NEW YORK — A trio of legal academics asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit this week to order a new sentencing hearing for music producer Sean “Diddy” Combs, backing the Diddy appeal of his federal prison term. They argue the sentencing judge relied on “acquitted conduct” — allegations the jury rejected — when he imposed Combs’ punishment, Jan. 4, 2026.
The Diddy appeal follows a July 2025 split verdict that cleared Combs of racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking but convicted him of two prostitution-related counts under the Mann Act. U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian later sentenced Combs to 50 months in prison after prosecutors sought more than 11 years and the defense urged a far shorter term, according to a Reuters report on the October 2025 sentencing hearing.
Diddy appeal puts ‘acquitted conduct’ under the microscope
“Acquitted conduct” is a term for evidence tied to charges a jury rejected. In federal sentencing, judges have historically been able to consider a wide range of information, sometimes including conduct related to acquitted counts, using a lower standard of proof at sentencing than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for conviction.
In the Diddy appeal, law professors Douglas A. Berman and John Blume, joined by retired federal judge John Gleeson, urged the Second Circuit to vacate Combs’ sentence and remand for resentencing without relying on allegations connected to the acquitted charges, according to a report describing the professors’ amicus brief. The scholars argue that punishing a defendant for conduct a jury rejected undermines confidence in verdicts and creates a backdoor way to revive allegations that did not result in conviction.
Combs’ attorneys made a related case in their opening filing, contending that the district court treated the acquitted accusations as if they were proven at sentencing. The defense brief, posted as a PDF by Deadline, asks the Second Circuit to reverse the Mann Act convictions or, at minimum, order a new sentencing hearing.
Subramanian has already rejected post-trial motions seeking acquittal or a new trial, writing in a Sept. 30, 2025, opinion and order that the evidence supported the prostitution-related counts despite the jury’s acquittals on the more serious charges.
Older fight over acquitted conduct adds context to the Diddy appeal
The dispute has been building for years in federal courts and policy circles. In April 2024, the U.S. Sentencing Commission voted to limit how “acquitted conduct” is used in guideline calculations — a change that took effect Nov. 1, 2024 — and the commission’s chair summarized the principle bluntly: “Not guilty means not guilty,” according to a Reuters report on the commission’s vote.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also drawn attention to the issue, declining to decide it in 2023 but prompting separate statements from multiple justices in the case McClinton v. United States, as summarized by SCOTUSblog.
Congress has considered a legislative ban, too. The Prohibiting Punishment of Acquitted Conduct Act of 2021 would bar federal courts from considering acquitted conduct at sentencing except to mitigate a sentence, though it has not become law.
What comes next in the Diddy appeal
Combs’ attorneys have pushed for a faster timetable while he serves his sentence, a bid described in an Associated Press report on the request for an expedited schedule. The government will respond in its own filing, and the Second Circuit will decide whether the sentencing dispute — and the broader question of acquitted conduct — warrants a resentencing order.
However the court rules, the Diddy appeal is set to become an early, high-profile test of how aggressively appellate judges will enforce the post-2024 push to reduce the role of acquitted allegations in federal sentencing.
