Sean “Diddy” Combs is now seeking a highly unusual line of assistance as he faces the sentencing stage of his federal case—help that, unexpectedly, may come from the very escorts prosecutors are classifying as victims. Dozens of individuals were hired by Combs for the notorious multi-day sexual events he organized and referred to as “freak offs.” According to prosecutors, many of these men fall within the legal definition of victims. Yet Combs’ defense contends that some escorts, during confidential interviews conducted by federal authorities, provided accounts that—far from supporting the prosecution—may actually aid the defense by casting doubt on the government’s narrative.
His attorneys, anticipating a critical juncture in the proceedings, informed U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian last week that by Friday they intend to submit a sentencing memorandum. This legal brief will highlight and summarize for the court what the defense describes as exculpatory material within these interviews. Essentially, they aim to demonstrate that testimony gathered by prosecutors from certain escorts undermines the portrayal of those individuals as victims and therefore should be considered by the judge when calculating Combs’ potential sentence. Despite this, federal prosecutors insist that all arguments tied to these interviews be shielded from public access, reinforcing the longstanding legal principle that statements made by individuals who are not testifying in court generally remain confidential.
Prosecutors have further requested that each of these escorts be officially recognized as victims when the sentence is imposed, now scheduled for October 3. Combs’ legal team vigorously opposes this, protesting that such a classification is not only inaccurate but also fundamentally unfair. They reject the idea that consenting adults, who willingly participated in sexual acts and in many cases traveled across state lines voluntarily, should be retroactively labeled as victims for sentencing enhancement purposes. The defense insists these individuals should not be anonymized, redacted, or sealed in legal documents, arguing that transparency is essential. While a spokesperson for the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined to comment, defense counsel likewise has yet to issue a direct response to inquiries.
Combs’ six-week trial concluded on July 2, producing a mixed verdict. The hip-hop entrepreneur and multimillionaire was acquitted of the most serious allegations—sex trafficking and racketeering conspiracy—but was nevertheless found guilty of two lesser felony counts involving the transportation of persons across state borders for the purpose of engaging in prostitution. Prosecutors allege the misconduct extended not only to long-term romantic partners, such as Cassie Ventura, and another former girlfriend who testified under the pseudonym “Jane,” but also to men paid to perform in the orchestrated sexual encounters. During the trial, two escorts testified that they personally observed instances of Combs being violent with both Ventura and Jane while these gatherings were underway. To drive their point home in closing arguments, Assistant U.S. Attorney Christy Slavik displayed a collage of photographs featuring twenty-seven escorts allegedly hired by Combs, emphasizing to jurors the scope of exploitation. She claimed these individuals, along with the women, participated under circumstances that left them physically drained, disoriented by drugs, and emotionally vulnerable.
However, there remains uncertainty surrounding the group of twenty-seven portrayed at trial. It is not fully clear how many among them provided pretrial interviews, nor how many will be categorized as victims in the government’s upcoming sentencing recommendation. The judge has not yet ruled on whether Combs’ legal team will be required to redact or anonymize mention of these escorts when filing their memorandum. As the deadline looms, the defense seeks expanded leeway: a request for an extension past the original Friday deadline, and permission to exceed the 25-page limit previously set by the court for each side’s submission.
The stakes for Sean Combs are substantial. Each of the two felony counts carries a statutory maximum of ten years, leaving him exposed to a possible twenty-year prison term. Prosecutors have already signaled their intent to seek no less than five years of incarceration, although this initial recommendation was presented in July and may evolve depending on how many escorts the court deems victims. The prosecution also intends to incorporate evidence introduced at trial about Combs’ acknowledged drug use and violent conduct in its ultimate recommendation. In contrast, the defense is expected to argue strenuously for a sentence without imprisonment. Combs’ representatives have stated as recently as last month that he is a transformed individual who seeks to rehabilitate his image and devote himself to championing anti-domestic abuse advocacy. This month, they intensified their argument that escorts should not count as victims under federal guidelines, underscoring that these were consenting men who willingly participated in acts with Ventura and Jane. According to defense filings, their inclusion as victims amounts to a distortion of reality and an improper inflation of sentencing severity.
Since his arrest in September 2024, Combs has remained in custody. Judge Subramanian has not announced a timeline for decisions regarding the defense’s requests for more time, expanded page limits, or permission to file the sensitive arguments concerning escorts without requiring redaction. As sentencing approaches, the battle over definitions—who constitutes a victim, what evidence is admissible, and whether defense arguments should remain public or sealed—has become the sharpest point of contention in determining the superstar’s fate.
Sourse: https://www.businessinsider.com/diddy-hopes-his-former-escorts-will-help-him-at-sentencing-2025-9
