Return to Transcripts main page

Laura Coates Live

Laura Coates and Guests Discuss the Latest in the Federal Trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs; Laura Coates Interviews Attorney Mark Geragos; Defense Argues Against Testimony from Psychologist; Laura Coates Interviews Sketch Artist Christine Cornell. Aired 11p-12a ET

Aired May 15, 2025 - 23:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

[23:00:00]

SCOTT JENNINGS, CNN SENIOR POLITICAL COMMENTATOR, FORMER SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH: You turn this thing, and it literally melts the face off of the worst people around you.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): That wasn't documented.

(LAUGHTER)

JENNINGS: It might have been. And -- and I'm just saying, it seems like having this could come in handy. And so, anyway, I'm going back into history. In all seriousness, I think -- I think this sort of history could be a uniting kind of a relic. Now there's a church in, I think, Ethiopia that claims to have it.

UNKNOWN (voice-over): Uh-hmm.

JENNINGS: But I think a tour in the United States, maybe passing through Kentucky, could be fine.

ABBY PHILLIP, CNN ANCHOR AND SENIOR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Hmm. Yeah. Well, I got to get some bodyguards for that thing. You know what Scott is going to do.

Everyone, thank you so much, and thanks for watching "NewsNight." You can catch me anytime on your favorite social media X, Instagram, and TikTok. "Laura Coates Live" starts right now.

LAURA COATES, CNN HOST AND SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: Good evening and welcome to a special edition of "Laura Coates Live: Diddy on Trial." Day four in the criminal case against Sean "Diddy" Combs, and it may very well end up being one of the most important days in this entire trial, because for the first time, the defense got to question the prosecution's star witness, Cassie Ventura.

Did any of the testimony plant seeds of reasonable doubt or did it reinforce the prosecution's case so far? In just a moment, my team of legal experts and court insiders are going to help us go through everything to answer those questions.

And let me tell you, there was a lot to go through today. The defense revealed several erotic messages that Cassie texted to Diddy over their years-long relationship. Many of them, frankly, lured, pornographic. Cassie also testified she never told her friends or Diddy's staff about the so-called "freak-offs." And the defense got Cassie to testify that Diddy's addiction to drugs played a role in his mood swings.

Now, all of this is an attempt to undermine the prosecution's case that Cassie was forced or coerced into the alleged drug-fueled and at times violent "freak-offs," among the other charges. Coercion and force are key elements that the jury must believe if they are to convict Diddy on charges of sex trafficking or even racketeering.

Now, we're going to do a little bit different tonight. We're going to play for you exchanges from the testimony today that are voiced through the use of AI. The AI-generated voices we used are reading the official transcript neutrally. We did not add emphasis or emotion or alter the text in any way. We also did not try to imitate their actual voices.

The first exchange you're going to hear is about text Cassie sent about "freak-offs" in 2009, about two years into their relationship.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ANNA ESTEVAO, DEFENSE ATTORNEY (voice-over): Can we begin reading, and I will be Mr. Combs, the fourth message from the bottom and go backwards? Would that be at the me too.

CASSIE VENTURA, SINGER (voice-over): Would that be at the "Me Too?"

ESTEVAO (voice-over): I'll begin. I miss you already.

VENTURA (voice-over): Me, too.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): When do you want to freak off, LOL?

VENTURA (voice-over): LOL. I am just going up to change and put my ring in. I just picked it up. I'm always ready to freak off. LOL. LOL.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): Let's just pause there. When you say, I'm always ready to freak off, this was sent on August 5th, 2009, correct?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yes.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And how long had you been dating Mr. Combs at this point?

VENTURA (voice-over): Almost two years.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And you have already had "freak-offs" before this, correct?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yes.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): I'll continue reading. You tell me the day. You choose.

VENTURA (voice-over): It can be whenever.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): Name the night.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: And it wasn't just early in their relationship. The defense questioned Cassie about the "freak-offs" that took place years later.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ESTEVAO (voice-over): Ms. Ventura, these are your messages to Mr. Combs on March 18th, 2017, correct?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yes.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And you say, please don't play victim. If you can, go to our last messages. And then you say, that's all you wanted and that's why I was upset, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yes.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): After that, you say, I love our FOs, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yes.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And then you say, when we both want it, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yup.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And that's how you felt at the time, that you loved "freak-offs" when you both were into it, correct?

VENTURA (voice-over): I would say that loving FOs were just words at that point.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): Well, those were words that you said to Mr. Combs, correct

VENTURA (voice-over): Those are texts, yes.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Now, to the drug use. Cassie testified that Diddy was so addicted that he was once hospitalized for an overdose. The defense attempting to portray Diddy as an out-of-control addict, not some mastermind of a criminal enterprise.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ESTEVAO (voice-over): So almost the entire duration of your relationship, you were both addicted to painkillers?

[23:05:03]

VENTURA (voice-over): Very close to it, yeah.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): But periodically withdrawing and being affected by the withdrawal symptoms in your relationship, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yup.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And that was a big part of Mr. Combs's mood swings, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): I don't know if it was a big part, but I think it was a part.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): You understood that if he did not get his painkillers that was reliant on, that it would affect his mood, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yeah, anybody that's addicted to painkillers is like that.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And Mr. Combs's in particular was affected by it?

VENTURA (voice-over): Right.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): To your knowledge and in your experience with him?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yeah.

ESTEVAO (voice-over): And you were particularly attuned to his mood for good reason, right?

VENTURA (voice-over): Yeah, we were together.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

COATES: Cassie will be back on the stand tomorrow to begin her 15th hour of testimony. And actually, there's drama around that tonight as well because the prosecution wants her off the stand before the weekend because she's so pregnant. The defense, however, not making any guarantees that it will end its cross by then.

With me now, CNN's Kara Scannell, our eyes and ears in the courtroom today. Kara, first of all, talk to me about how the defense attorney treated Cassie on the stand. Was she effective?

KARA SCANNELL, CNN CORRESPONDENT: You know, I think she was because it was a female lawyer representing Combs. She was handling the questioning with Ventura. And at times, she was very disarming. She had complimented Ventura, you know, saying that she was a beautiful woman, and Ventura said, thank you. There were times where they would talk over each other, and they would both laugh at the same time.

So, she seemed to have created a rapport with her that was not adversarial. And through that, she was able to ask her some of these questions in which Ventura would readily agree because there was testimony and text messages there, but also because they had this kind of dynamic that existed between them. So, it seemed as though she was effective in that way and able to get her to respond to these questions when she needed her to. COATES: I hear that she was also almost smiling through some of the readings of these more effusive romantic text messages early on in their relationship in front of the jury.

But then there was also a moment that I want you to describe, when the defense attorney was questioning her credibility about what she saw, about an allegation that Diddy had dangled one of her friends over a balcony and then thrown her into patio furniture.

SCANNELL: I mean, there were so few rare moments of tension because of that kind of camaraderie they had established. But this was one of them where it was a little bit more direct and a little more pointed.

And that was where she asked Ventura to recount one of the times that Ventura says that she saw Combs hit one of her friends. And that was when Ventura -- and she woke up, she was in her apartment, she heard a commotion, went to the balcony, and saw Combs dangling one of her friends and then throwing this friend down on the patio furniture.

So, Ventura was asked about that, and she said, yep. That's what her testimony was.

And then the lawyer showed her a text message that she had with Combs's personal assistant, which seemed to suggest that she had only just learned of that and maybe hadn't seen it herself. And Ventura had said, you know, it -- it says what it says. So, she kind of left it as it is there.

But that was just one of the few moments where it got a little bit more pointed. But, otherwise, it was actually a relatively friendly cross- examination and not one of these real adversarial ones that you often see.

COATES: We'll see if that holds true tomorrow. Kara Scannell, thank you so much.

Our brilliant legal experts are back. We've got criminal defense attorneys Mark O'Mara and Stacy Schneider. Also, here with us, former federal prosecutor and president of West Coast Trial Lawyers, Neama Rahmani.

We got a lot to get to. This was a jam-packed cross-examination. Stacy, let me begin with you. How do you think that that cross- examination, the -- the non-adversarial tone of it, is going to go over with the jury? Is that the right tactic?

STACY SCHNEIDER, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: It's completely the right tactic. You have Cassie Ventura, who is absolutely, according to her testimony, a victim of the defendant, Sean Combs. And what they've done is they've taken all of direct -- direct examination, and they've walked her through the parts where Cassie is explaining that this was a relationship.

There were texts brought out that she loved him, she missed him, she would fly anywhere to be with him. There were texts brought out also today that she looked forward to some of these "freak-offs" in the beginning of the relationship.

There was a really crucial text brought out about that videotaped hotel "freak-off" from 2016 that we've seen all the time and the jury has seen at least five times so far of him assaulting her in the hotel hallway, where she had said to him on that same day, we can have fun, I hope you don't think I don't want to do this.

[23:10:04]

So, those really changed the picture toward or in favor of the defense narrative, which is this is not a racketeering conspiracy to assault women or coerce women into sexual acts. This was a participatory relationship between two people that was out of bounds in real life, but was not part of Combs's business enterprise.

COATES: Well, Neama, on that point, you know, certainly, we're only, what, day or four, I think, into the trial. The jury is going to have to hear a lot more. We knew from the prosecution's opening that it will be not necessarily chronological and we'll get a lot of different information.

But the defense is, as Stacy is indicating, trying to undermine the perception the jury might have from the prosecution's case of why. And the -- the defense showed messages from -- and talk about the -- the case about the drug use and withdrawal that may have fueled violent outbursts from Combs.

Is that going to be enough to convince the jury?

NEAMA RAHMANI, FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTOR, PRESIDENT OF WEST COAST TRIAL LAWYERS: No, Laura. Drug use is not an excuse to beat someone at the InterContinental Hotel in Los Angeles. And, you know, prosecution can still get to racketeering without sex trafficking. No question today was a good day for the defense. They had the receipts. They had the text messages and emails.

If I was the government, I would have fronted some of this a little bit better. But Cassie testified that she was in love with him. And can any human being reasonably engage in sex, whether urinated on, sex when they're menstruating, on their UTI, take so many drugs that they throw up? I think the jurors are going to see past this. And the government is going to come back on redirect, and they're going to have experts that are going to talk about the psychology of an abuse victim.

Now, the defense did score some points today. The fact that Combs had sex with other women while Cassie watched, that does support the swingers' (ph) lifestyle argument. The fact that Cassie took drugs outside of the "freak-offs" voluntarily, she experimented at Burning Man (ph), certainly that helps the defense.

But I think they need to go a lot farther than they did today. And frankly, I expected more. I expected a Camille Vasquez-Amber Heard- type day today. I think this was going to be the biggest day of the trial, and I was pretty underwhelmed. COATES: Mark, how did you feel about it? I mean, the -- the tone, the -- the nature of the cross-examination, putting some of these messages on about how she hesitated, though later, to take part in the "freak- offs" at times, what did you get from this?

MARK O'MARA, CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY: I think the tone was the best they could do. She used a scalpel instead of an ax or anything else. We all have those tools available to us. And she had to do it in a way that acknowledges she's a victim because the jury believes that already. That -- that video is going to stick in their minds.

But, again, I thought they did a great job of doing it very nicely, very calmly. You know, the camaraderie they almost had, the discourse that they had, comes across very well. And they were able to use that scalpel to make some of those points they had to, that this was not coercive, it was consensual for the most part.

And even though there was some violence, they've thrown in this idea that violence may come from his drug addiction. And though we don't like drugs and we don't like drug addictions, we like it better than that truly volitional act of violence.

So, I thought they did a very good job today with what they had to get to through this witness.

COATES: She is really the star witness for this case. I mean, there will be others. She is but one of the victims who were named, the person is pseudonym as well. Let's not -- we can't forget about that person. And, of course, there are five felony counts, including racketeering. We'll hear about a lot more evidence and testimony, I presume.

But Stacy, given that Cassie Ventura is such a significant witness, the judge wants to wrap up the cross-examination by lunch tomorrow with the prosecutors adding -- quote -- "This witness is very, very pregnant. We are afraid she could have the baby over the weekend. We want her off the stand before the weekend."

I mean, this is certainly a reality, but who controls --

SCHNEIDER: Exactly.

COATES: -- how long a cross is going to last? It's not the prosecution.

SCHNEIDER: That's right. The -- the judge is doing his best to remind the defense, move it along, move it along. But the other day, the -- one of the defense attorneys for Combs said, you know, there were things that came out during Cassie's direct examination that made us reevaluate our cross- examination. And that was hinting that they were going to take longer or might go on a different pathway that would -- than what was expected.

And certainly, a defendant is allowed to present his defense in court. The judge can't really rush them through the testimony if they need to cross- examine her more than they had intended in the beginning of this plan to get her off the stand by the end of Friday.

[23:15:03]

It doesn't look like it's going to happen. The attorneys have signaled it's probably not going to happen. They expect to go into the following week. This is a very long cross-examination.

But the prosecution took such a long time in their direct examination, going over a minutia and details of these "freak-offs" that I'm not even sure were necessary to make the point once they got out that the violence --

COATES: Neama --

SCHNEIDER: -- was done.

COATES: Yeah. On -- on that point -- sorry, Stacy -- do you think that the -- the pacing or the minutiae and the detail was important?

RAHMANI: I do. And, you know, I'm a former prosecutor, victim's rights lawyer, but I got to agree with Stacy. I mean, Combs's life is on the line. So, you know, I understand Judge Subramanian wants to move this along, but you have to give the defense their fair shot.

And really, I don't think they've gotten to a lot of their key points. We went through all the documents today. But they're really scratching the surface of the jealousy, some of the other relationships, Kid Cudi, Michael B. Jordan. We got into a little bit of the drug use today. They're trying to connect that and somehow explain away the 2016 beating.

I don't think they can do it. But I think they're really just getting started. And that's not even counting for redirect. I don't think we're going to get done tomorrow. I don't think the judge can do much to make it happen by tomorrow.

COATES: And we already saw in one of the instances, they allowed the cross, the defense to re-cross after a redirect at one point in time. And remember, racketeering carries a possible life sentence. Very serious.

Everyone, stand by. We've got so much more to get to tonight.

The defense's strategy on full display in court today. And my next guest knows a lot about it. That's because he's a famed defense attorney himself. Well, he's also the father of one of these attorneys. Mark Geragos tells his thoughts on this trial and his thoughts on the Menendez brothers being resentenced.

Plus, the defense doesn't want a clinical psychologist to testify. Why? Ask another expert who knows her.

And later, our woman on the inside, the sketch artist with the front row seat in court tells us how Diddy reacted to his team's cross- examination.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:20:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: So, while the Sean "Diddy" Combs sex trafficking trial continues in New York, there are also major developments in another high-profile case out west. Lyle and Erik Menendez winning their long- fought resentencing battle, making the Menendez brothers now eligible for parole after more than three decades behind bars for the 1989 killing of their parents in their Beverly -- Beverly Hills mansion.

Notoriety is not the only common thread between the Diddy and the Menendez brothers' legal proceedings. Teny Geragos, one of the lawyers defending Diddy in the courtroom, was actually the daughter of famed defense attorney Mark Geragos, who happens to be the Menendez brothers' attorney. And Mark, you know, he joins me now.

Mark, welcome. Glad to have you here. I really want to get to the Menendez brothers and all of the big developments in that case in just a moment. But I got to ask you about the Diddy trial. I've seen you inside the courtroom. Has the defense been effective?

MARK GERAGOS, DEFENSE ATTORNEY: No. The -- I think, so far, on a case, I don't know if it's the defense being of the kind of effective or if kind of all of the social media hoopla had kind of made this case into something that it wasn't.

I think what you are seeing, and I was watching your previous panel and I thought they did a superb job of breaking it down, what you are seeing is what the case is, and the case more closely resembles a typical criminal case rather than the kind of explosive, almost mythological case that had been fabricated in social media. So, yes.

Has it been effective? What do you think you're going to get out of the father of the defense lawyer?

COATES: She gave one huge opening statement where she actually talked about the noise and intimated that the court of public opinion maybe had a different impression of what the prosecution's case was going to be able to show.

And I wonder, even the voir dire process, very extensive. I had a jury consultant tell me that some of the jurors may not be able to separate conduct that they find morally objectionable from what they will be charged through instructions to actually evaluate.

Do you have confidence that all the noise you speak about in the court of public opinion coming into this case is going to influence their ability to be objective?

GERAGOS: You know, one of the things that was interesting about this case was the jury selection and -- and the idea that it's somewhat unusual to bring individual jurors in. One of the -- the benefits of that is if somebody says something that is very negative or very positive, it doesn't taint the entire pool. One of the other advantages of it is that sometimes, you think people will be more honest.

I always think and I always push for, and it did not happen in this case, attorney voir dire because as -- as much as the judge can learn about the case and pretrial motions and everything else, it's the attorneys who are closest to the case, to the facts, know what's going to actually get rolled out. And so, they're the ones who can generally identify if somebody is prejudiced or not prejudiced.

[23:24:55]

My big worries, and I've argued this for years and actually written a book about it, is when you have a -- what I call a stealth juror, and that's a juror who wants to get on the case and is not really as forthright as they could be, and they've got an agenda. That's what you're trying to avoid.

COATES: One thing that this judge is trying to avoid is Cassie Ventura testifying beyond this weekend. He's seeming to insist that they wrap it up by tomorrow. Setting aside whether a judge can even order that to happen, is it even realistic that this witness could be done by tomorrow?

GERAGOS: I don't know. I mean, I haven't been -- you know, this is the other problem with these kinds of what I call supersized trials. If they don't have a camera in the courtroom, it's very tough because you're always getting one or two or three degrees of separation as to what happens. And if you're not getting daily transcripts and reading the daily transcripts, it's very difficult, and I -- I would imagine, just by the reporting, that there's going to be some pushback on that.

I understand, and everybody I'm sure has some kind of sympathy or empathy for the pregnancy, obviously, but at the same time, you're talking about somebody's liberty. So, there's a -- a judge is going to have to make the hard decision. I think, generally, whenever it's weighed against a Sixth Amendment right, which is the right to cross- examine and the right to have a lawyer, that usually is paramount to every other right.

COATES: Let's talk about liberty because the Menendez brothers are now eligible for parole. This came after a judge sentenced -- resentenced them to life in prison with the possibility of parole. When I heard that news, my immediate thought was, what was their reaction to this decision?

GERAGOS: Well, see, you know, I -- I quipped that I had them call me on their burner phone because the prosecution had made such a big deal about cell phones in the jail. But the -- I think the reaction was actually one more of happiness or empathy for the family.

One of the toughest things that I really didn't understand until we had done some hearings and I had put the family members on is this is a unicorn situation. We've discussed it with the judge day before yesterday as well. You've got a situation where the defendant's family is the same as the victim's family.

So, first, the first thing that has to happen, obviously, is the healing of that situation. But then, you had this unparalleled, at least from my standpoint, situation where every single living victim of the -- of this horrific crime uniformly wanted them out.

I've never seen that before. The judge commented he'd never seen that before. That is highly unusual. I think they, most importantly, really were relieved that the family had some hope after 35 years of seeing them.

COATES: And yet the judge could have -- could have released them. But it's going to go to the parole board. It'll go to the governor, Gavin Newsom. What do you think will happen? Will the governor give clemency? Will they get paroled? Are they holding on to that hope or is it too much to ask?

GERAGOS: I think I -- I -- we've got several different tracks and we still have the habeas. We do -- as you mentioned, we had the clemency hearing that was set for June 13. Just this morning, the governor, actually it was yesterday but reported this morning, he changed that clemency hearing on June 13 to a parole hearing. He could literally do. And with the stroke of a pen, he could release them before the 4th of July.

So, who knows? I mean, it's still a work in progress. The one constant when it comes to the Menendez brothers is whatever you expect or whatever you think is going to happen generally doesn't happen.

COATES: Mark Geragos, I could talk to you all night about all that's going on. I have one final question for you, though, and it relates to what would come next. You call this a pair -- a unicorn and maybe unparalleled. Some people wonder, if the Menendez brothers did not have the celebrity backing, the pressure campaign, the public interest, that they may be in the same boat as so many others who would likely try to raise a similar argument to why they should be released.

Should this open the door for other defendants and inmates who are similarly situated to be released?

GERAGOS: You know, it's a great question, and let me give you an example.

[23:29:52]

I was talking with a D.A. in the courthouse yesterday, and the DA said, you know, great result, congratulating me, and he said, but you do realize that since the previous administration initiated the resentencing for the Menendez, which was in October of last year, in that seven-month period of time, there have been a number of people who have served less time for the same charges, who have been released without any fanfare, without any D.A. press conferences, without any notice whatsoever.

So, it's like I often say about celebrity cases when people or the prosecutors say, we just want to treat you the same. I say, don't -- don't treat me the same, treat me the way you would treat somebody who you -- when the cameras are none. So, I don't think -- I don't think they're getting any special treatment. They're getting overtreated.

COATES: Mike Geragos, thank you.

Still ahead, it's the testimony Diddy's defense does not want the jury to hear. It's not from a witness either. It's from a psychologist. So why is that? My next guest tonight is an expert in this field and knows all about it, and I'll ask her that very question next.

Plus, we know who one of the next witnesses will be to testify against Diddy. So, how exactly will the prosecution use her to build their case? Our legal team is back to discuss that ahead.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:35:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: The prosecution wants you to hear from her. The defense doesn't. I'm talking about forensic psychologist Dawn Hughes. She is an expert who has testified in multiple high-profile cases, really high-profile cases. I'm talking R. Kelly, Harvey Weinstein, and the Johnny Depp-Amber Heard trial as well. The defense arguing that her testimony should be excluded in its entirety.

But they're not getting their wish. She will be able to testify within some boundaries. And in a case filled with testimony of sexual, physical, and drug abuse, the perspective of an expert, well, it could be helpful to jurors.

Joining me now is Lisa Fontes. She is a professor and expert in domestic and sexual violence, and she's the author of the book, "Invisible Chains."

Professor, thank you for joining us this evening. I mean, Diddy's attorney is casting his relationship with Cassie as essentially not criminal, but kinky. They say he is a -- has drug problems, that there was domestic abuse, but argue against coercion or control. From what you have seen in the past four days of testimony, do you agree or not?

LISA FONTES, PROFESSOR AT UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS IN AMHERST, DOMESTIC AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE EXPERT, AUTHOR: Well, we've all seen, I think, the footage of Sean Combs beating Cassie Ventura when she was on the ground. So that sure looks like force and coercion to me. And people have listened to her testimony, too, for the last couple of days about the ways in which she was -- drugs were pushed on to her and the ways in which she lived in fear. She was obligated to do sexual acts. So, there's a lot there that says coercion.

And the other -- one of the other witnesses, Dan Phillip, also talked about how he was terrified of Mr. Combs.

COATES: Does the fact that the defense is showing text messages about being effusive and her love for him or that at one point she enjoyed participating in these so-called "freak-offs," does that undermine the idea of control at this point? FONTES: It might undermine it for the jury, but it doesn't undermine it for me. Just because there are moments in a relationship that are maybe less bad or because she might be performing, saying that she's attached to him, she likes him, she loves him, she may have felt feelings of love for him, but that doesn't mean that she wasn't being forced at other moments. Really tortured. I mean, those are -- they -- he may call them a "freak-off," but they seem like group sexual torture sessions to me.

COATES: The prosecution wants to call forensic psychologist Dawn Hughes. Diddy's attorneys fought the prosecution, arguing that her testimony is advocacy masquerading as expertise. What would an expert witness like Hughes add to a trial? What might she say?

FONTES: She could explain to the jury why somebody like Ms. Ventura would stick around with Mr. Combs, even though he allegedly treats her so terribly. The sexual abuse, the physical abuse, the verbal abuse, degrading names, criticizing her appearance and so on, keeping her up all night for these -- these forced sex sessions. So, they would have -- they would help the jury understand the coercion and the bonding that can occur sometimes between abuser and their victim.

COATES: Many people would say that or ask that question, why would she stay? Can you explain a little bit about the psychology that might explain her choices?

[23:40:02]

FONTES: So, Mr. Ventura was only 19 when she got involved with Mr. Combs. That's about the age of his twins now. And at 19, her brain was still forming. We think brains form -- develop until the people are about 25 years old. So, she -- he offered her a lot. He offered her a 10-record contract. He offered her this life of glamour at the same time as he allegedly was treating her very, very cruelly. We've seen that in the videos, that he was treating her cruelly.

She might stick around because she was afraid of him. She tried to get away. I think that's really important to say. She got away a couple of times, and she was brought back by some of his employees. She wasn't able to get away. She tried to get away at times. And so, there's a psychology when someone is with an abuser in such an intensive way of turning to that abuser for comfort.

We also know that she was addicted to drugs during this time or she was using a lot of drugs during this time, and he was supplying them to her regularly. So that may have all -- may have also made it difficult to get away, the fear.

COATES: Really helpful to help you unpack that. Lisa Fontes, professor, thank you so much.

FONTES: Happy to be here. Thank you.

COATES: My panel is back with me. Mark, I want to go right to you. Calling an expert witness to contextualize some of this testimony from Ventura, that can be helpful to a jury. Right? O'MARA: Well, I think it very much can because this study of victimology, which is what the testimony would be about, does exactly what the prosecution wants to do. It gives explanation for the question that you just asked which is, why did she stay?

Because a lot of people look at an abusive situation who have not been in abusive situations themselves and say, just walk away, just leave. And we know whether it's financial reasons, educational reasons, other reasons why you simply cannot.

Then you look at someone like Cassie and say, well, she had the means, she had the abilities, she had the money, maybe, but still, the idea of that control shows up so much so because it's not really tied to the dollars or a car ride away, it's that subtle emotional connection that an abuser, if he's shown to be one, sort of controls the victim with.

And the idea of the prosecution being able to present that to a jury to explain away why an abusive relationship was a 10-year relationship, I think, is very important. But I will tell you right now, the defense is going to have a heyday with that -- with that expert witness showing all the other possibilities, and it's going to be a very interesting testimony.

COATES: Stacy, on those other possibilities, I mean, there has been a huge focus on the toxic, rocky, tumultuous -- I can give you a whole lot of adjectives about this relationship. Are they spending too much time on that more broadly than the elements of these specific crimes that he's being charged with or are they just trying to lay the foundation for connecting the dots?

SCHNEIDER: The prosecution is trying to make out their case because we always have to keep in mind in this trial, this is an unusual situation. These are normally -- this type of abuse and alleged sexual abuse and coercion, all of these underlying crimes that they're bringing out through testimony, alleged crimes, those are usually state charges. But we have the federal government prosecuting him for sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy and transporting prostitutes across state lines.

So, the government is -- is walking a fine line in a way, and they have to keep up this idea about the coercion, that this -- his -- he was using his, allegedly, business enterprise and the people who worked for him to clean up and bring people women back into the fray who are trying to leave.

But all in all, all this testimony about the abuse and the domestic violence, I'm going to repeat what the defense attorney argued in the opening statement. Domestic violence does not equal sex trafficking, and domestic violence does not equal racketeering conspiracy.

COATES: Well, is there a burden of proof at all times to prove their case? And we will see. They're in their case in chief. Neama, I want to turn to you because we know who's going to be part of the next several witnesses. One of the next two witnesses for the prosecution could be former Danity Kane member, Dawn Richard. She actually sued Combs for alleged battery, for sexual harassment, for false imprisonment. Is it the right move to bring up two accusers back-to- back?

RAHMANI: It is, Laura. This is why. We heard Lisa talk about the psychology of an abuse victim, and Mark touched upon it as well.

[23:45:00]

It's not abnormal to love your abuser. You can be abused, send words of affirmation, and still be physically and sexually abused. But to the extent that there are other victims that are telling the same story of physical and sexual violence who are not in a loving relationship with Sean "Diddy" Combs, that is very helpful.

So, someone like Richard, victim four, victim two, these are individuals that participated in "freak-offs" or were employees of Combs. They're going to tell the same story without the emails and text messages that we saw today.

And jurors might have a tough time believing one victim, even if that victim is Cassie Ventura. But the prosecution wants to overwhelm them with the sheer number of victims telling that same story. And when they go back into that jury deliberation room, it is going to be very difficult for the jurors to disbelieve everyone.

COATES: They want the walks like a duck, sounds like a duck phenomenon to occur in their case. Thank you, everyone.

I mean, an attorney for Combs denied the allegations from Richard and told CNN at the time that Richard just wants money from Combs. There's a lot more to unpack on all of this as the days of the trials continue. Remember, it's going to be an 8 to 10-week trial.

But next, she has been our eyes inside the room where it's all happening. The courtroom artist behind the sketches of day four tells us about the notes that were passed in court and how Diddy responded to his team's big day.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[23:50:00]

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

COATES: Passing sticky notes, laughter on the stand. These are just some of the things you only would have caught by actually being inside the room where it was all happening. It was another day of nail-biting testimony as the defense read Cassie Ventura her personal text messages and conversations with Diddy from years ago. Some of them were pretty graphic, if I'm being honest, and graphic is maybe an understatement.

But how did the room feel as those texts were being read? Let's ask the person who has had her eyes trained on the testimony throughout the entire trial, bringing us the sketches you're looking at right now. Christine Cornell, nice to talk to you, welcome back.

CHRISTINE CORNELL, COURTROOM SKETCH ARTIST: Nice to be here.

COATES: Christine, as I was mentioning, the defense read some sexually explicit text messages between Diddy and Cassie, and it was an open court today. Tell me how Diddy was reacting as Cassie was taking questions about them.

CORNELL: You know, Diddy was thrumming his fingers against his thigh. I think he's -- he's very determined to present this as a, you know, he said, she said. You know, she was really into it. I kind of buy her argument that -- you know, that she was placating him to a super large degree, but I think her enthusiasm for him was, you know, absolutely genuine. And, you know, maybe he can score some points in that regard.

COATES: Did you get the impression that he was scoring points with the jury?

CORNELL: I don't really because I think that the -- the stuff that has been shown to them has been so personally humiliating to her, that they can't -- and -- and also, they saw that horrible video, you know, where they could see where if you cross Diddy, you know, the things fly. Right?

I mean -- so, I think he's got an uphill battle here, but -- but I think that, you know, he's scoring whatever point he can in the sense that there was something, you know, extreme -- an extremely tight bond between them.

COATES: You know, we were also reporting that Diddy was passing sticky notes to his lawyers while Cassie was answering questions about those text messages. Did you see the note passing at all?

CORNELL: Oh, my goodness. The sticky notes were flying. And I happened to be sitting right behind the defense table. So, I did a particular drawing just to try and express it.

He was involved, the attorney sitting next to him was involved and, of course, the woman doing the questioning, you know, would lean over and grab notes on a regular basis. They were -- they were pursuing every angle to, you know, try and cast this in -- as a -- you know, he's not just a pure despicable man, there was a great deal of love between them.

COATES: And really quick, did you think that she seemed nervous when she was being asked questions by the defense more than she had been from the prosecution?

CORNELL: Not particularly. Frankly, I think that, you know, when there's an exposure of this sort and you've resigned yourself or, you know, actually dedicated yourself to, you know, this is what's coming down -- it's very hard to embarrass that woman.

COATES: Christine Cornell, thank you so much for telling us what's going on. We appreciate it. CORNELL: Sure.

[23:55:00]

COATES: Much more on all things Diddy on my brand-new CNN podcast, "Trial by Jury." It's available wherever you get your podcasts.

Thank you so much for watching. "Anderson Cooper 360" is next.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

ANDERSON COOPER, CNN HOST: Tonight on "360," now it's Sean "Diddy" Combs's attorney's chance to question his ex-girlfriend under oath. What his legal team wants to get from her and what she actually said today.

[00:00:01]

Also, tonight, the Trump administration challenge to a pillar of the Constitution citizenship by birth goes before the Supreme Court, and the court could give --