Appeals court judges raise questions about severity of Sean 'Diddy' Combs' four-year prison sentence

At the conclusion, Circuit Judge William J. Nardini called it an “exceptionally difficult case” that raises questions of first impression “not only for this court but for any federal court in the country.”

Throughout the arguments, judges questioned whether a judge improperly considered elements of acquitted charges to sentence Combs to what his lawyer, Alexandra Shapiro, said was the most prison time ever given someone convicted of the same charges with a similar criminal history.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik, arguing for the government, challenged Shapiro's claim, saying the four-year, two-month prison term given to Combs was below what federal sentencing guidelines called for and was in line with similar convictions in the 2nd Circuit.

Combs, currently in federal prison in New Jersey, is challenging his conviction and prison sentence. He was convicted last July under the federal Mann Act, which bans transporting people across state lines for any sexual crime.

But he was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges that carried the potential for a life sentence.

In sentencing Combs, Judge Arun Subramanian said: “Mr. Combs, you’re being sentenced for the offenses of conviction, NOT the crimes he was acquitted of. However, under law, the court ‘shall consider’ the nature of the offense and characteristics of the defendant.”

The judge also cited law which states that no limitation shall be placed on the “background, character and conduct” that a judge can consider.

During Thursday's arguments, Shapiro asked the appeals panel for a speedy decision.

Combs, 56, has been behind bars since his September 2024 arrest. The Federal Bureau of Prisons says he is scheduled for release in April 2028.

His attorneys say Combs' conviction should be reversed, or he should at least be freed and resentenced to less time.

Despite extensive written arguments on the subject, there was no discussion Thursday about claims by Combs' lawyers that his conviction should be reversed on grounds that the First Amendment protects sexual encounters between his girlfriends and male sex workers because they were sometimes filmed and amounted to “amateur pornography.”

There was extensive discussion, though, about his lawyers' arguments that Subramanian wrongly considered evidence of fraud and coercion that they said the jury rejected as it exonerated him on the most serious charges.

Combs' trial last year exposed the sordid private life of one of the most influential figures in music. The case featured harrowing testimony about violence, drugs and sexual performances that witnesses said he called “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.”

He did not testify. His defense team acknowledged that he could be violent but argued that prosecutors were straining to make a federal crime out of his personal life.