Lawyers for Sean “Diddy” Combs have asked a US appeals court to throw out his Mann Act conviction and free him from prison, arguing that his so‑called “freak offs” were voyeurism and “amateur pornography” protected by the First Amendment.
The Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan heard arguments on Thursday (local time), with the hip‑hop mogul remaining in federal custody at Fort Dix in New Jersey.
In written briefs, Combs’ legal team claim the trial judge imposed an “excessive” 50‑month sentence by leaning on accusations a jury had already rejected, including fraud and coercion. “He sits in prison today, serving a 50‑month sentence, because the district judge acted as a thirteenth juror,” defence lawyer Alexandra Shapiro wrote in appeal papers, arguing that most people convicted of similar prostitution‑related offences receive less than 15 months.
Combs’ lawyers say new US Sentencing Commission guidelines mean acquitted conduct should not have been used to push the sentence higher, and are asking the court to either overturn the conviction or send the case back for a new sentencing.
The core of their appeal goes to how the Mann Act is interpreted. Combs was found guilty last year on two counts of transporting people to engage in prostitution, linked to his former partner Cassie Ventura and another woman known in court as “Jane Doe”, while being acquitted of more serious racketeering and sex trafficking charges.
In their filings, his lawyers argue that the “freak offs” and “hotel nights” at the centre of the case were “highly choreographed sexual performances involving the use of costumes, role play, and staged lighting, which were filmed so Combs and his girlfriends could watch this amateur pornography later”, and say “pornography production and viewing of this sort is protected by the First Amendment and thus cannot constitutionally be prosecuted”.
They also urge the court to limit the word “prostitution” in the Mann Act “to those situations where a paying customer engages in sex with the person being paid”.
Prosecutors have called that reading “meritless”, stressing that filming the encounters does not turn the case into a free‑speech issue. In a February response, they argued that Combs “hired and transported commercial sex workers to have sex with his girlfriends for his own sexual gratification, sometimes directly participating in the sex acts”, and warned that accepting his First Amendment theory would mean “any defendant who transported others to engage in prostitution could escape liability simply by watching or filming the sex”.
They also defended US District Judge Arun Subramanian’s approach at sentencing, saying he was “surgically focused” on conduct relevant to the Mann Act counts and allowed to consider the broader context of Combs’ behaviour.
The same judge had previously told Combs that a substantial sentence was needed “to send a message to abusers and victims alike that exploitation and violence against women is met with real accountability”, rejecting attempts to frame the events as merely consensual, drug‑fuelled encounters.
For now, Combs remains on track for release in April 2028, unless the appeals panel decides to cut his time or unpick the verdict altogether.
The post Diddy’s Lawyers Try To Overturn Conviction By Arguing ‘Freak Offs’ Were Amateur Porn, Not Prostitution appeared first on PEDESTRIAN.TV .
