Video
In another appearance on Law & Crime channel, Ms. Townsend offers a broader sociological perspective on Emily Nutely's case. She points out how male victims are often perceived as experiencing less harm, a bias that can reflect on sentencing — sometimes leading to more lenient penalties for female offenders. Her analysis underscores the urgent need for both society and the justice system to move beyond these prejudiced interpretations and approach such cases with greater sensitivity.
Back with another appearance on Law & Crime Network, Ms. Townsend shares her legal commentary on a shocking case involving a 43-year-old teacher who pled guilty to sexually abusing a 17-year-old student. She emphasizes that a guilty plea in such cases does not necessarily indicate remorse, but often reflects a strategic legal decision—especially when the evidence is solid , turning the defense options more limited.
During Day 21 of P. Diddy’s trial, Ms. Townsend appeared on a Live Q&A on Law & Crime, where she answered viewers questions. Ms. Townsend weighs in on whether witness 'Jane' was properly prepared. She stresses that the prosecution must prepare their witnesses even more for cross-examination than for direct questioning; if they don’t, it’s a gift to the opposing party.
During Day 21 of P. Diddy’s trial, Ms. Townsend appeared on a Live Q&A on Law & Crime, where she answered viewers questions. Here, Ms. Townsend talks about whether Diddy would go home if there is a hung jury or mistrial.
When interviewed on Law & Crime’ Scandal, Ms. Townsend was asked about whether Diddy will testify, and how his decision to – or not to – testify will affect the jurors listening to a trial that delas heavily with “consent”.
On another collab with Law & Crime’s Scandal, Ms. Townsend talks about courtroom dynamics, sharing how Sean Combs’ charisma could shape jury perception if he testifies.
During another lunchtime Q&A with Law & Crime, Ms. Townsend explains what happens if the Diddy trial jurors forget important details. Drawing from her own courtroom experience, Ms. Townsend explained that jurors can write a note to the judge during deliberations requesting that specific testimony or evidence be read back. It’s a way to help ensure their verdict is based on a clear and accurate understanding of the evidence.
In another episode on Law&Crime Network, Ms. Townsend shared her legal analysis on the absence of assault charges in the Diddy case, despite the widely circulated video evidence showing Cassie being attacked. She explained that this was likely an intentional move by the prosecution to go all in on the more serious charges and avoid giving the jury the option to convict on something less severe.
Speaking with Law&Crime, Sarena Townsend reflects on whether the justice system is truly holding powerful figures accountable. She thinks the justice is going after powerful men and finds it encouraging, citing the Harvey Weinstein case as an example where justice was delayed or outright denied for many victims.
In another live Q&A with Law&Crime about P. Diddy's trial, Sarena Townsend weighs in on the $20,000 demand by Combs to keep tapes involving Cassie private, which could be deemed bribery in the context of ''revenge porn''. She explains how this could support charges of racketeering and sex trafficking, pointing to a pattern of control and abuse over Cassie and her family.
During the live coverage of Cassie Ventura’s testimony in the P. Diddy trial, Ms. Townsend addressed the question of financial motivation. She explained that settlements are always “fair game” during cross examination of a witness who sued the perpetrator. In some cases, individuals may initiate criminal proceedings with the hope of winning a lawsuit later, given the higher burden of proof required in criminal court. However, since Ms. Ventura has already reached a settlement, it is unlikely that financial gain is her motive.
During an interview with Law&Crime live with Jesse Weber about the P. Diddy trial, Ms. Townsend explains that the prosecution needs to educate jurors on the many layers of a RICO case. She also highlights how domestic violence victims often act in ways that aren’t easy for everyone to understand, but that it is important to not judge Cassie Ventura simply by her actions, but to consider what she endured in making those decisions.
During a live Q&A session on Law&Crime, covering Cassie’s testimony in USA v. Sean Combs, Ms Townsend was asked about the intimate videos obtained by prosecution and explained a criminal procedure rule that for video evidence to be valid or to be held reliable, it must be authenticated —either by the person who filmed it or someone featured in it— to ensure it corresponds with reality and was not manipulated.
Ms. Townsend provided legal commentary to Law & Crime about Boardwalk Empire actor Michael Pitt's indictment in Kings County. He is facing a slew of charges stemming from an alleged sexual and physical assault of a woman he was dating. Ms. Townsend explains here how the prosecution decided to indict the actor in a secret “X Indictment” rather than arrest him first.
Ms. Townsend provided legal commentary to Law & Crime about Boardwalk Empire actor Michael Pitt's indictment in Kings County. Pitt allegedly had prior bad behavior in his past; Ms. Townsend explains that a judge needs to balance the evidence about those prior bad acts against the prejudice of presenting propensity evidence to a jury.
WATCH Sarena Townsend, Ret. Chief Michael Osgood and Ambra Battilana Gutierrez speak at our press conference where we officially publicize our DEMAND for the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York to investigate the NYPD and Manhattan District Attorney's Office cover-up of Harvey Weinstein's sexual assault on Ms. Battilana Gutierrez.
Sarena and Ambra are joined by retired NYPD Deputy Chief Michael Osgood. The show covers everything from Harvey Weinstein’s 2015 assault on Ms. Gutierrez to the NYPD and Manhattan DA coverup of the case, when they refused to arrest and prosecute Weinstein for his crime despite Osgood collecting proof beyond a reasonable doubt that included a recorded confession. Learn more about the case and sign our petition DEMANDING A FULL, TRANSPARENT investigation by the Southern District of New York in to the public corruption: http://www.investigatenyc.com/
Sarena and Sal discuss a common thread between the decision to seek the death penalty against Luigi Mangione, to dismiss the federal case against Mayor Eric Adams, and the newest allegations of fraud by AG Letitia James. Hear the newest updates on all these matters, and more!
When questioned about the possible remorse of the Serhat Gumrucku, Ms. Townsend shares that his actions prove he had no remorse, from the planning, to his lying to the FBI, to his trial testimony. Instead of remorse, it appears Gumricku was simply willing to do anything to maintain his money and power.
When commenting on the conviction of Serhat Gumrukcu, the fraudulent 'scientist' who orchestrated a plan to kill Gregory Davis, Ms. Townsend shares her thoughts on how the man he hired tricked Mr. Davis into believing the hitman was a law enforcement agent before klling him, showing the Gumrucku’s state of mind and premeditation.
Ms. Townsend explains that the aggravating factors in the Luigi Mangione case are present in most murders that are prosecuted only at the state level, and therefore Mr. Mangione’s prosecution is incongruous to precedent set by federal prosecutors.
Ms. Townsend explains why a presidential agenda may be valuable to push the prosecution of certain types of cases, but why when the agenda involves executing people, you must be very careful about the agendas you pursue.
When questioned about the death penalty in Mangione's case, Ms. Townsend disagrees with its application. She argues that the case should be treated as a state prosecution of Murder in the 2nd Degree, and that the death penalty is not sought in New York State.
Ms. Townsend shares her thoughts about these types of cases and how they impact her, both as a criminal defense attorney and a mother.
Ms. Townsend adds to the analysis of Leilani Simon's trial, the victim's mother who was sentenced for his murder. She pointed out that prosecutors don't need to prove the motive behind a crime. In this case, Leilani was portrayed and proven to be a person of interest beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ms. Townsend believes this was a winnable case for the defense. She noted that law enforcement failed to eliminate all hypotheses, leaving a gap in the prosecution's case about reasonable doubt for other suspects.