This Friday, Sean Combs is scheduled to appear in Federal District Court in Manhattan, where the next chapter of his legal battles will unfold as he learns the extent of his prison sentence.
Back in July, after an intense eight-week trial, a jury found Mr. Combs not guilty of the more severe accusations leveled against him, including sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. However, he was convicted on two counts related to transporting individuals for prostitution. Now, Judge Arun Subramanian holds the power to determine the music mogul’s fate.
Here’s a detailed look at the potential consequences for Mr. Combs and what everyone can anticipate this Friday.
Serious Prison Time Possible for Convictions
Mr. Combs, widely recognized as Puff Daddy or Diddy and the architect of a sprawling business empire tied to his personal brand, stood trial accused of forcing two former girlfriends into illicit, drug-fueled sex parties with male escorts. Had he been found guilty of the most serious charges, he could have faced a life sentence.
Upon his acquittal for those major counts, Mr. Combs was reportedly seen falling to his knees in prayer, with his lawyer remarking that he had “been given his life back.”
Despite this, the two counts he was convicted of each carry a maximum sentence of 10 years. These charges are rooted in the federal Mann Act, a law prohibiting the transportation of individuals across state lines for the purpose of prostitution.
Prosecutors have cast these offenses as grave criminal acts, while the defense has consistently argued they were “fallback” charges that should never have been pursued.
Sentencing Range: A Wide Disparity of Outcomes
While the judge has the ultimate authority, both legal teams have presented sentencing recommendations guided by federal guidelines. These guidelines consider various factors, including the severity of the crime, the impact on victims, and whether the offender has shown remorse or accepted responsibility.
The prosecution is advocating for a sentence of no less than 135 months—that’s 11 years and three months. They’ve described Mr. Combs as “unrepentant” and highlighted instances of violence and intimidation brought forward during the trial.
Conversely, the defense team is pushing for a sentence of no more than 14 months. Given that Mr. Combs has already spent a year in a Brooklyn detention center, this lighter sentence could see him released by the end of 2025.
Mr. Combs’s attorneys maintain that he has already endured sufficient punishment for what they argue was consensual activity between his girlfriends and individuals hired as “entertainers.”
Federal probation officials, after reviewing the case, calculated that the recommended sentencing guidelines suggest a term of up to seven years and three months.
Judicial Discretion and Disputed Evidence
Although judges must factor in sentencing guidelines, they possess broad power to determine the final punishment. Michael W. Martin, a clinical law professor at Fordham, emphasized that considering the many variables and significant implications, judges often find sentencing to be “the hardest part of the job.”
In the Combs trial, prosecutors and defense attorneys have already debated how much of the evidence presented should influence the sentence, especially since he was cleared of most charges.
The trial included extensive testimony detailing Mr. Combs’s violent behavior. Casandra Ventura, known as Cassie, who was involved in an on-again, off-again relationship with Mr. Combs for about 11 years, recounted multiple instances of abuse. Jurors repeatedly viewed security footage from a 2016 Los Angeles hotel, showing Mr. Combs assaulting Ms. Ventura, throwing her down, kicking her, and dragging her along a hallway.
Mr. Combs’s legal team conceded that their client had committed acts of violence against women, but contended these actions were unrelated to the specific charges he faced. Citing the jury’s verdict, they insist that any testimony regarding violence should be excluded from the judge’s sentencing considerations.
In a recent legal filing, they stated, “The court cannot use acquitted conduct in any way to enhance Mr. Combs’s sentence,” asserting that doing so would raise serious constitutional questions.
Prosecutors have taken the opposite stance, urging the judge to weigh all trial evidence when deciding Mr. Combs’s sentence.
“Even with the conviction on just these two charges, there is serious, serious, relevant conduct here that will merit a lengthy period of incarceration,” prosecutor Maurene Comey told Judge Subramanian during a bail hearing post-verdict. (Ms. Comey was later dismissed from the Justice Department without public explanation and subsequently sued the Trump administration over her termination.)
Sam J. Merchant, an associate professor at the University of Minnesota Law School, noted that while guidelines typically serve as a “anchor” in sentencing, judges maintain considerable flexibility in determining a defendant’s ultimate penalty.
“In plain English, the judge can consider any information about the defendant or the crime when they’re considering an appropriate sentence to impose on the offender,” Professor Merchant explained.
Sean Combs Set to Address the Court
Although Mr. Combs did not take the stand during his trial, his defense team has indicated in recent court documents that he plans to “allocute,” meaning he will speak directly to the judge before his sentence is delivered.
Last week, Mr. Combs’s lawyers submitted a letter requesting that their client be permitted to wear “non-prison clothing” for the sentencing. (During the trial, a similar request allowed Mr. Combs to appear in various light-colored sweaters and collared shirts.)
“The sentencing proceeding holds significant importance for Mr. Combs,” the letter affirmed. “He wishes to appear before the Court, address Your Honor, and allocute in the most dignified and respectful fashion possible.”
Allocutions frequently provide defendants with an opportunity to express regret for their actions and convey a commitment to improving their lives should they be released.
Allies Lobby for Presidential Pardon
A lawyer representing Mr. Combs confirmed that individuals close to her client have reached out to the Trump administration to seek a presidential pardon on his behalf.
The two men share a history; in the 1990s, Mr. Trump and Mr. Combs moved in the same New York celebrity circles. However, their relationship reportedly strained after Mr. Trump entered politics. In 2020, Mr. Combs publicly endorsed Joseph R. Biden Jr. for president, stating in an interview that if Mr. Trump were re-elected, “I really do believe in my heart there’ll be a race war.”
Mr. Trump appeared to reference Mr. Combs’s past criticisms during an August interview on Newsmax when asked about a potential pardon for the music mogul.
“When you knew someone and you were fine,” the former president commented, “and then you run for office and he made some terrible statements — so, I don’t know, it’s more difficult.”
Despite this, their shared history in the spotlight might still work in Mr. Combs’s favor, according to Frank Bowman, a law professor emeritus at the University of Missouri. Professor Bowman pointed out that Mr. Trump has previously granted pardons to various hip-hop figures, including Lil Wayne, Kodak Black, and YoungBoy Never Broke Again.
Whether influenced by politics, wealth, or celebrity status, “he pardons people who he thinks of as his people,” Professor Bowman stated.
Megyn Kelly, a prominent conservative commentator, has publicly urged the president not to pardon Mr. Combs. In a July post on X, she labeled him a “Trump hater” and “woman abuser,” adding, “MAGA is already upset over elites seeming to cover for each other. This would not help.”
Mark Osler, a law professor and clemency expert, suggests that Mr. Trump’s remarks don’t necessarily signal a definitive refusal.
“You can read that as a challenge,” Osler observed. “The truth is that Trump has changed his mind about people. They’re his enemies, they become his friends, then they’re his enemies again.”