Photo Credit: Emiliano Bar
Legal scholars are raising serious concerns about Diddy’s sentencing, which was lengthened over conduct for which he was acquitted. Critics say the move is “quite strange” and could “undermine the public’s perception of the criminal justice system.”
Did Sean “Diddy” Combs get prison time for something of which he was already acquitted? Legal scholars have voiced concern that Judge Arun Subramanian’s sentencing for the music mogul involved “acquitted-conduct sentencing,” effectively lengthening his prison sentence over conduct for which he was acquitted.
According to The Wall Street Journal, a court reporter present during Combs’ sentencing quoted Judge Subramanian arguing that “juries don’t acquit defendants of conduct; they acquit them of charges.” However, juries actually acquit charges based on conduct—and jurors don’t tell judges why they acquitted. Therefore, to rely on acquitted conduct in sentencing “disrespects the jury’s role and undermines public faith in our criminal justice system.”
However, the public didn’t really blink when Judge Subramanian cited Combs’ coercion and abuse as factors in his sentencing to 50 months in prison—which placed him “comfortably” between prosecutors’ recommendation of 11 years, and Combs’ legal team’s request for 14 months.
We all heard about Combs’ alleged conduct before the trial even began. But because the jury acquitted him of the charges that alleged coercion and abuse, his sentencing should not have taken that conduct into consideration, the WSJ posits.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor has referred to the practice of relying on acquitted conduct during sentencing as “quite strange,” and voiced concern that it could undermine public perception of the criminal justice system’s fairness and legitimacy. Judge Brett Kavanaugh, similarly, noted in 2015: “Allowing judges to rely on acquitted or uncharged conduct to impose higher sentences than they otherwise would impose seems a dubious infringement of the rights to due process and to a jury trial.”
Last year, the U.S. Sentencing Commission unanimously voted to prohibit consideration of acquitted conduct in calculating advisory sentences under federal sentencing guidelines. “Not guilty means not guilty,” said Judge Carlton Reeves, the commission’s chairman, at the time, calling the change “an important step to protect the credibility of our courts and criminal justice system.”
Sean Combs was convicted of two counts of transporting individuals to engage in prostitution under the Mann Act, but he was acquitted of the more serious charges against him, including racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking involving coercion.
Did Judge Subramanian’s repeated invocation of “coercion” during sentencing overstep legal bounds? The judge asserted he was permitted to “consider acquitted conduct,” but in doing so, he may have established the precedent that he was punishing Diddy for conduct that the jury did not find to be a crime.
