Diddy Files to Vacate Jury Verdict

Last month Bad Boy Entertainment CEO, Sean 'Diddy' Combs, was convicted on charges of violating the Mann Act, which was first used in 1913 to prosecute Black boxer Jack Johnson for traveling with his white girlfriend [click here and here if you missed that]. 

Diddy has filed to vacate the judgement arguing that testimony proved that it was Cassie and Jane Doe who arranged the travel for all the escorts...

From TMZ

Diddy wants his conviction on 2 counts of the Mann Act overturned, and if not, he's demanding a whole new trial on those charges ... according to new docs filed late Wednesday night.

It's pretty stunning, but in the docs, obtained by TMZ, Diddy and his defense team make the case for Judge Arun Subramanian changing the Mann Act conviction to an acquittal. Here's why ... the Mann Act involves transporting someone across state lines for the purpose of six.

But, Diddy's team says they believe he's the only person ever convicted under this statute who did not make money off prostitution, did not have six with an alleged prastitute and did not arrange the prastitute's transportation.

Translation: he's done none of the things spelled out in the Mann Act. Remember, during the trial, none of the six workers, nor Cassie Ventura or "Jane" testified Diddy engaged in six with the six workers. They all said he was either watching and/or recording the freak-off sessions as the women had six with the hired guns.

Testimony also revealed it was typically the women, not Diddy, who made all the arrangements -- travel, compensation and hotels -- for the six workers involved in the freak-offs.

Further, they say Diddy's sixual involvement was basically voyeurism, and they point out "multiple state courts have held that paying for voyeurism -- to watch other people have six -- is not prostitution."

Now, Diddy also says the male six workers they hired were not only consenting, but they "enjoyed the activities and had friendships with [Cassie and "Jane"] and were not merely traveling to have six for money."

Finally, Diddy says the freak-offs were protected under the First Amendment, because they were recording, or as they put it in the docs ... "producing amateur cornography for later private viewing."

Now, if the court does not overturn his Mann Act convictions -- counts 3 and 5 in the federal indictment -- Diddy's defense says he deserves a new trial, where only evidence related to those counts is admitted. Specifically, his lawyers say that would exclude the Cassie beating video.

According to the docs, that evidence was only admitted in his trial because of the RICO and sex trafficking charges -- of which he's been acquitted -- and if Diddy were only facing the Mann Act charges, the infamous Intercontinental Hotel footage wouldn't be relevant ... and would only be "unfairly prejudicial."