Law&Crime Sidebar - Who’s Winning in YNW Melly’s Double Murder Trial So Far?

Episode Date: July 5, 2023

Rapper YNW Melly’s double murder trial has proceeded for three weeks. The prosecution continues to present evidence they allege links Melly, born Jamell Demons, to the killings of his two friends, Christopher Thomas Jr., aka YNW Juvy, and Anthony Williams, aka YNW SakChaser. Melly’s defense has taken every chance they’ve gotten to criticize and minimize the state’s evidence, claiming none of it proves the rapper shot and killed the victims. The Law&Crime Network’s Jesse Weber hosts a debate on which side, prosecution or defense, is winning the case so far with Florida State Attorney Dave Aronberg and criminal defense attorney Natalie Whittingham-Burrell.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. 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.

The next message from Gino to the 9807 phone number. This message, Gino, states, we hear for you, bro. Just let us know what you need. Who's winning the Y&M. NW Melly murder trial so far, Palm Beach County State Attorney Dave Aaronberg and criminal defense attorney Natalie Whittingham Burrell debated out. Welcome to Sidebar, presented by Law and Crime. I'm Jesse Weber.

Well, as you know, we have been following the YNW Melly double murder trial out of Broward County, Florida. The murder on my mind rapper, whose real name is Jamel Demons, is charged with the murders of his two friends and fellow YNW group rappers, Christopher Thomas Jr., or YNW. Juvie and Anthony Williams, or YNW sack chaser. These men were found shot to death on October 26, 2018, after Mellie's co-defendant, Cortland, also known as YNW, Bortland, pulled up to the hospital with the bodies of Thomas and Williams in the car. He claimed that they were all victims of a drive-by shooting. However, the evidence, as laid out by the prosecution, has suggested this was a staged

drive-by shooting and that the shots actually came from inside the vehicle. Now, prosecutors say that after the four left a recording studio, Mellie was the one who shot the victims, and then he and Henry took the car to an area where they fired upon the car, staging it to look like a shooting. Melly gets out, Portland arrives at the hospital, and the prosecution has even highlighted how the defendant was a member of a gang called the G-Shine Bloods. Maybe that's a way of a potential motive that we're going to get into. Now, we can't forget that there is a lot at stake here with this trial because the death penalty is on the table if Mellie is convicted. The law actually changed in Florida. It used to be you needed a unanimous vote for the death penalty.

Now the law changed. All you need is an eight to four vote by that jury to vote in favor of the death penalty. Now, this trial is dark this week. So we thought we would do something a little bit different. Something that is a sidebar first, a debate. And the debate is who is winning the YNW Melly trial? And who will win? Well, I have two great guests because nobody wants me debating myself.

That would be concerning. So I have two great guests. First up, for the prosecution, with me here in studio, estate attorney for Palm Beach County, Florida, Dave Arrenberg. Dave, good to see you. Great to be with you, Jesse. And for the defense, criminal defense attorney, Natalie Winningham Burrell. Natalie, thanks so much for taking the time.

Thank you for having me, Jesse. Now, let's be very clear. Natalie and Dave don't actually represent anyone in the case. They're not retained by anyone in the case. They're not doing that. But this is a bit of analysis, so they're going to represent both sides. So I'm going to start off. And here's what I'm going to do.

I'm taking out my trustee timer. I am going to give each of you two minutes for your opening statements. Yes, that's right. I'm Judge Jesse. That's what this is. And I'm going to start with you, Dave. You're going to give the prosecution's opening statement, what you think, why you believe the prosecution is winning this case,

and you can go right now. Judge Jesse, I think this comes down to Mr. Williams, the expert for the prosecution, because he shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the shots, that killed the victims came from within the car. This was not a drive-by shooting. In fact, shots that came from the alleged drive-by shooting didn't result in any blood because the people were already dead.

So who could have committed the crime from within the car? Well, we know that Mellie and his co-defendant were in the car. We saw video of them climbing on the car. There's DNA from within the car. there are cell phone records that put Melly there at the time of the murders. So it is Melly and his co-defendants that shot and killed these defendants because they were in the car, the backseat of the car, while their so-called friends were in the front seat. Unbeknownst, what was going to happen.

There were no defensive wounds, at least not on one of the victims. And so then the question is why? Because although you don't have to prove motive, you do have to explain to jurors because jurors want to know why. And here the why, admittedly, is not as clear, but the fact that Melly was involved with a gang where he gets cred for either committing violence or in the rap world to be the victim of violence, where perhaps the shots were intended at him to stage a crime like this, could help him in his career. or at least could help them within the gang. And then there are the allegations from the victim's family, which says that there was a financial dispute with the victims. And that's what motivated Melly.

Either way, there's only one person, along with his co-defendant, that had the means, motive, an opportunity to kill these victims, and it's the defendant on trial, Mr. Melly. Wow, that was like literally two minutes on the dot. I thought I was going to have to play like the Oscar music to get you off. But you did perfect. Okay, there we go. Prosecutions opening state.

Natalie, for the defense, my question to you is why you believe the defense is winning this case and you can go right now. Judge Jesse, the defense is winning this case because we have to remember it's the prosecution's burden to prove this case beyond a reasonable doubt and they failed to do that. The prosecution has no gun. The prosecution has no real motive. When they point to this gang affiliation, there's nothing from any gang member texting to Mellie or DMing Mellie saying, take out your friends, and that's how you'll get into the gang. They're asking for money. They're asking for gifts.

They're asking for tribute. But they never asked for him to kill his own people. In addition, the prosecution is missing any physical evidence tying Y&W Melly to the murder itself. There's no DNA. There's no gunshot residue on his hands. There's nothing showing that YNW Melly was the shooter. And as far as this timeline is concerned, the prosecution. doesn't know when the shooting happened.

Y&W. Melly could have very well been out of the car at the time that the shooting occurred. So for all of those reasons, there are questions, and each of those questions is a reason to doubt. The jury cannot make a decision that Y&W. Melly is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to find him not guilty because the prosecution hasn't filled in those gaps. Okay. So now let's get a little bit into the evidence here.

And I want to start because you both mentioned the motive, which I think is a really central theme here. So the potential motive here is being that Mellie was part of the G-Shine Bloods. He killed his friends to show an oath, to show a loyalty to this gang. I want to play something. This is from Detective Danny Polo, who was an undercover officer, talked about gangs, and literally looked

at photos of the defendant, conversations from the defendant, all to show his connection to the gang. Let's play this right now. So there's multiple videos of Mr. Dimmons claiming G-Shine or G-KB as a game. that he's boxed.

What about adopting the style or dress of a criminal game? Yes. Mr. Devons was observed multiple, multiple times. What times I can count, wearing the color is red, the color is green, and like I stated, the foot soldiers are told to wear tan or brown, and Mr. Demons, there's a bunch of pictures of him wearing this tan trench coat that falls in mind at the time where he would have been a full soldier. And so we'll come back to some of those pictures in a moment. So what about adopting the use of a tan signs that's identified as used by a criminal gang? Yes, Mr. Demons does all the

gang signs and he does them very well. You can do them very quickly, a lot faster than I can. So, Dave, I'll actually start with you on this. Maybe it's a little bit of speculation. Sometimes people throw up gang signs or they affiliate themselves with a dangerous gang, more street cred than anything. They're not really serious. You think this is strong evidence? Judge, yes, you remember this.

Prosecutors don't have to prove motive. It's not an element of first-degree murder. But because jurors want to know the why, they want to offer to jurors, here's what could make someone murder his friends. And in this case, his gang affiliates. is a big part of that because he does get street credit. He gets credit within the gang if he can show that he would do something like us. Yes, as Natalie said, it's not a financial tribute and there's no specific requirement.

You have to kill someone, but it does get you credit within the gang. And then on top of that, it can get you credit within the community of the rap community because he wouldn't be the first rapper who has survived a drive-by shooting and that has used that to sell albums. there's the financial dispute that he apparently had with the victims, as alleged by the parents of the victims in their civil lawsuit. Right, but the jury doesn't really know about that. In my understanding, Natalie, it seems they're more focused on the gang aspects. So I turn it over to you because, you know, look, I also heard the testimony from this detective who said he wouldn't, Melly would not put himself in a position to falsely associate himself with the G-Shine Bloods because he could endanger his life.

So these signs that he's making, the way he's dressing, it sure looks like he might be part of a gang and maybe he was showing his author's loyalty. What's your response? My response to that is that that does not show that he killed anyone or planned to kill anyone. Being associated with a gang, being affiliated with a gang. Impersonating being affiliated with a gang is not evidence that someone actually killed anyone. There are plenty of gang members out there who haven't killed anyone. It's a hard pill for people to swallow, but that's actually true. So they haven't, I think, the prosecution done the job of tying this alleged gang affiliation to this murder. No message saying to take out your friends. And if the defense can walk it just right, they can show that usually take out the opposing gang, hurt someone from another organization, not one of your own friends. That doesn't show actual loyalty. So I'm not sure exactly how it is that the prosecution thinks that they're tying those two together. all they're really doing is trying to say that because Y&W. Melly is a bad guy, he must be a murderer, and that's an improper inference.

Well, let's talk about the messages for a second, because I think those are important. There was a text message that was shared to this jury that was seemingly between the defendant and his mother regarding a gun. Let's play that and see where we stand on it. Jamie King is sending a text message to her son. Send me your location. I'm in Stewart, I love you so much. He then sends a return the location, showing at or about the time of the crime

as to who was using and doing that. Okay, love you again from Jamie King. I'm at your gate, I'm going to get the trash. The next response is bring Mariah, which you've already heard testimony, that Felicia Holmes, her daughter, Mariah Hamilton, was in a dating relationship with this defendant and that at this time and that there was conversations

and that she has identified Mariah as Maria Hamilton. Then there is okay. It continues. He then asks his mother to buy him a gloss ASAP and telling her, like go now. So she then responds, okay, what's wrong? She says, I got your 45. then his response, I just don't want no illegal gun.

Well, that's not illegal. So Natalie, how bad is that for the prosecutor? How bad is that for the defense? That's not great for the defense. Get me a gun right away is not great for the defense. I will say this. There was a period of time that elapsed before the actual shooting and him asking his mother to get a gun. And so it seems like if it was really the urgent thing that it related to the shooting,

the shooting would have happened right away. Some weeks after might have been that this was in reference to something else. Of course, the defense doesn't have a burden of production or to prove anything, but this is an opportunity in the defense case for them to present something once they start their case saying that there was a reason for him to be asking for this. You know, they're saying the prosecution set up this gang affiliation. Was he in fear of rival gang members? And that's why he wanted to be armed immediately. Was there something that had immediately precipitated that request. And so, you know, it's not great, but it's not like it's the end of the world.

You can't explain it. You'll just going to have to find a way. Well, let's talk about a message that's more directly connected to this case. So allegedly, there was an Instagram DM, a direct message exchange that was revealed by the prosecutors. And a user asks about whether or not YNW. Mell is safe following this shooting that happened in 2018. And the rapper allegedly responds, I did that.

Now, Dave, I turn it to you. That doesn't look good, right? But maybe the counterargument is why would he blatantly admit to somebody he committed a murder? Sounds like a confession to me. And when you tie it to his demand for a gun right away and then all the other circumstantial evidence, it's really bad for him. And why would someone admit to some stranger on Snapchat that he did it? Well, first off, Snapchat messages disappear. And so you have this false sense of security.

Plus, that's the same reason why he wanted to sacrifice his friend. friends for the gang. It's to get him some street cred. It's to get himself notoriety because he's real. He's going to sacrifice people, kill people, or at least survive a drive-by shooting. But we know now it wasn't a drive-by shooting. So there's only one other explanation. He murdered these two victims. Natalie, quick response to that. That's not a good statement. But if we're speaking from the, we're speaking from the defense perspective here, that either they can't say that it's Melly that was making that Snapchat message or that he's meaning something else if they're going to have to explain on the defense case.

They have to come up with some other meaning for it because that's the most direct evidence that they have. It's him saying I did that. Well, is this evidence direct? This evidence that I'm about to mention, the cell phone evidence, because here's a sampling of it. There's the testimony of FBI Special Agent Brendan Collins. He discussed these two phones.

And it seems that one of those phones is associated with the defendant, Mr. Demens, and the other with Mr. Thomas, again, one of the victims. Let's listen to this. What can you tell us about where the blue phone and the red phone were at 3.20? So generally in the area around New Era Studios. As you're moving across the slide, what are we looking at? So we see a series of towers that the red phone and blue phone were purified as they move from east to west. So you see, here's the line of towers.

generally in this area kind of you want 595 down at 75 and then the last ones at the end of the slide are the west kind of by the intersection

a tower that's near the intersection of Pines and at U.S. 27 the tower is 63035 sector 15 at 3.57 and that tower saw each of these phones and based on on your training experience, what does that tell you about how the phones were moving in

relation to one another, between 320 and 3.57 a.m.? Yeah, so in my opinion, that's consistent with devices moving generally together. So you mentioned that there are some in which there is red and blue together. So I want to focus in, there's one here, it looks like at the intersection of Flamingo Road and I-75, rather. the red with the blue what does that mean when you have them overlaid like that so that power saw both the red fell in okay okay so my understanding dave is the prosecution wants to put that phone in melly's hands they want to say i think he was with the victims 15 minutes before their bodies were transported to the hospital is that strong evidence it is and as i said in my opening the fact that

cell phone data puts melly right there at the time tells you that he is the killer because he and the co-defendant were there. They were inside the car. They were traveling together. And it is interesting that there was a drive-by and all these shots, and yet he didn't get hit with anything. So it's like the magic bullet theory. So it shows you there wasn't a drive-by.

This came from within the car, as the horror movie said, the call came from inside the house. Natalie, is it his phone, though? Is it Y&W. Melly's phone? Are we clear on that? We're not clear that it's Y&W. Mellie's phone. There were other people that were using that phone. We also know that the phone was active after Y&W Belly was from custody and could not have had access to his phone.

So there's definitely a question of that and the defense did a great job of driving that home. And we cannot minimize the fact that there's another person there, Y&W. Portland, the person with gunshot residue on his hands. Y&W. Melli could be saying silent because he wants to cover for Y&W. Portland that there's a sense of loyalty that he doesn't want to throw him under the bus. but it's very, very possible that Y&W. Melly was an innocent bystander that he didn't know that any shooting was going to take place and that it just happened without his knowledge and he was just present. So it could be one of those two things. Dave, what about the fact that there is no murder weapon, no murder weapons that have been recovered, no DNA of the defendant on any of the key items of evidence in this case except the door handle, which is not that surprising because he could have still been in the car and not been the killer. It feels like a real big weakness in the prosecution's case. It is a circumstantial case.

We have a lot of cases without a murder weapon. You're still able to prosecute it. I mean, you can tie him to the murder weapon. One of the best ways was a Snapchat video that showed him with a murder weapon, but it was suppressed in advance. And after the judge suppressed it, since we're not talking to the jury here, the defendant, Melly, fist bumped his lawyers to me, consciousness of guilt. But that's not evidence that can be introduced. But it is an issue. And as Natalie pointed out, there's no gunshot residue on his hands while there is on his co-defendant.

Of course, as a prosecutor, you put on evidence. how easy it is to wash off the gunshot residue, especially when you know you're guilty. But I admit, the circumstantial evidence is key, and there's not a lot of direct evidence here. Natalie, there is no DNA on the spend casing, the water bottle, the Gucci sandals, the blood stains on the T-shirt, the blood stains on a pair of Air Jordans.

I know juries like evidence. They like to have that concrete evidence. They've said it's a circumstantial evidence case. You think this is going to be a big enough of a hang-up for the jury that will acquit him? I think it's a big enough hang-up that there's. doubt and that the defense can point out that that doubt is reasonable and it's enough to acquit him so not so much saying that oh we for sure think he's innocent but to say i have i don't think the state has proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt here had this violent

event happened exactly as the prosecution thinks that it happened that DNA should be there you would argue that gunshot residue should be there somewhere you know they executed search warrants. Why didn't they find gunshot residue on any clothes or anything like that? So all of that could go to showing that he wasn't the actual shooter. And there's a lot of assumptions that that are being made. Just because he's in the car, does that mean that he knows that any shooting is going to happen? Not necessarily. So there's a lot there as far as poking holes. That's all the defense needs to do. And they just need one juror to question for mistrial. All right. I want to go to the last piece of evidence. I could talk about this all day, but there's one last piece of evidence that I think

is going to be a real struggle for this jury. And maybe you two. And that is going to be the ballistics and the trajectory evidence. So here's a sample. This is a testimony from a plaintiff's expert saying that the shooting happened from inside the car. And you say the length of time between the fatal shots and then the stage drive-by shots later on. It was enough time for the for the heart to stop feeding, for there to be no circulation due to the wounds that I examined from the medical examiner's office. None of the wounds have any blood in them, which tells me that they're all anti-mortem wounds. So the time was it long enough for the heart to stop beating. Okay. Is there scientific or medical testing to recreate that in any way, shape, or form?

Yes, it's not, it's knowledge, it's the, I'm sure the medical examiner could say the same thing. So in terms of it's nothing that can be recreated with a live human. Correct. In terms of the number of shots, you said 17 outside the car, how many rounds were fired inside of the car? Three. And can you exclude the shots to the head for Mr. Williams and Mr. Thomas is coming from outside of the park? Yes. Okay.

Now, that's his opinion. Strong witness, but I'm sure the defense is possible defense could call their own reconstructionists, their own medical examiners to say this is the state's got it all wrong. We think the shooting was a drive-by shooting or we can't tell if it happened from inside the car. How strong is that? That witness, Mr. Williams, is everything. That's why I led with it in my opening argument. The defense is going to have to call their own expert to try to come up with a battle of experts

to try to get some reasonable doubt because that witness tells you the shots that killed the victims could only have occurred inside the car. And the other shots were staged. There was no blood coming out of the holes at the time because they were already dead. And this witness came across really incredibly. I mean, he's got the whole Drew Carey vibe about him,

sensible haircut from the 50s. I think this guy is everything. Natalie, I'll turn it to you because I listen to this evidence, and it seems to suggest that the shooting happened, first of all, that they were shot on the left side of their heads, the left side of their faces. We know, based on the surveillance footage, that YNW. Melly was on the left side of that car,

the left pass, the left driver's seat, I believe. And so it looks like the shots came from his position. What do you think? How is that enough for the defense to fight against? How do you think they're going to fight against it? what are some ways that they can really raise reasonable doubt there the way the defense can raise reasonable doubt is to challenge assumptions so you have to assume that just because someone was in a certain position in a vehicle at one point in time they remained in that position in the vehicle

the entirety of the events and that they were there at the exact time that the shooting happened but as we know it's not really clear exactly when the shooting happened even from what they have so far, especially because they, you know, went to several scenes and couldn't find, you know, shell casings and things like that. And then in addition, Y&W. Mellie could have changed his position in the car, could have gotten out of the car, Bortland could have gotten into the back seat. Anything could have happened. So it's telling you these people were shot from a certain position and that they were shot inside first before they were shot outside. but what it does not tell you is who the shooter was.

And so just point out that gap with that evidence. And you don't even have to challenge how credible that person is. You can challenge, however, the limitations of what they can testify to. And I think that's reasonable doubt. Dave, I'm going to give you the final point because usually in a case, you have the closing argument from the prosecution, the defense closing argument, and the prosecution gets a rebuttal. It's their case.

They have to prove it. I'll give you the rebuttal to a chance to respond to Natalie. You have to show beyond any reasonable doubt. It is not reasonable to me to think that Melly, who was in the back left seat of the car, ran around and switched places right before the murder when you're seeing him get into the car. When the wound went in from the left side, when the drive-by was staged, so Melly, I guess, would have had to switch place in the car, would have not gotten shot in the drive-by, then would have had to lie about everything and to try to cover for his friend. I don't think it's even possible. I think there's no question beyond a reasonable doubt who killed these victims, and it was Melly and his co-defendant.

Well, this was a good debate. I don't know where I'm sitting on it. I don't know where all of our viewers and listeners are sitting on it, but you got a taste of both sides. Dave Arrenberg, Natalie Whittingham, Borell, thank you both so much for taking the time. And, you know, as a judge in all of my years, this could have been one of the best debates. You both were civil. and I will, as they say, I'll take it under advisement and give you an ruling at a later

day. Thank you both so much. Thank you. Thank you. And that's all we have for you here on Sidebar, everybody. Thank you so much for joining us. Please subscribe on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, YouTube, wherever you get your podcast. I'm Jesse Weber. I'll speak to you next time. this long crime series, ad free right now on Wondery Plus. Join Wondery Plus in the Wondery app, Apple Podcasts, or Spotify.