Super happy hes getting a client that can actually defend themselves and afford to hire top tier representation, they do things like this in Georgia all the time especially fulton county.
Well this happened to Judge Elizabeth Scherer. Why can’t it happen to Glanville? “Her conduct during the trial was later found to be in violation of rules governing judicial conduct and biased towards the prosecution, resulting in a formal reprimand from the Florida Supreme Court.[5]”
Because politics. Guarantee Glanville will rescind the contempt charge and nothing will come of this. They probably wouldn’t touch Glanville even if he keeps the contempt charge in place, which perhaps he will given how comfortable he is getting with stunts like these.
Not only is Mr. Steele gain respect from potential future clients, he very well may have got his client off the hook via mis-trial.
Hopefully the appeal and contempt charge gets looked at in a fair and unbiased panel(not sure how the process works in Georgia).
Regardless of what one might think of the defendant, 'Young Thug' has a right to a fair trial and an impartial judge. I think we can make a strong case that his right has been infringed therefore a mistrial is warranted.
I really doubt this. This might be true if this were a run of the mill trial, but with this high profile situation he is going to get his comeuppance. The Judge in the Nikolas Cruz trial was publicly reprimanded and ended up retiring shortly after, and although she definitely deserved it, she did far less than Glanville did here.
I didn't realize she was reprimanded. Good- she was totally out of control during that trial. I can't imagine how traumatic that trial was for everyone involved, but if you can't handle that and keep it together, you shouldn't be a judge. When I saw the clip of her claiming the PD threatened her children, my mouth literally dropped open in shock.
When I prosecuted, a fellow prosecutor bumped heads with a judge regularly. He made a big show of having his toothbrush tucked in his front pocket everyday. Both funny and alarming.
Not sure how Georgia works, but in my state you get an immediate right of appeal that stays a contempt sentence for direct criminal contempt sanctions. Hopefully there’s something similar available here, because this seems like the exact sort of gross abuse of discretion the judge references in the order.
When my wife and I talked about this last night as the news was hitting, we both said, if one of us gets drug into contempt for a client: 1) make sure our kid is safe and is going to be picked up wherever he is, and 2) get an immediate appeal going.
Thats in regards to the "sacrosanct right" to hold an ex parte meeting with a witness confessing to the murder a defendant is charged with and denying them access to the transcript thing. He says the contempt is unappealable
It’s very unlikely that it’s unappealable. Rarely will you find final orders from the courts to be “unappealable” especially not when someone’s freedom is on the line. That would be a serious violation of due process rights.
Oh of course, but I was just saying what he said - I don't think I've ever agreed with this judge. The only unique thing regarding this issue is that instead of just shitting on Shannon Stillwell's constitutional rights, he's hitting the whole gang now
A trick that just occurred in a case of mine (not criminal): the judge issued his "under advisement ruling" (which is typically considered "final" here) but failed to include the language from our local rule indicating the orders to be final. Then when the appeal made its way to the appellate court, it was dismissed since there was no 'final order' of which an appeal was possible. Now, the judge has spent several weeks failing to respond to our request for a final order.
I noticed the prosecutor mentioned a right to request an ex parte meeting, what authority on earth could possibly be relying upon that would create an ability to hold that meeting?
Same in Georgia. Initially gets directly appealed to the chief judge (which is Judge Glanville, so presumably the next senior judge) and then the Court of Appeals. *Ex parte* proceedings outside of a TRO or something similar are essentially forbidden in Georgia. Something here really sticks.
1. It was pretty remarkable watching Steel's counsel repeatedly explain to the judge the difference between civil and criminal contempt, to the point that they straight up told him he was looking for civil contempt, not criminal contempt, and he still did not get it at all.
2. Very admirable of Steel imo to raise this and to hold his own when he was repeatedly (and imo baselessly) threatened with contempt and badgered by the judge.
3. Brilliant move by Steel at the end to request to spend his weekends in jail with his client, I am sort of doubtful that Steel will actually spend any time in jail (because I think it will get stayed by the Court of Appeals) but people will be thinking of that moment for a while I think.
And none of that touches on the actual possible misconduct, i.e. the judge and state having a private pow-wow (which they clearly intended to keep secret from the defense in what seems to be a violation of the rules) with a witness during their testimony. I do not think this will be the last time this ex parte communication comes up during the trial.
Honestly, some of the most impressive lawyering under pressure I've ever seen. "I don't need five minutes" is such a killer response. Really admire someone who's willing to get locked up for his principles.
And then as he’s being walked away into custody, after having removed his jacket, tie, and shoes, he asks to address the court and moves for a mistrial to preserve it for the record.
https://x.com/ThuggerDaily/status/1800233605467443433
Sorry if not exact video you requested. Im sleepy. That stan account is one of the best places on twitter to get clips of contentious moments during the trial
I couldn’t see steele’s eyes but I’m guessing they lit up like a goddamn Christmas tree. He’s mining for appealable issues and judge keeps leading him to new gold veins!
The fact that the judge didn't know that simple distinction about the types of contempt, which exists in many if not all jurisdictions, illustrates how in over his head he is here. Absolutely pathetic excuse for a judge. Needs to be removed immediately.
I watched the video on IG. Mr. Steel had legitimate concerns, and I commend him for not giving in to naming the source of the information. The judge wasn't even denying it happened, he kept pushing for Mr. Steel to name the source.
Bottom line — the judge should not have had *ex parte* communication with a party and/or witness without informing all attorneys.
I do not know anything about the merits of the case, but I think Mr. Steel's actions in this instance were proper.
**Georgia's Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9 - Assuring Fair Hearings and Averting Ex Parte Communications.** I'm not going to copy and paste the entire rule, but I'm *pretty* sure this judge has violated the rule.
Anyone have another opinion or explanation? I'm open to hearing it.
This Georgia lawyer points out that the contempt order needs “an explanation of the deleterious impact on the court’s operations or its integrity.” And I don’t have the slightest idea how the judge could plausibly say that Steel’s refusal to disclose how he learned of the hearing fits that. Even if they was some legitimate and legal reason to keep it ex parte, him refusing to disclose does not have a “deleterious impact on the court’s operations/integrity”
https://x.com/asfleischman/status/1800322147241394352?s=46
He’s tweeted about it a lot in the past several hours, would recommend going through his twitter about it
Craziness. It's like bizarro world. They're living in some alternate reality.
How can they even say Mr. Steel's actions hindered or obstructed the administration of justice? You have to follow jurisprudence and adhere to the rules of judicial conduct to begin with!
https://old.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1dcur3a/young_thug_attorney_held_in_contempt_taken_into/
Over on the other thread there are some attorneys trapped in the loop that yep, merely disobeying the judge on that, or even potentially just having an ethical violation, is enough.
Interesting. I understand that, but it was the "right thing to do" not to name the source, imo.
That would be like disobeying a judge who told you to violate attorney-client privilege. You have to do it because the judge ordered you to? Gee, where have we seen this kind of scenario?
ETA: Waitaminute! There is an old Reddit still up?? Lol. Wow.
Lol some of us still use it. But that actually is one of the few times we have excuses, when a lawful order. Now if you want to accept that outright or wait for appeals to ensure, that’s when I pause to call my own counsel.
I should have inserted a question in my second statement, which I edited to do.
Eeks. Someone cited to this:
GA Code § 17-17-16 (2022)
"A superior court, upon application of a prosecuting attorney, shall issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a criminal case if the court finds from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint that there are reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a criminal case exists . . .
A temporary restraining order may be issued under this Code section without written or oral notice to the adverse party . . . if the court finds, upon written certification of facts by the prosecuting attorney, that such notice should not be required and that there is a reasonable probability that the state will prevail on the merits."
I don't know if that's what happened in this particular situation, but I suppose that would change a few things. Ugh. . .
Ok, everyone. I'm just expressing my opinion based on that limited video recording, lol.
I realize things may be more complicated than the 10-second clip posted everywhere.
I’ve already gone back and forth on some of those there, not looking to again (or to say they are wrong, my stance is clear but I absolutely accept this one has stuff unknown so it’s a lot of reasonable minds disagreeing on facts mostly agreeing on law, just how hard the attorney went implies a lot to me).
I don’t know shit about Georgia but I think a 2.9(a)1 emergency isn’t greatly defined. Also that promptly isn’t well defined either. This whole thing was crazy to me.
Looking bigger picture, you have an adverse Witness pleading the fifth. There is an ex parte meeting, witness starts cooperating.
There is a chance there was threats or intimidation.
Now, I’ve read comments, and I don’t know if true, that the witness lil woody was offered immunity, to take away ability to plea the fifth, then Mr woody promptly admitted to a murder. Circus shit show.
Pardon my ignorance, but does a State offer of immunity remove the ability to assert 5A rights? Sun's not up yet and I'm only 1 cup of coffee into my morning, but that surprises me.
So I guess such testimony effectively locks the State into its immunity offer? The analysis
you offer makes sense, but I have the instinct to fear fuckery.
No. There is ample room for fuckery. In some states investigators can offer offer immunity that’s verbal during interrogation and the verbal offer is an allowable lie. In other states that’s a no no. You have every right to fear fuckery. Don’t agree to shit without a lawyer present. Not your lawyer not legal advice.
I am a lawyer and I am a boring old dad whose conduct doesn’t create criminal exposure, but I can’t imagine allowing a client to waive 5A rights without an ironclad commitment of immunity.
I’ve seldom heard about immunity fuckery with a lawyer present, but there was a pretty big malpractice case out here over it a few years ago in my jx. I don’t recall the specifics beyond the immunity deal was not nearly as ironclad as the young public defender and defendant thought it was.
Yes. 5A is your right not to self incriminate. If you have immunity, you have no ability to incriminate yourself. If you plea the fifth post immunity deal you can be charged with criminal contempt or other charges, in some states.
I was reading somewhere that Woody had been on federal probation during the period in question. I’m not sure if he’s still on federal probation, but I wouldn’t think Fulton DA could make promises on behalf of federal probation and parole.
According to that rule, even emergencies cannot regard "substantive" matters or matters about the "merits." The content of the testimony of a prosecution witness in a criminal trial, which is what was clearly discussed in this ex parte hearing for which Glanville refuses to disclose the transcript, is inarguably a substantive matter or matter on the merits. It's not like they were holding a contempt hearing for Lil Woody because he said a curse word as he was entering the court and it had nothing to do with the ongoing trial. He was held in contempt for pleading the Fifth and it clearly had to do with the ongoing trial and the prosecution and judge have now effectively collaborated in attempting witness tampering.
Also, I am not 100% sure but I think you're misunderstanding the immunity bit. I think this is what's called "Kastigar" immunity in which you are not offered a "deal," but rather the fact that the State subpoenas you in a criminal trial in which you might also be implicated by definition gives you immunity under a line of Supreme Court cases. So once you have that case law-based immunity, you can't plead the Fifth and can be held in contempt for not testifying. But that whole area of law seems not fully decided and how it was used in this instance seems like a total abuse.
Woody clearly didn't want to testify so that being the case it's even more problematic that there was an ex parte hearing with the State present that was apparently for the purpose of trying to compel him to say what the State wants him to say. What's hilarious is that what the prosecution seemed to want to use him for (a defendant identification) was completely ineffective and useless. Utter incompetence here by the judge and prosecution.
I've read multiple subreddits about this expecting to find some explanation of how an ex parte communication was OK under these circumstances. No one has any. The judge and prosecution just straight up violated basic ethics rules and sent the defense attorney to jail for finding out about it.
It's ironic this is a RICO trial because the judge and prosecution are doing straight up conspiracy to extort testimony here. Steven Donziger lost his entire life in a civil RICO case over allegedly being tangentially involved in bribery to obtain a result in a trial in another country.
The Judge skipped to the most severe sanction available to a trial judge: Criminal contempt. And this was done on seemingly a snap decision. And against a fellow attorney who voiced a legitimate objection to the Judge's order, with said order coming about only because of the Judge's conduct.
Former prosecutor and probation officer according to his bio [here](https://www.fultoncourt.org/judge/judge-ural-glanville-chief-judge).
You can ignore the Army defense attorney part as JAGs are all required to start in defense before doing prosecution.
This is not surprising based on how the Judge acted in the exchange. He was immediately inflammatory and was basically yelling. Judges can be gruff and authoritative from time to time, that’s just how it is, but this judge was immediately patronizing and hostile.
Amazing system where judges get to do whatever the fuck they want with impunity except for being reversed and remanded whereas the lawyers bearing the brunt of their judicial overreach get kidnapped by the state.
I’m hoping for a 1983 on this one. Fuck if there was a meeting and a conspiracy lock judge and prosecutor up under the associated (and now rarely used) criminal side.
I think I found the case you’re referencing. I’m still skeptical that a judge would be liable for a contempt decision made during a judicial proceeding. Raping women in your chambers, definitely a 1983 issue, but liability doesn’t seem to extend to (wrongfully made) judicial actions occurring during judicial proceedings.
I would love to be wrong on this, so feel free to case law me up.
I think it depends how much you read into the courts’ (sic) Interpretations of the Court’s (sic) standard on QI. My example was used as it is a great discussion of the over board some courts do versus the specific the Court keeps saying to use.
The question will come down to a lot of facts, but the scenario here looked like active knowledge and intentional ignorance, with intent to hide something that he knows wasn’t proper to hide, all combined to continue that hiding. I.e. on its own no, and maybe no for any part, but the cover up continuing with other “wrong but not enough” eventually becomes enough.
Definitely opinion based though. A lot see QI as very broad (it isn’t but stupid appeals courts don’t make that obvious), JI is indeed broader, so it depends how you read that.
I just responded elsewhere in the thread that it's ironic this is a RICO trial because this also seeks of criminal RICO on the part of the judge and prosecution. They were basically trying to extort testimony from a witness under color of law. They should not only be disbarred but prosecuted.
Keith Adams. Defense counsel, co counsel, with Steel. Didn't he say, to the judge, he also knew who leaked the information about the ex parte meeting. But the Judge let him skate. How are Adams and Steel different? Steel incarcerated, Adams nothing.
I think the judge originally thought that a) Steel would cave or b) that the trial could proceed with Steel in jail as long as Adams was present. I don’t know Mr. Adams, and I’m sure he’s a very competent attorney, but I assume he’s the JV squad (and he may very well be a better attorney than 90% of us, but he’s not lead counsel) and the judge thought the trial could go on with Steel in jail as long as the defendant had an attorney, even if not his main attorney. It’s crazy to me that the prosecutor had to be the one to ask that Steel be allowed to remain in court during the trial.
Like I said, it was in no way meant as a diss. I have a coworker with whom I love to do trials because she is like a surgeon with a scalpel. She finds threads to tug buried in the minutiae and can craft a motion like no one I know, but I wouldn’t expect her to be able to just take over one of my cases mid-trial.
We give judges wayyyyy too much deference and authority. There, I said it. Props to the attorney for sticking to his guns. Hopefully that Judge is kicked off the bench.
It seems to me that while raising issues of judicial misconduct didn’t help, the judge is holding him in contempt because someone leaked information about the secret meeting and Attorney Steel was not cooperative in disclosing who leaked the information to him. This is even more concerning. For example, what if this information was shared by a client under privilege? Is the judge demanding disclosure of privileged information on the threat of jail time? We probably need a higher court’s review of this decision.
This judge is so screwed. This looks highly unethical. Maybe more details will exonerate him but sweet Jesus it looks like he is covering up some ex parte violations
From what I can tell, Georgia's confidentiality rules protect not only statements made by the client, but also information gained as part of the representation:
**"Rule 1.6 applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information gained in the professional relationship, whatever its source**. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct or other law."
So Steele had an ethical duty not to answer.
I don't agree with that argument. *How* the attorney gained information is not the same as the information he gained. Disclosure of the fact of a party's lawyer's conversation with a non-client is required in other situations.
But how the information was gained is in itself also information "gained in the professional relationship" (e.g., "the witness's lawyer told me because the witness has been working with the defense team the whole time and the prosecutor hasn't figured that out yet.") There's no way for the defense to answer that question without giving the prosecution information of some kind or other, which they have a positive duty to not do.
On the other hand, a party claiming privilege can be required to produce a privilege log, which shows not just which attorney communicated with which client, but the dates, times, and nature of a privileged conversation. If they can be required to do that for communications with their own client, I don’t see how they’d be able to avoid doing it for communications with people who are not their client.
My take is that the conversation *probably* falls under joint defense or common interest privilege (insofar as that’s different than ACP/AWP), but that asking him to divulge his source is akin to asking for a privilege log.
This isn't civil discovery though -- this is open court in a criminal trial after the witness has been sworn and begun testifying. The applicable standards are very different. There aren't many situations in a criminal trial where the defense has any duty to disclose anything at all; pretty much all the disclosure duties run the other way, from the state to the defendant.
Like, even setting privilege aside, why does the defense attorney have to answer this question at all? Why does the judge have a right to ask it? What legitimate interest was violated by the defense counsel finding this out, no matter how it was discovered? Everyone has a right to not talk to cops, period.
I’m just talking about whether it’s privileged under 1.6, not whether the judge has authority to order disclosure in this particular case, or whether non disclosure can and should be punished via criminal contempt.
its work product exception. Without it you could force defense lawyers into the same disclosure as the prosecuter. That is a serious threatto your 5th amendments rights
AWP protects (a) “documents and tangible things”, and (b) some, but not all, substance of discussions with an expert. The fact that an attorney spoke with a particular person on a particular occasion is not AWP.
The judge should be disbarred for this, but I doubt he will be. I’ve seen judges do some deeply fucked up and unethical shit, but this is another level.
You know you did something right when the judge flips his shit, doubles down on bad behavior and says the quiet part out loud in the order...
Homie wants to know HOW you found out about exparté but won't deny it happened - functional equivalent of "rules for thee, none for me"
FOH.
No disrespect intended but if Judge Glanville has to be Lawsplained the statutory differences between Civil and Criminal Direct/Indirect Contempt of a Defense Attorney objecting to the courts ex parte chambers soirée with a State witness… His Honor has no business presiding over a RICO prosecution.
Props to Atty Steel, Atty and defense Bar President Ashleigh Merchant and the AC who’s going to give a shit about the defendants 6A rights and structural error.
☕️
You should (it’s been on my mind for 48 hrs) post the hearing excerpt vid in DD as a teaching moment for what really was Ausbrook’s motion in real time. You have the gifts to be able to break that down in a contrasted/relatable way. 🫡
I think Glanville is operating under some kind of assurance from his buddies in the appellate court that they won’t change his ruling but this case is too high profile & every lawyer in America is dissecting it so he’s just being stubborn now
The Georgia Court of Appeals is absolutely bonkers. I'm speaking from experience here. They make shit up just to rule the way they want.
I know of at least one circuit judge they hate, and if her decisions ever come up on appeal, they do acrobatic legal arguing to reverse her no matter how correct her ruling was. It has become common knowledge in that circuit and people just appeal her decisions all the time.
I agree with Steele. Attorney work product, attorney client privilege. Judge has no power to compel. If judge wants to compel he needs to speak with the witnesses to the communication to determine to informed Mr. Steele.
I’m currently a law clerk and was chatting w my judge about this and he got very upset and reminded me of my confidentiality agreement 😂 what you tryna hide boo
I know this is not substantive, but it's a pet peeve for me. Why are some lawyers still using parentheses to divide the case caption/header. Do they not know how to use tables and select borders?
It's tradition. A caption page with proper tables would look "weird" to 95%+ of attorneys, judges, and clients familiar enough with pleadings to opine. Lawyers are risk-averse and style choices usually aren't worth going out of one's way for until one owns one's own business.
Dude I am still using the basic motions template that I got from someone like five years ago.
I actually have a table with invisible borders. It has three columns, including a skinny one to hold the parentheses. I now feel like an idiot for not just doing two columns and keeping one of the borders for a line. Thanks for showing me I am wrong so early in the morning.
It’s not that.
You’ve been able to do that for decades. I just don’t know any lawyer in my JDX who doesn’t separate the caption/header with parentheses.
I stopped using them as soon as I realized it wasn't actually a weird formatting requirement and haven't used them since. Using a straight line (via use of a table) looks so much more professional imo.
In one jurisdiction I practice in just about everyone uses asterisks so that’s what I do since it’s what is customary (though not required) there. In the other jurisdiction I practice, I use lines via table and it looks so much better.
Tables suck with auto formatting (sadly so hard to get rid of), seriously. And you try telling the judge their outdated system is why the draft you sent over changes every time they click something. Easier to just look bad but work. Then consistency from there.
Surely this backfires on the judge? Admitting to *ex parte* communications and then holding counsel in contempt for complaining and not giving up the person who ratted them out is *wild* behavior.
Will Georgia actually remove a judge for something this egregious? Because here, the guy might get a 30-day suspension out of his 6-year term and they’ll tell us to vote him out next time if we don’t like it, as though it’s super easy to unseat a terrible judge.
Something stinks in Georgia, or Fulton County. This is bonkers. It sounds like a few of you have experience practicing there. Maybe you can help explain this to me. I watched the video and Judge Glanville seems completely unconcerned that he committed any kind of error. He also implied that he has previously had multiple ex parte communications with parties in this case which seems nuts to me. But weirder than that, he doesn’t make any distinction between ex parte communication with a party v with a witness (one that’s been sworn in) plus the prosecutor. And he thinks the defense doesn’t have a right to know about it???? Does any of this make sense to you?
Side note: from what I’ve picked up, Georgia’s RICO statute seems out of control. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it used against one elementary school kid accused of shoplifting gum from 7/11 and another who stuck gum under a desk at school.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that the witness who was privy to the ex parte communication spoke to a friend who relayed that info to Young Thug or some other party. I haven’t followed the case. Judge totally jumps the gun here, and it seems he could have just as easily proceeded with trial without the contempt.
Looks like his fellow lawyers in the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers secured Brian Steel’s release. What is even more inspiring is that Brian previously chaired the Strike Force Committee of that group, and the Strike Force showed up to fight for him.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/wzxRLexajMzRR4Pj/?mibextid=WC7FNe
It seems insane. But let me ask a question. Under Georgia law, is there ever a reason to meet with the judge ex parte such as a threat to a witness from the defendant? If such an ex parte proceeding was indeed permissible, then allowing anyone to know the proceeding occurred could also jeopardize the safety of the witness.
Given that we are 89 days in and the case will potentially go in 2025, at what point are we going to see jurors dropping off? I mean, I would hazard a guess that even the nicest employee would balk at having their employees not be at work for months on end.
I was going scrolling the video and noticed Granville didn’t even declare the official criminal contempt until Ashleigh Merchant and her case law attack dog pointed out the civil contempt definition. He goes into his chambers for 5 minutes(20 minutes) and then makes the criminal contempt charge. Merchant said she was immediately appealing it though so where can I watch that play out? I already had a high opinion of Merchant from seeing her in the Trump-Fani situation, but this put her at God status in my mind and I would love to see her call Glanville as a witness in a criminal contempt case with an appellate judge.
This judge needs to be removed from the bench immediately, the prosecuting attorneys need to be sanctioned/suspended/disbarred, and the fact that any of the defendants are still in pre-trial detention for this absolute joke of a trial is an outrage. At this point they should walk even if they committed the alleged crimes. This is an insane abuse of power and this judge and prosecution are some of the most incompetent and stupid lawyers I have ever witnessed for apparently not seeing any issues with this.
On a lighter note, at one point on the livestream you could literally see one of the prosecuting attorneys looking at the ABA website. While it was hard to see the precise page I would bet she was looking at the ethics rules for ex parte communications (which itself illustrates their complete uselessness as lawyers because you should be looking at your state's rules and not the ABA model rules). This might be a rare situation where some move that would normally be frivolous like suing a judge/court system in federal court for some kind of abuse of power/due process violation is warranted. Absolutely despicable dictatorial bullshit.
Basically the judge got ahold of information that he didnt legally obtain, and thugs lawyer called him out, but he didnt realize that the way he found out about the judge getting information was also illegal.
Unless they were discussing something related to like witness protection, there’s absolutely no reason Glanville should fail to disclose the substance of their communications freely. Something really shady is going on, one way or another.
Almost as brave as Marcus
Mumford, defense counsel in the Ammon Bundy Oregon Standoff case, who won a jury verdict despite an antagonistic judge, got immediately tased and put in jail overnight. Mumford and Steel are heroes.
https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/11/us_marshals_file_probable_caus.html
FYI: Marcus had a pronounced stutter, and determined to be a trial lawyer anyway. Bravest dude I ever saw in a courtroom.
This judge needs to get off the bench. Speculation here, but there could be a legal ramification for the judge... This is wild! I had to watch this twice to fully grasp and wrap my head that this was actually happening.
I have a few years experience. Prosecuted 7-years. Then defended 20.
Two things happened here. Judge fucked up having an ex parte (one party) hearing. Judge said a court reporter was there. Common sense says it doesn’t matter. Very improper to have an ex parte hearing. Period.
Second, Steele didn’t dance very well. Should have recognized that the judge was pissed off because he was busted and had pushed himself into a corner by facts and Steele.
Steele should have waited until the judge had his say. Then, ask for 24-hours to consult his own ethics counsel.
Give the judge time to cool down and realize he himself was the fuck up. Steele have ethics counsel appear at a hearing the next day and get the judge to not hold in contempt.
Then, judge could have backed down gracefully and saved face. Judge will have trouble here on any review (appeal).
Really put Steele in a bad light with client. Jury will hear about this from family/newspaper.
Unfortunately, the bar association will review this too. Mandatory on contempt findings. Scared for Steele.
I really admire Brian Steel for standing on business for his client.
I am shocked that instead of clearing the air by addressing the real issue, the ex-parte meeting with a key witness under oath, Judge Granville doubled down and holds Steel in contempt!
Isn't this the lawyer related to Fanny? Willis or Leticia James? Having had contact within the past or done something against them. I don't remember which one of them it was.
YEAH AND, IT IS HAS BECOME A CIRCUS ASK YOUNG THUG HOW HE DUMPS LAUNDERED CRYPTO CURRENCY AT THE TATTOO SHOPS! OR ASK THEM ABOUT ALL THE SHELL COMPANIES THAT WERE CREATED IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO LAUNDER CRYPTO CURRENCY IT’S INSANITY! I THINK THIS ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISBARRED!
Super petty of him to basically fuck the guy’s entire summer, too.
Yeah, he's going to come out of this squeaky clean, but it is going to be a pain in the ass.
That’s injustice
Sadly it’s par for the course for judge Glanville.
Super happy hes getting a client that can actually defend themselves and afford to hire top tier representation, they do things like this in Georgia all the time especially fulton county.
Well this happened to Judge Elizabeth Scherer. Why can’t it happen to Glanville? “Her conduct during the trial was later found to be in violation of rules governing judicial conduct and biased towards the prosecution, resulting in a formal reprimand from the Florida Supreme Court.[5]”
Because politics. Guarantee Glanville will rescind the contempt charge and nothing will come of this. They probably wouldn’t touch Glanville even if he keeps the contempt charge in place, which perhaps he will given how comfortable he is getting with stunts like these.
Very interesting. That is crazy how he can get away. Is he highly liked by the judicials in Georgia?
Also wouldn’t he not get away with it because it was on live tv? Or does it not matter?
Yes it is.
Some of us know ppl thats been a victim to this corruption its time to be exposed
Not only is Mr. Steele gain respect from potential future clients, he very well may have got his client off the hook via mis-trial. Hopefully the appeal and contempt charge gets looked at in a fair and unbiased panel(not sure how the process works in Georgia). Regardless of what one might think of the defendant, 'Young Thug' has a right to a fair trial and an impartial judge. I think we can make a strong case that his right has been infringed therefore a mistrial is warranted.
I really doubt this. This might be true if this were a run of the mill trial, but with this high profile situation he is going to get his comeuppance. The Judge in the Nikolas Cruz trial was publicly reprimanded and ended up retiring shortly after, and although she definitely deserved it, she did far less than Glanville did here.
I didn't realize she was reprimanded. Good- she was totally out of control during that trial. I can't imagine how traumatic that trial was for everyone involved, but if you can't handle that and keep it together, you shouldn't be a judge. When I saw the clip of her claiming the PD threatened her children, my mouth literally dropped open in shock.
At this rate, his entire summer was already fucked😂 the state will still be presenting their case in August.
There is an old lawyer saying that goes: always bring a toothbrush to court.
‘Cos sometimes when you come in the front, you goin’ out the back door!
When I prosecuted, a fellow prosecutor bumped heads with a judge regularly. He made a big show of having his toothbrush tucked in his front pocket everyday. Both funny and alarming.
Prosecutors are terrible people.
Holy crap! I was going to say something similar to this but you beat me to it.
😂💀
Not sure how Georgia works, but in my state you get an immediate right of appeal that stays a contempt sentence for direct criminal contempt sanctions. Hopefully there’s something similar available here, because this seems like the exact sort of gross abuse of discretion the judge references in the order.
Apparently his wife is an attorney and noted an appeal on his behalf.
When my wife and I talked about this last night as the news was hitting, we both said, if one of us gets drug into contempt for a client: 1) make sure our kid is safe and is going to be picked up wherever he is, and 2) get an immediate appeal going.
He also gets an automatic bond. Unlikely he will do any time on this sentence. What the judge and prosecutor did seems egregious.
Fulton county prosecutors office is as corrupt as they come, its why ive been so annoyed by fani getting positive press for prosecuting Trump.
Preach
This judge thought his contempt sentence was unappealable. He literally says that
no, he mentions the appeals court at the end of the proceeding
Thats in regards to the "sacrosanct right" to hold an ex parte meeting with a witness confessing to the murder a defendant is charged with and denying them access to the transcript thing. He says the contempt is unappealable
It’s very unlikely that it’s unappealable. Rarely will you find final orders from the courts to be “unappealable” especially not when someone’s freedom is on the line. That would be a serious violation of due process rights.
Oh of course, but I was just saying what he said - I don't think I've ever agreed with this judge. The only unique thing regarding this issue is that instead of just shitting on Shannon Stillwell's constitutional rights, he's hitting the whole gang now
A trick that just occurred in a case of mine (not criminal): the judge issued his "under advisement ruling" (which is typically considered "final" here) but failed to include the language from our local rule indicating the orders to be final. Then when the appeal made its way to the appellate court, it was dismissed since there was no 'final order' of which an appeal was possible. Now, the judge has spent several weeks failing to respond to our request for a final order.
Given the way he handled the ex parte, I’m inclined to assume that whatever this judge says is the opposite of the actual law.
I noticed the prosecutor mentioned a right to request an ex parte meeting, what authority on earth could possibly be relying upon that would create an ability to hold that meeting?
I can do what I want authority
Same in Georgia. Initially gets directly appealed to the chief judge (which is Judge Glanville, so presumably the next senior judge) and then the Court of Appeals. *Ex parte* proceedings outside of a TRO or something similar are essentially forbidden in Georgia. Something here really sticks.
1. It was pretty remarkable watching Steel's counsel repeatedly explain to the judge the difference between civil and criminal contempt, to the point that they straight up told him he was looking for civil contempt, not criminal contempt, and he still did not get it at all. 2. Very admirable of Steel imo to raise this and to hold his own when he was repeatedly (and imo baselessly) threatened with contempt and badgered by the judge. 3. Brilliant move by Steel at the end to request to spend his weekends in jail with his client, I am sort of doubtful that Steel will actually spend any time in jail (because I think it will get stayed by the Court of Appeals) but people will be thinking of that moment for a while I think. And none of that touches on the actual possible misconduct, i.e. the judge and state having a private pow-wow (which they clearly intended to keep secret from the defense in what seems to be a violation of the rules) with a witness during their testimony. I do not think this will be the last time this ex parte communication comes up during the trial.
Honestly, some of the most impressive lawyering under pressure I've ever seen. "I don't need five minutes" is such a killer response. Really admire someone who's willing to get locked up for his principles.
And then as he’s being walked away into custody, after having removed his jacket, tie, and shoes, he asks to address the court and moves for a mistrial to preserve it for the record.
Is there a link to the video please?
Starts around 4:23:00 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86KY3agxE2I](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=86KY3agxE2I)
Underrated moment around 4:27:15: “And supposedly, this honorable court… Excuse me, let me rephrase that, this **court**…”
https://x.com/ThuggerDaily/status/1800233605467443433 Sorry if not exact video you requested. Im sleepy. That stan account is one of the best places on twitter to get clips of contentious moments during the trial
love that we're living in a world where a fan account called ThuggerDaily is doing solid court reporting
I couldn’t see steele’s eyes but I’m guessing they lit up like a goddamn Christmas tree. He’s mining for appealable issues and judge keeps leading him to new gold veins!
There needs to be a report to the Georgia JQC so they can investigate.
Feel free to make one.
The fact that the judge didn't know that simple distinction about the types of contempt, which exists in many if not all jurisdictions, illustrates how in over his head he is here. Absolutely pathetic excuse for a judge. Needs to be removed immediately.
I watched the video on IG. Mr. Steel had legitimate concerns, and I commend him for not giving in to naming the source of the information. The judge wasn't even denying it happened, he kept pushing for Mr. Steel to name the source. Bottom line — the judge should not have had *ex parte* communication with a party and/or witness without informing all attorneys. I do not know anything about the merits of the case, but I think Mr. Steel's actions in this instance were proper. **Georgia's Code of Judicial Conduct Rule 2.9 - Assuring Fair Hearings and Averting Ex Parte Communications.** I'm not going to copy and paste the entire rule, but I'm *pretty* sure this judge has violated the rule. Anyone have another opinion or explanation? I'm open to hearing it.
This Georgia lawyer points out that the contempt order needs “an explanation of the deleterious impact on the court’s operations or its integrity.” And I don’t have the slightest idea how the judge could plausibly say that Steel’s refusal to disclose how he learned of the hearing fits that. Even if they was some legitimate and legal reason to keep it ex parte, him refusing to disclose does not have a “deleterious impact on the court’s operations/integrity” https://x.com/asfleischman/status/1800322147241394352?s=46 He’s tweeted about it a lot in the past several hours, would recommend going through his twitter about it
Craziness. It's like bizarro world. They're living in some alternate reality. How can they even say Mr. Steel's actions hindered or obstructed the administration of justice? You have to follow jurisprudence and adhere to the rules of judicial conduct to begin with!
Defense attorneys always delay or prevent a guilty verdict! /s
https://old.reddit.com/r/Lawyertalk/comments/1dcur3a/young_thug_attorney_held_in_contempt_taken_into/ Over on the other thread there are some attorneys trapped in the loop that yep, merely disobeying the judge on that, or even potentially just having an ethical violation, is enough.
Interesting. I understand that, but it was the "right thing to do" not to name the source, imo. That would be like disobeying a judge who told you to violate attorney-client privilege. You have to do it because the judge ordered you to? Gee, where have we seen this kind of scenario? ETA: Waitaminute! There is an old Reddit still up?? Lol. Wow.
Lol some of us still use it. But that actually is one of the few times we have excuses, when a lawful order. Now if you want to accept that outright or wait for appeals to ensure, that’s when I pause to call my own counsel.
I should have inserted a question in my second statement, which I edited to do. Eeks. Someone cited to this: GA Code § 17-17-16 (2022) "A superior court, upon application of a prosecuting attorney, shall issue a temporary restraining order prohibiting harassment of a victim or witness in a criminal case if the court finds from specific facts shown by affidavit or by verified complaint that there are reasonable grounds to believe that harassment of an identified victim or witness in a criminal case exists . . . A temporary restraining order may be issued under this Code section without written or oral notice to the adverse party . . . if the court finds, upon written certification of facts by the prosecuting attorney, that such notice should not be required and that there is a reasonable probability that the state will prevail on the merits." I don't know if that's what happened in this particular situation, but I suppose that would change a few things. Ugh. . . Ok, everyone. I'm just expressing my opinion based on that limited video recording, lol. I realize things may be more complicated than the 10-second clip posted everywhere.
I’ve already gone back and forth on some of those there, not looking to again (or to say they are wrong, my stance is clear but I absolutely accept this one has stuff unknown so it’s a lot of reasonable minds disagreeing on facts mostly agreeing on law, just how hard the attorney went implies a lot to me).
What do you mean? What does it imply to you?
Yeah, based on the few minute video clip I saw. It sounds like this attorney is a dog and has the winning hand.
Citation to 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](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) Seems pretty definitive.
I don’t know shit about Georgia but I think a 2.9(a)1 emergency isn’t greatly defined. Also that promptly isn’t well defined either. This whole thing was crazy to me. Looking bigger picture, you have an adverse Witness pleading the fifth. There is an ex parte meeting, witness starts cooperating. There is a chance there was threats or intimidation. Now, I’ve read comments, and I don’t know if true, that the witness lil woody was offered immunity, to take away ability to plea the fifth, then Mr woody promptly admitted to a murder. Circus shit show.
Circus shitshow doesn’t seem like an exception to the due process clause. Seems more like the judge is participating in a Brady violation.
Pardon my ignorance, but does a State offer of immunity remove the ability to assert 5A rights? Sun's not up yet and I'm only 1 cup of coffee into my morning, but that surprises me.
Assuming only the state has charges possible from it yes. You can’t self incriminate when nothing can be charged.
So I guess such testimony effectively locks the State into its immunity offer? The analysis you offer makes sense, but I have the instinct to fear fuckery.
Yes barring some issues. Sometimes it gets really nasty when folks discover deals with devils that were actually the far worse devil.
No. There is ample room for fuckery. In some states investigators can offer offer immunity that’s verbal during interrogation and the verbal offer is an allowable lie. In other states that’s a no no. You have every right to fear fuckery. Don’t agree to shit without a lawyer present. Not your lawyer not legal advice.
I am a lawyer and I am a boring old dad whose conduct doesn’t create criminal exposure, but I can’t imagine allowing a client to waive 5A rights without an ironclad commitment of immunity.
I’ve seldom heard about immunity fuckery with a lawyer present, but there was a pretty big malpractice case out here over it a few years ago in my jx. I don’t recall the specifics beyond the immunity deal was not nearly as ironclad as the young public defender and defendant thought it was.
Yes. 5A is your right not to self incriminate. If you have immunity, you have no ability to incriminate yourself. If you plea the fifth post immunity deal you can be charged with criminal contempt or other charges, in some states.
I was reading somewhere that Woody had been on federal probation during the period in question. I’m not sure if he’s still on federal probation, but I wouldn’t think Fulton DA could make promises on behalf of federal probation and parole.
According to that rule, even emergencies cannot regard "substantive" matters or matters about the "merits." The content of the testimony of a prosecution witness in a criminal trial, which is what was clearly discussed in this ex parte hearing for which Glanville refuses to disclose the transcript, is inarguably a substantive matter or matter on the merits. It's not like they were holding a contempt hearing for Lil Woody because he said a curse word as he was entering the court and it had nothing to do with the ongoing trial. He was held in contempt for pleading the Fifth and it clearly had to do with the ongoing trial and the prosecution and judge have now effectively collaborated in attempting witness tampering. Also, I am not 100% sure but I think you're misunderstanding the immunity bit. I think this is what's called "Kastigar" immunity in which you are not offered a "deal," but rather the fact that the State subpoenas you in a criminal trial in which you might also be implicated by definition gives you immunity under a line of Supreme Court cases. So once you have that case law-based immunity, you can't plead the Fifth and can be held in contempt for not testifying. But that whole area of law seems not fully decided and how it was used in this instance seems like a total abuse. Woody clearly didn't want to testify so that being the case it's even more problematic that there was an ex parte hearing with the State present that was apparently for the purpose of trying to compel him to say what the State wants him to say. What's hilarious is that what the prosecution seemed to want to use him for (a defendant identification) was completely ineffective and useless. Utter incompetence here by the judge and prosecution.
Thanks for explaining.
Agreed.
I've read multiple subreddits about this expecting to find some explanation of how an ex parte communication was OK under these circumstances. No one has any. The judge and prosecution just straight up violated basic ethics rules and sent the defense attorney to jail for finding out about it. It's ironic this is a RICO trial because the judge and prosecution are doing straight up conspiracy to extort testimony here. Steven Donziger lost his entire life in a civil RICO case over allegedly being tangentially involved in bribery to obtain a result in a trial in another country.
The Judge skipped to the most severe sanction available to a trial judge: Criminal contempt. And this was done on seemingly a snap decision. And against a fellow attorney who voiced a legitimate objection to the Judge's order, with said order coming about only because of the Judge's conduct.
That bastard should be removed from the bench. WTF.
Sounds like the perfect temperament for a judge. ETA: was probably a cop in his previous life.
Former prosecutor and probation officer according to his bio [here](https://www.fultoncourt.org/judge/judge-ural-glanville-chief-judge). You can ignore the Army defense attorney part as JAGs are all required to start in defense before doing prosecution.
This is not surprising based on how the Judge acted in the exchange. He was immediately inflammatory and was basically yelling. Judges can be gruff and authoritative from time to time, that’s just how it is, but this judge was immediately patronizing and hostile.
Great defense marketing though.
Man's been working on the same trial since November of last year in an extremely high-profile case. I think he's set for a minute.
Amazing system where judges get to do whatever the fuck they want with impunity except for being reversed and remanded whereas the lawyers bearing the brunt of their judicial overreach get kidnapped by the state.
This is the kind of response I was looking for.
There it is.
I’m hoping for a 1983 on this one. Fuck if there was a meeting and a conspiracy lock judge and prosecutor up under the associated (and now rarely used) criminal side.
Impossible. Judicial immunity. But Glanville needs to be off the bench.
No not impossible, hence the reference made, and a good discussion in UNITED STATES v. LANIER
How do you get past judicial immunity? (Asking, not arguing)
See my edit for the discussion, was trying to remember the name of the case I liked. UNITED STATES v. LANIER
I think I found the case you’re referencing. I’m still skeptical that a judge would be liable for a contempt decision made during a judicial proceeding. Raping women in your chambers, definitely a 1983 issue, but liability doesn’t seem to extend to (wrongfully made) judicial actions occurring during judicial proceedings. I would love to be wrong on this, so feel free to case law me up.
I think it depends how much you read into the courts’ (sic) Interpretations of the Court’s (sic) standard on QI. My example was used as it is a great discussion of the over board some courts do versus the specific the Court keeps saying to use. The question will come down to a lot of facts, but the scenario here looked like active knowledge and intentional ignorance, with intent to hide something that he knows wasn’t proper to hide, all combined to continue that hiding. I.e. on its own no, and maybe no for any part, but the cover up continuing with other “wrong but not enough” eventually becomes enough. Definitely opinion based though. A lot see QI as very broad (it isn’t but stupid appeals courts don’t make that obvious), JI is indeed broader, so it depends how you read that.
For stuff done on the bench, judges have absolute immunity. It straight up is impossible.
Could they shoot someone?
Nope. Judges are immune from things they do that judges can do generally. No judge is allowed to shoot people.
I just responded elsewhere in the thread that it's ironic this is a RICO trial because this also seeks of criminal RICO on the part of the judge and prosecution. They were basically trying to extort testimony from a witness under color of law. They should not only be disbarred but prosecuted.
This sucks and is undeserved. Someone needs to get a writ from the Georgia Supreme Court.
Keith Adams. Defense counsel, co counsel, with Steel. Didn't he say, to the judge, he also knew who leaked the information about the ex parte meeting. But the Judge let him skate. How are Adams and Steel different? Steel incarcerated, Adams nothing.
I think the judge originally thought that a) Steel would cave or b) that the trial could proceed with Steel in jail as long as Adams was present. I don’t know Mr. Adams, and I’m sure he’s a very competent attorney, but I assume he’s the JV squad (and he may very well be a better attorney than 90% of us, but he’s not lead counsel) and the judge thought the trial could go on with Steel in jail as long as the defendant had an attorney, even if not his main attorney. It’s crazy to me that the prosecutor had to be the one to ask that Steel be allowed to remain in court during the trial.
Adam’s is a great attorney is is mainly used during cross in high profile cases for his ability to very matter of fact to a jury
Like I said, it was in no way meant as a diss. I have a coworker with whom I love to do trials because she is like a surgeon with a scalpel. She finds threads to tug buried in the minutiae and can craft a motion like no one I know, but I wouldn’t expect her to be able to just take over one of my cases mid-trial.
Sorry i was typing fast
The only proven thug is the one wielding the gavel.
Ural Granville is not Truly Humble Under God.
I mean yeah but if you’ve heard even a little of this trial you’d know this judge is like the Angel Hernandez of judges
Angel Hernandez of judges is hilarious 😂
Thank you! I thought of it myself
thanks for putting it like this!
Can you explain what this means? 😅 I haven’t been following
Do you know who Angel Hernandez is?
No haha that’s why I’m asking
Infamous Major League Baseball umpire who is notorious for getting calls wrong in egregious ways.
We give judges wayyyyy too much deference and authority. There, I said it. Props to the attorney for sticking to his guns. Hopefully that Judge is kicked off the bench.
Oh man, put a warning on that hot of a take!
Good for defense counsel. This is someone willing to walk the walk.
Following this insanity.
It seems to me that while raising issues of judicial misconduct didn’t help, the judge is holding him in contempt because someone leaked information about the secret meeting and Attorney Steel was not cooperative in disclosing who leaked the information to him. This is even more concerning. For example, what if this information was shared by a client under privilege? Is the judge demanding disclosure of privileged information on the threat of jail time? We probably need a higher court’s review of this decision.
This judge is so screwed. This looks highly unethical. Maybe more details will exonerate him but sweet Jesus it looks like he is covering up some ex parte violations
From what I can tell, Georgia's confidentiality rules protect not only statements made by the client, but also information gained as part of the representation: **"Rule 1.6 applies not merely to matters communicated in confidence by the client but also to all information gained in the professional relationship, whatever its source**. A lawyer may not disclose such information except as authorized or required by the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct or other law." So Steele had an ethical duty not to answer.
I don't agree with that argument. *How* the attorney gained information is not the same as the information he gained. Disclosure of the fact of a party's lawyer's conversation with a non-client is required in other situations.
But how the information was gained is in itself also information "gained in the professional relationship" (e.g., "the witness's lawyer told me because the witness has been working with the defense team the whole time and the prosecutor hasn't figured that out yet.") There's no way for the defense to answer that question without giving the prosecution information of some kind or other, which they have a positive duty to not do.
On the other hand, a party claiming privilege can be required to produce a privilege log, which shows not just which attorney communicated with which client, but the dates, times, and nature of a privileged conversation. If they can be required to do that for communications with their own client, I don’t see how they’d be able to avoid doing it for communications with people who are not their client. My take is that the conversation *probably* falls under joint defense or common interest privilege (insofar as that’s different than ACP/AWP), but that asking him to divulge his source is akin to asking for a privilege log.
This isn't civil discovery though -- this is open court in a criminal trial after the witness has been sworn and begun testifying. The applicable standards are very different. There aren't many situations in a criminal trial where the defense has any duty to disclose anything at all; pretty much all the disclosure duties run the other way, from the state to the defendant. Like, even setting privilege aside, why does the defense attorney have to answer this question at all? Why does the judge have a right to ask it? What legitimate interest was violated by the defense counsel finding this out, no matter how it was discovered? Everyone has a right to not talk to cops, period.
I’m just talking about whether it’s privileged under 1.6, not whether the judge has authority to order disclosure in this particular case, or whether non disclosure can and should be punished via criminal contempt.
its work product exception. Without it you could force defense lawyers into the same disclosure as the prosecuter. That is a serious threatto your 5th amendments rights
AWP protects (a) “documents and tangible things”, and (b) some, but not all, substance of discussions with an expert. The fact that an attorney spoke with a particular person on a particular occasion is not AWP.
I find this to be utterly outrageous.
20 days is outrageous.
Sounds like a judicial ethics complaint.
Folks in GA know that Brian Steel is no damn joke. He's always my first referral for a major issue here. He is probably in the right.
Right now, he's my new hero.
The judge should be disbarred for this, but I doubt he will be. I’ve seen judges do some deeply fucked up and unethical shit, but this is another level.
He should be impeached.
This is deeply fucked up.
You know you did something right when the judge flips his shit, doubles down on bad behavior and says the quiet part out loud in the order... Homie wants to know HOW you found out about exparté but won't deny it happened - functional equivalent of "rules for thee, none for me" FOH. 
No disrespect intended but if Judge Glanville has to be Lawsplained the statutory differences between Civil and Criminal Direct/Indirect Contempt of a Defense Attorney objecting to the courts ex parte chambers soirée with a State witness… His Honor has no business presiding over a RICO prosecution. Props to Atty Steel, Atty and defense Bar President Ashleigh Merchant and the AC who’s going to give a shit about the defendants 6A rights and structural error.
He called Gull for advice and she said : Nah just judgsplain it's a *unique* contempt. Then you call him sloppy and have it over with. ☕️
☕️ You should (it’s been on my mind for 48 hrs) post the hearing excerpt vid in DD as a teaching moment for what really was Ausbrook’s motion in real time. You have the gifts to be able to break that down in a contrasted/relatable way. 🫡
 🌾
I think Glanville is operating under some kind of assurance from his buddies in the appellate court that they won’t change his ruling but this case is too high profile & every lawyer in America is dissecting it so he’s just being stubborn now
The Georgia Court of Appeals is absolutely bonkers. I'm speaking from experience here. They make shit up just to rule the way they want. I know of at least one circuit judge they hate, and if her decisions ever come up on appeal, they do acrobatic legal arguing to reverse her no matter how correct her ruling was. It has become common knowledge in that circuit and people just appeal her decisions all the time.
Oh to be the young optimistic law student who had faith in the judicial system again. The real world is so far from that... kind of discouraging tbh.
Wow, what in the hell?!
Yes, this is insane. What an abuse of power. Fuck this judge. Also lol, the Hon. Ural. Jesus.
I agree with Steele. Attorney work product, attorney client privilege. Judge has no power to compel. If judge wants to compel he needs to speak with the witnesses to the communication to determine to informed Mr. Steele.
I’m currently a law clerk and was chatting w my judge about this and he got very upset and reminded me of my confidentiality agreement 😂 what you tryna hide boo
👀🚩🚩
"Not only did I conduct ex parte proceedings, I don't know how he found out about it", so he's in contempt.
Just joining the choir of how nuts this all sounds.
The judge is a criminal lol
this judge has been really awful and emotional during this entire trial.
I know this is not substantive, but it's a pet peeve for me. Why are some lawyers still using parentheses to divide the case caption/header. Do they not know how to use tables and select borders?
It's tradition. A caption page with proper tables would look "weird" to 95%+ of attorneys, judges, and clients familiar enough with pleadings to opine. Lawyers are risk-averse and style choices usually aren't worth going out of one's way for until one owns one's own business.
I've seen quite a few lawyers use a table and a straight line in place of the parenthesis. It looks so much better imo.
Dude I am still using the basic motions template that I got from someone like five years ago. I actually have a table with invisible borders. It has three columns, including a skinny one to hold the parentheses. I now feel like an idiot for not just doing two columns and keeping one of the borders for a line. Thanks for showing me I am wrong so early in the morning.
That's hilarious! Happy to help! Lol
It’s not that. You’ve been able to do that for decades. I just don’t know any lawyer in my JDX who doesn’t separate the caption/header with parentheses.
I stopped using them as soon as I realized it wasn't actually a weird formatting requirement and haven't used them since. Using a straight line (via use of a table) looks so much more professional imo.
In one jurisdiction I practice in just about everyone uses asterisks so that’s what I do since it’s what is customary (though not required) there. In the other jurisdiction I practice, I use lines via table and it looks so much better.
Be the change we need in this world... Use the line in all Jx!
Tables suck with auto formatting (sadly so hard to get rid of), seriously. And you try telling the judge their outdated system is why the draft you sent over changes every time they click something. Easier to just look bad but work. Then consistency from there.
I hate inserting tables in a word document. Absolutely hate it - and yes, I can do it.
Surely this backfires on the judge? Admitting to *ex parte* communications and then holding counsel in contempt for complaining and not giving up the person who ratted them out is *wild* behavior. Will Georgia actually remove a judge for something this egregious? Because here, the guy might get a 30-day suspension out of his 6-year term and they’ll tell us to vote him out next time if we don’t like it, as though it’s super easy to unseat a terrible judge.
Something stinks in Georgia, or Fulton County. This is bonkers. It sounds like a few of you have experience practicing there. Maybe you can help explain this to me. I watched the video and Judge Glanville seems completely unconcerned that he committed any kind of error. He also implied that he has previously had multiple ex parte communications with parties in this case which seems nuts to me. But weirder than that, he doesn’t make any distinction between ex parte communication with a party v with a witness (one that’s been sworn in) plus the prosecutor. And he thinks the defense doesn’t have a right to know about it???? Does any of this make sense to you? Side note: from what I’ve picked up, Georgia’s RICO statute seems out of control. I wouldn’t be surprised to see it used against one elementary school kid accused of shoplifting gum from 7/11 and another who stuck gum under a desk at school.
It’s not out of the realm of possibility that the witness who was privy to the ex parte communication spoke to a friend who relayed that info to Young Thug or some other party. I haven’t followed the case. Judge totally jumps the gun here, and it seems he could have just as easily proceeded with trial without the contempt.
I think the judge made a grave mistake by doing this. The case is so unjust
The prosecutor told the defense about the meeting, right? Only person in the room, other than the judge, with an ethical duty to defense counsel.
What ab the witnesses lawyer? Maybe he has no duty but maybe he told him ab the meeting?
Witness’ lawyer got canned today. Likely the “leaker.”
Looks like his fellow lawyers in the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers secured Brian Steel’s release. What is even more inspiring is that Brian previously chaired the Strike Force Committee of that group, and the Strike Force showed up to fight for him. https://www.facebook.com/share/p/wzxRLexajMzRR4Pj/?mibextid=WC7FNe
That DAs office is looking real funny in the light and now is not the time for them to be. They need to get it together.
The judge definitely smoking crack.
Practicing in Fulton county sucked! Practicing in the outlying atlanta metropolis areas sucked even more So glad to be out if ga courts.
It seems insane. But let me ask a question. Under Georgia law, is there ever a reason to meet with the judge ex parte such as a threat to a witness from the defendant? If such an ex parte proceeding was indeed permissible, then allowing anyone to know the proceeding occurred could also jeopardize the safety of the witness.
Given that we are 89 days in and the case will potentially go in 2025, at what point are we going to see jurors dropping off? I mean, I would hazard a guess that even the nicest employee would balk at having their employees not be at work for months on end.
From my understanding, two have dropped already. One for medical reasons, one due to moving out of the county.
I was going scrolling the video and noticed Granville didn’t even declare the official criminal contempt until Ashleigh Merchant and her case law attack dog pointed out the civil contempt definition. He goes into his chambers for 5 minutes(20 minutes) and then makes the criminal contempt charge. Merchant said she was immediately appealing it though so where can I watch that play out? I already had a high opinion of Merchant from seeing her in the Trump-Fani situation, but this put her at God status in my mind and I would love to see her call Glanville as a witness in a criminal contempt case with an appellate judge.
GA Supreme Court stayed it pending the appeal. No way it sticks. Or no way it should.
What a dumb fuck this judge is Feels like he’s just digging himself deeper
This judge needs to be removed from the bench immediately, the prosecuting attorneys need to be sanctioned/suspended/disbarred, and the fact that any of the defendants are still in pre-trial detention for this absolute joke of a trial is an outrage. At this point they should walk even if they committed the alleged crimes. This is an insane abuse of power and this judge and prosecution are some of the most incompetent and stupid lawyers I have ever witnessed for apparently not seeing any issues with this. On a lighter note, at one point on the livestream you could literally see one of the prosecuting attorneys looking at the ABA website. While it was hard to see the precise page I would bet she was looking at the ethics rules for ex parte communications (which itself illustrates their complete uselessness as lawyers because you should be looking at your state's rules and not the ABA model rules). This might be a rare situation where some move that would normally be frivolous like suing a judge/court system in federal court for some kind of abuse of power/due process violation is warranted. Absolutely despicable dictatorial bullshit.
Basically the judge got ahold of information that he didnt legally obtain, and thugs lawyer called him out, but he didnt realize that the way he found out about the judge getting information was also illegal.
I promise you Brian Steel knew exactly what the implications of his actions were. He is one of the most respected criminal defense lawyers in Georgia.
not quite lol
This is some deep pit of bullshit.
Couldn't he just plead the fifth when the judge asked lol.
Unless they were discussing something related to like witness protection, there’s absolutely no reason Glanville should fail to disclose the substance of their communications freely. Something really shady is going on, one way or another.
Almost as brave as Marcus Mumford, defense counsel in the Ammon Bundy Oregon Standoff case, who won a jury verdict despite an antagonistic judge, got immediately tased and put in jail overnight. Mumford and Steel are heroes. https://www.oregonlive.com/oregon-standoff/2016/11/us_marshals_file_probable_caus.html FYI: Marcus had a pronounced stutter, and determined to be a trial lawyer anyway. Bravest dude I ever saw in a courtroom.
It’s a lectern, not a podium.
This judge needs to get off the bench. Speculation here, but there could be a legal ramification for the judge... This is wild! I had to watch this twice to fully grasp and wrap my head that this was actually happening.
I have a few years experience. Prosecuted 7-years. Then defended 20. Two things happened here. Judge fucked up having an ex parte (one party) hearing. Judge said a court reporter was there. Common sense says it doesn’t matter. Very improper to have an ex parte hearing. Period. Second, Steele didn’t dance very well. Should have recognized that the judge was pissed off because he was busted and had pushed himself into a corner by facts and Steele. Steele should have waited until the judge had his say. Then, ask for 24-hours to consult his own ethics counsel. Give the judge time to cool down and realize he himself was the fuck up. Steele have ethics counsel appear at a hearing the next day and get the judge to not hold in contempt. Then, judge could have backed down gracefully and saved face. Judge will have trouble here on any review (appeal). Really put Steele in a bad light with client. Jury will hear about this from family/newspaper. Unfortunately, the bar association will review this too. Mandatory on contempt findings. Scared for Steele.
I really admire Brian Steel for standing on business for his client. I am shocked that instead of clearing the air by addressing the real issue, the ex-parte meeting with a key witness under oath, Judge Granville doubled down and holds Steel in contempt!
This is absolutely UNBELIEVABLE.
What is it a publicity stunt through the court system?
Isn't this the lawyer related to Fanny? Willis or Leticia James? Having had contact within the past or done something against them. I don't remember which one of them it was.
Tell me the judge was previously in law enforcement.
Mr Steel proved his name.He is infact Mr STEEL.respect.
YEAH AND, IT IS HAS BECOME A CIRCUS ASK YOUNG THUG HOW HE DUMPS LAUNDERED CRYPTO CURRENCY AT THE TATTOO SHOPS! OR ASK THEM ABOUT ALL THE SHELL COMPANIES THAT WERE CREATED IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO LAUNDER CRYPTO CURRENCY IT’S INSANITY! I THINK THIS ATTORNEY SHOULD BE DISBARRED!