Sean Combs made a highly anticipated appearance in a Manhattan courthouse on Thursday morning. This critical court session, occurring almost three months after a federal jury found him guilty on prostitution charges, represents his legal team’s final push to overturn the music mogul’s conviction before he faces sentencing.
Dressed in light-colored prison attire, with a noticeable salt-and-pepper beard, Mr. Combs entered the courtroom just after 11 a.m. He greeted his lawyers with a broad smile before quickly donning a pair of thick glasses and reviewing a stack of documents at the defense table.
The 55-year-old artist, who has spent over a year incarcerated in a Brooklyn jail, was found guilty in July on two counts of interstate transportation for prostitution. These charges stemmed from sex marathons involving male escorts and two of his former girlfriends, characterized by voyeurism. Importantly, the jury cleared him of the more severe accusations of sex trafficking and orchestrating a racketeering conspiracy.
This marks Mr. Combs’s first public court appearance since the jury delivered its verdict.
Following the jury’s decision, Mr. Combs’s legal team immediately began efforts to convince a judge to nullify the verdict and acquit him entirely, or at least grant a new trial focusing solely on the charges for which he was convicted.
A core argument from his defense is that the prosecution of Mr. Combs represents an unfair application of the Mann Act—the federal law central to his conviction. They contend it’s being used improperly to target consensual sexual acts between adults.
In a recent court filing, the defense emphasized: “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.”
During Thursday’s hearing at the Federal District Court in Manhattan, the defense and prosecution were set to clash over the conviction’s validity, with Mr. Combs’s sentencing date looming on October 3rd.
Conversely, prosecutors have maintained in their filings that Mr. Combs, widely known as Diddy or Puff Daddy, clearly violated the Mann Act. They allege he used violence and supplied drugs to ensure the women’s ongoing involvement in the “freak-offs” and “hotel nights”—terms used to describe the sex marathons.
The prosecution’s stance is firm: “There is no doubt that the defendant transported escorts with the intent that they engage in sex acts for pay,” they stated in their court documents.
Overturning a jury’s verdict presents a significant legal challenge. Judge Arun Subramanian, who presided over the intense eight-week trial this summer, was expected to rigorously question both legal teams on intricate details of the dispute, encompassing constitutional questions and the precise definition of “prostitution.”
This critical hearing sets the stage for the upcoming legal arguments concerning his sentencing.
The defense is seeking a sentence of no more than 14 months, which, if granted, would see Mr. Combs released by year-end. However, the government’s official sentencing recommendation, anticipated next week, is expected to be substantially harsher.
Federal probation guidelines suggest a maximum sentence of seven years and three months. This takes into account documented instances of violence against his former girlfriends and the involvement of drugs in the sexual encounters.
Following the verdict, Judge Subramanian previously denied Mr. Combs’s request for release from jail before sentencing. He has since been held in a dormitory unit at the Metropolitan Detention Center, a facility known for housing high-profile inmates.
In an effort to secure a reduced sentence, the defense has portrayed Mr. Combs in court documents as a “humbled man.” They highlight his newfound sobriety—reportedly his first in 25 years—and his development of an educational program that has “inspired” fellow inmates.
The defense submitted testimonials from inmates who completed his course, titled “Free Game With Diddy,” which focuses on business management and personal development. Notably, one assignment asks participants to write an essay integrating “lessons learned from Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s journey.”
Arturo Santiago, an inmate who took the class, stated: “Because of this class I have a purpose, something to look forward to every day.”
Should the case proceed to sentencing, the arguments made by the defense during this hearing could offer insight into their strategy for a potential appeal.
Mr. Combs’s lawyers argue that his convictions are a striking anomaly within contemporary Mann Act prosecutions. This federal law is typically enforced against pimps who financially profit from transporting individuals for prostitution.
His legal team’s court papers assert: “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 was a voyeur, merely observing his girlfriends engaging in sex with escorts, his actions should not be classified as prostitution.
Prosecutors, however, view Mr. Combs’s defense as an attempt to narrowly define the Mann Act for his personal benefit and to downplay the gravity of his actions.
In a legal brief, the prosecution clarified 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 Mr. Combs primarily observed and masturbated during the “freak-offs,” he occasionally participated sexually with the women.
Finally, the hearing is expected to delve into the defense’s argument that the filmed “freak-offs” constituted “amateur porn” and were thus protected under the First Amendment—an argument the government has dismissed as entirely unfounded.