Lawyers for the music mogul Sean Combs on Tuesday appealed his conviction and sentencing on prostitution-related charges, saying that the sexual encounters at the heart of his case were consensual and that the trial judge handed down an improperly steep sentence.
In a federal trial in Manhattan this past summer, a jury found Mr. Combs guilty on two counts of transporting individuals for the purposes of prostitution, charges that centered on his orchestration of fetishistic sex marathons involving his girlfriends and male escorts that he frequently filmed. The jury acquitted Mr. Combs, known as Puff Daddy or Diddy, on sex-trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges, which carried the possibility of life in prison.
In October, Mr. Combs, 56, was sentenced to 50 months, or a little more than four years, and transferred from the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn, where he had been held since his September 2024 arrest, to a federal facility in New Jersey known as Fort Dix.
In an 84-page appeal brief filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Manhattan, Mr. Combs’s lawyers depicted the case as an unjust prosecution of sex between consenting adults. In sentencing Mr. Combs, his lawyers argued, the judge unfairly relied on his own determinations that the women had been “coerced,” “exploited” and “forced” into the sexual encounters, when the jury made no such finding.
“He sits in prison today, serving a 50-month sentence, because the district judge acted as a thirteenth juror,” Mr. Combs’s lawyers wrote.
During the eight-week trial, two of Mr. Combs’s former girlfriends testified that they had repeatedly engaged in drug-fueled nights of sex with men hired through online escort services because they felt pressured to participate, and feared Mr. Combs’s retaliation. Both women testified to physical abuse by Mr. Combs, at times in connection with the sexual encounters, which were known as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.”
Mr. Combs, who did not testify at the trial, has long maintained that the sex at issue in the case was entirely consensual. In the appeal brief, his lawyers argued that the jury endorsed that argument when they rejected the sex-trafficking charges — which focus on sex acts that were induced by “force, fraud of coercion” — yet convicted him of the prostitution counts.
The appeal by Mr. Combs’s lawyers also asks the appellate court to scrutinize the prosecution’s application of the Mann Act, the 1910 federal law under which Mr. Combs was convicted, which makes it a federal offense to transport people across state lines for the purposes of prostitution.
Saying that Mr. Combs was “paying for a voyeuristic experience” rather than engaging in prostitution, Mr. Combs’s lawyers argued that the law should be limited to situations in which a “paying customer engages in sex.”
Prosecutors have contended that Mr. Combs’s lawyers have long sought to minimize serious Mann Act violations, arguing that they were repeated offenses over a period of 15 years and had “devastating” psychological effects on the women involved.
“The defense has tried to turn this into a technical violation, just a minor consequence of a sex, drugs and rock ’n’ roll lifestyle,” said Christy Slavik, one of the prosecutors, at Mr. Combs’s sentencing hearing in October. “This is a gross mischaracterization of the conduct.”
Mr. Combs’s lawyers also argued that the encounters were protected by the First Amendment because they were often filmed, asserting that they amounted to “highly choreographed performances involving costumes, lighting, and other staged effects.”
The judge who oversaw the trial, Arun Subramanian, previously rejected that argument, finding that “illegal activity can’t be laundered into constitutionally protected activity just by the desire to watch it.”
In handing down the sentence, Judge Subramanian said he had the legal authority to take into account any conduct that was relevant to Mr. Combs’s convictions, including the evidence of what he described as physical, emotional and psychological abuse.
“A substantial sentence must be given to send a message to abusers and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women is met with real accountability,” the judge said during the sentencing hearing.
Mr. Combs’s appeal is being led by Alexandra Shapiro, a top appellate lawyer who once clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg on the Supreme Court. Among Ms. Shapiro’s recent appeal cases are those of the cryptocurrency executive Sam Bankman-Fried and Bill Hwang, a hedge fund founder who last year was sentenced to 18 years in prison for fraud and racketeering.
The appeal will take months for the court to consider. In prison, Mr. Combs has entered a drug abuse rehabilitation program, which has the potential to shorten his sentence significantly. Bureau of Prisons records currently estimate that Mr. Combs will be released in May 2028, taking into account his ability to earn time off for good behavior.
Julia Jacobs is an arts and culture reporter who often covers legal issues for The Times.
The post Sean Combs’s Lawyers File Appeal, Arguing His Sentence Was Unjust appeared first on New York Times.
