Listen to this article
Estimated 3 minutes
The audio version of this article is generated by AI-based technology. Mispronunciations can occur. We are working with our partners to continually review and improve the results.
Federal appeals court judges questioned during oral arguments Thursday whether a roughly four-year prison term given to Sean “Diddy” Combs for the hip-hop mogul’s conviction on prostitution-related charges was too harsh.
The three-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan did not immediately rule after hearing two hours of arguments.
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.
WATCH | Diddy convicted on prostitution charges but cleared of more serious counts:
Diddy convicted on prostitution charges but cleared of more serious counts
Sean (Diddy) Combs has been convicted of prostitution-related offences but acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy charges that could have put the hip hop mogul behind bars for life.
Combs, currently in federal prison in New Jersey, is challenging his conviction and more than four-year prison sentence. He was convicted last July under the federal Mann Act — which bans transporting people across state lines for prostitution — but was acquitted of sex trafficking and racketeering charges, which carried the potential for a life sentence.
In sentencing Combs in October, 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’s conviction should be reversed, or that he should at least be freed and re-sentenced to less time.
In this court sketch from Oct. 3, 2025, Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs sits with his lawyers Brian Steel and Alexandra Shapiro during a court sentencing in New York City, after the music mogul was convicted on charges of transporting prostitutes to engage in drug-fuelled sexual performances. (Jane Rosenberg/Reuters)
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’s 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, though he was present in court throughout the trial. His defence team acknowledged that he could be violent but argued that prosecutors were straining to make a federal crime out of his personal life.