A 2nd Circuit panel questioned both sides April 9 on whether Sean Combs' sentence violated due process by relying on conduct the jury rejected at trial.
A federal appeals panel pressed defense and government attorneys on whether a trial judge may enhance a sentence based on conduct for which a jury returned a not-guilty verdict, at oral argument held April 9 before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit in the appeal of Sean Combs [1]. The central dispute is whether the 50-month prison sentence imposed on Combs violated due process because the sentencing judge relied substantially on sex trafficking and racketeering charges, the same charges on which the jury explicitly acquitted him [1].
The appeal arises from a federal conviction in the Southern District of New York. Defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro argued before the panel that the sentencing occurred before a 2024 amendment to the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines that bars courts from using acquitted conduct as a basis for guideline calculations [1]. Shapiro contended that the sentencing judge's reliance on the acquitted conduct nonetheless crossed a constitutional line under existing due process standards. The government defended the sentence. Judge William Nardini was among the panel members who questioned counsel from both sides [1]. The panel did not rule from the bench.
The case sits at the intersection of two unsettled areas of federal sentencing law. For decades, courts permitted judges to find facts by a preponderance of the evidence at sentencing, even when those same facts formed the basis of charges on which a defendant was acquitted. The 2024 Sentencing Guidelines amendment closed that door prospectively for guideline calculations, but it left unresolved the constitutional floor for sentences imposed under prior practice [1]. A 2nd Circuit ruling here would bind district courts across Connecticut, New York, and Vermont, and would carry significant persuasive weight in circuits that have not yet addressed the post-amendment landscape. The implications extend well beyond celebrity defendants to white-collar cases, drug prosecutions, and any matter where the indictment charges conduct that the jury partially rejects.
The panel has not set a deadline for its decision. If the court reverses or vacates the sentence, the case would be remanded to the district court for resentencing under standards the 2nd Circuit articulates in its opinion. If the panel affirms, Shapiro and the defense team would face a decision on whether to seek en banc review or pursue a petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has not directly ruled on the constitutional status of acquitted-conduct sentencing enhancements since the Booker line of cases more than two decades ago [1].
—