Diddy Appeals Verdict as Judges Weigh Prison Sentence: ‘An Exceptionally Difficult Case’

Attorneys for Sean “Diddy” Combs and prosecutors battled before a federal appeals court Thursday (April 9) as he sought to overturn his 50-month sentence, with judges grilling both sides over “exceptionally difficult” legal questions about how much time the star deserved.

Combs was acquitted in a June verdict on racketeering (RICO) and sex trafficking charges over claims that he forced girlfriends to have sex with male prostitutes at sex parties called “freak offs.” But he was still convicted of two lesser counts of interstate prostitution, resulting in his lengthy prison sentence.

During a heated hearing at the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, Diddy’s attorney Alexandra Shapiro told a panel of three appellate judges that her client had been unfairly sentenced by a trial judge who had disregarded the jury’s decision to largely clear him.

“Their unanimous verdict was not guilty on the most serious charges … but [they’re] what drove the sentence,” Shapiro said. “This was the highest sentence ever for this type of charge.”

Thursday’s hearing centered on the legal concept of acquitted conduct — meaning the elements of the case against Diddy that jurors had rejected in their verdict. Federal sentencing officials recently passed new guidelines instructing courts to be more careful not to impose harsh sentences based on such conduct, saying at the time that “not guilty means not guilty.”

Diddy’s attorneys say Judge Arun Subramanian violated those new rules, handing down a draconian term that ignored the jury’s verdict rejecting the RICO and sex trafficking counts. Prosecutors say the judge did enough to comply with them and was allowed to consider much of the disputed case.

As the court grappled with those “exceptionally difficult” novel legal questions, both sides faced withering questions from the judges. Judge William J. Nardini interrupted Shapiro almost immediately, suggesting the court was not even able to consider the issue for procedural reasons. Judge Sarah A. L. Merriam later noted that Subramanian had acknowledged the acquittals, and asked why that wasn’t enough.

“Obviously the judge acknowledged that he’d been acquitted, but that’s not enough,” Shapiro said. “That’s just make-weight.” Nardini quickly interjected: “You mean he didn’t mean it? Or he wasn’t thinking it? What does ‘make-weight’ mean? That’s a rather disparaging characterization.” Shapiro quickly clarified that she had not intended to insult the trial judge.

Arguing for prosecutors was Christy Slavik, who said Subramanian had taken the correct approach to acquitted conduct. But she, too, faced sharp questions from the panel — including from Judge M. Miller Baker, who said the prostitution claims had been nothing more than a “sideshow” to the RICO case during the actual trial.

“Why shouldn’t we hold you to the way you prosecuted the case?” Baker asked. “You went to the jury and said this man did all these terrible things for purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for the purposes of sex trafficking, and they acquitted him! And now you want us to rely on all this acquitted conduct that was presumably rejected?”

Slavik fired back that Subramanian had instead relied on “admitted conduct” — citing the Diddy team’s much-discussed defense strategy of openly admitting physical abuse: “The defendant admitted from the outset of the trial that the defendant engaged in horrific domestic violence. All of that conduct was admitted.”

Slavik urged the panel to take a narrow approach to the new rules on acquitted conduct, saying judges could still consider such actions if it’s “relevant” to the actual convicted charges. But that suggestion also drew blowback from the judges.

“What your argument would lead to is that there’s no such thing as acquitted conduct,” Nardini said. “Tell me why I’m wrong about that.”

Though Thursday’s arguments focused entirely on sentencing, Combs is also appealing his underlying convictions, including by arguing that the “freakoffs” at the core of the case were merely amateur pornographic movie shoots that are protected by the First Amendment.

But such arguments are typically far harder to win at appeals courts, which are less likely to overturn a jury’s verdict than a judge’s ruling. And Diddy’s appeal has clearly been focused on sentencing since it was first filed in December.

Following Thursday’s hearing, the Second Circuit will take the case into consideration and issue a ruling at some point in the months ahead. Appeals in federal court can often take well over a year to reach a ruling, but Diddy’s case has been granted expedited status that should result in a faster decision.