Law&Crime Sidebar - 10 Wildest Young Thug Trial Moments in 18 Months: 'Circus'

Episode Date: June 19, 2024

The racketeering trial against Jeffrey Williams, also known as Young Thug, and his co defendants could be one of the longest criminal cases in Atlanta history. After 18 months, the prosecution has only made it part of the way through their witness list. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber looks back at some of the wildest and most controversial moments during the trial so far.PLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you’ve used Incognito mode in Google’s Chrome browser, find out if you have a claim in a few clicks by visiting: https://www.incognitoclaims.com/sidebar/?v=sb49HOST:Jesse Weber: https://twitter.com/jessecordweberLAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokeVideo Editing - Michael DeiningerScript Writing & Producing - Savannah WilliamsonGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Wondery Plus subscribers can binge all episodes of this Law and Crimes series ad-free right now. Join Wondry Plus in the Wondery app Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Agent Nate Russo returns in Oracle 3, Murder at the Grandview, the latest installment of the gripping Audible Original series. When a reunion at an abandoned island hotel turns deadly, Russo must untangle accident from murder. But beware, something sinister lurks in the grand. View Shadows. Joshua Jackson delivers a bone-chilling performance in this supernatural thriller that will

keep you on the edge of your seat. Don't let your fears take hold of you as you dive into this addictive series. Love thrillers with a paranormal twist? The entire Oracle trilogy is available on Audible. Listen now on Audible. Free fog, Michelle! Aren't you interested in removing the cloud that's hanging over the taste right now, Your Honor? Sir, I'd be real careful about what you're pleading at this point in time and what to the court. I'm so high right now, y'all. I'm about to go to sleep on y'all, there has been no shortage of incredibly outrageous moments in the criminal trial of rapper Young Thug, so let's do a full breakdown of some

of the most wild incidents over the last 18 months. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Hey, everybody, this is a law and crime legal alert. Google Incognito tracked users' browsing. data without their knowledge. Yep, well, Mass Tort Alliance, one of our legal sponsors, is helping users file for compensation due to Google users' privacy issues surrounding Google Incognito. So if you've used Google Incognito any time since 2016, you can start your

claim in less than 10 questions at incognito claims.com slash sidebar. It has been quite a ride so far on the Young Thug trial out of Atlanta, Georgia, hasn't it? When you think about the last 18 months or so, we have seen some absolutely wild, unforgettable moments that I'll tell you right now, I don't recall seeing in other trials. I really haven't. And that's not me saying it lightly. I cover trials all the time. Now, this, of course, is the case of rapper Young Thug, whose real name is Jeffrey Lamar Williams. He and his co-defendants, they were indicted on a laundry list of charges, including the main underlying charge, conspiracy to violate the state's RICO or racketeering law, namely that they agreed to illegally obtain property and money through a pattern of criminal activity

in furtherance of a criminal enterprise or gang known as YSL or Young Slime Life as alleged by prosecutors. And when we talk about conspiracy, there has to be an agreement to break the law and there has to be overt acts or steps that are taken in furtherance of that agreement. Now, overt acts, they don't necessarily have to be crimes. They just have to be certain actions that were taken. And the idea here is that Williams and others had an agreement to participate in gang activities, and there were 191 overt acts taken in furtherance of this YSL gang. So no wonder, this trial is taking quite some time in order for the prosecution to prove all that.

Now, more than two dozen other men were charged as well in connection with this case, but that number has dwindled down by the time we got to the start of trial. That was for various reasons. Their cases were severed. They took plea deals. Now, the defense is suggesting that YSL is merely a record label and that there is no gang or criminal enterprise or association here. So we have dedicated a lot of sidebars to what has been happening in this case.

But now we're going to aggregate it all together. This is going to be a full compilation of some of the most wild moments in this trial. And we are going to start from the beginning with what happened in jury selection. Now, let me preface this by saying that as we do this recap, the judge presiding over this case, Judge Rural Glanville, runs a no-nonsense courtroom. You break his rules, you step out of line, he will punish you for it, okay? To give you an example, two jurors learn that the hard way. So one prospective juror improperly recorded the jury selection process proceedings on her

phone and Judge Glanville had her arrested. Why shouldn't I hold you in willful contempt? Okay, so I'm going to explain what everything that happened that day on the 17th of March. Okay, but before then, do you recall this court giving you the ad nauseum admonitions about acceptable behavior? About having phones out? Yes. At the moment when we came in. Didn't I tell you to turn your phone off?

It was, I'm going to be truthfully and very honest. When it was a lot going on, we had just come from different forms. Answer my question first. and then you can explain it. Do you recall us telling you to turn off your cell phones? Yes, sir. Okay, you also recall me going through a litany of different things that would cause us to potentially put the case in jeopardy.

Do you remember me saying that to you? I mean, I couldn't hear it was so much people, it was so many people talking and so many people doing different things. So people were talking when I was given that admonition to you? Yes. Meaning that you didn't hear it? You didn't hear any of the 10 minutes that I went through on the record about the things you couldn't do. Specifically, you couldn't research on Google.

You couldn't go ahead and otherwise contact your friends on social media. Do you remember that? Well, I remember the part when you're saying we had to, but I didn't hear the turn off the phone. Remember me talking about no social media? Yes. Do you remember me also pointing to the placards that are on the wall about social media and the things you cannot do? And I didn't see that into after the fact. You don't recall me pointing that out to you?

No, sir. I tell it multiple times for multiple reasons. And you just decide you go to do what you wanted to do. It's not what I wanted to do. Well, you pulled out your phone and videotaped our proceedings, and that was in direct violation of this court's order. So I'm going to sentence you to three days in jail, and that will otherwise satisfy your contempt. But it was so much going on. That doesn't excuse your behavior and it doesn't give you.

Madam, that does not excuse your behavior and it doesn't provide an excuse for behavior. It's a big deal. It's a big deal recording the jury selection process because it endangers the defendant's right to a fair and impartial jury. And Judge Glanville explained that a punishment, like a sentence here of three days, days in jail, we do that for a variety of reasons to deter her and others from doing this, rehabilitation, reentry into society, retribution. Now, while Judge Glanville sentenced her to three days in jail, she was actually released

five hours later, and I would wager to say that she probably learned her lesson throughout all that. Then, we had another prospective juror who apparently didn't return for jury duty during the jury selection process. No, instead, she apparently went on a trip to the Dominican Republic. Now, that might sound bad on its face, but let's provide a little bit of context here. We'll hear how it played out because she explains that she didn't see the jury duty notice until late. And then she had this trip.

And you will hear Judge Glanville's decision, which was something. Actually, just receiving the jury summons. I travel a lot. I've always traveled a lot. I'm globally for work and other things. But I traveled. I wasn't here at Thanksgiving. week the week of the 28th, so, and I don't think I returned into like the 16th.

That was in the UK. And because I live with my grandmother, I didn't go because I was exposed to travel, didn't want to make her sick. So I don't think I actually saw the summons until like the 30th. And it, the 30th of December? Yes. And I also know I had these medical appointments. I have five weeks of scheduled infusions for the next five weeks starting at 20th upon my return. but they said send the email and I did the first thing the next morning also called aggressively trying to get through and that voicemail I called it still I checked yesterday it still says if you have an issue send your jury summons send an email and you will not be penalized or something so I sent that I didn't really know I was in violation until the sheriff showed up you know there are a lot of people

that were inconvenienced I mean severely inconvenience you're not the only person that outlaid money. I examined people yesterday who lost literally thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to be here and I had to make, I have to make decisions in regards to that. But I didn't even get a chance to examine you about your circumstance because you went to, you know, you decided, you said, okay, I'm going to go. What I think I'm I'm going to do is in order for you to satisfy your contempt, I'm going to commute the 20 days and require you to write a 30-page paper on the importance of jury. service. Here's the criteria. You'll have to do APA style. You're going to have to use at least

10 primary sources, 10 secondary sources. 30-page paper. I told you I've never seen anything like that. That is a punishment. Yeah. Now, Judge Glanville said she shouldn't have just left. She should have figured out a way to bring this to the court's attention so that they could work it out. Now, I imagine she and anyone else who might be serving on a jury in Judge Glanville's court more other courtrooms might be thinking twice. But I should tell you, it wasn't just jurors getting in trouble. No, no, no, no, no. How about when someone allegedly smuggled marijuana to one of young thugs co-defendants in a pair of shoes? Or when another co-defendant's mother was arrested for trying to sneak tobacco products and rolling papers in a bag of clothes? Or when another

contraband incident ended up halting the jury selection process for an entire day. Here's what judge Glanville had to say about it at one point. We've had yet another instance of alleged contraband being introduced to our space. And as a result of that and a subsequent investigation, one of our inmates, unfortunately, had to go to Grady hospitals. The other thing I would just invite counsel to talk with their clients about, I know I've mentioned this three times now, What is considered to be accepted behavior. This is the third time that we've had contraband introduced into this space. The court's concern is that this may pose issues to them remaining and being present in this space.

And in one of the more memorable moments, one of Williams' co-defendants, Khalif Adams, was allegedly seen on camera walking up to Young Thug and handing him something. Now, prosecutors say that it was a percocet, which is a brand of oxycodone. And to his credit, Young Thug immediately handed the pill to law enforcement. Adams was taken to a holding area where his attorney alleges that Fulton County deputies searched him, but also tased and assaulted him. Adams ended up going to the hospital. Adams was already, by the way, serving a life sentence for murder, charged with conspiracy and attempted murder in this case.

But given what happened in court, he was also hit with drug possession and obstruction charges. But it wasn't just jurors held in contempt of court or defendants getting in trouble with the court or family members or friends of defendants. No, it was also attorneys. Yes. So defense attorney Anastasios Menettis represented defendant Miles Farley. And one day it was reported that Menettus was undergoing a routine check of his bag when he was coming into court. And officers found a bottle of prescription medication and arrested him. As officers closed in on Menettus, he allegedly went to toss his furrow. phone to another attorney, but apparently it hit one of the deputies. So he was charged with simple

battery on a law enforcement officer and possession of pills not in their original container and disrupting courtroom proceedings. Menettus got his own attorney who said that the battery charge was dropped. Menettus was released from the Fulton County Jail on $5,000 bond. But that wasn't the only time Mr. Menettus had been in trouble with the court. He had been held in contempt another time. Now, the reason not entirely clear, but what we do know is that he was a order to pay a fine of $250 and buy all of his colleagues lunch. Very unique punishments put forward by Judge Glanville. So at one point, the judge wanted to know if Mr. Menettus had actually bought lunch. You were held in contempt, young man. And if you want to revisit that again, we can

certainly open it up. But I satisfied your contempt by you paying $250, which you did, and I have a I have a receipt from that of your choosing, which that was done to Miles College. I had that receipt here. And the other thing was to purchase lunch for each of your attorney colleagues in this case. On Friday, March of 17, from Jason's deli. So prong one's been settled. Prong two was you're supposed to buy your colleagues lunch by that date. Mr. Menet, this was in satisfaction of me not sentence you to jail for 20 days.

So if that's the case, well, then I will revisit the basis for your contempt. But I thought that, in fact, I'll have Ms. Weaver go ahead and pull that order, pull the part of the record. But I did, in fact, I did not hold you in, I did not go ahead and sentence you to the 20 days. I said that this would satisfy, once you apologize, I said, you can pay, because remember, you were going to do a, I was going to have you do a report as well, or a written product. I was also going to, but instead of doing that,

we settled on the $250, and we settled on your buying ones for your colleagues on the 17th of March. So that was my understanding. And that I apologize and that I was to do that and sort of show that I'll still like a bunch. And that will satisfy, then that will satisfy this court's concern, okay? And it doesn't end there. No, of course, there was recently when Young Thug's lawyer, Brian Steele got in trouble. He was held in contempt of court. And this was a very, very controversial move and drew the ire for many in the legal community.

So Brian Steele had become aware that an apparent private meeting took place between Judge Glanville, prosecutors, and a key witness named Kenneth Copeland. It's called an ex parte meeting. It's in the judge's chambers. Defense counsel was not alerted of this meeting. They were clearly not present for this meeting. And Steele took issue with this because he claimed that his client should have been privy to this, especially since Copeland, who was going to potentially testify about Williams' involvement in the murder of Donovan Thomas, was allegedly. threatened by prosecutors and the judge in order to testify and claim that he would testify

that he was responsible for Thomas's murder, that he wouldn't tell the truth while on the stand. So very important information that allegedly happened behind closed doors. Well, Judge Glanville didn't seem to focus so much on the content of the meeting as much as he was upset about how Brian Steele found out about it. So Brian Steele complains about this meeting, and then let's hear what happens. And then somehow that email was C-Ced to me that never started. Mr. Steele, can I interrupt you just a second? I'm kind of disturbed because that's ex parte.

All that was an ex parte conversation. How did you find out about any of that? Well, I'm not disturbed too. What I was told was that Mr. Copeland said. And you haven't answered my question yet. I'm not going to answer that question. You're not. No, I will not answer that question.

Why will you not answer that question? Because I want to make sure that what I say is accurate, and I'm not trying to get anybody else. I'm asking you, how did you get this information? I'm not telling the court. What I'm saying is based upon information. Okay, well, listen, if you don't tell me how you got this information, then you and I are going to have some problems.

We can have this. I have problems right now. I'm not going to say that. What I'm going to say is this. I was told, and I hope this concerns the court. It concerns me that you have proprietary information. Why is it proprietary? Information that you should not be having that was ex parte.

Why? With a party. Why? State of Georgia. How about the witness? How about Mr. Copeland, who supposedly announced he's not testifying and he'll sit for two years and then supposedly the dishonorable court, excuse me, let me rephrase that this court supposedly said, I can hold you until the end of this trial.

Ms. Hilton supposedly said actually all of the defendants and then all 26 people are disposed of. If that's true, what this is is coercion, witness intimidation, ex parte communications that we have a constitutional right to be present for. So I understand that you're upset towards me, but I don't know what I did. Mr. Steele, I still want to know how did you come upon this information? Who told you? What I want to know is why wasn't I there?

Why did this happen? Sir, I'm going to hold you in contempt if you don't tell me who. Tell me who this information is coming from. I don't want to be held in contempt. Well, not answering that question. That's attorney client privilege information. So the judge called for a five-minute recess, and when he came back, he still demanded to know how Brian Steele had learned about this private meeting in his.

chambers and what was said. And this is where it gets complicated because it seems Steele is saying you're giving me an impossible choice here, Judge. If I tell you, I violate the ethics rules. And if I don't tell you, I'm going to be held in contempt of court. You need to please tell me who you got it from. I'm not asking you some in substance of anything as of yet, okay? But I need you to tell me how you got the information. If you don't tell me how you got the information, I'm going to hold you in contempt. I understand. I don't want to be held in contempt. And I don't want to hold you in contempt, but you, but it's, but this is so sacrosanck to have a conversation in my chambers parroted to you and others. It is that serious.

Yeah. And that's why I raise it. It is that serious that we should have been there and it shouldn't happen. Sir, that's a, that's a whole, that's a whole separate issue. And that's why, that's why ex parte conversations are recorded. Why, why would it be ex parte? You're acting like it's ex parte under seal. No, it's ex parte because that's what the state asked me to do.

It's just like when you asked me for an ex parte conversation. I've never asked a somber court or any court to meet with me and a witness. Sir, you're straying off the issue. I'm not. The issue is, the issue is, how did you, who, how did you get this information? I understand the issue. I promise you, I understand it. But what I'm trying to ask you is,

If you look at comment five, this is how I understand the law. You cannot violate. You can't violate something and then use privilege. I'm not violating anything. Okay, but that's why I'm saying, how did you get from information? But just listen to what I'm trying to tell you. Okay, but you're saying, you're threatening me with contempt. The privilege would occur, the privilege in 1.6 would occur if you were in the right place, right time to begin with.

You weren't. Let me tell you, I'm just reading from it. But if I'm reading it wrong, I'm not trying to. It says 1.6 applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client, but also to all information gained in the professional relationship, whatever its source. So you're asking me to break your order me up, maybe, or you're asking me. I'm not saying your order me, but to give you information and you're saying it's not some substance, but I'm telling you I can't do that under the bar rule.

All right. Well, I'm going to hold you in contempt. And you can think about it. five o'clock today we'll see we'll see where you are at that stand on that point because no that's not what i that's not what i understand the rule to be i've i've not asked you some in substance of what was said i asked you how you got it i can't do that yes you can because i have an idea how you got it well your idea i have an idea how you got it but that's improper your idea may be wrong and you're asking me to listen i told you the first time and i'm not

to reach that confidence i don't want to hold you in contempt but this is that serious. Judge, you cannot ease, you cannot eavesdrop and get information that was not not meant for you to hear at that particular point in time. Okay, Steele said he couldn't reveal his source of the information. Glanville said he could, ended up holding Brian Steele in contempt of court, ordered him to spend 20 days in jail, that's 10 weekends, and actually agreed that he would share a cell with his client, Mr. Williams. But, The Georgia Supreme Court stepped in. They paused imposition of the sentence while the appeal of that contempt plays out,

so Brian Steele will not be reporting to jail. It is being reported that it seems the judge believes he figured out who relayed that information to Mr. Steele, because the judge seemingly doubled down and ordered a show-cause hearing to be held with Mr. Copeland, Copeland's stand-in attorney Caleb Bumpus, as well as prosecutors, everyone that was at the ex parte hearing or that meeting. And again, it seems based on the words and the language that he used that he believes Ms. Bumpus was the one who relayed that information to Mr. Steele. So they all have to show cause why he shouldn't hold one or more of them in contempt

for sharing information about the ex parte meeting. That's set for June 25th. But the fallout from all this didn't end there. Now, another defense attorney, Doug Weinstein, tried to have Glanville removed from the case, and it got tense. You can't file a motion to recuse for ruling that a trial judge makes, okay? And that's what you're doing in this particular situation. You're saying you don't like what I ruled upon.

You're alleging some facts and an affidavit that support that decision. Because if that were the case, then no trial judge would be able to sit through a trial and give adverse rulings. You're always talking about how the appellate court... No, because if I grant the certificate, it stops the case, okay? the case, okay? And I'm not going to do that. I don't believe it stops the case. I'm not going to do that. You're going to appeal it at the end of the case. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, hey, I'll live by it. But aren't you interested in removing the cloud that's hanging

over the case right now, Your Honor? Sir, I'd be real careful about what you're pleading at this point in time, what you're staying to the court. I just, as a matter of professional responsibility, remember, we haven't nouged out all of the issues involved in that affidavit. And I would be very careful if I were you. case you didn't hear that, Weinstein said to Glanville, the judge, that wasn't he interested in recusing himself to remove the cloud over this case? Wow. And look, it's an interesting question because essentially Glanville is a witness in this case. The argument is he should allow a separate hearing to be held on the contempt issue because he's accused of holding this

allegedly improper meeting and intimidating Copeland. That's the allegation. That's the argument. Anyway, moving away from that, this was also not the only interesting back and forth between the judge and Brian Steele, no, when an officer took the stand to talk about stopping young thug in a car and allegedly finding a stolen gun in the vehicle, steel holds the weapon in court in a way that Judge Glanville wasn't too happy about. Through your work, you find out that this item from running a computer check comes up stolen from the serial numbers. Is that how it works? Yes.

Okay. And you found the item, though, underneath the passenger seat on the floorboard. Is that right? I need to teach you about handling weapons. Please point the muzzle always downward, no matter if it's unloaded, okay? I know it's unloaded, but yes, sir. everybody nervous, okay? You included Mr. Kearns, who you're pointing it out.

I apologize, Mr. Curran. Now, I don't want you to think that the judge just had it out for the defense. No, the judge also had issues with the prosecution, too, that made for some very wild moments like this back and forth with prosecutor Adrian Love. So the issue here concerned Mr. Weinstein, again talking about him, he's representing Diamante Kendrick, and he wanted to suppress a 2015 police. interrogation video of Kendrick because he claimed that the investigators violated his client's rights by asking him more questions after he had asked for a lawyer. That's, we know that one-on-one.

You ask for a lawyer, the questioning stops. Well, the judge watched the police interview outside the presence of the jury, and he was wrestling with the issue when there was this interaction between prosecutor Adrian Love and defense counsel, and even the bailiff had to get involved. The thing is, is that, Your Honor, we did not. You're arguing with me now, Ms. Love, So can we stop at this point in time? Where it specifically says that a lawyer, a suspect who asked for a lawyer at any time during a custodial interrogation may not be subjected to further questioning, as the court has said, by law enforcement, until an attorney has been made available, or until the suspect re-initiates the conversation.

Your Honor, at some point, Your Honor, I'm sorry, I'm talking. And I don't know why I am being interrupted. I will not stop. Hey, hey, hey. I was speaking. Ms. Love, y'all got, y'all. I'm sorry, I was speaking. Both y'all can't talk at the same time.

I know. I was speaking, and I didn't allow to speak when I'm speaking. Hey, both you all need to just take it down a notch. And so, Your Honor, if I may finish, because I was the one speaking before Mr. Weinstein interrupted. But you have, you have, you continually engaged in this pattern of behavior, Ms. Love. You don't want to accept my ruling. And I know you've been an advocate, but at some point, stop. Look, this is a serious issue, right?

when a suspect, a defendant, asked to speak to counsel, the questioning stops, and anything that is gathered after that may not be able to be used in an upcoming trial. Now, during the course of this trial so far, there's been a lot of back and forth between Love and Judge Glanville. And again, makes for these very memorable moments. Given that we have witnesses on this list like Detective James Thorpe, who is at the Atlanta Police Department every day. And you told me that yesterday.

And what did I tell you? What did I tell you yesterday? I'm not going back through this, Ms. Love. I'm not. Monday to 4th. We'll look at a hard list for the court's consideration. And is there anything else at this point in time? Your Honor, did your number 39?

Do you stay out of my business, Ms. Lou? Oh, well. Stay out of my business. Judge, I haven't. Look. I've been doing this a long time. Yes. I have, yes.

And if you really must know, she's going to reschedule her appointment to the week of the King holiday. You happy? No, you're not happy. But anyways, that's the explanation you're going to get. I'm on top of it.

Okay. Yeah, something to say the least. Now, look, when I think back on the past 18 months of this trial, there are so many moments. Like, how about when somebody over Zoom interrupted the proceedings? Free fog, mistral. Free fuck, mistral.

Or when the judge admonished someone in the courtroom in the middle of testimony. Excuse me, Ms. Lowe. Madam in the black, get rid of your gum. Remove yourself in my courtroom and get rid of your gum. In the earrings, you, yes, you, get rid of your gum. But I'll tell you, some of the most wild, memorable moments have come from witnesses, like Adrian Bean, who prosecutors were hoping would tie Williams to criminal activity.

But he didn't seem to really want to be there, and he seemed to admit something quite interesting on the stand. All this is going on right here on this, got me up on this stand, to my dissing that third, all this thing is true stuff that's going on, yon. I'm on trial young. Sir, you just have to answer the questions, unfortunately, at this point in time, okay? That's all I can tell you. Am I on trial? No, sir, you're not on trial.

But you do have to, but you have been properly summoned here as a witness and you're subject to examination until I release you. I never consent to do none of this, sir. I ain't signed nothing. My name ain't on nothing. They come give it. They, y'all don't threaten to lock me up. Hey, I got a family, too.

You just heard that you explained that they, we qualified that, you qualified it, as the detectives and police, and I asked you the authorities, the police, the prosecutors, I just made it broad, that they wanted, they forced Jeffrey Williams into it. Did you hear you say that? Man, um, tell you the water from? I'm so high right now, y'all, I'm about to go sleep on y'all, man. I don't tell you no line. Yep. Then let's go back to Kenneth Copeland, aka Little Woody. He had some interesting moments as well. And Mr. Copeland, good afternoon. Do you want to be here? Ma'am. Do you want to be here?

I'm here. Okay. Are you going to let me ask you some questions? Okay. How old are you? Grown. Okay. What does grown mean? I'm an adult. Okay. And when you said you're an adult, what number in years are you?

By the way, what's interesting about doing that is, let alone pleading the fifth to that question was that the fact that he was granted use immunity in this case, meaning his testimony can't be used against him by state prosecutors, so he can't necessarily invoke that privilege anymore. There is an issue legally if what he says could be used by federal authorities. But look, at the end of the day, he was held in contempt. of court for not participating. But remember, the prosecution needs to tie Williams to the 2015 shooting death of Donovan Thomas, aka Big Nut, an alleged rival gang member. Shannon Stillwell and DeMonte Kendrick, two of Williams co-defendants, they have been charged in connection with

the shooting. And Williams himself is accused of renting the car that was used in that alleged drive-by shooting. Now, the prosecution needed Copeland to confirm that he knew these men allegedly involved in the Thomas hit, but even that was difficult. Tell me if you recognize indivision, Stacey's at 350 Yankees? I recognize myself. Okay, do you recognize anybody else in 350 Yanke? Myself. Do you recognize anyone else in 350 Yankees?

Their face is covered up. Okay, do you see someone face who's not covered them in 350 Yankee? Yeah. Okay. Do you recognize who that person is? I can hardly tell. Okay. Is that Shannon Jackson?

Your Honor, at this point in time, I'm turning to impeachment. Do you know someone by the name of the Migian Garlington? Screet name. Little D. For sure. How do you know Little D? I didn't have birthed him. I'm sorry, say it again.

I almost birthed him. You almost birthed him? Yeah. Tell the jury, what do you mean by that? They mean he my son. Okay. And let me ask you this. Do you know another person who's referenced as Little D?

What you mean? Do you know someone who's called Little D from Cleveland? Oh, I heard of him. You heard of him. Okay. We'll talk about him in the moment. Say it what now? Tell me who you recognize in 380 Yankee.

Oh, me and Coco. Who's Copeland? The ugly boy right here. Okay. Let me give you a little background to this as well. So Copeland, he was seen speaking with police in an interrogation tape that leaked online. He was supposed to be the star witness or a star witness for the prosecution because he had previously told investigators that Williams was connected to criminal activity. But Copeland said he just said, he just said.

what he had to say to get out of trouble and as he explains this he even gets of all people the court reporter involved did thug ever speak with you about his relationship with nut no did you ever observe thug and nut together i never saw those two together i never been around those two together uh no it never crossed my mind So how were you able to tell Detective Gator that Nutt and Thug was cool? Because they're questioning me, and I'm trying to get them out from me, and she asked me questions about Nutt and Thug, I guess, and I'm telling her whatever she, she asked me, let's say she asked me a question about this guy.

I'm going to say, yeah, I seen the sky. It's blue. Whatever she asked me, I'm going to say, I'm going to say whatever she asked me. She asked me about this reporter right here. I'm going to say, yep, she's sitting outside me with, white tennis shoes on, I'm going to say something. Because I want her to believe I'm telling them the truth that I want her to get me out of jail. What, she has on white tennis shoe, don't she? Don't you got on white tennis shoe?

She got on chucks. Right, and they're white, right? What color your shoe is there? Okay. She got on chucks. So you tell them the truth. What color of your shoes there? She said they white.

Right. So you're telling the truth then? Well, it depends. Also, I've got to call this out. Do you remember when I said that Kenneth Copeland was in that ex parte meeting with the judge and prosecutors being represented by Kayla Bumpus at the time? She was standing in for his regular attorney who had gone out of town? Well, as I said, the allegation has surfaced and based on Judge Glanville's statements in court, seems to suggest that Bumpus may have been the one who told Brian Steele, Williams' attorney, about the ex parte meeting and caused this whole mess.

Now, she and Copeland, as I said, will have to appear at a show cause hearing in a couple of weeks to determine if they should be held in contempt. But after all of this chaos surrounding the ex parte meeting, Copeland decided he didn't want her to represent him anymore. Sir, Mr. Copeland, is it your desire to release your counsel at this point in time? She's fired. She's fired? Okay. And according to Ms. Bumpa, she had already been fired, even before. before Copeland had testified, but there was another witness I want to talk about, and this witness is identified as A-B. She apparently didn't come to court at first, defying a subpoena

that she says she never received. This witness was allegedly the victim of an armed robbery in 2013, reportedly involving Williams, which seems to not be part of the indictment. But prosecutor Love told Judge Glanville that she had spoken with the witness several times about the court needing to hear her testimony and said that the witness indicated she did not want to come to court. So she ended up telling Loves that she was in the hospital, couldn't come in, but the DA's office says officers found her at home and actually arrested her on a material witness warrant. But if the prosecution then expected her to be particularly cooperative once she was on the witness stand or to give some bombshell incriminating testimony,

they were wrong. Do you recall telling the police that you You turned your back on them to walk into the kitchen to make your baby a bottle. No. Do you recall telling the police that when you went to the kitchen, Thug's brother put a silver 9 millimeter to the back of your head? No. And my baby didn't even drink bottles. My baby were breastfed, so no. Did you tell the police that the two suspects that Thug his own?

brother and D.K. demanded money from you and your gun. No. Now here's where it gets even more interesting, because A.B. was cross-examined by Keith Adams, another member of Williams' defense team. And one of the areas of focus was that she was allegedly hit on by an investigator in this case. Mr. Hamilton had contacted you prior to yesterday. Is that right? Yes. Mr. Hamilton had harassed you.

Is that correct? Yes. In fact, you told us when you were back there that you didn't want to come out and see him because he had sexually harassed you. True? Yes. He wanted to meet you,

supposedly to talk about the case. Yes. Now, how about the next one? That same night, Wednesday, February 7th, 6.45 p.m., where he says, hit me up if you're bored later. We're not gonna talk shop. Remember that text message?

Yes. Did you talk to him later on? Yes. Did you all talk shop? Yes. What are you want to talk about? Go on. Going out.

Going out? Going out? Going out? Is it walking out the door or going out on a date? A date. And this is February 7th of 2024 this year when the investigator for the DA's office is supposed to be talking to you about a case, but in fact it's calling you talking about going out on a date. Is that true?

Yes. Yikes. This case. Am I right? Now I'm going to end it here with the testimony of Trontavius Stevens, the apparent co-founder of YSL, former co-defendant in this case, who took a plea deal. And as we've seen during the course of this trial, you wonder how credible a lot of these witnesses are, whether or not they're not so forthcoming with information. And one of the most memorable moments was him struggling with the understanding of the word snitch.

And at one point, prosecutor Adrian Love brought up the idea of snitching. And Stevens didn't really seem to know what she was talking about. What does snitching mean to you? It doesn't mean anything to me, but I'm aware of the time. How are you aware of the time? I've heard the time. How do you want to stand the term to do this? I'm not aware of the time to be used.

Yeah, indicating that a person is a law enforcement or something. Indicating that a person is law enforcement or some nature. So are you able to use snitching in a sentence? Yes. Please use it the way you understand it to be properly used in a sentence. I heard someone is a snitch. And please explain how in that sentence, snitch refers to law enforcement.

Okay. Why did you use it that way? I mean, I've seen movies and that's the direction that the movie was going in. Maybe even used the term, maybe even got it from my movies, yes. And the way you understand the term, is it a good thing or a bad thing to be known as a I really don't fully understand the turn. Now, as I was going through all this and compiling this script, there's a lot more. Okay, but we didn't want this episode to be like nine hours long, which, by the way, very well could have been.

But I'll tell you what, we are not even close to this trial being done. And I am sure the moments will keep on coming. So for right now, that's all we have for you right now here on Sidebar. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcasts. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.