Federal prosecutors pushed again laborious in opposition to Diddy’s acquittal request, calling the proof in opposition to the rapper “overwhelming.”

Sean “Diddy/”>Diddy” Combs is dealing with intensifying authorized strain as federal prosecutors urged a choose to “swiftly reject” his bid for acquittal or a brand new trial following his conviction on two Mann Act fees tied to prostitution-related conduct.

In a pointed court docket submitting, prosecutors argued the proof in opposition to the embattled mogul was “overwhelming,” citing detailed testimony thatDiddy/”> Diddy orchestrated sexual encounters involving male escorts transported throughout state traces from 2008 by way of 2024.

“The evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt was overwhelming,” prosecutors wrote, doubling down on the jury’s determination and pushing again in opposition to the protection’s declare that the acts have been consensual or protected as “amateur pornography.”

They additionally rejected the argument that the Mann Act is simply too obscure or unconstitutional, stating the regulation doesn’t violate due course of or First Amendment protections.

Prosecutors painted an image of management and coercion, stating, “He asserted substantial control over Ventura and Jane’s lives… controlled and threatened Ventura’s career, controlled her appearance, and paid for most of her living expenses, taking away physical items when she did not do what he wanted.”

The authorities’s submitting got here in response to a movement filed in late July by Diddy’s authorized staff, which requested the court docket to both toss the conviction or grant a retrial.

Diddy-s-legal-team-argue-feds-painted-him-as-a-monster”>Diddy’s Legal Team Argue Feds “Painted Him As A Monster”

His attorneys claimed the trial was unfairly influenced by unrelated allegations of racketeering and sex trafficking — fees the jury finally dismissed.

They argued the federal government “painted him as a monster” and relied on “20-year racketeering enterprise and of sex trafficking multiple women… [that] were not supported by credible evidence, and the jury rejected them.”

Diddy’s legal professionals additionally challenged the applying of the Mann Act on this case, saying it was unprecedented to make use of it in opposition to consensual grownup encounters, which they described as “freak-offs” or “hotel nights.”

They claimed the acts have been non-public, consensual and fell below the umbrella of “amateur pornography,” protected by the First Amendment.

Still, prosecutors maintained the jury bought it proper and urged the choose to disclaim any try to revisit the decision.

They additionally pushed again in opposition to the protection’s request for leniency, reiterating that Diddy ought to serve a number of years in jail.

Related