Sean “Diddy” Combs’ legal team is set to appear before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, aiming to secure his immediate release from prison and overturn his conviction on prostitution-related charges. They contend that he was engaging in voyeurism and amateur pornography, activities they claim are protected under the First Amendment. The attorneys argue that US District Judge Arun Subramanian improperly factored in conduct for which Combs was acquitted when determining his sentence.
In July, Combs was found guilty of two counts of transporting individuals to engage in prostitution, breaching the Mann Act. This conviction stemmed from allegations that he coordinated travel for escorts who participated in sex acts with his then-girlfriends, Cassie Ventura and a woman identified as “Jane.” Notably, Combs was acquitted of more severe charges, including racketeering and sex trafficking, following an eight-week trial. During the trial, it was claimed that he coerced the women into sex with male escorts, often facilitated by drug use over several days, with these encounters being referred to as “Freak Offs” and “hotel nights.”
Combs’ lawyers argue that he should be released based on the fact that others convicted of similar offenses generally receive sentences of around 15 months. They are either seeking an acquittal or a new sentencing hearing. The legal team asserts that the Mann Act does not explicitly define prostitution and urges the court to reject an expansive interpretation of the law.
The defence describes the “Freak-offs” as highly produced sexual performances featuring costumes and role-play, recorded for their later viewing as amateur pornography, which they argue is constitutionally protected. The lawyers contend that terms surrounding the act of prostitution should apply exclusively to situations where a paying customer engages in sexual acts with the paid individual.
Conversely, prosecutors dismissed Combs’ argument as “meritless,” contending that his actions were fundamentally different from those of legitimate adult film distributors. They assert that Combs hired sex workers to engage in sexual acts with his girlfriends for his own gratification, from which he also directly benefited. The prosecutors warn that allowing Combs’ defence could create a dangerous precedent where individuals could participate in prostitution while circumventing accountability by simply filming the acts.
Combs’ attorneys maintain that Judge Subramanian largely disregarded newly enacted US Sentencing Commission guidelines that prohibit considering acquitted conduct during sentencing. However, prosecutors argue that these guidelines do not pertain to factors such as the character of the defendant when sentencing, a consideration that they say Judge Subramanian correctly applied in determining Combs’ sentence.
This ongoing legal battle continues to draw attention, as both sides present contrasting views on the application of law and the specifics of this high-profile case.