Diddy files new appeal alleging judge acted as thirteenth juror with harsh sentence
The hip-hop star has filed a new appeal with a federal appeals court in New York challenging his 50-month prison sentence, arguing that the trial judge improperly acted as a “thirteenth juror” by allowing evidence related to charges on which he was acquitted to influence the harsh punishment he received. The appeal was filed on December 24, 2025, and was submitted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit by his legal team led by attorney Alexandra A.E. Shapiro. The filing strongly asserts that Judge Arun Subramanian exceeded his judicial role by factoring in alleged conduct connected to racketeering and sex trafficking counts that a jury had already rejected, resulting in what Combs’ lawyers describe as an unprecedentedly severe sentence for the convictions that remained. mint+1
Combs was convicted in July 2025 on two counts under the Mann Act, which prohibits transporting individuals across state lines for prostitution, and was acquitted of more serious racketeering and sex trafficking charges. At sentencing in October, Judge Subramanian referenced testimony about alleged abusive conduct in calculating the sentence, leading the defence to argue that this approach violated Combs’ constitutional rights because it effectively allowed the judge to punish him for behaviour not supported by the jury’s verdict. Combs’ lawyers contend that defendants convicted of similar Mann Act-related offenses typically receive sentences under 15 months, and they are now asking the appellate court to either overturn the conviction entirely, order his immediate release from prison, or remand the case for proper resentencing based solely on the conduct for which he was convicted.
If the appeal is successful, it could potentially shorten Combs’ incarceration or lead to his release before his current projected release date of May 2028. Federal prosecutors will have a period of time to respond before the appellate court hears arguments. The case has drawn significant public interest given Combs’ prominence in music and entertainment, as well as broader debates about sentencing discretion and constitutional rights in federal criminal cases.
About the Author
