New York – On September 30, 2025, U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian rejected a last‑ditch motion by Sean “Diddy” Combs to overturn his convictions or obtain a new trial—just days before his scheduled sentencing on October 3. The high‑profile decision caps a tumultuous legal saga for the music mogul and sets the stage for a dramatic sentencing hearing.

Combs, 55, was convicted in July on two counts of transporting individuals for prostitution, in violation of the Mann Act, after a grueling eight‑week trial in the Southern District of New York. He was acquitted of more serious counts—racketeering conspiracy and sex trafficking—charges that carried potential life sentences.

The motion for acquittal or new trial was among Combs’s final procedural options before his sentencing. Its rejection leaves little standing between the jury verdict and his fate. Below is a breakdown of how the motion was argued, why it was denied, what the upcoming sentencing could look like, and what this moment means for Combs’s legacy.

The Stakes: Why the Motion Mattered

From the defense’s point of view, succeeding on a motion for acquittal (also called a judgment of acquittal) or obtaining a new trial is one of the few remaining lifelines after a jury delivers guilty verdicts. Such motions ask the judge to find that the evidence was legally insufficient to sustain a conviction, or that procedural or constitutional errors tainted the trial enough to require starting over.

Given Combs’s acquittal on more serious counts, the defense argued that the remaining convictions under the Mann Act—though still serious—were the result of overreach and misapplication. They asserted that consensual sexual activity and noncommercial behavior should not fall under the legal boundaries of prostitution as defined in the statute.

The outcome of the motion was critical not only as a legal safeguard but also as a matter of optics: a successful reversal or new trial could substantially weaken the government’s position and reshape public perception going into sentencing.

Arguments from the Defense

Insufficient Evidence / Misapplication of LawThe defense contended that the government did not prove essential elements required under the Mann Act, including that Combs knowingly engaged in a scheme involving prostitution and used the interstate movement of individuals for that purpose. They argued that there was no commercial motive, and that all parties alleged to be involved—as adults—participated with consent according to their theory.

Defense filings challenged the notion that arranging sexual encounters with multiple partners (so-called “freak-offs” or “hotel nights”) automatically qualifies as prostitution under the statute, especially absent proof of coercion or profit for Combs beyond personal gratification.

Procedural / Constitutional DefectsCombs’s lawyers also attacked the trial process, asserting that certain instructions to the jury may have been flawed, or that evidentiary rulings improperly allowed prejudicial claims. They urged that cumulative error warranted a new trial.

Legal Overreach / Statutory InterpretationA key defense point was that applying the Mann Act to private consensual sexual behavior (without clear commercial exploitation) risks constitutional overbreadth or vagueness. They asserted that the statute should not reach behavior that does not square with its historic purpose of policing prostitution and exploitation.

Given these arguments, Combs asked the court to dismiss the charges or order a retrial limited to the Mann Act counts.

The Government’s Response & Judicial Reasoning

Prosecutors forcefully countered the defense arguments, urging swift rejection of the motion. In filings, they emphasized the overwhelming evidence the jury heard regarding Combs’s orchestration of multi-day events with escorts, the interstate travel of participants, and the alleged use of video recordings for leverage or control.

They argued that the jury had sufficient basis to find that these acts fell squarely within the statute, and that the defense’s alternate interpretations of the law were unpersuasive post-verdict.

In his written order, Judge Subramanian agreed with the government. He concluded that the evidence presented at trial was more than adequate to sustain the convictions—“overwhelming,” in the judge’s phrasing—and that the defense had not shown legal error meriting dismissal or retrial.

Importantly, by denying both acquittal and a new trial, the judge affirmed the jury’s factfinding and pushed forward to sentencing without additional procedural hurdles.

The Path Forward: Sentencing Considerations

With the motion denied, attention now shifts to October 3, when Combs will be sentenced. The sentencing phase may prove as consequential as the trial itself—arguably more so in terms of his personal fate.

Prosecutors’ Position

Federal prosecutors are pushing for a harsh sentence. Their memorandum calls for 11 years and three months (135 months) of imprisonment. They argue that Combs’s conduct was not only criminal but also harmful and manipulative, citing testimony from former partners Cassie Ventura and “Jane.”

They also maintain that despite his acquittal on racketeering and trafficking charges, the underlying evidence—particularly regarding abuse, coercion, and video threats—justifies a strong sentence under federal statutes and sentencing guidelines.

Defense’s Argument

Combs’s legal team is campaigning for leniency. Their request is modest in contrast: they propose 14 months or less—largely accounting for time already served in detention.

To bolster their appeal, the defense describes Combs’s time in custody, drawing attention to rehabilitation efforts: counseling, education, spiritual transformation, and the assertion that he has accepted responsibility.

Sentencing Uncertainties & “Acquitted Conduct”

One of the most contentious issues in the upcoming hearing is whether and how to factor acquitted conduct—i.e., alleged behavior that was part of the broader case but on which Combs was not convicted—into his sentencing. Under federal sentencing rules, judges may consider such conduct, but not all of it, and only under certain standards.

This is particularly relevant here because much of the trial testimony involved allegations of coercion, abuse, and recorded encounters beyond the counts on which he was convicted. The question will be how much weight these allegations carry—and whether the court will adopt a more expansive or constrained reading of sentencing guidelines.

Potential Range and Outcomes

If the judge aligns more with prosecutors, Combs could face a long, multi-year sentence. If the judge leans defense-side, he may receive a shorter term, suspended sentence, or credit for time served. The broad range makes the hearing a high stakes juncture for all parties involved.

Implications & Significance

A Legal Precedent in High-Profile Entertainment Cases

The denial of a new trial in a celebrity’s sex and prostitution case underscores how the justice system handles high-profile defendants. The decision may set tone for how courts evaluate post-trial motions in future sex‑related criminal cases involving powerful individuals, especially where arguments about consent and statute interpretation arise.

Impact on Combs’s Reputation and Business

Combs has been a defining figure in hip-hop and entertainment for decades. The legal verdicts and now the upcoming sentence mark a dramatic shift in public and industry perception. Whether he emerges from sentencing with any leeway or with a significant prison term will affect his business ventures, legacy, and standing in cultural memory.

Message to Survivors and the Public

This case already elevated voices of victims willing to testify publicly. The court’s decision to reject retrial appeals may convey a message about the seriousness with which misconduct allegations are treated—even under intense public scrutiny. It also reinforces the principle that defendants—even famous ones—must answer for wrongdoing under the law.

Conclusion

Sean “Diddy” Combs’s bid for acquittal or a new trial was a long shot—but one he could ill afford to gamble away. With that opportunity now closed, he proceeds to sentencing in the same posture he has occupied for months: incarcerated and under intense scrutiny. How Judge Subramanian navigates the balance between persuasive survivor testimony, contested evidence, and the proper scope of sentencing discretion will determine the next chapter in a saga watched globally.