THE BIG STORY: “This was subjugation.” That’s what Judge Arun Subramanian said to Sean “Diddy” Combs last week as he sentenced him to over 4 years in prison for violating federal prostitution laws, capping off a whirlwind two years of accusations, investigations, civil lawsuits and a blockbuster criminal trial for the rap mogul.
That sentence can be seen as both a win and a loss for Diddy. It was certainly far less than the life sentence he could have gotten when he was charged last year with racketeering (RICO) and sex trafficking, accused of essentially running an organized crime syndicate aimed at sexual abuse.
Though the jury cleared Diddy on those charges, even his lesser prostitution convictions carried a 20 year maximum, with prosecutors demanding 11 years and probation officers suggesting that seven would be fair. In that light, four years looks a lot better — and he’ll be out in three on time served.
But after a verdict that was largely seen as a victory for Diddy and a repudiation of the case prosecutors brought against him, the sentence was still a jarring reality check – that he was still convicted of capital-F felonies, and that a man who was once one of America’s cultural icons is headed to federal prison for an extended stay.
After the hearing, Combs’ lawyers vowed to appeal both his convictions and his sentence. “The judge acted as a 13th juror, one we did not choose,” said Diddy’s lead attorney Marc Agnifilo in a sharp departure from his previous praise for Subramanian. And they telegraphed that part of their appellate attack could be centered on the trick issue of “acquitted conduct” – that the judge wrongly sentenced Combs based on ugly accusations that the jury had ultimately rejected.
“People get — God forbid — falsely accused of a crime, they go to trial, they have all the witnesses testify, credibility is determined, the jury reaches a verdict, and finds in their favor — and then they get sentenced for the same exact conduct that the jury found that they did not commit,” said Brian Steel, one of Diddy’s attorneys. “It seems un-American.”
Read our full recap of the sentencing here, as well as our deep-dive into the issue of acquitted conduct. And stay with Billboard – we’ll keep you posted as Diddy’s appeal makes its way through the courts.
Other top stories this week…
AI MUSIC LAWSUIT – Suno hit back at new claims from the labels that the AI music firm violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act by “stream-ripping” songs from YouTube, a new battleground in the ongoing legal war over AI. In the response, Suno says it did no such thing – and that the labels know it, because they were heavily involved in creating the DMCA in the 1990s: “They are seeking to repudiate a legislative compromise that they themselves embraced to get the DMCA passed.”
ROD WAVE SUED – Grizzly Touring, the promoter of Rod Wave’s Last Lap arena tour, filed a lawsuit against the R&B singer and rapper, claiming he held onto $27 million worth of advances despite refusing to finish the 35-date North American tour. The company says he completed 26 dates — earning only $30 million of his $57 million touring advance: “Artist refuses to pay Grizzly a single penny of the more than $27 million he owes.”
Related
SCOTUS SAY NO – The U.S. Supreme Court said it had denied Live Nation’s request to hear an antitrust class action against the concert giant, leaving in place a scathing ruling last year that called the company’s arbitration agreements with ticket buyers “opaque and unfair.” Live Nation had warned the justices that the ruling “creates massive uncertainty” for the many companies that have long required consumers to sign such clauses.
‘IMPERMISSIBLY VAGUE’ – Attorneys for Lil Durk asked a federal judge to dismiss his murder-for-hire charges over allegations that he ordered an unsuccessful hit on rival Quando Rondo. With a trial looming in January, his lawyers say the Chicago drill star can’t adequately prepare a defense when prosecutors have laid out only a vague theory: “What sum of money is alleged to have been offered as bounty?” Durk’s lawyers asked. “In cash, via a wire transfer or a written check?”
NIRVANA APPEAL – Spencer Elden, the man who appeared as a nude baby on the cover of Nirvana’s 1991 album Nevermind, launched an appeal following a ruling dismissing his child pornography lawsuit over the iconic album art. The case will be Elden’s second trip up the appellate ladder to the Ninth Circuit, which has already revived his case once before. Nirvana’s legal team doesn’t sound concerned: “We will resist with vigor and will prevail,” the band’s lawyer told Billboard.
