The Second Circuit grilled prosecutors and defense counsel April 9 over whether Sean Combs's 50-month Mann Act sentence improperly relied on acquitted racketeering and sex trafficking conduct.
A Second Circuit panel heard roughly two hours of oral argument on April 9, pressing prosecutors and defense counsel on whether the district court improperly relied on acquitted conduct when it sentenced Sean Combs to 50 months on Mann Act charges [1]. The argument centered on whether Judge Arun Subramanian, in imposing what defense counsel described as the highest sentence ever handed down for comparable offenses, effectively substituted his own judgment for the jury's by weighing coercion and violence tied to the so-called "freak-offs," conduct for which the jury had acquitted Combs on the more serious racketeering and sex trafficking counts [2].
The appeal arises from Combs's 2025 conviction in the Southern District of New York. Combs was acquitted of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking but convicted on Mann Act counts, and Judge Subramanian sentenced him to 50 months [1]. Defense counsel Alexandra Shapiro argued that the district court acted as a "thirteenth juror" by treating acquitted conduct as an aggravating factor at sentencing, an approach she contended the recent Sentencing Commission amendment to the Acquitted Conduct Guideline was designed to curtail [2]. The government, represented by prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, countered that the sentence rested on properly admitted guideline considerations and Combs's documented history of violence [1].
The exchange before the panel carries weight beyond this case. The Sentencing Commission amended its guidelines to limit courts' use of acquitted conduct, but the amendment's scope and retroactive application remain contested across circuits [2]. A ruling that Judge Subramanian overstepped could require resentencing and would add Second Circuit authority to the developing body of law interpreting the amendment's reach. Judge William Nardini, one of the panel members, acknowledged the legal terrain, describing the case as "exceptionally difficult" [1]. The panel did not rule from the bench.
The outcome will be watched closely by defense practitioners who have argued that acquitted-conduct sentencing enhancements effectively punish defendants for charges the government failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, a practice critics contend undermines the constitutional function of the jury. The government's position, if upheld, would preserve broad district-court discretion to consider the full circumstances of a defendant's background and conduct at sentencing [2]. A written decision is expected in the coming months, with the possibility of further proceedings in the district court if the panel orders resentencing.