**Judge Mathis Breaks Down Why Diddy’s Defense Didn’t Call Witnesses**

Judge Greg Mathis, a man who transitioned from a troubled youth in Detroit to becoming the youngest judge in Michigan’s history, is a household name thanks to his long-running television show, *Judge Mathis*.

The Emmy-winning program, which aired for 24 seasons, was the first court show to feature an African-American judge. Recently, Judge Mathis sat down for an interview with VladTV to discuss the ongoing trial involving music mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs.

The conversation revolved around the defense’s surprising decision not to call any witnesses and whether Diddy himself should take the stand.

As the trial nears its conclusion, the defense has opted not to present witnesses, a decision that has sparked curiosity. Judge Mathis explained the rationale behind this strategy, stating that the defense likely believes the prosecution has failed to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.

By not calling witnesses, the defense avoids the risk of cross-examination, which could potentially harm their case. Mathis emphasized that putting witnesses on the stand opens them up to scrutiny, and if a witness is caught in a lie or falters under questioning, it could sway the jury against the defendant.

“They probably feel the prosecution hasn’t proven their case, so there’s no need to call witnesses,” Mathis said. “You don’t want to expose your witnesses to cross-examination, which might trip them up and make them look unreliable to the jury.”

When asked whether Diddy himself should testify, Judge Mathis was unequivocal: “Zero reason. None at all.” Drawing on his experience as a criminal defense attorney, Mathis revealed that he never put his clients on the stand during his four years of practice, during which he never lost a trial.

He explained that defendants are often at a disadvantage when testifying because they are laypeople going up against trained prosecutors skilled in cross-examination. These lawyers are adept at twisting words, exposing inconsistencies, or making a defendant appear dishonest.

Mathis acknowledged that there are exceptions to this rule. He referenced cases where defendants have taken the stand and successfully defended themselves, but he stressed that such instances are rare.

One notable example discussed during the interview was the case of rapper Hurricane Chris, who was charged with murder in Louisiana. Chris testified in his own defense, explaining that he acted in self-defense during an altercation at a gas station.

Despite his lawyer’s advice, Chris felt compelled to tell his side of the story directly to the jury. His testimony resonated with the jurors, and he was ultimately acquitted.

Judge Mathis, however, pointed out that Hurricane Chris’s case was an exception, not the norm. “Most lawyers advise against it because you’re going up against someone trained to cross-examine and expose lies,” he said. For the average defendant, the risks of testifying far outweigh the benefits.

In Diddy’s case, the defense team’s decision not to call witnesses or have him testify is a calculated move. They are relying on the jury to see the gaps in the prosecution’s case and conclude that reasonable doubt exists. With closing arguments underway, Judge Mathis predicts a verdict—or potentially a hung jury—within the next week.

Ultimately, the conversation highlighted the complexities of courtroom strategy and the importance of understanding when to let the evidence—or lack thereof—speak for itself. Judge Mathis’s insights offered a glimpse into the high-stakes decisions that shape the outcomes of trials involving high-profile defendants like Diddy.