Alternate juror in Diddy's trial credits 'impressive' cross-exam of Dawn Richard
The judge also said defense lawyer Nicole Westmoreland had a 'Perry Mason moment in federal court' during her questioning of another prosecution witness.
A man who served as an alternate juror in Sean “Diddy” Combs’ trial said the cross-examination of Cassie Ventura’s friend Dawn Richard dismantled Richard’s credibility and stands out as a key defensive win.
“I never saw such a cross examination. Was very impressive to watch,” the 37-year-old United Nations employee, who was identified by his first name, George, told journalist Laura Coates in an interview on CNN. “I even wrote in my notebook that it was like a takedown.”
The exam was the work of Combs’ lawyer Nicole Westmoreland of Atlanta, Georgia, and it focused on Richard’s testimony about seeing Combs assault Ventura on several occasions, including when she said he hit her over the head with a skillet she used to cook him eggs.
The juror told Coates he believed Ventura, who testified before Richard, was truthful, and he said he found her testimony “riveting” and “very credible.”
“She wouldn’t have done all this just to come up there and, you know, lie about everything,” he said.
But prosecutors intended for Richard’s testimony to corroborate Ventura’s testimony, and the juror told Coates that Westmoreland’s cross “got into her and really made her, you know, look very not credible.”
“Unanimously, we kind of all said, ‘Like, wow.’ It was almost like watching, like, TV,” he said.
He said he “probably would have reached the same conclusion as the other jurors,” which was not guilty of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking by force, fraud and/or coercion and guilty of transportation to engage in prostitution.
“The judge had instructed us that we have to find, you know, we have to find him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. And I think there was always a little bit of doubt in people’s mind,” said the juror, who is an operations manager in the United Nations’ counter-terrorism office.
“I think it was a tough case to prove, especially the first one,” he continued, referring to Combs’ first charge of racketeering conspiracy.
The man is the first of the 18 people selected for the jury to speak publicly since the verdict. One juror was dismissed during trial after he made conflicting statements about living in the Bronx and New Jersey.
U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian said after the verdicts were announced that if jurors speak about their views, “do not speak about what your colleagues' views were or how the deliberations played out.” He also asked journalists not “to question jurors about the deliberations.”
The man said juror weren’t told who was an alternate until after closing arguments, and he wrote 350 pages of notes to prepare for deliberations. (Update: Other reporters say this is false, and the alternates did know they were alternates during testimony. Indeed, the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure dictate that jurors and alternates be separated.)
“We were very impressed with the prosecution and the defense,” the man said. “Their professionalism, how they carried themselves. I mean, it was really good lawyering, as they say.”
The man wasn’t the only one in the courtroom to publicly praise Westmoreland’s work: During a discussion outside the jury, Judge Subramanian said Westmoreland had “a real Perry Mason moment in federal court” and “blew a hole through the direct testimony” of Ventura’s friend Bryana Bongolan allegation that Combs held her over a balcony during a violent night at Ventura’s Los Angeles apartment in 2016.
The praise doesn’t surprise Bruce Harvey, a longtime Atlanta-based criminal defense attorney who has worked with Westmoreland on many cases, including the defense of rapper Jeffery “Young Thug” Williams’ co-defendant Quamarvious Nichols in a year-long gang racketeering conspiracy trial in Fulton County, Georgia.
“Nicole is a fierce cross-examiner,” Harvey told me in a phone interview.
“I tend to think that on the national scene, Southern lawyers happen to be very, very underestimated,” Harvey continued. “Nicole is very effective at pointing the finger and building up to a logical conclusion where the witness has nothing — no escape — other than to fall off the edge of the cliff.”
A hearing is scheduled at 2 p.m. EST on Tuesday in which Judge Subramanian will consider Combs’ request to expedite his sentencing, which currently is scheduled for Oct. 3. Prosecutors say he faces 51 months to 63 months in prison for the transportation convictions under U.S. Sentencing Commission guidelines. His lawyers say it’s 21 months to 27 months.
I’ll report on the hearing on my social media pages and in another Substack article you can get in your email inbox if you subscribe now.
‘We’re going to give them a rough time’
Westmoreland earned her law degree from Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Florida, in 2016 and was licensed to practice in Florida in 2017, then in Georgia in 2018.
She’s also licensed New York state court, and she already was admitted to the Southern District of New York when she joined Combs’ team earlier this year with Atlanta-based lawyer Brian Steel, whose national profile grew with his representation of Williams in the Fulton County gang trial.
“I think that Diddy wanted some balance on his team, and he had a lot of the I guess what could be considered more high-profile Northeast lawyers,” Harvey said.
Harvey said Westmoreland “told me that she was going up to talk with him. Didn’t know whether it was going to work out or not, but obviously it did, and to her benefit, to Diddy’s benefit, for sure.”
“Again, folks tend to underestimate us old, slow, Southern boys and girls, but obviously they were a more than effective asset,” Harvey said.
Westmoreland told me during an interview on my YouTube channel last November that she grew up in Atlanta and earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Georgia before moving to Florida to attend Stetson. She said she chose the school “because they specialize in trial advocacy, and I knew that I wanted to be a trial lawyer.”
“I wanted inside of a courtroom. I didn’t want to just be behind the desk,” Westmoreland told me.
She said she didn’t want to be “a plea lawyer just making pleas.”
“If that’s what’s best for the client, fine. I’ll litigate and I’ll negotiate that, too. But if you want to go to trial, I’m going to take you there, and we’re going to give them a rough time,” Westmoreland said.
Harvey said he doesn’t know why Combs hired Westmoreland and Steel, but he said, “I’m assuming that’s the case” when asked if Combs knew Steel from Williams’ gang racketeering trial, which was streamed online, and told his lead lawyers Marc Agnifilo and Teny Geragos he wanted him on his team.
Nine attorneys filed notices of appearances in Combs’ criminal case, and eight cross-examined 32 of the prosecution’s 34 witnesses, with no questions asked of two witnesses.
Steel, a licensed lawyer in Georgia since 1991, cross-examined seven witnesses, including rapper Scott “Kid Cudi” Mescudi and an alleged victim and former employee of Combs’ who testified under the pseudonym Mia.
Westmoreland questioned two witnesses — Bongolan and Richard — and the judge referenced her “Perry Mason moment” with Bongolan on June 10 when he declined to declare a mistrial over what the defense described as prosecutorial misconduct related to conflicting evidence and testimony about Combs allegedly threatening Bongolan while holding her over Ventura’s 17th-floor apartment balcony in 2016.
Combs’ defense team said the prosecution’s own evidence shows the allegation “is demonstrably false in key respects,” including Ventura’s testimony that she witnessed Combs dangle Bongolan over the balcony.
Combs’ lawyers pointed to a text Ventura sent Combs’ chief of staff Kristina Khorram in which Ventura said she “just found out some crazy shit” and “I’m just finding out right now.”
Anna Estevao of Harris Trzaskoma LLP in New York asked Ventura about the texts in cross-exam: “Isn’t it true that you learned about this incident on the balcony after the fact?” Ventura answered, “I saw what I saw. So I don’t know.”
Assistant U.S. Attorney Madison R. Smyser introduced as evidence photos of a bruise on Bongolan’s leg that Bongolan said she sustained when Combs assaulted her on the balcony. One was taken on Sept. 26, 2016, at 9:45 a.m., which Bongolan testified was later “the same day” as assault.
A six-page mistrial motion said prosecutors “knew or should have known this testimony was perjured, and that Ms. Bongolan could not possibly have been injured by Mr. Combs on a Los Angeles balcony in the early morning hours of September 26, or even the day before that.”
Their own evidence shows why: Prosecutors entered as an exhibit records from the Trump Hotel in New York City that show Combs stayed there Sept. 24 to Sept. 29, 2016.
Prosecutors also have other evidence “showing Mr. Combs’s travel schedule and proving that he was on the East Coast when it told the jury he dangled Ms. Bongolan over a balcony in front of Ms. Ventura,” according to the motion.
In arguing against a mistrial, prosecutors said Combs’ lawyers didn’t show that Ventura or Bongolan willfully testified falsely, which is the legal standard for perjury, and if even they did, “any purported falsities were fully explored on cross examination and thus did not remain undisclosed during trial.”
“[T]he Government was certainly not aware it was eliciting any allegedly false testimony nor can the defendant colorably claim otherwise,” prosecutors wrote in as seven-page opposition that said “the testimony as to the details of the balcony incident is immaterial to the jury’s ultimate question of whether the defendant is guilty of the charge crimes.”
The text Ventura sent Khorram doesn’t establish she lied about witnessing the balcony incident because the “just found out some crazy shit” statement may have been about something else, prosecutors said.
“The bottom line is that Ms. Ventura’s truthful account of her memory, which may or may not align perfectly with a text message she sent to one of the defendant’s closest associates and which was the subject of cross-examination, simply does not amount to intentionally false testimony and does not support the defendant’s motion for a mistrial,” prosecutors wrote.
Prosecutors also dismissed the fact that their records place Combs in New York on the day that Bongolan testified the balcony incident occurred because “potentially misremembering a date is far from perjurious testimony.”
“Not only did Ms. Bongolan not affirmatively state that the balcony incident took place on September 26, 2016 or that she took the photograph on that particular date, she also qualified her testimony several times, explaining that she did not remember ‘all the details’ of the night and that she did not have an ‘independent memory,’ apart from her phone’s metadata, about the date of the incident,” prosecutors wrote. “If the defendant was in fact in New York on September 26, 2016, it is possible that the phone’s metadata did not reflect when the photograph was originally taken or that Ms. Bongolan misremembered when exactly she took the photograph.”
During a June 10 discussion outside the jury’s presence, Judge Subramanian questioned why he should declare a mistrial when Westmoreland thoroughly explored the issues in cross.
“And so why is that grounds for a mistrial? Isn’t that grounds for when you’re, you know, done for the day in the defense war room, you’re saying, ‘Great job, you know, on that cross-examination’?” Subramanian said.
Appellate specialist Alexandra Shapiro told Subramanian she disagrees with “the idea that somehow because we did a really good job on cross, that that excuses the government.”
“I don’t think that’s fair,” Shapiro said.
‘That’s what cross-examination is’
Westmoreland asked Bongolan early in cross about her immunity agreement with prosecutors, then asked, “Tell me your understanding of who gets to decide if you’re lying?”
“The prosecutor,” Bongolan answered.
“The prosecutors. Alright,” Westmoreland said before moving into questions about Bongolan’s friendship with Ventura, their drug use together and Bongolan’s own lawsuit against Combs.
She began asking about the balcony incident by questioning Bongolan about a demand letter her lawyer at the time, Tyrone Blackburn, sent Combs’ lawyers that said Combs said he could kill her while he held her over the balcony.
“And you knew that wasn’t true?” Westmoreland asked.
“I know it’s not true,” Bongolan answered. Bongolan testified she fired Blackburn for making false claims.
Westmoreland questioned Bongolan about her previous statements to prosecutors and used the statements to try to refresh her recollection.
“You agree that in your first interview with the government, you said that you were thrown into the balcony furniture and then Ms. Ventura came out. Do you agree with that?” Westmoreland asked.
“I don’t remember,” Bongolan answered.
According to a court reporter’s transcript, Judge Subramanian warned Westmoreland during a sidebar the jury couldn’t hear that “the preambles, the questions that the witness may not be telling the truth” are “improper” and “if it continues, I’m going to ask you to move on from lines of questioning that you otherwise would be able to go into.”
The judge never halted Westmoreland’s questioning, and the cross-exam continued the next day with Westmoreland questioning Bongolan about the date of the Sept. 26, 2016, photo of her bruise before asking about Combs’ Bad Boy tour and his appearances in New Jersey and New York on Sept. 25 and Sept. 26.
Smyser, a 2019 Harvard Law School graduate, complained during a sidebar that Westmoreland was “essentially testifying here.”
“She put several documents in front of the witness. They’re all hearsay. She tried to refresh her recollection, but it hasn’t worked. But she continues to testify about what is in those documents,” Smyser said.
Subramanian told the prosecutor that Westmoreland questioned Bongolan “in a proper way, which is to ask the witness if she has an understanding, given that she was aware of the tour, of Mr. Combs’ whereabouts.”
“And she’s permitted to ask it in a leading way. And she hasn’t referenced the content of any of the documents that were put in front of the witness,” the judge said.
Harvey, a licensed lawyer in Georgia since 1977, told me complaints about attorneys testifying through their cross-exam questions usually are unfounded because “that’s what cross-examination is.”
“It’s a series of statements punctuated with a question mark, and it’s an assertion as opposed to a question,” Harvey said.
Cross exposes ‘multiple different stories’
The alternate juror Coates interviewed identified Westmoreland’s cross-examination of Richard after Coates asked, “Were there any witnesses that made you think, ‘I don’t believe this’?”
That’s when the man said, “There was one that, I think, you know, unanimously, we kind of all said, like, wow. Like, it was almost like watching, like, TV. It was like, you know, like when, I think her name was Dawn Richard. … That one, when she on cross examination. I mean, I never saw such a cross examination. Was very impressive to watch.”
Westmoreland asked Richard early in cross-exam if she agrees that her statements “have changed over time.”
“No, I think they’ve been as best as I can recall,” Richard answered.
“You think they’ve been consistent?” Westmoreland asked.
“As best as I can recall,” Richard answered.
Westmoreland then asked Richard about her testimony in direct-exam that she saw Combs hit Ventura over the head with a cooking skillet when she was cooling eggs she’d cooked him for breakfast.
“Did you ever make the statement that you heard a pan hit the wall, you didn’t see it?” Westmoreland asked.
“I don’t recall,” Richard answered. She said she still didn’t recall after Westmoreland showed her a document to try to refresh her memory, so Westmoreland questioned her in detail about her lawsuit and her civil attorneys before asking about her meetings with prosecutors.
“When you met with the government, didn’t you tell them that Mr. Combs actually hit Ms. Ventura with a frying pan?” Westmoreland asked.
“I said he attempted to hit her with a frying pan,” Richard answered.
“I didn’t ask you that. Did you actually tell the government not that he attempted to hit her, that he did hit her?” Westmoreland asked.
“Yes,” Richard answered.
“You told the government that?” Westmoreland asked.
“That he hit her, yes,” Richard answered.
“And you agree with me that there’s a major difference between attempting to hit someone with a frying pan and actually hitting them, you agree with that?” Westmoreland asked.
“Yes,” Richard answered.
Westmoreland questioned Richard about telling the truth and being under oath before asking her, “You would agree with me that there is a difference between hitting someone with a frying pan and throwing a frying pan, correct?”
“Correct,” Richard answered.
“But you gave two different stories, didn’t you?” Westmoreland asked.
“I did the best that I could to recall,” Richard answered.
Westmoreland asked about another interview on March 18, 2025, in which “you told the federal prosecutors that Mr. Combs actually threw eggs at Ms. Ventura?”
Richard said she didn’t recall, so Westmoreland showed her another document to try to help her remember “that you actually told the prosecutors that Mr. Combs didn’t hit her with the pan at all?”
“I don’t recall saying that. I’m sorry,” Richard answered.
“And isn’t it true that you told the prosecutors … that he actually threw eggs at her?” Westmoreland asked.
“I don’t recall saying it,” Richard answered.
Westmoreland had Richard confirm that throwing eggs is different than hitting someone with a pan, and that hitting someone with a pan differs from attempting to, and that throwing a pan against a wall “is different than all three of the other ways.”
“Ms. Richard, let me just ask you, would you agree with me that it’s been hard for you to keep your story the same in reference to this egg incident?” Westmoreland asked.
Judge overruled Assistant U.S. Attorney Mitzi Steiner’s objection, and Richard answered, “No, I wouldn’t agree with that.”
“You would agree that you told multiple different stories, though?” Westmoreland asked.
“No, I would agree that I told it to the best of my recollection and it was as close as I could give it,” Richard answered.
“To the best of your recollection, you have about four different recollections on what may have happened that day?” Westmoreland asked.
“No, I don’t,” Richard answered.
Westmoreland continued questioning Richard about her testimony regarding Combs’ actions following the balcony incident, including her claim that Combs told her, “People go missing.”
Westmoreland emphasized that Richard didn’t mention that alleged threat in her first five meetings with prosecutors between Oct. 31, 2024, and April 17, 2025.
“Ms. Richard, isn’t it true that the first time that you mention and allege that Mr. Combs told you, people go missing, was a week ago on May 10th, 2025?” Westmoreland asked.
“No, ma’am,” Richard answered.
“Would you like me to show you the rest of your interviews to refresh your recollection?” Westmoreland asked.
“I know what I said, ma’am,” Richard answered.
“Now, you said that when Mr. Combs told you, people go missing, you took that to be a death threat?” Westmoreland asked.
“Yes, ma’am,” Richard answered.
“That’s what you’re telling us, right?” Westmoreland asked.
“Yes, ma’am,” Richard answered.
“A death threat that you didn’t recall on seven different occasions?” Westmoreland asked.
Judge Subramanian sustained Steiner’s objection.
In re-direct, Steiner reminded Richard of the testimony and asked, “Can you please describe for the jury what occurred during that incident of violence?”
“Cassie was grabbed the neck and head slammed against the window,” Richard answered.
“By who?” Steiner asked.
“By Sean Combs,” Richard answered.
“When you say the window, which —,” Steiner asked.
“The glass in the car,” Richard answered.
“And where were you relative to Ms. Ventura and Mr. Combs when Mr. Combs slammed Ms. Ventura’s head into the window?” Steiner asked.
“Sitting right there in front of them,” Richard answered.
Steiner, a 2017 Yale Law School graduate, addressed the conflicting statements about the alleged cooking skillet assault by stating the incident occurred in 2009 and asking Richard, “So approximately how long ago was that?”
“I’m not good at math. I’m sorry. A long time,” Richard answered.
“In the course of speaking with the government, is it fair to say that you have been thinking a lot about that incident?” Steiner asked.
“Yes,” Richard answered.
“Sitting here today, do you have any doubt — any doubt in your mind — that Mr. Combs attempted to strike Ms. Ventura?” Steiner asked.
“I have no doubt that he did,” Richard answered.
“And do you have any doubt — any doubt at all — that Ms. Ventura, when he did that, dropped to the ground and formed the fetal position?” Steiner asked.
“Correct,” Richard answered.
“Do you have any doubt?” Steiner asked.
“No, I don’t have any doubt,” Richard answered.
Jurors heard about Richard’s shifting statements again during the defense case-in-chief, through a stipulation with prosecutors that documented Richard’s different statements to prosecutors and the dates of the meetings.
Combs’ lawyers also entered as evidence a stipulation that said prosecutors’ report about their Jan. 18, 2024, meeting with Bongolan “does not reflect Ms. Bongolan stating that Mr. Combs told her ‘I can kill you’ at a photo shoot.”
Richard’s lawyer Lisa Bloom told me that while Richard “endured an aggressive cross examination, the essence of her story was corroborated by several other witnesses and by the harrowing video of Sean Combs brutally attacking Cassie, and she stands by it.”
“We are very proud to represent Dawn in her fight for justice against Sean Combs. Her case was filed before the criminal case. Dawn bravely testified in the criminal case and answered every question to the best of her ability,” Bloom, who is the daughter of famed lawyer Gloria Allred, said in an email.
Bloom’s law firm, based in Calabasas, California, represents Richard in a lawsuit against Combs in the Southern District of New York that includes former Bad Boy Entertainment President Harve Pierre and label UMG Recordings as codefendants.
A 47-page dismissal motion filed in May says “Richard seeks to transform narratives of alleged injuries against others into a headline-grabbing sex trafficking conspiracy as to her.”
Richard’s lawyers have until Aug. 15 to file their opposition.
‘Most people can’t react that fast’
Like so many other attorneys I’ve interviewed, Westmoreland told me preparation is key to courtroom success.
“It’s just important to know your case very well and to read everything and leave nothing unturned,” she said during our YouTube talk last year.
When it’s time for her to cross-examine a law enforcement official, “I know if he’s consistent with his report, if it’s consistent with any video footage, any other statements.”
“I know his answer before it comes out of his mouth,” Westmoreland said. “And if it’s not that, then we’ll deal with that then.”
Harvey said one of Westmoreland’s best attributes is “she’s very quick on her feet.”
“She’s really smart and, you know, people tend to underestimate her. She’s small. They’ve never heard of her. But she gets up there, she is a very proficient cross-examiner,” he said.
Westmoreland “knows how to work witness and can spot flaws in the witness’ demeanor or personality and act on those in the immediacy of the moment, which is unusual,” Harvey said.
“Most people can’t react that fast and can’t think that fast. Nicole absolutely can and shows it all the time,” Harvey said.
Steel and Westmoreland spoke outside the Daniel Patrick Moynihan U.S. Courthouse in lower Manhattan last Wednesday after the jury’s verdicts were announced.
Westmoreland urged reporters to “report just as vigorously on the acquittal of these counts” as they did on the indictment “please, because that is the right thing to do.”
“Thankfully, in our country, we have a right to a jury trial, and thankfully, Mr. Combs took that right. He actually battled for his freedom, for his innocence — he did it — and a lot of times, you know, people are too afraid to do it, and he did it, and we’re so happy that he did,” she said. “We’re proud of him. We are completely honored that he put his faith and his trust in us to fight for him. So today is a major win to show what the system can do.”
Harvey said he’s currently working several cases with Westmoreland and knows she and Steel will “come back and they’re going to work just like they always have done.”
Harvey said he believes Westmoreland is taking “a well deserved” vacation and “I don’t know whether she’s going to just jump back into things here without taking some time.”
“I’m confident that she will. I mean, it’s a long way to go from Diddy to, you know, an aggravated assault in rural Georgia, so I think it’s going to take some adjusting, but I know Nicole can do it,” he said.
“If there is anybody that doesn't have big heads, it’s Nicole and Brian,” Harvey continued. “They may get more calls for cases on a national level, but they’ll perform just as well. And there are plenty of people down here that need their help and are anxiously awaiting their return.”
Previous articles:
July 2 'Enormous victory' for Sean 'Diddy' Combs as jury acquits on trafficking, racketeering
June 29 Diddy trial jury has hundreds of hours of 'date night' or 'freak off' videos in evidence
June 16 Juror in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' trial dismissed over conflicting statements
June 9 Ex-girlfriend testifies about alleged post-raid sex trafficking by Sean 'Diddy' Combs
June 1 After graphic testimony, Diddy's defense asks alleged victim Mia about public praise
May 28 Capricorn Clark testifies about Diddy's gunpoint quest to kill Kid Cudi
May 23 Rapper Kid Cudi testifies in Sean 'Diddy' Combs' trial about 2012 Porsche torching
Transcripts of Westmoreland’s cross-examinations are available to download as PDFs for my paid subscribers, as are documents from Richard’s lawsuit against Combs. If you’re not already a paid subscriber, you can pay through the Substack option below, or you can use Venmo (MeghannCuniff), PayPal or Zelle (meghanncuniff@gmail.com). The cost is $8 per month or $80 per year. Your paid subscriptions make my work possible. Thank you!