A three-judge panel heard arguments from Sean “Diddy’ Combs attorney that his sentence should be reduced, arguing that a lower court’s punishment factored in alleged crimes that he was acquitted of last year.
Combs was sentenced to four years in prison and a $500,000 fine after a jury convicted him of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution. He was acquitted of more serious charges of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking.
The lesser charges that Combs was found guilty of related to “freak offs,” or sex parties that included sex workers.
Alexandra Shapiro, arguing for Combs, noted precedent that “district courts must specifically explain in arriving at their sentence, they must specifically consider … the jury’s acquittal when assessing the weight and quality of the evidence that the district court is relying on, and that did not happen here.”
She argued that U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian’s references to Combs’ acquittal on the more series charges was insufficient.
“Obviously the judge acknowledged that he had been acquitted, but that’s not enough. That’s just make weight.”
That comment drew some scorn from Judge William Nardini, who interrupted her. “You mean, [the judge] didn’t mean it or he wasn’t thinking it? What does ‘make weight’ mean? It’s a rather disparaging characterization.”
Shapiro said that Nardini’s interpretation of the comment was “not what I mean.” She said that precedent required “not just an acknowledgement that there has been an acquittal, but some sort of discussion of what [Subramanian], notwithstanding the acquittal finds that the weight and quality of the evidence supports enhancing the sentence.”
The prosecutor in the case, Christ Slavik, also faced some difficult questions. She argued that Subramanian properly considered the “aggravated manner” in which Combs carried out the sentence on the charges of transportation to engage in prostitution, under the Mann Act.
Judge M. Miller Baker asked, “Why shouldn’t we hold you to the way you prosecuted the case? You went to the jury and you said, ‘This man did all these terrible things for the purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for the purposes of sex trafficking, and they acquitted him.’ And then on the Mann Act, it was just a sideshow … and I don’t think there was any live witness testimony. And now you want us to rely on all this acquitted conduct that was presented to the jury that was presumably rejected … to allow a district court for the purposes of a guidelines calculation.”
Slavik said that “much of the conduct that the district court focused on in impising the sentence was not acquitted conduct at all. In fact, it was admitted conduct, the extreme physical violence that took place in the context of these freak offs.”
Combs’ attorneys also want to convictions tossed out, arguing that “freak-offs and hotel nights involved
live sexual performances that Combs directed and recorded for subsequent private viewing with his girlfriends.” They claim that it was protected First Amendment activity, noting that Combs referred to the “freak offs” as “homemade porn” and that they were “highly staged performances.”
