Sean "Diddy" Combs' attorneys are deploying a new strategy to avoid prison time as the rap mogul's October sentencing date inches closer and closer.
Read more: Diddy Exposed as 'Mr. Star': $500K Lawsuit Alleges He Was a Pawn in High-End Hotel Sex Scheme
On Thursday, July 31, 2024, Sean Diddy Combs's legal team filed a motion seeking to overturn his conviction on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution or secure a new trial—a filing reported by Just Jared. The 55‐year‐old remained in jail following his arrest in September 2024 after being denied a $50 million bail, and he is scheduled for sentencing in October 2024.
In September 2024, an indictment charged Combs with two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, two counts of sex trafficking, and one count of racketeering conspiracy. At trial, which concluded in early July, he was cleared of racketeering, conspiracy, and sex trafficking but was convicted on the transportation counts.
Documents in the renewed filing stated, "Sean Combs sits in jail based on evidence that he paid adult male escorts and entertainers who engaged in consensual sexual activities with his former girlfriends, which he videotaped and later watched with the girlfriends." The recording evidence linked the films to the charges.
Witness testimonies included statements from his ex‐girlfriend Cassie and another witness identified as Jane Doe, who testified that Combs filmed so‐called "freak offs." Combs maintained, "Movie shoots protected by free speech," while his defense argued that the recordings were private productions intended for later viewing rather than evidence of prostitution.
His legal team stated, "The U.S. government had painted him as a monster," and Combs claimed, "The jury rejected the case." Attorneys described the trial outcome as "unprecedented" in the history of federal prostitution law, as reported by Billboard, and they contended, "That is not prostitution, and if it is, his conviction is unconstitutional."
The renewed filing further stressed, "This is protected First Amendment conduct that no substantial government interest justifies prohibiting, since the films depicted adults voluntarily engaging in consensual activity," and noted, "He was producing amateur pornography for later private viewing." The defense centered its strategy on reinterpreting the recorded encounters as private, amateur productions conducted with mutual consent and protected by the First Amendment. They urged the court to dismiss the convictions, arguing that the recordings did not legally constitute prostitution.
Originally published on Lawyer Herald
