Sean “Diddy” Combs has gained a powerful and unexpected show of support in his ongoing legal battle—this time not from fellow artists or celebrities, but from some of the nation’s most respected legal minds. In a newly filed appellate brief, a group of prominent law professors is backing Diddy’s effort to challenge his prison sentence, arguing that fundamental principles of justice were ignored. Their involvement underscores a broader debate about whether jury verdicts still hold real weight in federal sentencing, captured in the growing attention around University Professors Rally Behind Diddy as He Pursues an Appeal.
Who Are the Legal Heavyweights Supporting Diddy?
The scholars stepping forward include Professor Douglas A. Berman of The Ohio State University, Professor John Blume of Cornell Law School, and retired U.S. District Judge John Gleeson, now an adjunct professor at New York University School of Law. Together, they bring decades of experience in criminal law, sentencing policy, and judicial practice.
Their brief, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, does not focus on celebrity or public opinion. Instead, it zeroes in on a single issue: whether a sentencing judge can rely on allegations that a jury has already rejected.
A Judge, a Jury, and a Disputed Sentence
At trial, jurors cleared Diddy of the most serious charges brought against him. The jury convicted him only on two counts under the Mann Act—offenses that typically result in significantly shorter prison terms than the sentence he ultimately received.
According to the professors, the problem arose during sentencing. They argue that the judge treated accusations rejected by the jury as if they were true, using them to justify a harsher punishment. In their view, this approach effectively overrode the jury’s findings.
“The issue is simple,” the professors wrote. A jury’s decision should matter.
“Not Guilty Means Not Guilty”
The filing repeatedly emphasizes a principle that lies at the heart of the American justice system: when a jury finds a defendant not guilty, that decision should carry real consequences. The professors quoted a statement from the U.S. Sentencing Commission chair, who said in 2024, “Not guilty means not guilty,” while announcing new rules designed to limit the use of acquitted conduct in sentencing.
Those rule changes were meant to prevent judges from punishing defendants for charges they successfully fought off at trial. The professors argue that, in Diddy’s case, the spirit of those reforms was ignored.
Instead, they say, the sentencing court relied on what it believed had “really happened,” despite the jury’s unanimous rejection of that version of events. The result, they argue, was a sentence far longer than the convictions alone would justify.
Undermining the Jury’s Role
The professors warned that allowing acquitted conduct to influence sentencing sends a troubling message—especially in a high-profile case that drew national attention. If judges can effectively set aside jury verdicts after trial, acquittals risk becoming little more than formalities.
“Only a jury, acting on proof beyond a reasonable doubt, may take a person’s liberty,” the professors wrote, calling that promise one of the Constitution’s most vital protections against arbitrary government power.
They also argued that Congress intended federal sentencing to be tied to the crime of conviction, not to allegations that failed. Basing punishment on rejected claims, they said, creates unfair disparities and makes sentences difficult for the public to understand or trust.
Broader Implications for Public Trust
Beyond Diddy’s individual case, the scholars expressed concern about how this practice could erode confidence in the justice system. If jurors see their decisions brushed aside at sentencing, fewer people may feel their service truly matters.
In cases like Diddy’s—covered daily and watched closely nationwide—the impact is even greater. The professors warned that many observers could walk away believing that jury verdicts carry little real force.
What the Professors Are Asking For
Importantly, the professors are not seeking Diddy’s immediate release. Instead, they are urging the appeals court to vacate the sentence and order a new sentencing hearing—one that does not rely on acquitted conduct.
They argue the court can do so without issuing a sweeping constitutional ruling. Interpreting sentencing rules to allow rejected allegations to drive punishment, they say, drains the jury trial of its meaning.
A Case Still Awaiting a Decision
Diddy’s appeal remains pending, and the Second Circuit has not yet announced when it will rule. Still, the professors’ filing adds significant pressure and reframes the case as more than a celebrity appeal.
At its core, the issue now before the court is whether jury verdicts still matter in federal sentencing—a question brought sharply into focus as University Professors Rally Behind Diddy as He Pursues an Appeal.