Law&Crime Sidebar - P. Diddy Blasts Judge Over ‘Unfair’ Lockup

Episode Date: April 9, 2026

Sean “Diddy” Combs’ appeal hearing this week took center stage as defense attorneys challenge Combs’ 50-month prison sentence on his Mann Act convictions. Judges questioned both sides about whether it was fair for the trial court to consider allegations he was acquitted of when deciding that sentence. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber is breaking down the hearing with Celebrity Defense Attorney Brad Cohen.Be a part of our community with Law&Crime+, where you can watch your favorite hit series and dive into exclusive Case Files, including 911 calls, trial footage, and the evidence they didn’t show you on TV. Download the app or visit https://bit.ly/lawandcrimeplus to start your free trial today!HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael Deininger, Christina O'Shea, Alex Ciccarone, & Jay CruzScript Writing & Producing - Savannah Williamson & Juliana BattagliaGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrimeTwitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Judges of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Oye, Oye, Oye, Oye, 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, the 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. 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, 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 and 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 and crime plus case files. This isn't just a summary of the trial. 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 pin comment to sign up for Long 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 Didy Combe 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 L.A. and Miami to his arrest in New York City to his whole trial

before Judge Arun-suburnumanium, 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 star witness, as we remember, was Combs' X.

Cassie Ventura, who was in a relationship with him for 10 years. She claimed that she was forced to participate in what were called freakoffs 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 Man 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. There was entertainment purposes. But the defense really here and what are 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 comments. 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 a 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 Sean 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 a sentence four times the typical sentence for that crime. The result was a perversion of justice. What is the point of a jury trial if you're 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, cites 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 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, freakoffs or hotel nights, went on for hours or days as Combs directed the encounters, pleasureed 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 freakoffs and hotel nights. Combs relied on his staff to book travel, including interstate and international trips, set up in clean hotel rooms, and deliver drugs, cash, and other supplies and connection with freakoffs and hotel nights. According to Combs, the district court should have closed its eyes to how he carried out his Man Act offenses 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. Alexandra 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 McClinton made clear... Well, actually, I'm going to jump in right there, and I appreciate that you're leading with all that.

If you were going to the question of the Sixth Amendment issue, is that where you were going? Not quite. Okay, I will. 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 is doing here is mixing and matching?

You're taking evidence from the claims that were acquitted to try to support 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 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 find to to for purposes of establishing the penalty under the man 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 expressly told the jury,

which correctly under the jury instructions, that if they found coercion, each of those instances would have been sufficient to convict on the substantive sex trafficking. Were there limiting instructions given or requested during trial that certain evidence would only be admissible with respect to certain of the charge offenses? No. And, you know, that wouldn't. really have worked here. So then the prosecutor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavic, represented the government at trial, provided her own arguments. But she also got some pushback from the appeals judges. Judge Supermanian properly considered the aggravated manner in which

the defendant carried out his Man Act offenses, which is, of course, consistent. You say aggravated manner. Let's talk about that. Why shouldn't we hold you to the way you prosecuted the case? You went to the jury and you said, this man did all these terrible things. for purposes of the RICO conspiracy, for purposes of sex trafficking, and they acquitted him. And then on the Man Act, it was just a sideshow, and you put him, I don't think there was any evidentiary, any live witness testimony. Just look at this, you said, look at these charts. And now you want us to rely on all this acquitted conduct that was presented to the jury that was presumably rejected for purposes of, or to allow a district court for purposes of the guidelines. calculation. So why should we hold you to what you present, are you to the jury?

Your Honor, I have several responses, but first is that 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-offs 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.

What we're trying to do here is to figure out draw this line. So the jury quitted on certain things and 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?

Of course, Your Honor, of course. 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 just, just in closing, you know, 12 New Yorkers took two 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 two and a half days. Their unanimous verdict was not guilty on the most serious charges, and the jury did not authorize punishment for sex trafficking or conspiracy,

but that's what drove the sentence. Here, we submitted 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 sentenced ever for this type of charge with this type of criminal history. And in closing, this appeal has been expedited and actually, I forgot to say, we'll rest on our briefs. We have also argued the convictions should be reversed, but if the court doesn't do that, the appeal has been expedited, and we would understand the complexity of the issue and the importance of the decision and respectfully request that the court, regardless of the outcome, endeavor, to decide the case as quickly as possible. Before I bring in Bradford, this three judges,

panel is going to consider the oral arguments, pour over the briefs, decide to case law. They'll give an update on their decision at a later time. We will reserve decision, as we do in all the cases. 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. 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, Combs' tentative release date is April 15th, 2028. There's a possibility under a specific law that he may get even early 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. Bring him back on Bradford Cohen, a claim 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.

I'm happy to hear. 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 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 an 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. 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 Subramanium, seemingly improperly used evidence, conduct that related to the acquitted charges, sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy in his analysis of what did he should be sentenced to on the Man Act charges. And I think one of the ways that they were really pressing the defense is is what is that line? What should or should not be considered by the judge? And it's not that clear. They even press. 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. I 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 it's funny. Even 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 the 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... When he made that decision, he did not distinct, like, 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 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 judge. 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 man act violations were carried out there was a level of egregiousness there was a 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 it is a factor in the man act right and and what i always say the government always likes to do this right the government always likes to find bad acts that 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 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 five 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 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 the judges 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 I don't think that it should be, but that's my own opinion, 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 prosecution saying, like, we got him on top. 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 Mann 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 man acts, I think you should look at strictly what affects the man acts. 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 they will overturn the conviction. But, you know,

there's arguments to be made. I think it's a good argument to be made by on the path on the path of the defense. Well, one thing could be, should the sentence, and again, we're going to preview this. So save this for the then. 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 government came up, again, the judges pressed the government to. 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 press 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, 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 considered the Man Act charges as a, It's almost like an afterthought. You really were focusing on sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy. Explain yourself.

Yeah, and that's the part where I agree with them. Like, 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 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, overturn convictions for allowing them to introduce acquitted conduct into sentencing. This is the court that's in a perfect position to do it. Now do I think it goes back and then 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 them 50 months. So there is a million ways to get screwed. here, no pun intended. There's a million ways 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

man act violations, like this before. I don't know if that's true or not. I mean, you tell me if you've seen anybody sentenced to what, four years. I've got some research. I have not seen it. You haven't seen. So 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 would charge with fraud and you got 74 months, 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 because 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 charge with this crime don't get this much time, even though it's within the allowable time that a judge can give them. 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 resentencing. What about this idea that this was amateur porn that was protected by the First Amendment? And 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 tell you a funny story. I had a case that involved 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 individual 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. 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 strongest to the weakest. I would say this is probably down that line towards the weakest argument. It's not a great argument. It's a First Amendment argument.

I just don't, I don't see an appellate court saying, yes, this is amateur porn. Okay, let's just talk about when they. 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 headlines today is, did he getting released from prison today? That wouldn't necessarily happen, right?

It's not necessarily. 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? Did he getting released tomorrow? Yeah, you know, it's not getting released today or tomorrow. You know, when you're in front of a pellic, and 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 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 know 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 X, Y, Z amount of time or that 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 a big circle and I say the middle is the most likely and the things on the

end of that circle or 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 Suburmanian. 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 profess to love dearly. You abuse them physically,

emotionally, and psychologically, and you use that abuse to get your way, especially when it came to freakoffs 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 Cassie Ventura and 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 X, Y, Z. I'm doing this because X, Y, Z. Very infrequently do appellate court say, oh, that's improper. You see it in murder cases. You see it in sex abuse cases and in porn cases.

That's not the big question. The question is at the very end where he says, you know, you abuse these people. You did this, you did that. And some of that shouldn't even have come in in terms of. 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 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 a 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 counter argument would be, hey, he could have sentenced them to double digits, right? Ten years in prison, he didn't. Oh, sure. The counter argument 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 should get your podcast. You can also check us out on NBC's Peacock as well. If you want to follow me, ex-instagram, my News Nation show, Jesse Weber Live,

Monday through Friday, 11 p.m. Eastern. I'll see you next time, everybody.