Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’s Lawyers Ask Judge to Vacate Jury’s Verdict or Retry Him

1 week ago 13

You have a preview view of this article while we are checking your access. When we have confirmed access, the full article content will load.

In a 62-page motion, the music mogul’s legal team argued that his conviction under the Mann Act — which bars interstate commerce related to prostitution — should be overturned.

Sean Combs, in a black blazer, black T-shirt and platinum chains.
A jury found Sean Combs guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, which carries a maximum of 10 years in prison for each count.Credit...Mark Von Holden/Invision, via Associated Press

Ben SisarioJulia Jacobs

July 31, 2025, 9:40 a.m. ET

Lawyers for Sean Combs on Wednesday asked a judge to vacate a jury’s verdict that convicted him on two prostitution-related charges or grant him a new trial limited to evidence connected to those counts.

At the conclusion of an eight-week federal trial in Manhattan earlier this month, Mr. Combs was acquitted of the two most serious charges against him, sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, which focused on accusations that he had coerced two long-term girlfriends into drug-fueled sexual encounters with hired male escorts.

But the jury found Mr. Combs, known as Puff Daddy or Diddy, guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, a lesser charge — but still one that carries a maximum of 10 years in prison for each conviction.

In a 62-page motion filed late on Wednesday, the music mogul’s lawyers argued that the jury’s conviction of Mr. Combs under the federal Mann Act — which bars interstate commerce related to prostitution — should be overturned. “To our knowledge,” his lawyers wrote, “Mr. Combs is the only person ever convicted of violating the statute for conduct anything like” what was alleged in the case.

Mr. Combs’s lawyers have argued strenuously throughout the case, and in the recent filing, that the sexual encounters at issue — referred to as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights” — were consensual and that Mr. Combs had no financial motive. The defense also argued that the encounters, which Mr. Combs often filmed, amounted to producing “amateur pornography,” which it said is protected by the First Amendment.

“Mr. Combs, at most, paid to engage in voyeurism as part of a ‘swingers’ lifestyle,” said the filing, which was signed by Alexandra Shapiro, an appellate lawyer who is part of the Combs defense team. “That does not constitute ‘prostitution’ under a properly limited definition of the statutory term.”


Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.


Thank you for your patience while we verify access.

Already a subscriber? Log in.

Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read Entire Article
Olahraga Sehat| | | |