Judge Ural Glanville’s ex parte meeting continues to be a significant area of contention in the YSL RICO trial. Today Glanville set a date for defense counsel to review a redacted transcript of the secret meeting that Glanville held with the prosecution and sworn witness Woody Copeland.
At issue is Glanville’s ruling that Attorney Brian Steele, representing Jeffrey “Young Thug” Williams, could be present at the hearing, but not Williams. Steel insisted that he needs his client present at the review of the transcript.
Glanville was adamant that Williams could not participate in the meeting, but did ask attorney Steele to provide case law indicating that Williams should be allowed in the meeting.
Glanville said that first the attorneys, both defense and prosecution, would review the transcripts for Brady and impeachment material, and then the parties “could have a discussion” about how to move forward.
Brady materials are evidence that is favorable to the defense in a criminal trial, which the prosecution is required to disclose to the defense. This requirement stems from the landmark U.S. Supreme Court case Brady v. Maryland (1963). Brady materials include:
Exculpatory Evidence: This is any evidence that might exonerate the defendant or reduce their culpability; and
Impeachment Evidence: This type of evidence can be used to challenge the credibility of a prosecution witness.
Steel insisted that he wants the matter heard in open court so that Young Thug could be present.
Glanville again denied, stating because “it covers privilege,” only Steel can be present on Williams’ behalf. However, Glanville did say that after he rules on which parts of the transcript Williams can view, and seals the other parts of the transcript, then Steel can take the permissible parts of the transcript to Williams.
Curiously, Judge Glanville said that he would seal the ex parte record because it will “have some issues of attorney client privilege,” prompting Steel to note that if the conversation was recorded by the court reporter on a transcript, it cannot be a matter of attorney client privilege.
The exchange terminated with Glanville again advising Steel that if he does not like his rulings, he can ask a higher court to review them later, and Glanville repeating to Steel that if Steel has case law to back up his claim that the transcript review should be in open court, Glanville would be happy to hear it.
source
37 Comments