A Second Circuit panel grilled both sides April 9 over whether Sean Combs's 50-month Mann Act sentence improperly rested on conduct the jury rejected at trial.
Sean Combs asked a federal appeals panel on April 9 to vacate his 50-month sentence, contending that the district court improperly relied on conduct for which a jury acquitted him when calculating his punishment [1]. Defense attorney Alexandra Shapiro argued before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian let the acquitted charges, racketeering and sex trafficking, drive the sentence imposed on the Mann Act conviction that the jury actually returned [2]. The panel has not yet ruled.
The appeal arises from Combs's criminal case in the Southern District of New York, where a jury convicted him on the Mann Act prostitution counts but acquitted him on the more serious racketeering and sex-trafficking charges [1]. Judge Subramanian imposed the 50-month term, and Combs appealed to the Second Circuit, where a three-judge panel that included Judge William Nardini heard roughly two hours of oral argument [2]. Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik argued the defense position on April 9 for the government [1].
The panel signaled that the case presents hard questions, with Judge Nardini describing it as "an exceptionally difficult case" during argument [1]. The core sentencing question, whether a court may enhance punishment based on conduct a jury rejected, carries nationwide implications for criminal defense and sentencing practice. The Sentencing Commission has amended its guidelines on the issue in recent years, and practitioners across circuits are watching how the Second Circuit will apply those revisions to a fact pattern where the acquitted conduct was qualitatively more severe than the convicted offense [2]. The defense separately argues that the underlying activity, described in court filings as "freak offs," constituted protected amateur pornography under the First Amendment and presses for outright acquittal on that basis [1].
The panel asked pointed questions of both sides but has not set a timeline for its decision [2]. If the Second Circuit agrees that Judge Subramanian improperly weighted acquitted conduct, the court could remand for resentencing, potentially reducing a term that is already below the guidelines range the government sought. An outright acquittal on First Amendment grounds would be a more sweeping and less precedented outcome. Either ruling would force district courts within the circuit to recalibrate how they treat acquitted conduct at sentencing, and any circuit-level decision on the amended guidelines could eventually reach the Supreme Court [1].