Summary of Offense Conduct
As per the parties’ agreement, the govt was to submit its summary of the offense conduct on or before July 11, 2025. The govt has filed that document but it does not appear on the public docket. The summary of offense conduct is important for sentencing, especially for PSR. It also gives a glimpse into how the govt would argue about the sentence to be imposed. In this case, it is clear that the govt will seek a harsh, if not the harshest sentence.
The offense conduct refers to the actions (or conduct) of the defendant (and others) as well as the facts & surrounding circumstances on the bases of which the defendant was convicted.
The PSR (normally prepared by the Probation Department) normally includes the following in the report:
*A summary of the offense conduct.
*The defendant’s criminal history.
*Personal background information, including family, education, employment, and health.
*An analysis of the applicable sentencing guidelines.
*Any victim impact statements.
*Recommendations for sentencing, including potential departures or variances.
Thus, if the govt’s description of the offense conduct is wrong or inaccurate, it could or would affect the rest of the PSR.
I have not seen the govt’s summary of offense conduct. However, it would be difficult to accurately ascertain the offense conduct in this case. Those who read my writings during the trial would note that I criticized the govt for not focusing enough on specifics and for focusing too much on generalities, DV, financial control, alleged patterns and overarching themes of coercive manipulation, love bombing, etc. The reason specifics are important here is that Cassie testified about 100s of FOs. Since Diddy was only convicted of Mann Act violation, which requires actual interstate transportation of the victim, an important threshold question is this: Which one of those 100s of FOs involved actual interstate transportation of Cassie from one state to another? The next question is, in which one of those actual interstate transportation FOs did the govt present evidence (direct or circumstantial) of Diddy’s intent for the transportation? Without actual answers or clarity on the above questions, it will be difficult to articulate the offense conduct for which the jury convicted Diddy with respect to Cassie. The same issues apply to the conviction relating to Jane.
If Cassie did a FO at Diddy’s request or to please Diddy but Cassie was not transported across state lines for the FO, the Mann Act conviction couldn’t have been based on that FO. Accordingly, the facts and circumstances surrounding that FO cannot be a part of the offense conduct. A similar argument applies to Jane. If Jane did a hotel night in which Jane was not transported across state lines, that hotel night couldn’t have been the basis of the Mann Act conviction. Thus, the facts and circumstances of that hotel night should not be a part of the offense conduct.
The discussion of instances not involving interstate transportation of the victims also applies to instances in which there was no proof of Diddy’s intent for the transportation. If there was no evidence of intent (direct or circumstantial) for the transportation regarding a particular FO, then the conviction could not have been based on that particular FO. Consequently, the facts & circumstances of that FO cannot be a part of the articulation of the offense conduct.
The result of the above discussions is that when you analyze and review the evidence carefully, there are very few instances from which the govt can draw facts and circumstances to articulate the offense conduct. Obviously, the govt will try to blur the lines and argue that the jury could’ve found Diddy guilty of Mann Act violations with respect to every FO or hotel night about which the victims testified. However, that argument would not be legally sound and/or supported by the evidence.
If the govt’s summary of offense conduct is overly broad (as I expect), it would be inaccurate. If the Probation Department relies on the govt’s summary of offense conduct (as they often do), it would lead to a situation where the PSR would be based partly on inaccurate info (garbage in, garbage out?). I’ll be interested to see the govt’s articulation of the offense conduct – when the filing is finally placed on the public docket.
By the way, simply because some actions or conduct should not be deemed offense conduct (in my opinion) does not mean that they cannot be used for other purposes in the sentence consideration. However, actions that are a part of the offense conduct may carry more weight.
