July 7, 2024
Subscribe
The Real Crime Diary Blog Violent Crimes YSL Trial Transcript Reading Special Guest @kattnotwilliams
YSL Trial Transcript Reading Special Guest @kattnotwilliams
Violent Crimes

YSL Trial Transcript Reading Special Guest @kattnotwilliams



In today’s video, we dive into the latest developments in the Young Thug racketeering trial. Judge Glanville and defense attorney Brian Steel are at it again, with tensions running high as Lil Woody is set to expose crucial information about Young Thug.

Searchable Transcript:

**Yesterday’s Highlights**:

– **Contempt Drama**: Brian Steel was held in contempt after refusing to disclose how he learned about a private meeting between the judge, prosecutors, and a state witness.
– **Witness Twist**: Kenneth Copeland, a state witness, changed his stance and testified after spending the weekend in jail.
– **Explosive Allegations**: Steel accused the prosecution of coercion and witness intimidation.

**Key Quotes**:

– Judge Glanville: “You got some information you shouldn’t have gotten.”
– Brian Steel: “If that’s true, this is coercion, witness intimidation, ex parte communications that we have a constitutional right to be present for.”

With Lil Woody taking the stand today, expect more fireworks in the courtroom! Don’t miss out on the latest twists and turns in this high-stakes trial.

👉 **Subscribe** and hit the **notification bell** to stay updated on all the action!

#YoungThug #BrianSteel #JudgeGlanville #RacketeeringTrial #LilWoody #CourtroomDrama

source

Tags:

Share This Post:

39 Comments

  • Reply
    @bethd2439 July 4, 2024

    This transcript definitely reveals some very concerning actions and is bad for the State and the Judge. However, your understanding of the Fifth Amendment right is slightly incorrect. You don’t have a right to “plead the Fifth”. What you have is a right not to be forced to incriminate yourself. That is the constitutional right. The State and Judge are correct that he does not need to ask for immunity. The State has prosecutorial discretion to choose not to prosecute any crime and provide him an agreement of immunity whether he asks for it or not. The minute they do that they are correct that he can be compelled to testify and can no longer plead the Fifth because he is no longer in jeopardy of incriminating himself since they have assured him by order that he will not be prosecuted. While it seems “shady” in the way you were talking about it, try to remember that his right isn’t to plead the Fifth and choose not to testify only not to be compelled to incriminate himself. Our constitution does not give you the right to refuse to testify because you are a criminal so long as you are willing to take the risk of no immunity. That is not what the right is.

    You also mentioned (or it sounded like you mentioned the defense being at a disadvantage because the jury would not get to hear him plead the Fifth. It is completely improper for the jury to hear that under any circumstances. The defense is not entitled to any such misplaced and improper inference that is unfairly prejudicial to the state who can’t cross examine him to avoid the inference. It is also believed that the risk of the jury making such an unfair and improper inference is so high that is exactly why it is improper to allow someone to plead the Fifth on the stand and why it is unethical to put someone on the stand you know or reasonably believe will plead the Fifth. Again.. the key here is to remember what the Fifth amendment right is… to not be forced to incriminate yourself… the right is not to “plead the Fifth”. It is a subtle but important distinction.

    You plead the Fifth to protect your constitutional right but the pleading itself isn’t really the right, as discussed above because there is no such right if there is no risk of jeopardy, regardless why there is no jeopardy. No jeopardy = no risk of incriminating yourself = nothing to be protected by the 5th Amendment at that point. Nothing to protect means you can be compelled to testify and you can be held in contempt for improperly invoking the Fifth Amendment when there is no jeopardy as an excuse to not testify. Again the only excuse is fear of prosecution. No prosecution, no fear of incriminating yourself and improper invocation of the Fifth Amendment. Another way to say it is his Fifth Amendment rights were actually protected, but they were protected by giving him immunity, which was the State’s prerogative to do. The court protected it by ordering the immunity rather than by allowing him to not testify. Either way his right to not incriminate himself was actually protected. Now his comfort was not protected, but his right to not incriminate himself was.

    Now those 2 incorrect conclusions/analysis cleared up, I do believe there is plenty wrong going on here and definitely defendants rights are being violated, just not on the basis of this particular issue.

    You may have resolved this later in the stream, with comments from the chat by other attorneys or other knowledgeable people in the chat, but wanted to provide this breakdown and distinctions while I am thinking about them for anyone interested in the specific legal analysis of these points and avoid a misunderstanding of the Fifth Amendment rights.

    But I otherwise love your review on this stream and others. Kat you are normally right on in most legal analysis and way more knowledgeable than many lay, non-lawyer analysts. And I generally enjoy your style and approach and ability generally to provide detail while keeping things as brief as the content will allow (ie not repeating the same things for hours on end, but presenting the details and analysis in a concise way). So thanks for your analysis.

  • Reply
    @jimbeam-ru1my July 4, 2024

    I wonder how long it will be until the NAACP blames the corrupt ysl prosecution on white supremacy?

  • Reply
    @markharrisllb July 4, 2024

    I've only very recently found Katt's channel and followed her here. I really like how you both delivered this video. Is the Georgia Bar proactive or reactive? If they are proactive do you think the way the Glanville and the prosecution have behaved come to their attention. If they are reactive I think a complaint should go in around how they rode roughshod over a witness's constitutional rights.

  • Reply
    @Stacey.B July 4, 2024

    The subpoena gets Woody into the witness stand. We've seen ppl plead the 5th in other cases and not answering gives the defenses no way to cross examination which is a right to confront or cross your accusers. The state knowing that and going ahead is prejudice to the defenses.
    I normally don't commit on this stuff but so much is wrong in this case. Immunity is so you don't have to plead the 5th because your admitting to crimes against your own interest.

  • Reply
    @littledancingfawn July 4, 2024

    When AV was reading this to me it didn't sound like a huge deal, because she didn't explain it.
    Katt and you explaned this perfectly. The fact that they trapped him into speaking, threatened years if jail time by getting the immunity deal when woody didn't ask it want it was DIRTY!

  • Reply
    @PoniesNSunshine July 4, 2024

    I'm an absolute lay person when it comes to this, but the Defense has been pushing the angle since early in the trial that the DA's office has been unprofessional and shady, and while the jury hasn't heard the substance of all the motions, the jury has definitely heard witnesses get cross examined by the defense about how the DA's office has been treating them, from implied threats to that sexual harassment.. if the jury doesn't trust the Judge or DA then they'll give the benefit to the defense.

    So with that in mind, while I can't say if this ex parte meeting and the discussion is illegal, imagine how it would go over if they questioned Woody in front of the jury about this transcript! Hylton bringing up Woody's kids, his dogs… It may or may not be illegal but no reasonable jury is going to look at Hylton the same way after that.

  • Reply
    @neshaw.7099 July 4, 2024

    Bro, your voice sounds very similar to the judge. 😂

  • Reply
    @whatwhyandwhos68 July 4, 2024

    Most thorough and enjoyable analysis I watched on the Internet about this particular issue in the trial.
    ADA love is screwed as a formal complaint to the Barr will be put in about her meeting with a witness knowingly in the absence of representation. So Woody lied in the past to get out of trouble and the prosecution liked his lies and now are blackmailing him with his freedom to give what they know, is false testimony. If he says he lied in the past and tells the truth, they will go him for inconsistent statements that can lead to perjury.

  • Reply
    @whatwhyandwhos68 July 4, 2024

    If ADA Love was aware back in November 2023 that Woody‘s lawyer was going to be on “leave” could she be so wicked that she deliberately organised for Woody to be on the stand during that period of his lawyers leave?
    Katt hit on the same thing that I’m confused about. Why was the prosecution in an ex parte with the judge from 9 o’clock to 10 o’clock and if there was an urgent need for the ex parte ……as the precedent suggests, the prosecution and the defence should’ve been left out of the room and only the judge and the witness, with representation, should’ve had the discussion .
    1. the judge didn’t follow the proper protocol before the meeting.
    2. he didn’t know what the meeting was about before it began
    3 what was disgusted in the meeting was inappropriate
    4. his conduct after the meeting had the appearance of impropriety.
    5. He has only backed down because the Supreme Court is watching alongside the world.

  • Reply
    @joannewakefield1528 July 4, 2024

    Nice to the defence?😳😂you gotta be joking! 😂
    That poor defence lawyer who got slammed for not telling the judge about woody pleading the fifth…. And then we get the ex parte transcript.
    😮. Ummm opps Glanville, I guess that wasn’t sposed to be exposed.🫣😁
    And then trying to pressure and stitch up Brian Steele and Kayla Bumpus.
    Him slyly throwing shade at various people here makes it so much worse.😔.

  • Reply
    @Itscooowhentheydoit July 4, 2024

    Oh, and the defense knew about the 5th. Woody’s lawyer said that in the email he told them fu….

  • Reply
    @MrBollocks10 July 4, 2024

    This girl is too clever for this guy.
    And he's not clever enough to say, explain it for the audience. 😊

  • Reply
    @eerickson9047 July 4, 2024

    No wonder the "State" kept so dang quiet that first day and the Judge was so heated and for just one answer. oh–and then said he provide a redacted transcript of the ex parte meeting. Taking the dialogue apart person by person and line by line is mind blowing and knowingly unethical. 22yrs practicing law and never have I experienced anything close to this. Sad to see and read this.

  • Reply
    @mitchell5166 July 4, 2024

    I guarantee this man who brags about being a school teacher worked in only elementary schools everything he says has been regurgitated by others or is extremely low iq this man is a child and has no understanding of christian values.

  • Reply
    @Itscooowhentheydoit July 4, 2024

    Doesn’t the leave mean they he is no longer his lawyer, not that he is going on vacation.

  • Reply
    @Itscooowhentheydoit July 4, 2024

    When you get to Ms Hilton you get the time line for Melnick…..

  • Reply
    @djpaintles July 4, 2024

    Can’t believe how hard you’re dissing on IKEA. Things are spelled funny, they are spelled Correctly in SWEDISH since it is a Swedish company. It can maze so ask employees for the shortcuts through and it’s MUCH faster. But yes, if you can’t put things together don’t shop there!

  • Reply
    @bethd2439 July 4, 2024

    One small additional comment regarding the discussion about testimony vs prosecution and the ability to use the info to go get more. It has been more than 30 years in law school since I really spent time reading the cases in this area of criminal law, but I am 99.999% sure that the same fruit of the poisioous tree principle applies as with an unlawful search. So the state can’t use his words in any way to prosecute him OR to further develop evidence against him.

    While your comment is fair that they might be unethical and try to do something like that, the legal remedy is not to allow him to avoid testifying, it is the court disallowing them to use the evidence they get. Those motions and decisions are heard all day long . I won’t dispute that is a problem if you have an unethical prosecution and unethical judiciary but the remedy for that is removal of the judge. In the end our system is still set up to follow procedures to remedy the improper use, not allow someone the ability to not testify based on a mere fear that the prosecution might act unethically later.

    There are ways to deal with these things and reasons for concern of unethical behavior or violating an immunity agreement. You saw a great but really unfortunate example of that with Bill Crosby. That is the example of the remedy, Courts do not really have the power to predict unlawful behavior and grant favors to avoid it. They can only deal with the action unethical and improper behavior after it happens. Prior to that the stick is the risk of the penalty (e.g. a criminal going free because you violated their rights or an ethical reprimand or disbarment).

    Again, hope that gives a little clarity and reassurance.

  • Reply
    @shawneedanielle1486 July 4, 2024

    Hey came over from Katt not Williams channel to support! What’s done in the dark will come to light. Judge and Hylton set judge up for the Okie doke. On top of it, Love don’t realize when she over talks overs and talk way too much that she is burying herself. Gots to be more careful.

  • Reply
    @ronjordan2831 July 4, 2024

    4 and1/2 hrs?

  • Reply
    @TheIndecisiveWigWearer July 4, 2024

    Really enjoyed the reading! Thank you.

  • Reply
    @4jkarnold July 4, 2024

    Too funny! My husband and I went to IKEA years ago and had the same exact experience. We absolutely hated it, but it is our daughter’s favorite store. 😂

  • Reply
    @shariaguilar8293 July 4, 2024

    Good morning! Late to the 🥳 Never been to Ikea happy to say.

  • Reply
    @paulkerridge1746 July 4, 2024

    Woody for president!

  • Reply
    @Hamilton8122 July 4, 2024

    22:48 I definitely didn’t get it lol. When he talks feel like from different plants.

  • Reply
    @cpratt25291 July 4, 2024

    WOODY HAS BEEN SAYING IN COURT THAT HE DOESN’T KNOW WHAT THEY WANT! HE TOLD THEM TELL ME WHAT YOU WANT ME TO SAY! HE KNOWS HE CAN’T TRUST THEM. He is speaking very loudly in open court about how he is being treated but no one is hearing him.

  • Reply
    @RoyEgan54 July 4, 2024

    Doesn't Copeland still remain open to federal charges?

  • Reply
    @RoyEgan54 July 4, 2024

    You are getting the individuals mixed up. Every he, his, me, I, etc. mentioned must have name of referenced individual included in parentheses!

  • Reply
    @6205100 July 4, 2024

    IKEA makes me cry – even if it's only two pieces….

  • Reply
    @whatwhyandwhos68 July 4, 2024

    I love Katt Williams ❤️

  • Reply
    @alancase6452 July 4, 2024

    So this case has been going for 8 to 10 years, the trial has been going for around a year now, and the DAs office just got around to giving Woody immunity three weeks ago right before he was supposed to testify? And that was only because he is smart enough to not trust the DAs office?

  • Reply
    @derekbassett July 4, 2024

    IKEA is Sweden’s Walmart

  • Reply
    @audram1295 July 4, 2024

    i am a new subscriber to both of your channels via Talk That Law – i still have to cath the replay, but so far you guys sound good (only 7 minutes in) ♥

  • Reply
    @HappyGrouch July 4, 2024

    I don't think this will cause a mistrial or even a recusal. Steele was given bad information. At least as far as the transcripts, Woody never admitted to Killing Nut. That was the Brady he spoke of. And although the judge may have misspoken on the record today by saying the bulk of the meeting was Woody and his attorney for over an hour (It was around 30 minutes total broken up in two sessions) I think being chief judge will give him leeway. Also, if a Fulton judge doesn't recuse themselves, they definitely won't go against Glanville. I believe if somehow 12 adults find them guilty, the appeal will be granted though.

  • Reply
    @kellyj79 July 4, 2024

    They knew way in advance about Melnick's vacation …he was there blocking Love from pushing Woody into a plea deal …this is why they called him to testify when they did …they wouldn't have to worry about Melnick keeping Woody from taking their shady plea deal! All international and planned!

  • Reply
    @KoKo_1901 July 4, 2024

    Good job DWC AND KATT💜

  • Reply
    @Taydutt13 July 4, 2024

    Is it as bad as i think it is?

  • Reply
    @bluebird8224 July 4, 2024

    ten four

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

X
Enable Notifications OK No thanks
Verified by MonsterInsights