A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit heard oral arguments April 9 in Sean "Diddy" Combs' appeal of his 50-month prison sentence, pressing attorneys on both sides over whether the sentencing judge improperly relied on conduct for which a jury had acquitted Combs [1]. The panel did not issue a ruling from the bench, and at least one judge described the matter as "an exceptionally difficult case" [1].
Combs was convicted on two counts under the Mann Act, which prohibits transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution, but was acquitted on the more serious racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking charges [1]. At sentencing, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian imposed the 50-month term. Defense counsel Alexandra Shapiro argued that Judge Subramanian factored acquitted-conduct evidence into the sentencing calculation, a practice Combs' team contends is constitutionally and now guideline-prohibited [1]. A separate defense argument asserted that Combs' First Amendment rights covered the consensual sexual conduct underlying the charges [1]. Government attorney Christy Slavik defended the sentence, and the exchange drew pointed questions from the panel [1].
The acquitted-conduct issue carries weight well beyond this case. The U.S. Sentencing Commission adopted amendments, effective November 2024, that generally bar courts from increasing a guidelines range based on conduct for which a defendant was acquitted. Whether those amendments apply retroactively or govern sentences imposed before their effective date is a question courts across the country are still working through. Judge William Nardini was among the panel members pressing both parties on the scope and application of those changes [1]. The Supreme Court, in its 1997 decision in United States v. Watts, had previously permitted judicial fact-finding at sentencing to consider acquitted conduct, making the Commission's recent policy shift a direct doctrinal tension the Second Circuit must now navigate.
The panel's next step is a written decision, with no deadline publicly set. If the court vacates the sentence, the case would return to Judge Subramanian for resentencing under instructions the Second Circuit provides. A ruling affirming the sentence would likely sharpen pressure on the Supreme Court to address the acquitted-conduct question definitively, given the circuit-level activity the Commission's 2024 amendments have generated.