Episode Transcript
[00:00:00] Speaker A: Foreign.
It's Lacey and I'm Lauren and welcome to another episode of the Llamas podcast.
[00:00:11] Speaker B: And so today we're gonna kind of talk about the P. Diddy trial, but not so much probably in an aspect of like all that. We may talk about some of the drama with it, but kind of like the legal sides of it and like TMZ has leaked like the verdict sheet, kind of going over that type stuff.
So that's what we're going to talk about today and we hope you enjoy it.
[00:00:32] Speaker A: Yeah. And before we get started, so I being on a podcast, also listen to a lot of podcasts. And so Lauren, I was listening to one and y' all know my obsession with teen moms. So it was one that has an episode and she brought on like another teen mom. They hadn't seen each other in years, but one of the teen moms said has said seven kids by four dads and she had made the comment that all our baby dads or are stay at home dads.
And the per the guest on her podcast said, you know, how could you do that?
[00:01:06] Speaker B: What?
[00:01:07] Speaker A: Why do you not have standards and stuff like that? So my question is, do you believe there is a double standard with stay at home moms and dads and did you think it was fair to look down on stay at home dads? I have thoughts, but I want to hear yours first.
[00:01:26] Speaker B: I definitely think there's a double standard because I feel like I don't know if you hear, I guess in today's time, I don't think we see quite as many stay at home moms. I think most of us are working moms and I think like we all need. A lot of people don't have the funds to have a stay at home mom anymore, but there are situations. Like I know a girl that goes to my church and her husband, she's an attorney and her husband was a school teacher and daycare was really expensive and her child kept getting sick and she was the higher earner in the situation. So he took a year. He's back working now, but for a year or two, pretty much he was a stay at home dad. And I do feel like I didn't judge him, but I do feel like there was probably more judgment in stay at home dads than stay at home moms. For sure.
I don't think there needs to be. I think it's whatever works for the family. Like for us, I'm the higher earner in my house, but my husband has really good insurance so like he has to work for insurance. But if one of us was going to stay at home, it would probably be him.
And it's not anything my husband makes decent. Actually neither one of us can stay home. We need the money. But if one of us was going to, it would have to be him because I am the higher earner and we don't have any. I don't think my husband want to be a stay at home dad. But I do think there is more of a stigma to it because I think everybody has that stigma that men should be working and earning. And sometimes that's not always it. And it doesn't mean like.
So there was this family that they lived in union, but the mom was a doctor and the dad had like a degree, like a very specialized degree in horticulture landscape. But she made a lot more money as a doctor and the kids had a lot of needs and it was like not needs as far as like they just had school stuff, you know, getting to and from. It was a lot easier for him to be a stay at home dad than to pay babysitters because they had no family around, than to pay babysitters to come get their kids all the time. So it worked out. So I don't think there needs to be a judgment. I don't care either way.
But I do think there is much more of a stigma on stay at home dads.
[00:03:36] Speaker A: I am 100% with you. So I kind of was really offended by this too.
I am also. I am, I make more financially. My husband is a teacher and I wish he we could have afforded being a stay at home dad. He always carried us with insurance as well. And you already know Luke has special needs, so but it was, it's really hard on us as a family unit because like Luke as a baby would have so many appointments because Mark has limited days off. And I'm very fortunate, you know, that I do run my own law practice. But what that meant is I was always doing appointments by myself. So every blood draw where he's kicking and screaming and crying, it was always falling on me. Every time we have to go to Augusta or Charleston was always falling on me to go and do all of that by myself.
And I'm not saying like, you know, with Mark, if he's a stay at home dad would probably, I don't even know that he would go. I still would have gone to some, but it could have been a little bit more like even out, at least with appointments.
But I would have loved for him to be a stay at home dad at least into the boys were in school full time or maybe even halftime. And still, I still would have loved for him to like coach because I know he needed. He still needs an outlet.
And that would be a career still where he has his inability to move up because I know that it's such a priority. But in a realistic world, I would have loved for Mark to have stayed home with our boys. I think it would have made our whole family unit work a lot better and make it easier for both of us, you know, as long as he still could work as a coach and still have that job. Because I think stepping out of that career for a few years and stepping back in would have been really hard to advance, if that makes sense. I wouldn't have wanted him to make that sacrifice for our family.
But I don't think teaching is that. Like, I think if he had stepped away for teaching for a few years, it wouldn't have been anything to jump back in. But with insurance, that wasn't feasible. And I also think with the stigma, like you said, I don't know that my husband would have wanted to do it even if I did have insurance. So we could have afforded it just because there is that stigma where men are supposed to provide. But you know, we don't think anything if a wife says, you know what, I'm going to step back from my career to stay at home because that's what's best for the family unit and that's what's best for my husband. And when you reverse it, and if my husband said, hey, I'm going to step back for my career because that's what's best for our family unit to support my wife, they're going to be looked at as lazy. And I don't like that at all because it makes it harder on us.
[00:06:20] Speaker B: In today's times, I feel like we do kind of judge stay at home moms more. I mean, like, I just think there's like that whole anti trad wife thing.
So I do think there's a little bit more judgment. I stay at home in general.
I just think in general there's like a little more judgment. But another thing you said, kind of a little off topic, but with this is like going to appointments and stuff for your kids or when your kids are sick. So one thing that this is like being a business owner, that sucks. People think because you're a business owner, you just can do whatever you want because it's your business. And so like what sucks is like my husband has my husband Works for a company where he has very limited sick days. If he falls out sick, he gets pointed and then he will get fired.
And they do not care. Hopefully nobody from his company ever watches this. But they saw, like, caring about people. They had this whole mentality at the start that they cared. No, they don't. Like, my dad was in the hospital one day and my other kid was sick and they like pointed him for having to leave. So. But anyways. But because of that, it's like, well, you own your own business, so you should have no issues like getting your kids to the doctor. No, like, owning your own business does not mean that we just get to do what we want for the most part. Like, I just had a day full of clients lined up and because my husband's gonna get fired for working for this company if he calls out. But I'm gonna have to like, sacrifice making money and meeting with these clients and possibly getting people pissed off. So I just. When you mention stuff about having knowledge go the appointments feel like that pain. And the fact that because of our lines of work, we do have more flexibility, but it doesn't mean it doesn't come with consequences for us because we don't work, we don't make money kind of thing.
And it can really piss off your clients. And a judge does not always find it appropriate that your kid's sick. So you just miss court because you don't have, like somebody to care for them.
[00:08:09] Speaker A: Yeah, here's the thing too.
[00:08:10] Speaker B: So.
[00:08:11] Speaker A: So if you want a day off, right, because we should still get days off. But you've done all the sick appointments for your kid because Wes is going to get pointed. Are you going to take those days that you need off?
[00:08:22] Speaker B: No, because you got to make up. Like, I've seen that happen a lot. I was like, I would have like a day plan that wasn't more of a day off, but just like a catch up day to just like kind of like go at my own pace, get caught up on stuff. But because there was a sick day or something came up, I had to reschedule all of that. And so my, like, more relaxed day at work became busy. And like, I do thankfully have a mom and dad that live near me that can help. But if my child has like the flu, the last thing I want to do is ask my mom to come up and get sick when I've already been exposed to my child. And that's another thing. When your kids get sick, then you get sick. So then you have two weeks out where you did not want to take any time off and now it's just lately. But I just can't ask somebody to care for if it's one thing, if it's a cold or like something little. But if it's something big, the last thing I'll do is get somebody else sick. And I've already exercised and can I.
[00:09:15] Speaker A: Just say taking our kids to an appointment or taking care of our kids sick is not a day off. That's not a day off, that's not a vacation day.
[00:09:24] Speaker B: I'd rather be at work.
[00:09:26] Speaker A: Yeah, I'd rather be at work and everybody be on schedule and healthy.
You're Wes's point system. My sister's on the same point system and I'm not going to disclose details because it's not my business. But my oldest niece on my side had to go to the doctor for something important medically and because it needed to be addressed like asap.
And so my sister couldn't get off work because she would have been pointed because it was so soon. They made the appointment and she had to have a follow up with a specialist and, and she wasn't even able to go with that. And I, my, I felt so bad for my sister because I knew like what a big deal this was and like she really needed to, to be there for her daughter and because of her work and you know, she has to financially contribute and pay for you know, all of her bills and stuff like that. She just couldn't afford it. And I know she's so glad to have my mom be able to take her and that's the next best person to be there for her in this kind of thing.
And everything's okay now. Thank goodness she's got more follow ups down the road just to make sure everything still stays fine. But so she is, you know, healthy and okay, but still like it just sucks that my sister couldn't be there because I know like in my, you know, I would definitely wanted to have been there to just make sure and ask the doctor any questions that I had just to make sure everything was okay.
[00:10:48] Speaker B: Yeah, it is like I think that's where people don't always realize there's drawbacks almost at every job you have. Owning your own business is awesome in a lot of ways but we lose money when we don't work but at the same point if we have to take that time off, we mostly can where you don't worried about getting fired like my husband is and your sister is over missing for real reasons.
[00:11:11] Speaker A: True, true.
So I know, we are way over in that question.
You. Are you ready to move into our topic?
[00:11:21] Speaker B: Yeah. So today we're just going to talk a little bit. Okay. So we're film. Just so y' all know, we are filming this on a Tuesday, and at this point, the verdict has not came back for P. Diddy. We're filming this one a little early because we are on a holiday week. So if it does come back before this drops.
We didn't know that at the time, but I kind of wanted to talk about some things that maybe aren't. You know, I don't want to get in the deep conversation about the baby oil and all that stuff of his craziness. I was kind of thinking more of, like, there's some things that have happened in his trial that maybe people don't understand. And just in general in trial. And so I saw that the verdict sheet came out. TMZ leaked it. It is looks like it's actually a clock document from the court. So I'm guessing they went to the court and got it, but kind of like going over what a jury has to go in there and make decisions of and how they make these decisions, because just. And this is one thing I don't know if you've seen Lacey, and I kind of wanted your opinion on it.
[00:12:21] Speaker A: Yeah.
[00:12:22] Speaker B: Did you say one of the jurors, two hours after they, like, put them out to deliberation, one of the jurors said that they're not going to be able to up handle, I guess, fairly prosecute, like fairly making a decision in this case. And so they asked the question straight to the judge, sent the judge a note what would make. So this juror saying they don't think they can do it. I think the judge sent them back to jury deliberation room because he said it hadn't been long enough because it only been like two hours. I guess they were trying to say they were going to be a hung jury because this person wasn't going to actively participate. So as a criminal defense attorney, what would you argue there and how often? I know when I clerked for Judge Cole, almost every jury case, we had alternates. So at what point would you want to pull the alternate in? How does that work as part of it?
[00:13:13] Speaker A: So was he. Was the juror saying that they didn't agree with the rest of the jurors, or were they saying they couldn't be fair and impartial?
[00:13:20] Speaker B: They said they could not handle their responsibilities in the case according to what TMZ posted. So let's take it out with a grain of salt as tmz. But pretty much, I don't think it was. There was a hung jury. I think they're saying I don't want to make a decision is what it sounded like from the article.
[00:13:36] Speaker A: Yeah, I just think there would need to be more information. So if a juror came back and said that I can't do my job as a juror because everybody votes one way and I'm the opposite, and I'm getting come at, then I think at that point, there needs to be a mistrial because you don't have a unanimous verdict. And what I think happens in cases, and I know has happened in one of mine, is when people are split, usually the major majority, if the judge keeps sending them back to discuss it, eventually they just want to get out of there. And I think they change their vote just to leave, even though they don't feel that way and didn't feel that way right about the evidence. And I think that really hurts our criminal justice system.
So there's something called an Allen charge. Lauren, you probably are familiar that with Judge Cole.
So if a jury comes back and says that they can't make a decision, a judge is allowed to give an Allen charge that basically says, you've been selected to make a decision. Get back there and make one.
I mean, it's nicer, fluffier terms, and every state's Allen charge is different, but.
And we have definitely, as defense lawyers, there's a lot of case law on what the words should be. An Allen charge. There are certain things that are reversible on an appeal if a judge says during an Allen charge. So it's actually very complicated.
But I don't agree with the Allen charge, because what I think should happen is there should be a polling of the jury.
And if you've got like an 8, 4 split, 7, like something significant, very close to 50, 50, it just needs to be a mistrial or even 11 to 1.
I mean, I just think what you think, as long as there's been a significant time, like if you just go back there and you've discussed it for half an hour, you know, maybe then you do the Allen charge. But I just think there needs to be more to it, because I think, and I know actually that people change their minds because they don't feel like they can speak up for themselves and fight the majority, even if they are strongly convinced of somebody's guilt or not guilt. And I don't like that is that that is what Your job is as a juror. So I had a case one time.
The jury deliberation was as long as the trial. The trial was just under two days. The jury deliberated for two more days.
And so I believe. And we had two juries come back and I, you know, it was not ruled in my favor when they disclosed it, but they said that there was outside influences and, you know, they just were. They felt they were getting yelled at and screamed at, and so they felt like they had to change their vote. And I think that's more common than what you think. So I would want to know if it was that situation, because in that situation I would just want a mistrial. Of course, a juror, a judge is going to be very hesitant to do that, especially in the P. Diddy case, because of how many witnesses there are, how much time in court, resources and finances it has taken.
But I also think this is somebody's life and it has to be fair. Now, if they're just saying they didn't like the case, you should disclose it at the beginning. So if you just don't like and you don't think you can be fair and impartial at this point, and you have biases that have come up that you didn't know about before, I think at that point, as long as they haven't contributed those bias to the jury deliberations, that an alternate should step in. But I would want to know more information.
[00:17:05] Speaker B: So do you think this could possibly, if he is found guilty, would this be a appealable thing? But, like, maybe the judge, like if a juror comes and says this and the judge just tells him, get back in the jury room, make a decision. Is this something that is appealable?
[00:17:20] Speaker A: So it's going to be appealable, but the real question is, is it going to be a success, successful appeal? And I don't think so. If there is an overwhelming substantial amount of evidence of guilt and they come out guilty, then I do not believe that is going to be reversible error.
So there are many issues that you can appeal. The question is, is it reversible error? Is a higher court going to say that this prejudice the case to send it back for a new trial? I just don't think if they're, if they're saying they just can't do their job anymore and the judge sends them back? I think there's going to have to be a lot more information that's prejudicial, that's going to affect the verdict to make it successful on appeal. It Certainly will be an issue for them to raise. I just don't know with that basic information without more that it would be successful.
[00:18:17] Speaker B: Okay, now kind of moving on to this jury verdict sheet. So like, have you ever had a racketeering conspiracy case? I feel like this is a weird kind of charge.
[00:18:27] Speaker A: I haven't, but I do want to bring in that trial I just talked about. That's interesting too. There are lower offense, like lesser included offenses. Right. So not on this one I can see.
And I do like how this is laid out. One thing, funny thing. So I'm looking at these forms. It is always a fight as to whether or not not guilty or guilty goes first.
The judges tend to put not guilty because it has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. But that has been argued before. There's a reason not proved and not guilties come first. We have fought very hard to make sure that that is done.
So.
But in that case, there was what my client was charged with on one page and the second page was a lesser included. And when it, when they were deliberating those two days, they, they didn't think from the judge's instructions they could, they could read the second page until they decided the first page.
So I it that that that kind of sucked because I think with how long they deliberated, they would have found my client guilty of at least a lesser included if they had known they could at least look at that second page. So I do like that the way that this is grouped together all together as a packet instead of like one individual.
I think that's more fair, to be honest.
[00:20:04] Speaker B: So I've shared my screen just so everybody can see this.
So yeah, like one thing I thought was interesting is like racketeering is like you have to be charged of like two things to make it racketeering. And I didn't realize, I really don't know much about this, but you have to be in charge of two bad acts pretty much.
And so like here they're listing out all the bad acts he could have been like a part of. But what's crazy is he's actually not charged individually with any of these acts is that he had to do two of them to get racketeering.
[00:20:37] Speaker A: So basically proved has to be checked at least twice to find them guilty of how do you find the defendant?
[00:20:44] Speaker B: Yes. So he has to be pretty much saying that they proved that he was involved in kidnapping or witness tampering or all that sex trafficking. And what's crazy is a lot of this really wasn't even the point of the trial. So I guess to me it's just kind of different to see. And then like really it was really the sex trafficking and what he did to his victim. And that's only on count two and three. So it's kind of, I don't know, his trial is a little different because I feel like in the court of public opinion and everything we're seeing, is he guilty of like raping people, Is he guilty of this stuff? But really none of that's even really the charges really is racketeering, saying he did two bad things.
[00:21:25] Speaker A: Yeah.
And for, you know, going into some of the details of the case, first off, I want to say that I think Cassandra was extremely credible. I found her very credible. I believed everything that she said and I loved.
I just admired her because P. Diddy is such a public figure and I can't imagine how like nervous she had to have been with children and a husband to get up there and talk about and disclose these horrible memories that she, I'm sure, just wants to put behind her and try to move forward as much as you can. I think in that situation there's always going to be, you know, trauma from it.
So I definitely believed everything that, you know, that she said.
And I just, like I said, I thought it was very like. I definitely looked up to her for standing up at that, on that stand and testifying against him in such a public case. I, I just admired her strength.
I do. Did you see where the defense attorney wanted her? What do they wanted her to do? Already on the stand said the jury couldn't see that she was pregnant.
[00:22:50] Speaker B: I didn't even see that.
[00:22:52] Speaker A: Yeah, so cuz she's pregnant, they didn't want to have the jury empathize with her more. I honestly don't think that would have mattered if she, if even if she wasn't, I still think a jury would have found her credible for sure.
But because there was other witnesses also to back her testimony up, which strengthened her credibility.
But I'm not mad at the defense attorneys and I know some people were disgusted. You know, they have a job to do and they're getting paid a lot of money to do the job and you have to come up and you have to think about anything and everything and to think about that was fair and to throw it at the judge I think was fair. It got denied rightfully. So that's not going to be something that you can appeal.
But you know, you just, you make the argument, see what happens and see what shakes out and then Go with it. I mean, I don't think it was a disrespect towards her as a witness, and I don't think it's anything nasty that the defense lawyer did. Like, they have a job to do. That's something that they clearly thought about and thought that might impact the jury. And this was before they heard her testimony and the testimony of other witnesses. So, you know, they're trying to protect the case as much as possible, which is their job to do.
And so I don't know, they just got hated for. And I just think, you know, there's some things that we have to do and it's our job, but guess it's our job, we leave it and we go home. It does not mean that our morality aligns with things that we do in our job sometimes.
[00:24:22] Speaker B: Well, also, I think, like taking a step back, it's not just a job in the sense that you are entitled a constitutional right to a trial and you are entitled to be represented in that trial.
[00:24:34] Speaker A: And so you're a finger trial.
[00:24:36] Speaker B: Yes. And those attorneys put their biases or whatever they think aside to make the best argument for you in that time frame. And, you know, pregnant women do get more sympathy. So whether you. I mean, not from everybody, I'm pretty sure there's a lot of people that be like, well, that's on her. She's pregnant, whatever. But there are like, if you saw other moms in the group and you're like, oh, I remembered that and like that type stuff. But no, it's not.
It's their constitutional right to have a trial. And this is what they're getting. And guilty or innocent, you deserve the best defense possible. And that's what the attorney's job to do is. And at the end of the day, they were just doing their job and providing their constitutional right.
[00:25:17] Speaker A: And I scheduled a trial when I was pregnant because that's what I wanted is empathy from the jury. And I thought it would help and unfortunately got continued. And I think if it hadn't, it would help me out. But yeah, I also tried to use it to my advantage with the jury when I was pregnant as a defense lawyer, and it was a very woman defending herself to a man trial. So I thought it'd be perfect to be pregnant at that trial. So, you know what, it goes around like it is something that is. You do think about, you know, so. So yeah, so it's just one of those things. And it is what it is. But yeah, we do have a job to do. And I will Say we get. We get judged so harshly. And I think some of the things have come out during this trial with how defense attorneys are looked. But I always say, if I don't represent people who are guilty, I'm not going to be able to represent people who are innocent.
And I love that part of my job. And also, like I said, it is a job. I mean, I have cases, and I may morally differ with some decisions that I make, but I look at the evidence, and I think oftentimes defense attorneys, and especially prosecutors, unfortunately, can't divide morality from the evidence. Right. Like, what does the evidence show?
I'm not asking my morals. What should have been done in this case? What should not have been done in this case? What evidence is coming in? What is relevant? What is more probative than prejudicial? These are all rules of evidence that me and Lauren have learned in law school, and it's how you analyze a case. Don't get mad at the defense attorneys because they're following the rules of evidence and just doing their job.
[00:26:57] Speaker B: And I think that pretty much wraps us up on the P. Diddy case, as we did not want to get into as much of his, like, nasty drama and stuff, but just kind of from the legal perspective, since a lot of people really don't focus on that. And so we wanted to have that input for you. But we will be starting our series next on infamous women and women that have committed crimes and just these women out there. So we are looking forward to that one and kind of getting back a little bit more true cry and women focused. And we hope you'll join us for it.
[00:27:28] Speaker A: Yep.
I. I think we got a lot to cover. We got a list. And like we said before, if you have anybody that you want us to talk about, please message us, comment, let us know, and we can definitely add to our series and add some episodes. And until then, we'll wait for the P. Diddy verdict. Maybe we'll do a snippet when it comes in. But if he's found not guilty, he's still a disgusting human being in my opinion.
[00:27:57] Speaker B: Same for me. Well, we will.
Bye.
