Diddy Claims Judge Assumed Role of “Thirteenth Juror” After Jury Acquitted Him of Significant Charges

Sean “Diddy” Combs’ legal team contends that the judge based his decision on allegations that a jury dismissed when determining his prison sentence.

Diddy’s lawyers are once again contesting his prison sentence, arguing that the judge has exceeded his authority.

A new appeal filed on Friday by Diddy’s legal team contends that the 50-month prison sentence imposed following his federal trial is excessively harsh. The punishment is said to be disproportionate to the charges for which he was convicted.

The founder of Bad Boy was acquitted last year of the most serious allegations in the case, which included federal sex trafficking and RICO charges. In July, a jury found him guilty on two counts of transportation for the purpose of prostitution under the Mann Act, which is a federal law that prohibits transporting individuals across state lines for illegal sexual activities.

His attorneys now assert that the judge based his decision on allegations that the jury had previously dismissed.

Diddy’s lawyers described the sentence in the filing as a “perversion of justice,” contending that the court penalized him for actions related to charges he successfully defended against at trial.

The judge is said to have relied on a contentious method referred to as “acquitted conduct” sentencing. The practice enables courts to take into account allegations related to charges that did not result in convictions, prompting concerns about its fairness from various critics within the legal community.

Diddy’s legal team argues that the punishment is significantly beyond the typical range.

The appeal states that the 50-month sentence is approximately four times greater than the usual penalties associated with Mann Act convictions related to the transportation of prostitution.

The appeal requests that the court direct Diddy’s “immediate release and issue a judgment of acquittal or, at the very least, vacate and remand for resentencing.”

Months after the conclusion of the two-month federal trial, Judge Arun Subramanian issued the sentence.

Diddy’s lawyers contend in the appeal that the judge effectively assumed the role of a “thirteenth juror” in determining the punishment.

The appeals court is set to determine whether the sentence will be upheld or returned for further consideration.