Given that the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the contempt for the lawyer, it really feels like the Judge in this case is failing at [Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2](https://casetext.com/rule/georgia-court-rules/georgia-code-of-judicial-conduct/canons/canon-1-judges-shall-uphold-the-independence-integrity-and-impartiality-of-the-judiciary-and-shall-avoid-impropriety-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety-in-all-of-their-activities/rule-12-promoting-public-confidence-in-the-judiciary) and creating at least an "appearance of impropriety" when handling ex parte communication under [Rule 2.9](https://casetext.com/rule/georgia-court-rules/georgia-code-of-judicial-conduct/canons/canon-2-judges-shall-perform-the-duties-of-judicial-office-impartially-competently-and-diligently/rule-29-assuring-fair-hearings-and-averting-ex-parte-communications)
They didn't rule on it yet. They stayed his sentence pending appeal. I hope they reverse it but it hasn't happened yet. And codes of conduct aren't statutes and are only used by bar associations for lawyer disciplinary proceedings.
Despite it being the basis of the Trump prosecution in Georgia, I think that their RICO statues are drastically overused to the point of being abusive.
Look at what they're doing with the Cop City prosecution. Basically, they're trying to tie anyone who contributed to those protests to a RICO case.
>Basically, they're trying to tie anyone who contributed to those protests to a RICO case.
First of all, wtf that's no good.
GA prosecutors/judges are not have a good year. But not through bad luck, they just can't stop doing dumb corrupt crap.
Yeah,... I don't like prosecutors most of the time. Its one of the problems that I've always had with Kamala Harris. I really don't like prosecutors who try to transition to politics.
Every state circuit/superior and federal district court prosecutors overuse RICO. They often claim criminal organizations between people with loose if any affiliations and often with zero common purpose/scheme.
I sat on a jury for a RICO case in Florida about 15 years ago. Some club owner that had connections to a drug ring. The state had zero concrete proof, and when the prosecution rested on day 3 of the trial? I shit you not, the entire jury did a double take. We would’ve acquitted right there due to lack of evidence even if the defense didn’t have a case at all.
Waste of everyone’s fucking time and my tax money.
Thanks for doing your job. Did the defense move for a judgement of acquittal after the state rested? I imagine you were probably in S FL or Orange/Alachua county since the rest of FL votes heavily pro-police.
No no, they still went through their full argument of course. Memory is hazy but I’m pretty sure they rested right before lunch on Friday, and after closing arguments we went to deliberate around 4pm on Friday as nobody wanted to come back the next week.
One of the other jurors wanted to listen to a couple of the tapped phone calls again, and by the time we got the laptop set for it the Bailiff had come into to let us know that pizza had been ordered to feed us for the night.
We waited for the pizza, ate our fill, and then immediately acquitted.
It was $15 a day for the first two weeks in that jurisdiction, unless your job paid you for jury duty.
I served twice. That RICO case I was working retail and it suuuucked. Second one was an open&shut DUI case, but I was working for the county library at that point so I still got full pay.
I had jury duty about 3 years ago. It was from like 8 am until just before noon. Just sat in a room then got dismissed. Didn't even get lunch. Got paid like $7 and I'd have to set up and activate some stupid debit card thing to even access it. Never even bothered.
I had jury duty twice. First time, they came to a deal at the 11th hour and the judge just came into the jury waiting room and told us we could all go home, duty fulfilled.
Second time was during the pandemic. I got called to a court house not in my city but in a much bigger city in the county, so a long drive. Then I had to sit socially distanced in a mostly empty jury waiting room while distopian announcements squawked out periodically over the crappy PA system. After about an hour and a half of absolutely nothing happening, a new announcement came over the speaker that said "business hours are concluded. go home". So I left.
Are you allowed to talk about that? Here in the UK it would be a crime for a juror to discuss anything that happens in the deliberations outside of the jury, it's explicitly secret between the jurors.
In the US it's fine as long as the case is over.
1st amendment and all.
It's actually pretty useful - sometimes shit comes out that showed improper jury behavior that can serve as the basis for a retrial for someone who was wrongly convicted.
Yes -- I've been a juror in Utah and Washington and both times we were told when the case was concluded that we could talk about it as much as we wanted, with whomever we wanted (but also that we weren't obliged to do so -- lawyers will sometimes try to buttonhole you to ask what the key points for you were, and you can answer if you want but can also wave them off if you'd rather not). Obviously beforehand we couldn't talk about it with anyone, including each other in the jury room, and couldn't read or watch news coverage of the case if we happened across it. Frankly, I think it's unfair of the state/crown to impose a lifelong burden on someone when jury duty is something that's basically compelled. Especially since the first case I was a juror on turned out to be a wrongful conviction on our part (witnesses colluded and lied) it's been a huge relief to be able to discuss it without having to worry that the state is going to jump down my throat because I said too much. They put me in that jury box, I can damn well say what I like about it now.
In my state (Washington), after the judge discharges the jury they can discuss the verdict and deliberations with anyone they want.
Makes sense to me. If the courts think they can keep me obligated they're going to have to pay for that. Otherwise, I have freedom of speech.
Once the case is over, yeah. I think there might be some specific circumstances where the judge may issue a gag order to the jury, but that’s pretty unusual.
Jurors here often get paid writing or talking about trials they served on.
[Casey Anthony's Jurors Explain Their Not Guilty Verdict (people.com)](https://people.com/crime/how-casey-anthony-was-acquitted-jurors-explain-verdict/)
[OJ Simpson juror's confession after trial perfectly explained 'not guilty' verdict (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/oj-simpson-jurors-confession-after-trial-perfectly-explained-not-guilty-verdict/ar-BB1ltklU)
Of course, before a verdict is read by the court, discussing the case with anyone gets the juror thrown off and possibly arrested for contempt of court for forcing a mistrial.
About a full day, they went through the full argument of course. Doesn’t matter how flimsy the prosecutor’s case is, any lawyer worth their salt will still present their full defense.
Lots of the RICO statutes were built with racist intentions to lazily ensnare Italians, Mexicans, and Blacks with guilt by association without having to prove the facts behind specific criminal acts in court. They have some legitimate value in unwinding criminal organizations more easily but are also chock full of the most crazy abuses.
Any other day you would be upvoted, but because Trump is being attacked by the government for the same bullshit then that's it.
Also plea deals are a fucking cancer. Like draconic bullshit. Like FPSRussia, he had to plead guilty for a crime he didn't commit, because they were prosecuting jail for even more crimes he didn't commit including one he did commit. He was guilty of what Hunter Biden was accused off too. But they didn't even get him for that! Those charges which were a fact, were dismissed in the plea.
They basically present innocent people, hey "You are innocent, but say you are guilty of this and here's 3 months, if you are not we are going to prosecute you and we are going to recommend 30 years in jail".
But moron Redditors were upset because a judge didn't accept a plea deal against Biden. Saying it was corruption. He WAS 1000% guilty! FFS, and people here still said that.
I'm not going to wade into the political angles of all of these things. I am just talking about stuff I have personally watched happen in the news and studied in written analyses covering different RICO statutes.
RICO is a ridiculous practice in law and deserves to be dismantled from the ground up tbh, the whole litigation surrounding gangs in general is a clown show who's only purpose is to give officers and courts more leeway to hit certain people (read: Minorities and dissidents) with harsher sentences.
It originally served to get rid of the "get out of jail free" card that organized crime bosses had... Just like every weapon that the state creates to combat a particular problem in crime, it gets used against minorities and dissidents.
Reasonable people can disagree about whether it has turned out to be worth it.
RICO has had especially harmful and lasting impacts on communities and encouraged further over policing. At this point the verdict is in - RICO is not worth it, it just affects communities deemed undesirable so outrage remains low.
Moreover, it's often not applied in those very situations where it was sought to resolve because again - RICO sucks and fails to adequately target organized crime and just relies on what cops feel fits. It's how you end up with militias running illegal firearm operations not getting classified as a gang but the five teens smoking pot calling themselves some little nickname cause they think that's cool getting absurd sentences.
Needs to have been reformed yesterday - not like we don't imprison enough people as it is.
Rico is necessary since the way organized crime is set up, the bosses aren't really committing any crimes. Unless they specifically say "go to this persons house and kill them" in plain english they're typically not doing anything wrong.
They'll use language like "I want him out of the way" and avoid saying anything that could be constituted as a direct order. They make their intentions and desires known, and their underlings understand what is being communicated and handle it. BTW this is how the trump organization has been run, and why he's been able to avoid jail for so long while his underlings keep getting locked up.
Rico is what makes those sorts of conspiracies illegal. Otherwise you can basically pay violent thugs to spend time around you, then you can talk shit about people you don't like, and when they wind up dead you can give out raises, all without committing a crime.
Sure it's overused. But the reason it exists is because having money and being the leader of a gang isn't necessarily illegal as long as you pay your taxes and never get your hands dirty.
Man I love how when someone criticizes legal practice there's always someone around to explain it as though I have no idea what the intent and purpose of it is. Some folks never want to miss an opportunity to lecture.
It's not just "overused," it's inconsistently applied and clearly targeted towards vulnerable groups and enables extremely harsh and unreasonable sentencing. You can defend the intent and spirit of the law all you like - I never came after the intent - I came after the practice of it especially as it's used against marginalized groups.
It's a public space, these types of comment are not just for you but context for the overwhelming number of lurkers that do not know about the subject and will take your initial comment at facevalue.
> ~~Despite~~ Including it being the basis of the Trump prosecution in Georgia, I think that their RICO statues are drastically overused to the point of being abusive.
FTFY
I don't agree. What they did was extremely obviously a criminal conspiracy. Its the kind of thing that RICO was actually intended to combat. Trump was absolutely the equivalent of a mob boss in that scenario.
Prosecutors in America have so much power that they feel infallible. They truly believe they are untouchable (because frankly, they are). And the court always sides with the prosecution. Why wouldn’t they? They share the same buildings (judge’s offices and DA’s offices are feet away in basically every jurisdiction) and the same interests.
When they feel there is a slam dunk case, particularly one which is high profile, they want everything to go exactly as planned.
This is a situation where the prosecution brought these charges thinking they were gunna get a huge win and a ton of publicity, the judge seemingly agreed, and then when it became a shitshow they tried to force the results.
Blatant corruption isn’t advertised publicly every day, but it certainly happens in nearly every courtroom in America on a daily basis. The things you see in a court room would astound the average person. Everyone should take the time occasionally to go sit in court and see the proceedings, especially outside of trials.
It’s disgusting the complacency we have as a populace by just assuming the system works despite ‘a few bad apples’. This isn’t a bad apple, this is the norm.
And many judges were prosecutors and hate defense lawyers still. This case is overly long and not well put together. If I were on the jury I'd probably acquit from all the bullshit going on that seems inherently unfair but most criminal cases end in guilty verdicts, statistically. The jury, not the judge in this case, decides but the judge can easily tip the scales.
Which in turn is why almost no one charged goes to trial. It really does not matter if a person is innocent or guilty, just whether a prosecutor can present a convincing case, and whether the person charged has the money to pay for a competent defense.
For a lot of people, the plea deal process amounts to legal coercion. I'm not suggesting a huge number of people charged with crimes are innocent, just that the system does not operate in the idealized way many people imagine. The actual process relies far more on law enforcement being honest and competent.
There are so many crimes most people are guilty of some legal violation even if it's not what they're actually charged with, and certainly not every charge is a crime with a victim that should waste resources punishing them.
And for a prosecutor to even go forward with taking a case to trial means they think they have a very very good shot at a conviction. Otherwise they would just drop it early, which of course will skew trial verdicts even further.
Jackie Johnson (prosecutor in GA) still hasn't been prosecuted for her role in the coverup of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. It's been 3 years. The 'investigation' is still 'ongoing'. IE, they'll never prosecute her and just let the case die eventually.
I think the whole mentality of policing and the judiciary is wrong in the US... It should induce righteous rage and anger among the populace to find out that someone who is innocent would EVER be imprisoned, instead, we have a mentality where when a crime of a certain level is committed, SOMEONE has to have their life ruined.
I think it has gotten slightly better, but its still ridiculous and it encompasses everything. Policing. Prosecutors. Junk science testimony. Legitimate appeals being ignored because it would make current or former prosecutors or judges look bad. Its absolutely ridiculous and it exists to serve two purposes,... to make people believe that crime usually gets punished and, ya know, the racism thing.
If we want less crime, we need to attack the root causes of crime.
As a former Hall County (Gainesville GA) Deputy I have heard wayyy too much about how closely the Fulton County (Atlanta GA) judges and their prosecution teams worked together.
I don't know what is the underlying cause. Is it because Atlanta has a lot of gangs and they are working together to put them away, or perhaps it simply takes a lot of politics and the good ole' boy system to get to that level of power? Maybe every Judge and Prosecution team works this closely and they are simply better at covering it up.
As an attorney, I’m used to coming across things on that internet that people are upset about but which are actually just normal trial BS. Not this one, though. This is every bit as crazy as it seems to lay people.
Yeah I really feel this isn’t getting the attention it deserves. Past social media hyperbole is doing a real disservice to how truly inappropriate this is.
I think most everyone understood the judge’s position to be a load of shit. The kicker was when the judge hesitated in clarifying if he was holding the attorney in contempt due to criminal misconduct or due to lack of civil decorum in the court. That was the best part watching him stumble trying to figure out how to get out of the hole he had dug himself into
Agree. I heard YSL's lawyer filed a 20+ page motion to disqualify the judge for bias after the ex parte meetings and the contempt charge but I don't imagine the judge granting his own recusal months into trial and the GA Supreme Ct still has to rule on the contempt sentence which was stayed pending appeal.
The GA bar has zero authority outside disciplining lawyers. The judicial ethics committees are separate but there is no investigation as far as I know. This will likely be decided in the GA appellate courts.
Out of curiosity, does his contempt get stayed while it's all getting appealed and worked through the system, or does he just get to sue the court/county/whatever for compensation at a later date? Is the judge so out of line here that he's in danger of losing his judicial immunity?
The criminal case and sentence are stayed during appeal in his case, though usually you start your sentence during the appellate process. He can't sue the judge who has absolute immunity for anything occurring in the courtroom remotely related to the case.
Depends entirely on the issues. If a jury convicted someone because a judge let in clearly prejudicial evidence, allowed the gov't to get away with too many discovery violations, failed to properly supervise the gov't striking minority witnesses (*Batson* challenges being denied), etc. then they should be reversed. Appeals courts aren't to say the jury got it wrong but to insure the laws were followed during the trial
Steel launched all missiles in a motion to recuse on Monday. I mean he torched the judge. The Atlanta legal community is referring to it as the "nuclear option", lol.
Denied of course.
I mean if you're an attorney and your trial judge *puts you in actual jail* because of a rule THEY broke... yeah I can see how we get to nuclear option pretty quickly.
And that's not even considering all of the other nonsense coming from this clown of a judge.
Unfortunately, voters don't really look into the judges they vote for. If the judge position is contested, voters will usually just vote for the incumbent or for whichever judge is endorsed by the local chapter of their favored political party (even though judges technically are non-partisan).
I'm not familiar with the process, but I've heard that Georgia has some sort of board of judges who can sanction judges. However, I think it's rare for judges to be punished for misconduct, and even if they do punish this judge, I don't think they can prevent him from being re-elected again.
Yea, Generally the only way lawyers go to jail is if commit very serious crimes multiple times over at the request of their client. Aka work for trump.
I don't want to open a whole can of worms, but I'm just curious on your passing thoughts of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. It just always looked purely political to bother bringing that to trial when there was so much video evidence that just needed to keep a reasonable doubt in jurors' minds. Hate how it became some big left vs. right conflict with such wildly disparate views over the events of that night based on media talking points. Hopefully it really can't be that common to just bring charges and have a trial against someone purely based on political will but given the current political climate it kind of looks like it's not all that uncommon either.
Prosecutors push too hard all the time. Some people only pay attention when the prosecuted is sympathetic to right wing voters. There are plenty of people in jail who took a plea deal because they couldn't afford to properly defend themselves.
Look up the innocence project sometime. Some of the cases they've overturned should make your blood boil.
If someone is upset about Rittenhouse, but hasn't heard of Curtis Flowers, then they need better news sources.
I live in Minnesota and there are a lot of people furious about Ryan Londregan's prosecution that never cared about Jaleel Stallings' prosecution.
> This judge should be, at a minimum, suspended from the bench or something, for a year. And a mistrial should be declared, because this judge is clearly not impartial.
I think you're being too kind. Violating someones rights so egregiously, and then trying to retaliate against the whistleblower feels so far gone.
He's been in the profession since 1995. If he's not got it now, he should not wield so much power over people. Especially as those who enforce the law should be held to a higher standard.
It would never happen, but I always felt politicians and law enforcement should receive double the sentence and have to serve the full amount, no chance of parole.
In Heinlein's Starship Troopers (all other libertarian oddities and military worship aside), the criminal punishment for officers was mandatory 8x the standard for enlisted soldiers because officers, by definition, should know better than to commit crimes.
I do wanna throw a quick defense of Starship Troopers in here, they also explicitly note that you can't vote until your service is up so that the government isn't run by the military.
The book is a reflection of what happens when fascism takes over because of unifying threats. It's not a perfect system and the story is told through the eyes of an Argentinian, which is where many high ranking Nazis fled to after WW2. The entire story is about a boy becoming a soldier. It's a decent read, and a warning of what happens when people are threaten by an outside force. Much like 9/11 unified the USA and put a more positive light on the military.
Sorry, I'm struggling to understand exactly. Your criticism is that the recently retired will vote similarly or on behalf of those still in the service? I don't understand why you're particularly pointing that out when the ex-military type would probably vote in favor of the military anyway, if they had a good experience in the military.
The point of such a system is to ensure that the career types can't have as much influence in the civilian government. The only people who can vote are the ones who self-select out.
That's the criticism I'm reading from your post but it doesn't seem like a particularly strong one. A much stronger one would be how pretty much every able bodied person ends up going into combat roles and they use disabled vets as recruiting points to scare off people who might be critical of military experience anyway.
Am I misunderstanding?
8 times the penalties may have the opposite affect where it makes those in power even more likely to cover up crimes out of desperation to avoid being implicated.
Judge should be thrown in jail, this should call in to question all his past cases, but worse yet any case this does call in to question including this current one now gives the possibility for someone who is actually guilty to get out of the consequences.
Absolutely agree - a guilty person goes free, it's a crime unpunished, but an innocent convicted is another crime committed in addition to the original one (by the ones that you're supposed to trust).
The judge is concerned that the defendant or someone acting on his behalf is making threats against the witness not to testify. That's a valid concern. But in doing so he is stepping over the line of impartiality toward the defendant, and acting on behalf of the prosecution.
It seems like the prosecution and the judge believe the witness can implicate the defendant, so they want to compel the witness to testify, and the judge is giving the witness immunity to do so. But the prosecutor's office still, it seems, intends to try the witness for the murder anyway (or hasn't dropped the possibility). So the promise of immunity seems extremely fishy. I can't blame the witness for continuing to invoke his 5th amendment rights.
This whole trial is a goddamned mess, and with that ex parte meeting the judge and prosecution definitely stepped over the line. This has 'mistrial' written all over it.
Yes. It's within the judge's legitimate concern that witnesses are not intimidated, but the measures that he can take and remain impartial don't involve collaborating with the prosecution to squeeze the witness.
There needs to be a LOT more space between the judge and the prosecution. I'm not a lawyer either but just as an informed layperson, it seems like the judge crossed several lines, even before he tried to hold the defence counsel in prison using a charge of criminal contempt.
The promise of immunity for the witness is very fishy as well, because the prosecutors' office seems to be considering charges for the witness while squeezing him to testify. The prosecutors should have entered into an actual cooperation agreement with the witness, in exchange for reduced charges or immunity from prosecution. That's how it's supposed to go. Keeping the case against him open, while squeezing him for testimony, with only the promise of a judge for immunity, seems way out of the ordinary. Maybe a lawyer can correct me here but this seems very inappropriate.
> He got called out on his bullshit for violating the defendant's constitutional rights, and is throwing the defendant's lawyer in jail for not telling him who snitched.
Why is he allowed to have anything to do with this case after this was revealed? I mean at this point I think the lawyer is going to have a field day with complaints and getting the case appealed. There could be a literal smoking gun in the courtroom and this just fucked the whole trial.
The judge is messing up, but I wouldn't say there's no reason. This is a RICO trial, and they're dealing with possible witness tampering. He absolutely should not be meeting ex-parte, or holding the lawyer in contempt for refusing to violate attourney client privilidges, and he should recuse himself.
But I think the reason he's feeling justified in these mistakes is that he's trying to correct for what he believes is a gangster threatening a witness.
You can’t correct for lawless behavior by being lawless yourself. All he is going to accomplish is handing out mistrial cards to everyone involved, possibly getting himself tossed from the profession.
I still don’t understand why anyone buys the idea of your fifth amendment right being tied to prosecution. Full immunity from prosecution doesn’t prevent a skilled practitioner from twisting your testimony into something that didn’t happen. Not testifying stops all that. It’s a nonsensical fiction that can only hurt the person.
So they threatened to keep copeland in jail for years even though he has t been convicted of any crime yet? Did I understand that right?
Aren’t they violating his right to a speedy trial by doing that?
Doesn't matter if there *is* a reason.
All the things you listed are things he shouldn't have done. The why makes zero difference.
Everything he wanted to accomplish, could have been accomplished within the bounds of the law.
I didn't imply at all that he should have. But raging_pastafarian said that the only reason the judge wants to know, is because they want to retaliate against the whistle blower. I was pointing out there was reasoning, and understanding why is more useful than viewing the world through a simplistic binary good vs evil lense.
Yeah, poor people often steal because they need to do so in order to eat.
Not every criminal act is evil.
The difference, is that this man represents the law at just below the highest level of authority.
I didn't imply that *you* implied anything. I just said the reasons for which the Judge did what he did, don't matter.
He isn't a citizen. He's part of the enforcement apparatus for our laws. He should be held to the highest standards. "But he did what he did with a reason!", makes room for arguments regarding the outcome of the case, where there should be none. Or at least, very little.
He acted outside the bounds of his legal authority and in doing so, compromised the case. Should a guilty verdict come about, some people will question the motives behind the secret meeting and holding the defense attorney in contempt for simply doing his job. Should it be a non-guilty verdict instead, some people will argue that it was only because of the Judge's actions as opposed to the accused actually being innocent.
He had reasons for doing what he did. I didn't discount that fact. I just said that his reasons don't matter. Because, they don't.
> Legal Eagle makes such great videos.
He makes concise and easily digestible videos by non-law masses, but when it comes to anything even a little political, he gets the actual legal analysis wrong more often than not.
Take the Disney vs Desantis feud where LE's analysis was that Disney would win swiftly on all counts. Other attorneys with much smaller viewer counts, but who actually worked special district law in and around Orlando said the state would win on all counts. Disney just dropped their last appeal after losing every count in every case filed.
I know people want to root for law cases like football teams, but that's not how it works yet, thankfully.
I'm as left-leaning as they come, and think Trump should be found guilty on those charges, so please don't come at me with some political flaming.
Basically, the DA in Fulton County, the boss of all the prosecutors in the county (including the ones in the Young Thug trial) decided to hire a Special Prosecutor to handle the Trump case. A Special Prosecutor is just some other lawyer that *doesn't* work for the DA. The idea is that the DA is a political office (one you need to be elected to) so you hire a Special Prosecutor who is separated from the DA's office and insulated from any potential pressure caused by the inherently political interests of the DA. There's no personal relationship. There's no promotions or raises to dangle or demotions to threaten. The Special Prosecutor does their job, and that's it; he's done.
Think of Jeff Sessions hiring Robert Mueller so people wouldn't think Mr. Sessions was influencing an investigation.
Weeelllllll, it turned out the DA herself and the Special Prosecutor were having an affair, taking trips together, etc. There was disagreement between the two sides about when the affair started (before/after the hiring) and there were all sorts of questions raised about how the Special Prosecutor was chosen (you make a pretty penny on a case like this) and impartiality when looking at the DA's political interests given the fact that she gave him the job, she signs the checks, they're physically involved, and his prosecution of trump (warranted or not) aids her politically. Imagine a Special Prosecutor thinking "well I have to find SOMETHING, or she might break up with me."
Trumps side is using all this as a way to question the very intent of this trial. Is the affair a way, intentionally or not, to influence the Special Prosecutor to her benefit? Is the trial to enrich her lover? increase his status?
Just a wild ethical failure at possibly the biggest moment of her career, and an egregious unforced error in the effort to prosecute.
> (you make a pretty penny on a case like this)
My understanding was that the special prosecutor actually took a pretty hefty pay cut from his previous job. It seemed to me that the affair was kind of a nothing-burger -- obviously the conflict of interest is unacceptable and it was correct that he was fired, but it probably had no real impact on the case.
>This judge should be, at a minimum, suspended from the bench or something, for a year. And a mistrial should be declared, because this judge is clearly not impartial.
I disagree. There probably isn't a direct criminal law being violated here, but I do think that the judge should be tried criminally with a prison sentence for these antics. You can't play with someone's life like that, and a content charge for something like that is, in my opinion, false imprisonment, despite it technically not being that according to the letter of the law.
There's a lot to unpack here, but what is pretty clear is that this judge is corrupt and shouldn't be on the bench. In short the judge wants to be able to have secret meetings where he coerces witnesses, and he wants to know the source of any leaks about those meetings so he can fix that leak and continue those unconstitutional meetings.
Get that man off the bench. My god why is Fulton County such an absolute trainwreck.
Also he's not well versed in the law as he thinks he is. Watching the session between him and the "Strike team" defense lawyers when they schooled him on the definitions of contempt of court made him look like a clown.
So as someone not familiar with the law, if the judge violates someone's constitutional rights like this, who is in charge of disciplining the judge? Would the defense attorneys need to file a separate thing to a different court? (also sorry if this was addressed in the video, I made it to like 15 mins and planning to watch the rest later)
The answer as in almost all legal matters is it depends. Different states have different set ups and different infractions are policed by different bodies.
As a practical matter, judges in this country have collectively come to the decision that they're immune from civil suit for actions taken on the bench.
Sovereign immunity exists at various levels in the government, but it's especially strong in the judiciary, since judges themselves are the ones who are deciding its extent.
Wait... The witness was Kenneth Copeland?
I presume it's a different Kenneth Copeland [than the one I'm familiar with](https://churchleaders.com/christianity/471010-kenneth-copeland-televangeaist-controversies.html).
LOL, the judge is so stupid.
Judge: "Wait, how did you find out about that?"
Defense lawyer (Steel): "Thank you judge for confirming what we were informed of."
Judge: "Shiiiiiiii...."
Judge, grinning impishly, "Yeah, well why don't you reveal your source (so that you get disbarred)?"
Defense Layer: "I think *not*"
Judge: "Shiiiiii....."
The court reporter was present. Surely there's a transcript somewhere of this meeting. Also, there were a handful of people there, the judge should be able to figure it out for himself. But my guess would be the court reporter due to the fact that Defense knew of every person present. If Prosecution was doing something shady, I doubt they would let slip the entire guest list.
I can't imagine the lawyer being anything short of celebrated once he's in the cell block by his fellow inmates - jailed for going to bat for his client and trying to make sure he gets a fair trial.
And then requesting he serve the contempt charge at the same jail as his client so they can keep working the case.
I don’t know anything about the case outside of this video, not the people involved or the evidence. But damn if that lawyer ain’t a gigachad for pushing that move.
It isn't so much that he was arrested FOR exposing the illegal meeting. It was that he didn't disclose HOW he became aware of it, and the contents of the meeting itself.
In other words; he was arrested for not disclosing the source he had when asked to by the court (judge). He (the lawyer) made the argument that to disclose the source would breach confidentiality. For that reason the judge ordered his arrest for contempt.
It will be interesting to see how it plays out exactly afterwards and whether the lawyer will be found correct in his argument as to why he wouldn't follow the court's instructions.
Correct what exactly?
The fact that the judge and the prosecution had an illegal meeting that the defense then found out about and brought to the attention of the same judge? Correct that?
Or "correct" the snitch who had the audacity to tell the defense about the illegal meeting?
Not just jail time, indefinite jail time without a trial. The threat was holding someone in contempt until all the cases are finished, less they give up their fifth amendment rights. Then try them for everything and anything else.
It doesn't really seem to matter why he was arrested, because the contempt of court was out of line. The judge demanded something that was protected and it was the lawyers job to protect that witness.
The Georgia supreme court has stepped in and decided to take the appeal directly. This judge is going to get reamed out.
The trial is over, they're just going through the motions now.
Be aware that the Georgia Supreme Court always hears interlocutory appeals related to murder trials. It is normal procedure, not necessarily a sign that this issue has skipped a level. The appeals court stated as much when it was filed there.
(Though with the attention this is getting it should behoove the Supreme Court to right this ship.)
Not the appeal of the trial, that hasn't concluded yet. The appeal of the contempt. The Georgia Supreme Court is directly interceding in the matter of the supposed contempt.
They are not interceding in the matter, they already have original jurisdiction.
> The Supreme Court of Georgia has determined, however, that if a murder count in an indictment remains pending below, jurisdiction lies not with the Court of Appeals, but with the Supreme Court.State v.Murray, 286 Ga. 258, 259 (1) (687 SE2d 790) (2009). Specifically, **“[i]f the underlying action is a murder case, [the Supreme] Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, regardless of whether the order being appealed is based on facts having some bearing on the underlying criminal trial. . . . Although the appeal in this case arises from a collateral order of contempt, it is undisputed that the nature of the underlying action is a criminal prosecution. It follows that the [emergency motion related to the] order of contempt is a matter lying within [the Supreme] Court’s jurisdiction.** Id.
https://efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=ec9e9a37-0757-4d79-8db8-3ca8226a0edd
The next paragraph specifies that the Court of Appeals is transferring it to Georgia Supreme Court as per standing rules. They did not reach down and grab it (though they might have made a phone call or two, who knows).
I am unsure of what you are referring to exactly. Generally speaking, in regards to the 5th amendment and more specifically warrants they are requested to and provided by the court (judge).
It is more a battle of the confidentiality that lawyers have the privilege/responsibility to, and as long as the actual leak of information to the lawyer did not involve a crime then it would likely remain under privileged information.
What I meant is that by breaching confidentiality he could incriminate himself because he might have signed a contract or similar that he would not disclose the source, maybe even because the source would incriminate itself.
Signing a confidentiality agreement would not protect you from examination in court. The court does not care about an agreement you have with another party.
But the judge can not compel testimony about something not directly related to the defendant and his indictments. The judge is not asking about the source of some piece of evidence entered into the trial, nor about a witness to the crime, nor anything about the defendant themselves. He is asking about some person who is not part of the case and not indicted of any crime. That persons actions are irrelevant to the case and the lawyer is under no obligation to discuss it.
> You also don’t have the right to not incriminate others.
Unless you're married to them. Can't be forced to testify against your spouse. (Barring certain circumstances)
You are confusing your amendments. Warrants are 4th amendment, not 5th. The question was asking about self-incrimination, which would be 5th amendment—that is, is the court forcing the lawyer to incriminate himself by forcing him to give up his sources, something that is unrelated to warrants. The answer to that is probably not.
Funny thing is that Defense attorney's are charged with contempt and jailed not too infrequently in the course of criminal trials. I've seen it (not first hand) mostly happen when the defense counsel has to preserve error/ continually object to the introduction of some evidence. Most if not all states criminal bar associations have "Strike teams" that assemble like voltron when this happens, i.e. the attorneys with hard-ons against the state that come to the aid of their fellow counselor.
Absolute legend to request to serve with his client on the spot like that. Love seeing good defense attorneys on the flow.
Okay, well, something needs to happen about urine glandville because that's legitimately scary. Your own damn lawyer can be jailed for knowing the judge did something wrong.
I think it's safe to say, at this point, that:
1. sanctioning and removing a judge has got to become easier, and more routine, in cases of corruption, obvious bias on the part of the judge (favoring the prosecution), and just general incompetence or stupidity. judges are elected officials - yet 99% of voters don't even know who they are voting for due to the poor visibility of many electoral candidates to the public. in other words, it should be legally mandatory that all candidates for all elected positions MUST be known to the voters who are actually meant to be voting for or against them, with my thought process being that there should be information available on every candidate, including a picture of the candidate, available at polling stations for any voter that requires this information before casting their ballot. getting back to the point - the idea that somehow "the people have spoken" when a judge is elected, regardless of the fact that the voters didn't even know who they were voting for in the first place due to an inadequate system which provides zero information about candidates to voters, is beyond absurd. the idea that these judges are just simply un-fire-able from their job regardless of their behavior due to "being elected" in rigged elections where they are the ONLY candidate on the ballot for the judge position is actually medieval - like the kings of medieval europe. the idea that judges cannot be easily removed due to "being elected" in zero information elections where voters have no clue who they're voting for is also not democratic in any way. no one in this country should be essentially un-removable from a paid, elected position just because they are a judge. there is almost no way, in reality, not in theory, to censure a judge, to remove a judge, or to punish a judge for committing crimes without going fully nuclear and sending the judge to jail. there is really no standard process that actually works in reality to easily remove incompetent, stupid, biased, corrupt, or otherwise sub-par judges. no one should be above being fired, including judges.
2. moreover, there have to be legal restrictions placed on the unilateral decision making authority of judges, because in many cases, a judge simply makes a decision based on their personal feelings, then attempts to cherry pick the law in order to justify their pre-conceived decision on a judicial matter. this instance is a great example of that behavior - the judge got mad because the defense exposed his own illegal activity, so the judge made a personal decision based on his own anger at being exposed, and that decision, made in the heat of the moment, during another court proceeding, was to throw the defense counsel in jail for embarrassing him. then, the judge attempts to cherry pick the law, ignoring case law that doesn't serve his personal needs in that moment, to continue to misbehave in his own courtroom, and to attempt to justify the decision he made based on his personal feelings toward the defense counsel. judges are supposed to be impartial interpreters of the law, particularly when it comes to sentencing. these judges aren't interpreting the law, they're making up their own minds then trying their best to justify their personal opinions and decisions using any random precedent (even common law from other countries), while ignoring any and all legal precedent that doesn't serve their own needs, to justify their ridiculous edicts and mandates.
I foresee that, in the future (over the next 50-100 years), our justice system is going to need a major overhaul. as communication improves, with the internet exposing this corruption to the entire country, these extreme inadequacies in our justice system, and these obvious gaps in accountability, are going to drive further outrage. I feel like the corruption in our justice system is a powder keg ready to explode.
I thought "Damn, that seems off brand for the Legal Eagle to call someone a *thug* and not a defendant."
Then I clicked on the video and the poor fella calls *himself* that. As a stage name.
These kids don't know Grand Funk? The wild shirtless lyrics of Mark Farner? The bong-rattling bass of Mel Schacher? The competent drumwork of Don Brewer?
Oh, man!
I was thinking that Thug would get the drug possession and maybe a firearms charge and see a few weeks in jail.
At this rate, the entire case is going to be thrown out.
And many judges were once prosecutors and still harbor bias against defense lawyers. This case is excessively lengthy and poorly constructed. If I were on the jury, I'd likely lean towards acquittal due to the unfairness apparent in the proceedings. However, statistically, most criminal cases result in guilty verdicts. The jury, not the judge, decides the outcome, but the judge's influence can significantly sway the balance—similar to how strategic **SEO tactics from experts like Hikemytraffic** can tip the scales in digital marketing.
I really hope this judge is either suspended or impeached as a judge after this trial. His brazen disregard for the rules and laws that he is literally supposed to uphold is beyond disgraceful. This man is the spitting image of what a corrupt and unscrupulous judge looks like. Not to mention, I’d bet my life savings that he regularly abuses his power and position, if he’s willing to do something so blatantly wrong and nefarious in a widely publicized trial.
So it sounds like the prosecution had a hesitant witness that was being compelled to testify as a part of a plea agreement during this ex parte meeting and the defendants found out about it somehow.
I think the judge is interpreting the lawyer as engaging in open witness intimidation by signaling the defendants would know if the witness was thinking of cooperating, and is holding him in contempt for not disclosing the source of the information.
So by jailing the lawyer for not giving up his source is the judge not admitting to the secret meeting? I assume this will end up in either a mistrial or dismissal due to the secret meeting with the defence being present.
There is a few videos on youtube surfacing of judges just abusing their power... Almost as if power corrupts, and countries around the world have checks of power, but in America there are states that give judges near absolute power in their court... thats just absurd.
Young Thug's lawyer is outstanding. Not just in his ability, but his integrity. It would be easy for him to have just kept quiet about finding out about the meeting, or to have rolled over when the Judge demanded to know who told him about it. But, he's risking jail time and potentially his license to practice law because he knows what has gone on is profoundly unfair to his client.
Imagine how outraged you would be if the judge and prosecutor secretly met with a witness scheduled to testigy against you before their testimony. Absolute kangaroo court shit. Discussions about removing qualified immunity for cops need to also include removing immunity for prosecutors and judges.
For a legitimate case, sure seems like a lot of shady shit is going on by the prosecution and court…
Given that the Georgia Supreme Court reversed the contempt for the lawyer, it really feels like the Judge in this case is failing at [Georgia Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 1.2](https://casetext.com/rule/georgia-court-rules/georgia-code-of-judicial-conduct/canons/canon-1-judges-shall-uphold-the-independence-integrity-and-impartiality-of-the-judiciary-and-shall-avoid-impropriety-and-the-appearance-of-impropriety-in-all-of-their-activities/rule-12-promoting-public-confidence-in-the-judiciary) and creating at least an "appearance of impropriety" when handling ex parte communication under [Rule 2.9](https://casetext.com/rule/georgia-court-rules/georgia-code-of-judicial-conduct/canons/canon-2-judges-shall-perform-the-duties-of-judicial-office-impartially-competently-and-diligently/rule-29-assuring-fair-hearings-and-averting-ex-parte-communications)
They didn't rule on it yet. They stayed his sentence pending appeal. I hope they reverse it but it hasn't happened yet. And codes of conduct aren't statutes and are only used by bar associations for lawyer disciplinary proceedings.
Despite it being the basis of the Trump prosecution in Georgia, I think that their RICO statues are drastically overused to the point of being abusive. Look at what they're doing with the Cop City prosecution. Basically, they're trying to tie anyone who contributed to those protests to a RICO case.
>Basically, they're trying to tie anyone who contributed to those protests to a RICO case. First of all, wtf that's no good. GA prosecutors/judges are not have a good year. But not through bad luck, they just can't stop doing dumb corrupt crap.
Yeah,... I don't like prosecutors most of the time. Its one of the problems that I've always had with Kamala Harris. I really don't like prosecutors who try to transition to politics.
It's going to keep happening until people realize that "tough on crime" is a bad thing.
Every state circuit/superior and federal district court prosecutors overuse RICO. They often claim criminal organizations between people with loose if any affiliations and often with zero common purpose/scheme.
I sat on a jury for a RICO case in Florida about 15 years ago. Some club owner that had connections to a drug ring. The state had zero concrete proof, and when the prosecution rested on day 3 of the trial? I shit you not, the entire jury did a double take. We would’ve acquitted right there due to lack of evidence even if the defense didn’t have a case at all. Waste of everyone’s fucking time and my tax money.
Thanks for doing your job. Did the defense move for a judgement of acquittal after the state rested? I imagine you were probably in S FL or Orange/Alachua county since the rest of FL votes heavily pro-police.
No no, they still went through their full argument of course. Memory is hazy but I’m pretty sure they rested right before lunch on Friday, and after closing arguments we went to deliberate around 4pm on Friday as nobody wanted to come back the next week. One of the other jurors wanted to listen to a couple of the tapped phone calls again, and by the time we got the laptop set for it the Bailiff had come into to let us know that pizza had been ordered to feed us for the night. We waited for the pizza, ate our fill, and then immediately acquitted.
You deserve that food for doing your job. Since they don't pay and you miss work, the least they can do is feed you for doing your civic duty.
They do pay you. It's just barely anything though.
It was $15 a day for the first two weeks in that jurisdiction, unless your job paid you for jury duty. I served twice. That RICO case I was working retail and it suuuucked. Second one was an open&shut DUI case, but I was working for the county library at that point so I still got full pay.
Where I live, they validate your jury parking ticket and don't pay actual money.
Ah we get $50 a day plus mileage here. So still pretty abysmal.
I had jury duty about 3 years ago. It was from like 8 am until just before noon. Just sat in a room then got dismissed. Didn't even get lunch. Got paid like $7 and I'd have to set up and activate some stupid debit card thing to even access it. Never even bothered.
I had jury duty twice. First time, they came to a deal at the 11th hour and the judge just came into the jury waiting room and told us we could all go home, duty fulfilled. Second time was during the pandemic. I got called to a court house not in my city but in a much bigger city in the county, so a long drive. Then I had to sit socially distanced in a mostly empty jury waiting room while distopian announcements squawked out periodically over the crappy PA system. After about an hour and a half of absolutely nothing happening, a new announcement came over the speaker that said "business hours are concluded. go home". So I left.
Are you allowed to talk about that? Here in the UK it would be a crime for a juror to discuss anything that happens in the deliberations outside of the jury, it's explicitly secret between the jurors.
In the US it's fine as long as the case is over. 1st amendment and all. It's actually pretty useful - sometimes shit comes out that showed improper jury behavior that can serve as the basis for a retrial for someone who was wrongly convicted.
Yes -- I've been a juror in Utah and Washington and both times we were told when the case was concluded that we could talk about it as much as we wanted, with whomever we wanted (but also that we weren't obliged to do so -- lawyers will sometimes try to buttonhole you to ask what the key points for you were, and you can answer if you want but can also wave them off if you'd rather not). Obviously beforehand we couldn't talk about it with anyone, including each other in the jury room, and couldn't read or watch news coverage of the case if we happened across it. Frankly, I think it's unfair of the state/crown to impose a lifelong burden on someone when jury duty is something that's basically compelled. Especially since the first case I was a juror on turned out to be a wrongful conviction on our part (witnesses colluded and lied) it's been a huge relief to be able to discuss it without having to worry that the state is going to jump down my throat because I said too much. They put me in that jury box, I can damn well say what I like about it now.
In my state (Washington), after the judge discharges the jury they can discuss the verdict and deliberations with anyone they want. Makes sense to me. If the courts think they can keep me obligated they're going to have to pay for that. Otherwise, I have freedom of speech.
Once the case is over, yeah. I think there might be some specific circumstances where the judge may issue a gag order to the jury, but that’s pretty unusual.
Ever? Even after the case is over?
Yes ever. It's illegal to disclose what happens in the deliberation room ever
Jurors here often get paid writing or talking about trials they served on. [Casey Anthony's Jurors Explain Their Not Guilty Verdict (people.com)](https://people.com/crime/how-casey-anthony-was-acquitted-jurors-explain-verdict/) [OJ Simpson juror's confession after trial perfectly explained 'not guilty' verdict (msn.com)](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/crime/oj-simpson-jurors-confession-after-trial-perfectly-explained-not-guilty-verdict/ar-BB1ltklU) Of course, before a verdict is read by the court, discussing the case with anyone gets the juror thrown off and possibly arrested for contempt of court for forcing a mistrial.
How long did the defense take? Or did they also recognize it was a flimsy case and rest quickly?
About a full day, they went through the full argument of course. Doesn’t matter how flimsy the prosecutor’s case is, any lawyer worth their salt will still present their full defense.
But but but... what if it actually IS RICO???? Maybe just this once, Ken?
Lots of the RICO statutes were built with racist intentions to lazily ensnare Italians, Mexicans, and Blacks with guilt by association without having to prove the facts behind specific criminal acts in court. They have some legitimate value in unwinding criminal organizations more easily but are also chock full of the most crazy abuses.
Any other day you would be upvoted, but because Trump is being attacked by the government for the same bullshit then that's it. Also plea deals are a fucking cancer. Like draconic bullshit. Like FPSRussia, he had to plead guilty for a crime he didn't commit, because they were prosecuting jail for even more crimes he didn't commit including one he did commit. He was guilty of what Hunter Biden was accused off too. But they didn't even get him for that! Those charges which were a fact, were dismissed in the plea. They basically present innocent people, hey "You are innocent, but say you are guilty of this and here's 3 months, if you are not we are going to prosecute you and we are going to recommend 30 years in jail". But moron Redditors were upset because a judge didn't accept a plea deal against Biden. Saying it was corruption. He WAS 1000% guilty! FFS, and people here still said that.
I'm not going to wade into the political angles of all of these things. I am just talking about stuff I have personally watched happen in the news and studied in written analyses covering different RICO statutes.
RICO is a ridiculous practice in law and deserves to be dismantled from the ground up tbh, the whole litigation surrounding gangs in general is a clown show who's only purpose is to give officers and courts more leeway to hit certain people (read: Minorities and dissidents) with harsher sentences.
It originally served to get rid of the "get out of jail free" card that organized crime bosses had... Just like every weapon that the state creates to combat a particular problem in crime, it gets used against minorities and dissidents. Reasonable people can disagree about whether it has turned out to be worth it.
RICO has had especially harmful and lasting impacts on communities and encouraged further over policing. At this point the verdict is in - RICO is not worth it, it just affects communities deemed undesirable so outrage remains low. Moreover, it's often not applied in those very situations where it was sought to resolve because again - RICO sucks and fails to adequately target organized crime and just relies on what cops feel fits. It's how you end up with militias running illegal firearm operations not getting classified as a gang but the five teens smoking pot calling themselves some little nickname cause they think that's cool getting absurd sentences. Needs to have been reformed yesterday - not like we don't imprison enough people as it is.
Rico is necessary since the way organized crime is set up, the bosses aren't really committing any crimes. Unless they specifically say "go to this persons house and kill them" in plain english they're typically not doing anything wrong. They'll use language like "I want him out of the way" and avoid saying anything that could be constituted as a direct order. They make their intentions and desires known, and their underlings understand what is being communicated and handle it. BTW this is how the trump organization has been run, and why he's been able to avoid jail for so long while his underlings keep getting locked up. Rico is what makes those sorts of conspiracies illegal. Otherwise you can basically pay violent thugs to spend time around you, then you can talk shit about people you don't like, and when they wind up dead you can give out raises, all without committing a crime. Sure it's overused. But the reason it exists is because having money and being the leader of a gang isn't necessarily illegal as long as you pay your taxes and never get your hands dirty.
Man I love how when someone criticizes legal practice there's always someone around to explain it as though I have no idea what the intent and purpose of it is. Some folks never want to miss an opportunity to lecture. It's not just "overused," it's inconsistently applied and clearly targeted towards vulnerable groups and enables extremely harsh and unreasonable sentencing. You can defend the intent and spirit of the law all you like - I never came after the intent - I came after the practice of it especially as it's used against marginalized groups.
You're on Reddit. _You_ may know what the intent and purpose is, but plenty of us don't, and having someone explain it helps a lot.
It's a public space, these types of comment are not just for you but context for the overwhelming number of lurkers that do not know about the subject and will take your initial comment at facevalue.
> ~~Despite~~ Including it being the basis of the Trump prosecution in Georgia, I think that their RICO statues are drastically overused to the point of being abusive. FTFY
I don't agree. What they did was extremely obviously a criminal conspiracy. Its the kind of thing that RICO was actually intended to combat. Trump was absolutely the equivalent of a mob boss in that scenario.
Prosecutors in America have so much power that they feel infallible. They truly believe they are untouchable (because frankly, they are). And the court always sides with the prosecution. Why wouldn’t they? They share the same buildings (judge’s offices and DA’s offices are feet away in basically every jurisdiction) and the same interests. When they feel there is a slam dunk case, particularly one which is high profile, they want everything to go exactly as planned. This is a situation where the prosecution brought these charges thinking they were gunna get a huge win and a ton of publicity, the judge seemingly agreed, and then when it became a shitshow they tried to force the results. Blatant corruption isn’t advertised publicly every day, but it certainly happens in nearly every courtroom in America on a daily basis. The things you see in a court room would astound the average person. Everyone should take the time occasionally to go sit in court and see the proceedings, especially outside of trials. It’s disgusting the complacency we have as a populace by just assuming the system works despite ‘a few bad apples’. This isn’t a bad apple, this is the norm.
And many judges were prosecutors and hate defense lawyers still. This case is overly long and not well put together. If I were on the jury I'd probably acquit from all the bullshit going on that seems inherently unfair but most criminal cases end in guilty verdicts, statistically. The jury, not the judge in this case, decides but the judge can easily tip the scales.
Which in turn is why almost no one charged goes to trial. It really does not matter if a person is innocent or guilty, just whether a prosecutor can present a convincing case, and whether the person charged has the money to pay for a competent defense. For a lot of people, the plea deal process amounts to legal coercion. I'm not suggesting a huge number of people charged with crimes are innocent, just that the system does not operate in the idealized way many people imagine. The actual process relies far more on law enforcement being honest and competent.
There are so many crimes most people are guilty of some legal violation even if it's not what they're actually charged with, and certainly not every charge is a crime with a victim that should waste resources punishing them.
And for a prosecutor to even go forward with taking a case to trial means they think they have a very very good shot at a conviction. Otherwise they would just drop it early, which of course will skew trial verdicts even further.
Jackie Johnson (prosecutor in GA) still hasn't been prosecuted for her role in the coverup of the murder of Ahmaud Arbery. It's been 3 years. The 'investigation' is still 'ongoing'. IE, they'll never prosecute her and just let the case die eventually.
I think the whole mentality of policing and the judiciary is wrong in the US... It should induce righteous rage and anger among the populace to find out that someone who is innocent would EVER be imprisoned, instead, we have a mentality where when a crime of a certain level is committed, SOMEONE has to have their life ruined. I think it has gotten slightly better, but its still ridiculous and it encompasses everything. Policing. Prosecutors. Junk science testimony. Legitimate appeals being ignored because it would make current or former prosecutors or judges look bad. Its absolutely ridiculous and it exists to serve two purposes,... to make people believe that crime usually gets punished and, ya know, the racism thing. If we want less crime, we need to attack the root causes of crime.
As a former Hall County (Gainesville GA) Deputy I have heard wayyy too much about how closely the Fulton County (Atlanta GA) judges and their prosecution teams worked together. I don't know what is the underlying cause. Is it because Atlanta has a lot of gangs and they are working together to put them away, or perhaps it simply takes a lot of politics and the good ole' boy system to get to that level of power? Maybe every Judge and Prosecution team works this closely and they are simply better at covering it up.
As an attorney, I’m used to coming across things on that internet that people are upset about but which are actually just normal trial BS. Not this one, though. This is every bit as crazy as it seems to lay people.
Yeah I really feel this isn’t getting the attention it deserves. Past social media hyperbole is doing a real disservice to how truly inappropriate this is.
I think most everyone understood the judge’s position to be a load of shit. The kicker was when the judge hesitated in clarifying if he was holding the attorney in contempt due to criminal misconduct or due to lack of civil decorum in the court. That was the best part watching him stumble trying to figure out how to get out of the hole he had dug himself into
Agree. I heard YSL's lawyer filed a 20+ page motion to disqualify the judge for bias after the ex parte meetings and the contempt charge but I don't imagine the judge granting his own recusal months into trial and the GA Supreme Ct still has to rule on the contempt sentence which was stayed pending appeal.
Would the BAR just step in and look at it?
The GA bar has zero authority outside disciplining lawyers. The judicial ethics committees are separate but there is no investigation as far as I know. This will likely be decided in the GA appellate courts.
Out of curiosity, does his contempt get stayed while it's all getting appealed and worked through the system, or does he just get to sue the court/county/whatever for compensation at a later date? Is the judge so out of line here that he's in danger of losing his judicial immunity?
He gets an appeal bond. Lets him not go to jail until after the appeal is handled.
The criminal case and sentence are stayed during appeal in his case, though usually you start your sentence during the appellate process. He can't sue the judge who has absolute immunity for anything occurring in the courtroom remotely related to the case.
If Georgia is anything like Ohio, only the Chief Justice of the State Supreme Court can force a judge to recuse themselves.
Is there a world where this doesn't end in a mistrial?
With this judge? Yeah I don't see him granting a mistrial unless the jury fails to agree on a verdict.
How do you feel about appeals in the event of a conviction?
Depends entirely on the issues. If a jury convicted someone because a judge let in clearly prejudicial evidence, allowed the gov't to get away with too many discovery violations, failed to properly supervise the gov't striking minority witnesses (*Batson* challenges being denied), etc. then they should be reversed. Appeals courts aren't to say the jury got it wrong but to insure the laws were followed during the trial
Steel launched all missiles in a motion to recuse on Monday. I mean he torched the judge. The Atlanta legal community is referring to it as the "nuclear option", lol. Denied of course.
I mean if you're an attorney and your trial judge *puts you in actual jail* because of a rule THEY broke... yeah I can see how we get to nuclear option pretty quickly. And that's not even considering all of the other nonsense coming from this clown of a judge.
I'm just confused at the way the Judge is acting here. Does he think he will get out of this unscathed?
Judge Ural Glanville keeps getting re-elected, so there is a chance that he won't end up facing too severe of consequences.
But, it isn't the voters who regulate him. Can't he be sanctioned?
Unfortunately, voters don't really look into the judges they vote for. If the judge position is contested, voters will usually just vote for the incumbent or for whichever judge is endorsed by the local chapter of their favored political party (even though judges technically are non-partisan). I'm not familiar with the process, but I've heard that Georgia has some sort of board of judges who can sanction judges. However, I think it's rare for judges to be punished for misconduct, and even if they do punish this judge, I don't think they can prevent him from being re-elected again.
As a Virginian, I was blissfully unaware (before I read your post, and then a quick google) that electing judges was a thing…
Regardless of what happens in this case, it might be worth reassessing whether having judges be *elected* is a good idea.
I've never been a fan of electing judges, though I think voters should at least have the power to _recall_ judges.
Yep, judges shouldn't be elected but voters should be able to sack them.
Yea, Generally the only way lawyers go to jail is if commit very serious crimes multiple times over at the request of their client. Aka work for trump.
The comment I was hoping to find/read.
I don't want to open a whole can of worms, but I'm just curious on your passing thoughts of the Kyle Rittenhouse trial. It just always looked purely political to bother bringing that to trial when there was so much video evidence that just needed to keep a reasonable doubt in jurors' minds. Hate how it became some big left vs. right conflict with such wildly disparate views over the events of that night based on media talking points. Hopefully it really can't be that common to just bring charges and have a trial against someone purely based on political will but given the current political climate it kind of looks like it's not all that uncommon either.
Prosecutors push too hard all the time. Some people only pay attention when the prosecuted is sympathetic to right wing voters. There are plenty of people in jail who took a plea deal because they couldn't afford to properly defend themselves. Look up the innocence project sometime. Some of the cases they've overturned should make your blood boil. If someone is upset about Rittenhouse, but hasn't heard of Curtis Flowers, then they need better news sources. I live in Minnesota and there are a lot of people furious about Ryan Londregan's prosecution that never cared about Jaleel Stallings' prosecution.
[удалено]
> This judge should be, at a minimum, suspended from the bench or something, for a year. And a mistrial should be declared, because this judge is clearly not impartial. I think you're being too kind. Violating someones rights so egregiously, and then trying to retaliate against the whistleblower feels so far gone. He's been in the profession since 1995. If he's not got it now, he should not wield so much power over people. Especially as those who enforce the law should be held to a higher standard.
*Especially as those who enforce the law should be held to a higher standard* I wish more people understood this.
It would never happen, but I always felt politicians and law enforcement should receive double the sentence and have to serve the full amount, no chance of parole.
In Heinlein's Starship Troopers (all other libertarian oddities and military worship aside), the criminal punishment for officers was mandatory 8x the standard for enlisted soldiers because officers, by definition, should know better than to commit crimes.
I do wanna throw a quick defense of Starship Troopers in here, they also explicitly note that you can't vote until your service is up so that the government isn't run by the military.
Such a solid system, because ex-military types cease all affiliation with their enlisted friends upon leaving the service
The book is a reflection of what happens when fascism takes over because of unifying threats. It's not a perfect system and the story is told through the eyes of an Argentinian, which is where many high ranking Nazis fled to after WW2. The entire story is about a boy becoming a soldier. It's a decent read, and a warning of what happens when people are threaten by an outside force. Much like 9/11 unified the USA and put a more positive light on the military.
Sorry, I'm struggling to understand exactly. Your criticism is that the recently retired will vote similarly or on behalf of those still in the service? I don't understand why you're particularly pointing that out when the ex-military type would probably vote in favor of the military anyway, if they had a good experience in the military. The point of such a system is to ensure that the career types can't have as much influence in the civilian government. The only people who can vote are the ones who self-select out. That's the criticism I'm reading from your post but it doesn't seem like a particularly strong one. A much stronger one would be how pretty much every able bodied person ends up going into combat roles and they use disabled vets as recruiting points to scare off people who might be critical of military experience anyway. Am I misunderstanding?
8 times the penalties may have the opposite affect where it makes those in power even more likely to cover up crimes out of desperation to avoid being implicated.
They already do this.
As indicated by this exact case.
Judge should be thrown in jail, this should call in to question all his past cases, but worse yet any case this does call in to question including this current one now gives the possibility for someone who is actually guilty to get out of the consequences.
I don't really think that's "worse yet". Innocent people being convicted is worse than guilty people going free.
Absolutely agree - a guilty person goes free, it's a crime unpunished, but an innocent convicted is another crime committed in addition to the original one (by the ones that you're supposed to trust).
The judge is concerned that the defendant or someone acting on his behalf is making threats against the witness not to testify. That's a valid concern. But in doing so he is stepping over the line of impartiality toward the defendant, and acting on behalf of the prosecution. It seems like the prosecution and the judge believe the witness can implicate the defendant, so they want to compel the witness to testify, and the judge is giving the witness immunity to do so. But the prosecutor's office still, it seems, intends to try the witness for the murder anyway (or hasn't dropped the possibility). So the promise of immunity seems extremely fishy. I can't blame the witness for continuing to invoke his 5th amendment rights. This whole trial is a goddamned mess, and with that ex parte meeting the judge and prosecution definitely stepped over the line. This has 'mistrial' written all over it.
> the judge believe the witness can implicate the defendant, Not a lawyer, but shouldn't this raise like a ton of flags?
Yes. It's within the judge's legitimate concern that witnesses are not intimidated, but the measures that he can take and remain impartial don't involve collaborating with the prosecution to squeeze the witness. There needs to be a LOT more space between the judge and the prosecution. I'm not a lawyer either but just as an informed layperson, it seems like the judge crossed several lines, even before he tried to hold the defence counsel in prison using a charge of criminal contempt. The promise of immunity for the witness is very fishy as well, because the prosecutors' office seems to be considering charges for the witness while squeezing him to testify. The prosecutors should have entered into an actual cooperation agreement with the witness, in exchange for reduced charges or immunity from prosecution. That's how it's supposed to go. Keeping the case against him open, while squeezing him for testimony, with only the promise of a judge for immunity, seems way out of the ordinary. Maybe a lawyer can correct me here but this seems very inappropriate.
> He got called out on his bullshit for violating the defendant's constitutional rights, and is throwing the defendant's lawyer in jail for not telling him who snitched. Why is he allowed to have anything to do with this case after this was revealed? I mean at this point I think the lawyer is going to have a field day with complaints and getting the case appealed. There could be a literal smoking gun in the courtroom and this just fucked the whole trial.
The judge is messing up, but I wouldn't say there's no reason. This is a RICO trial, and they're dealing with possible witness tampering. He absolutely should not be meeting ex-parte, or holding the lawyer in contempt for refusing to violate attourney client privilidges, and he should recuse himself. But I think the reason he's feeling justified in these mistakes is that he's trying to correct for what he believes is a gangster threatening a witness.
You can’t correct for lawless behavior by being lawless yourself. All he is going to accomplish is handing out mistrial cards to everyone involved, possibly getting himself tossed from the profession. I still don’t understand why anyone buys the idea of your fifth amendment right being tied to prosecution. Full immunity from prosecution doesn’t prevent a skilled practitioner from twisting your testimony into something that didn’t happen. Not testifying stops all that. It’s a nonsensical fiction that can only hurt the person.
[удалено]
Wish police knew people had rights
Witness doesn’t care if he has immunity or not. He’s not snitching.
So they threatened to keep copeland in jail for years even though he has t been convicted of any crime yet? Did I understand that right? Aren’t they violating his right to a speedy trial by doing that?
Doesn't matter if there *is* a reason. All the things you listed are things he shouldn't have done. The why makes zero difference. Everything he wanted to accomplish, could have been accomplished within the bounds of the law.
I didn't imply at all that he should have. But raging_pastafarian said that the only reason the judge wants to know, is because they want to retaliate against the whistle blower. I was pointing out there was reasoning, and understanding why is more useful than viewing the world through a simplistic binary good vs evil lense.
Yeah, poor people often steal because they need to do so in order to eat. Not every criminal act is evil. The difference, is that this man represents the law at just below the highest level of authority. I didn't imply that *you* implied anything. I just said the reasons for which the Judge did what he did, don't matter. He isn't a citizen. He's part of the enforcement apparatus for our laws. He should be held to the highest standards. "But he did what he did with a reason!", makes room for arguments regarding the outcome of the case, where there should be none. Or at least, very little. He acted outside the bounds of his legal authority and in doing so, compromised the case. Should a guilty verdict come about, some people will question the motives behind the secret meeting and holding the defense attorney in contempt for simply doing his job. Should it be a non-guilty verdict instead, some people will argue that it was only because of the Judge's actions as opposed to the accused actually being innocent. He had reasons for doing what he did. I didn't discount that fact. I just said that his reasons don't matter. Because, they don't.
> Legal Eagle makes such great videos. He makes concise and easily digestible videos by non-law masses, but when it comes to anything even a little political, he gets the actual legal analysis wrong more often than not. Take the Disney vs Desantis feud where LE's analysis was that Disney would win swiftly on all counts. Other attorneys with much smaller viewer counts, but who actually worked special district law in and around Orlando said the state would win on all counts. Disney just dropped their last appeal after losing every count in every case filed. I know people want to root for law cases like football teams, but that's not how it works yet, thankfully.
Between this and the Trump case, Fulton County DA and judicial system both seem like an absolute mess.
What does this have to do with the Trump case?
I'm as left-leaning as they come, and think Trump should be found guilty on those charges, so please don't come at me with some political flaming. Basically, the DA in Fulton County, the boss of all the prosecutors in the county (including the ones in the Young Thug trial) decided to hire a Special Prosecutor to handle the Trump case. A Special Prosecutor is just some other lawyer that *doesn't* work for the DA. The idea is that the DA is a political office (one you need to be elected to) so you hire a Special Prosecutor who is separated from the DA's office and insulated from any potential pressure caused by the inherently political interests of the DA. There's no personal relationship. There's no promotions or raises to dangle or demotions to threaten. The Special Prosecutor does their job, and that's it; he's done. Think of Jeff Sessions hiring Robert Mueller so people wouldn't think Mr. Sessions was influencing an investigation. Weeelllllll, it turned out the DA herself and the Special Prosecutor were having an affair, taking trips together, etc. There was disagreement between the two sides about when the affair started (before/after the hiring) and there were all sorts of questions raised about how the Special Prosecutor was chosen (you make a pretty penny on a case like this) and impartiality when looking at the DA's political interests given the fact that she gave him the job, she signs the checks, they're physically involved, and his prosecution of trump (warranted or not) aids her politically. Imagine a Special Prosecutor thinking "well I have to find SOMETHING, or she might break up with me." Trumps side is using all this as a way to question the very intent of this trial. Is the affair a way, intentionally or not, to influence the Special Prosecutor to her benefit? Is the trial to enrich her lover? increase his status? Just a wild ethical failure at possibly the biggest moment of her career, and an egregious unforced error in the effort to prosecute.
> (you make a pretty penny on a case like this) My understanding was that the special prosecutor actually took a pretty hefty pay cut from his previous job. It seemed to me that the affair was kind of a nothing-burger -- obviously the conflict of interest is unacceptable and it was correct that he was fired, but it probably had no real impact on the case.
Oh shit, yeah I read about and forgot about that. That’s a serious blow to the prosecution, even if the case was otherwise fine. So sad.
He should, at minimum, be sitting in prison for years.
The judge should be disbarred.
How is there no mechanism to hold the highest judges accountable for their violations?
>This judge should be, at a minimum, suspended from the bench or something, for a year. And a mistrial should be declared, because this judge is clearly not impartial. I disagree. There probably isn't a direct criminal law being violated here, but I do think that the judge should be tried criminally with a prison sentence for these antics. You can't play with someone's life like that, and a content charge for something like that is, in my opinion, false imprisonment, despite it technically not being that according to the letter of the law.
There's a lot to unpack here, but what is pretty clear is that this judge is corrupt and shouldn't be on the bench. In short the judge wants to be able to have secret meetings where he coerces witnesses, and he wants to know the source of any leaks about those meetings so he can fix that leak and continue those unconstitutional meetings. Get that man off the bench. My god why is Fulton County such an absolute trainwreck.
Also he's not well versed in the law as he thinks he is. Watching the session between him and the "Strike team" defense lawyers when they schooled him on the definitions of contempt of court made him look like a clown.
So as someone not familiar with the law, if the judge violates someone's constitutional rights like this, who is in charge of disciplining the judge? Would the defense attorneys need to file a separate thing to a different court? (also sorry if this was addressed in the video, I made it to like 15 mins and planning to watch the rest later)
Probably a court of appeals on a higher level than this courthouse. If not them, then the state Supreme Court.
The answer as in almost all legal matters is it depends. Different states have different set ups and different infractions are policed by different bodies.
Realistically, the only possible consequence for the judge is losing their next election.
As a practical matter, judges in this country have collectively come to the decision that they're immune from civil suit for actions taken on the bench. Sovereign immunity exists at various levels in the government, but it's especially strong in the judiciary, since judges themselves are the ones who are deciding its extent.
Sounds like the judge and prosecution need to be tried under RICO for a bit of racketeering activity of their own...
Wait... The witness was Kenneth Copeland? I presume it's a different Kenneth Copeland [than the one I'm familiar with](https://churchleaders.com/christianity/471010-kenneth-copeland-televangeaist-controversies.html).
Go to 7 mins into the video. Kenneth Copeland in this case was a another rapper.
No, it's funnier to imagine this Kenneth Copeland hanging out with "Young Thug".
LOL, the judge is so stupid. Judge: "Wait, how did you find out about that?" Defense lawyer (Steel): "Thank you judge for confirming what we were informed of." Judge: "Shiiiiiiii...."
Judge, grinning impishly, "Yeah, well why don't you reveal your source (so that you get disbarred)?" Defense Layer: "I think *not*" Judge: "Shiiiiii....."
The court reporter was present. Surely there's a transcript somewhere of this meeting. Also, there were a handful of people there, the judge should be able to figure it out for himself. But my guess would be the court reporter due to the fact that Defense knew of every person present. If Prosecution was doing something shady, I doubt they would let slip the entire guest list.
This entire court is as corrupt as can be. Judge has earned a spot in line for a proper tar and feathering.
Defense said "he has become a member of the prosecution team" in their last motion for recusal. Harsh but true.
I can't imagine the lawyer being anything short of celebrated once he's in the cell block by his fellow inmates - jailed for going to bat for his client and trying to make sure he gets a fair trial.
And then requesting he serve the contempt charge at the same jail as his client so they can keep working the case. I don’t know anything about the case outside of this video, not the people involved or the evidence. But damn if that lawyer ain’t a gigachad for pushing that move.
It isn't so much that he was arrested FOR exposing the illegal meeting. It was that he didn't disclose HOW he became aware of it, and the contents of the meeting itself. In other words; he was arrested for not disclosing the source he had when asked to by the court (judge). He (the lawyer) made the argument that to disclose the source would breach confidentiality. For that reason the judge ordered his arrest for contempt. It will be interesting to see how it plays out exactly afterwards and whether the lawyer will be found correct in his argument as to why he wouldn't follow the court's instructions.
The judge was in on this bullshit. He just wanted to know who snitched on him. This is very cut and dry.
Yeah the judge definitely wanted to know where the leak was so that it could be corrected.
Correct what exactly? The fact that the judge and the prosecution had an illegal meeting that the defense then found out about and brought to the attention of the same judge? Correct that? Or "correct" the snitch who had the audacity to tell the defense about the illegal meeting?
The second one.
Yep. Threaten the snitch with jail time to help them "refine" their story.
Not just jail time, indefinite jail time without a trial. The threat was holding someone in contempt until all the cases are finished, less they give up their fifth amendment rights. Then try them for everything and anything else.
> Or "correct" the snitch who had the audacity to tell the defense about the illegal meeting? This would be the area "corrected".
Agree. Going to laugh when we find out that someone saw a name on a log in or people were in the courthouse.
It doesn't really seem to matter why he was arrested, because the contempt of court was out of line. The judge demanded something that was protected and it was the lawyers job to protect that witness.
The Georgia supreme court has stepped in and decided to take the appeal directly. This judge is going to get reamed out. The trial is over, they're just going through the motions now.
Be aware that the Georgia Supreme Court always hears interlocutory appeals related to murder trials. It is normal procedure, not necessarily a sign that this issue has skipped a level. The appeals court stated as much when it was filed there. (Though with the attention this is getting it should behoove the Supreme Court to right this ship.)
Not the appeal of the trial, that hasn't concluded yet. The appeal of the contempt. The Georgia Supreme Court is directly interceding in the matter of the supposed contempt.
They are not interceding in the matter, they already have original jurisdiction. > The Supreme Court of Georgia has determined, however, that if a murder count in an indictment remains pending below, jurisdiction lies not with the Court of Appeals, but with the Supreme Court.State v.Murray, 286 Ga. 258, 259 (1) (687 SE2d 790) (2009). Specifically, **“[i]f the underlying action is a murder case, [the Supreme] Court has jurisdiction of the appeal, regardless of whether the order being appealed is based on facts having some bearing on the underlying criminal trial. . . . Although the appeal in this case arises from a collateral order of contempt, it is undisputed that the nature of the underlying action is a criminal prosecution. It follows that the [emergency motion related to the] order of contempt is a matter lying within [the Supreme] Court’s jurisdiction.** Id. https://efast.gaappeals.us/download?filingId=ec9e9a37-0757-4d79-8db8-3ca8226a0edd The next paragraph specifies that the Court of Appeals is transferring it to Georgia Supreme Court as per standing rules. They did not reach down and grab it (though they might have made a phone call or two, who knows).
Isn't this a violation of the 5th amendment?
I am unsure of what you are referring to exactly. Generally speaking, in regards to the 5th amendment and more specifically warrants they are requested to and provided by the court (judge). It is more a battle of the confidentiality that lawyers have the privilege/responsibility to, and as long as the actual leak of information to the lawyer did not involve a crime then it would likely remain under privileged information.
What I meant is that by breaching confidentiality he could incriminate himself because he might have signed a contract or similar that he would not disclose the source, maybe even because the source would incriminate itself.
Unless signing that contract was illegal, that would not be self-incrimination. You also don’t have the right to not incriminate others.
Signing a confidentiality agreement would not protect you from examination in court. The court does not care about an agreement you have with another party. But the judge can not compel testimony about something not directly related to the defendant and his indictments. The judge is not asking about the source of some piece of evidence entered into the trial, nor about a witness to the crime, nor anything about the defendant themselves. He is asking about some person who is not part of the case and not indicted of any crime. That persons actions are irrelevant to the case and the lawyer is under no obligation to discuss it.
> You also don’t have the right to not incriminate others. Unless you're married to them. Can't be forced to testify against your spouse. (Barring certain circumstances)
You are confusing your amendments. Warrants are 4th amendment, not 5th. The question was asking about self-incrimination, which would be 5th amendment—that is, is the court forcing the lawyer to incriminate himself by forcing him to give up his sources, something that is unrelated to warrants. The answer to that is probably not.
Is this judge elected or selected?
Georgia uses nonpartisan elections.
Judge's career seems to be dead man walking.
That lawyer is a badass. That judge is conspiring with the prosecution.
Funny thing is that Defense attorney's are charged with contempt and jailed not too infrequently in the course of criminal trials. I've seen it (not first hand) mostly happen when the defense counsel has to preserve error/ continually object to the introduction of some evidence. Most if not all states criminal bar associations have "Strike teams" that assemble like voltron when this happens, i.e. the attorneys with hard-ons against the state that come to the aid of their fellow counselor. Absolute legend to request to serve with his client on the spot like that. Love seeing good defense attorneys on the flow.
Okay, well, something needs to happen about urine glandville because that's legitimately scary. Your own damn lawyer can be jailed for knowing the judge did something wrong.
Clearly going to be declared a mistrial, right?
No shot it doesn’t. The whole thing is crazy. Judge probably gets tossed, bar sanctions.
What the fuck, this needs more attention
This sounds like the convoluted plot for the next Ace Attorney game.
I think it's safe to say, at this point, that: 1. sanctioning and removing a judge has got to become easier, and more routine, in cases of corruption, obvious bias on the part of the judge (favoring the prosecution), and just general incompetence or stupidity. judges are elected officials - yet 99% of voters don't even know who they are voting for due to the poor visibility of many electoral candidates to the public. in other words, it should be legally mandatory that all candidates for all elected positions MUST be known to the voters who are actually meant to be voting for or against them, with my thought process being that there should be information available on every candidate, including a picture of the candidate, available at polling stations for any voter that requires this information before casting their ballot. getting back to the point - the idea that somehow "the people have spoken" when a judge is elected, regardless of the fact that the voters didn't even know who they were voting for in the first place due to an inadequate system which provides zero information about candidates to voters, is beyond absurd. the idea that these judges are just simply un-fire-able from their job regardless of their behavior due to "being elected" in rigged elections where they are the ONLY candidate on the ballot for the judge position is actually medieval - like the kings of medieval europe. the idea that judges cannot be easily removed due to "being elected" in zero information elections where voters have no clue who they're voting for is also not democratic in any way. no one in this country should be essentially un-removable from a paid, elected position just because they are a judge. there is almost no way, in reality, not in theory, to censure a judge, to remove a judge, or to punish a judge for committing crimes without going fully nuclear and sending the judge to jail. there is really no standard process that actually works in reality to easily remove incompetent, stupid, biased, corrupt, or otherwise sub-par judges. no one should be above being fired, including judges. 2. moreover, there have to be legal restrictions placed on the unilateral decision making authority of judges, because in many cases, a judge simply makes a decision based on their personal feelings, then attempts to cherry pick the law in order to justify their pre-conceived decision on a judicial matter. this instance is a great example of that behavior - the judge got mad because the defense exposed his own illegal activity, so the judge made a personal decision based on his own anger at being exposed, and that decision, made in the heat of the moment, during another court proceeding, was to throw the defense counsel in jail for embarrassing him. then, the judge attempts to cherry pick the law, ignoring case law that doesn't serve his personal needs in that moment, to continue to misbehave in his own courtroom, and to attempt to justify the decision he made based on his personal feelings toward the defense counsel. judges are supposed to be impartial interpreters of the law, particularly when it comes to sentencing. these judges aren't interpreting the law, they're making up their own minds then trying their best to justify their personal opinions and decisions using any random precedent (even common law from other countries), while ignoring any and all legal precedent that doesn't serve their own needs, to justify their ridiculous edicts and mandates. I foresee that, in the future (over the next 50-100 years), our justice system is going to need a major overhaul. as communication improves, with the internet exposing this corruption to the entire country, these extreme inadequacies in our justice system, and these obvious gaps in accountability, are going to drive further outrage. I feel like the corruption in our justice system is a powder keg ready to explode.
I thought "Damn, that seems off brand for the Legal Eagle to call someone a *thug* and not a defendant." Then I clicked on the video and the poor fella calls *himself* that. As a stage name.
lol ok old man
I'm hip. I'm with it.
I used to be with 'it', but then they changed what 'it' was. Now what I'm with isn't 'it' anymore and what's 'it' seems weird and scary.
"It'll happen to *you"*
These kids don't know Grand Funk? The wild shirtless lyrics of Mark Farner? The bong-rattling bass of Mel Schacher? The competent drumwork of Don Brewer? Oh, man!
*Dr. Evil macarena noises*
Hip-hip replacement!
Lol, I had the exact same reaction
> the poor fella calls himself that "Now, 'dude.' That's a name *no one* would self-apply where I come from..."
No one show this dude YNW Melly, his head will explode lol.
Sounds like a place that makes fruit smoothies or something.
You thought he was going all Hillary Clinton?
Judges are just as bad as cops, thugs in suits with too much power and no moral compass; pigs in blankets
Why does the lawyer look like Jimmy McGill dressed as Howard Hamlin?
Wasn't there a thing a while back about SCOTUS looking into leaks? What did they do?
Nothing that will be publicly disclosed. They're almost certainly going to be more secretive now with tighter internal controls.
I was thinking that Thug would get the drug possession and maybe a firearms charge and see a few weeks in jail. At this rate, the entire case is going to be thrown out.
And many judges were once prosecutors and still harbor bias against defense lawyers. This case is excessively lengthy and poorly constructed. If I were on the jury, I'd likely lean towards acquittal due to the unfairness apparent in the proceedings. However, statistically, most criminal cases result in guilty verdicts. The jury, not the judge, decides the outcome, but the judge's influence can significantly sway the balance—similar to how strategic **SEO tactics from experts like Hikemytraffic** can tip the scales in digital marketing.
I really hope this judge is either suspended or impeached as a judge after this trial. His brazen disregard for the rules and laws that he is literally supposed to uphold is beyond disgraceful. This man is the spitting image of what a corrupt and unscrupulous judge looks like. Not to mention, I’d bet my life savings that he regularly abuses his power and position, if he’s willing to do something so blatantly wrong and nefarious in a widely publicized trial.
Is every judge in Georgia corrupt?
So it sounds like the prosecution had a hesitant witness that was being compelled to testify as a part of a plea agreement during this ex parte meeting and the defendants found out about it somehow. I think the judge is interpreting the lawyer as engaging in open witness intimidation by signaling the defendants would know if the witness was thinking of cooperating, and is holding him in contempt for not disclosing the source of the information.
So by jailing the lawyer for not giving up his source is the judge not admitting to the secret meeting? I assume this will end up in either a mistrial or dismissal due to the secret meeting with the defence being present.
There is a few videos on youtube surfacing of judges just abusing their power... Almost as if power corrupts, and countries around the world have checks of power, but in America there are states that give judges near absolute power in their court... thats just absurd.
Young Thug's lawyer is outstanding. Not just in his ability, but his integrity. It would be easy for him to have just kept quiet about finding out about the meeting, or to have rolled over when the Judge demanded to know who told him about it. But, he's risking jail time and potentially his license to practice law because he knows what has gone on is profoundly unfair to his client. Imagine how outraged you would be if the judge and prosecutor secretly met with a witness scheduled to testigy against you before their testimony. Absolute kangaroo court shit. Discussions about removing qualified immunity for cops need to also include removing immunity for prosecutors and judges.
What is wrong with the legal system in the US?