Law&Crime Sidebar - Johnny Depp's Lawyer Reacts to Young Thug's Attorney Getting Thrown in Jail

Episode Date: June 13, 2024

Judge Ural Glanville, the judge overseeing the RICO trial against rapper Young Thug in Atlanta, is getting a lot of blowback from the legal community after he ordered defense attorney Brian Steel be held in criminal contempt. Law&Crime’s Jesse Weber asked Ben Chew, famed attorney who represented Johnny Depp during his defamation trial, for his opinion on the latest uproar in the trialPLEASE SUPPORT THE SHOW: If you experienced adverse side effects after taking Ozempic or another weight loss medication, check your eligibility to file a claim by visiting https://www.glp1case.com/sidebar/?v=osb13HOST: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. 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. 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? Mr. Steele, I am going to hold you under still hold you in summary criminal contempt. We are still reeling from the judge holding Young Thug's attorney in contempt of court with him about to spend 20 days in jail in a cell alongside his client. But the Georgia Supreme Court has just stepped in to stop it.

There has been a lot of blowback against the judge in the legal community. So we're going to bring on acclaimed trial attorney Ben Chu, the man who famously represented Johnny Depp in his infamous trial, to get his take on whose. right here. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber. Hey there, 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. As we discussed on a previous sidebar, we're still trying to make sense of this latest legal mess in the Young Thug trial out of Atlanta, Georgia. The rapper, real name Jeffrey Lamar Williams, who along with several others, has been charged in this wide sweeping racketeering indictment accusing them of operating a criminal street gang known as YSL. It is a case that's been ongoing for what, a year and a half due to a number of

of issues, such as, I don't know, almost a year of jury selection. And while we really haven't talked that much about the actual charges and the actual evidence so much we have before, we've talked about it, it seems so much of our discussion as of late on this case has to do with the back and forth between the attorneys and the judge. And as we reported, there was this massive development concerning young thugs attorney Brian Steele. You see, Judge Ural Glanville held Brian Steele in contempt of court for not revealing how Steele found out about the judge having a private meeting with a prosecution witness and the prosecutors. This is a big deal because that witness, Kenneth Copeland, aka Little Woody, in that meeting allegedly said he would

testify to being the killer of Donovan Thomas. Why is that important? Because Williams is accused of renting a car that was used in that drive-by shooting of Thomas back in 2015. This hearing is called, or I should say this meeting is called an ex parte meeting where the defense was essentially excluded. They weren't even notified of the meeting. They weren't a part of it. Obviously, that can create an issue when you talk about a defendant's due process rights, ability to hear all the evidence against him, especially with a witness that was already sworn into court and had testified. Well, maybe I should say testified in air quotes because at that point he had actually pretty much pled the fifth for most of it, answered a few questions. It's interesting

because he was granted partial immunity for his testimony. But Mr. Steele, let's go back to him. He also alleged that in that meeting, a prosecutor had essentially threatened Copeland that he would remain locked up until the cases for all 26 defendants were resolved. So Steele, was held in contempt because he refused to give up his source on how he found out about that meeting. He said it violates his ethical obligations to reveal that source. The judge sentenced him to 10 weekends behind bars, 20 days, with Steele reporting to jail 7 p.m. Friday night. Actually, the judge agreed to allow Steele to spend that time sharing a cell with his client, Williams. It's like my cousin Vinnie, but in real life.

But now, the Georgia Supreme Court has stepped in, and they actually granted steals emergency motion for bond, and they pause that sentence from being imposed. So by all accounts, he's not going to have to report to jail on Friday night. We're going to talk about that. But it doesn't quite resolve the whole issue of contempt that's still on the table. And I will tell you right now, there has been a lot of blowback against Judge Jural Glanville for doing this. Tons of commentators, including on social media, legal minds, legal experts, they've spoken out. To give you an idea, attorney Bradford Cohen, who we've had here

on sidebar before numerous times, Kodak Black's lawyer, here's what he posted on X. Quote, this case and judge is off the reservation. He said this is an instant mistrial. I cannot believe the judge thinks taking a defense attorney into custody isn't a mistrial. Brian Steele is a real one. Defense lawyers across the country should be terrified by the lack of judicial knowledge. Well, let me see if my next guest agrees. Joining me right now is a claim trial attorney Ben Shue, who famously represented Johnny Depp in his case against Amber Hurd. Friend of the program, I like to say friend of mine. Great to see you, Ben.

Great to have you on. Let me just get your initial take on this. Where do you stand? Where do you throw your opinion into this, what is essentially, a legal mess? Well, Jesse, I'm honored to be considered a friend of yours, and it's great to see you again. So thank you for that. I think that I'm very reluctant to criticize judges, who I think by and large do a wonderful job, very conscientious, fair-minded. I have to agree with the assessment that, in this case, Judge Glanville was off the reservation.

Really, ab initio, when he decided to have this meeting with the reluctant witness, with the prosecutors and not giving young thugs counsel, Brian Steele, notice of this. I think that was his first mistake. I've never heard of a judge having that kind of ex parte meeting without at least deprizing the other side. So that was the first thing that shocked me. Well, now I'm going to play you some of the back and forth between Steele and Glanville in court.

Want your take on it. This is from the other day. Let's play it. I was told based upon information and belief that when we arrived at 8.30, 9 o'clock today, we did not come into your courtroom until almost 11, 11.30. And what I found out just recently,

this is not waived, is that supposedly in chambers, the honorable court reporter at times, honorable court at times, district attorney or district attorneys from the DA's office as well as Investigators, sheriff deputies, Mr. Copeland, and his counsel met together. None of the defense team, to my knowledge, was aware that this was going on.

And then somehow that email was C-Ced to me that never... Mr. Joe, 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. It concerns me that you have proprietary information. Why is it proprietary information? that 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 this honorable court. Excuse me.

Let me phrase 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. Is that true what this is? is coercion, witness intimidation, ex parte communications that we have a constitutional right to be present for. Sir, I'm going to hold you in contempt if you don't tell me who this information. I don't want to be held in contempt. I'm not answering that question.

That's attorney-client privilege information. I am not-attorney client privilege, unless you were in my chambers, that's the only way you can figure out. I am telling you, I'm going to give you five minutes. If you don't tell me who it is, I'm going to put you in, I'm going to put you in contempt. Okay, so now the judge did call for a five-minute recess, and when he came back, he still demanded to know how Steele had learned about that private meeting. Let's listen. Mr. Steele, before I recessed, I asked you, how did you get this information?

And it is not covered by work product. There's only one way you could have gotten in. So I'm going to ask you again, 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 this is so sacrosanct to have a conversation in my chambers parroted to you and others.

It is that serious. Yeah. 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 whole separate issue. And that's why ex parte conversations are recorded. Why would it be ex parte? You're acting like it's ex parte.

It's ex parte, 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 this honorable court or any court to meet with me in 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 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 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 ordering me up, maybe, or you're asking me, I'm not saying you're ordering me, but to give you information and you're saying it's not 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 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 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 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. So, Ben, there is a number of issues here because he was held in contempt. Let's first start with the idea. Does he have an ethical obligation to not reveal to the court where he got this information about the ex parte meeting? Jesse, you're right. This is almost like a law school exam because there's so many potential issues here, but I think he's got a colorable argument that it is attorney work product. And I think that probably merits a separate hearing. It sounds like an issue of significant magnitude that it should be briefed and argued before there's any finding of contempt because. Well, let me even double down on that. We'll talk about a little bit later. Let's just. say somebody from that meeting, let's say it was an attorney for Mr. Copeland, gave him that information, is that privilege? Is that in the sense, because I read the 1.6 rule that he talked about, it says, whatever its source, you know, that could be part of something that he doesn't

have to reveal. Is that privileged communication? He cannot reveal it to the court, and let alone in open court? Yeah, I mean, again, I think, and I follow your judgment, I think it's at the very least a colorable argument that should be considered and briefed so that there is a record before the judge went to the very serious issue of contempt, which not only affects the attorney, but more importantly, it affects the integrity of the trial of Young Thug and makes it vulnerable should it result in a guilty verdict of attack on appeal, which is not in really anybody's interest. You think the judge overreacted by holding him in contempt? Because couldn't another option have been him asking him to tell him privately in chambers where you got this information?

That's an excellent suggestion. I think so. But I also understand it now, having heard the back and forth, I can understand the judge's perspective, too, because I do believe that Steele went out of his way to be provocative. I've never spoken to a judge the way that Mr. Steele spoke to the judge, interrupting the judge, not showing the usual respect that judges are accorded. So I can understand why that got under the judge's skin. So I can see that the two were clearly speaking past each other.

The judge was concerned rightly. about the lack of, you know, the lack of security of the conversation, which he clearly intended to be kept confidential. But you also sympathized with Mr. Steele who had to raise this issue on the record so that he could preserve the record. So I don't think he had any choice,

but I think he could have gone about it in a more respectful manner. So talk to me about the idea of the ex parte meeting though, in it of itself, Is it wrong for the judge to have a private meeting with a sworn witness, the prosecutors, and not notify the defense? Because the judge seemed to defend.

This was an ex parte communication. How did you know about this? Does a criminal defendant? Does defense counsel have a right to know, A, that the meeting happened, and B, what was discussed in that meeting? I think certainly, Jesse, that the defense counsel, Mr. Steele, had a right to know that this meeting, was taking place in advance so that he would have the opportunity to raise an objection to it. And certainly he had a right to know that the meeting was taking place with the prosecutor and the

witness. I think it would have been more appropriate for the judge. If the judge thought an ex-party meeting with the reluctant witness was necessary, he should have apprised both parties in advance that this is what he intended to do so that they could make fair objections, if any, on the record, but I think it's unfair and improper for one side to have been present in the meeting, the prosecution, and the other side, Mr. Steele, to be excluded. So I think there are at least two issues there. So there are more issues we're about to get into the idea of one of the attorneys has asked the judge to step down from the case. There's going to be another issue where the judge has set a hearing to determine how that information got out. We'll get to

in a second. What I want to get to you now is the fact that Ashley Merchant, who is a very well-known Atlanta defense attorney, she jumped in to represent Brian Steele when he was held in contempt of court. And there's this back and forth about civil contempt versus criminal contempt. And if it's criminal contempt, you need to have a hearing for Brian Steele for due process purposes. The judge, Judge Glanville, seemed to disagree. Let's play a little of this. Is it criminal contempt that you held him in? Yes, ma'am. Okay. And you said you had a hearing. earlier today. No, with criminal contempt, I told him what the contempt was, and that was he refused to

tell, you know, order of the court, if counsel, as you know, if the court orders you to do something and you don't, that's criminal contempt. So I've asked him several times, please just tell me who it is that told you. I didn't ask or inquire about anything that was said. I just want to know who it was. Now, Mr. Steele has indicated to us, he does not believe that he can answer the question without violating his duty of loyalty and duty of confidentiality to his client. So he is being placed in a position where he's either going to jail or he's going to commit an offense that will put his license to practice law at risk. And that is an untenable position to be in.

And Mr. Steele is a zealous advocate for his client, and he is simply trying to protect that duty of loyalty and duty of confidentiality, because if he answers your question, it is very reasonable to assume and likely that he will be facing a bar complaint that could result in a suspension or the loss of his license. And so he's in a very, very difficult position where if we were able to have a full contested hearing with the benefit of witnesses and an impartial judge, where you're a witness, then everybody could present their side of the story and... I'm not doing that. The reason being is because that takes away the whole point of criminal contempt, and that is you do something, the court tells you to do something, order of the court,

and you don't follow it. I didn't ask him to do anything, illegal, immoral, unethical. I just asked him to tell me, I know what the... Which is, I believe we got it backwards. What the privilege is, the privilege is, is the conversation. I didn't ask him about that. I wanted to ask him about who, the person. Because that, okay, I'm sorry.

Mr. Steele has indicated to us that he does not believe he can answer that question without also violating the privilege. Ben, it's not like a witness was held in criminal contempt. It's not like the defendant was. It's a lawyer. And it's the lawyer representing one of the key defendants in this case. And the question becomes, should there be? a separate hearing is judge glanville a witness in this case um was it too premature to just he's held in criminal contempt and that's it jesse i i agree with the the purport behind the question i think

there certainly should have been a hearing i think on the underlying issue of whether it was appropriate for steel to withhold the information that's a legitimate issue a colorable issue at the least, that should have been adjudicated, then to the extent the court determined that the information was not subject to attorney work privilege product protection or any other privilege, then you get to the issue of whether, I think Steele, assuming that the result was that the information should be disclosed, then I think Steele should be given an opportunity to reconsider his position. then you get to the issue of whether there should be,

whether he should be held in contempt of court criminally or civilly. But I do think Judge Glanville put the cart before the horse. Again, I understand it's frustration and wanting to keep the case on track. But I think this is a legitimate issue that he just, he ignored. And he went too fast. So Merchant, she also advised Judge Glanville that there were like 25 attorneys from the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers that were outside the court. They were ready to jump in to represent Mr. Steele. They were waiting in the hallway.

And what that does is it actually leads me to what was filed by Steele's counsel. It was called an emergency motion for a supersedist bond on criminal contempt. And they make several arguments that the judge had a duty to recuse himself from the contempt proceeding, that Steele's rights were violated because he was obligated to have a hearing. And that, that if you're going to hold steel in criminal contempt, you need to prove it beyond a reasonable doubt that he interfered with the administration of justice and that he knowingly exceeded the bounds of what is allowed in advocating for your client. And they were asking for a supersedest bond be granted while the contempt finding is appealed and that the jail sentence be paused or stayed. The Georgia

Supreme Court ended up granting it. So he stays out of jail for now. He's not going to have to report to jail on Friday night. What do you think about the fact that the Georgia Supreme Court ruled in this way? Well, I think they did the right thing because I think the court got ahead of itself. I think there should have been due process on the underlying issue of whether this was protected

and also on whether Steele's conduct was contumacious or whether he was in the horns of the dilemma. On the one hand, as he said, he didn't want to be held in contempt. He was not, he was not intentionally defying the judge, he was caught between the proverbial rock in a hard place. So I do think that the Georgia Supreme Court did the right thing. Now, whether the judge needs to recuse himself from these proceedings or from the underlying proceedings, I think that's a separate issue. But I can I,

can I amplify that a little bit? Because yes, there's another lawyer in this case, Doug Weinstein, I believe he represents the Act Gotti, filed a motion for Judge Glanville to recuse himself from the case. And he alleged in that motion, that in that ex parte meeting, among other things, Copeland would sit in jail for two years rather than testify. Copeland said that, or allegedly said that. That Glanville allegedly told Copeland he could lock him up until the other defendants were tried,

that Copeland said he would lie on the stand, that he would confess to killing Thomas. And the prosecutor allegedly said that she would try him for perjury if he said that on the stand. And Glanville allegedly printed out the purse. perjury statute for Copeland. So Weinstein says that there is clearly a bias here. There's a feeling that the judge is intimidating a witness, that this ex parte meeting violated his client's constitutional and statutory rights, and that Glanville, again, improperly coerced

Copeland to testify. Weinstein said to him, don't you want to remove the cloud over this case? Glanville seemed to be very upset by that and told him to basically tread carefully. Ben, what's your take on the fact of, again, if those allegations are true about what was said in that meeting, does Judge Glanville need to recuse himself? And did he too quickly decide that he shouldn't? Yeah, in light of those allegations, I think as you well know from your experience, judges have to avoid not only impropriety, but also the appearance of impropriety or the appearance of bias. And this is not every case. This is not a typical case. you know, the slippery slope argument I don't think applies here where there are specific allegations

that the judge is taking sides and made these comments. And these are mere allegations. It does put his impartiality at risk. And it sounds like the prudent thing for him to do would be to step aside, even if he strongly believes that the allegations are false. He's now been alleged to have been a participant rather than an umpire. I guess, well, first of all, that would throw this whole case into flux and whether or not we have to start all over. But I think the other way of looking at it is if you have a witness who's basically threatening to lie on the stand, it would not necessarily be improper for a judge to say

you could be charged for perjury. And his legal counsel was there. Copeland's lawyer was there, right? So is it just the fact that defense counsel wasn't made aware of it, that defense Council wasn't there. Is it really a violation of their client's rights? Or have you ever seen before a situation where such an important witness has had this private meeting, again, represented, but this private meeting with the prosecutors and the judge? I have not. As you know, I'm mostly a civil attorney. I have not experienced this ever. I haven't heard of it. And I do think original sin is the

wrong word because we're not talking about that. But I think that the judge's original sin here was to have this ex parte meeting without notifying the defendant because I think that that started the whole series of events that have become so problematic. So, Ben, before I let you go, I have to ask you about this final point. So actually, I got two final points. I lied. But first of all, It's being reported that it seems the judge believes he figured out who relayed this information to Brian Steele because the judge seemingly double down ordered a show cause hearing to be held with Copeland. Copeland's attorney or stand-in attorney, Kayla Bumpus, prosecutors, everyone at that ex-party hearing, and that they have to show cause why one or all of them shouldn't be held in contempt of court for allegedly sharing this information. to the ex parte meeting. And during the judge's conversation with Brian Steele,

he seemed to intimate that he believes it was Ms. Bumpus who gave that information to Brian Steele, which we talked about. He set a hearing for June 25th. Can she get in trouble for sharing that information with Brian Steele? Yeah, theoretically she could. If the judge ordered that those proceedings be sealed

and kept confidential, Yes, that she could be. I mean, she's in a somewhat different position than Mr. Steele, at least arguably. And, you know, it's unless there's some kind of joint defense agreement between Ms. Bumpus' client and Mr. Steele's client, I think she's in a different position and a precarious position. But that doesn't, I mean, show cause hearings, as you know, are not uncommon. and at those proceedings, it is important to show cause for each of the people summoned to show why they weren't in contempt of the court's order.

So that raises a whole different set of issues, and I think she has some vulnerability there. And I think Copeland actually fired Bumpus, by the way, or tried to fire Bumpus. Before I let you go, now I have to ask you one final question. It's should a mistrial be granted here, the idea of, holding an attorney who was representing a key defendant in this case in contempt of court, even whether he's going to jail or not, the fact that you do that, is this grounds for a mistrial? Is this whole case tainted? I don't think so necessarily.

I don't think any of this took place in the presence of the jury. I mean, if the jury were aware of this and were aware that the judge and the defense counsel were at odds, I think you do need a mistrial because, as you know, juries often look to the judge and look up to the judge, and that could poison it. But I think, as I understand it, this has all been kept outside the understanding of the jury. And so I don't think, I think it's too early for a mistrial. All right. We will see what develops. But Ben Shue, great seeing you.

Thank you for your perspective. You have joined into the legal mix of those who do not agree with Judge Glanbo. here, but I'm very curious to see what happens next in this very wild trial. Ben Shue, great to see you. Thanks so much. And that is all we have for you right now here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. As always, please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. You can binge all episodes of this law and crime series ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.