Diddy, SBF, and the Failures of Criminal Justice

Sean “Diddy” Combs, the famous hip hop producer, was acquitted of the most serious charges against him today in a New York federal court. While Combs will remain in jail until sentencing, as a result of his conviction on two counts of transporting a person across state lines for prostitution — much less serious crimes — the outcome is seen by many as a victory for the defense team. In contrast, women’s rights advocates have bemoaned the verdict. And you can understand why: the disturbing footage of Combs battering and dragging his then-girlfriend Cassie Ventura would seem to be overwhelming evidence of guilt. Combs clearly hurt the people around him, and intentionally so. Despite that, it’s likely that he will soon walk free.

Contrast what happened to Combs with what happened to another defendant in the Southern District of New York, Sam Bankman-Fried, the founder of the crypto exchange FTX. While Bankman-Fried, commonly known as SBF, was widely reviled for allegedly stealing customer funds, two renowned law professors wrote last year that the company was never, in fact, actually bankrupt. To the contrary, the company’s downfall was a result of some combination of back luck and a classic bank run. Yet despite very little direct evidence that SBF intended to cause any harm — the key evidence against him was circumstantial and came in the form of testimony from FTX employees who were facing massive pressure from the federal goenrment — SBF was convicted of the most serious charges brought against him, and is now serving 25 years in prison.

People can, of course, come to very different conclusions about both the legality and morality of these two defendants’ actions. But what is clear in the two cases is that a large part of the difference in verdicts was driven by the judges in the cases. Combs’ judge, Arun Subramanian, is relatively new to the bench and had a calm approach ot the trial. SBF’s Judge, Lewis Kaplan, has been on the bench for decades and is known for his imperious manner.

Most importantly, the judges took a very different perspective on what evidence, and testimony, would be allowed by the defense. Combs’ judge allowed for extensive questioning of the prosecution’s witnesses and introduction of extensive evidence suggesting that the women may have consented to the sexual conduct at issue. SBF’s judge, in contrast, forbade him from even mentioning that a white shoe law firm, Sullivan and Cromwell, had signed off on the transactions that were alleged to have been criminal frauds. That difference may end up being the difference between life as a free man, and life in a cage.

Justice should not be so arbitrary. In a better world, we would find more restorative, and more objective, ways to create accountability in our system. In the meantime, while most of the world gawks, those of us who are in the know must continue the work: innocent or guilty, justice will not be won until we build a system that’s truly fair.