is it likely that Shawn Colmes will take a deal that he will never go to trial what would that even look like why would he do this would turning on others make sense well we're going to break down the top reason Shawn combes would take a plea deal in his criminal case and we're going to bring on former R Kelly prosecutor Nadia shihada to break it down welcome to sidebar presented by law crime I'm Jesse Weber well since we learned about the federal charges facing Shawn Diddy Colmes when he was arrested and indicted last month
I'm talking reter conspiracy sex trafficking transportation to engage in prostitution I have said from the very beginning there is no way he's going to take a plea deal no way why do I say that I say that because I was convinced look at what prosecutors are alleging right they're alleging that he's at the top of a criminal organization the criminal Enterprise that he was the one directing assistants Associates to participate in illegal activity that he was engaged in a campaign of threatening forcing coercing women to engage in sexual activity including these elaborate many times drug
fueled sexual performances called freak offs that he was sex trafficking exploiting abusing women for years so how could prosecutors work out a deal that wouldn't include significant prison time I mean currently he's facing what 15 years to life in prison if he's convicted you think they would agree to a deal that would just be be a slap on the wrist in order to avoid a trial how could they justify that how could they justify minimal prison time when by the way the United States Attorney for the southern district of New York Damen Williams held a
press conference after Colmes was arrested and he described the raer and producer as essentially at the top of this criminal ladder Sean Colmes LED and participated in a racketeering conspiracy that used the business Empire he controlled to carry out criminal activity a year ago Shan com stood in Time Square and was handed a key to New York City today he's been indicted and will face Justice in the southern district of New York so in my mind significant prison time has to be on the table in a plea deal anything less wouldn't really be Justice right
and because of that it seems to me so unlikely that sha Colmes would agree to a plea deal because he wouldn't want to agree to any prison time after all it seems to me based on him forfeiting his passport months ago coming voluntarily to New York to surrender to authorities knowing he was about to be indicted trying to sell his plane being in constant contact or his attorneys being in constant contact with the prosecutors he was doing everything in his power to avoid being locked up in pre-trial detention he didn't want it he thought he
was probably going to make bail and that he probably thought he was going to be on house arrest that didn't happen he was denied bail twice he's actively trying to get out of the Metropolitan Detention Center he's that's where he currently resides by the way as he awaits trial he's now appealing this issue to the second circuit court of appeals but why do you think he's pushing for a May 2025 trial date usually criminal defendants would push out a trial date to make sure they're as ready as possible to fight all the charges including by
the way charges as complex as this and especially when you have so much digital and physical evidence to review we're talking terabytes of information why seemingly rush to trial in less than a year for when you were indicted unless you really want to get out of jail as soon as possible he may really think he has a great case that he can win that he can put this behind him that he can get out of jail that's my opinion so it seems unlikely again in my mind Holmes would agree to plead guilty and accept prison
time which again has to be quite substantial now having said that having said that putting that that whole monologue to the side is a plead deal totally out of the question of course not it happens I was talking to a claimed criminal defense attorney Bradford Cohen about this on a previous sidebar and he too feels like a plea deal is unlikely but he also said he's been proven wrong about this you never think that certain defendants would take a deal and they do so now the question we have for you here what are some reasons
that sha Diddy comes would take a deal is it likely to happen well to answer that question I want to bring in former Federal prosecutor Nadia shihata one of the people who prosecuted and helped to convict R Kelly of his Federal sex crimes charges out in New York Nadia so good to see you thanks for coming back on thank you for having me so I have laid out I think several reasons about why he might take a deal and I'll go through them with you but before we even get into what the reasons he could
take a deal is my analysis totally totally off about why I think it's unlikely he would take a deal no I think you're you're spoton um you know he is facing a really significant prison sentence and this is the type of case where I don't see prosecutors offering a really sweetheart type of plea deal um that would involve anything less uh to including a plea to the the most serious charge which is the sex trafficking which has a 15-year mandatory minimum so in those circumstances it's it's not very likely you know one of the things
I love about hosting sidebar is the opport opportunity to speak with really smart good lawyers as you see here and how can I highlight great lawyers without talking about Morgan and Morgan our sponsor America's largest injury law firm and by the way for a reason they win a lot I'm talking recent verdicts of $12 million in Florida $26 million in Philadelphia $6.8 million in New York these are all higher than the highest insurance offers in these cases there's no upfront fee to pay the whole process can be done simply on your smartphone so if you're
injured you can easily start a claim at forthepeople.com LC sidebar now let's get into this world where it's a possibility he takes a deal reason number one the case is just too strong against him he doesn't think that he can win maybe cut his losses and take a deal you tell me do you think that that is is a possibility when you and and to be clear we don't know all of the evidence the prosecution has but through their filing they they've talked about what the they said how much physical evidence digital evidence they have
do you think that could be a reason and let's expand upon that it can always be a reason look one of the reasons defendants plead guilty in cases is because they know at the end of the day if they're found guilty they're going to be uh sentenced by a judge and I think most defendants it's it's rational to um not want the judge who's sentencing you to sit through weeks and weeks of evidence coming out in excruciating detail including from victims who testify and remember that when they're sentencing you it's much you're you're kind of
better off even if you know each side files voluminous sentencing materials there is a difference between hearing from people on the stand and reading about what the allegations or the uh the evidence would have shown at trial um and that can can serve to benit benefit a person at least marginally um potentially in sentencing so if we're talking about that it could be quite likely he's convicted of these charges at a minimum I know this might be tough given you're not a part of this case you don't know all the details we don't know all
the evidence but if he's looking at racketeering conspirac conspiracy if he's looking at uh sex trafficking by force Forida coercion if he's looking at transportation to engage in prostitution if he's convicted across the board I've mentioned what the range is 15 years to life in prison I believe but really istically what do you think he could be facing if he's convicted so I mean at least 15 years but likely significantly higher than that depending on how many you know victims are involved which we understand there's certainly more than one from what the prosecutors have said
and so that can all affect kind of the guidelines calculation um so you know it could be in the realm of the the AR Kelly case where he got 30 years on the racketeering so some something you know 20 to 30 years potentially even more and that's a life sentence he's 54 years old I mean it's not a life sentence he'd be in his 80s but but I mean think about what we're talking about if we're talking about a 30-year prison sentence and by the way talking about the strength of a case I mean they've
said they'll they'll put on evidence to say that this was all consensual this wasn't sex trafficking nobody was forced into anything there's no racketeering conspiracy there's no criminal agreement right there's no criminal organization or Enterprise but at a minimum at a minimum do you feel like his attorneys are his attorneys are saying listen I don't know how we're going to defend against the last charge the transportation to engage in prostitution if prosecutors say they have records they have payment receipts they have travel records it feels really hard to deny that he brought in sex workers
for prostitution and I think for that charge he's looking at possibly 10 years in prison so as we calculate how strong the case is whether he's not going to take a deal am I off about that because how do you defend against that last charge I mean I think you're right that that charge is the most difficult to defend against because it's doesn't require um you know that much proof and certainly not force fraud or coercion um but it's also the least harsh potential sentence he faces so it's anywhere from zero to 10 years and
the max while the maximum is 10 years um that doesn't mean the guidelines will put him anywhere near that range I suspect if by some miracle he were offered a plea to just that charge that that would be a plea he would consider but I don't expect that it would be one that uh prosecutors would offer it goes back to the idea of of Justice what's Justice when you're saying he's at the top of this uh criminal Enterprise so let's now talk about another reason and in the is it a possibility that you know prosecutors
don't necessarily want to go to trial it's time consuming it's it's it's expensive it's the issue of having these accusers to get up on the stand relive what they have to say it's a painful experience I'm sure they would like to avoid uh trial but would there ever be a situation where he gets minimal prison time what would I guess the question is what's the minimum that a plea deal would look like in terms of prison time with a case like this unless something were to seriously go wrong uh with the prosecution's case or evidence
um I don't see them making any offer that would not involve the sex trafficking charge which would have the minimum of 15 years um I just think it's highly unlikely that that would happen in a case certainly one like this where VI new victims are kind of coming out of the woodwork every day there's so much publicity regarding the case um I think something would seriously have to be problematic about their evidence for for them to offer something less than that that's significant I mean that even of itself is very significant so that becomes like
every CRI a lot of criminal defendants they have to we do I take this deal uh where I'm sent away for 15 years you know he's 54 but 15 years is not 30 years uh versus going to to prison for you know 30 years 40 years that's a difficult uh that's a difficult decision now if he took a plea deal and let's say he did get a minimum of 15 years would he get any early release would that be possible under the federal guidelines so there's no parole in the federal system um there is something
called Good Time credit um and so assuming you are incarcerated without any kind of serious infractions um of prison rules and so forth then you do get um credit for for your good time um meaning so your sentence is ultimately reduced a little bit um uh and I can't remember kind of the exact calculation of of what it is it changed recently under the first step act but it it would kind of lessen it a little bit let me go to another reason why he might take a deal maybe he doesn't want to go to
trial for personal reasons maybe you know trial's too expensive to go through he's got all these civil lawsuits he's got to worry about maybe a trial would just be too emotionally tough for him and for his family maybe he doesn't want all of those details coming out at a trial is that a possib look it's certainly a possibility everything's possible um and these are things that all defendants kind of have to consider when they're deciding how to proceed in a case I'm not sure that that um consideration though here would weigh that strongly because there
are so many civil lawsuits out there now that so much information about him is coming out anyway or allegations at least and that is really all in the public domain now um and those civil cases whether or not he pleads guilty in the criminal case will likely move forward and so unless he settles all of them you know more is likely to come out and the indictment without even naming names is pretty bad I mean it's it's hard to recover from that those allegations but I will ask you this talking about personal reasons about not
going to trial what about this would the government say to him listen if you take a deal we won't charge any of your family members or friends maybe even your sons with criminal activity we know there's allegations against the sons in civil lawsuits is that a deal that the government would put on the table if you take a plea Sean Colmes we won't go after your family that would be highly unusual um in fact there's a policy in the Department of Justice against offering those types of deals so I would be very surprised if a
deal like that were were to be offered literally I thought of it I was brainstorming ways that they might take that a deal might be on the table there's no evidence to suggest that that's what they said I just thought of it I was speculating so just want to make that clear no evidence that the government has offered that or even thinking of that let me ask you this what about the idea and this has come up a lot that Shan Colmes would take a deal in exchange for revealing big names to give up bigger
fish and I think this one's interesting you know would the government work out a deal for him to cooperate against other high-profile people other celebrities and what's strange to me thinking about that is isn't he at the top isn't he the biggest fish I I don't I keep getting that question I'm curious what you think yeah so he's certainly alleged to be the top of his organization it's certainly possible that he has information about other criminal activity involving even more people uh that are high-profile or that could be of interest to the government um but
I think um and and certainly the government in all sorts of cases mob cases has uh you know made cooperation agreements with people at the top of their criminal organizations even people who committed murders and that happens all the time in federal cases um but it's usually you know the prosecutor has to really believe they are getting um some really good evidence and information to even consider something like that when someone is charged with these types of crimes and when they are alleged to be the head of the of the criminal organization and assuming it
would be about this alleged conduct would they even need need him to testify or provide information or is everything documented on tape videos digital evidence text messages what value would a Sean Colmes cooperation be for them I was also struggling with that as well uh as we talk about if he could take a deal yeah it depends on what their other evidence is which we don't have you know a great insight into right now but um but to the extent a lot of it is on video then you you know you're certainly not going to
as a prosecutor in a case like this this it's highly unlikely that you're going to enter a cooperation agreement with him to do what's known as cooperating down to um convict people that are lower on the Chain um that's that's not what prosecutors generally do in these types of cases but if you think about it just taking the government's allegations is true that he's the head of this criminal Enterprise and he's involved with guns and he's involved with drugs if he had connections to I'm again this is purely speculating I'm trying to think about it
if he knew about Crim Lords if he knew about cartels if he could lead the federal government to some really really other kind of serious players in the game murderers um would that be of something of interest to the government and working out of Playa potentially um without knowing kind of what that information is it's hard to say but um you know if his lawyers were to say we have you know he has information about X Y and Z what generally happens is the prosecutors would ask for what's known as an attorney profer to decide
whether they want to profer him and get this information straight from him so they would start with that to see if it's the type of um information that they would actually consider uh to enter into a cooperation agreement now I have another potential reason why he might take a deal the idea that he would want to plead guilty to these charges in the hopes that no more char charges come down the line what do I mean by that there has been a lot of talk about minors and although he is not charged with respect to
miners soliciting minors sexually assaulting minors those are allegations that have been brought up in a lot of the Civil uh lawsuits now the federal government would have the opportunity to include um instances with minors as part of the federal charges we saw it with R Kelly we saw it with Jeffrey Epstein we saw it with glain Maxwell is there a possibility the government could say if you please guilty to these charges we will not bring additional charges against you including charges with respect to minors which as you and I both know is a lot tougher
to defend what do you think yeah so that question goes to what's what's put into what's known as the coverage paragraph in a plea agreement and that basically is a standard part of most plea agreements which says what the government in exchange for your guilty plea will not prosecute will will not bring charge against you for um and in a case like this um you know prosecutors might just put the charges they've already filed so the other count depending on what count of the indictment he pleed guilty to um they would include just kind of
what's set out in the indictment but it is possible for the defendant to ask for other things to be included and then it's a question of negotiation again in a case like this where they are continuing to investigate and we we don't know what is included in their continuing investigation but to the extent that they have already uncovered evidence about you know illegal sexual activity with minors they may not be willing to put that in a coverage paragraph or they might require him to plead guilty to that conduct even if it's not currently in the
indictment yeah because they the prosecutors have indicated that the possibil that it's possible there could be a superceding indictment and one of the things that was lacking in or that was missing in this indictment was the fact the current indictment was the fact there was nothing regarding underage people I thought that was curious a lot of my legal analysts I've spoken with said it was curious given the allegations that have been leveled against Shan combes so it made me wonder do they have something else up their sleeve in an effort to as a bargaining trip
to say all right you know this might be a way I guess the difficulty of thinking about that accepting a plea deal where they wouldn't charge him for those additional crimes is that's not Justice for the other alleged victims right yeah I mean I'm I think that would certainly be complaint about a plea deal like that um my guess is it was the conduct involving minors was not outlined in the indictment because they uh didn't feel they had enough to bring such charges at least at that point but as I said you know they've made
clear they're continuing to investigate I'm sure they're interviewing lots of people um and those charges May yet be to come and that may be you know one of the reasons that the defense team pushed for for um a trial date and and one that was you know is coming up quite soon at this point Nadia Before I Let You Go will we know whether or not there were negotiations regarding a plea deal is that happened at any sort of status conference any point in this Federal Criminal process where we will know that there were plea
negotiations and they broke down what was maybe offered what was rejected what would what would we know about that if that's ever on the table so sometimes the judge will ask about that in a status conference whether any plea offers have been made um and so if they're directly asked um you know they will need to answer the question in many federal cases plea offers are routinely extended without any you know um asking for them by the defense that you know indictment happens you send out a plea offer this isn't one of those typical cases
I think because the defense is also made clear publicly that they don't intend to plead guilty you know they're not going to say something different right now unless directly asked by the judge and if something has H in fact happened then as lawyers they'll have to answer truthfully obviously to the court all right well Nadia shihata we will wait and see what happens as I said I thought I think it's unlikely he's going to agree to prison time but as he sits there uh in detention waiting for trial he may be feeling differently day in
and day out and we'll wait to see what happens next n shihata thank you so much for coming on really appreciate your perspec perspective excellent analysis as always and thank you so much for the work that you do and the work that you've done thank you again all right everybody that's all we have for you right now here on sidebar thank you so much for joining us and as always please subscribe on Apple podcast Spotify YouTube wherever you get your podcast I'm Jesse Weber speak to you next time [Music]
