Speaker 1: It's Night Side with Dan Ray on Belgium vs. Boston's
Speaker 1: News radio.
Speaker 2: Big story out of New York City today was the
Speaker 2: trial of Sean Diddy Combs. This was a federal court trial,
Speaker 2: which is the big leagues, and Combs was fortunate enough
Speaker 2: to basically win be acquitted on some of the more
Speaker 2: serious charges, but convicted nonetheless in federal court. And late
Speaker 2: today the judge in the case denied Combs any bail,
Speaker 2: so he will have to remain in a Brooklyn jail cell,
Speaker 2: facing now two criminal charges for which he could spend
Speaker 2: some significant time in jail. He has been in jail
Speaker 2: since last September. With us is attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. Attorney Rosenthal,
Speaker 2: Welcome to the Nightside.
Speaker 3: How are you, thanks, Dan? How are you? I'm doing great,
Speaker 3: doing great.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 2: I know that you practice in federal court in several
Speaker 2: federal court districts. When I say it's the big leagues,
Speaker 2: it's it's it's tough to get acquittals in federal court
Speaker 2: because they generally try to have all the ducts in
Speaker 2: a row. Are you surprised at the verdict today. We'll
Speaker 2: get to the specifics of the case, but I just
Speaker 2: want to ask you that overarching question, are you surprised
Speaker 2: that sort of a kind of got a compromise verdict today?
Speaker 3: A little bit, anytime the FED lose, you kind of
Speaker 3: scratch your head and you sort of wonder what went
Speaker 3: wrong on the bigger cases like this, on the on
Speaker 3: the more high profile cases, maybe there's a little more
Speaker 3: impetus for them to overreach a bit, and and maybe
Speaker 3: that's what happened here. When I'm when I'm eyeballing this
Speaker 3: case and I'm looking at it just from the outset,
Speaker 3: when they start off with the raids and the warrants,
Speaker 3: and I'm like, and I'm thinking, Okay, we've got a
Speaker 3: guy who is that they're accusing of a whole lot
Speaker 3: of trash. They're accusing this guy of everything under the sun.
Speaker 3: That's fine, But hiring prostitutes, sex assault, spousal domestic abuse,
Speaker 3: or or or intimate partner violence. These types of things
Speaker 3: are crimes, but they're usually not federal crimes. And so
Speaker 3: you've got to have a trigger. You've got to have
Speaker 3: something that crosses the threshold that makes him federal. That's
Speaker 3: going to be business enterprises, that's going to be interstate commerce.
Speaker 3: And I kept waiting to see that develop. I kept
Speaker 3: waiting to see those types of connections kind of come
Speaker 3: to fruition, and they just never did. So. In some ways,
Speaker 3: I am and.
Speaker 2: I'm not a council. He did move, if I'm not mistaken,
Speaker 2: some other participants, whether they were all cooperating voluntarily or
Speaker 2: under some level of duress, moved them across state lines.
Speaker 2: He flew people from different point A to point b. Uh.
Speaker 2: And that is technically the hook that that that got
Speaker 2: him into indicted in federal in federal.
Speaker 3: Court under the Man Act. Yes, which that's that's ultimately
Speaker 3: what he got convicted of. And anytime anytime you move
Speaker 3: somebody from from one state to another for an illegal
Speaker 3: sexual purpose, regardless of gender, you're gonna be guilty of
Speaker 3: a Man Act violation. And that's ultimately what they got
Speaker 3: him on. But they didn't get him on the racketeering,
Speaker 3: they didn't get him on the rico and uh and
Speaker 3: those were some of the bigger charges that they were
Speaker 3: hoping for. Uh So, so they got some of the
Speaker 3: lower hanging stuff. And I anybody who thinks that this
Speaker 3: is a win for Diddy Combs in a year he
Speaker 3: sentenced his they set his sentencing in October. They're not
Speaker 3: they're in no hurry to do this, and he's waiting
Speaker 3: in jail for this in a year, in two years
Speaker 3: and three years, when he's still in jail, this is
Speaker 3: not going to feel like that big of a victory
Speaker 3: for him.
Speaker 2: Right, And by the way, let's make it very clear.
Speaker 2: The Man Act is m a and not named after
Speaker 2: a particular agender, but named after a form a congressman
Speaker 2: from Illinois whose last name was.
Speaker 3: Made And they're targeting they're targeting all of us, right,
Speaker 3: it's the Man.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so he want to clarify that, Okay, it's just
Speaker 2: just for sure. Yeah, you're pretty sure. I guess in
Speaker 2: theory he faces up to twenty years. He's not going
Speaker 2: to get twenty years here.
Speaker 3: I don't think he gets well, I don't think he
Speaker 3: gets twenty. I don't think he gets two. We'll see
Speaker 3: where this where they hit him on the federal sentencing
Speaker 3: guidelines that that's going to be the big fight.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Well, the other question is he's already served nine months
Speaker 2: or ten months. He was arrested last September. So whatever
Speaker 2: he gets sentenced, I assume that his incarceration pre trial
Speaker 2: incarceration is going to is going to offset whatever that
Speaker 2: sentence is he gets.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he'll definitely get credit for the time that he
Speaker 3: is spent in And and for those who don't know
Speaker 3: kind of talking about the federal sense, let's let's talk
Speaker 3: about the federal sensing guidelines per minute. Do you want
Speaker 3: the long story or the short story for everybody? I
Speaker 3: know you know it, Dan, but yeah.
Speaker 2: Coming up, we're coming up on a break. We'll take
Speaker 2: the abbreviated version and then we can amplify on it
Speaker 2: after the break.
Speaker 3: If you like a right head, sure thing that the
Speaker 3: federal sentencing guidelines are a matrix and it's a it's
Speaker 3: like an Excel spreadsheet that that that everybody's crime in
Speaker 3: federal court. They're going to put you into a box
Speaker 3: somewhere on that and that's going to dictate a range
Speaker 3: of punishment, usually in months, and it's going to be
Speaker 3: the level of severity of the crime. It's going to
Speaker 3: be your criminal history that gets factored into it. Uh,
Speaker 3: if you are an organizer of the criminal enterprise, you
Speaker 3: get more points, If you cooperate with the Feds, you
Speaker 3: get less points. And the judge determines where you fit
Speaker 3: in that and that's that's your sentence.
Speaker 2: Yeah. Uh, and his there's a lot of video. He's
Speaker 2: got videotape in this case, pretty brutal videotape. And there's
Speaker 2: probably videotapes that the jurors saw that you and I
Speaker 2: will never say. But the videotape of him throwing the
Speaker 2: woman on the ground in the hotel while he's wearing
Speaker 2: a bath towel around his waist and kicking her, that
Speaker 2: has to come in as a factor.
Speaker 3: I think that's going to come in as relevant conduct.
Speaker 3: That's one of the things when lawyers are fighting in
Speaker 3: federal court most of the time, what they're fighting over
Speaker 3: are the federal sentencing guidelines, and they're and they're debating
Speaker 3: things like relevant conduct and relevant conduct doesn't necessarily have
Speaker 3: to be a conviction, and that that's a really contentious
Speaker 3: point because we have due process rights. We have the
Speaker 3: right to confront our accusers. We have the right to
Speaker 3: have allegations proven against us beyond a reasonable doubt, and
Speaker 3: to some degree not to to to kind of put
Speaker 3: it way out there, Uh, can you bring in my
Speaker 3: fourth grade dental records and and and enhance my my
Speaker 3: my sentence for that well, in theory, you kind of could.
Speaker 3: So that's where a lot of the lawyering happens. That
Speaker 3: that that's where the fight's gonna go from here.
Speaker 2: But in but in this case, I mean that that
Speaker 2: videotape of him pursuing the woman by the elevator who's
Speaker 2: trying to leave who who, then he decided that it
Speaker 2: would be a good idea to toss her to the ground. Uh,
Speaker 2: and then dragger attempt a kicker and then Dragger and
Speaker 2: he's a big guy, you know, complete to her. There's
Speaker 2: there's no criminal conduct for which there's a conviction there.
Speaker 2: But this is plain and plain at day and uh, yeah,
Speaker 2: you know, I don't know how the judge can ignore
Speaker 2: that or minimize that.
Speaker 3: No, yeah, and it's something that that that the judge
Speaker 3: can absolutely take into consideration. Exactly to your point, Dan,
Speaker 3: there's no conviction necessarily for that, but that doesn't mean
Speaker 3: that the judge can't hit him for.
Speaker 2: It, right, And I believe that that took place several
Speaker 2: years ago, so I'm sure that the statue limitations has
Speaker 2: long since transplanted on that. If people are saying, well,
Speaker 2: why didn't they charge him with that? And that would
Speaker 2: not have been a federal crime. Either way, we will
Speaker 2: take a break. My guest is Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal. We're
Speaker 2: talking about the Sean Diddy case. There was a verdict
Speaker 2: that was announced today number one, and the judge decided
Speaker 2: post verdict, after a break in court that John Dittycombs
Speaker 2: would remain in jail. Obviously, that can be appealed, and
Speaker 2: I'm sure that his lawyers will be working on an
Speaker 2: appeal on that, but he should he is. Sentencing date
Speaker 2: is October third, so he's going to spend at least
Speaker 2: a year in jail and then see what the sentence is.
Speaker 2: For those of you who aren't familiar with the case,
Speaker 2: this is pretty freaky stuff. And Jeremy and I have
Speaker 2: kind of tiptoed around the substance of the crimes that
Speaker 2: have been alleged and in many cases the crimes for
Speaker 2: which he was acquitted, but the underlying fact pattern is
Speaker 2: pretty interesting. Will again try to deal with it as
Speaker 2: best we can. Your comments, your questions would be appreciated.
Speaker 2: Six one, seven, two, five, four, ten thirty six one seven, nine, three,
Speaker 2: one ten thirty. My name's Dan Ray. This is Nightside
Speaker 2: on a Wednesday night. Feels like a Friday to me,
Speaker 2: because I'm off for the rest of the week. Coming
Speaker 2: back right after this brief commercial break.
Speaker 1: You're on night Side with Dan Ray on WBZ, Boston's
Speaker 1: news radio.
Speaker 2: My guess is Attorney Jeremy rosehal before we go to
Speaker 2: phone calls councilor how tough the case was this to defend?
Speaker 2: I mean, this involved some pretty bizarre behavior. These were
Speaker 2: sex parties that went on for days. They were called
Speaker 2: freak offs, and it involved, according to the indictment, Sean
Speaker 2: Diddy Combs spending money on male prostitutes to have sex
Speaker 2: with some of his girlfriends. It was in terms of weird,
Speaker 2: I get eleven off the chart on a scale of
Speaker 2: zero to ten. Nobody should be questioning other people's private behavior,
Speaker 2: but this was pretty weird.
Speaker 3: A trial is, in my mind, it's an emotional battlefield.
Speaker 3: We are in America in the world.
Speaker 1: We make our.
Speaker 3: Decision first, and then we make the facts to fit it.
Speaker 3: I wish it was the other way around. This is
Speaker 3: why AI will never take my job, because I might
Speaker 3: be able to fast talk a jury out of convicting
Speaker 3: somebody who was on a police chase and wound up
Speaker 3: in a swimming pool, you know, with their car and
Speaker 3: in AI listens to facts, but people don't. The big
Speaker 3: challenge in defending this case is the title wave of
Speaker 3: negative towards p. Diddy. If he's your client and he
Speaker 3: is thoroughly unlikable, he has committed atrocity after atrocity, and
Speaker 3: the state this case is one giant mud sling against him,
Speaker 3: and it's very hard to get a jury to relate
Speaker 3: to that. It's very hard to get a jury to
Speaker 3: understand that. And if you if you wanted to prove,
Speaker 3: if you wanted to convict somebody who is that loathesome,
Speaker 3: if you want to convict him of anything, you could
Speaker 3: do it or or or or that's the worry of
Speaker 3: his lawyers, and and so it's always hard to redirect
Speaker 3: juries to facts, and it's hard to get that counterbalance
Speaker 3: to say, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this is
Speaker 3: too much right at some point, at some point, this
Speaker 3: is just too aggressive. That's a hard argument to make.
Speaker 2: Uh, too aggressive, counselor from from the perspective of whom the.
Speaker 3: Prosecution you from, right from from the government, and to say, listen,
Speaker 3: uh an analogy that that that I that that you
Speaker 3: can use in a trial, as you can say, look, uh,
Speaker 3: at some point you got a bad kid in the
Speaker 3: store and you see mom or dad disciplining him. Okay,
Speaker 3: maybe the kid opened a candy bar in the middle
Speaker 3: of store or or something did something bad. Okay, but
Speaker 3: at some point you beat the kid too hard, right,
Speaker 3: at some point enough uh, and and and so uh
Speaker 3: for we all. I'm a big believer in the scales
Speaker 3: of justice, and I really do think that juries go
Speaker 3: back there when they deliberate, and they they will always
Speaker 3: kind of come up with the right balance or or
Speaker 3: or what in their mind is the right balance, and
Speaker 3: the punishment has to fit the crime. If I were
Speaker 3: to suggest, and this is we have a we have
Speaker 3: an old you know my my practice is we're not
Speaker 3: in the country, but we have an old probate judge
Speaker 3: who was as bonkers as he could be. And he
Speaker 3: had the perfect analogy for this. He says, if you
Speaker 3: made drinking alcohol a crime punishable by death, and then
Speaker 3: you caught somebody on video with alcohol in their breath,
Speaker 3: with the can in their hand, and then you fingerprint
Speaker 3: that and you just prove it a waste till Sunday
Speaker 3: a jury will acquit them because they do not agree
Speaker 3: that death is appropriate for that. Fine, if it was
Speaker 3: a five dollars fine, they're gonna convict them, right, So
Speaker 3: at some point it's got to balance out.
Speaker 2: So there's the modicum what you're saying, you have faith
Speaker 2: in the jury system, and there's a modicum a public
Speaker 2: of common sense amongst Yeah, any twelve twelve Americans. All right,
Speaker 2: let's go to some phone call see what people have
Speaker 2: to say. We'll start it off with Joe Is in Belmont, Massachusetts.
Speaker 2: Show you're on with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal talking about the
Speaker 2: Sean Diddy Comb's case. Dan, I just called to wish
Speaker 2: you a happy birthday July eighth, and God bless you
Speaker 2: and all you loved ones. Well, thank you very much. Show.
Speaker 2: That's very kind of you. But do you have a
Speaker 2: comment on Sean Diddy Combs. I just want to tell
Speaker 2: you Jesus love you, Dan.
Speaker 5: Bye, Thank you very much.
Speaker 2: John great nice. Well. I guess that that's a happy birthday,
Speaker 2: wish that's happy birthday.
Speaker 3: Happy birthday coming up here?
Speaker 2: Yeah, oh yeah, July eighth. Let me tell you me
Speaker 2: and Nelson Rockefeller. Of course Rockefeller had all the money.
Speaker 2: Let me let me go to Carol and Randolph. Hey, Carol,
Speaker 2: how are you tonight?
Speaker 6: I'm great, Dan, thanks for taking my call.
Speaker 2: You're ready, You're welcome, and you're with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal.
Speaker 2: We're talking about the Sean Dinny Coombs case. Your comment.
Speaker 6: My comment is, you know, I wasn't surprised that he
Speaker 6: got off because, I mean, Rico is a really hard
Speaker 6: case to prove, and one guy with a Rico case
Speaker 6: didn't see it. But I am just so happy that
Speaker 6: he got convicted at least two charges. I mean, to
Speaker 6: expose the debauchery and what these people do. I mean,
Speaker 6: I raised two boys that are in their thirties now
Speaker 6: when this rap music was coming up and with all
Speaker 6: the derogatory terms and everything, and it disturbed me. But
Speaker 6: I was like, okay, open mind, it's your music. But
Speaker 6: the lifestyle and all of this, I'm like, thank god
Speaker 6: my kids got through it and didn't fall into this.
Speaker 2: I'm just yeah, well, you know, I think I think
Speaker 2: what you're referring to there was there were a lot
Speaker 2: of misogynistic lyrics.
Speaker 6: Yes, yes, no, I.
Speaker 2: Mean, and he in that videotape sort of became the
Speaker 2: personification of that misogynistic action when he beat that woman.
Speaker 6: Uh yeah, I'm just glad that he's exposed for what
Speaker 6: he is. And I mean, yeah, these women were young
Speaker 6: and they wanted to make a career and he abused them. Yeah,
Speaker 6: everybody knows that. And but is a criminal. I mean,
Speaker 6: the whole industry should be. I mean, they're they're like
Speaker 6: the next thing to the porn industry. I mean, my god,
Speaker 6: it's I mean both.
Speaker 2: Both of which you're protected by our First Amendment in
Speaker 2: many respects.
Speaker 6: I know they are, I know they are, But I mean,
Speaker 6: let him, let him spend I don't know what he's
Speaker 6: going to be sentenced to. I hope it's at least
Speaker 6: a few years. But you can't have young kids glorifying
Speaker 6: these rap stars.
Speaker 2: And jet Truny Rosenthal's reaction, Jeremy, this is I think
Speaker 2: someone who would have been a pretty fair juror on
Speaker 2: this case. I don't know if you agree or not. Well,
Speaker 2: I think that she is pretty typical of I think
Speaker 2: what most where most people land on this topic.
Speaker 3: She was alluding to is kind of the whole point
Speaker 3: of the prosecution, which is that it's the structure, right,
Speaker 3: It's the it's the organized we're going to pay people,
Speaker 3: We're going to move people, We're going to have these parties.
Speaker 3: It it it it tried to the prosecution tried to
Speaker 3: put more form, if you will, or to give a
Speaker 3: shape to.
Speaker 6: P.
Speaker 3: Diddy and his entities or his organization and and essentially
Speaker 3: label the mafia.
Speaker 7: Right, look at what you did, Carol, Carolis finish his
Speaker 7: comment that I want to hear what you I want
Speaker 7: you to.
Speaker 3: Ca Yeah, Carol, don't don't give me your address because
Speaker 3: I'll send you my bill and you don't want that,
Speaker 3: you know, I'm kidding. I'm kidding, okay, but uh, you know,
Speaker 3: And to your point, Carol, I think you make a
Speaker 3: very valid point, which is that that that the government here,
Speaker 3: what they tried to do is they tried to essentially
Speaker 3: label what he did he did as an organization, as
Speaker 3: an entity, as sort of a movement. Now, obviously you
Speaker 3: can't label an entire industry that way, and and and
Speaker 3: and just as and I'm sure uh as as you know,
Speaker 3: there are there are wonderful artists and wonderful musicians that
Speaker 3: that performed in that genre he did. He's obviously not
Speaker 3: one of them. Uh, But but I think that that's
Speaker 3: sort of what the government's point was was that this
Speaker 3: is a that this that there that that it is
Speaker 3: beyond a bad man. It is a bad man who
Speaker 3: is using other people to do bad things and to
Speaker 3: hurt people. And that was sort of where this case broke. Yes,
Speaker 3: he's going to face justice for for the people that
Speaker 3: he hurt and a lot of what he did, but
Speaker 3: he's not gonna he's not going to be punished for
Speaker 3: things that I don't think. I think we are a
Speaker 3: lot more controversial. Is he this arch criminal or is
Speaker 3: he just a jerk?
Speaker 6: I don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, we definitely a jerk. No dog, Go ahead, Carrol,
Speaker 2: final word, go ahead.
Speaker 6: Well, no, I hope he does some time for it.
Speaker 6: And I'm just thankful that there are people out there
Speaker 6: that understand that this is not normal. And you know,
Speaker 6: you can idolize singers or rap stores or anything, but
Speaker 6: don't idolize the lifestyle. Don't say I enter that as
Speaker 6: a kid.
Speaker 2: Well said Carol. That sounds to be like you raised
Speaker 2: two good sons. Thank you so much for your call.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Dan, love talking to you.
Speaker 2: And we'll take a break. Here's the news at the
Speaker 2: bottom of the hour. My guest is attorney Jeremy Rosenthal
Speaker 2: talking about the Sean Diddy Comb's case, which today resulted
Speaker 2: in two convictions. He faced five indictments, two convictions essentially
Speaker 2: Man Act divisions convictions dealing with two separate women. As
Speaker 2: I understand that I did not follow this case with
Speaker 2: any much close it. It was really one of those
Speaker 2: cases that I didn't have a lot of interest. I
Speaker 2: know a lot of people felt to allured aspects of it,
Speaker 2: which there certainly were. I get it. I was more
Speaker 2: interested in the Karen Reid case. Frankly, we will be
Speaker 2: back with Attorney Rosenthal and some good callers. We have
Speaker 2: three really good callers lined up, including Attorney Harvey Silvergway
Speaker 2: from Cambridge, my friend and someone who I respect immensely.
Speaker 2: We got Steven Cambridge, one of our top callers, and
Speaker 2: Alex from Millis is always excellent. We'll be back on Nightside, ladies.
Speaker 2: I hope some of you will follow Carol's example and
Speaker 2: give us a call. Six one seven, four thirty, six
Speaker 2: one seven, nine, three, ten thirty.
Speaker 1: You're on Night Side with Dan Ray. I'm Boston's News Radio.
Speaker 2: Thank you, madisonciate it. We are talking with Attorney Jeremy Rosenthal,
Speaker 2: veteran defense attorney, talking about the Sean Diddy Combs convictions.
Speaker 2: Aniquittal that came back today. He was convicted on two
Speaker 2: or five accounts in this pretty bizarre trial in New
Speaker 2: York Federal Court. And we are going to get right
Speaker 2: to the calls. And I'm going to go to Harvey Silverglade,
Speaker 2: who was a well known to this program, an excellent attorney,
Speaker 2: a civil libertarian. Harvey Say had to a Council Rosenthal.
Speaker 5: Jeremy Rosenthal even ain't councilor Rosenthal.
Speaker 3: Good morning at evening, How are you.
Speaker 5: Fine? I have my comment about the cases as follows.
Speaker 5: My comment is about the Rico statue. That statute was
Speaker 5: acted by Converse in order to fight the mafia, you
Speaker 5: will call, and it has since been used and abused
Speaker 5: to the point where now it was it was brought
Speaker 5: in a in a case of a guy who was
Speaker 5: over sexed and who abused some of the people who
Speaker 5: were working for him or with him.
Speaker 3: Mm hmm.
Speaker 5: That is an improper use of a Rico statute. And
Speaker 5: I was delighted that the jury, as the jury verdict
Speaker 5: that they convicted him but the sexual abuse, but they
Speaker 5: acquitted him of the racketeering. It was a perfect verdict,
Speaker 5: showing again the the the genius of the jury system.
Speaker 5: The juris got it exactly right.
Speaker 2: I don't think that Council of Roosevelt would necessarily disagree
Speaker 2: with the Hoby And for the record, you were never
Speaker 2: involved in any of these Sean Diddycomb's freak off. So
Speaker 2: let's make that very.
Speaker 5: Claire, Okay, right, No, I would not. I would expect
Speaker 5: Coster Rosenhold to agree with me.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I do.
Speaker 2: I do.
Speaker 3: I think that. Yeah, the jury where the government overreached,
Speaker 3: where they tried to kind of make something that wasn't there, uh,
Speaker 3: and they tried to grab at it. The more questions
Speaker 3: one of the things, one of the kind of the
Speaker 3: comments Dan Uh. The more, in my mind, the more
Speaker 3: decisions you give to a jury, the more they're gonna split.
Speaker 5: Like this.
Speaker 3: Sometimes we sort of get in this mindset that these
Speaker 3: juries run away, right, we see the million billion dollar
Speaker 3: verdict or we see you know, some other crazy jury thing,
Speaker 3: and we think, oh, you're all jurors are crazy, and
Speaker 3: and many are. Okay, right, It's still a very scop
Speaker 3: very scary proposition. But I'm a big believer in juris
Speaker 3: splitting the baby. Being a juror is not easy. They
Speaker 3: want to they they want to make everybody that they
Speaker 3: want everybody to win, and they want everybody to not lose.
Speaker 3: And and they're afraid, I think, in my mind, of
Speaker 3: coming back out and and and upsetting somebody with their verdict.
Speaker 3: And so what they do is they really grasp for
Speaker 3: that middle ground. So the more questions you put to
Speaker 3: a jury, the more charges you throw out to a jury,
Speaker 3: the more likely it is, in my mind, uh, that
Speaker 3: that you get to a split decision. I've I've heard
Speaker 3: a lawyer one one lawyer argument. I've heard I've heard
Speaker 3: both defense lawyers and prosecutors make this argument. They say,
Speaker 3: ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Uh, whatever you decide,
Speaker 3: come back and look us in the eye. The right
Speaker 3: decision is the one that you can look at me
Speaker 3: at and you can look at those guys at and
Speaker 3: you can look everybody in the eye when you come back. Uh,
Speaker 3: and and you and you, and you give your verdict. Now,
Speaker 3: I don't I don't know that that gets you anywhere
Speaker 3: as a defense lawyer, but I I do think that
Speaker 3: this jury, again, and if there's a surprise to that.
Speaker 3: It's that it was a month or five week long
Speaker 3: trial and they a twelve or thirteen hour deliberation with
Speaker 3: five charges is quick. That's a quick verdict for forgiven,
Speaker 3: given everything that they've seen. But yeah, no, I'm with him.
Speaker 3: I think they nailed it all right.
Speaker 2: Harvey, thank you as always for your comments. Appreciate it,
Speaker 2: my friend. We'll talk soon. Happy for July, Harvey will
Speaker 2: celebrate the Constitution.
Speaker 5: My favorite document.
Speaker 2: Absolutely, no question question mine as well. Thanks Harvey, talk
Speaker 2: to you soon. Let's keep rolling here. We are going
Speaker 2: to go next to Alex in Millis. Alex, you were
Speaker 2: next on Nightside. Welcome you with on with attorney Jeremy Rosenthal.
Speaker 8: Go ahead, Alex, Hi founsel Hi, Jan. I have a
Speaker 8: couple of comments, councilor.
Speaker 2: Too, Alex. You don't don't give don't shut change me here,
Speaker 2: go ahead. I'm only kidding you.
Speaker 8: So, first off, it seemed like this trial was weak
Speaker 8: compared to the Karen Reid trial as far as uh,
Speaker 8: you know, like coverage and whatever. So I don't know
Speaker 8: why that was.
Speaker 2: And I think this trial got a lot of coverage.
Speaker 2: His arrest was uh was videotape lot was It was
Speaker 2: almost I had to add o J. Simpson.
Speaker 8: Uh cents right, But there were no there were no
Speaker 8: like fans for this guy because even in court he
Speaker 8: to show you a type of person. This for you know,
Speaker 8: Sean Diddy Combs is he had no supporters in court
Speaker 8: other than his family. And the other thing is do
Speaker 8: you think that the defense tried to use the race
Speaker 8: card saying he's a successful black person? Uh, and you
Speaker 8: know they're trying to the government's trying to take him down.
Speaker 8: How much that played into it? And also for my
Speaker 8: I would say that he you know, he got off easy,
Speaker 8: you know, although he's going to serve some time, but
Speaker 8: you know, there he was facing some serious charges.
Speaker 2: Okay, do you have a question in there, Alex that
Speaker 2: I can divine?
Speaker 8: Uh? Well, actually, uh, you know what if he would
Speaker 8: would he have gotten you know, uh you know the
Speaker 8: other charges found guilty on had you know if it
Speaker 8: were a different jury.
Speaker 2: I don't know, No one will ever know that that
Speaker 2: that's an impossible question. I think that Council Rosahal can
Speaker 2: speak for himself, but I think that he feels this
Speaker 2: jury got it right and hope that every jury gets
Speaker 2: it right.
Speaker 3: Jeremy Yeah, yeah, yeah. And and first off, they only
Speaker 3: call us counselor when they're really.
Speaker 6: Pissed off at us.
Speaker 3: Okay, So so there's so there's that. And I tell people,
Speaker 3: I didn't go to counseling school. I went to law school.
Speaker 3: I don't have a dental practice on the side.
Speaker 2: I don't.
Speaker 3: I don't do anything like that. But you did bring
Speaker 3: up an interesting point. Uh, when it comes to the
Speaker 3: federal government and prosecuted and talking about the race card,
Speaker 3: there are I've been to criminal defense seminars where we
Speaker 3: where the topic is defending rappers or defending people in
Speaker 3: in in this in the hip hop culture because they
Speaker 3: get they do get targeted, that they get targeted more.
Speaker 3: And and is that race I don't know. I've I've again,
Speaker 3: I don't uh uh uh. There's a lawyer.
Speaker 5: Uh.
Speaker 3: The person who was lecturing was a criminal defense lawyer
Speaker 3: does federal practice in Atlanta. Uh And and he he
Speaker 3: if you asked him, he would definitely tell you that
Speaker 3: he felt like the African American community like that, the
Speaker 3: hip hop community. He would tell you that they definitely
Speaker 3: get targeted more. Now, when you take that in front
Speaker 3: of a jury, to me, you have to be extremely
Speaker 3: careful with it because you've always got to make sure
Speaker 3: there's a trial lawyer that you are on par with
Speaker 3: the jury, that you're not out in front of them,
Speaker 3: and that you're not lagging too far behind them, but
Speaker 3: that you are that you're in step with them, because
Speaker 3: that argument can turn off a lot of people, even
Speaker 3: if you believe it. There's arguments that feel good, and
Speaker 3: there's arguments that win. And another thing I'll tell you too,
Speaker 3: because Karen Karen Reid too, that's in Massachusetts. Yes, yes, yeah,
Speaker 3: I'll tell you this much. I got more Diddy coverage
Speaker 3: in North Texas than I did Karen Reid, so so
Speaker 3: I think that's probably a function of that being in
Speaker 3: your neck of the woods.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Jeography wins on that one. Alex appreciate the call.
Speaker 2: Thank you much, Thank you, appreciate it. Happy for the
Speaker 2: July Alex.
Speaker 8: Thank you also.
Speaker 2: All right, we'll taking quick break. Stephen Cambridge comes up
Speaker 2: on the other side. We got also Rick up and
Speaker 2: Merrimack back on night Side with my guest Jeremy Rosenthal.
Speaker 2: It sounds to me like my audience feels this is
Speaker 2: a fairly even conclusion. I think they're in agreement with you.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna say counsel Jeremy okay, Uh No, councilor.
Speaker 2: We use counselor up here as a as an absolute
Speaker 2: sign of respect. I know the judges can use it
Speaker 2: when they're about to battering.
Speaker 3: I get that as a battering ram.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah, absolutely. Back on Nightside, UH, if you want
Speaker 2: to try to get in six one seven nine ten
Speaker 2: thirty or six one seven, two five four ten thirty,
Speaker 2: we will change topics at the top of the hour
Speaker 2: and talk about an event that happened in nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 2: It was a horrific fire that killed marines. UH. Never
Speaker 2: should have happened. Uh, near Mountfuji in Japan, nineteen seventy nine.
Speaker 2: Huge story that basically was eclipsed a few days later
Speaker 2: by the hostage taking at the US embassy in Tehran.
Speaker 2: We'll talk with the author, Chaz Henry, who's a reporter
Speaker 2: or a journalist who has written a book that has
Speaker 2: received some really positive reviews. Back after this one night.
Speaker 1: Side Night Side with Dan Y I'm Boston's news radio.
Speaker 2: Okay, will you have three callers, Let's see if we
Speaker 2: can get people in here quickly. Let me start off
Speaker 2: with Steve and Cambridge. Steve, normally I give you a
Speaker 2: lot of time.
Speaker 9: I'm gonna ar me two quick questions and then I'd
Speaker 9: like to make a quick comment. Number one, you didn't
Speaker 9: You didn't answer the question did the defense use race,
Speaker 9: bring up race as a defense or as a sticking
Speaker 9: point in the trial?
Speaker 5: Well?
Speaker 3: Kind of you're you're a lawyer, man, What kind of
Speaker 3: lawyer are you putting me on the spot like that?
Speaker 2: Uh No, Steve is not a lawyer. Steve is Stevens lawyer.
Speaker 3: You you you you speak is one? I love it,
Speaker 3: It's good. No, thank you.
Speaker 9: Take that as a compliment.
Speaker 2: By the way, there was no reporting that suggested that
Speaker 2: race was a factor in this case I watched. I
Speaker 2: wasn't in the court obviously, federal court, I mean Boston.
Speaker 2: There's there's no feed. But all the reporting I saw Steve,
Speaker 2: there's no reference to race beyond the fact that he's
Speaker 2: a rapper.
Speaker 3: And and yeah, and Dan, I'll tell you this. There's
Speaker 3: using race, and then there's using race. And to answer
Speaker 3: the question that there's using race and then there's using race,
Speaker 3: it's one way to go in and argue it and
Speaker 3: just flat out play the race card. The other way
Speaker 3: that you see that's a lot more common is that
Speaker 3: it's insinuated that you that you use what what you
Speaker 3: might call code words, that that you make some veiled arguments,
Speaker 3: that that that sort of dip the toe in the water,
Speaker 3: if you will, and and that that that sort of
Speaker 3: may resonate with some people and not necessarily others. So
Speaker 3: so using the race card is by.
Speaker 9: Degree it was such done in this case.
Speaker 3: I'm not aware. I'm not aware that it was in
Speaker 3: any measurable way.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 9: My second question is I get the feeling that the
Speaker 9: Man Act is kind of a nebulous, vague catch all
Speaker 9: type of rhyme. Uh and somewhat like the Rico Act.
Speaker 9: Would you agree.
Speaker 2: Don't drive a prostitute over a statement?
Speaker 6: Right?
Speaker 5: It is?
Speaker 3: No, You're right, it is. It is a vague act
Speaker 3: because because it specifically talks about taking people from one
Speaker 3: state to another for immoral, immoral sexual acts, Okay, And
Speaker 3: and that that's that's that's pretty vague, right, And and
Speaker 3: is taking your taking the girls, you know, taking taking
Speaker 3: taking a woman to Atlantic City to do whatever is
Speaker 3: that we were going to go and do you know,
Speaker 3: get into whatever that you hear me.
Speaker 9: My comment, my quick comment is yeah, you know, the
Speaker 9: state was trying him because they were using him as
Speaker 9: escapegoat for the what is considered the depravity of this
Speaker 9: whole scene. And anybody who gets mixed up in this scene,
Speaker 9: be they male or female, pretty much knows what he
Speaker 9: or she is getting in too. So I think P.
Speaker 9: Diddy was kind of a scapegoat. This is outside the
Speaker 9: purview of the law. This is a social illa, all right,
Speaker 9: fair enoughside the purpose of the law.
Speaker 2: Fair enough, Steve, you got it in. Thank you, my friend.
Speaker 2: We'll talk soon.
Speaker 9: Happy and you gentlemen, all right, let me go.
Speaker 2: To Dennis in Arizona. Dennis, whereabouts in Arizona? You call
Speaker 2: it from?
Speaker 8: I mean Abindale, Arizona, Abindale.
Speaker 2: Okay, you're on with Jeremy Rosenthal. What's your commented question.
Speaker 2: We got a couple of minutes, go right ahead.
Speaker 8: Oh you know what I guess I called in early.
Speaker 8: I'm on the wrong show.
Speaker 2: You want so you want to? Okay, fair enough, I'll
Speaker 2: hold you over into the next time, into the next hour.
Speaker 2: Not a problem, not a problem, Dennis. My apologies, not
Speaker 2: at all, No apologies necessary. Thank you very much, Rick
Speaker 2: and Merrimack. Rick, go right ahead.
Speaker 4: Sure, I don't like to apologize for myself, but he
Speaker 4: did a good job of it. I don't know what
Speaker 4: you guys are talking about, but anyways, well.
Speaker 2: Thanks for calling in, Reck, I appreciate. I appreciate the
Speaker 2: fact that you call in, whether you knew what we
Speaker 2: were talking about or not. Thanks again, appreciate the call.
Speaker 3: For the record, Dan, I don't either, so we're good.
Speaker 2: No no, no, no, no, no, no, Well apologize. Dennis
Speaker 2: has called in for this next next guest, which is fine,
Speaker 2: that sometimes happens. Thank you very much. And Dennis, you
Speaker 2: stay there. You'll be first up on the other side
Speaker 2: with the guest. Jeremy, appreciate your time. It's it's always,
Speaker 2: you know, difficult to to report or react to a
Speaker 2: federal case because again, no cameras, no microphones were allowed,
Speaker 2: which the Burger rule from many many years ago stays
Speaker 2: in effect even after Chief Justice Burger's passing. But maybe someday,
Speaker 2: maybe someday we'll have an opportunity to play and actually
Speaker 2: listen to what happens. But I thank you, sir, I
Speaker 2: thank you so much, Jeremy, for.
Speaker 3: I have to drop this one. Thing because I've been
Speaker 3: sitting on this line that I've not been able to
Speaker 3: go ride this whole time. So the defense in this
Speaker 3: case batted four hundred. Right, that's the Carl Yastremsky line.
Speaker 2: There you go, Well four well, four hundred gets you
Speaker 2: in the Hall of Fame. But oh yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 2: think about it. Yeah they two out of five. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 2: well actually when you think about it, they hit six hundred.
Speaker 3: Technically they oh, you're right, the government hit four hundred. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 3: you're right. A good call.
Speaker 2: Good six and uh yeah, that's that's getting close to
Speaker 2: Ted Williams territory. I appreciate it very very much. Thank you, thanks,
Speaker 2: thank you much. Joining Jeremy Rosaal Jeremy, is there any
Speaker 2: way we can any book you've recently written or anything
Speaker 2: you'd like to plug him? You can?
Speaker 3: You can. You can follow me at Briefing Attorney on
Speaker 3: YouTube or Instagram. Uh, and you can see my my
Speaker 3: handiwork at Texas Defense Firm dot com where we where
Speaker 3: we have a reasonable doubt for a reasonable fee.
Speaker 2: That's that's one of the I've never heard that slogan before,
Speaker 2: but that particularly when you're Cromal Defense lawyer. It works perfectly. Jeremy,
Speaker 2: appreciate the time. We'll do it again. Thank you so much.
Speaker 7: Thank you, Dan.
Speaker 6: Have a good night.
Speaker 2: All right, good night. We will take a quick break here.
Speaker 2: When we come back, we will be talking with Chas
Speaker 2: Henry about his book of Fujifire. This was a tragedy
Speaker 2: that took the live of lives of innocent marines. We'll
Speaker 2: be back on Nightside right after the ten o'clock news here.
Speaker 2: As we really begin the fourth of July weekend, I
Speaker 2: kind of feel like we're easing into the weekend here
Speaker 2: on a Wednesday night, coming back on Nightside,