Diddy just picked up some unexpected heavy hitters in his legal fight to get out of prison, and they are not music-industry friends or celebrity supporters.
The legal brain trust going to bat for Diddy is: Professor Douglas A. Berman of The Ohio State University, Professor John Blume of Cornell Law School and The Honorable John Gleeson, Retired (E.D.N.Y.), Adjunct Professor at New York University of Law.
The law professors who argue that a federal judge overstepped by sentencing him on the basis of claims that a jury had already rejected.
In a newly filed brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the professors urged the court to vacate Diddy’s sentence and remand the case for a new hearing. They argue that the judge relied on accusations that jurors unanimously found not proven.
The professors say the issue is simple. A jury’s decision should matter.
“Sean Combs chose to trust a federal jury to decide whether the sovereign got it right,” the professors wrote. “The verdicts largely vindicated his faith in our jury system.”
Jurors cleared Diddy of the most serious charges in his case. They convicted him only on two counts under the Mann Act. Those charges often result in much shorter prison sentences than the one imposed, according to the filing.
Despite those acquittals, the sentencing judge treated the rejected allegations as accurate and used them to increase Diddy’s prison term, the professors said.
The professors argue that the move undercuts the jury’s role and ignores recent changes to federal sentencing rules.
“Not guilty means not guilty,” the U.S. Sentencing Commission chair said when announcing a 2024 rule change that limits the use of acquitted conduct. The professors quoted that line repeatedly in their filing.
The new rule was intended to prevent judges from punishing defendants for charges they won at trial. The professors say that it did not happen in his case.
Instead, they wrote, the judge relied on what the court believed had “really happened,” even though the jury rejected that account. The brief states that the approach produced a sentence far longer than the convictions alone would warrant.
“Federal prosecutors wished to see Mr. Combs punished for the charges they had failed to prove,” the professors wrote. They argue the court adopted the prosecution’s view after the trial ended, effectively undoing the jury’s work.
“The district court did so, resolving core factual disputes contrary to the verdicts,” the filing states.
The professors argue that this practice sends a troubling message to the public, particularly in a high-profile case.
“Acquittals, in these cases, become inconsequential formalities with no meaningful effect on the state’s ability to punish,” the brief states.
They warn that outcome risks weakening trust in the justice system.
“Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person’s liberty,” the professors wrote. “That promise stands as one of the Constitution’s most vital protections against arbitrary government.”
The professors also focused on how federal law governs sentencing. They argue that Congress intended punishment to reflect the crime of conviction, not the charges that failed.
They noted that sentencing law repeatedly ties punishment to “the offense” for which a defendant was found guilty, rather than to allegations rejected by the jury. Using acquitted conduct, they argue, does the opposite. The brief notes that sentencing based on rejected claims can result in wide disparities among defendants convicted of similar crimes.
That runs against the goal of fairness, the professors wrote, and makes sentences harder to explain to the public. The professors also warned that this practice may discourage jury service. If verdicts can be brushed aside later, jurors may question whether their role matters at all, they said. That concern is stronger in cases like Diddy’s, which drew national attention and daily coverage.
“The national audience heard the district court override the jury’s factual findings,” the professors wrote. “Mr. Combs’s sentence risks promoting disrespect for the law.”
They warned that many people could walk away believing the jury’s decision carried little weight. The professors are not asking the appeals court to free Diddy outright. Instead, they seek an order from the court directing a new sentencing hearing, without reliance on the acquitted conduct.
They argue the appeals court can do that without making a broad constitutional ruling.
“Interpreting the sentencing rules to allow acquitted conduct to drive the sentence would drain the jury trial promise of real meaning,” the brief states.
Diddy’s appeal is still pending. The Second Circuit has not said when it will rule.
The professors’ filing adds new pressure on the court and reframes the case as a test of whether jury verdicts still carry real force in federal sentencing.
Related