Court Petition by Sean 'Diddy' Combs' Legal Team Seeks Acquittal or a Fresh Trial
Sean Combs, also known as Diddy, was convicted on two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution on July 2, following a six-week trial. However, his legal team is not backing down, filing a motion for a new trial or dismissal of the conviction.
The defense argues that the conviction is unprecedented, unconstitutional, and based on conduct not typically prosecuted under the Mann Act. The sexual encounters involved were consensual and part of a "swingers'" lifestyle, not coercive or trafficked acts. Combs had no commercial or financial motive; the adults involved voluntarily traveled and engaged in the activities.
The lawyers claim that the Mann Act was too broadly interpreted to apply to Combs because there was insufficient evidence that he transported anyone with the intent to engage in prostitution. They also argue that upholding the convictions would violate the First Amendment, as paying people to film them in sexual performances is protected First Amendment activity.
The defense also challenges the credibility of accusers and the prosecution's narrative, noting acquittals on more serious charges of sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, which required proof of coercion and control.
In a bid for his release before sentencing, Combs' legal team petitioned the court for his release on bail, proposing a $50 million bond and residence in his home in Miami. The judge, however, declined to release Combs on bail, citing a provision in the transportation to engage in prostitution law that presumes detention.
A new trial is being requested due to spillover prejudice from evidence that would have been inadmissible had the Mann Act counts been tried alone. Combs' lawyers maintain that this prejudice could have influenced the jury's decision, leading to an unfair trial.
Meanwhile, unrelated news saw an F-35 fighter jet crash in California, according to the Navy, and a teen suffered significant thermal burns near a Yellowstone geyser.
[1] Defense Motion for New Trial or Dismissal [2] Defense Response to Government's Opposition to Motion for New Trial or Dismissal [3] Government's Opposition to Motion for New Trial or Dismissal [4] Comparative Analysis of Combs' Case and Others
- The defense asserts that Combs' conviction under the Mann Act is based on unconstitutional and unprecedented grounds, as the sexual encounters involved were consensual and not coercive, and there was no commercial or financial motive.
- The lawyers argue that the conviction violates the First Amendment, as paying people to film their sexual performances is protected activity, and upholding the convictions could potentially impact the business and entertainment industries involving celebrities.
- The government opposes the motion for new trial or dismissal, contending that there was sufficient evidence proving Combs' intent to engage in prostitution and that upholding the convictions would not infringe on the First Amendment rights.
- In comparison to other cases involving sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy, Combs' case is distinguishable due to the lack of coercion or control, and the acquittals on these more serious charges further question thegovernment's evidence in this case.
