Federal officials criticize Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ argument that filming ‘freak-offs’ is protected by the First Amendment.

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan recently urged a judge to dismiss Sean “Diddy” Combs’ request for the overturning of his conviction related to sexual misconduct. During a court hearing, the prosecution argued that Combs could not substantiate claims that the evidence against him was insufficient and contended that no reasonable juror could have acquitted him based on the trial’s findings. The outcome of this case has significant implications, as Combs seeks to have an October 3 sentencing considered for time served, more than a year post-arrest.

Combs, who is 55 years old, appeared in court dressed in beige prison scrubs and sporting a grey beard. His legal team has called for the Manhattan Federal Judge, Arun Subramanian, to void his conviction or to grant a new trial. On July 2, Combs was found guilty on two counts of violating the Mann Act, which addresses the transportation of individuals for the purpose of prostitution. Each count carries a maximum penalty of 10 years.

Despite Combs’ conviction, a jury notably declined to find sufficient evidence that women involved were coerced or forced into sexual activities. The prosecution’s failure to prove these aspects ultimately spared Combs from a possible life sentence under RICO conspiracy charges.

The court heard emotional testimony from former partners of Combs, including Casandra “Cassie” Ventura, who provided graphic details about their experiences, including allegations of physical abuse and coercion. Jurors were presented with video evidence from sessions termed “freak offs,” where Combs allegedly directed sexual encounters involving male escorts.

In pre-hearing legal documents, Combs’ attorneys argued that his actions amounted to legally protected voyeurism rather than prostitution, asserting that any engagement with escorts was purely for their time, not for sexual acts. They argued the definition of prostitution has evolved and remains ambiguous, suggesting that their client’s actions did not fall under illegal parameters.

The government’s brief countered this defense, alleging that Combs actively participated in the sexual activities and was far from a mere producer of adult content. Prosecutors contended that Combs’ understanding of his legal standing misrepresented the reality of the evidence presented during the trial, which demonstrated a pattern of sexual consumption rather than artistic production.

Judge Subramanian did not issue a ruling on the matter during the hearing but indicated that a decision would be forthcoming. Additionally, Combs remains embroiled in numerous civil lawsuits accusing him of sexual violence and exploitation, allegations he has consistently denied. As this high-profile case continues to unfold, the spotlight remains on both the legal nuances of the charges and the broader societal implications surrounding issues of consent and accountability in the entertainment industry.