Sean “Diddy” Combs’s legal team has formally appealed his conviction and 50-month prison sentence for prostitution-related charges, arguing the judgment was “unjust” and the presiding judge overstepped his authority. The music mogul, 56, is currently incarcerated in a New Jersey low-security facility after being found guilty on two counts following an eight-week trial in New York earlier this year.
Combs’s conviction stemmed from charges that did not require proof of force, fraud, or coercion, distinguishing them from the more severe sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges of which he was acquitted. Despite the acquittal on the more serious counts, Judge Arun Subramanian sentenced Combs to a lengthy term, a decision his lawyers now contend was influenced by information beyond the jury’s verdict.
In an 84-page brief filed this week, Combs’s attorneys assert that Judge Subramanian effectively acted as a “thirteenth juror,” defying the jury’s findings by concluding that Combs “coerced,” “exploited,” and “forced” his girlfriends into sexual acts and led a criminal conspiracy. This judicial interpretation, they argue, led to a disproportionate sentence for the lesser offenses for which Combs was convicted.
The legal team highlights that typical sentences for the prostitution offenses for which Combs was found guilty are often less than 15 months, even in cases where coercion is involved – an element the jury did not find present in Combs’s case. They contend that the judge’s reliance on “acquitted conduct” significantly inflated the sentence, rendering it unjust.
During the October sentencing hearing, Judge Subramanian cited extensive testimony from the trial, detailing alleged abuse described by Combs’s ex-girlfriends and former associates. The judge explicitly stated, “A history of good works can’t wash away the record in this case. You abused these women. You used that abuse to get your way, freak-offs and hotel nights,” indicating his consideration of the broader allegations.
Judge Subramanian further elaborated on his sentencing rationale, noting, “The evidence of the abuse is massive. The drugs may have exacerbated your erratic and violent behavior over the years. However, the court has to consider all of your history here.” This perspective, Combs’s lawyers argue, demonstrates the judge’s reliance on factors not directly tied to the specific prostitution convictions.
A central tenet of the appeal brief challenges the very definition of “prostitution” as applied to Combs’s case. His lawyers argue that “paying for a voyeuristic experience,” which they claim is what Combs was convicted of doing, does not constitute engaging in prostitution under a proper legal construction.
The appeal further posits that the “freak-offs” and “hotel nights” described during the trial, which involved highly choreographed sexual performances with costumes, role-play, and staged lighting, filmed for later viewing, should be protected under the First Amendment. They characterize these activities as amateur pornography production.
Combs’s legal team contends that the production and viewing of such pornography are constitutionally protected activities and, therefore, cannot be legitimately prosecuted. This argument seeks to reframe the nature of the alleged acts from criminal offenses to expressive conduct shielded by free speech rights.
Throughout the original eight-week trial, the court heard extensive testimony from various witnesses, including Combs’s former partners and associates. These individuals detailed alleged patterns of abuse and described drug-fueled sex marathons, which became known as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights,” forming a significant part of the prosecution’s narrative, though Combs’s attorneys consistently maintained the encounters were consensual.
The appeal now places the burden on the higher courts to review the judicial process and the interpretation of legal statutes applied in Combs’s conviction and sentencing. The Independent, the original source of the article, reportedly sought comment from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York regarding the ongoing legal challenge.
