Sean “Diddy” Combs has some unexpected defenders—university law professors who say he was punished for crimes a jury didn’t even convict him of. According to a newly filed legal brief, these professors argue that the court unfairly used acquitted conduct—charges that were dismissed or rejected by the jury—to justify giving Diddy a harsher sentence.
The academics, whose filing was reported by AllHipHop, claim that prosecutors pushed for a punishment based on allegations that didn’t hold up in court, and that the judge went along with it. “Federal prosecutors wanted to see Mr. Combs punished for charges they couldn’t prove,” they wrote, accusing the court of overruling the jury’s decision and violating the core principles of the justice system.
Their argument centers on a major change introduced in 2024 by the U.S. Sentencing Commission, which explicitly restricts judges from considering acquitted conduct when determining sentences. The rule’s guiding philosophy is simple: “Not guilty means not guilty.” But according to the professors, Diddy’s sentencing ignored that standard—allowing dismissed allegations to boost his punishment far beyond what his actual convictions warranted.
The filing warns that if courts can still rely on rejected charges, jury trials lose their meaning. “Acquittals become meaningless formalities,” the professors wrote, warning that public faith in the legal system could collapse if verdicts can be quietly overruled during sentencing.
Their message goes beyond Diddy’s case—it’s about protecting the constitutional promise that only a jury, not a judge, can decide when someone’s freedom should be taken away. They argue that federal sentencing law should focus solely on proven offenses, not unverified accusations that failed in court.
Importantly, the professors aren’t asking for Diddy’s release. They’re simply urging the appeals court to order a new sentencing hearing—one that excludes the acquitted conduct entirely. They argue that this change wouldn’t just benefit Diddy, but would reaffirm the meaning of “innocent until proven guilty” in federal law.
As the case moves through the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, the professors’ filing is being seen as a key test of whether jury verdicts still carry the final word—or whether judges can keep punishing defendants for crimes the system already cleared them of.
