The legal team for Sean “Diddy” Combs just pulled out an…interesting…argument ahead of his sentencing next week.
Source: Justin Goff Photos / Getty
On Thursday, September 25, Combs’ attorney, Alexandra Shapiro, appeared in Manhattan federal court to challenge the Bad Boy founder’s conviction. According to USA Today, she pleaded with Judge Arun Subramanian to overturn the jury’s verdict, insisting all of the people involved in Diddy’s sexcapades were willing participants.
This comes two months after a jury delivered a split verdict on July 2. While the disgraced music mogul was found guilty of two counts of transportation to engage in prostitution, he was acquitted on the most serious sex crimes charges, including three counts of racketeering and sex-trafficking charges.
The New York-based jury determined that Combs had paid escorts to cross state lines to engage in sexual activity with his ex-girlfriends. Two of those girlfriends testified that Diddy was violent with them and threatened to cut them off financially if they did not do his bidding.
In a move similar to what they argued throughout the trial, Shapiro characterized Diddy’s exes as consenting participants in days-long sex marathons and said the government should not criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults.
“What we’re left with is a case about adults who traveled interstate and participated in a threesome,” Shapiro argued, per USA Today.
Source: Getty / General
As a response, prosecutor Meredith Foster argued that whether or not Diddy took part in the sex acts was not relevant because he arranged the male escorts’ travel accommodations and coerced his former girlfriends into sexual acts. Prosecutor Christy Slavik said the women experienced “secondary effects” of prostitution despite the conduct occurring behind closed doors.
“Ms. Ventura was getting punched in the face. Jane was getting hit and kicked,” Slavik told the judge. “The defendant was providing drugs to all parties.”
The defense also argued Diddy’s conviction should be overturned because Combs filmed many of the “freak-offs.”
“He was a consumer of amateur porn,” Shapiro said, according to ABC News. “Adults have a right to consume pornography.”
Slavik argued back, “It is just not the case the defendant is an amateur porn producer. The record does not support an inference of making pornography.”
During this unconventional argument likening Combs to a porn producer, members of his family—including his mother and children—were seated in the gallery.
After hearing from both sides, Subramanian said he would issue a decision “very soon.”
