New York
A panel of federal appellate judges on Thursday grilled US prosecutors and attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs over the validity of his 50-month jail sentence for his conviction on prostitution-related expenses.
Combs’ attorneys are looking for the music mogul’s launch from jail, arguing his trial decide improperly thought-about conduct for which Combs had been discovered not responsible – specifically the proof linked to the extra severe counts of racketeering conspiracy and intercourse trafficking.
“Their unanimous verdict was not guilty on the most serious charges,” protection lawyer Alexandra Shapiro advised the Second Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday. “The jury did not authorize punishment for sex trafficking or conspiracy, but that’s what drove the sentence here.”
Prosecutors, in flip, are asking the appeals court to affirm the conviction and sentence.
Assistant US Attorney Christy Slavik argued Combs’ sentence was based mostly partly on many elements that didn’t embody acquitted conduct, together with his historical past of abusing ladies.
“What the judge did here, what really drove his analysis, didn’t rely on acquitted conduct,” Slavik stated. “It didn’t even rely on disputed issues to begin with.”
The court had put aside 20 minutes for either side to make their circumstances. But the listening to lasted roughly two hours because the judges peppered the attorneys with questions on proof and hypotheticals as they grappled with the way to resolve the problems.
“This is an exceptionally difficult case,” Judge William Nardini stated on the conclusion of the listening to. The panel didn’t concern a call Thursday, though Shapiro urged the judges to rule as shortly as attainable.
Combs didn’t attend the arguments.
The founding father of Bad Boy Records was convicted final July on two counts of transportation to interact in prostitution in violation of the Mann Act for arranging journey for escorts to interact in intercourse acts together with his then-girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and a girl who testified beneath the pseudonym “Jane.”
Combs was acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and intercourse trafficking. Prosecutors alleged Combs coerced the 2 ladies into having intercourse with male escorts, usually by supplying medication to maintain them over a number of days. The marathon intercourse periods – which have been usually filmed – have been known as “Freak Offs” and “hotel nights.”
Combs was sentenced to greater than 4 years in jail in October. He is at present scheduled for launch in April 2028, in response to data from the US Bureau of Prisons. He has been held in federal custody since his arrest in September 2024.
Combs’ attorneys argued he ought to be launched as a result of defendants convicted of comparable prostitution-related offenses usually obtain sentences of 15 months. They are additionally asking the appeals court to acquit Combs of the prostitution-related expenses or ship the case again to US District Judge Arun Subramanian for resentencing.
At the outset of Thursday’s listening to, Nardini famous the Second Circuit has beforehand held it was constitutional for a sentencing decide to think about acquitted conduct.
But Shapiro argued the court has not weighed in because the US Sentencing Commission issued pointers prohibiting acquitted conduct from being thought-about when calculating advisory sentencing pointers.
“I don’t think the court has expressly addressed this issue since the guideline amendment,” she stated.
Prosecutors stated the brand new pointers apply when calculating the sentencing vary, not figuring out the sentence. In the latter, judges are allowed to think about different elements, together with the character of the defendant.
Shapiro argued prosecutors spent their time at trial attempting to show the extra severe expenses within the case, and that the Mann Act expenses have been merely an “afterthought.”
Judge M. Miller Baker prompt Subramanian was “mixing and matching” proof that was launched to show the opposite expenses to help Combs’ sentence.
“Why shouldn’t we hold you to the way you prosecuted the case?” Baker requested prosecutors Thursday. “You went to the jury, and you said this man did all these terrible things for purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for purposes of sex trafficking, and they acquitted him. And then for the Mann Act, it was just a sideshow.”
Slavik argued there was numerous “overlapping conduct” between the person expenses.
“The evidence of the hotel nights and the Freak Offs related both to the sex trafficking and the Mann Act charges,” Slavik stated, including there was by no means a “dividing line.”
Shapiro argued the decide sentenced Combs based mostly on situations of coercion, a component of the intercourse trafficking expenses which she argued the jury rejected.
“(Subramanian) found coercion when the … jury had not found coercion,” she stated.
Slavik argued that, even when the appeals court disagreed with the trial decide’s findings associated to acquitted conduct, the sentence ought to be affirmed because the trial decide stated he would have reached the identical sentence.
“(Subramanian) unequivocally and explicitly stated that he would impose the same sentence regardless of the acquitted conduct guideline,” Slavik stated.
As an instance, Slavik stated the decide recognized 5 “criminally liable participants” who have been concerned within the transportation of the escorts to justify the next sentence.
Combs’ attorneys additionally objected to Subramanian’s characterization at sentencing of Ventura, Jane and the escorts as “victims,” which impacted the sentence.
Jurors didn’t consider Ventura and Jane have been victims, Shapiro stated, since they acquitted Combs of the intercourse trafficking expenses associated to the 2 ladies. The escorts also needs to not be labeled as victims, that are outlined as individuals who have been “harmed or injured by the offense,” she stated.
In court filings, Combs’ attorneys additionally argued his conviction on prostitution-related expenses ought to be overturned as a result of he engaged in voyeurism and newbie pornography – conduct they are saying is protected by the First Amendment.
The concern was not a spotlight of Thursday’s arguments. But Combs’ attorneys say prostitution just isn’t outlined within the Mann Act and ask the appeals court to reject an “overbroad interpretation of the statute.”
“Freak-offs and hotel nights were highly choreographed sexual performances involving the use of costumes, role play, and staged lighting, which were filmed so Combs and his girlfriends could watch this amateur pornography later. Pornography production and viewing of this sort is protected by the First Amendment and thus cannot constitutionally be prosecuted,” his attorneys wrote in a court submitting.
“In other words, the term ‘prostitution’ in the Act should be limited to those situations where a paying customer engages in sex with the person being paid,” his attorneys wrote.
Prosecutors referred to as Combs’ argument “meritless.”
“Combs is entirely differently situated from adult film distributors: He hired and transported commercial sex workers to have sex with his girlfriends for his own sexual gratification, sometimes directly participating in the sex acts,” prosecutors wrote in a response filed in February.
To facet with Combs, prosecutors stated, would imply “any defendant who transported others to engage in prostitution could escape liability simply by watching or filming the sex.”