Dr. Phil reveals Didi’s trial strategy: How he walks freely after his defense team uses hidden stunts in open statements

The opening statement just started in the trial of Sean “Diddy” comb, but the situation against millionaires hip-hop superstars may have won…or been lost.

Because it all comes down to the jury.

From a pool of 150 potential jurors, the judge, defense team and federal prosecutors selected 12 people (for whatever reason, there is an active juror unable to meet its obligations).

These will be responsible for determining the fate of the comb.

Even the most skilled and experienced trial lawyers in the world can’t predict what the Americans in this group will decide or how the evidence affects them – but it was my job to try to do so.

Before starting my career in television, I was a consultant to a trial lawyer. After earning my PhD in Clinical and Medical Psychology Focus, I earned a one-year postdoctoral fellowship in forensic psychology and then co-founded a company called “Testing Sciences” called Fauneroom Sciences, Inc, Inc (CSI).

My past life even inspired TV legal drama bullran for six seasons on CBS.

We specialize in advising lawyers, among other things, select jurors for trial and then make the most effective arguments to win these people.

Even the most skilled and experienced trial lawyers in the world can’t predict what the Americans in this group will decide or how the evidence affects them – but it was my job to try to do so.

Before selecting a jury, we will conduct a mock trial and test the validity of potential expert witnesses and novel arguments before mock jury.

After the jury is selected, we often create what is called a “mirror jury.” If the actual jury consists of seven women and five men, then we will hire seven women and five men to match their profiles closely. If one of the jurors is a 42-year-old woman with two years of college education, a husband working in a factory, two children, and a barking dog, they are Baptist, we will sit in the gallery every day, all day, and all day, and hear the same evidence.

Every night, we talk to that woman to measure her reaction to the events of the day and provide this information to the attorney.

The jury of the comb consists of eight men and four women, aged between 30 and 75 years old, and has a racial background as diverse as white, black, Hispanic and Asian.

At least one female juror is a 42-year-old with two children. Another group member is a 41-year-old black man with a daughter.

How will they deal with some of the most shocking and meanest evidence in this case?

The judge has admitted to video evidence displayed at the trial that appears to show the comb viciously hit and kicked his girlfriend, Cassandra Ventura, during a 2016 dispute in the corridor of the California hotel. Ventura, now married and currently pregnant, will testify.

There is no doubt that this is a special abominable evidence.

But, is there a person with a young daughter more or less judgement about seeing someone else’s daughter suffer?

OK, it depends. Believe it or not, some jurors – no matter their life experience, are more open than others, because it considers the framework of the defense team’s so-called attacks.

While I have not done any empirical research that needs to be aware of this case, I hope Combs’ defense team seeks to justify this behavior and attract certain members of the jury.

Believe it or not, some jurors – regardless of their life experience, are more open than others, i.e. consider the framework of the defense team’s so-called attack on Ventura (left).

They are likely to target jurors they believe have a “strong self-image,” often referred to as “internal control loci.”

These people think they can control events in their lives. For example, people who performed poorly in the test said, “I was not ready because I was not ready” and may show “internal control source.”

On the contrary, someone who performed poorly in the test, “that test was too difficult, which is why I didn’t do it well,” probably someone with a “external control gene source.”

Those with internal control gene sources are most likely to believe that if someone lives through deep unpleasant or even traumatic events, it may be their own fault at least in some way, because they tend to look at the events that occur in their lives first. They tend to put others on the same criteria.

This is different from “victim blame”, but in extreme cases it may appear close to it. They put the plant husband partly in charge of the connection with the comb and subsequent abuse.

These jurors may also be easier to convince that sexual behavior with the comb is voluntary, or because he is famous for the comb is targeted. And those with “outside control sources” may be more likely to see the comb as the sole contributor to the situation

Indeed, the defense’s opening remarks show this approach.

Defence attorney Teny Geragos told the jury on Monday that the alleged victims were “competent, strong, adult women” and that everyone was getting something from their relationship with the comb.

“These adult capable women will have to bear the same responsibilities (as does combs),” the opening statement said. “This is the free choice when anyone makes an adult choice. A free option is advantageous, it has its drawbacks. They have free choices every day for many years.

This argument may seem ridiculous to you or me, but we are not those that will decide on the introductory or innocence of the comb.

And, more importantly, the Defense Force does not need to convince all 12 jurors.

The judge has admitted video evidence presented at the trial that appears to show that the comb viciously hit and kicked his girlfriend, Cassandra Ventura, during a 2016 dispute during the 2016 dispute. Ventura, now married and currently pregnant, will testify.

They just need to win one person, who will stand up against guilt.

When a jury fails to reach a consensus verdict, this is called a jury, and there are two options for prosecution: to walk through the case again or to give up the case.

If the prosecutor does try the case again, the defense will know their evidence, giving them a significant advantage and making them better prepared for the second time.

But despite all these considerations, there is a reason the jury exists.

Although there is no legal system perfect, I believe the jury tends to do it right. Now all we can do is sit down and trust the legal process.