happened.
What Evidence Can Be Used?
Finally, the big question following the Diddy trial ever since this scandal's explosion is simple. Where's the evidence? His legal team unsuccessfully attempted to exclude certain materials from the potential evidence pool, like iCloud searches, raid findings, and the aforementioned Cassie video.
Therefore, the jury might have a widely varied set of alleged evidence to view, not all of which could relate to the specific charges. As previously suggested, a major concern for prosecutors and defense attorneys is the context around these allegations, such as interpersonal relationships and business dealings. What isn't as clear is how much evidence will become relevant to alleged criminal activity rather than contextual information. We expect witness testimony to unlock that answer, but that comes with its own set of skepticisms.
For now, it seems like the evidence both sides of the court proposed in Diddy's trial has little to do with the alleged crimes at hand, with more concrete allegations and supposed proof coming later. The mystery the public wants clarity on is how the court will actually use this evidence. Since there is such a whirlwind of general allegations here, it will likely be difficult to draw specific conclusions from more broad behavioral narratives.
In addition, this is a constantly evolving process. More evidence will emerge via motioned introductions, and the court will deem them appropriate or dismissable. However, what we currently have on the table is already causing debates between the prosecution and the defense. In order to quell that discrepancy, the public needs to see how laywers on both sides connect these proposed evidence items to the federal charges, not to the wider scandal.
