We're gonna get started right here in New York City and a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial against Sean Dede Combs. It was an emotional day in court as Cassie Ventura, Combe's ex girlfriend and former bad boy protege, took the stand and detailed their ten year relationship. It was testimony filled with allegations of physical abuse and control that included drug fueled sexual encounters called freak offs with male escorts under Combe's direction.

We're gonna get started right here in New York City and a federal sex trafficking and racketeering trial against Sean Dede Combs. It was an emotional day in court as Cassie Ventura, Combe's ex girlfriend and former bad boy protege, took the stand and detailed their ten year relationship. It was testimony filled with allegations of physical abuse and control that included drug fueled sexual encounters called freak offs with male escorts under Combe's direction.

Cassie told the jury.

Cassie told the jury.

That Colmbs would often beat her, leaving her with black eyes and bruises all over her body.

That Colmbs would often beat her, leaving her with black eyes and bruises all over her body.

Her lawsuit, filed.

Her lawsuit, filed.

In twenty twenty three, became the framework for the government's case against p Diddy. Cassie testified that her career as an artist ultimately became stifled because she spent most of her time for filling Comb's sexual fantasies. Cassie is back on the stand today with more details of their relationship. Defense attorneys for did he maintain the sexual encounters between he and Cassie were consensual? This is just my opinion. I don't give it. I don't give it, not even a little bit. When you hear the details that we heard. Good luck with the defense deciphering the difference between sex trafficking and racketeering as opposed to domestic abuse.

In twenty twenty three, became the framework for the government's case against p Diddy. Cassie testified that her career as an artist ultimately became stifled because she spent most of her time for filling Comb's sexual fantasies. Cassie is back on the stand today with more details of their relationship. Defense attorneys for did he maintain the sexual encounters between he and Cassie were consensual? This is just my opinion. I don't give it. I don't give it, not even a little bit. When you hear the details that we heard. Good luck with the defense deciphering the difference between sex trafficking and racketeering as opposed to domestic abuse.

And thinking that's going to win them a jury.

And thinking that's going to win them a jury.

I find it very difficult to believe that human beings are going to be able to disassociate themselves from the criminal kind of behavior she's alleged he has done. By the way, there is video of it, and I don't know what level of access is going to be given to it, but it's spanning about fifteen minutes. Remember when you saw on running down the hallway after have but naked with a tower wrapped around him.

I find it very difficult to believe that human beings are going to be able to disassociate themselves from the criminal kind of behavior she's alleged he has done. By the way, there is video of it, and I don't know what level of access is going to be given to it, but it's spanning about fifteen minutes. Remember when you saw on running down the hallway after have but naked with a tower wrapped around him.

Remember that right there? Remember that?

Remember that right there? Remember that?

Remember when he dragged her and threw it to the ground and kicked her. Apparently we only saw a couple of minutes, but that scene took place for about fifteen minutes. And now reportedly anyway it's going to be released if it hasn't already for all to see.

Remember when he dragged her and threw it to the ground and kicked her. Apparently we only saw a couple of minutes, but that scene took place for about fifteen minutes. And now reportedly anyway it's going to be released if it hasn't already for all to see.

I don't know whether that's true or not. I just know that's very.

I don't know whether that's true or not. I just know that's very.

Very bad as it pertains to domestic violence not being a federal com.

Very bad as it pertains to domestic violence not being a federal com.

That's more of a state crime.

That's more of a state crime.

Good luck with convincing the jury of that see my man Christen here, I see my man Galen here, I see my man Rusting here. I got a bunch of people there. Jennifer's in the control room. How are you going to be able to.

Good luck with convincing the jury of that see my man Christen here, I see my man Galen here, I see my man Rusting here. I got a bunch of people there. Jennifer's in the control room. How are you going to be able to.

Hear evidence.

Hear evidence.

Of black eyes, bruises over the body, in urination on her and in her and disassociate that by saying, well, that's not really sex trafficking, that's not really racketeering, that's just domestic violence. So I'm gonna let him off. I don't know about that job. I understand legally, if you're on a jury, that's what you're supposed to do. I don't know if you're going to convince jurors to do that. So in my opinion, it looks very, very very bad for Diddy. It really really does, especially since the defense has all but said, hey, we understand his behavior was reprehensible, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of these two.

Of black eyes, bruises over the body, in urination on her and in her and disassociate that by saying, well, that's not really sex trafficking, that's not really racketeering, that's just domestic violence. So I'm gonna let him off. I don't know about that job. I understand legally, if you're on a jury, that's what you're supposed to do. I don't know if you're going to convince jurors to do that. So in my opinion, it looks very, very very bad for Diddy. It really really does, especially since the defense has all but said, hey, we understand his behavior was reprehensible, but that doesn't mean he's guilty of these two.

Specific federal crimes. I don't know how you do that. I just don't. But that's just me.

Specific federal crimes. I don't know how you do that. I just don't. But that's just me.

Better minds than me might be able to answer that question, which is why I'm going to My next guest joining me now to discuss the trial is CNN Legal analyst Extordinaea the one and knowly Ellie Honing, a frequent contributed to the show. Thank you so much, always good to see you.

Better minds than me might be able to answer that question, which is why I'm going to My next guest joining me now to discuss the trial is CNN Legal analyst Extordinaea the one and knowly Ellie Honing, a frequent contributed to the show. Thank you so much, always good to see you.

Let's get right to it.

Let's get right to it.

I mean, I know Cassie is back on the stand today, but let's talk about yesterday. What were your impressions of what we heard in court from Cassie herself yesterday.

I mean, I know Cassie is back on the stand today, but let's talk about yesterday. What were your impressions of what we heard in court from Cassie herself yesterday.

Well, I think she was doing what prosecutors need her to do, which, first of all, Stephen, is to come across as credible, to come across as sympathetic, to tell her story, to put the jury in her shoes. Remember, in a trial setting like this, the witness is sitting feet away from the jury, five to ten feet. She is right there. And it sounds to me from talking to people in the courtroom and reading her testimony, that what she talked about was clear. I think she detailed some really horrific experiences she went through, and I think she came off as credible. She didn't give the sense that she was stretching or going out of her way to say things that were damaging to Sean Comb. So I think yesterday at the if I was the prosecutor at the end of the day, yesterday I would have said, good, good start.

Well, I think she was doing what prosecutors need her to do, which, first of all, Stephen, is to come across as credible, to come across as sympathetic, to tell her story, to put the jury in her shoes. Remember, in a trial setting like this, the witness is sitting feet away from the jury, five to ten feet. She is right there. And it sounds to me from talking to people in the courtroom and reading her testimony, that what she talked about was clear. I think she detailed some really horrific experiences she went through, and I think she came off as credible. She didn't give the sense that she was stretching or going out of her way to say things that were damaging to Sean Comb. So I think yesterday at the if I was the prosecutor at the end of the day, yesterday I would have said, good, good start.

We got a long ways to go though.

We got a long ways to go though.

One of the things that and I hate bringing this up. I certainly am not trying to to just harm heart in any way. I mean, I just want to say when she gave the details and then she talked about being urinated in her mouth, I just I was so appalled, so taken aback by it. I know most I can't imagine most human beings would feel any differently than me. That doesn't necessarily equate to sex trafficking and racketeering per se. But how damaging is that in a case such of this nature against P Diddy.

One of the things that and I hate bringing this up. I certainly am not trying to to just harm heart in any way. I mean, I just want to say when she gave the details and then she talked about being urinated in her mouth, I just I was so appalled, so taken aback by it. I know most I can't imagine most human beings would feel any differently than me. That doesn't necessarily equate to sex trafficking and racketeering per se. But how damaging is that in a case such of this nature against P Diddy.

Well, it's obviously visceral and revolting testimony for the reasons you said, Steven, And I think it actually does raise that question, which is was this voluntary? Because that's ultimately what the defense is going to be. And when you talk about acts like that that are so stream, it becomes harder and hard to agree that something like that what you just talked about would be done voluntarily. But you raise a really important point, and this is what the defense argued in its opening statement. And by the way, I thought this was an excellent opening statement by the defense. Sometimes you'll see defense layers get up there and say everything you'll hear from the prosecution is Bs, their star witness is a liar, they have bad motives.

Well, it's obviously visceral and revolting testimony for the reasons you said, Steven, And I think it actually does raise that question, which is was this voluntary? Because that's ultimately what the defense is going to be. And when you talk about acts like that that are so stream, it becomes harder and hard to agree that something like that what you just talked about would be done voluntarily. But you raise a really important point, and this is what the defense argued in its opening statement. And by the way, I thought this was an excellent opening statement by the defense. Sometimes you'll see defense layers get up there and say everything you'll hear from the prosecution is Bs, their star witness is a liar, they have bad motives.

That's not what the defense did here.

That's not what the defense did here.

I think they very smartly said I'm paraphrasing here, but they said he's not a good guy.

I think they very smartly said I'm paraphrasing here, but they said he's not a good guy.

He's done really bad things. He had a drug problem.

He's done really bad things. He had a drug problem.

He was domestically abusive of Cassie. However, the defense argued that is not what he's charged with.

He was domestically abusive of Cassie. However, the defense argued that is not what he's charged with.

And they're right.

And they're right.

This is not a domestic violence case, this is not an assault case. It is a federal racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking case. And so I think a big part of the defense and we'll see this, I think when Cassie gets cross examined, probably late in the day on Wednesday, is you don't have to believe she's a full liar, Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Even if what she says is true, this relationship, the defense will argue, was consensual and it does not make Sean Combs a federal racket Here.

This is not a domestic violence case, this is not an assault case. It is a federal racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking case. And so I think a big part of the defense and we'll see this, I think when Cassie gets cross examined, probably late in the day on Wednesday, is you don't have to believe she's a full liar, Ladies and gentlemen of the jury. Even if what she says is true, this relationship, the defense will argue, was consensual and it does not make Sean Combs a federal racket Here.

I thought they did a really effective job of articulating.

I thought they did a really effective job of articulating.

But Ellie, what about the notion that it's twelve jurors, right, it's twelve jurors, is six alternates.

But Ellie, what about the notion that it's twelve jurors, right, it's twelve jurors, is six alternates.

They're human beings.

They're human beings.

And there is such a thing as hearing about acts, hearing about an.

And there is such a thing as hearing about acts, hearing about an.

Individual that's so repulsive, so.

Individual that's so repulsive, so.

Heinous, that you find yourself wanting to give him even if the charges don't necessarily correlate with what you're hearing. We're talking sex trafficking and racketeering. But you might have people up there and says, I don't give a damn about the specifics one hundred charges. His behind needs to be in jail. How do you wore that off?

Heinous, that you find yourself wanting to give him even if the charges don't necessarily correlate with what you're hearing. We're talking sex trafficking and racketeering. But you might have people up there and says, I don't give a damn about the specifics one hundred charges. His behind needs to be in jail. How do you wore that off?

If you're the defense one, that is a dynamic in the court.

If you're the defense one, that is a dynamic in the court.

You know, I practiced in that courthouse for much of my career in the Southern District of New York. People have this misconception that the jury is sort of this monolith. All it is is twelve regular twelve people from Manhattan and the Bronx, maybe Westchepter County. They are subject to emotion like anyone else. And yeah, if you're the prosecution, you do want to inflame the jury. There's limits, but you want to show them that video. You want them hating him, you want them being disgusted, And I think what The trick is the difficulty for the defense layers is you have to prevail upon the jury say, look, you are not here to rule with.

You know, I practiced in that courthouse for much of my career in the Southern District of New York. People have this misconception that the jury is sort of this monolith. All it is is twelve regular twelve people from Manhattan and the Bronx, maybe Westchepter County. They are subject to emotion like anyone else. And yeah, if you're the prosecution, you do want to inflame the jury. There's limits, but you want to show them that video. You want them hating him, you want them being disgusted, And I think what The trick is the difficulty for the defense layers is you have to prevail upon the jury say, look, you are not here to rule with.

Your emotions or your heart.

Your emotions or your heart.

You are not even here to rule on whether he's a good person or a horrible person. You are here to rule on whether the prosecution has proved the specific federal crimes they've charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, by the way, I don't think the prosecution is going to be unable to prove its charges, but it is important to note that the charges are more dramatic and sort of more far flung than just domestic violence and just assault. They have to show, essentially that Shawan Combs presided over a criminal organization that had structures and procedures in order to promote and protect his career.

You are not even here to rule on whether he's a good person or a horrible person. You are here to rule on whether the prosecution has proved the specific federal crimes they've charged beyond a reasonable doubt. Now, by the way, I don't think the prosecution is going to be unable to prove its charges, but it is important to note that the charges are more dramatic and sort of more far flung than just domestic violence and just assault. They have to show, essentially that Shawan Combs presided over a criminal organization that had structures and procedures in order to promote and protect his career.

Most of what was heard yesterday was about sex, drug use, domestic violence, as you just reiterated, but all of those essentially, especially the last. The latter is a state crime, by the way, but this is a federal case. Has the prosecution made the connection to the federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering yet?

Most of what was heard yesterday was about sex, drug use, domestic violence, as you just reiterated, but all of those essentially, especially the last. The latter is a state crime, by the way, but this is a federal case. Has the prosecution made the connection to the federal charges of sex trafficking and racketeering yet?

In your eyes?

In your eyes?

So no, not yet. I mean they're still early in their case, but I think they'll get there.

So no, not yet. I mean they're still early in their case, but I think they'll get there.

The racketeering laws that I used to use, these laws charge these laws all the time, are very broad and what they allow federal prosecutors to do, and again this is a federal prosecucution, is to pull in certain things that would otherwise be state crimes. So for example, domestic violence or just an assault like we see on that video, that would ordinarily not be a federal crime, but you can bring it into a federal court as evidence of the racketeering enterprise.

The racketeering laws that I used to use, these laws charge these laws all the time, are very broad and what they allow federal prosecutors to do, and again this is a federal prosecucution, is to pull in certain things that would otherwise be state crimes. So for example, domestic violence or just an assault like we see on that video, that would ordinarily not be a federal crime, but you can bring it into a federal court as evidence of the racketeering enterprise.

And so yeah, the allegation here is.

And so yeah, the allegation here is.

The racketeering enterprise committed a bunch of different crimes, including not just sexual assault and interstate prostitution, but gun possession and drug use and obstruction. And I'll tell you one other interesting feeature of the charge here, Steven, racketeering definitionally means an organization, a group of people. I used to charge twenty five person racketeering cases. I was doing bob cases, so it was more of a traditional setup. Sean Combs is alleged to be a racketeering enterprise of one. There are other participants alluded to, but he's the only person who's ever indicted, is the only person sitting at that defense table and look for his defense team to say, they're overkilling this. They're telling you the man was a one man criminal enterprise, and I think prosecutors are going to respond saying, you bet, that is what we're saying.

The racketeering enterprise committed a bunch of different crimes, including not just sexual assault and interstate prostitution, but gun possession and drug use and obstruction. And I'll tell you one other interesting feeature of the charge here, Steven, racketeering definitionally means an organization, a group of people. I used to charge twenty five person racketeering cases. I was doing bob cases, so it was more of a traditional setup. Sean Combs is alleged to be a racketeering enterprise of one. There are other participants alluded to, but he's the only person who's ever indicted, is the only person sitting at that defense table and look for his defense team to say, they're overkilling this. They're telling you the man was a one man criminal enterprise, and I think prosecutors are going to respond saying, you bet, that is what we're saying.

You know, Cassie Ventura is on the stand yesterday and today. We've seen images footage of her being beat We've heard about her being urinated on. She's an expectant mother, she's about to give birth, she's nine months pregnant. What kind of role, what imagery she provided with being pregnant do you think that could potentially have on a jury ticularly considering her testimony at this moment in time.

You know, Cassie Ventura is on the stand yesterday and today. We've seen images footage of her being beat We've heard about her being urinated on. She's an expectant mother, she's about to give birth, she's nine months pregnant. What kind of role, what imagery she provided with being pregnant do you think that could potentially have on a jury ticularly considering her testimony at this moment in time.

I think that absolutely matters. I take a very humanistic view of trials. I think they're all about the people and the personalities that are there in the courtroom. And you know, it's interesting because the defense wanted to prohibit her from walking in. Normally, the way it works is the door opens at the back of the courthouse and the witness walks right down the middle of the aisle, right past the jurors, and the defense said, no, judge, let's get her seated first, so she doesn't have to do that so it's less obvious that she's pregnant, and the judge denied that. The judge said, no, we're going to treat her like any other witness. So they obviously know she is very, you know, far along in her pregnancy.

I think that absolutely matters. I take a very humanistic view of trials. I think they're all about the people and the personalities that are there in the courtroom. And you know, it's interesting because the defense wanted to prohibit her from walking in. Normally, the way it works is the door opens at the back of the courthouse and the witness walks right down the middle of the aisle, right past the jurors, and the defense said, no, judge, let's get her seated first, so she doesn't have to do that so it's less obvious that she's pregnant, and the judge denied that. The judge said, no, we're going to treat her like any other witness. So they obviously know she is very, you know, far along in her pregnancy.

They can see it.

They can see it.

She's sitting right in front of them, and of course that elicits some degree of sympathy.

She's sitting right in front of them, and of course that elicits some degree of sympathy.

It humanizes her. It reminds them that she is a much She already is a mother, but she's a mother to.

It humanizes her. It reminds them that she is a much She already is a mother, but she's a mother to.

Be, and you have to take that into consideration if you're the defense cross examining her. Now, first of all, it's going to be a female defense lawyer who cross examines her. I mean, if they send a male to cross examine her, that is malpractice. And you know, you have to go after the prosecution's key witness. You have to be pointed and aggressive, but you also don't want to come across as being domineering or a bully. And so I think the fact that she's in her third trimester would also play in there.

Be, and you have to take that into consideration if you're the defense cross examining her. Now, first of all, it's going to be a female defense lawyer who cross examines her. I mean, if they send a male to cross examine her, that is malpractice. And you know, you have to go after the prosecution's key witness. You have to be pointed and aggressive, but you also don't want to come across as being domineering or a bully. And so I think the fact that she's in her third trimester would also play in there.

Ellie helped me out here. I mean, just just play with me for a little bit here. Why would it be malpractice? I mean, for obvious, I know the answer, but I want you to articulate it to the audience. Why would it be malpracticed to send a male attorney up there to question Cassie Ventur. What if it were an absolutely brilliant attorney.

Ellie helped me out here. I mean, just just play with me for a little bit here. Why would it be malpractice? I mean, for obvious, I know the answer, but I want you to articulate it to the audience. Why would it be malpracticed to send a male attorney up there to question Cassie Ventur. What if it were an absolutely brilliant attorney.

Who was suave, who know how to be very.

Who was suave, who know how to be very.

Very charming to a jury, etc. Why would it be malpractice to send a male attorney up there? The question of Cassie Venturer educate our audience A.

Very charming to a jury, etc. Why would it be malpractice to send a male attorney up there? The question of Cassie Venturer educate our audience A.

Lot of it's just an appearance issue.

Lot of it's just an appearance issue.

Look, this case is about a male abusing females, and so look, cross examination could get pointed, and you don't want to be in a position where the jury's watching a male defense lawyer, you know, not literally, but figuratively beat up on a very pregnant female witness slash victim. So I think there's a sensitivity there. Also, Look, there may need to be cross examination about some of the nuances and details of the sexual activity, the freak offs. Look, there was testimony, For example, Cassie Ventura testified that at times she was made to do these freak offs while she was menstruating. And so those are questions that are much more comfortably asked by a female of a female than a male of a female.

Look, this case is about a male abusing females, and so look, cross examination could get pointed, and you don't want to be in a position where the jury's watching a male defense lawyer, you know, not literally, but figuratively beat up on a very pregnant female witness slash victim. So I think there's a sensitivity there. Also, Look, there may need to be cross examination about some of the nuances and details of the sexual activity, the freak offs. Look, there was testimony, For example, Cassie Ventura testified that at times she was made to do these freak offs while she was menstruating. And so those are questions that are much more comfortably asked by a female of a female than a male of a female.

And my room is saying this, Ellie, does this sound even worse than R Kelly?

And my room is saying this, Ellie, does this sound even worse than R Kelly?

It's you know, it's it's interesting how you look at it. I mean, R Kelly, I think there was probably more violence. I mean, I know we have the videotape in this case. The number of victims I think was more with R.

It's you know, it's it's interesting how you look at it. I mean, R Kelly, I think there was probably more violence. I mean, I know we have the videotape in this case. The number of victims I think was more with R.

Kelly. But boy, the the.

Kelly. But boy, the the.

Sort of full core domination of these women mentally, physically, sexually, career wise in the Sean Combs case, I think is in a different category.

Sort of full core domination of these women mentally, physically, sexually, career wise in the Sean Combs case, I think is in a different category.

Last question for you, Elie, Cassie's husband.

Last question for you, Elie, Cassie's husband.

I'm being told he may be called to testify in this trial, yet he was in court on Monday. First of all, is that ordinary? Is that something that's typical? I don't know whether or not that is. And what do you think about the notion of him giving testimony in all of this?

I'm being told he may be called to testify in this trial, yet he was in court on Monday. First of all, is that ordinary? Is that something that's typical? I don't know whether or not that is. And what do you think about the notion of him giving testimony in all of this?

So it's interesting because normally, if somebody is a potential witness, they're supposed to be what we call sequestered, meaning they're not supposed to be in the courtroom because you don't want witness A seeing what witness B is saying, because they might conform their testimony to be consistent or to contradict that. So ordinarily, whichever side is thinking of calling a witness should make sure that that witness is not in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. If he is called, look, you know, if either side needs him to come to the stand, they will subpoena him.

So it's interesting because normally, if somebody is a potential witness, they're supposed to be what we call sequestered, meaning they're not supposed to be in the courtroom because you don't want witness A seeing what witness B is saying, because they might conform their testimony to be consistent or to contradict that. So ordinarily, whichever side is thinking of calling a witness should make sure that that witness is not in the courtroom while other witnesses are testifying. If he is called, look, you know, if either side needs him to come to the stand, they will subpoena him.

He will have to take the stand. I'm not sure what his relevance would be.

He will have to take the stand. I'm not sure what his relevance would be.

It could be that the defense thinks he undercuts some aspects of Cassidy's testimony. Maybe she's had conversations with him that contradict things she said on the stand. Or on the other hand, maybe he supports some of the things she said. Maybe he met her at a time when she made certain statements to him that could be relevant now. So that would be a risky move, I think for either side. But you know, these are high stakes scenarios, stephen A, and sometimes you have to make tricky calls.

It could be that the defense thinks he undercuts some aspects of Cassidy's testimony. Maybe she's had conversations with him that contradict things she said on the stand. Or on the other hand, maybe he supports some of the things she said. Maybe he met her at a time when she made certain statements to him that could be relevant now. So that would be a risky move, I think for either side. But you know, these are high stakes scenarios, stephen A, and sometimes you have to make tricky calls.

So we'll see this.

So we'll see this.

This reminds me of being back there at the prosecutor's office and are we happy with what we got or do we need to roll the dice here on another witness.

This reminds me of being back there at the prosecutor's office and are we happy with what we got or do we need to roll the dice here on another witness.

Absolute last question, if you're the defense team, how are you feeling today?

Absolute last question, if you're the defense team, how are you feeling today?

I'm feeling okay thus far, because if I'm the defense team, my strategy is, you can believe Cassie Ventura. Even if you believe her though, this was a ten to eleven year consensual relationship, and so I'm in a position on the one hand where i don't have to convince the jury that this eight months pregnant, likable, well spoken, sympathetic woman is some kind of lunatic liar. On the other hand, though, let me give the other side. I'd be worried though, because that videotape is so bad, and the visceral nature of her testimony and what she went through is so shocking. I'd be worried about what you talked about a few minutes ago, Steven, which is just is the overwhelming disgust for this guy, for Diddy gonna just be so much that overwhelms everything else in that.

I'm feeling okay thus far, because if I'm the defense team, my strategy is, you can believe Cassie Ventura. Even if you believe her though, this was a ten to eleven year consensual relationship, and so I'm in a position on the one hand where i don't have to convince the jury that this eight months pregnant, likable, well spoken, sympathetic woman is some kind of lunatic liar. On the other hand, though, let me give the other side. I'd be worried though, because that videotape is so bad, and the visceral nature of her testimony and what she went through is so shocking. I'd be worried about what you talked about a few minutes ago, Steven, which is just is the overwhelming disgust for this guy, for Diddy gonna just be so much that overwhelms everything else in that.

Now, apologies, you just brought up something very very quickly, the fact that the whole tape is the whole tape has been released.

Now, apologies, you just brought up something very very quickly, the fact that the whole tape is the whole tape has been released.

Yeah, so look, the I don't know whether we'll get to see it in the public, but that tape is a crucial piece of evidence you're gonna need. The jury's gonna need to see and consider every.

Yeah, so look, the I don't know whether we'll get to see it in the public, but that tape is a crucial piece of evidence you're gonna need. The jury's gonna need to see and consider every.

Bit of that.

Bit of that.

And they actually had Cassidy Ventura narrating it sort of piece by piece, which I think is really important, a because it bolsters Cassidy Ventura's testimony, but be it allows a firsthand participant, the victim, to tell the jury exactly what they're seeing there, what's happening each step of the way.

And they actually had Cassidy Ventura narrating it sort of piece by piece, which I think is really important, a because it bolsters Cassidy Ventura's testimony, but be it allows a firsthand participant, the victim, to tell the jury exactly what they're seeing there, what's happening each step of the way.

Kelly Honik, CNN Legal and list extraordin there right here on the steven Ate.

Kelly Honik, CNN Legal and list extraordin there right here on the steven Ate.

Mike.

Mike.

Sure, appreciate you, buddy, Thank you so much for your time. Man, I know you right, thank you all right

Sure, appreciate you, buddy, Thank you so much for your time. Man, I know you right, thank you all right

M hm

M hm