Nearly three months after his conviction on prostitution charges, Sean Combs is slated to appear in a Manhattan courthouse on Thursday. This marks his lawyers’ ultimate push to invalidate the verdict before his sentencing.
Mr. Combs, who has been held in a Brooklyn jail for over a year, was found guilty in July on two counts of transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution. These charges are linked to voyeuristic sex marathons involving male escorts and two of his former girlfriends. The jury, however, cleared him of the more severe accusations of sex trafficking the women and running a racketeering conspiracy.
Following the jury’s decision, Mr. Combs’s legal team immediately initiated efforts to persuade a judge to vacate the verdict and acquit the music mogul entirely, or at least to grant a new trial focused solely on the charges he was convicted of.
Their central argument is that the case against Mr. Combs represents an unjust application of the Mann Act, the federal law that underpins his conviction, to prosecute consensual sexual acts between adults.
“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,” the defense stated in a recent court filing.
During Thursday’s hearing at Federal District Court in Manhattan, the defense is expected to engage in a robust debate with prosecutors over the conviction, just over a week before Mr. Combs’s scheduled sentencing on October 3.
Conversely, prosecutors have argued in court documents that Mr. Combs, known to many as Diddy and Puff Daddy, was an unequivocal violator of the Mann Act. They assert he used violence against the women involved and “plied” them with drugs to ensure their continued participation in what were termed “freak-offs” and “hotel nights.”
“There is no doubt that the defendant transported escorts with the intent that they engage in sex acts for pay,” the prosecution countered in their legal submissions.
Vacating a jury’s verdict presents a significant legal hurdle. At the upcoming hearing, Judge Arun Subramanian, who presided over the eight-week trial this past summer, is anticipated to rigorously question both legal teams on the nuanced points of the dispute, particularly regarding constitutional implications and the precise definition of “prostitution.”
This hearing sets the stage for the impending legal battle over his sentencing.
The defense has requested that their client receive a prison sentence of no more than 14 months, which would mean Mr. Combs’s release by the end of the year. The government is expected to issue its formal sentencing recommendation, likely a much higher figure, next week.
The probation office determined that federal sentencing guidelines suggest a maximum sentence of seven-and-a-quarter years. This calculation considers instances of violence against his former girlfriends and the role drugs played in the sexual encounters.
After the verdict, Judge Subramanian denied a request for Mr. Combs’s release from jail prior to sentencing. He has since remained in a dormitory-style unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a facility known for housing high-profile inmates.
In an effort to secure a lighter sentence, the defense has portrayed Mr. Combs in court papers as a “humbled man.” They highlight that he achieved sobriety for the first time in 25 years during his detention and developed an educational program that has “inspired” fellow inmates.
The defense presented the judge with testimonials from inmates who participated in the course, titled “Free Game With Diddy,” along with a class outline covering business management and personal development. One notable assignment requires participants to write an essay incorporating “lessons learned from Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s journey.”
“Because of this class I have a purpose, something to look forward to every day,” wrote one inmate, Arturo Santiago.
Thursday’s hearing marks Mr. Combs’s first court appearance since the jury delivered its verdict.
Should the case proceed to sentencing, the defense’s arguments presented during this hearing could offer insight into a potential appeal.
Mr. Combs’s lawyers have maintained that his convictions are an extraordinary departure from typical modern-day prosecutions under the Mann Act, which is commonly applied against pimps who financially benefit from transporting prostitutes.
In court documents, his lawyers argued 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 Mr. Combs acted as a voyeur in the sexual scenarios, observing his girlfriends engage with escorts, this conduct should not be classified as prostitution.
Prosecutors have interpreted Mr. Combs’s legal efforts as an attempt to narrow the application of the Mann Act for his personal benefit and downplay the severity of his actions.
“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 argued in a legal brief. They added that while Mr. Combs did watch and masturbate during these ‘freak-offs,’ he occasionally participated sexually with the women involved.
The hearing is also expected to address the defense’s claim that the ‘freak-offs,’ which Mr. Combs often filmed, constituted “amateur porn” and are protected under the First Amendment. The government has dismissed this argument as baseless.