Prosecution left room for Diddy’s defense to argue case was built on character assassination: expert
The prosecution in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ trial has set out to prove the rapper is guilty of sex-trafficking, racketeering and more. Key witnesses, including Cassie Ventura’s mom and her best friend, have helped bolster the government’s case against the disgraced music mogul.
“But not all the testimony landed perfectly for the prosecution,” criminal defense lawyer Jo-Anna Nieves told Fox News Digital. “Some of it may have actually given the defense room to argue that the government’s case is more about painting Diddy as a bad person than proving he committed crimes.”
A handful of witnesses have given testimony that borders on “feeling more sensationalized” than “substantive,” Nieves told Fox News Digital.
“For instance, George Kaplan talked about Diddy’s erratic behavior but didn’t directly tie it to illegal acts and he left the job on his own terms,” the Oakland-based attorney added. “The defense could use this to argue that things weren’t as dangerous or criminal as they’re being portrayed if he was free to leave. Then there was the hotel staff testimony, which focused on cleanup and ‘excessively oily’ rooms. This testimony may stick in jurors’ minds, but without a clear link to criminal conduct, it risks feeling more sensationalized than substantive. And while Cassie’s former best friend, Kerry Morgan, gave powerful and emotional testimony about witnessing abuse, and even being assaulted herself, the defense may question her credibility by suggesting she had personal motives, emotional bias, or stood to gain financially.”
“While the prosecution is drawing a picture of control, coercion, and criminal enterprise, the defense is starting to suggest that some witnesses are emotionally charged, circumstantial, or lacking firsthand knowledge of actual crimes. That’s where the risk of testimony backfiring comes into play; when it creates more noise than substance, it can give the defense room to argue that the case is built more on character assassination than on solid, provable facts.”
