> Diddy’s lawyers claim the Mann Act doesn’t apply … “Freak-offfs and hotel nights were highly choreographed sexual performances involving the use of costumes, role play, and staged lighting which were filmed so Combs and his girlfriends could watch this amateur pornography later. Pornography production and viewing of this sort is protected by the First Amendment and thus cannot constitutionally be prosecuted.”
> Prosecutors call the claims “meritless, but Diddy’s prosecution is not a classic Mann Act.
> Diddy’s legal team is also arguing the 50-month sentence is out of line with sentencing guidelines — they say the typical sentence is 15 months. Diddy has served 19 months.
> The Defense says the judge considered evidence connected to the more serious charges — racketeering and sex trafficking — of which Diddy was acquitted. In other words, any evidence of force or coercion, so says the defense, was out of bounds for the judge to consider, and that includes the Cassie video.
Tokie-Dokie on
Is beating a woman and dragging her by her hair also covered by the first amendment?
epicredditdude1 on
If that’s the case why wouldn’t they just present that as their defense in the original trial?
This feels like they’re just trying a completely new defense.
3 Comments
> Diddy’s lawyers claim the Mann Act doesn’t apply … “Freak-offfs and hotel nights were highly choreographed sexual performances involving the use of costumes, role play, and staged lighting which were filmed so Combs and his girlfriends could watch this amateur pornography later. Pornography production and viewing of this sort is protected by the First Amendment and thus cannot constitutionally be prosecuted.”
> Prosecutors call the claims “meritless, but Diddy’s prosecution is not a classic Mann Act.
> Diddy’s legal team is also arguing the 50-month sentence is out of line with sentencing guidelines — they say the typical sentence is 15 months. Diddy has served 19 months.
> The Defense says the judge considered evidence connected to the more serious charges — racketeering and sex trafficking — of which Diddy was acquitted. In other words, any evidence of force or coercion, so says the defense, was out of bounds for the judge to consider, and that includes the Cassie video.
Is beating a woman and dragging her by her hair also covered by the first amendment?
If that’s the case why wouldn’t they just present that as their defense in the original trial?
This feels like they’re just trying a completely new defense.