Judges appear skeptical of arguments seeking to reduce Sean 'Diddy' Combs' sentence

NEW YORK -- A three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared skeptical on Thursday of Sean Combs' argument that his prison sentence should be reduced because the judge unlawfully punished Combs as if he had been found guilty of more serious crimes.

After a seven-week trial last year in Manhattan federal court, jurors acquitted Combs of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking but convicted him of two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, centering on allegations of drug-fueled, days-long sex romps called "freak offs" or "hotel nights" with former girlfriends and male sex workers.

Combs is serving a four-year prison sentence, which defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro said treats him as if he had been convicted of the more serious counts. She urged the appeals court to reduce the sentence "to ensure that not guilty really means not guilty."

The appellate judges said Thursday it is constitutional for a sentencing judge to consider all of Combs' conduct in establishing a sentence.

"We have two women who were plied with drugs to participate in this, one of whom became an opioid addict, so doesn't that support the reasonableness of this?" Judge M. Miller Baker asked.

The same judge, however, questioned prosecutors over whether the judge threw too heavy a book at Combs even though the jury did not find he coerced women into sex.

"The Mann Act was just a sideshow," Baker said, referring to the two counts of conviction. "Now you want us to rely us on all this acquitted conduct?"

Prosecutor Christy Slavik pointed to a flight from the Cannes Film Festival during which Combs allegedly threatened to release explicit videos of then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura before asking her for a freak off.

"I just felt trapped. Like, how do you get out of this situation?" Ventura testified at trial. "He would put these videos out. He would ruin me, embarrass me. Just make me out to be someone that I'm not."

She said she participated in the freak off shortly after they landed.

"It's what he's asking for," Slavik told the appellate judges. "The threats are not followed by a request to go to dinner, a request to ask Cassie to do the dishes. Those threats are followed by a demand for a freak off."

Each side was allotted ten minutes each during Thursday's proceedings. Oral arguments lasted two hours.

Combs, who is incarcerated at a low-security prison in New Jersey, did not attend Thursday's proceedings. His sister Keisha attended, along with her husband and two close family friends.

Outside court, some of the same influencers and live streamers who attended trial gathered on the occasion of the appeal.

The judges did not immediately issue a decision.

What was Combs found guilty of?

After a two-month trial last summer, a jury reached a split verdict against Combs, acquitting him on the more serious charges of sex trafficking and racketeering while finding him guilty of two lesser counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. Though the jury determined that Combs did not coerce or exploit his victims -- necessary elements to prove sex trafficking -- they did conclude that he transported people across state lines for his "freak offs."

Claiming legal victory, Combs' lawyers unsuccessfully pushed for his release from prison, arguing he had already served enough time in prison while awaiting trial.

U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian rejected those arguments and handed down a 50-month sentence, saying Combs was able to get away with violent and abusive conduct for years.

"The court is not assured that if released these crimes would not be committed again," said Subramanian, who added that a lengthy sentence was needed "to send a message to abusers and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women is met with real accountability."

How much time does Combs have left in his sentence?

After spending about 14 months in the federal jail in Brooklyn ahead of his trial and sentencing, Combs has been serving his sentence at the federal prison in Fort Dix, New Jersey. In addition to having those 14 months taken off his overall sentence, Combs is also likely eligible for a reduction in his sentence under the First Step Act and by participating in a drug rehabilitation program.

According to the federal Bureau of Prisons, Combs' tentative release date is April 15, 2028.

What is Combs' argument to reduce his sentence?

Combs' lawyers have argued his sentence is "unlawful, unconstitutional, and a perversion of justice" because it factored in conduct for which the jury acquitted Combs.

"The jury refused to authorize any punishment for coercive sex or conspiracy--because the evidence showed there was none," his lawyers wrote in a reply brief. "The jury only authorized punishment for 'prostitution.' It never authorized a sentence four times the typical sentence for that crime."

Prosecutors pushed back on those arguments, arguing that the federal sentencing guidelines allow the judge to consider relevant conduct, even if he was acquitted of those crimes.

"That is because 'acquittal on criminal charges does not prove that the defendant is innocent; it merely proves the existence of a reasonable doubt as to his guilt,'" they argued.

How does the First Amendment apply to Combs' conviction?

Combs' lawyers also asked the court to throw out the conviction altogether, arguing the prostitution at the center of his case was part of an effort to make "typical amateur pornography."

"The encounters were highly choreographed performances involving costumes, lighting, and other staged effects. Later, Combs and his girlfriends often watched the films together. Such conduct is protected by the First Amendment," his lawyers argued.

Prosecutors have told the court the transportation of sex across state lines "is not inherently expressive" conduct protected under the First Amendment.

"Combs's intent to watch the sex sessions live cannot bring his interstate transportation of others to have sex for money within the First Amendment's protection. Were it otherwise, any defendant who transported others to engage in prostitution could escape liability simply by watching or filming the sex," prosecutors wrote in their brief.