5 ms·

Young Thug's lawyer held in contempt, ordered to spend 10 weekends in jail

16 points by ncallaway 2y ago

ncallaway 2y ago
YouTube video of the entire day is here https://www.youtube.com/live/86KY3agxE2I?si=MU0eoMV_YFHYbVur https://www.youtube.com/live/86KY3agxE2I?si=MU0eoMV_YFHYbVur around the 4h50m45s is the start of the discussion between the judge and the lawyer. Wild wild day in Georgia courts, apparently
- ProllyInfamous 2y ago
  From watching this timestamp (and knowing nothing else), this seems like a power-tripping judge that does not respect his being called-out for not respecting client/attorney privilege.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    Kinda that, but the context is also wild. Apparently, this morning, the judge (allegedly) had a secret ex-parte conference in chambers with the prosecution and a witness. The witness that is currently on the stand. From what I hear from attornies, an ex-parte meeting with the witness currently on the stand and one side’s counsel is pretty crazy. But to have that meeting without telling the defense counsel at all is bananas. It feels very mistrial territory to me. Then, when the defense counsel raises the issue, the judge’s only question is “who told you?” and “how did you find out?”. Seems extremely antithetical to an open court process. Then, once that question refuses to be answered you get into what you’re talking about. Power-tripping stuff. But even that seems incompetent. He continuously mixes up civil and criminal contempt throughout the proceedings, until he finally gets is straightened out at the very end (with the help from new counsel that shows up to represent the lawyer he’s trying to jail). Just totally wild stuff.
    - soraminazuki 2y ago
      Wow. Could a judge ever face consequences for this kind of shenanigans?
      - blinded 2y ago
        Judges are immune to prosecution. Remedy here is disbarment or firing for the judge. (assuming what they did was unethical/illegal)
        ProllyInfamous 2y ago
        Remedy would also include appealing this judge's ruling, IIUC?
        blinded 2y ago
        Yes. Grounds for appeal.
  - killingtime74 2y ago
    It seems like the defence attorney knew about the meeting with the witness and wanted to intimidate them by showing up unannounced. Notice they agreed to testify then after the defence counsel shows up they have now changed their minds.
    - ncallaway 2y ago
      > Notice they agreed to testify then after the defence counsel shows up they have now changed their minds. So, a couple questions about this. First, when you say "defense counsel shows up", do you mean when they showed up to the trial? To my knowledge the defense counsel didn't show up to face the witness until open court. Are you suggesting the defense counsel intimidated the witness in open court, or that I missed something, and defense counsel intimidated them at another point between the ex parte meeting this morning and the start of court? Second, you might be mixing up the chronology? They announced on Friday that they weren't going to testify, and would just be taking the fifth on everything. They did so on Friday and Monday. Then there was the secret ex-parte meeting with witness, the prosecution, and the judge this morning, and then the witness testified today. The witness, at the end of the day, promised to return tomorrow to continue testifying. So, I think they changed their mind after the secret ex-parte meeting with the prosecution, not with the defense?
      - killingtime74 2y ago
        Nah, this news article (it's not very well written) is about the Defence attorney being held in contempt. That's because he shows up at the judges chambers where the witness and the prosecution are having a conference with the judge. The judge demands to know who told the defence attorney about the meeting. It's a breach of court security. When the defence attorney, refuses he's held in contempt. I did misread the chronology. The witness was going to testify, said he wasn't going to anymore, then changed his mind to testify again. I was wrong there's no intimidation, I guess the defence attorney was being a busy body?
        deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]

16 points by ncallaway 2y ago

YouTube video of the entire day is here https://www.youtube.com/live/86KY3agxE2I?si=MU0eoMV_YFHYbVur https://www.youtube.com/live/86KY3agxE2I?si=MU0eoMV_YFHYbVur around the 4h50m45s is the start of the discussion between the judge and the lawyer. Wild wild day in Georgia courts, apparently

ProllyInfamous 2y ago
From watching this timestamp (and knowing nothing else), this seems like a power-tripping judge that does not respect his being called-out for not respecting client/attorney privilege.
- ncallaway 2y ago
  Kinda that, but the context is also wild. Apparently, this morning, the judge (allegedly) had a secret ex-parte conference in chambers with the prosecution and a witness. The witness that is currently on the stand. From what I hear from attornies, an ex-parte meeting with the witness currently on the stand and one side’s counsel is pretty crazy. But to have that meeting without telling the defense counsel at all is bananas. It feels very mistrial territory to me. Then, when the defense counsel raises the issue, the judge’s only question is “who told you?” and “how did you find out?”. Seems extremely antithetical to an open court process. Then, once that question refuses to be answered you get into what you’re talking about. Power-tripping stuff. But even that seems incompetent. He continuously mixes up civil and criminal contempt throughout the proceedings, until he finally gets is straightened out at the very end (with the help from new counsel that shows up to represent the lawyer he’s trying to jail). Just totally wild stuff.
  - soraminazuki 2y ago
    Wow. Could a judge ever face consequences for this kind of shenanigans?
    - blinded 2y ago
      Judges are immune to prosecution. Remedy here is disbarment or firing for the judge. (assuming what they did was unethical/illegal)
      - ProllyInfamous 2y ago
        Remedy would also include appealing this judge's ruling, IIUC?
        blinded 2y ago
        Yes. Grounds for appeal.
- killingtime74 2y ago
  It seems like the defence attorney knew about the meeting with the witness and wanted to intimidate them by showing up unannounced. Notice they agreed to testify then after the defence counsel shows up they have now changed their minds.
  - ncallaway 2y ago
    > Notice they agreed to testify then after the defence counsel shows up they have now changed their minds. So, a couple questions about this. First, when you say "defense counsel shows up", do you mean when they showed up to the trial? To my knowledge the defense counsel didn't show up to face the witness until open court. Are you suggesting the defense counsel intimidated the witness in open court, or that I missed something, and defense counsel intimidated them at another point between the ex parte meeting this morning and the start of court? Second, you might be mixing up the chronology? They announced on Friday that they weren't going to testify, and would just be taking the fifth on everything. They did so on Friday and Monday. Then there was the secret ex-parte meeting with witness, the prosecution, and the judge this morning, and then the witness testified today. The witness, at the end of the day, promised to return tomorrow to continue testifying. So, I think they changed their mind after the secret ex-parte meeting with the prosecution, not with the defense?
    - killingtime74 2y ago
      Nah, this news article (it's not very well written) is about the Defence attorney being held in contempt. That's because he shows up at the judges chambers where the witness and the prosecution are having a conference with the judge. The judge demands to know who told the defence attorney about the meeting. It's a breach of court security. When the defence attorney, refuses he's held in contempt. I did misread the chronology. The witness was going to testify, said he wasn't going to anymore, then changed his mind to testify again. I was wrong there's no intimidation, I guess the defence attorney was being a busy body?
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]