Experts Claim Prosecutors Punished Diddy For Unproven Charges—Here's Why

Sean 'Diddy' Combs has received backing from a group of university law professors who argue that his sentence was improperly influenced by allegations the jury had already rejected. In a newly filed brief supporting his appeal, the academics claim the court relied on acquitted conduct to impose a harsher punishment, as reported by AllHipHop, undermining both the jury's verdict and recent changes to federal sentencing rules. The professors contend that the sentencing judge placed weight on accusations that did not result in convictions, a practice they argue conflicts with the fundamental role of the jury and the intent of updated sentencing guidelines.

Professors Challenge Use of Acquitted Conduct

Central to the professors' argument is a 2024 rule change announced by the US Sentencing Commission, which was designed to limit judges from factoring in conduct for which defendants were acquitted. The filing repeatedly references the principle behind that change. 'Not guilty means not guilty,' the US Sentencing Commission chair said when announcing the new rule.

According to the professors, that principle was not honoured in Combs's case. Instead, they argue the court relied on its own view of what had 'really happened', despite the jury rejecting those claims. They say this approach resulted in a sentence that went well beyond what the convictions alone would justify.

'Federal prosecutors wished to see Mr. Combs punished for the charges they had failed to prove,' the professors wrote. They argue that the court ultimately adopted the prosecution's perspective after the trial concluded. 'The district court did so, resolving core factual disputes contrary to the verdicts,' the filing states.

Concerns Over Public Trust and Jury Authority

Beyond the specifics of Combs's sentencing, the professors warn of broader consequences for the justice system. They argue that allowing acquitted conduct to influence sentencing risks diminishing the authority of juries, particularly in high-profile cases that receive widespread public attention.

'Acquittals, in these cases, become inconsequential formalities with no meaningful effect on the state's ability to punish,' the brief states. They also caution that such practices could weaken public confidence in the courts and discourage future jury participation. If verdicts can effectively be overridden at sentencing, jurors may question whether their role carries real weight.

'Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person's liberty,' the professors wrote. 'That promise stands as one of the Constitution's most vital protections against arbitrary government'.

The filing notes that federal sentencing law consistently ties punishment to 'the offense' of conviction, not allegations that failed at trial. Relying on acquitted conduct, the professors argue, can lead to sentencing disparities and outcomes that are difficult to explain to the public. 'The national audience heard the district court override the jury's factual findings,' the professors wrote. 'Mr. Combs's sentence risks promoting disrespect for the law'.

Appeal Seeks Resentencing, Not Release

The professors are not asking the appeals court to overturn Combs's conviction or order his release. Instead, they are urging the court to direct a new sentencing hearing that excludes reliance on acquitted conduct. They argue that such a decision could be made without issuing a sweeping constitutional ruling. 'Interpreting the sentencing rules to allow acquitted conduct to drive the sentence would drain the jury trial promise of real meaning,' the brief states.

Combs's appeal remains pending, and the Second Circuit has not indicated when it will issue a ruling. The professors' filing adds renewed pressure on the court, framing the case as a broader test of whether jury verdicts continue to hold meaningful authority in federal sentencing.