The Diddy Trial: Judge Subramanian Gives The Jury Their Final Instructions (Part 1) (7/1/25)

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

In the federal trial of Sean “Diddy” Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian delivered final jury instructions that laid out the legal framework the jurors must follow as they deliberate on the charges. He emphasized the presumption of innocence, reminding jurors that the burden of proof rests entirely on the government and that Combs is not required to prove anything or call any witnesses. The judge explained that the prosecution must prove each element of every charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt, and that speculation, bias, or media narratives have no place in the jury room. He cautioned jurors to evaluate the evidence objectively, including the credibility of witnesses, and warned against letting emotions, celebrity, or public opinion sway their verdict.Subramanian also gave detailed explanations of the legal definitions behind each charge Combs faces, including the alleged predicate acts tied to sex trafficking, conspiracy, and obstruction. He clarified that even if jurors find certain behavior distasteful or immoral, it is not criminal unless it meets the specific legal thresholds outlined. Jurors were instructed to consider each count separately, and not to infer guilt on one charge simply because they believe guilt on another. Additionally, he reiterated the importance of unanimous agreement for any verdict and instructed them not to discuss the case with anyone outside the jury room, nor consume any media coverage about it. The instructions closed with a reminder that the rule of law—not fame, wealth, or notoriety—governs the courtroom.to  contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.424.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Bryan Kohberger, accused of murdering four University of Idaho students in November 2022, has reached a plea agreement with prosecutors. In exchange for pleading guilty to all four counts of first-degree murder—and additional burglary charges—he will receive four consecutive life sentences, with no possibility of parole and a waiver of all appellate rights. This deal effectively removes the death penalty—recently reinstated in Idaho with an optional firing-squad execution—from consideration, sparing Kohberger from capital punishmentThe plea comes just weeks before his scheduled trial in August and is set to be formalized during a plea hearing on July 2, with sentencing expected in late July.   While prosecutors framed the deal as a way to ensure finality and spare the victims' families from prolonged appeals, the announcement provoked intense backlash. Notably, the Goncalves family—victims Kaylee Goncalves’ relatives—expressed fury over the timing and secrecy of the agreement, condemning it as a "stab in the back" and arguing that Kohberger would still "form relationships and engage with the world," unlike their loved one.to contact me:[email protected]:Bryan Kohberger to plead guilty to University of Idaho student murders to avoid death penalty: reportBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Prosecutors concluded their seven‑week case by presenting stark portrayals of Combs as the ringleader of a decades‑long criminal operation. They alleged he used fame and wealth to coerce ex‑girlfriends Cassie Ventura and “Jane” into drug‑fueled “freak‑offs” with hired escorts, and accused him of orchestrating violent acts—ranging from arson and kidnapping to bribery and forced labor—to enforce compliance. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik reiterated that one coerced sexual act could establish sex trafficking, and she urged the jury to hold Combs accountable for seeing himself as above the law.In contrast, defense attorney Marc Agnifilo attacked the government’s case as an overreach into private consensual behavior, ridiculing the seizure of personal lubricants and framing the case as an attempt to criminalize a “swingers’ lifestyle.” While acknowledging Combs’ temper and violence, the defense argued those incidents did not amount to federal trafficking or racketeering offenses. Agnifilo emphasized consent and alleged financial incentives behind the accusations. The case is now in the hands of the jury, set to begin deliberating on Monday after receiving legal instructions.to contact me:[email protected]:Key moments from the closing arguments at Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sex trafficking trial | AP NewsBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On Day 7 of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal trial, former personal assistant David James provided detailed testimony about his time working for Combs from 2007 to 2009. James described a demanding work environment, stating that he was responsible for preparing hotel rooms with specific items, including a toiletry bag containing 25 to 30 pill bottles—some unmarked—and personal items like baby oil and condoms, which he purchased with cash provided by Combs' security team. He testified that Combs carried pills shaped like former President Barack Obama's face and consumed drugs daily, including ecstasy and Percocet. James also recounted being subjected to lie detector tests on two occasions when items went missing, feeling he couldn't refuse.James further testified about an incident in 2008 involving Combs and rival music producer Suge Knight. He recounted that after a confrontation at a Los Angeles diner, Combs armed himself with three handguns and ordered James to drive him back to the location to confront Knight. James expressed fear for his life during this event, stating it was the first time he felt truly endangered while working for Combs. This incident led him to resign from his position.On Day 7 of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal trial, former personal assistant David James provided detailed testimony about his time working for Combs from 2007 to 2009. James described a demanding work environment, stating that he was responsible for preparing hotel rooms with specific items, including a toiletry bag containing 25 to 30 pill bottles—some unmarked—and personal items like baby oil and condoms, which he purchased with cash provided by Combs' security team. He testified that Combs carried pills shaped like former President Barack Obama's face and consumed drugs daily, including ecstasy and Percocet. James also recounted being subjected to lie detector tests on two occasions when items went missing, feeling he couldn't refuse.James further testified about an incident in 2008 involving Combs and rival music producer Suge Knight. He recounted that after a confrontation at a Los Angeles diner, Combs armed himself with three handguns and ordered James to drive him back to the location to confront Knight. James expressed fear for his life during this event, stating it was the first time he felt truly endangered while working for Combs. This incident led him to resign from his position.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

On the sixth day of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial, singer Dawn Richard delivered harrowing testimony detailing multiple instances of physical abuse Combs allegedly inflicted upon his former girlfriend, Cassie Ventura. Richard recounted a 2009 incident at Combs' Los Angeles home where, enraged over breakfast, he purportedly attempted to strike Ventura with a skillet full of eggs, subsequently dragging her by the hair upstairs. She also described a 2010 episode at a restaurant where Combs allegedly punched Ventura in the stomach in the presence of celebrities like Usher and Ne-Yo, none of whom intervened. Richard testified that Combs later assaulted Ventura in a car, grabbing her neck and slapping her while asserting control over her. Additionally, Richard claimed Combs threatened her and others, warning they "could go missing" if they spoke out about the abuse.During cross-examination, Combs' defense attorney, Nicole Westmoreland, challenged Richard's credibility by highlighting inconsistencies in her accounts and questioning her motives, suggesting her testimony might be influenced by personal grievances over the dissolution of music groups Danity Kane and Diddy-Dirty Money. Richard acknowledged feeling "saddened" by the groups' disbandment but denied harboring anger. She maintained that her recollections were as accurate as possible, emphasizing her desire for justice rather than compensation.On Day Six of Sean "Diddy" Combs' federal trial, Kerry Morgan, former best friend of Cassie Ventura, delivered compelling testimony detailing multiple instances of alleged abuse. Morgan recounted witnessing Combs physically assault Ventura, including a 2016 incident where he reportedly kicked, dragged, and threw an object at her in a hotel lobby, followed by an attempt to break down her apartment door with a hammer. Morgan also testified about a 2018 incident where Combs allegedly choked her and struck her with a wooden hanger, resulting in a concussion. She stated that she received $30,000 from Combs in exchange for signing a non-disclosure agreement, after which her friendship with Ventura ended.Following Morgan's testimony, David James, Combs' former personal assistant, took the stand to describe the environment within Combs' inner circle. James depicted Combs' world as a "kingdom" where staff were expected to serve him unconditionally. He recounted conversations where Combs referred to Ventura as "young" and "moldable," asserting control over her career and personal life. James also testified that Ventura expressed feelings of entrapment, stating she couldn't leave because Combs controlled her music career, finances, and living arrangements.to contact me:[email protected] a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

​In a motion filed on April 16, 2025, Sean "Diddy" Combs' legal team requested the exclusion of two prior incidents from his upcoming federal trial. The first pertains to a 1999 nightclub shooting at Club New York, where Combs was present and initially charged but later acquitted. His attorneys argue that introducing this event would be more prejudicial than probative, potentially biasing the jury by suggesting a propensity for violence. They contend that this incident lacks direct relevance to the current charges and would unfairly influence the jury's perception.The second incident involves a 2016 alleged assault at a recording studio, which the defense also seeks to exclude. Combs' lawyers assert that this event is unrelated to the current case and its inclusion would serve only to prejudice the jury. They argue that admitting such evidence would violate Federal Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403, which restrict the use of prior bad acts to prove character and caution against evidence that could cause unfair prejudice. The defense maintains that these incidents do not provide legitimate insight into the allegations at hand and should not be presented during the trial.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.628425.240.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

This filing, submitted on behalf of Sean Combs and his co-defendants in the case English v. Combs et al., opposes the plaintiff’s renewed request for a 60-day extension to secure a third set of legal counsel. The defense argues that the plaintiff has already cycled through two legal teams—both of whom withdrew due to serious breakdowns in the attorney-client relationship, including what they described as “self-destructive conduct,” refusal to follow legal advice, and irreconcilable differences. The filing outlines a timeline of delays and extensions already granted, emphasizing that the plaintiff’s behavior has repeatedly stalled progress and wasted the court’s and defendants’ time and resources.The defendants urge the court to deny any further delay, asserting that the plaintiff’s complaint is fatally flawed and that she is unlikely to retain new counsel willing to continue litigating what they call “baseless claims.” They argue that granting another extension would prolong an already mismanaged case that has made little progress nearly a year after being filed. Moreover, the defense indicates it is prepared to file a motion to dismiss all eight of the plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and warns that continued adjournments serve only to avoid scrutiny of the case’s legal shortcomings. Ultimately, the defense calls for the case to move forward without further delay, with or without new representation for the plaintiff.to contact me:[email protected]:gov.uscourts.nysd.624352.74.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.