How is Diddy using the Mann Act's 1910 wording to fight his guilty verdict? Case explained

Sean “Diddy” Combs’ lawyers asked a judge to throw out or reopen his conviction under the federal Mann Act. A jury in July found Diddy guilty on two counts of transporting people for prostitution, while acquitting him of racketeering and sex-trafficking charges.

His team now says the law was applied using a modern sense of “prostitution” rather than the word’s original meaning from 1910, and that this mismatch tainted the verdict. Combs remains jailed ahead of a sentencing date set for October 3, 2025.

The newest court filing centers on a legal point: What did Congress mean in 1910 when it wrote the Mann Act, and can that original wording be used today to convict someone for the conduct at issue in this case? The defense frames the argument as both a technical legal claim and a challenge to fairness.

Defense argues the Mann Act was misapplied in this case

The defense motion, filed in early September, says prosecutors relied on a modern view of prostitution, “sex for hire”, instead of the broader, older meaning the statute used when it was passed. In court papers, defense counsel wrote that the charge “should never have been brought,” arguing that prosecutors folded in other inflammatory evidence from counts on which Diddy was acquitted.

The filing argues that prosecutors failed to show Diddy personally paid escorts, stressing that certain arrangements were handled by others.

The Mann Act’s history shows why wording still matters

The Mann Act began in 1910 as the White-Slave Traffic Act. Its original text made it a crime to transport

“Any woman or girl for the purpose of prostitution or debauchery, or for any other immoral purpose.”

Over time, Congress and the courts narrowed the law’s scope, with late 20th-century amendments shifting the focus to transportation for illegal sexual activity and making the statute gender-neutral. Its original wording, however, fueled controversial prosecutions, most notably the 1913 case against boxer Jack Johnson, a frequent example cited by critics when discussing the law’s misuse.

Diddy’s prosecutors say the evidence supports the verdict

Federal prosecutors oppose the defense motion and asked the judge to reject it quickly. In filings, they wrote that,

“Evidence of the defendant’s guilt on the Mann Act counts was overwhelming,”

Prosecutors cite testimony that Diddy organized drug-fueled, sex-heavy events where some participants reported being coerced, along with recorded footage presented at trial. They argue these facts clearly fall within the scope of the law as written today and that the jury’s verdict should be upheld.

The defense raises First Amendment and due process points

Along with the wording argument, Diddy’s team has said some recordings shown at trial were private videos or “amateur” recordings and argued for protection under free-speech principles.

The filing also raises due process concerns, arguing that it is unfair to reinterpret a century-old statute without giving the defendant clear notice. Prosecutors, however, dismiss this claim, pointing out that multiple witnesses reported either not consenting or feeling pressured into aspects of the events.

Judge Arun Subramanian will consider the defense motion ahead of sentencing on October 3, 2025. If the judge denies it, sentencing will go forward, and the legal fight could move to appeals afterward.

If the judge grants relief, the outcome could range from a new trial to a narrowed charge, depending on the court’s view of the statute and the evidence. Legal observers note this dispute may test how courts treat old statutes in modern cases.

×

Was this article helpful?

Thank You for feedback