Diddy defense's courtroom strategy is a 'calculated risk': expert

The decision by Sean Diddy Combs' lawyers to not call any viewers to testify in his federal trial for sex crimes comes down to the prosecution's burden of reasonable doubt according to legal experts Diddy's lawyer Marc Agnifilo indicated Monday in court that the defense plans to review evidence with the jury and won't require bystanders to testify on the rapper's behalf The rapper's legal group expects to rest its circumstance Wednesday with closing arguments expected to begin the following day The decision whether or not to call viewers during the defense scenario is a calculated hazard criminal defense and civil attorney Adant Pointer of Lawyers for the People LLC stated Fox News Digital DIDDY DEFENSE NOT EXPECTED TO CALL ANY BYSTANDERS IN SEX TRAFFICKING TRIAL Not calling any bystanders means the defense is essentially telling the jury there is no one they know in the whole universe who can speak on Diddy's behalf to aid his defense On the other hand calling a witness can open that person up to questioning and perhaps elicit damaging testimony against Diddy depending upon their interactions with him and their knowledge of these women Pointer likened the defense's decision not to call any onlookers to a Pandora's box Given the defense is signaling they do not intend to call a single witness they do not think any promising defense-friendly spectators will impact in a net gain for Diddy His lawyers have essentially determined the juice is not worth the squeeze MISSING ONLOOKERS AND LINGERING QUESTIONS PLAGUE PROSECUTION AS DIDDY TRIAL NEARS CONCLUSION EXPERTJudge Arun Subramanian will likely ask Diddy to confirm his decision not to take the stand Diddy testifying would just allow the prosecution to retell their incident and put the previous items of evidence in front of the jury for a second or third time Pointer explained The prosecution would have a field day going through each and every video text and witness announcement made at trial against him and force Diddy to admit the authenticity of the videos the receipts and invoices items recovered at his homes and hotel rooms and that he was present during the events described in prior testimony In light of the evidence already presented at trial this would bulk likely be an excoriating and humiliating cross-examination the kind prosecutors wait their whole career to conduct Closing arguments for the trial which began May with jury selection are expected to begin Thursday after Diddy's lawyers explained they would only need two days to defend their client Trial attorney Tre Lovell advised Fox News Digital that the defense likely wants to double down on reasonable doubt and that Diddy's exotic lifestyle does not equal what the prosecution has proposed which is that Diddy formed a criminal enterprise to pleasure himself the Tony Soprano of baby oil LIKE WHAT YOU RE READING CLICK HERE FOR MORE ENTERTAINMENT NEWS The only reason to not call onlookers in your defense is if you absolutely believe there is reasonable doubt and you don t want to do anything to take away from this including calling your own viewers Lovell revealed It would make sense to call a psychiatrist to explain that the behavior of Cassie and Jane is more reflective of a consensual relationship based upon the autonomy each woman had the benefits they received and the love they had for Diddy Further calling executives at Bad Boy Entertainment would be helpful to distance the corporations from Diddy s more personal behavior to dispel the criminal enterprise element Ultimately possibly an industry or legal expert to distinguish the aspects of sex workers versus prostitution to counter the prostitution charge Lovell added However the defense felt even calling onlookers such as these would have the likely of adversely affecting reasonable doubt and chose not to Mark Chutkow who previously led the criminal division of the U S Attorney's Office in Detroit assumed Diddy's decision not to testify was a smart one It's a real big gamble to testify in a affair like this where the prosecution has brought racketeering charges which allows them to bring this wealth of bad acts evidence there Chutkow stated By taking the stand he would just subject himself to even more bad acts that were prohibited by the court And so that was seemingly the right call CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT NEWSLETTER Diddy's decision not to testify can also be considered savvy as well because he can say in closing Look to the jury the prosecution had six weeks of time to show you to try and prove their matter The defense lawyers are going to say this 'We indicated the reasonable doubt through our cross-examination and we don't want to waste any more of your time You have enough now to know that there's reasonable doubt in this occurrence and that's why we didn't bring a episode ' And to remind the jury that the presumption of innocence consistently goes to Diddy as the defendant in this occurrence Chutkow noted how the burden of proof is on the administration not on the Bad Boy Records founder or his group When you present a matter if you're on the defense side you better be good because if it falls flat then you kind of move back the marker and you might be in a worse position the lawyer commented So sometimes less is more I know that specific people are suggesting that 'Well wow doesn't he have something he could put on ' It may be in specific means an opportunity for the defense to say 'No we didn't need to ' WATCH LEGAL EXPERT EXPLAINS DIDDY'S DEFENSE MOVESWith the matter nearing its close more than seven weeks after it began and nine months after Diddy was arrested and charged Chutkow thought both sides did what they sought to accomplish The prosecution has put in all the evidence It wasn't excluded The defense though has done a nice job in the cross-examinations he revealed They've brought in a lot of additional communications between Diddy and these other women to show that the relationship is a lot more complex One of the things I think the prosecution is going to have to do at the closing argument is to basically say 'Look this is not like a trafficking event that you would see on television It's not you don't have a situation of someone being kidnapped and chained on a basement radiator It's in essence it's a golden cage It is one with luxury and glamor but it's still a cage ' Chutkow added The other area that I think that they would want to emphasize is the blackmail in this matter That the use of the tapes and threat of exposure of those tapes to get the women to comply with what Diddy yearned to do is an element of coercion in and of itself And if I was on the prosecution side I would look to that as compelling evidence Combs was charged with racketeering conspiracy RICO sex trafficking by force fraud or coercion and transportation to engage in prostitution in a federal indictment unsealed Sept He faces years to life in prison if convicted Diddy has maintained his innocence throughout