Sean ‘Diddy’ Combs’ lawyers allege judge ‘acted as a 13th juror,’ vow to appeal

Sean “Diddy” Combs’ legal team is in uproar after the rap mogul received a sentence that was four times longer than what they had requested. The lawyers are now claiming that the judge is unfairly punishing Combs for crimes of which he is innocent.

Lead attorney Teny Geragos emphasized that the jury had acquitted Combs of sex trafficking and RICO counts, stating that “not guilty means not guilty.” Despite this, Combs was sentenced to over four years in prison for two prostitution-related offenses. He has already served 12 months and will also face a $500,000 fine.

Geragos asserted that Combs has undergone a significant transformation and rejected prosecutors’ claims that he is shirking responsibility. He stated that Combs is a changed man, based on the extensive time spent preparing for trial.

The defense team plans to appeal the sentence on the grounds that the judge considered conduct for which Combs was acquitted. They argue that the jury’s verdict of not guilty for sex trafficking implies that Combs did not use force or coercion on his victims.

Attorney Alexandra Shapiro, who will lead the appeal, criticized the judge’s decision, stating that it was driven by conduct the jury had rejected. She accused the judge of acting as a “13th juror” and emphasized that the sentence was inconsistent with the jury’s acquittal of any coercion by Combs.

During the sentencing, Judge Arun Subramanian highlighted the repetitive nature of Combs’ crimes and violence towards his former partners. He expressed concern that releasing Combs could lead to further offenses and emphasized the need for real accountability for violence against women.

Shapiro acknowledged that some incriminating evidence, such as a video showing Combs assaulting a woman in a hotel, played a significant role in the verdict and sentence. She stated that Combs has taken responsibility for his past violent behavior.

The defense team argued that the lengthy sentence contradicts the goal of rehabilitation for Combs, who expressed a desire to turn over a new leaf during his sentencing. Shapiro questioned the necessity of further incarceration, given the damage to Combs’ reputation, professional setbacks, and the slew of civil lawsuits he faces.

In conclusion, the lawyers believe that Combs has already faced significant consequences for his actions and that additional incarceration is unnecessary. They are determined to appeal the sentence and ensure that justice is served for their client.