A panel of federal appeals court judges raised concerns during oral arguments on Thursday regarding the length of Sean “Diddy” Combs’ approximately four-year prison sentence for convictions related to prostitution. The judges, part of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan, did not provide an immediate ruling following a two-hour session. Circuit Judge William J. Nardini described the case as “exceptionally difficult,” posing novel questions not only to their court but potentially to any federal court in the nation.
Throughout the hearing, the judges questioned whether the sentencing of Combs, based on acquitted charges, was appropriate. Combs’ lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, contended that the prison term imposed on him was the longest ever given for similar charges and criminal history. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik disputed this assertion, arguing that the four-year, two-month sentence was below federal sentencing guidelines and consistent with similar cases within the 2nd Circuit.
Currently incarcerated in a federal facility in New Jersey, Combs is challenging both his conviction and the duration of his prison term. Last July, he was found guilty under the federal Mann Act for interstate transportation for prostitution, but acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges, which carried the possibility of life imprisonment.
Judge Arun Subramanian, who sentenced Combs in October, emphasized that the sentence was based on the crimes he was convicted of, not those he was acquitted of. The judge cited legal provisions allowing consideration of the offense’s nature and the defendant’s characteristics without limitations on background, character, or conduct evaluation.
Combs, aged 56, has been in custody since his arrest in September 2024, with the Federal Bureau of Prisons scheduling his release in April 2028. His legal team is seeking a reversal of the conviction or a reduced sentence upon reevaluation.
During the recent hearing, Shapiro urged the appeals panel to render a prompt decision. While Combs’ attorneys presented extensive arguments, there was no discussion on Thursday about claims asserting the protection of sexual activities under the First Amendment. However, there was significant debate on assertions that evidence of fraud and coercion was misapplied by Subramanian, despite the jury’s rejection of such claims during the trial.
Combs’ trial last year provided insight into the private life of the influential music figure, featuring distressing testimonies on violence, drug use, and sexual activities referred to as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.” Despite Combs not taking the stand, his defense team acknowledged his potential for violence but contended that prosecutors were stretching to criminalize his personal life.