Young Thug trial

Matthew Best

Penultimate Amazing
Matthew Best
Joined
Jun 12, 2006
Messages
10,998
Location
Leicester Square, London
I've been rather taken with the news today that Young Thug's lawyer in his racketeering trial has been locked up for contempt of court. That's pretty interesting in itself: it seems a witness, Kenneth Copeland, had immunity from prosecution in regard to his testimony, but still indicated that he would plead the fifth, which seems a bit pointless, unless he has some other reason not to testify against a criminal gang, but who knows what that might be? Anyway, he and the prosecution had a meeting with the judge in the judge's chambers where they persuaded him to testify after all, and Young Thug's lawyer seemed to think this was inappropriate, and he should have been invited to the meeting too.

However, when he asked the judge about it, the judge was only interested in asking how he knew they had such a meeting, which he was not prepared to divulge. The judge said this was "a violation of the sacrosanctness of the judge’s chambers", which I didn't know was even a word. So the lawyer got found in contempt of court for not revealing his source, and now has to spend weekends locked up in the same prison as Young Thug.

The trial itself seems to have been going on for ever already. Jury selection apparently took 10 months (when I read that I had an involuntary confused face emoji reaction), and the trial itself started back in November. The other co-defendants include Damekion Garlington, Quantavious Grier, Marquavius Huey, Sergio Kitchens, Tenquarius Mender, Quamarvious Nichols, Trontavious Stephens, and Wunnie Lee aka Slimelife Shawty - all of whom sound like they belong in a Key & Peele sketch. Mender's lawyer has herself been charged with "criminal street gang activity", whatever that is.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...an-Steel-arrested-weekends-jail-contempt.html

The whole thing is very entertaining, though of course it's also terribly serious and no doubt horrible things have happened, etc, etc. Other trials are also available.
 
Matthew Best said:
The judge said this was "a violation of the sacrosanctness of the judge’s chambers", which I didn't know was even a word.
Click to expand...

It isn't—neither grammatically nor legally. "Sacrosanctity" might have availed, but the real problem is that the meeting was held ex parte, which is a violation of the rules of criminal procedure here. The judge had a duty under the rules to notify the defense that an ex parte communication had occurred, and to provide the substance of the communication to the party not in attendance. Instead the judge tried to conceal it, and is abusing his authority in an attempt to determine who leaked the information to the defense. He might be in a wee spot of trouble.
 
I heard some commentary on this that has me questioning RICO laws. It is awfully close to guilt by association.
ETA: Just questioning, next podcast I hear could probably convince me they are a great idea.
 
Last edited:
Matthew Best said:
The other co-defendants include Damekion Garlington, Quantavious Grier, Marquavius Huey, Sergio Kitchens, Tenquarius Mender, Quamarvious Nichols, Trontavious Stephens, and Wunnie Lee aka Slimelife Shawty - all of whom sound like they belong in a Key & Peele sketch.
Click to expand...


Any sign of Sophus Barkayo-Tong, Amaninter Axling, Farjole Merrybody, Guttergorm Guttergormpton, Badly Oronparser, Churm Rincewind, Cleveland Zackhouse, Molonay Tubilderborst, Edeledel Edel, Scorpion de Rooftrouser, Listenis Youghaupt or Frums Gillygottle?
 
ahhell said:
I heard some commentary on this that has me questioning RICO laws. It is awfully close to guilt by association.
Click to expand...

It's exactly guilt by association—associating knowingly with an organization whose prominent activity is doing crimes. And yes, it gets legally shaky when you lack actus rea for those charged, other than the association. Noted commentator Ken White is notorious for quipping, "It's never RICO."

ETA: Just questioning, next podcast I hear could probably convince me they are a great idea.
Click to expand...

Incidentally, what commentary led you to question RICO? And also yes, for all their flaws, RICO statutes are currently the only way to effectively prosecute a criminal organization. Otherwise individual prosecutions are like poking bread dough.
 
Confession. I had no idea "Young Thug" was a rap name and this thread title was super off-putting until dot connections were successfully made.
 
He's one of the rap singers they have nowadays. You've seen them about, the rap singers, on the Top of the Pops. And on the adverts. You've seen them on there too.
 
JayUtah said:
It isn't—neither grammatically nor legally. "Sacrosanctity" might have availed, but the real problem is that the meeting was held ex parte, which is a violation of the rules of criminal procedure here. The judge had a duty under the rules to notify the defense that an ex parte communication had occurred, and to provide the substance of the communication to the party not in attendance. Instead the judge tried to conceal it, and is abusing his authority in an attempt to determine who leaked the information to the defense. He might be in a wee spot of trouble.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it sounds like the judge here is making up his own law ad hoc.

Fwiw, while I'm sure that we've all heard the word and understand what it means, here's the original definition:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrosanctity

It is ultimately from religious law, not secular law, although I suppose that in Roman times the distinction was an academic one.
 
https://twitter.com/ThuggerDaily/status/1801308399168327957

This is the State’s star witness, Kenneth Copeland aka “Lil Woody”, being not very co-operative.

The State’s case is built on interviews he’s given police over the course of several years. So the State’s purpose in having him in Court is in getting him to testify to the truth of those interviews. Today he testified that he was lying in all of them:

https://twitter.com/ThuggerDaily/status/1801333695267176451

He even stopped in the middle of his testimony to have a brief conversation with the court reporter:

https://twitter.com/ThuggerDaily/status/1801351168448467097
 
JoeMorgue said:
Confession. I had no idea "Young Thug" was a rap name and this thread title was super off-putting until dot connections were successfully made.
Click to expand...

Same here.

I'd seen the clip of the judge and attorney and didn't know it was related to a trial of someone known as "Young Thug".
 
I'm I right in thinking they were asking him about specific interviews and questions from 2015? If I was on a jury and a witness was claiming to be able to recall something from a specific interview, a specific question and answer from 2015 I'd be sceptical, saying something like "that sounds right" or that "sounds like something I would have said" I could accept.
 
Matthew Best said:
He's one of the rap singers they have nowadays. You've seen them about, the rap singers, on the Top of the Pops. And on the adverts. You've seen them on there too.
Click to expand...

Are they the ones round the back of the Corn Exchange? My memories are a big foggy.

Anyway, there’s a new podcast out called Reflector which goes into the Young Thug chap. It’s in two parts, beginning with a discussion about people being freaked out by rock lyrics from the 1980s and 1990s, Prince, Tipper Gore and Frank Zappa and then up to the modern day. The difference of course is that some of these rappers now appear to be admitting to actual murders or accessory to murder or to being involved in some way.
 
Matthew Best said:
This is the State’s star witness, Kenneth Copeland aka “Lil Woody”, being not very co-operative.
Click to expand...

And in American criminal procedure the judge would be allowed to interview the witness alone in camera to investigate such matters. For example, if a witness suddenly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights (which I believe happened here, among other things) the judge can ask the witness in camera specifically how his testimony would be incriminating, and announce an appropriate ruling in open court. That is, just because a witness believes he would incriminate himself does not make it legally true. And if it is not incriminating, the party compelling the witness' appearance in court is entitled to his evidence. Since such a discussion may require details of crimes committed but not charged, this gives rise to the notion of the sanctity of judicial chambers.

If the witness is represented by counsel, counsel may be present. However, if any party to the case is present, the other party must also be. Otherwise it is an impermissible ex parte communication. Here, Copeland and his attorney were present, but also the prosecutor. If the judge invites the prosecutor, he must also invite counsel for the defense.

Why would a witness be represented by counsel? Because, as you note :—

The State’s case is built on interviews he’s given police over the course of several years.
Click to expand...

Copeland has agreed to provide testimony in order to benefit from cooperation in his own legal matters. If you do this as a witness in American law, it is highly advisable to have legal counsel. The cooperation agreement is governed by contract law.

So the State’s purpose in having him in Court is in getting him to testify to the truth of those interviews. Today he testified that he was lying in all of them:

https://twitter.com/ThuggerDaily/status/1801333695267176451
Click to expand...

Darat said:
I'm I right in thinking they were asking him about specific interviews and questions from 2015? If I was on a jury and a witness was claiming to be able to recall something from a specific interview, a specific question and answer from 2015 I'd be sceptical, saying something like "that sounds right" or that "sounds like something I would have said" I could accept.
Click to expand...

Ordinarily this would just be to get around the hearsay rule. A record of prior interviews is inadmissible per se, but can be admitted if one or more of the participants can appear and testify to its authenticity. In most cases then, "That sounds right" is enough.

Here it appears the witness is not quibbling over details allegedly reported in 2015 and recalled differently now, but instead has contradicted significant matters that would be remembered.

If an immunity agreement was reached based on a proffer of evidence that has turned out to be false, the agreement may be annulled. The witness is always compelled to testify truthfully, but if the gist of the expected testimony was misrepresented to the state, then the state may withdraw from the agreement. This would leave the witness free to invoke the Fifth Amendment. Ordinarily that protection is unavailable if the witness has immunity.

Similarly if questioning reaches other crimes the witness committed that aren't covered in the immunity agreement, then Fifth Amendment protections attach, notwithstanding the agreement.

The reason these discussions cannot be held ex parte is that rulings in limine typically limit cross-examination in these cases. Here the defense could have been put on notice that some of those rulings no longer apply, or that new ones come into force. Those discussions must happen in the presence of counsel for all parties, but outside the presence of the jury.

Instead of looking to one of the few exceptions to the ex parte rule to justify his actions, the judge has abused his authority to demand to know who notified the defense. For obvious reasons, people bringing a judge's apparent misconduct to light should not be held in contempt by that same judge. Here the appeals court has ordered the trial judge to recuse himself on the accusation of contempt against Copeland's attorney.
 
JoeMorgue said:
Confession. I had no idea "Young Thug" was a rap name and this thread title was super off-putting until dot connections were successfully made.
Click to expand...

It may help to know that he seems to mostly rap about doing crime.
 
Matthew Best said:
Motion denied. Trial will continue. Presumably defence will appeal.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the proper form. Motions are made in trial court and then pursuant rulings can be appealed. You almost never get to go over your trial judge's head on the first pass. In some cases they can be appealed on an interlocutory basis, which halts the trial in progress until the matter is resolved by the appeals court. In other cases they are merely preserved for an appeal from the final judgment. In that latter case, the appeals court would vacate the previous judgment and remand for new trial under a different judge on the premise that the trial judge should have ruled to recuse himself.

As far as I can tell, the motion is pretty solid. And that's the opinion of the few lawyers I've consulted who have read it.
 
Matthew Best said:
Young Thug has now changed his plea to guilty.

www.bbc.co.uk

US rapper Young Thug released from jail in plea deal twist

The Grammy winner's criminal trial on racketeering and gang charges was the longest in state history.
www.bbc.co.uk www.bbc.co.uk

He's done a deal whereby he pleads guilty, but gets sentenced to probation, which means he leaves the court and goes home a free man.
Click to expand...
Interestingly he didn't get a plea deal so the judge has sentenced him. However instead of 40 years in jail he gets a very lenient probation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
NC Judge blatantly violates right to trial by jury
2
Replies
55
Views
2K
Art Vandelay
A
D
Saddam to face trial in "a few weeks"
Replies
18
Views
2K
Tmy
Tmy
J
Plea Bargaining
Replies
39
Views
1K
merphie
M
D
9-11/Hamburg: Has there ever been a trial this grotesque?...
Replies
17
Views
1K
demon
D
Dorian Gray
WHat the ◊◊◊◊ is going on with the Supreme Court?
2 3 4
Replies
140
Views
4K
Dorian Gray
Dorian Gray

Back
Top Bottom