Pras Michel is mounting an aggressive legal fight to remain free as he appeals his 14-year federal prison sentence, arguing that his conviction was the result of a deeply flawed and unfair trial.
The Fugees rapper was sentenced on November 20 to 168 months in prison after a Washington, D.C. jury convicted him in a high-profile political influence case tied to Malaysian financier Jho Low. While Michel has been allowed to remain free since his sentencing, he is currently scheduled to surrender to federal authorities on January 27, 2026.
In a newly filed motion, Michel’s attorneys are asking a federal judge to grant bail while his appeal moves through the D.C. Circuit, arguing that his conviction is vulnerable on multiple legal grounds and that he poses no flight risk or danger to the public.
According to the filing, the defense claims the trial was riddled with errors that improperly influenced the jury. One of the central arguments is that jurors were repeatedly exposed to testimony suggesting that federal judges and FBI agents believed Michel was guilty.
His lawyers say jurors learned that a separate judge had found probable cause he committed crimes and that the trial court repeatedly referred to Michel as a "co-conspirator" in front of the jury — without adequate instructions to disregard those impressions.
The defense is also criticizing the testimony of an FBI case agent, arguing he was improperly allowed to act as an overview witness while offering opinions on Michel’s guilt. The motion claims the agent repeatedly described alleged conspiracies and criminal conduct in ways that crossed established legal boundaries.
Michel’s appeal further challenges the evidence supporting his convictions. His attorneys argue prosecutors stretched federal statutes beyond their limits, including bank fraud and campaign finance laws. One key claim asserts that no funds were ever placed at risk in the alleged bank fraud, calling into question whether the charge should have gone to the jury at all.
The filing also raises claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, alleging Michel’s former attorney was unprepared for a complex white-collar case and failed to object to damaging testimony, even making statements during closing arguments that undermined the defense.
Under federal law, defendants may remain free pending appeal if they raise substantial legal questions that could result in reversal or a new trial. Michel’s attorneys argue he meets that standard and say forcing him into custody before appellate review would be premature.
If bail is denied, the defense is asking the court to delay Michel’s surrender until the appeals court weighs in.