Law&Crime Sidebar - ‘Damning Evidence’: Beanie Sigel's Lawyer Reacts to Key Moments in YNW Melly Trial

Episode Date: June 28, 2023

The attorney known for representing rapper Beanie Sigel claims YNW Melly’s defense has an uphill battle ahead of them in the rapper’s double murder trial. Fortunato Perri believes the evidence against Melly, born Jamell Demons, is damning and the biggest problem for the rapper is the alleged drive-by shooting coverup. The Law&Crime Network’s Angenette Levy discusses the double murder case with Perri, a founding partner of the McMonagle Perri law firm.LAW&CRIME SIDEBAR PRODUCTION:YouTube Management - Bobby SzokePodcasting - Sam GoldbergWriting & Video Editing - Michael DeiningerGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSocial Media Management - Vanessa Bein & Kiera BronsonSUBSCRIBE TO OUR OTHER PODCASTS:Court JunkieObjectionsThey Walk Among AmericaDevil In The DormThe Disturbing TruthSpeaking FreelyLAW&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. views 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. After he's been tagged in multiple social media posts about this drive on through, this shooting. And Mr. Demons responds very, very, Sysangly, I did that. Shh. Rapper YNW. Melly, facing the possibility of the death penalty for the murders of his two lifelong friends and YNW members. A lawyer who's won an acquittal for a famous rapper charged with a serious crime as here with his take.

Welcome to Sidebar here on Law and Crime. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy. We're in the third week of the YNW Melly murder trial, and it appears the state is nearing the end of its case. Melly faces two counts of first-degree murder for the October 2018 murders of his two friends, Chris Thomas Jr. and Anthony Williams. They were known as YNW Juv and YNW Sack Chaser. The jury has seen a lot of circumstantial evidence in this case. Joining me to discuss this case is somebody who is experienced in represent. High Profile Rappers. He is Fred Perry. He is a defense attorney based in Philadelphia. And he has

actually won an acquittal for the rapper Benny Siegel in an attempted murder case. And he also represented the rapper Cassidy years ago in a murder case where he was later found guilty of involuntary manslaughter. So Fred Perry, welcome to Sidebar. Thanks for coming on. My pleasure. Thank you. First off, are there any unique challenges in representing high profile rappers, people who are known to the public and then are charged with very serious crimes. What I found is in any media case, media, you know, a case that has a tremendous amount of media attention, like some of those cases that I handled. Sometimes the jury pool gets a bit tainted with the reputation of hip hop artists and rappers and the things they talk about in their music

and their songs. And, you know, sometimes you have to overcome that issue. Interesting. Did that come up in your cases. That hasn't come up in this case in the Melly case just yet. We haven't heard about the music per se, but did the music come up in the cases with Benny Siegel and Cassidy? Well, with the Beanie Siegel case, there was an argument made by the prosecution to introduce some of the lyrics from some of his music where he was talking about carrying guns and shooting people and selling bricks of cocaine and things like that. And we were able to argue successfully to keep that out of the case. And I simply made the argument that, you know, if Robert De Niro or Al Pacino or Marlon Brando was charged with shooting someone, would they introduce scenes from the

Godfather, you know, to support the theory of the case. And fortunately, the judge ruled in our favor in that case. That's a really good argument, actually. And I know it's been really controversial. You know, it's true, though. I mean, would you do that? Probably not. You know, Marlon Brando on trial. you're not going to pull up, you know, Godfather 2, or Godfather 1, I should say, and show him talking to Michael or whatever. Okay, so let's look at the Melly case specifically so far. What are you thinking of what you're seeing with the evidence in the Mellie case? Well, I think the biggest problem the defense is going to have from what I've seen with

the evidence that has been presented and may be presented in the future is that there seems to be some type of a cover up initially creating a fake. seen where this incident occurred. I think, I think Melly has said in a statement or someone has said that he wasn't in that vehicle when the shooting occurred and then they find video of him actually leaving the recording studio and getting in that vehicle with the two decedents and the co-defendant. So I think, you know, oftentimes when defendants try to cover up what they've done, it becomes more of a conscious knowledge of guilt and really assists the prosecution. And I think that's an interesting point you make because we have court,

Henry, Bortland, Y and W. Bortland, who gave a statement to law enforcement at the hospital saying Melly wasn't in the car. I showed up and I showed up at the hospital with my two friends, Juvie and Sack Chaser. But we have the surveillance footage showing them leaving the recording studio. And Mellie is clearly in the backseat of that vehicle in the driver's side. They leave at like 2.19 a.m. He's in the driver's side back seat. And then about two hours later or so, they show up, or I should say, Bortland shows up at the hospital with the two victims in tow. So then they've got the cell phone evidence to go along with that. So that to me is a huge hurdle to get over this initial lie. And yeah, that and then when you look at the forensic evidence that, that, you know, has been uncovered in the case.

They looked at blood spatter. They looked at bullet trajectory to find where the origin of the initial shots or the, you know, the kill shot, so to speak, came from it. it looks like it came from that left side rear seat of the vehicle where he was in, where he had gotten into the car. Now, there's no question. There's a lot of circumstantial evidence here in this case. And circumstantial evidence alone can can lead to a conviction in a murder case and has done so. And I've handled cases where we had nothing but forensic circumstantial evidence. And the problem from the defense perspective, when you have circumstantial evidence, if you can't present expert testimony to rebut the prosecutor's circumstantial evidence of criminal activity, then you're basically swinging in shadows because there's nobody to cross-examine. You can't call anybody a liar. So you can only

challenge how this evidence was recovered, chain of custody, how it was tested, were those procedures proper? And again, if you don't have your own expert, you know, you're kind of just chasing, you know, chasing wind. Yeah. And we think that they will. We have a to take a peek at the defense witness list. I mean, they're definitely going to put on a case or nearing the end of the state's case right now. One thing that I find kind of damning, I'm sure the defense for Melly will say, well, it's not damming for Mellie. It's damming for Bortland is the fact that they photographed Bortland at the hospital. He claims to have been involved in a drive-by shooting. However, he doesn't have any blood on him. He doesn't have a scratch on him. And I understand that a lot

of these shots in the so-called drive-by came from the passenger side. So obviously it would have hit the passengers first. But we've got a vehicle with the back window blown out, windows blown out everywhere, bullet holes riddle the outside of it from the passenger side. Does it seem unrealistic to you that Bortland would show up at the hospital and be photographed and not have a scratch on him after going through such a violent incident? It would be, it would be completely unreasonable. for him to have not a scratch on him when he arrives at the hospital. As you've indicated, it sounds like they've portrayed this violent scene of multiple shots being fired into this car, significant amounts of blood in the car.

Add that the fact that he has no injuries whatsoever. Obviously, he's problematic for him, but again, may not be so for Melly, but it's certainly problematic for him. And then you take it a step further, and law enforcement actually went to the area where they said this drive-by occurred and they didn't find that they didn't find any any forensic evidence at the scene they actually found a shell casing inside their car inside the car where the decedens were actually shot so i i think it's it's it's damning evidence interesting one of the witnesses that has gotten a lot of attention in this case is felicia holmes she is the mother of maria hamilton

who was dating melly at the time and she had given a prior statement to law enforcement back in 2018 saying that Mellie called her daughter early that morning after the homicides claimed he had been in a drive-by. She has since recanted that in her deposition and now is acting like she doesn't remember these things. And she was questioned as a hostile witness by the prosecution. I want to play a brief clip of that. She was questioned about money that she received from Mellie via his manager. Let's take a look. Ms. Holmes, how much money has the defendant's manager given you since the October of 2008? 18? No objection. Relevance.

Okay, so I'll ask again. Yes, maine. How much money have you gotten from the defendant, Jamel's manager? None. And with regard to that specific station, Ms. Holmes, you have a form of credit, union a cash yes to do launch credit union okay and at launch credit union you banked there for a number of years the credit union that you've been at it's been your account and I won't put your account in running records for that reason can I object to this line the question based on the court's moving

direction on so no procedure so the your testimony is that you have never been given money what's the right I've never been given money for personal Okay, so the question is, how much money have you been given by the defendants? For vacation, for all of us, for him, his wife, to pay for it as far as, um, he gave me, he gave me $5,000 for an Airbnb for I gave him $1,000 to deposit that. Okay, so he did give me. Not your personal loss. Okay. Excuse me, can we clarify who he is, Jameson, France law? you're good to know like who's a clarified council so it's clear who is famous and friends well

he's track he's now he's manager and you know his wife as well who's his wife um i just go to by so a-a and his wife we're all the friends so fred i'm kind of wondering what you think of this testimony because felicia holmes is you know she's a hostile witness she's claiming she's been intimidated By the prosecution, she's been arrested because she wouldn't come to court. These are all her claims. She's being treated as a hostile witness. She's received money from Melly's manager. There are Instagram messages in which, you know, she's talking about she should have gotten

money or something to this effect. It mean, does it make Felicia Holmes look like a liar? Or is the jury, in your opinion, going to believe that, you know, she was pressured to make a statement making Mellie look bad? Well, you know, when you're selecting jurors in these types of cases, is you ask jurors to bring their common sense with them, you know, their life's experiences to size up a witness's credibility. I looked at the testimony. Her credibility was terrible as far as I was concerned. It looked to me like she was just trying to get out of the initial statement

that she had made to law enforcement, which was a problem for Melly. And it gets back to what I said before. The cover up is the problem when you start covering up and trying to pay witnesses and have witnesses recant what they said, I think that's going to be a problem for him. And she was also questioned about a statement that she made saying Mellie would pay her to quit her job and it all turned out to be a lie. So, Ms. Holmes, is it your statement testimony that you never stated the promises that were made to us by Y&W for me to quit my job and they would take care of us for all lies? They didn't want us talking with prosecutors, but now they've all disappeared.

You've never said that before. I don't know anything. Objection, Your Honor, move for a misdra. That, to me, I was wondering, if you're a juror and you're seeing what somebody says in an Instagram message based on versus what she's saying on the stand, am I really to believe that you're lying in an Instagram message? That's what we ask the jurors to do. Bring your common sense.

And that's going to be the prosecution's argument. Why would you lie in an Instagram message? It makes no sense. There are some text messages from Mellie in which he is asking before the homicides. He's asking for somebody, this is within two weeks of the homicides, to find him a glizzy or a Glock. So let's take a look at that. States in North Carolina getting ready for this show. Obviously, he's taking up a C in North Carolina.

Replacing the big B lights. And then the response from the 50-54 bang number. Oh, I'm about to. I'm about ahead to Gotti's concert at SQL. I was just checking in on you blood. On page 17, October 14th of 2018, can you read that one and then explain what it's meaning? 9807 number asks, you know someone selling a glizzy? Glizzy's a slang term for a Glock.

Then continuing on to the next page on page 18, what is the 9807 asking at, again, October 14th, 2018? He again asks without putting a question mark, but any gun basically saying I'll take any gun. So Fred, before the homicides, he's looking for a Glock, okay? we don't know the exact type or whatever of Glock, but he's looking for any handgun. Then all of a sudden we have a double homicide. We can't find a murder weapon. After the homicides, then he's asking his mother for a Glock.

So is this incriminating at all? Or could this just be coincidental that a rapper, a guy wants a gun? He wants to carry a gun for protection before the homicides and then obviously after the homicides. Or do you think this looks bad for Mellie? I think it looks bad for him, but what else is the defense going to argue? they're going to argue that the defense going to say he could, he could have wanted a gun for any number of reasons for his own protection of his home, of his family, of himself. And then maybe

afterwards when he saw that friends of his, associates of his were in fact murdered, he wanted to have a gun for his own protection. But I still think it's not a good look for him. Yeah. It kind of looked like it could possibly be him looking for a gun before the homicides. I think a reasonable juror could see that looking for a gun to carry out the homicides and then possibly looking for a replacement afterwards because he because he got rid of the gun after the shooting that's the argument another thing that the state is relying heavily on in this case is the fact that the victims in this case according to the medical examiner suffered fatal gunshot wounds but then suffered other gunshot wounds after they were already dead let's take a look at some of the emme's testimony

The first injury to be had, what's it, back the neck of the head, was the fatal injury. So in this case, that's the fatal injury because the other two, he was dead when they were inflicted. So this person, when he received the other two injuries, was already deceased. Correct. Did not suffer any pain from those two injuries. He's already dead. Fair enough. So Dr. McDougal is essentially saying that these victims, at least one of them, was shot after they had already died.

This plays into the state's theory that the drive-by never happened, that it was staged. How did you think the ME came across on the stand? I think the medical examiner came across well and presented, you know, pathological evidence that I think is going to be a problem for the defense because it gets back to what I said before. The strongest argument for the prosecution is the cover-up. This is more evidence of a cover-up after a murder is committed. So I think that's going to be the prosecution's argument. If you're the defense in this case, what do you do?

I mean, if you are looking at this case and sizing this up, what is your strategy? What is your tactic? Again, you're going to have to combat the circumstantial evidence with your. your own presentation of expert testimony to raise a reasonable doubt about the DNA, the blood spatter, the trajectory of the shots. And again, you don't have direct evidence of him being in that car because we have it in the beginning of when he gets in the car, but a period of time passes before they claim this incident happens and the three of them get to the hospital.

So I think I just continue to make the argument that there's no direct evidence, there's no murder weapon, there's no direct evidence that he's involved in this crime whatsoever. And I think that's what you have to argue. And hopefully you did well with jury selection. How do you explain, though, that Melly gets in the vehicle with his four YNW members who are two of them lifelong friends of him, Jee and Sack Chaser? And then it's 219 in the morning. They're all in the vehicle together. There's cell phone evidence showing these people traveling together.

And then all of the sudden, 4.35 a.m., Bortland shows up at the hospital with two dead young men in the vehicle. And there's no Melly. I mean, don't you think the defense has to explain that to the jury? You're going to have to explain it. I don't know if you have Melly testify. I don't know that you can do that because, you know, he'd have to take himself out of that car at some point before this incident occurs. But I just think the case is a problem for the defense, a significant problem for the defense.

And, you know, using a football phrase, sometimes you got to rely on a Hail Mary in these kind of cases. And maybe you deadlock the jury with, one or two jurors. But this is a death penalty case, too. So I think it just, it ups the ante too. It raises kind of the pressure level. It raises the pressure level. And it also gives you what is known as a death qualified jury. So you have people now on this jury that are capable of voting to impose a death penalty. So all those people that would not be capable of imposing a death penalty had to be excused from the jury panel. So you've got a much more conservative-leaning juror here in the case.

So sure, the Annie's up, then, and I think the defense is a significant uphill battle here. Very interesting. You know, just one final note, and there was an Instagram post that the state referenced in their opening. And in this Instagram post, somebody is like messaging Mellie offering some condolences for what has happened. And he says, according to the prosecutor, I did that. I mean, how do you refute that? Because I would think you'd be like, oh, my, you know, yeah, my, my friends are dead. You know, it just seems kind of strange unless the guy is just blowing smoke or whatever.

So how do you combat that? That's the only argument to make that he's just blowing smoke, which makes no sense whatsoever. No sense. I don't know why if your friend was friends were killed you would tell anyone anything close to I did that and then it makes no sense interesting well Fred Perry we really appreciate your time thank you so much it's been really wonderful speaking with you and we hope you'll come back sometime thank you sure my pleasure thank you that's it for this edition of law and crime sidebar podcast you can listen to and download sidebar on Apple Spotify Google and wherever else you get your

And of course, you can always watch it on Law and Crimes YouTube channel. I'm Ann Jeanette Levy, and we will see you next time.