P. Diddy Blasts Judge Over ‘Unfair’ Lockup

Judges of the United States Court of. Appeals for the Second Circuit, Oyez, Oyez, Oyez. All persons having business. before this a stated term of the United. States Court of Appeals for the Second. Circuit, draw near, give your attention, and you shall be heard. >> Sean Diddy Combs, disgraced music mogul, once ruled the airwaves and the. Hollywood nightlife scene, is once again. going to war in a courtroom. The former. rapper and entrepreneur has been sitting. in federal prison for months. He was.

convicted of transportation to engage in. prostitution, but was acquitted of the. more serious racketeering and sex. trafficking charges. But right now, his. powerhouse team of attorneys is taking. his case to the court of appeals, slamming the federal judge who handed. Combs down a 50-month prison sentence. And I will tell you, things are getting. testy at times. >> It's rather disparaging. characterization. And I want to understand what you mean. by it. >> What I mean And that's not what I mean.

>> So yes, we have the audio from court as. arguments were made both by the defense. and the government. What's the court. going to decide? Is Diddy going to be. released from prison soon? Welcome to. Sidebar presented by Law & Crime. I'm. Jesse Weber. By the way, you guys know that we follow. hundreds of cases a year, and each case. has so much evidence that we said, "You. know what? Let's do something here." We. wanted to give you the opportunity to. investigate the evidence and investigate. the case for yourself. So we created Law.

& Crime Plus Case Files. This isn't just. a summary of the trial, okay? This is an. all-in-one case file with everything. from the body cam footage to the 911. calls, to documents and evidence that. never made it into the courtroom. So. look, if you have a case file that you. want to investigate, let me know in the. comments below. We'll try to make it. happen. We are adding new case files for. you all the time. So if you want to. unlock the case files today, click the. link in the description or pinned. comment to sign up for Law & Crime Plus. and start your free trial today. So, you. have these teams of lawyers that were.

gathered today at the United States. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. to present oral arguments on why Sean. "Diddy" Combs should or should not be. released from prison much sooner than. the spring of 2028. Now, if you've been. following us here at Sidebar, you know. that we have covered the Sean "Diddy". Combs criminal case extensively from the. coordinated searches of his properties. in LA and Miami to his arrest in New. York City, to his whole trial before. Judge Arun Subramanian, we have been.

following it all. Now, this appeal was. filed in the Second Circuit after a jury. convicted Combs on two counts of. transportation to engage in. prostitution, which were connected to. Combs hiring escorts and having them. travel to different locations. But, he. was acquitted of the much more serious. charges that were brought against him in. the federal indictment: conspiracy to. commit racketeering and sex trafficking. by force, fraud, or coercion. So, the. prosecution's star witness, as we. remember, was Combs' ex, Cassie Ventura, who was in a relationship with him for. 10 years. She claimed that she was.

forced to participate in what were. called freak offs or hotel nights where. Combs would have an escort brought in, or that he would hire an escort to have. sex with Cassie, sometimes for prolonged. periods of time, and that this was an. element of force and coercion that was. used to get her to do this. And the. prosecution posited that Combs used. drugs to entice Cassie or force Cassie. or coerce Cassie. And then there was a. second alleged victim identified as Jane. Doe to also participate in these. marathon sex sessions. But, the defense.

argued that whatever happened between. Combs and his lovers was consensual, that it didn't add up to sex trafficking. or even a violation of the Mann Act. That's the transportation to engage in. prostitution. Because according to the. Mann Act, it is illegal to transport. someone as part of interstate or foreign. commerce for prostitution. But, Combs'. attorneys say he wasn't making any money. off of these meetups. This was just what. he did for a thrill. That was. entertainment purposes. But the defense. really here and what our purposes for. this discussion are, they are saying. that what happened to Combs was unjust.

That he shouldn't have been sentenced to. what he was sentenced to. They believe. that Judge Subramanian sentence was too. harsh. According to Combs team, the. typical sentence for just man act. convictions is like 15 months, but Combs. was sentenced to 50 months. They claim. it's the most ever that was given in a. case like this under these. circumstances. And they claim that the. judge improperly considered evidence and. accusations and conduct that related to. the acquitted charges, so sex.

trafficking and racketeering, to guide. his decision, to guide his sentence. So, I want to give you a little preview of. the arguments that were made by both. sides from their legal briefs and then. I'll give you the audio of what was. argued in court. And then we're going to. also bring on famed defense attorney. Bradford Cohen to talk about the actual. statements that were made on the record. in court, get his prediction about. whether or not Shawn Diddy Combs is. going to be released from prison. earlier. So, in the opening of its. appellate brief, the defense states, quote, "The jury refused to authorize.

any punishment for coercive sex or. conspiracy because the evidence showed. there was none. The jury only authorized. punishment for prostitution. It never. authorized the sentence four times the. typical sentence for that crime. The. result was a perversion of justice. What. is the point of a jury trial vindicated. on the most serious charges, but your. sentence is driven by what you were. acquitted of doing? That is the question. at the heart of this appeal. The. government has no answer. It doesn't. even pretend to offer one. Instead, it.

offers up unpersuasive and hyper. technical arguments, misrepresents the. record, sites outdated law, and ignores. the elephant in the room that it is both. illegal and wrong to imprison a man for. conduct he was acquitted of committing. He paid entertainers to create sexy. scenes, and he and his girlfriends used. role-playing and mood lighting, candles, costumes, and props. This amateur porn. is protected by the First Amendment, and. the government's arguments conflict with. precedent. Indeed, pornography is.

everywhere today and produced and. consumed by hundreds of millions through. popular websites and social media. Combs. should be released. His convictions. should be reversed or the case at least. remanded for resentencing, meaning sent. back down to a lower court for. resentencing. So, all potential options. here. How did the government respond? How did the prosecution respond? Well, in its own brief, the government wrote, "The government's proof at trial. established that for more than a decade. on on hundreds of occasions, Combs paid. dozens of male commercial sex workers or. escorts to have sex with two of Combs'.

girlfriends, Ventura and Jane. These sex. sessions, freak-offs, or hotel nights. went on for hours or days as Combs. directed the encounters, pleasured. himself, and often filmed. Combs plied. Ventura and Jane with drugs and was at. times physically violent, hitting, kicking, and punching them before, during, or after freak-offs and hotel. nights. Combs relied on his staff to. book travel, including interstate and. international trips, set up and clean. hotel rooms, and deliver drugs, cash, and other supplies in connection with.

freak-offs and hotel nights. According. to Combs, the District Court should have. closed its eyes to how he carried out. his man act defenses and abused his. victims, violently beating them, threatening them, lying to them, and. plying them with drugs. To do otherwise, Combs says, violated the Constitution. and was unfair and unjust. Combs is. wrong. Now, in addition to submitting these. briefs, both sides had the opportunity. to present their arguments in person. oral arguments to the three-person. appeals court, again, the Second. Circuit. Alexander Shapiro, who also.

represented Combs at his original trial. in District Court, spoke first, and. almost immediately one of the judges. interrupted. >> This case presents an important issue. about respect for jury verdicts and. public confidence in our criminal. justice system. Multiple justices have questioned the. constitutionality of acquitted conduct. sentencing. McClintock made clear. >> Well, actually, I'm going to jump in right there. And I. appreciate that you're leading with. uh with all that. If you were going to.

the question of the Sixth Amendment. issue, is that where you were going? >> Uh. not quite. >> Okay. I will. Um why don't we lead One of your. arguments is that it would violate the. Sixth Amendment to consider acquitted. conduct. Let's put it that way. >> But Shapiro got back on track, made the. argument that the court erred when it. seemed to use issues that Combs was. acquitted of, conduct that he was. acquitted of, to essentially give him a. more severe punishment. That's the. allegation. Isn't your argument really. that what the government's doing here is. mixing and matching? They're taking.

evidence from the claims that were. acquitted. to try to support the. um the Mann Act sentencing for purposes. of the Mann Act, but none of that jury. was presented to the jury for purposes. of the Mann Act. Is that Is that a. summation of what we're. >> That's That's fair. >> Well, he's mixing and matching is what. he's doing, right? I mean, the district. court here reached into the evidence. that was used to support the. government's RICO and sex trafficking. case to. um find to to for purposes of.

establishing the penalty under the Mann. Act. >> Correct. And he found coercion when the. district when the Excuse me, when the. jury had not found coercion, including. as to We know as to those two specific. instances because the government made. those arguments and and expressly told. the jury, which correctly on the under. the jury instructions, that if they. found coercion, each of those instances. would have been sufficient to convict on. the substantive sex trafficking. >> limiting instructions given.

or requested. during trial that certain evidence would. only be admissible with respect to. certain of the charged offenses? >> No, and you know, that wouldn't really. have worked here. >> So then, the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christie Slavik, represented. the government at trial, provided her. own arguments. But she also got some. pushback from the appeals judges. >> Judge Subramanian properly considered. the aggravated manner in which the. defendant carried out his man act.

offenses, which is of course consistent. >> manner, let's talk about that. Why. shouldn't we hold you to the way you. prosecuted the case? You all You went to the jury and you. said, "This man did all these terrible. things. um for purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for purposes of sex trafficking." And. they acquitted him. And then on the the. man act, it was just a sideshow and you. put in. I don't think you. I don't think there was any evidence any. uh live witness testimony. You just look. at this, you said, "Look at these. charts.".

And now you want us to rely on um all. this acquitted conduct that was. presented to the jury, that was. presumably rejected for purposes of the. or to allow a district court for. purposes of the guidelines um. uh calculation. So why should we hold. you to what you present argue to the. jury? >> Your Honor, um. I have several responses, but first is. that um much of the conduct that the. district court focused on in imposing. the sentence was not acquitted conduct. at all. In fact, it was admitted.

conduct. The extreme physical violence. that took place in the context of these. freak off offenses. >> I I. I I get all that. I understand that. That's not my question to you. >> The theory is, if the government made. this argument, doesn't that mean that. the jury accepted that argument and. didn't consider any other possibilities. And I don't think that that's a fair. inference. >> It isn't What we're trying to do here is. to figure out where. draw this line. So the jury acquitted on. certain things and then convicted on. other things. So what does a jury have.

to rely upon? Don't you think they're. listening very intently to the closing. argument? Isn't that going to be very, very important in their consideration? >> Uh of course, Your Honor. Of course. Um. but the jury is. in this case was properly instructed on. each element of the Mann Act and had to. find each element of the Mann Act met. beyond a reasonable doubt. >> Now Shapiro had an opportunity for a. short rebuttal for the defense. >> I I just just in closing, um. you know, 12 New Yorkers took 2 months. out of their lives to serve on this.

jury. They listened to 34 witnesses, reviewed thousands of text messages, videos, and other evidence, and. deliberated for 2 and 1/2 days. Um their. unanimous verdict was not guilty on the. most serious charges, and uh the jury. did not authorize punishment for sex. trafficking or conspiracy, but that's. what drove the sentence. Um here we. submitted um. uh evident the evidence that my friend. on the other side describes, which I. would urge Your Honors to look at, which. is a docket 510-4.

of the District Court shows that this. was the highest sentence ever. for uh for this type of charge with this. type of uh criminal history. And um and. in closing, this appeal has been. expedited, and um actually, I forgot to. say we'll rest on our briefs. We have. also argued the conviction should be. reversed, but if that's the court. doesn't do that, the appeal has been. expedited, and we would. understanding the complexity of the. issue and the importance of the.

decision, respectfully request that the. court, regardless of the outcome, endeavor to decide the cases quickly as. possible. >> Before I bring in Bradford, this. three-judge panel is going to consider. the oral arguments, pore over the. briefs, decide the case law. They'll. give an update on their decision at a. later time. >> We will reserve decision as we do in all. cases. Uh let me just close by thanking. counsel on both sides. This is an. exceptionally difficult case. This is a. question of first impression not only. for this court, but apparently for any.

federal court of appeals in the country, and we appreciate the quality of the. briefing and argument on both sides. today. So, thank you very much, and with. that, we have completed the business for. which this court has been convened. today, and I would ask that court be. adjourned. >> And according to the Federal Bureau of. Prisons, Cohen's tentative release date. is April 15th, 2028. There's a. possibility under specific law that he. may get even earlier release, but we'll.

have to see. Now, I want to talk about. this. Give a preview of what may come. down, what we should take away from. this. Bringing back on Bradford Cohen, acclaimed criminal defense attorney to. the stars. Bradford, it's been a minute. since you've been on Sidebar. You have. been so busy, but I'm happy to have you. back. Um. >> I'm happy to be here. >> Now, generally speaking, generally. speaking, an appellate court, when. you're listening to the arguments, they were kind of, you know, pressing. both sides. Can you ever guess what.

they're going to do based on their. questioning? >> Yeah, sometimes. So, I just finished an. argument in front of the third DCA, which is an appellate division down in. in Miami, and the questioning when when. you kind of you can feel it out even. though they're going to be pressing both. sides, you can figure out what the major. hurdles are that they're going to have. in terms of questioning, right? So, they'll question both sides about. different issues, but overall, you'll be. able to kind of determine, okay, this is.

where they're focusing. They're focusing. on, you know, if it's a if it's a. illegal search or something. Okay, when. was the arrest? When did it happen? How. did they know that they weren't free to. leave? There's certain issues that. they're going to address, that you know. they're going to address, that are going. to be that kind of the hot buttons. Um and you can kind of determine where. they're leaning, but you never know what. happens at the end of the day. Sometimes. you think, "Oh, they're leaning this. way." and then you get a decision that's. completely different than what you're. thinking. But generally speaking, there's usually some tells.

>> So, Bradford, I want to go now into this. idea of how the defense was pressed by. the judges. And remember what the main. theme is here, right? Their main. argument is Judge Subramanian seemingly. improperly used evidence conduct that. related to the acquitted charges, sex. trafficking and uh racketeering. conspiracy in his analysis of what Diddy. should be sentenced to on the Man Act. charges. And I think one of the ways. that they were really pressing the. defenses is what is that line? What.

should or should not be considered by. the judge? And it's not that clear. They. even pressed the defense on saying, "Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a. minute. Are you suggesting that the. judge shouldn't even consider any of. Cassie Ventura's testimony that the jury. didn't consider any of Cassie Ventura's. testimony that we have to take. everything as she said is not true. because Combs was acquitted of sex. trafficking and racketeering? Are you. suggesting because she testified about. there being a freak off that there.

wasn't a freak off?" And the defense. kind of pushed back on that. They said, "No, we're not suggesting that." Because. it did get complicated. It becomes. complicated. What part of her testimony. should you consider? What part of her. allegations should you consider? I mean, her testimony is trial evidence. And so, it was that kind of thing that I think. became complicated. And it's even. complicated kind of explaining it. So, they were really pressing on what can. and cannot be considered, and it's not. so clear-cut. >> And I It's funny. I even as a if I was.

looking at it from the prosecution side. or the defense side, I think it's. relatively clear-cut, right? He got. convicted of a crime of crossing state. lines for the for the purposes of of. prostitution. So, what testimony would. be given that would support that crime. would be allowed in. This testimony that. would be given that doesn't support that. crime, that's just extraneous, that's. all these other things that are being. talked about that are just bad. character, bad evidence, things that. were he was acquitted of, should not be.

allowed in. I'm a very simplistic guy. I. boil it down to exactly what it should. be, and that's how I argue these cases. in front of appellate courts, in front. of regular courts. I say like, "Hey, listen. This is where I think the. boundaries are. The boundaries are, he. got convicted of this. Testimony that. supports this comes in. Testimony that. does not support this, whether or not. she was physically abused, whether or. not there was sex trafficking that. occurred, all these other things that.

were extraneous to that, I would exclude. from the argument." So, now, when this. judge. >> Subramaniam, yeah. >> When he made that decision, he did not distinct like did he didn't. give any kind of distinct line of like, "Hey, by the way, this is this other. testimony. I'm not even going to. consider that. I think it's extraneous. Here's what I'm going to consider and. here's why I'm going to consider." That. takes away appellate's. uh decisions, appellate court's. decisions, because now I'm explaining to.

everyone, "This is what I used and this. is why I used it.". >> So, the counter argument to that would. be and then I'll talk about what the. judges said. The counter argument to be. from the government is like, they. basically said again, what are you. saying? The district court the judge. should have just closed his eyes to how. these Mann Act violations were carried. out. There was a level of egregiousness. There was a level there was there was. aspects to it that weighed in. Yes, it. played a role in the sex trafficking. charges. It played a role in the. racketeering conspiracy, but it also. overlaps and it plays a role and is a.

factor in the Mann Act. >> Right. And and the what I always say the. government always likes to do this, right? The government always likes to. find bad acts that can they can. attribute to the sentencing that they. can attribute to other things. There's. specific case law that says acquitted. conduct does not come in during. sentencing. So, yes, judges typically do. have to turn a blind eye to certain. facts that they heard at trial that an. individual was acquitted of. So, now.

when you go to sentencing, does a judge. necessarily put blinders on and say, "Oh, I didn't hear this other stuff?". No, it always comes in. Now, whether or. not a judge is going to say it orally, that's the that's kind of the. difference. It says like, "Hey, I'm. considering these things." That's where. a judge makes a mistake. The smart. judges don't say that I'm considering. them, they just give them the 5 years. >> Look, and the problem is is the jury. didn't come back with their verdict and. say, "This is what we considered. This. is not what we considered. We believe. this. We didn't believe this." So, that's what complicates it very much for.

uh this court that's now hearing this. appeal and maybe even Judge Subramanian. I did think it was interesting. Again, I'm just talking about how. uh the judge has pressed the defense. that, "Okay, but you can show evidence. of intent to commit the man act. violations, intent for the prostitution, right?" So, the idea is if there's. conduct that shows Diddy intended to. engage in prostitution and that kind of. overlaps with you know,

evidence of coercion, why can't that be. considered? >> And and I don't think that it should be, but that's my own opinion, right? >> Right. >> The way that I read the law, I don't. think it should come in. I think this is. spilt milk. Like, this is really the the. prosecution saying like, "We got him on. the From the very beginning of this. case, I think it was mishandled." So, I. don't want to get all the way back to my. prediction at the day that he was. charged that I said, "It's only going to. come back on the man act because I don't. think any of these other things are.

going to be found guilty of because. everyone was participating in these. things. She was making phone calls. The. other girls were making phone calls. Not. to get into the nitty-gritty of it, but. I think that when you have a case like. this where he was only convicted of the. Mann Act, I think you should look at. strictly what affects the Mann Act. If. they're saying intent does, I typically. don't agree with that, but they're going. to make the arguments they're going to. make. It's very difficult to get cases. overturned on appeal in federal court. I. will tell you that. It's very rare. It.

happens, but it doesn't happen often. Courts give a lot of deference to the. district court judges that make these. decisions, why they make the decisions, and how they make these decisions. So, an appellate court generally says, "Hey, listen, we weren't there. We didn't see. everything. We don't know everything the. judge was thinking." They have ways that. they can get out of this left and right, so I don't hold much weight that he. would they will overturn the conviction, but you know, there's arguments to be. made. I think it's a good argument to be.

made on the path on the on the path of. the of the defense. >> Well, one thing could be, should the. sentence. and again, we're going to preview this, so I'll save this for the end. Maybe you. don't think the conviction's going to be. overturned, but can they say wrong. sentence? This is what the sentence. should be, or we're remanding it for. resentencing. Don't answer that yet, we'll get to that. I'll give everybody a. preview about what could happen. But. they so when the the government came up, again, the judges pressed the. government, too. And one of the things. they said was, you know, again, we're. trying to understand the line about what.

should be considered and not be. considered in terms of sentencing and. one of the things they pressed the. government is is like, are you saying. that there's never acquitted conduct. because it can overlap with what he was. ultimately convicted of? And the. government even acknowledged, "Yeah, it's a there's a gray area here." And so. I thought that was interesting, like, you know, pressing the government on. that point, too. And basically saying, "You consider the Mann Act charges as a. as almost like an afterthought. You.

really were focusing on sex trafficking. and racketeering conspiracy. Explain. yourself. >> Yeah, and I I that's the part where I. agree with them. Like I I really think. that I think there should be a bright. line test as to what comes in or what. doesn't. And I think that this court is. in a perfect position to actually um. come up with a bright line test for. okay, this is what does come in and this. is what doesn't come in. Looking at the. past case law, looking at case law where. they overturned convictions for allowing.

them to uh introduce acquitted conduct. into sentencing. This is This is the. court that's in a perfect position to do. it. Now, do I think it goes back and. then it they get resentenced? Let me. give you a prediction. If it does, which. I it would be it would be an amazing win. if it does. If it does, the lower court. judge would say, "Okay, I'm not going to. consider that." But even without. considering that, I'm still giving him. 50 months. So, like there is a million. ways to get screwed here, no pun. intended. There's a million ways to for.

stuff to happen here that is going to. wind up in the same spot he's in now, which I think could happen in the lower. court. >> Well, one of the things that came up is. what's the range? Like does a district. court judge have the legal authority to. go past what is typically seen in a. sentencing for this kind of charge, right? I mean, the defense said, "You. have never seen someone sentenced to. this this harsh of a sentence for MANN. Act violations.

not. I mean, you tell me if you've seen. anybody sentenced to what 4 years? >> some research. I have not seen it. >> You You haven't seen. So, it's Does a. Does a district court judge have the. absolute discretion to go towards the. extreme here because maybe this is a. different case. Maybe there are kind of. extreme aggravating factors. >> So, you know, when we look at. sentencing, we always look at it in an. eye of okay, what's the range of. sentence in terms of legal range, right? So, the legal range, let's say it's from. 48 months to 74 months or whatever it is.

or 24 months to 74 months. Whatever the. legal range is, if the judge sentences. you at the top of that range or at the. bottom of that range, generally. speaking, a appellate court will not. say, "Okay, just because everyone else. that was charged with fraud only got 24. months, but you were charged with fraud. and you got 74 months, we're going to. overturn the decision of the district. court." As long as it's within that. range. Now, if it goes above that range.

or it goes below that range, that's when. the questions come in. Did they have a. general Did they have enough evidence. and enough reasons cuz they have to give. oral and written reasons why they either. went above that range or went below that. range. That's when appellate courts kind. of get involved and start questioning. it. But, just to say, "Hey, listen, this. is outside the norm, you know, people. charged with this crime don't get this. much time even though it's within the. allowable time that a judge can give.

them." Uh generally speaking, people. don't get that amount of time. That's a. tough argument to make for an appellate. court to say, "Okay, we're going to send. it back for re-sentencing.". >> What about this idea that this was. amateur porn that was protected by the. First Amendment? And um. that's what the defense seems to suggest. that all this is. >> I think it's creative. I don't know I. don't know if it carries the day. I. would say it doesn't. And I'll I'll tell. you a funny story. I had a case that. involved a a prostitution case that.

involved individuals such as this. Then. people were hiring prostitutes and. things of that nature. But, the. defendant, my client, was smarter in. terms of he actually had contracts that. he was having individuals sign when they. showed up at the door and said that this. was kind of amateur porn. And that did. actually work in his case. Th- This I. don't think is going to kind of carry. the day. That argument I think is an. argument when you go in front of. appellate courts, you usually have your. arguments set up where they are the the.

strongest to the weakest. I would say. this is probably down that line. towards the weakest argument. It's not. It's not a great argument. It's a First. Amendment argument. I just don't I don't. see a. an appellate court saying, "Yes, this is. amateur porn.". >> Okay, let's just talk about when they. might come back with a decision. Does. that happen today? Does that happen in a. few weeks? Does that happen in a few. months? I mean, the big headline today. is Diddy getting released from prison. today? That wouldn't necessarily happen,

right? >> It's not necessarily It's. >> way, by the time I record this, we would. have known. I mean, this is a So, let's. just for the because we're recording. this So, how about this? Diddy getting. released tomorrow? You let's do that. >> Diddy's not getting released today or. tomorrow. It You know, when you're in. front of appellate court Now, I'll give. you another funny story. I had a case in. Orlando on a sentencing where the kid. was scoring zero to six months, meaning. the court could give him straight. probation or six months in prison. The. court departed from those guidelines and.

gave him 24 months in prison. I. appealed. The appeal took 20 months. So, by the time I went back in front of the. judge to get resentenced, he was. reversed. It came back. By the time it. came back, he already served essentially. his time. He served 20 out of 24 months. And when we went back, I mean, it was. just like I could say whatever I wanted. because the judge was going to give him. the 24 again, but do it properly, but. the kid was already being released that. day. That's not this situation. He has.

been in an in long enough where he would. just be released for any given reason. >> So, there's not a scenario where they. can come back in a month and say, "We. looked at it. He should have been. sentenced to time served. We order him. released immediately.". >> Absolutely no that the that the. appellate court can say release him. immediately. What they would say is. if that scenario happened, which is. unlikely, but if it happened, they would. say they're going to reverse, remand, and recommend that he should be, you. know, sentenced to XYZ amount of time,

or that it consistent with this order, and then it would go in front of the. judge, you know, post haste, within a. couple days, and the judge would. resentence him to time served or. whatever it is. So, conceivably could. that happen? Yes. I always draw big. circle and I say the middle is the most. likely and the things on the on the end. of that circle. on the edge of that circle are unlikely. I would say that's very far on the edge. of that circle. >> And I just go back to Judge Subramanian.

I mean, the whole question is did he go. past what he was supposed to do? Did he. improperly consider evidence in his. sentence? You know, he said at the time. that this was to send a message to. abusers and victims alike that. exploitation and violence against women. is met with real accountability, that he. rejects the defense's attempt to. characterize what happened here as. merely intimate, consensual experiences, or just a sex, drugs, and rock and roll. story. And then he told Combs, "You. abused the power and control that you.

had over the lives of women you. professed to love dearly. You abused. them physically, emotionally, and. psychologically, and you used that abuse. to get your way, especially when it came. to freak offs and hotel nights." Now, I. guess the main question is does the. court look at that and say, "Would he. have said the same thing if it was just. a man act case and not part of a larger. case? And what would the prosecution. have been permitted to show as part of. that case? Would they have been so. in-depth and, you know, had Cassian. Andor had all these episodes and all. these allegations?" Or do you look at. language like that and say, "He's saying.

things and accusing Combs of things that. he was acquitted of." You see what I'm. trying to say? >> Yes, I do see what you're trying to say, and I do I agree with your second. analysis. I think he. especially the part where he's saying. you abused her, you did all these. things. The first sentence that he says, okay, judges say that all the time. I'm. sending a message to XYZ. I'm doing this. because XYZ. Very infrequently do. appellate courts say, oh, that's. improper. You see it in murder cases, you see it in sex abuse cases, in in.

porn cases. That's not the big question. The question is at the very end where he. says, you know, you abused these people, you did this, you did that. And some of. that shouldn't even have come in in. terms of his weighing of what he's. giving. And I've said this from the. jump. I think this judge did not like. Combs. I think his ruling showed that he. did not like Sean Combs. Whether or not. the judge says, it wasn't that I didn't. like him personally, I just didn't like. the actions or stuff. A lot of judges. say that. I have no judgment on him.

personally, but I just think he did not. like Sean Combs. I think there was a lot. that was going into this. I think he. there was a prejudgment that was made. very early on in this case about his. guilt or innocence by the judge. And I. think it was demonstrated in his. sentencing. So, that's what my problem. is with the case. His language of that. you abuse these people and things of. that nature, if that went into him. giving the sentence that he gave, I. think the appellate court can look at. that and say like, hey, he was never. charged with this abuse that obviously.

there was on video. It's not like there. was any defense to that. He was not. charged with it, though. And they were. bringing that in in the bigger RICO case. and trafficking case. And those type of. incidences shouldn't have come into his. weighing of what he should give him in a. sentence. And I think that it did. >> The counterargument would be, hey, he. could have sentenced him to double. digits, right? 10 years in prison. He. didn't. >> Oh, sure. The counterargument is he. could have given him a lot more. But I. think where he was scoring, his actual. scoring, I think that he gave him at the.

top of those guideline sentences. So, if. he was to give him more than that and go. outside the guideline, he would actually. have to give a written opinion on why he. felt there was aggravators to take them. out of that guideline, and I don't think. he could do that without addressing the. things he was acquitted of. This judge. was very smart the way that he did it to. try and avoid the appellate issues. Most. federal judges, good federal judges, are. thinking what the appellate court could.

do, and why and how I can get around. them them reversing me, because no. federal judge wants to be reversed. >> Bradford Cohen, a complicated situation, but you broke it down as easily as. possible for us to understand. Thank you. so much for having me. Really Thanks so. much for having Thanks so much for. coming on. I don't even know what I'm. saying. I'm complicated I'm confused. now. Thank you so much for taking the. time, sir. Always good to see you. That's all we have for you right now. here on Sidebar. Everybody, thank you so. much for joining us, and as always, please subscribe on YouTube, Apple. Podcast, Spotify, wherever you get your.

podcast. You can also check us out on. NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to. follow me, X, Instagram, my NewsNation. show, Jesse Weber live, Monday through. Friday, 11:00 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you. next time, everybody.