Almost three months after his conviction on prostitution charges, Sean Combs is set to appear in a Manhattan courthouse this Thursday. This will be his legal team’s final push to challenge the verdict before his sentencing.
Combs, who has spent over a year incarcerated in a Brooklyn jail, was found guilty in July on two counts of interstate prostitution. These charges stemmed from voyeuristic “sex marathons” allegedly involving male escorts and two of his ex-girlfriends. However, the jury cleared him of the more severe charges of sex trafficking and orchestrating a racketeering conspiracy.
Immediately following the verdict, Combs’s legal team launched an aggressive campaign to convince the judge to either nullify the conviction entirely, grant a full acquittal, or mandate a new trial focused solely on the charges he was found guilty of.
His lawyers contend that the prosecution’s application of the Mann Act—the federal law central to his conviction—was fundamentally unfair, arguing it was inappropriately used to prosecute consensual sexual acts between adults.
In a recent court filing, the defense stated that “The relationships at issue, the relevant participants, and the means by which the offenses were carried out are worlds apart from typical Mann Act convictions.”
A heated legal debate is anticipated this Thursday in a Manhattan Federal District Court hearing, where the defense will challenge the conviction against prosecutors. This critical session takes place just over a week before Combs’s scheduled October 3rd sentencing.
Conversely, prosecutors have maintained in court documents that Combs, also known as Diddy and Puff Daddy, blatantly violated the Mann Act. They allege he used violence and plied women with drugs to ensure their ongoing involvement in what were termed “freak-offs” and “hotel nights.”
Prosecutors countered, writing that “There is no doubt that the defendant transported escorts with the intent that they engage in sex acts for pay.”
Overturning a jury’s verdict is a significant legal challenge. During the hearing, Judge Arun Subramanian, who presided over the lengthy eight-week trial, is expected to meticulously probe both legal teams on the intricate details of the dispute, particularly focusing on constitutional arguments and the precise definition of “prostitution.”
This hearing sets the stage for the upcoming legal arguments concerning his sentencing.
Combs’s defense team has requested a prison sentence of no more than 14 months, which would see him released by year-end. The government, however, is anticipated to recommend a significantly harsher sentence, with their official recommendation due next week.
According to the probation office, federal sentencing guidelines suggest a maximum of seven-and-a-quarter years, a calculation that considers alleged acts of violence against his former girlfriends and the use of drugs during the sexual encounters.
Following the verdict, Judge Subramanian denied Combs’s request for release from jail before sentencing. He continues to be held in a dormitory-style unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a facility known for housing prominent inmates.
To argue for a lighter sentence, the defense has portrayed Combs in court documents as a “humbled man” who achieved sobriety for the first time in 25 years during his detention. They claim he also developed an educational program that has “inspired” fellow inmates.
The defense presented the judge with testimonials from inmates who participated in his course, “Free Game With Diddy.” The curriculum covers business management and personal development, with one assignment requiring an essay on “lessons learned from Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s journey.”
Arturo Santiago, an inmate, reportedly wrote, “Because of this class I have a purpose, something to look forward to every day.”
This Thursday’s hearing marks Combs’s first courtroom appearance since the jury delivered its verdict.
Should the case move forward to sentencing, the arguments presented by the defense at this hearing could offer insight into a potential future appeal.
Combs’s legal team asserts that his convictions are a significant anomaly in contemporary Mann Act prosecutions, a law typically enforced against pimps who profit from transporting individuals for prostitution.
His lawyers argued in court documents that “this is one of the extremely rare cases in which the statute is being applied against a paying customer — a john — rather than a pimp.” They further contended that because Combs acted as a voyeur, watching his girlfriends engage with escorts, this behavior should not be classified as prostitution.
Prosecutors, however, interpret Combs’s legal maneuvers as an attempt to restrict the Mann Act’s application and diminish the gravity of his actions.
In their legal brief, the prosecution emphasized that “Courts have held that the Mann Act applies to those who do not participate directly in sex acts and who do not financially benefit from the prostitution.” They also pointed out that while Combs primarily watched and masturbated during these “freak-offs,” he occasionally engaged sexually with the women involved.
Finally, the hearing is expected to delve into the defense’s argument that the “freak-offs,” which Combs frequently filmed, were essentially “amateur porn” and therefore protected under the First Amendment. The government has dismissed this argument as baseless.