In a last-ditch effort to overturn his conviction, Sean “Diddy” Combs returned to court today as his legal team pleaded with a federal judge to either acquit him or grant a new trial. Federal prosecutors, however, are strongly opposing both requests.
The Arguments Before the Judge
Diddy was previously convicted on two federal counts under the Mann Act, a century-old law that prohibits transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution-related purposes.
In arguments before Judge Arun Subramanian, Diddy's lawyers argued that his conviction was a misapplication of the law. They claimed he was a participant in consensual sexual encounters, but not the architect or beneficiary of a commercial sex ring. They contended his involvement was more voyeuristic than commercial, saying he sometimes recorded sessions but did not organize them. The defense also pointed to the fact that Combs was acquitted of the more serious sex trafficking and racketeering charges, arguing the verdict itself was an "affirmative indication of innocence."
Federal prosecutors sharply disagreed, stating that the extensive evidence presented during the trial showed Diddy's central role in what they described as his notorious “freak-offs.” They asserted he was not a bystander but the director of the sexual conduct. They also dismantled the defense’s claim that Diddy's activities were a form of protected expression, highlighting that many of the encounters were not filmed and that participants were often unaware of recordings. This, they argued, underscored the exploitative nature of the acts.
Sentencing Looms
The case has become one of the most closely watched celebrity legal battles of the year. The outcome of today’s hearing will determine whether Combs can avoid a lengthy prison term.
As of now, Diddy remains scheduled for sentencing on October 3, with his legal team arguing he should be released immediately due to time already served. The prosecution, however, will be urging the judge to keep him locked up for several years. The final decision rests with the judge.
