'I'm Laura Coates, and this is Trial by Jury. I know it's hard to believe, but this gripping, head-spinning, graphic, uncomfortable, unforgettable trial of Sean "Diddy" Combs is rising to its crescendo. Today, the government had their closing argument, and in it, the prosecutor, Christy Slavik, was unequivocal. She called Combs the leader of a criminal enterprise, went right for what they're trying to prove in RICO, and the defense is going to give its closing argument tomorrow, followed by the government's chance to rebut. They can have the last word, which might seem odd to you, but they can have a last word because the burden of proof falls on them. Then the judge is going to give the jury their instructions. Diddy has pleaded not guilty. But if he's convicted, he could face the rest of his life in prison. And this jury, the 12 who will ultimately be the ones, if you exclude the alternates who are still hearing everything, they're going to begin deliberating, and then we're all on verdict watch. But let's hear from my partner in court, who always has the inside scoop. I'm talking about Elizabeth Wagmeister, Elizabeth.

'After seven weeks of covering this trial together, it is almost hard to imagine that we are so close to the verdict. I mean, Laura, we have been in the trenches for seven weeks together, and here we are, the prosecution's closing argument is over. The defense is going to present, and then this case goes to the jury. They can begin deliberating on Friday. I really cannot believe that we are here and the prosecution, they had a very strong closing argument. What really struck me, and remember, I'm speaking as a journalist and a reporter who has covered many trials and has been in a courtroom extensively, but obviously I'm not speaking as an attorney. I do not have the same background as you as an attorney. Certainly as a former prosecutor. So I am more educated on the legal system and how these trials go than perhaps the average person. But I do think that I may be thinking about this closer to some jurors than someone like you or someone like any of our legal analysts at CNN. And I Effectively, the prosecutors simplified this case. This is seven weeks of testimony that they truncated into five hours, which, of course, that's what happens with a closing argument. But it's seven weeks a testimony, 34 witnesses, thousands of pages of exhibits and text messages and phone calls and et cetera, et cetera. And the prosecutors, they made this sound so simple, Which... Is smart and it's what they're supposed to do. They want the jury to think that this isn't so hard. We have proved our case. You should find Mr. Combs guilty on all five counts. But as it pertains to the sex trafficking, you and me were talking about this right when we got out of court. They said, you don't have to think that every single freak off had to be criminal. In fact, you only have to find one. I repeat, one freak-off to be non-consensual. You only have to find one freak off to have been where Combs was coercing or threatening Cassie or Jane into these sexual acts. Again, simplified. If I am a juror sitting there today, I'm thinking, wow, well, you can certainly find one of those instances. I think even anyone on the defense would say that you could find one of those instances. Now, it wasn't just the sex trafficking, it was also the racketeering where they went through all the predicate crimes, there's eight predicate crimes, and then they said that you only have to find two of these alleged crimes to have been committed, and not just two of the eight, it can be two of same. So that means if it's the drug distribution predicate crime, which is under the racketering conspiracy. First of all, they explain drug distribution as just simply distributing drugs to someone else, meaning giving drugs to somebody else, where I think that many jurors, I mean, I admit, I thought that distributing drugs, the bar was much higher. You may think it means selling drugs or distributing pounds and pounds and rounds of drugs. No, they said it doesn't matter. They said when the defense has said that they are talking about, Combs's personal drug habit, minuscule amounts of drugs. That's what his defense attorney Brian Steele said during cross-examination at one point. I believe that was for Brendan Paul when he said it was minuscute amounts of drug. Today the prosecutors say, again, that doesn't matter. It doesn't the amount. That is a distraction. All that matters is was he distributing drugs. And by the way, if you found two different instances where you believe that he was distributing drugs twice, on two different occasions, that's enough. So again, I was just stunned at how simple this seemed to be. Now, of course, the defense is coming. So we will see what happens with the defense. And you really can't make a judgment if you're a juror until you hear from both sides. And we have seen that the defense has really poked holes in the prosecution's witnesses throughout the trial, throughout their cross-examination. So I have no doubt that there's going to be a lot of volleying back and forth.

Can I tell you guys how excited I am now to have Joey Jackson on? Because this man is the consummate defense attorney and legal analyst, of course, here at CNN, Joey Jackson. Oh my gosh, Joey, I could not wait to talk to you today because the second I heard the closing argument of the prosecution, I wanted to know what you thought about it. And there was a part in particular that I just can't get out of my head. And it was the prosecution is now saying, look, You don't have to...

Yes, that's what I'm going with, right?

'Essentially, if you're a jury and you want to convict, you don't to show that every single one of the freak offs was non-consensual or forced to qualify for sex trafficking. You just got to have one per named victim, Jane and Cassie. That changes the landscape.

We know what they have to show, fraud, force, or coercion, okay?

'What did Diddy do, says the prosecution, that there were two specific victims. One was Cassie Ventura. And that was an actual girlfriend of 11 years, and the other was Jane, a girlfriend of three years. Now what the government is saying is, oh yes, they consented to some of these acts, but all it takes is for you to find that they didn't consent to one act. Now in my view, the way I look at it is, that's a major concession. Because in essence, what you're saying as a prosecutor is like, you want your cake and eat it too. You want to say that, oh okay, that these were girlfriends of his. Let's start with Cassie Ventura this was his girlfriend and yes you know the defense is gonna get up here and they're gonna show you these text messages and they're going to say there were instances where there was this consent and there was instances where they were and she was looking at it enthusiastically etc but All it takes is for you to deem one of the times that she didn't want to do it. Who thinks that way? The essence of sex trafficking is that you were sex trafficking. You were engaged in a course of pattern and behavior. To me this is inconsistent and I'll tell you why. Because your argument is, you engaged Diddy under your power, your influence, and all you were doing in a way that manipulated, coerced, and abused them. We brought a psychologist in to you, ladies and gentlemen, and that psychologist showed you how people who are abused act, how people are manipulated act, and how people involved in this whole sexual escapade that they really don't want do, how they act, but... If you find that only one time, right, that this was an individual, let's say Cassie Ventura, who said, no, I don't want to do it, then that's enough to prosecute him and it's enough convict him. To me, you're splitting hairs. It's either you were rolling with me and you were on board or you were not rolling with and you weren't, but you're gonna say to the people of the jury that, you know what, they were kind of with it, but then they weren't with it but they really weren't and they were. It gets murky. So in my view, if you're making that concession and you're the prosecutor, it's a major concession to make. Because in essence, what you're saying is, if on the one hand, he had this criminal enterprise for over 10 years, he was engaging in all of this racketeering for the purposes of sexual exploitation. But sometimes he was engaged in this criminal activity with this sexual exploitation and this racketering, they were with it. But at least one time they weren't. I just think it's an argument that's very difficult to make I think it weakens the nature of the case. I think lessens the import and impact of what the indictment was tending to say, which is that this was what he was doing. They were not willing participants at all, and he was using his power and influence to do it for all purposes, not just if you find one out of many. And so to me, I looked at that and I said, what are they arguing? And I think you could come back and it can bite them. But as a matter of law, in my view, it's problematic. I mean, is this the nature of the statute? Was the statute really designed to prosecute people who have long-term relationships that are kind of freaky and murky, and maybe I want it, maybe I don't, and it's transactional as a quid pro quo, or maybe it's not? Was it designed to really get at victims who are powerless? Victims who are at arm's length with their abusers, who don't know and are dating their abusers who are being trafficked into other areas for purposes of sexual exploitation, I think the prosecution lost me when they made that argument let's see whether they lose the jury.

You know, what I think is so powerful about what you said was the idea of the concession. For the government to say, yes, there were times that these women were consenting. I think that concession does have a huge impact on the jurors. On the other hand, I wonder if the juror might see that as, wait a second, are you just telling me I've just got to find one? That might be an easier, streamlined case to unanimously get 12 people based on the for examples of the dates you talked about to do it. But that might lead a juror to have a bad taste in their mouth, Joey.

'So, you know, look, I'm with that. I think you're changing the goalpost, right? You're changing a proverbial goalpost. You come out and your theory from a prosecution's perspective is that Diddy was involved in a criminal enterprise. He was running this organization for the purposes of sexual exploitation. Gratifying himself. He was doing it for 10 or more years under the statute. He was engaged in two or more acts of racketeering. That's where you get the Kid Cudi arson. That's when you get extortion of Cassie Ventura's mom with the home equity loan, $20,000. That's we get all this talk about drugs, et cetera, the guns that were on his lap. So you're arguing that he had this decades-long criminal enterprise, but there might have been one or two times, you know, ladies and gentlemen, where the people he was with in these long-term relationships didn't want to engage in sexual activity. I think it undercuts your argument. I think initially the prosecution came out the gate arguing that he was doing this, exploiting these women repeatedly, and he was doing it because of his power and his influence. He was doing it because he was controlling their careers, controlling the money he was giving them, controlling how far they would go in life, etc. Really supporting them, manipulating them, abusing them over a long course of time to get his way. But, you know what, if you find that he really wasn't doing that because they were on board with it and it was just the nature of what they did, but at least once they said, no, then you have to convict. I just don't know, number one, that people think that way. Number two, I know it does undercut the prosecution's theory. And number three, it smacks to me of we're going to throw everything we can at this and we're gonna hope that one thing sticks. And I don't think that that's where we need to be from a prosecution perspective. Last point. And that is, in my view, Laura, I think this comes down to really a legal question. And the legal question in my mind has always been in this case, right? Yes, there's salacious information. Wow, it's dramatic. Boy, is he a broken person, that is Diddy. Man, did he do some lawless things. He could have treated people so much better. He was so abusive. Is this what our racketeering statute was designed to deal with? Was it designed to be with mob bosses who had under bosses who were doing their bidding with respect to shaking down businesses, engaging in arson and other criminality? Or was it designed really, and when you look at the table with the RICO mob bosses, you see a whole bunch of people, defendants, people accused of crimes, sitting at the table. Here you see Diddy, and then you say, well, maybe his chief of staff was kind helping him organize hotel rooms. But did she know exactly what he was doing and isn't there evidence suggesting that she kind of, you know, he was hiding things from her? And maybe he had somebody go and bring him drugs, or a number of employees to bring him drugs. But was that drugs for personal use or was it drug distribution as a racketeering charge would be, right? And so you have all these instances where the prosecution's arguing this major criminal enterprise and you have Diddy solely sitting there. Who are his co-conspirators? Who was helping him carry this whole thing out? Who were these bosses in his various segments of his organization who knew he was engaging in criminality? Oh, but they set up the actual baby oil, and they organized the flights, and they organized hotels. Did they know specifically what he was doing? But they saw a video tape. Did they know in the video tape that this wasn't just conceptual sexual activity between people? I think in my view, right, I mean it just seems to smack. Of an overreach by the prosecution with respect to using the RICO statute last point and that is that even in terms of the sexual trafficking this is not what anybody thinks of when they think of sexual trafficking and here's my overarching concern of course this is cases about ditty but the precedent this sex is going to be beyond ditty So a person hypothetically, right, Laura, we know about hypotheticals, we lived through them in law school, we live through them in life, you lived through it as the exceptional prosecutor that you are, and seeing all these fact patterns, now a person goes with their wife and they actually have a sexcapade with their wife involving someone else, and the wife now has buyer's remorse, which you can argue, right? Again, it's inflammatory, but you can that, hey, maybe Cassie Ventura and Jane and had buyer's remorse at the end of the day. So now someone goes and travels with their wife and they engage in this freaky activity. And the wife says, you coerced me into doing it. I didn't really wanna do it. You're a sex trafficker? That's what this statue was designed to protect? Or was it designed to a broader point of view where you have women who are being transported to engage in criminality and sexuality and demeaning and degradation? I just don't know that it meets that standard. Now, if you want to say transportation for prostitution, and I think that's clear cut. I think if the durable believes in a by the issues of the dozens of escorts the flights to interstate travel et cetera you got them on that but the recall charge in the sexual trafficking for me is a bridge too far.

'Bring it even away from RICO for a second, because you mentioned the transportation to engage in prostitution, the so-called "Mann Act" related charges, and those are pretty clear-cut in terms of the elements that are described. I'm not saying clear cut, in terms how the jury should find, but the elements are quite precise. They have nothing to do with sex trafficking. It doesn't have to have force or fraud or coercion. The prostitution does not have to involve somebody not being consensual in some way, literally, even if all parties consent to it, all parties agree to it, it can still be criminal because it's the act of a commercial sex act. But I raised that point in comparison to what you just described for RICO in the sense of who you didn't hear from. They didn't here from male escorts who described traveling as a result of a request for these freak-offs. How does that factor in for you if you have the receipts or American Express charges or otherwise that say, well, did he pay for this? This person showed up. Is that enough on a charge like that to be okay with who didn't testify?

So to the issue of prostitution and you mentioned the male escorts and whether we heard and we heard a lot about flights and travel and hotel rooms and baby oil but here's the other thing i want to pose what, did we hear about the, did we here any male escort say that they were male prostitute has did that come up, hey a I'm in the male prostitute, you interviewed, I was there that night exceptional interview of "The Punisher" I believe it was and he talked about hey he feels bad for her he didn't even know which, you know, he thought things were cordial. So when you have an escort, escorts generally are, you're paying someone for your time, their time to be with you. So let's just say you hire an escort. And in hiring that escort, it leads to a sexual encounter. Did I and was I using that escort as a prostitute? Or was I use it as a person whose time I valued, which ultimately evolved into an issue relating to an intimate relationship. And the reason I raised that issue was because you have Jane and evidence of Jane, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong, wherein she even developed a romantic interest with regard to a person they were using in their threesome situation.

Or at least someone that she had a relationship or she was communicative with them. But I have to tell you, the prosecution gave a big side eye saying something to the effect of, I'm not even gonna spend more than 10 seconds on this point, other than to say, these men were not being paid for their time. We know what this was, they were being paid for sex.

'Well, of course they're going to have a big side eye because it devastates their case and they don't want to give too much room for it, right? It's sort of like running a campaign against someone and you keep using that person's name, their name, the name, you're giving them credibility. If the prosecution would embrace that point, the jury would say things that make you go, hmm. Things that make you go, hmm. So the bottom line is that, yeah, I mean, you could, and it would kind of defy common sense to know that they weren't engaged in "freaky-deaky" behavior, and the end result wasn't going to be prostitution. But I mean look, Laura, correct me if I'm wrong. What witnesses who testified who were escorts said that they were paid to engage in sexual activity? Or were they paid to be escorts that were involved in a situation that devolved into sex?

It sounds like this might fall into the category if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck. That's what the prosecution wants them to say. But you know what? I was going to ask you, how do you think the defense gonna make their closing argument tomorrow? But you've laid out so methodically the arguments in how they would do so because there had to be that balance of incredulity and also appealing to a type of common sense and familiarity with the jurors that I wonder if it will be successful. We will know soon. Joey Jackson, you and I have been covering this trial for weeks now, and we are days away. I mean, frankly, the jury could very well get the case right after the closing, a potential rebuttal, jury instructions, and then have it in their hands, and then be debating, deliberating. They said the trial will be over by 4th of July. I will see what happens. And you and I. Are gonna talk on the other side, my friend. Thank you so much. Always great to pick Joey Jackson's brain. I hope you're taking notes.

I can't wait. Let's see what goes on and look, for tomorrow, the whole issue about personal time, personal conduct, personal issues, not related to an enterprise that was successful, iconic and generational. That's to come. We'll see.

Oh, we are going to hear about free will and agency and money grab. That's all gonna be the revisiting of their opening statements. I don't know how it's going to pan and play for the jury. So now what will be the strategy of the defense? They didn't call any witnesses. They never called Diddy to the stand. So what will they do? Well, fortunately there's not long for us to wait because we're going to know tomorrow. Make sure to follow Trial By Jury from CNN wherever you get your podcasts. This episode was produced by Laurie Galarreta, Dan Bloom, Graelyn Brashear, Eryn Mathewson, Alexandra Saddler, and Rachid Haoues. Our technical director is Dan Dzula, and the executive producer of CNN Audio is Steve Lickteig. With support from Andrea Lewis, Mike Figliola, Hank Butler, Robert Mathers, Alex Manasseri, and Lisa Namerow. I'm Laura Coates, and I'm here for it.