Noting just some of the challenges in the upcoming sentencing of Sean “Diddy” Combs
I gave a talk some years ago, which later became this essay, that discussed why “sentencing is dang hard.” That work came to mind as I started thinking about what Judge Arun Subramanian will be facing as he prepares to sentence Sean “Diddy” Combs in the coming months. (The sentencing is scheduled for October 3, but that could change.) Here are just some of the sentencing challenges ahead for the judge:
1. Calculating the guideline range. Though the federal sentencing guidelines are only advisory, it is mandatory that Judge Subramanian calculate a guideline range which is to serve, in the words of the Supreme Court, as a “starting point and initial benchmark.” The parties are already disputing the guideline calculation: in submissions concerning bail pending sentencing, prosecutors calculated the guidleline range to be 51-63 months while the defense calculated the range to be 21-27 months. A presentece report that will be prepared by the probation office could have an even different calculated guideline range.
2. Considering “acquitted conduct” (formally or informally). For decades, it was standard procedure that even conduct related to an acquitted count would have to be considered in the calculation of the applicable guideline range. But the US Sentencing Commission amended the guidelines in 2024 to exclude acquitted conduct from guideline range calculations. However, that amendment does not define exactly what qualifies as “conduct for which the defendant was … acquitted,” nor does this guideline amendment impact judges’ broad statutory authority to consider all aspects of a defendant’s “background, character, and conduct.” Can and should Judge Subramanian disregard any and all aggravating evidence presented at trial that related to counts on which Combs was acquitted? Will he (or the parties) address this “acquitted conduct” issue expressly in the sentencing proceedings?
3. Assessing “the offense” and “the defendant.” In the key federal sentencing statute, Congress instructs that judges, “in determining the particular sentence to be imposed, shall consider the nature and circumstances of the offense and the history and characteristics of the defendant.” Needless to say, there are lots and lots of elements to the nature and circumstances of the Combs’ offense and even more aspects of Combs’ history and characteristics. Prosecutors in sentencing arguments are likely to stress aggravating aspects of Combs’ offense conduct and history, while the defense is sure to stress his professional achievements and charitable works. Every judge in every sentencing faces the challenge of conducting, in the words of the Supreme Court, “a unique study in the human failings that sometimes mitigate, sometimes magnify, the crime and the punishment to ensue.” But the term “unique” only begins to describe the many remarkable elements of the crime and criminal here.
4. Imposing a “sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” All of the considerations above are in service to the judge’s ultimate responsibility under federal law to “impose a sentence sufficient, but not greater than necessary, to comply with” the sentencing purposes Congress set out in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2). Just what is “sufficient” in this case to “to promote respect for the law,” and “to provide just punishment for the offense”? What is sufficient “to afford adequate deterrence to criminal conduct”? At what point would a prison term become “greater than necessary” to serve these and other purposes?
This post just scratches the surface with respect to why sentencing Sean “Diddy” Colmbs is dang hard. Judge Subramanian has considerable work ahead. More broadly, while celebrity sentencings get a disproportionate amount of attention, they provide a useful opportunity to highlight the myriad challenges that every judge faces at every sentencing.
Prior related post: