In this video, I breakdown how federal courts evaluate character and what defendants can learn from Sean Combs’ troubles.
Sean Combs issued a public apology only after video evidence surfaced showing his abusive conduct. Instead of focusing on the harm caused, his statement centered on himself. He mentioned forgiveness from God or others but failed to address his victims, including his former girlfriend. That kind of approach does not sell well in federal court.
Prosecutors and judges focus on whether a defendant takes responsibility or shifts blame. In Combs’ case, the self-centered nature of his apology strengthens the government’s claim that he prioritizes himself over others.
Statements from Combs’ lawyers didn’t help eitherL they enable him. They argued that his contributions since 2008 should outweigh his actions. But without specifics, this argument falls flat. Federal judges and prosecutors expect evidence—not vague claims. Saying, “With all he’s done, he should remain free,” is meaningless unless clear, measurable actions back it. Judges want proof–without it, the government’s portrayal of long-term misconduct gains traction.
Courts weigh how long the conduct went on. A short-term lapse might be treated as a one-time mistake. For example, someone committing fraud over a few months might receive leniency if the judge believes it’s out of character.
But 16 years of alleged wrongdoing? That’s a pattern. And patterns define character in court. To counter this perception, defendants must show consistent actions over time that reflect change—not just words.
Join our weekly webinar every Monday at 1 PM PST / 4 PM EST to learn how to prepare properly and succeed.
Justin Paperny
