Sean "Diddy" Combs has received a split verdict. While acquitted of the more serious racketeering and sex trafficking charges, he was found guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution. What does this mean for his future? Is he still in jail? I break down the charges, the defense's strategy, the government's arguments, and what to expect at his possible October sentencing. Plus, I address all the misinformation circulating about Diddy's current status and potential prison time.

Bryan Kohberger has entered a guilty plea to all charges, resulting in max life sentences without parole or appeal. His formal sentencing will be on July 23rd. We also discuss the noticeable changes in Kohberger's court appearance and the highly requested topic: Can Bryan Kohberger profit from his story? Get a clear understanding of "Son of Sam" laws, specifically how Idaho's unique statute works.

RESOURCES

The Sean 'Diddy' Combs Cases - What Diddy Do? - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gIsB0qzawUpon2u62BeVSdC

The Idaho College Murders - Defendant Bryan Kohberger - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKASBczV3CsUx-t5oRAK0ca

Bryan Kohberger Change of Plea Hearing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdOt4zAWjp8

Bryan Kohberger Plea Deal Breaking News Stream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7U4g45EG71g

Clean Court Feed with Closed Captions - https://youtu.be/nJJtSQopo7U

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/TdOt4zAWjp8

On July 2, 2025, Bryan Kohberger pleaded guilty to 4 counts of Murder and one count of Burglary. During the plea hearing, Kohberger confirmed he was pleading guilty because he is guilty and waived his appellate rights, including the right to ask for a reduced or lenient sentence. He agreed to the maximum potential sentence, which is life with no parole for the murder counts, served consecutively, and 10 years for the burglary, plus court fees, fines, and restitution.

Madison Mogen's family, through their attorney, expressed gratitude to law enforcement, the prosecution team, and the judges, and stated their support for the plea agreement, emphasizing their desire for closure and healing.

The Sentencing is scheduled for July 23, 2025, at 9:00am MT with the possibility of extending to the 24th. I'll plan to cover that hearing. Make sure you have the Law Nerd App to join me when I go live.

RESOURCES

The Idaho College Murders Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKASBczV3CsUx-t5oRAK0ca

The Kohberger Leaks - https://youtu.be/IAF8jCkNKn4

Menendez Brothers Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gK2PE7jCHRFumPtH7t7qZWn

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/7U4g45EG71g

On June 30, 2025, it was reported that Bryan Kohberger is taking a plea deal in the Idaho College Murders, with a hearing set for July 2nd. The plea deal, as detailed by ABC News, involves Kohberger pleading guilty to all four counts of first-degree murder and one count of burglary. In exchange, he will be spared the death penalty. He will be sentenced to four consecutive life sentences for the murder counts and a maximum of 10 years for the burglary, amounting to life without parole. Crucially, Kohberger will waive all rights to appeal, bringing finality to the case.

The trial was originally slated to begin with jury selection on August 4th, with opening statements on August 18th. Prosecutors stated in a letter to families that Kohberger's defense team approached them last week seeking a plea offer. Prosecutors met with available family members and decided to make a formal offer. They emphasize that this agreement ensures conviction, life in prison, and avoids "decades of post-conviction appeals" that are common in death penalty cases.

RESOURCES

The Idaho College Murders Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKASBczV3CsUx-t5oRAK0ca

ABC News Reporting - https://abcnews.go.com/US/bryan-kohberger-plead-guilty-counts-idaho-college-murders/story?id=123356808

The Kohberger Leaks - https://youtu.be/IAF8jCkNKn4

Scott Peterson Case - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SremTw2WyZk

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/6U-T0fjM5MM

The post-verdict statements from jurors in the Karen Read Retrial, emphasizing the importance of juror transparency and their reasoning for the "not guilty" verdict. The jurors were described as serious, conscientious, and respectful in their deliberations, focusing on the evidence and defining each charge. There are concerns that threats and harassment against jurors could discourage future citizens from serving, suggesting that juror lists should be sealed by default to protect their privacy unless they choose to come forward.

The initial, withdrawn verdict was due to one male juror having doubts at lunch, asking if he could take back his vote, but later confirming "Okay, guilty of OUI."

Juror #1 aka The Foreperson, stated there was no single moment that solidified guilt, and the evidence presented was "paper-thin," failing to bring comfort to the victim's family. He highlighted the struggle to reconcile sympathy for the victim's family with the lack of sufficient evidence for a conviction. He worked really hard to make sure that all of the jurors felt heard and confident with their decision.

Juror #11, addressed accusations from "internet trolls," clarifying she is an attorney in Brazil but not the US, and her interest in true crime was focused on Brazilian cases, hence her unfamiliarity with the Read case before jury duty. She expressed happiness that Karen Read would not go to jail for something she didn't do, but also anger that John O'Keefe's fate remains unknown. She also confirmed they were largely unaware of the large crowds and chanting outside the courthouse due to precautions taken by jury officers and entering through the back. This reinforces that external pressure did not influence their deliberations.

Juror #12 initially leaned towards "guilty" but changed her mind after reviewing the evidence, not finding a specific piece of information she was looking for. She wouldn't share what that evidence was.

An anonymous juror spoke with the media and mentioned that during deliberations, they started making more progress when they got "huge poster board paper." They then worked with other members of the jury to write down the definition of every charge on the poster board, essentially workshopping the jury instructions.

Despite the challenges, jurors' willingness to speak out fosters transparency and highlights that jurors genuinely strive to make the right decisions based on the evidence presented.

RESOURCES

June 24 Live Stream - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i7IdKgUQoDU

The Ghislane Maxwell Case - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gL31tnzpu6Du3wLHoQRaIq8

Foreperson on w/ Today Show - https://youtu.be/nE-a9MR1oUM

Juror #12 on WCVB - https://youtu.be/-Tfoc0OvOf0

Anonymous Juror on NBC 10 - https://youtu.be/Vi8bkGvciaI

Juror #11 on WBZ - https://youtu.be/Qx9KONKG6RE

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDU

After Karen Read was acquitted of the Murder charges on June 18, 2025, DA Michael Morrissey, & Special Prosecutor, Hank Brennan gave statements to the media that prompted Alan Jackson counter.

"The jury has spoken," DA Michael Morrissey simply states.

Hank Brennan expresses disappointment in the verdict and states that his independent review, along with a closed federal investigation, led him to conclude that only one person was responsible for John O'Keefe's death, and no other suspects were identified. If Brennan believed only one person was responsible, a prosecutor's job is to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, which was not achieved. He also condemns a "campaign of intimidation and abuse" against witnesses. That sentiment is agreeable but incomplete because he doesn't also condemn it also against the witness, jurors and other participates.

Jackson blasts Brennan for an "egregious breach of prosecutorial ethics" by attempting to publicly shame and discredit the jury and supplant his personal views for that of the jury. Jackson argues that Brennan's claims of a thorough investigation are false, given the defense uncovered hidden exculpatory evidence, lies, and perjury by the Commonwealth's own witnesses, cops covering for other cops, a biased and corrupt lead investigator with personal ties to witnesses, and inculpatory and suspicious conduct by a myriad of witnesses. Jackson asserts that the prosecution's effort was a personal vendetta against Karen Read, not a pursuit of justice for John O'Keefe, and that the case never should have gone to trial in the first place. He directly accuses DA Michael Morrissey of having no interest in actually seeking justice for John O'Keefe.

RESOURCES

DA Michael Morrissey's Statement - https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/norfolk-da-michael-morrissey-gives-statement-karen-read-verdict/6N6N23YM25AQPMEXRLR6HAOTOM/

Hank Brennan's Statement - https://x.com/TedDanielnews/status/1937134441505096022

Alan Jackson's Statement - https://www.boston25news.com/news/local/karen-read-attorney-alan-jackson-blasts-special-prosecutor-new-statement/NY7R26CSFJETXGFLIEKHRQE6Y4/

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/i7IdKgUQoDU

After Karen Read was acquitted of the Murder charges on June 18, 2025, Michael Proctor, The Alberts & McCabes attended video interviews.

Michael Proctor was Interviewed by 20/20. He addresses his strong negative feelings and derogatory comments about Karen Read, stating they developed as the case progressed, but admits they were regrettable. Proctor denies planting evidence, calling it a ridiculous accusation. He believes the negative perception from the public is a "loud minority" and maintains he would do nothing differently in the investigation, attributing any issues to the "crazy crazy so-called conspiracy" online rather than acknowledging any potential flaws in his own work. There was a lack of remorse from Proctor for potentially tainting the investigation and no apology to Karen Read. He believes he was unfairly fired for personal texts and that his union rep took his uniforms.

Brian, Nicole and Chris Albert were interviewed together with Jen and Matt McCabe by ABC's Nightline. Brian Albert's lack of curiosity and inaction given the situation, especially as a Boston police officer, despite not being Canton PD. Brian's response essentially was, "Why would I go out there?" Brian Albert also describes Jen McCabe barging into his room early in the morning but there was no mention in their recounting of the morning about wrangling the dog. Ultimately, the families felt like they were not protect by the judicial process and told the audience to think twice before becoming a witness in a trial. That is not sound advice as there are consequences for not cooperating with a subpoena.

There was a lot of frustration with the clipped nature of the interviews and the perceived lack of accountability or self-reflection from the interviewees. The witnesses seem to be focusing on the "straw man" of public conspiracy theories rather than addressing odd behavior or a poor investigation, leading to unanswered questions.

RESOURCES

The Alberts & McCabes Interview from ABC Nightline – https://youtu.be/yIrVOSbx9gM

Did Proctor Plant Evidence? https://youtu.be/qZDx1lCJFZY

Michael Proctor Wouldn't Change Anything - https://youtu.be/oiuKayU6UQo

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/JaBePBtlqQA

Day 36 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 18, 2025 and a Verdict was reached! After 4 days of deliberation, the jury in the Karen Read murder retrial delivered their verdicts. Karen Read was found not guilty of second-degree murder (Count 1) and leaving the scene of an accident resulting in death (Count 3). She was found guilty only on the lesser included charge of operating under the influence (OUI) with a blood alcohol level of 0.08 or greater (Count 2), which is a misdemeanor.

Immediately after the verdict, Karen Read was sentenced to one year of probation and a 24D program, which is a standard first-time OUI offer.

Outside the courthouse, Karen Read addressed the crowd while standing next to her defense team, David Yannetti, Alan Jackson, and Elizabeth Little, and Robert Alessi. Karen Read thanked her supporters and stated that no one has fought harder for justice for John O'Keefe than she and her team. Her father also acknowledged the strength of Karen and the support of their extended family and the legal team.

There was confusion during the reading of the verdicts, likely due to an initial incorrect verdict form. This form was sealed. The Commonwealth cannot appeal the not guilty verdicts. It's unlikely anyone else will be charged in John O'Keefe's death for the same crime, but if there are issues with the investigation itself, those could be charged separately. There is still the civil case against Karen read by the O'Keefe family which I will follow up on in the future but for now, .

RESOURCES

What You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ

Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo

Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTS

Watch the full coverage of the live stream on The Emily D Baker YouTube channel: https://youtube.com/live/1FQDyZVIbho

Day 35 of the Karen Read Retrial happened on June 17, 2025. We are on the 3rd day of Verdict Watch and the jurors had questions!

1) They asked about the specific time frame for the OUI (Operating Under the Influence) charge, whether it was 12:45 a.m. or 5:00 a.m. The court responded that the jurors have all the evidence and are the sole fact-finders.

2) They asked if video clips of Karen Read's interviews were evidence and how they could consider them. The court affirmed that the videos are evidence and should be weighed like any other evidence. However, before considering any such statement, the jury must determine beyond a reasonable doubt that Read made the statement voluntarily, freely, and rationally.

3) The jury asked if convicting on a sub-charge (specifically offense two, number five, referring to the OUI) would automatically convict on the overall charges. The court introduced and read an amended verdict slip to clarify the process.

Later, the jury sent another question while the court was deliberating on how to answer the first 3 questions.

4) They were asking if finding "not guilty" on two charges but being unable to agree on a third, results in a hung jury on all three or just one. The court's initial inclination was to respond that it was a theoretical question and could not be answered, as jurors are not to be concerned with the consequences of their verdict. The defense objected, arguing that it was a question about how to report a verdict, not its consequences, and that the jury instructions already addressed this. Ultimately, the court decided to respond that it was a theoretical question and thus unanswerable.

No Verdict was made at the end of day, we'll see what happens on Day 36.

RESOURCES

What You Need to Know About the Retrial - https://youtu.be/89Jpa8vz1RQ

Karen Read Retrial Playlist - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKOJlfL__9F027hlETVU-vo

Karen Read Trial - 2024 - https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLsbUyvZas7gKUeCUzApgsEuQRXu5IXeTS