Lead Juror on Young Thug Trial: “We Were 3 Votes Away From Life”

Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Rapper young Thug. Police arrested more than two dozen people,
including the artists, and accused them of running a violet
gang Young Thug.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Rico case has taken, by most accounts, an unusual twist
an alleged drug deal in open court.

Speaker 3 (00:15):
I didn't know what the case was going to be
about until I actually got to the courthouse. And I
want to say, and I could be all exaggerated, but
we had to have had about five hundred people. I know,
it was a full room of folks, and people were
talking like, I think this is going to be the
why Cell case down.

Speaker 1 (00:31):
Had no idea what why Cell was? Right. My mom
was oblivious. I mean, you know, I've traveled on the
world do my own thing.

Speaker 3 (00:37):
And when it wasn't until we stepped out for lunch
and came back and we saw the room filled with
police officers, sheriff officers, everybody is there and just at
this like just like the table I'm literally sitting in
front of Jeffrey Williams, like we can really look at
each other eye to eye.

Speaker 2 (00:54):
There were like great dog security in that, like some
special unit police.

Speaker 1 (01:00):
How did that effect you got?

Speaker 3 (01:01):
It was like Fort Knocks. We Juriorsy parked in an
undisposed location. We were breathed on our security making sure
that we were okay.

Speaker 4 (01:14):
Sit and if you ain't talking, no dough, then I
ain't interrested. Look, they say, this guy's the limit. I'm
going farther than that. She get blowing on my phone,
so I called her mama, come and get your daughter back.
They wanted lit up better than get them boys wag
or what little one? And I boys your brain, but
get a hard hat, they said, the skuy's limb. I'm
going father, you can try to but can't. Kim Ummi

(01:35):
bater I just bought a nigga life as in did decide?
Come with that?

Speaker 1 (01:38):
All you lads of the reason you broke.

Speaker 4 (01:40):
You don't know how the horse. I don't trying it
ain't no, i'ma stress some red run red dye. He
you block one twelve, Come down. You know I'm talking
to the bullets, asking for a bullet because he never
felt one, sticking to the waters and nail guns, riding
with my dollars, trying to nail something.

Speaker 1 (01:55):
You and he got your yo.

Speaker 4 (01:57):
Yo.

Speaker 2 (01:57):
Welcome to us up there podcast. I I am your
host for another episode. Of the fastest growing show in
the world. I want to thank each and every one
of you guys for clicking on this video today. We're
gonna have a monumental conversation. What's your name anyway, Jason?

Speaker 1 (02:14):
Jason. We're gonna have a monumental conversation.

Speaker 2 (02:19):
What jury fifty six? We're gonna have a conversation with
Jiro fifty six? My god, Jason, how are you?

Speaker 1 (02:27):
I'm doing great? How are you doing today? I'm doing
pretty good, man. It's good to good to hear from
your move That might.

Speaker 2 (02:32):
Get in closer if you don't mind. Yeah, that's good here,
all right, perfect, I got you people, hear you good.

Speaker 1 (02:44):
Number one.

Speaker 2 (02:44):
I want to thank you for sitting down with me today,
joining me. I really appreciate your willingness to share your experience,
you know, with the Ysell trial. Of course, millions of
people we're watching and are gonna be watching this Number one.

Speaker 1 (03:01):
I want to thank you for stopping by. Thank you
for having me today.

Speaker 2 (03:04):
Though, tell me a little bit about yourself prior to
being selected to be a juror on this track.

Speaker 3 (03:13):
My whole life, but like just just in general. Uh
born and raised in North Carolina. Uh, the Greensboro Triad area,
and pretty much most people knew me from being in
the political background. So I was a political fundraiser for
a very very long time.

Speaker 1 (03:28):
That's dope. That's interesting.

Speaker 3 (03:31):
My job was to keep people in office, and so
I raised their money. Some folks are still in office
right now.

Speaker 1 (03:36):
Did you raise money for?

Speaker 3 (03:37):
I raised money for and or worked with them to
some capacity. And I worked for major airlines a flight
attendant and also referee two sports.

Speaker 1 (03:49):
But I'm actually at a third sport.

Speaker 3 (03:50):
I do football, men's football, women's flag football. I do
men's women's basketball, and then I'm going to actually add
soccer to the table. Wow, so exting physically, you know,
and and shape and other than that though, you know,
bor you know, from North Carolina and went to an
HBCU h nor Anti State University inside Unty, so I'm

(04:12):
a full agging.

Speaker 1 (04:14):
Both my sisters are all aggis as well.

Speaker 3 (04:16):
And other than that though, just you know, I grew
up and moved around a lot of places, uh for
for political reasons and things like that, to help on
campaigns and now just flying around the world exploring what's
what's around here?

Speaker 1 (04:32):
Right?

Speaker 2 (04:33):
The political background is interesting. Fundraiser especially. It's interesting to
me because in political if we're talking about politics, they
always speak to how there's corruption, when when it comes
to money and fundraising and uh, some of the bills
and packages that are set forth. What's your what's your

(04:55):
thought process about that scene you were in the inside?
Is it as corrupt as people make it?

Speaker 1 (04:59):
It's it's not as corrupt.

Speaker 3 (05:01):
I mean, there's a term pay to play that no
one crosses that line. And when we as soon as
that transaction is made, when someone donates to a political
candidate or an organization for political reasons, then it goes
into a different law as far as like the parameters

(05:23):
around it. And it's not as corrupt as people may
think it may be. I mean, they're good people out here.
They're good politicians that are out here as well. I
will say that I've never had a rude politician towards
me at all. Of course, you're dealing with the money,
build the money, right would they be the office down
they get a different side of the person. But other

(05:45):
than that though, I think that the it's it's the
fundraising side. Every year or every cycle goes up. I
can't remember. I think back when I was doing it.
I think the limit was twenty five hundred dollars that
was per person, right, And I'm sure that has gone
up over time.

Speaker 1 (06:03):
Course inflation and any other things.

Speaker 3 (06:05):
But oh, in all, I think that you politicians, you
know they're constantly having to raise money every single day, Yes,
and if you're in US Congress, you know they're raising money.
Literally once you get elected, they're back to fundraising again.
So it takes a lot of money.

Speaker 1 (06:21):
But why why?

Speaker 2 (06:22):
That's what I think, That's why I think the corruption
comes in is the delegation of the money is like,
where is the money going? Why does it take so
much money to keep someone in office? Even like you said,
following the win, right, seeing that you have a four year,
two year, one year, whatever the term is, you still
got to go right back boost on the ground.

Speaker 3 (06:44):
You're paying staff, you're paying But also money is going
to the whatever political party you're with, to the national
side you're playing on, paying for campaign ads, maybe polling
out depending on how big the race is, and the
money just goes everywhere. But a majority of the money
that really comes from not from individuals. And I know
some politicians sometimes will say, well, hey, I'm different, I'm

(07:07):
only accepting individual donors, but you do have corporations who
do contribute packs and which is uh. You get a
lot of that from from various businesses who want to
contribute for special interests and also to have a seat
at the table. So when you go on to if

(07:28):
you're not familiar with the open secrets, yes, what I
used to use back in the day. It shows you
where all the money is coming from, who's contributing to.

Speaker 2 (07:34):
What You'll be interested when you look into these things,
right right yea even big pharma. There's so much when
you look into, like you said, so many special interest
groups that will get on the right side of what
they believe to be history and start to kind of
write fund their Republican or their Democrat. How close in

(07:55):
proximity would you work with the actual candidate back then, I.

Speaker 3 (07:58):
Will answer I pretty much worked with them firsthand, So
I am. I started off as an intern and then
worked my way all the way up into being a
director at a small firm. Wow, So I pretty much
had a seat at the table where I was talking
directly to the candidate. And also the principle as used

(08:19):
to put it, whether they were running for US Congress,
or And I've worked with a couple of governors, and.

Speaker 1 (08:26):
Pretty much I.

Speaker 3 (08:27):
Had conversations with them, especially when we're sitting down just
like this right, and the whole term dollar for dollars,
where you're sitting here, you give a list of names,
and you're calling these folks and you know, smoothing them,
and then you know, talking about the things, and then
they are hoping to contribute the max amount. And so
I'm the one that make sure I said, hey, we

(08:49):
need to ask for fifteen hundred, Hey we need twenty
five hundred. And so sometimes they'll look at me and
like people hate and ask them for money. Yeah, for sure,
but it's not their money. It's going to a political cause.
And then it trickles on down for certain things. I
mean that's refereeing just a basketball game, and this one particular, Uh,
like the guy's working with on the court, his family

(09:10):
owns a construction company. They help with the highway and
do projects. Well, you know, they pretty much benefit on.

Speaker 1 (09:18):
The state side.

Speaker 3 (09:19):
So you have some folks who give to an ideology
versus the political film and the federal side. Then you
also have folks who would contribute on the state side
versus you know, projects or maybe certain things they want
for their particular communities. So it varies depending on who
who want the money that they probably planning on like

(09:39):
contributing to somebody.

Speaker 1 (09:41):
Right, right.

Speaker 2 (09:43):
When you first got the news that you were selected
to be a part of this wide sale trial, where
were you and what was your thoughts?

Speaker 1 (09:53):
I was flying and I checked them out.

Speaker 3 (09:56):
Let me tell you this, right, I checked my mailbox
maybe once every two or three weeks. It's very everything's
like electronic. So I went downstairs, opened the mailbox and
I see Fulton County jury summoning. And I just sat
there and looked at it, and I said, there's no way.

Speaker 1 (10:13):
How out of.

Speaker 3 (10:14):
All these years I lived in various parts of the
country and I've had you know, got called for jury duty.
And of course I got out of it because I was,
you know, out of the state on a like on assignment.
But this time I'm physically in the state, right and
I legit sat there and I was like, okay, then,
clearly this is my first time doing jury duty. So
I got it, and I'm just like, well, here we go.

(10:36):
I guess I can't get out of it. And so
I didn't know what the case was going to be
about until I actually got to the courthouse and I
want to stay and I could be over exaggerating, but
we had to have had about five hundred people well
i's say five hundred, but about one hundred plus. I know,
it was a full room of folks, and people were

(10:57):
talking like, I think this is going to be the
why cell case. I had no idea, what what why?
So was my mom was oblivious. I mean, you know,
I'm traveled on the world, do my own thing. And
when it wasn't until we stepped out for lunch and
came back and we saw the the room filled with

(11:20):
police officers, sheriff officers, everybody is there and just at
this like just like the table, I'm literally sitting in
front of Jeffrey Williams, like we can.

Speaker 1 (11:29):
Literally look at each other eye to eye.

Speaker 3 (11:31):
And so that's when I know, Like, that's when I
knew that, okay, this is the case that people were
actually talking about. And I'm like and still was oblivious
to know what was going on.

Speaker 2 (11:38):
Right, right, So did you know he was young thug
or you just knew this is the guy or what?

Speaker 1 (11:43):
What did you know when you looked at him?

Speaker 3 (11:45):
I just saw him, like I figured that was just
young thug. I mean, I think that's what people said.
It's on the news, and but I just didn't know
who he was, and so which is good.

Speaker 2 (11:54):
I mean, I think it makes you a supreme candidate
for something like that to kind of be blind.

Speaker 1 (11:59):
I was trying to you were, but they but they
wouldn't let you.

Speaker 3 (12:03):
You know, from my understanding, the juriors talked about this
at the very end. We you know, they had different
you know, of course backup jurors. But I think the
common denominator that the reason we were selected one because
we fit as a candidate for what they needed, with.

Speaker 1 (12:20):
Both sides agreed to.

Speaker 3 (12:21):
As well as our jobs paid us, because how many
jobs are going to pay their employees for a long
period and think about that, right, that was a big figure. Yes, yes, yes,
I didn't think about that. Yes, So we were just
figuring out because some people were talking like, oh my
brod we get selected because you know, some people try
to get out of it, like myself, and I thought
I'm gonna get dismissed from it.

Speaker 1 (12:40):
That was a common denomination.

Speaker 3 (12:41):
I think that most of us came to a consensus
that our jobs going to pay us during that long
extended time.

Speaker 1 (12:46):
What are other people who wanted to be in it? Like, yeah,
I want to be like this is the why I think.

Speaker 3 (12:51):
So, yeah, I believe there were a few people who
wanted to be inside of it. I mean they either
you know, you have folks because now I mean, I mean,
I'm a transplant and Atlanta, Georgia, so I'll help. I'm
gonna want to help contribute to the traffic.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
That everybody right when they say stop.

Speaker 3 (13:05):
Moving, correct, right, So there are folks who are who
are from Atlanta, Georgia, and of course this is history
in the making, and so they were fine and they
wanted to be there right in case though, so you know,
they talked about it, you know, I mean, they knew
more information about who he was because you know, they

(13:26):
came their kids or type. They might have heard his
music here there because you know, the questionnaire is another thing.

Speaker 2 (13:31):
This episode is brought to you by Prize Picks, the
most exciting way to play daily fantasy sports. It's just
you will gets the numbers you pick more or less
on two to six player stats projections, like you will
pick Patrick Mahomes for up to two passing touchdowns or
Sakwan Barkley for more than sixty yards and you watch
the winnings roll in. I've been using prize Picks and

(13:54):
it's just so simple. I can make my picks and
submit an entry in less than sixty seconds this one.

Speaker 1 (14:00):
Minute and withdraws. It makes the experience even better.

Speaker 2 (14:04):
After you win, you definitely don't want to wait, and
don't miss out on Taco Tuesdays, that's where selected player
projections are discounted up to twenty five percent. Go to
prize picks dot com use my Cold IUTP to receive
a guarantee fifty dollars when you play just five dollars. Again,

(14:25):
it's pricepicks dot com my Cold IUTP. If you support
the show, sign up for prize picks, use my cold
and watch the winnings road Land. This is daily Fantasy
Sports made easy. Salute the Prize Picks for supporting the movement.
And let's get back to the episode.

Speaker 1 (14:45):
I'll help.

Speaker 3 (14:45):
I'm going to want to help contribute to the traffic
that everybody right when they said stop moving right right.
So there are folks who are who are from Atlanta, Georgia,
and of course this is history in the making, and
so they were fine and they want to be there
in case though, so you know, they talked about it,

(15:06):
you know, I mean they knew more information about who
he was because you know, they maybe their kids or
they might have heard his music here because you know.
The questionnaire was another thing. Right, let's get into that,
like what what what would?

Speaker 1 (15:18):
What would?

Speaker 3 (15:18):
The question is when they the questions that they so
the question they ask you sometimes, you know, do you
know anybody's been convicted of any crime? You're you're opinion
towards the police officers or police department? Have you ever
been in trouble with the law? Ask you for your
political view and I remember from my political view, you know,
I'm a fair person. I mean I worked in the
business for a long time. I tell people I don't

(15:40):
care what all you're on, as long as you can
explain why you support something. So that and I put
n a by that. They ask you for your political
political affiliation, They ask you about the death penalty, They
ask you what movies do you like to watch? It
was extruous. It was it was a one hundred questionnaire
that's going to take you an hour.

Speaker 1 (15:58):
To completely one hundred question, one hundred questions.

Speaker 3 (16:01):
And I remember literally and it was like a thick
piece of paper front and back and if I'm not
misaking yet, front and back, and they had you to
write things out. So it took me maybe about forty
five minutes to fifteen minutes to do mine. So I
write in cursive because some things I'm just like, I'm
not answering this this, I mean, why do you need
to know this? They ask you for your social media
and so it's things like that, I ask you for Facebook,

(16:22):
Instagram and I put in and I was like, why,
how is it? But there's a reason why why need
to know those things? But if anything, people can find
you if they really want to start.

Speaker 2 (16:29):
I mean, yeah, I think that that's we're in the
digital age. The footprint is there, Like you know what
I'm saying, I don't think anyone can have from it
at this point. Correct, But that's crazy. One hundred questions.
We're any about young thug, not specifically. I think what
they did was they.

Speaker 3 (16:47):
Wrapped music think stuff last about music with you know
what type of use did that you listen to? And
I list to like all kinds of music. I mean,
I told people. My friends know how to trip me
out really fast. I I'm horrible with naming an artist.

Speaker 1 (17:04):
I'm horrible.

Speaker 3 (17:05):
But if you hear the tune but I've heard it, yes, yes,
I'll tell him say, oh yeah, I heard this before.
And that's how it was in the courtroom. When the
songs came, remember what it was, I was like, oh,
he sings this song. I was like, wow, yeah, and
so you try your best. I mean, I think we
joked about it once before. You wanted to tap your
feet and do so because.

Speaker 1 (17:23):
It beat with yeah yeah yeah, just sit there. Yeah.

Speaker 2 (17:27):
And we're going to definitely get into some of those
moments because I think it was so many moments that
I want to get into. But the jury selection process,
there were a few people that went to jail. I
think he locked someone up for three days because they
were called recording the jury selection process.

Speaker 1 (17:46):
I'm not well, I'm not familiar with that one.

Speaker 4 (17:48):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (17:48):
Someone Actually I didn't know, because it's like a lot
of things now I'm starting to hear. And I had
no idea because you know, we of course we were
pretty much told not to watch. That's what I was
going to ask you, you know, because there's certain things
that was happening in court that I said, if the
jury sees that that.

Speaker 2 (18:05):
It changes the way they viewed things. And I was
always interested in that. But yeah, there was a jury
that actually went to jail for three days for some
some I think for recording while the actual jury selection
process where you got five hundred people in there. And
you also mentioned about the security being heightened.

Speaker 1 (18:24):
Correct. I spoke with Doug Weinstein last week.

Speaker 2 (18:27):
He said, for the first couple of weeks in trial,
there were like red dog security in that, like some
special unit police. How did that affect you, guys?

Speaker 3 (18:39):
It's a little different. But see, you know, working in politics,
I'm used to dealing with secret service or used to
dealing with capitol police officers, those who protect the principles.
So it was anything different. By every day it was
like Fort Knox, We the jurors, we parked in an
undisclosed location. We were shuttled to the courthouse an unmarked

(19:05):
vehicle that was actually like whoa, and so you know,
we we that's that Like that was our whole process.
And so then I mean we were checked to make
sure that we were good and make sure we weren't
doing anything that we weren't supposed to bring to the courthouse.
And then of course, you know, you're looking into the
courtroom and you're seeing the sheriff officers and other folks

(19:27):
inside the courtroom. Now, from what we I'm not sure
what we saw what was on the outside of the courtroom,
but I'm sure that they stood armed at the you know,
at the doors to make sure that people were following,
you know, what they need to do. There was no
mishaps or anything, but it was like Fort Knox coming in.

Speaker 2 (19:46):
But but but I'm wondering, how does that play on
the psyche of the juror, like.

Speaker 1 (19:50):
Whoa what case are we in?

Speaker 2 (19:52):
Like I know, with some monster like that, are they
allegend and someone's trying to like hurt us?

Speaker 3 (20:00):
I'll say, like the during the selection process when we
got selected, we were taken into the jury room and
we had the head security of the courthouse. I think
it was a female, and so she they were going over, okay,
make sure you all are being safe, let us know
if something's out of out of the ordinary, and let

(20:21):
us know. So we were breathed on our security making
sure that we were okay.

Speaker 1 (20:27):
Does that affect your the way you view young thug.

Speaker 2 (20:30):
Though, no, because I believe that some of this stuff right,
you can have some lawyer that may try to argue
that some of this could kind of sway how you
feel about like the case.

Speaker 1 (20:41):
I mean, they wouldn't do that for a regular trial.

Speaker 2 (20:44):
I mean, I understand it's high priority, high case, high
class trial.

Speaker 1 (20:48):
But.

Speaker 2 (20:50):
Sneaking us in and like unmarking us to the building,
It's like, that's extreme. It's intense. I mean, I would think,
like it's my life in that well. I think that
was some of the questions. I think that some jurors
did feel that way. And you know, you as time
went on, you got a chance to see people's personality.

(21:12):
And we couldn't talk to the jurors, of course, I
mean we couldn't talk to any of the defendants in
that courtroom, but the individuals we just saw the attorneys,
We see everybody inside there. But you start to see
the smile, You start to see folks laid back.

Speaker 3 (21:23):
Of course, you know, you start to well, I did.
I'm not I can't speak on behalf of the other
other fears. But as time but on, I won't say
it got relaxed, but you got a chance to see
people's personalities and so. But of course at first people
might have been on the edge, and so you know
that's just come part of people's psyche about how they
were thinking.

Speaker 2 (21:42):
Right, And that's I mean, they had a way they
were looking at this trial before they even got it
off the ground. I mean, like like Doug was saying,
with the big officers in there, like maybe two months
in they figured out, Yo, we can we can get
out of here.

Speaker 1 (21:56):
Correct.

Speaker 2 (21:57):
You know what I'm saying, No one's coming to break
young thug out. Correct, Like there's not going to be
sealed Team six that's going to try to This is
very exaggerated, correct, Right, These people are doing a job
that is worth making sure that security is in place, right,
But it seems a bit extreme.

Speaker 1 (22:15):
It was, it was extreme.

Speaker 3 (22:16):
And then looking at it from a different perspective, I
you know, I get it that you want to keep
people safe, but at the same time, and look at
I'm just curious. I'm curious about how much money was
spent on this case in general, how much of the
tax dollars we're going towards this one particular trial, Right,
And you know, I respect law enforcement, but at the

(22:39):
same time were was it needed to that extreme exactly?

Speaker 2 (22:44):
And and we we we respect law enforcement, right, but
we will we want to have a real conversation. And
you coming from the political world, you know that sometimes
we have to have uncomfortable conversations about where the money's allocated,
where it's going, and how you guys are handling the
things we should be benefiting from. Right, because these kind
of cases should be laid out in a way that

(23:05):
makes sense and justifies the money being spent. Right when
you get into the trail and say, we're still being
shuttled in here nine months in and this case doesn't
really even look like it should look when we're looking
at this alleged criminal. Correct, when we come from the
first day, right, because we're gonna be just all over

(23:27):
yeah different.

Speaker 1 (23:27):
Yeah.

Speaker 2 (23:28):
So the first day when you hear opening statements, do
you have any preconceived notions prior to those opening statements?
Did anyone sway you withou opening statements? Did you have
anything to look forward to? What was your feeling when
it came to first day opening statements?

Speaker 3 (23:44):
My feelings were, like I tell people, I'm a fact person.

Speaker 1 (23:48):
I love facts.

Speaker 3 (23:49):
Your emotions and it's probably the aquarium side of being Yeah,
parting in January, your emotions kind of go out the door.
So give me the facts, let me know, let me
draw my own conclusion, or let me follow this story
as you're telling it to me. And so I didn't
have a pre notion. And I mentioned once before my
in my series, I said, you know, I fly for

(24:12):
a living, and so when I'm traveling around the world,
I can't judge a person when they're coming on an
aircraft because I don't know who they are. And so
that is how I treated when I the opening statements,
I sat there, the State presented its case and they
were sharing this is what was happening, and this is

(24:33):
what we should look for. And then the defense team
came up as well. So I was all years because
now you're forced to take my time. I have to
sit in this room for an X amount of time.
And so I always kept an open mind, especially during
the opening statements, and so nothing got lost in translation.

(24:54):
It was just the fact of this is you are
bringing down a huge a lot of information and you're
giving us this is what we should look for. And
I always maintained that integrity of a wanting to make
sure that I am fair. I want to make sure
that I'm attentive, and I want to make sure that
whatever you're presenting to me that I am going to

(25:14):
follow what you tell me and then let me form
my own personal opinion after that.

Speaker 2 (25:18):
So that's how I looked at it, right, What were
some of the things they were asking you to look for?

Speaker 1 (25:23):
Well, they lay out a blueprint.

Speaker 3 (25:25):
I mean, the defense was mostly saying that a lot
of inconsistencies, and that is something that I can agree with.
There's a lot of inconsistencies without having enough evidence. And
it's like I said, this trial was just so long.

Speaker 1 (25:39):
It was just you're plowing a lot of information to retain. Yes.

Speaker 3 (25:44):
The state, however, which I mentioned else before, is that
they're pretty much was going after the big fish. And
that's something that we heard a few times from different
folks in the courtroom. You know, you have Jeffrey Williams
at the very top, and he's the big fish, and.

Speaker 1 (26:00):
So that is what you know, he was like the
leader of the pack.

Speaker 3 (26:03):
And I think that's how they said it, and that's
what the state had brought up and Sentder saying that
you know, you have a wolf packing and Jeffrey is
king scheme pretty much though, yes, and then I looked
at it, and then everybody else was like kind of like
the minions, and so whatever he said, this is what
they did, and that's how they had painted him as

(26:24):
I'm usually the first thing person, first thing based person.
I mean, I would call him young thug, but I'm
actually a first name for people. You know, I'm just
too personal. I'm always personal. I hope to offend if
I'm calling him by Jeffrey.

Speaker 2 (26:36):
Now you you you you are one of the ones
that were fairly looking at his life. I don't think,
you know, I don't think he could possibly have a
problem being called his government.

Speaker 1 (26:46):
It's his real name.

Speaker 3 (26:47):
It's a real name. I mean, I mean, it's like
sometimes referred him young thugs. But I you know, I
respect him for who he is and his art. I
don't know him personally. I never you know, until I
saw him in court. But one of the other things
that I respected about him was when you listen to
some of the witnesses that came up, and people consistently

(27:11):
refer to him mister Williams, mister Williams, mister Williams, and
that stuck out to me really clear, because I was saying, Okay, then,
so the witnesses who coming out there, who've been subpoena
about the state, they respect who he is. Yes, they
didn't call him Jeffrey. They didn't call him jeff They
call him sometimes young Thubber, mostly mister Williams. And that

(27:33):
right there helped paint a picture, right, because you can
and not seeing that I didn't have my you know,
I didn't have any conclusion about him at all. It
was just the fact of certain certain small details play.

Speaker 1 (27:44):
Over exactly because that's what you're looking for.

Speaker 2 (27:47):
You're looking for, Okay, they're asking me to kind of
judge this scenario. So I'm looking for some indicators, correct, right,
especially outside of what both of these people who are
presenting the cases saying, what are some other things that
can speak to me?

Speaker 1 (28:00):
Correct?

Speaker 2 (28:01):
They can make me see maybe personality. Am I dealing
with a ruthless king slime? Or am I dealing with
a guy who was a rapper that got caught up
from a neighborhood that helped some people and now is
in the unfortunate circumstance. Now looking over the case, your
experience in this trial, how do you if you had

(28:21):
to give a grade to the state on how they
presented the case, what would you give them?

Speaker 3 (28:26):
My grade I give the state, I'll most likely probably
give it a C. And the reason why I'll say this,
though I don't necessarily think that just attorney Love should
have taken charge on this particular case, I believe that
it should have been Simon and I even you know,

(28:49):
even at the very end, when the attorneys came to
the back of the room on both sides after the
verdick was read, and I told them directly in front
of everybody, I said, you should have taken the lead
on this case, only because I think that her presentation
style was a lot better. It was almost like like
a professor, and not saying that it would have swayed

(29:10):
the verdict any other way. It was the fact of
sometimes folks can be too close to something that they
can that they want something out of it, but they
mess it up themselves.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
So do you think mislove Attorney da Love came off as.

Speaker 3 (29:27):
I want the Yes, I believe that's what As time
went on, that is what I started to see.

Speaker 1 (29:33):
Now, when did that switch?

Speaker 2 (29:35):
Because see, this is what I'm interested in, right, I
want to get into the peaks and valleys, because I
would imagine over this long process of trial, there's sometimes
where you leaning towards thug's side and then sometimes.

Speaker 1 (29:47):
WHOA, well, now where the states making a little sense here?

Speaker 2 (29:51):
You know what I'm saying. It's like these back and forth.
What was the spot where let's talk about love. Then
we'll get to some of the other spots. But what
was there's a spot where you said, Okay, this is
starting to seem like she's personally involved and emotionally involved
in this.

Speaker 3 (30:06):
There's two situations. It was a young lady who was
a mother. I can't remember her name at the top
of my head, but they brought her in in handcuffs
in a jumpsuit. I think that was the one that
they had reached out to her and wanted her to
come in and they felt like that she was a
threat and made up leaving. And also I think she

(30:27):
was the one that around the holidays that Distertorney Love
reached out to her and then the conversation kind of
switched and here she was away from her kids. Now
I don't know her background, don't know anything about her.
The only thing I do know is that we saw
her in handcuffs coming in with a jumpsuit on, and
then the next day we saw her in regular clothes,

(30:48):
And to me, that was insensitive, Senator saying to myself,
what was the reason why you had to put her
in handcuffs to be able to sit here behind this
stand and give a case.

Speaker 1 (31:00):
Also, there was.

Speaker 3 (31:00):
A young guy who was already in prison. They took
him out of jail, came in and he had his
jumpsuit on as well, and he pretty much said, I
don't want to be here, but I'm forced to be here.
And I think that was when the guy he was
involved in situation, whereas that the somebody shot the other
guy in the head. Yes, and I'm crossed the car

(31:23):
and I sat there and I'm saying to myself, Okay,
I get it which trying to do, but what does
it have to do anything? And then you have it
could be a psychological thing.

Speaker 1 (31:34):
I don't know, but you.

Speaker 3 (31:35):
Have a book, books on top of books on top
of other documents asking all these questions. And at the
very beginning I was more, Okay, if someone's not cooperative,
then you have every right to, you know, bulldoze, and
everything's off the table let start seeing a trend that
I didn't like, and that's when I began to say, Okay,
this is too personal.

Speaker 1 (31:56):
You're not letting up.

Speaker 3 (31:58):
There's a point when you have to have some kind
of decency and minds you.

Speaker 1 (32:03):
Social media plays a huge role. We see things. I
never saw anything, but it was just how it's communicated
out to public. It's like, how.

Speaker 3 (32:12):
I get it that you want to do your job,
and you're doing your job, but where is the human
side of you to where is that? Okay, then they
don't want to be here, so how can you better communicate?

Speaker 1 (32:22):
Where is that?

Speaker 3 (32:23):
When Simone was up there, she was able to connect
with the witnesses and she was able to talk with
them to communicate back with her some of the Whatnes says.
You know, they were on edge when just Attorney Love
came up, they didn't you can tell they didn't respect
her as much. But then when Simone comes up, it's
a little bit. They're a little bit more ease and

(32:44):
she's able to talk to them.

Speaker 2 (32:46):
Right that common theme of I don't want to be
here because I think that the witness you're talking about it,
he's like, yo, I'm already doing my time. I'm a
chain game, man, I'm poled to being chained.

Speaker 4 (32:56):
Guy.

Speaker 1 (32:56):
He just kept saying that.

Speaker 2 (32:57):
Correct, And so people are watching this, and this is
where it starts to feel like col coherion, cohersion. Yes,
that's when it starts to feel like cohersion. Is that okay?
Because I'm gonna get to this with Woody right, correct?

(33:17):
Because Woody was a scenario where okay, matter of fact,
let's get into it now.

Speaker 1 (33:25):
No, let's save Woody.

Speaker 2 (33:26):
Because Woody is a lot let's because I don't want
to skip into Woody.

Speaker 1 (33:29):
Woody is a lot.

Speaker 3 (33:30):
So.

Speaker 2 (33:31):
But for the guy who we're talking about with, you
know who they brought from jail, I think it speaks
volumes when they dangle the immunity in their face like that,
right when it's like yo, today they have on a
jumpsuit tomorrow and regular clothes.

Speaker 1 (33:46):
What happened? Correct? How did that happen? I think? And
that's like the other part.

Speaker 3 (33:49):
That's the reason why I spoke about education, like now
is the time for people, you know, in today's society
to make sure they complete school and get the learning
they need because I felt I felt like in going
through the you know, the judiciary system, and I'm seeing
that foaks committed a crime, but the state pretty much

(34:12):
owns them for X amount of time. Crazy, And that
right there shocked me. Now, that could be me being naive,
but it was just a common factor because when you're
signing your name on the dotted line and you get
X amount of years x amount of time, the state
owns you. So they can like with like with that
particularly individual, they can go and get you from the

(34:33):
jail and say, hey, we need to come testify it
because you have some kind of connection to.

Speaker 2 (34:37):
Something, right, And oftentimes they played that game with you, right,
So like let's say they need you to testify, and
they did this in the wide sale trial. They'll come
lock you up a few days before they need you
to testify, correct, so they know where your location is,
Like we know wheys at correct, and we're going to
force him to come in here. I just don't see
how Attorney Love or the state felt like bringing in

(35:00):
witnesses that we're gonna get up there and say I
don't want to be.

Speaker 1 (35:04):
Here would resonate with a jury, correct.

Speaker 3 (35:07):
I mean, And it's different when if it's you know,
off camera and they you know it was a closed court.
I think that it probably been something a little different,
but because we saw that in some of the interrogation videos,
whereas that folks will say one thing, but then of
course you get in front of a courtroom and in
front of a jury, now it's just like anything everything

(35:30):
you say pretty much cand be held against you.

Speaker 1 (35:33):
And that's what it was.

Speaker 3 (35:34):
So I agree with you. I mean, I don't know
if to me, I don't understand. Maybe the state did,
maybe they didn't. They did not vet the individuals before
coming in. Now of course they can't. I mean, I'm
an attorney, so they you know, they know what to
do when they can cannot do. But still you have
individuals come inside and how do you expect for them
to side with you and feel like they're going to

(35:56):
tell the court what you possibly want them to say,
arnge the story correct. And there's a difference between using
their words and then also using their words to be
able to get the point of across. It's up to
the like, you can't speak on behalf of somebody and
they're not going to sit up here and you know
and not saying not telling the truth, but they're not
gonna sit here and give you what you what you want,

(36:18):
even if it's like community, right, I mean, you know
you have It's almost like I.

Speaker 1 (36:22):
Said before, there's street smarts and there's book smarts.

Speaker 3 (36:25):
Yes, and folks were doing what was best for them,
and so I don't to me, I don't know if
the state better them beforehand or not. I just I'm
very curious.

Speaker 1 (36:35):
About that, right me too.

Speaker 2 (36:36):
Let me ask you this, did you or any other
other jurors take note to like the brand steal and
mislove back and forth, so all of the commotion in court,
because it had some heeded moments in front of y'all,
Like there was a lot happening when sometimes you'll be like, oh.

Speaker 3 (36:57):
So it was like it was this running joke because
when just Attorney Love went up because she always wanted
to approach the bench. When she approached the bench, you
had all pretty much the whole defense team come up there,
and you just see it was so funny because you
and I remember we're sitting here, and I remember when

(37:19):
Jared like, we're because you know, as time went on
and you start saying herself, Okay, we're going everything's running smooth,
there's no hiccups.

Speaker 1 (37:26):
Yes, but something. I think.

Speaker 3 (37:28):
It's almost like this brother and sister fight. They really
don't like each other, and I don't know their relationship
to this day, I don't know.

Speaker 2 (37:34):
But she's trying to bury Brian Still looks a young thug,
like a son. Right, They're really close, So she's trying
to bury someone that in all intensive purposes. Brian Still
is saying this innocent guy right right, like, so he
took that very personal.

Speaker 3 (37:50):
Yeah, but those two, it's it will go smoothly and
as soon as like I think, she'll say something slick,
and then all of a sudden, you start hearing the objection,
and then Attorney Still was just stand up and it's
it was.

Speaker 1 (38:02):
It was a chess match. It was.

Speaker 3 (38:03):
It was fun to watch at first, but became annoying
after a while because you knew that at some point
someone was gonna flip. And both of their voice, you know,
Attorney district tourney love. I mean, her voice carries. She
doesn't need a microphone, it carries. And those two go
at it. And then when Judge Glanville and you know,
I think he used to be in the military, I
think himself. It's all three shouting and you're sitting here.

(38:26):
It's like a ticking bomb that's about to go off, Like,
oh my gosh. There was never a dull moment when
it came down to those two and the eye rolling,
the you know, I think when Brian, I mean like
when Attorney Steele was sitting down or standing up, he
kind of like at the at the front or whatever,
he just sits back. He's like, yeah, like he's starting red.
He's like, Patton is like his leg and then.

Speaker 2 (38:49):
So are you guys. It's girls watching all it. We're
watching everything.

Speaker 3 (38:52):
We're watching every movement, all the laughs, all the rolling,
the sarcasm, We're watching everything.

Speaker 2 (39:00):
And did it ever feel like because Attorney Love, outside
of the jury's presence, for number of reasons, were brought
to the table for I guess, trying to influence you
guys with you know, heavy.

Speaker 1 (39:16):
Breathing or you know looks and.

Speaker 2 (39:19):
Eye rows and certain things where she was basically trying
to get according to the defense, she was trying to
get people in the jury box to agree with her sentiment.

Speaker 1 (39:29):
You know what I mean, like, what is that? That's
not what it is?

Speaker 2 (39:33):
You know what I'm saying, and those kind of things.
Did you were you guys affected by that.

Speaker 3 (39:37):
Well, yeah, I think I wasn't affected by it because
you know, my mind, you know, was you know, just
falling the facts the entire time. But I do think
that with some of the other jurors, they probably were
siding with some of the emotional connections that was being
thrown out. Yes, and I say that because I'm I'm

(40:00):
sitting you know, it's time when I sat in the
middle of the jury box, so I'm looking to the
left of the right, and I see, you know, my
colleagues around me and some folks you know, might have
been swayed by some of the emotional standpoint of it.
And even during the deliberations, you know, something's popped up
or some people were siding with based on whatever and

(40:22):
from from their perspective. But yes, it didn't sway me.
I'm sure for other jurors they probably pay close attention
to it. It was it was pretty much somewhat split.

Speaker 1 (40:33):
Was it was it loud?

Speaker 3 (40:34):
No?

Speaker 2 (40:34):
Was did it feel like she's doing that? She's doing
that so you can hear, you know how sometimes you
may go to a restaurant or you may notice when
this person is doing this, like trying to get some
attention or did it feel like they were actually legally
sparring or did it feel like she actually was trying to.

Speaker 1 (40:54):
Get you guys to see from her standpoint.

Speaker 3 (40:56):
I think probably from her standpoint, because you know how
the room was set up. You know, we had the
jury box, which this islet stay this table. The state
literally was right in front of us. We can literally
reach over and touch almost them from where they were,
and then the whole defense team was to the on
the other side, so they were further away from us.

(41:16):
So of course you're gonna look at what's closer to you,
and so that's you know, Distri Attorney Love and Simon
and all the in the States. They were all sitting
there there, so you saw more than facial expressions. But
when it came down to defense, off into the back,
sometimes you will see, you know, Tourney Steele, he will
you know, like I said, he will just grab his face.
He'll turn red. You can see him turning red from

(41:38):
the distance. You'll see Tourney Adams doing the same exact thing.
He'll roll his eyes. I mean, you can see those things,
and it's just it was just something that I don't
think it was a good strategy because you.

Speaker 1 (41:52):
Know, in the end the emotion is really just was
out the door to some degree.

Speaker 2 (41:57):
Yes, yes, when you when you look at and when
you look at miss Love right and what she was doing.
There was a moment where they took her out of
the courtroom where it's like, yo, she's not showing up
as much. Do you think that was a little too late?

Speaker 1 (42:17):
And I won't to say it was late.

Speaker 3 (42:19):
I just think that she uh, Fanny, I think it's
Fannie Willis. Yeah, Annie Williams, a distric attorney or attorney.
She should not have put her on this case period period.
I think that it was a bad move. I think
that attorney, I mean distre attorney Love could have done

(42:41):
some things behind the scenes and kind of help with
her colleagues. But you got to know your audience, you
know some you know, some people resonate really well with others,
and so I think that if it was a smaller
group of individuals or something else, then she might have
done well. But on this magnitude, I don't necessarily think
that she was a good fit. And yes we did

(43:02):
start seeing her not there as much, but simone should
have taken it. I think flot out Simone should have
been the lead person on the particular case, and I
told her directly, so, you know, just atturning Well, the
state has to remain you know, stage fit. But you know,

(43:23):
I'm very vocal, in which people know I'm very vocal,
become very vocal as time went on, and I'm assuming
that they that they probably agree with me, and and
even defense team they probably said, you know, hey, we
probably would have had a better fight had it been Simone,
you know, if you but at the end of day,
everybody had a job of towurds to do that, and

(43:44):
so but it was just just atturning love. It was
just this was not the case that she should.

Speaker 1 (43:49):
Have been on.

Speaker 2 (43:50):
What man, it's crazy. Yeah, just thinking about all of that,
it's like that is so old.

Speaker 3 (43:59):
Well because because the case could have been you know,
I think this could have been a shorter length of time.
I think that we were told that it was going
to be what six months, maybe nine months. I was
going for six months at the minimum and possibly go
to nine months.

Speaker 1 (44:13):
Because I was trying to get about of it. Yeah,
have a life.

Speaker 3 (44:18):
I enjoyed my life for sure, and the which I'll
talk about in my series and whatever. But at the
same time, you people don't understand the mental toll that
it plays that you are going into a room and
you're being controlled when to leave. We're there from nine
to five Monday through Friday if we have court, you know,

(44:40):
unless I have like you know, come half a day.

Speaker 1 (44:42):
So if.

Speaker 3 (44:46):
Simone had presented in her style of presentation, she's more
of a lecturer to students or of a professor, and
it makes sense.

Speaker 1 (44:58):
It just flows.

Speaker 3 (44:59):
When it came to just attorney Love, it was just
like it kept prolonging and prolonging and prolonging, and at
some point you want to scream because it's like, how
long are you going to hold us hostage?

Speaker 1 (45:08):
And then my political cap comes on.

Speaker 3 (45:10):
Yeah, and I'm saying to myself, I'll say to myself,
we're not on trial here, So what point are you
trying to is your strategy is to squeeze money out
of Jeffrey Williams and others to where is that this
will force their hand down to whereas that okay, you
can't go anymore, because I mean it's a good strategy,
but you have to understand that you have the jury

(45:32):
that's up here who's losing their entire life.

Speaker 1 (45:34):
Yes, they can't do anything.

Speaker 3 (45:36):
Yes, I can't tell you how many jurors had to
reschedule doctor's appointments.

Speaker 1 (45:40):
You know.

Speaker 3 (45:40):
Some people had big it was Wonder had a vacation
plan and so they asked me, they said, Jason, what
do you think I should do?

Speaker 1 (45:48):
I said, we do you have trip insurance?

Speaker 3 (45:50):
And they said no, because that juror was going to
travel with their family for entire month or two months
over in Europe. Scratch the whole entire thing off. There's
countless stories. So the frustration that just attorney Love brought
had a massive not seeing the massive way of how

(46:13):
we decided on the trial. But this case could have
been shorter than what it was had Simon had presented
it from her perspective, because this Turney Love, it was
just everywhere. It's just like she kept kept going every
single day. It kept getting longer and longer and longer,
and it's.

Speaker 1 (46:30):
Just it was too much. Too much. Yeah, what was
your position with the jury?

Speaker 2 (46:35):
I know they have like certain different positions and things
like that.

Speaker 1 (46:40):
Did you hold a position with the jury?

Speaker 3 (46:41):
I didn't hold a position, but surprisingly I was never
supposed to be the foreman at all, he wasn't okay.
I remember that maybe the first day or the first week.
One of the jurors said, and we were all sitting
down the rooms like a rectanglar shape. We had all
eighteen because you had to say alternate story time. Juror said, well,

(47:02):
if you all don't mind, I would like to be
the foreman. Now my ego side, you know, right, my
ego side was like, okay, yeah, I wanted to be
the foreman because you know, I'd like to I have
to get stuff done.

Speaker 1 (47:16):
I had to keep things flowing, you know.

Speaker 3 (47:18):
And and so I said, you know what, the thing,
maybe maybe is this is God trying to tell me
take your hands off a little bit, don't do anything.

Speaker 1 (47:24):
And so my.

Speaker 3 (47:25):
Position was just regular jury. And so it wasn't until
the very end, and you know, you get to know
Chall's personality.

Speaker 1 (47:33):
And I respect all the jurors, I really do.

Speaker 3 (47:34):
I mean, there were some tense moments that, you know,
not physical altercation, but some morning altercation.

Speaker 1 (47:40):
Like what let's talk about.

Speaker 2 (47:42):
I mean, we don't have to get into the specifics
of them, but I want to know what it's like
in a trial of this magnitude with those conversations.

Speaker 3 (47:50):
Well, you get to be a family, so you get
to pretty much you become close. We were together for
a year and personalities can't I will say that for
us to be that close, I would say that if
there were when when there were incidents, people solve.

Speaker 1 (48:08):
Them right and we would expect that.

Speaker 2 (48:11):
My my more and sole thing is I wanted to know,
you know, let's just say, for example, yo, Jason is
saying the lyrics is a no go. They don't even
collaborate what's going on. But Ashley is saying, well, but
I kind of think that the lyrics do mean you
know what they're saying, right, I want to know about
those discussions and how maybe they will work out.

Speaker 3 (48:33):
Well, it it boiled down to for deliberation, it always
boiled down to three people were holding things up.

Speaker 1 (48:46):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (48:47):
And what I will say, which I talk about later,
you know it's some other point in time, is we
were supposed to have a verdict the day before we
actually delivered the verdict. I was trying to have that
done by that day, right, bowl down to one person.

Speaker 1 (49:06):
And when I tell.

Speaker 3 (49:07):
You, I was so pissed, say it like here I was.
You know, we we were sitting down and we're getting
you know, we how I it's almost like whipping the
votes and so priae. Well, so I back up home,
like for a moment. I remember when we heard the

(49:30):
closing arguments, I talked. I spoke to one of the
jurors who is one of the senior folks in that
group of a colleagues or whatever, and I looked at
her and I said, I'm gonna be the foreman. I said,
the person who wanted to be the foreman, there's no
way owned because of private discussions of other topics that

(49:54):
kind of got people upset here and there, and we
respected that person.

Speaker 1 (49:57):
But the fact is that it was just a clash.
And I was like, I think I racial class, not racial.
Was just more of.

Speaker 3 (50:05):
Disagreements because if I'm looking at it from a like
I said, from a fact, from a fact, so from
a political view, if you piss off this person's dominant
effect and you lose three or four people, and it's
going to go no matter what that person said, it's
going to automatically go towards We're going to go against you.
And I didn't want that. So that's the reason why

(50:28):
I did. Yes, this is probably the first time that
Georgian probably should hear about that though, hear about this though.
But that's what I did. I really, really, I knew
people's personalities and I felt but the three individuals that
it boiled down to, I did not build a better
relationship with them. Everybody else in the room I did,
and I did not know how they were going to think.

(50:50):
They were quiet, they were to themselves, and I pretty
much didn't have my cards in the row, so I
had to lie on other jurors to be able to
bridge that relationship and to be able to talk things through.
But it always boiled down to three individuals and sometimes four,
but mostly three. And then the day the verdict was read,

(51:14):
Like I previously said, we were supposed to have a
verdict the day before, but the one individual wanted to
go home and go to sleep on it. Yes, when
I tell you, I was so I was. I was
literally upset. I was so upset. I said there's no way.
I said, God, come on, please, I can't take anymore.

(51:35):
Even I remember I remember going home and just venting
because I was just like, we gotta come back.

Speaker 1 (51:41):
In here one more day.

Speaker 3 (51:43):
And when we got back in I remember the van
ride was quiet. No one said a word. I sat
in the very back of the van and we got
to the courthouse. We sat down, and I turned and
looked at the individual and I said, okay, where do
you stand? And so then we had our votes and

(52:06):
we were we had the I want to say, we
had the we had a verdict, probably within fifteen twenty
minutes before we even like when we got to the courtroom, right,
And so that was that. I remember handing into the
sheriff officer rung the bell or whatever, and he comes
inside and he said you all done. I said, yes,
we're done. But it it boiled down to three.

Speaker 2 (52:30):
So what basically, for people who don't know how this
process works, these three people are saying guilty and now
other people are saying not guilty.

Speaker 1 (52:39):
So what I did? What what are the so?

Speaker 3 (52:41):
So what I did was I when I when I
whipped the votes, meaning that I pretty much had, came
up there and got on the board. I said, okay,
we have a column for we had for guilty, undecided,
and not guilty.

Speaker 1 (52:54):
Those are the three columns out. Okay.

Speaker 3 (52:56):
I literally asked everybody, We're going to do it in
a diplomatic way. I said, raise your hand if you
find individuals guilty. And that's how it'd have done. Had
people on taking the plea deal, we would have done
the same as that thing. And I said, as of today,
as of right.

Speaker 1 (53:11):
Now, where do you stand?

Speaker 3 (53:12):
Because I want to know where the numbers are, because
my whole goal was to get the undecided to either
guilty or not guilty. Make sense, And so that's what
we did. And so you have people raise their hand
for guilty. Then we had a few numbers for undecided.
Then we had individuals who said not guilty. Once we

(53:33):
did all that, people saw the numbers where they were.
Then we had a discussion for each indictment. We went
through each one and we had to and you had
and those who found found them guilty, which, like I said,
had folks on taking a plea deal, would have had
the same exact thing. I want you to explain to me,
why do you find this person guilty? Because sometimes if

(53:54):
the number tipped over, if you.

Speaker 1 (53:56):
If you had because you need what's.

Speaker 3 (53:58):
Twelve Thure's two of Jersey, if we had seven of
them not guilty and the remaining isn't guilty.

Speaker 1 (54:08):
There are people who say that there that is guilty.

Speaker 3 (54:13):
I need to explain to me why we need to
get like I needed one column to be more.

Speaker 1 (54:16):
Than the other. Right, so we have a decision. Decision.

Speaker 3 (54:19):
Yes, I did not want to, but but if we
had undecided, we started there. If anybody was undecided, they
had to explain what they find.

Speaker 2 (54:27):
I think that's interesting. Now, Now is that traditionally how
things work? Or is that depressss you implemented. That's the
process that I implement it. I think that that is
so interesting because, uh, usually in those I would imagine
that you can say not guilty, guilty and just stand
on it. You don't really have to run back through
the in your mind like hold on correct.

Speaker 3 (54:49):
Well, there were times when people did you know, had
to refresh their memory on certain things. But I felt
like it was the most diplomatic way and it to
help guide us through to stay on track.

Speaker 2 (55:02):
Now, are you guys back there with the videos the papers,
so you could I mean, what kind of notes were
you taking as a juror? Like, so if you could
go to, hey, the Woody interrogation video at forty five
oh six, he said this, which doesn't make sense with
what the state said here? Right, were you taking extensive
notes and did all of you guys have a lot

(55:23):
of notes when you're in the jury room deliberating? What's
back there? Is that a TV is their videos is interrogations?

Speaker 1 (55:30):
What's back there?

Speaker 3 (55:30):
We only were able to They only gave us document,
physical papers and also any what do you call it,
like poster boards? Anything they had, Okay, the exhibits, exhibits, exhibits.

Speaker 1 (55:46):
Anytime we need to watch a video, we had to.

Speaker 3 (55:51):
Put it in a writing form to give it to
a sheriff officer, to give it to the judge. They
had to get everybody into the courtroom. We could not
watch a video on our own. What yes, So that
was why it was a process. So if a juror
was saying, well, hey, I need to see a video
on you know, the shooting, we had to submit that

(56:13):
in and then we had pretty much how to be
more specific and so literally that's when you saw us
go back into the courtroom just to watch a video,
just to watch a video. And so I didn't want
to waste my time. Was the time I said, listen,
anything that you need, we need to put it all.

Speaker 1 (56:29):
On piece of paper.

Speaker 3 (56:30):
Now I want to put it on everything on one
sheet of paper to get delivered to the judge so
that when we do go inside there we can watch
it and not keep going out and out, because to
me that's just too much. I'm all about efficiency, and.

Speaker 1 (56:42):
So that's how it was.

Speaker 3 (56:43):
Any documents, some people are going through some of the
documents that they had and reading through and everything, but
any videos, any voice recordings that's jail calls, we had
to submit it in.

Speaker 2 (56:54):
It makes sense though, because they want to as as
Brian Steal and the defense and the State, they want
to make sure you actually are in the right call
or seeing the right video because I can slide a
video in there to the deliberation room that never made
it into the courts.

Speaker 1 (57:09):
Right one thing.

Speaker 3 (57:10):
And the defense did a good job. I think this
was their part that they did not want for us
to have the transcript. I think they didn't want to.
I think it was the defense team because they want
us to listen to what they had to say. So
of course the state would say, this is what they're saying,
but of course you're trying to listen to the jail
call what they're.

Speaker 1 (57:28):
Trying to say.

Speaker 3 (57:30):
I like, I wish we had something in our hand,
and I think a couple of times they did that.
Whereas that during the jail calls because something the audio
was kind of awful little bit it was kind of
hard to hear. And then we had a couple of
folks who are senior, you know, they had a hard
time hearing what was going on there, like you know
sometimes you know, and that's when we go back to
the deliberation room where they say, well, I think I

(57:53):
heard this and this is what I got. And then
people look into their notes and saying, no, this is
what was said.

Speaker 1 (57:57):
Right.

Speaker 3 (57:57):
So we had the microphone literally in front of us
that then, you know, that blasted out in front of
us so that some people can actually hear clearly the
state had allowed that to happen, but we didn't have
a physical document to see were a transcript.

Speaker 2 (58:09):
Oels were saying yes, yes, yes. Let me ask you this.
The jury was made up of what kind of individuals.

Speaker 1 (58:20):
There were mostly black people.

Speaker 3 (58:24):
There were maybe one two I think two white for
the for the twelve jerors with the yeah, with with
all eighteen or six yeah, l eighteen of us beforehand
it was pretty much diverse. Mostly you had women, you
had folks who were in the you know, we had
an accountant, we had someone who work in the government area,

(58:48):
had a couple of teachers. You had folks who worked
for different carriers or you know, whether it's a phone
company or trucking company.

Speaker 1 (59:02):
I mean it was. It was pretty diverse.

Speaker 3 (59:05):
It was diverse, right, old, young, both the oldest person
actually and I felt so we felt bad for her.
I felt baffer because the running joke was I'm going
to go through two birthdays and two pay raises on
this court case. Wow. But of course you turn seventy,
you are excused from jury duty. And the oldest person

(59:26):
actually turned seventy Wow. Well in the court case wow.
And so she pretty much asked and told them they said, listen,
I'm going to be seventy, and they said, you still
have to fill your jury duty. You're not seventy just yet.
When she turned seventy, she asked to get off the
court case. It would not let her get up.

Speaker 1 (59:44):
Wow. That was strenuous process process. And I think the
youngest person was and that's the old person that's like, yo,
let me go home. Correct.

Speaker 3 (59:54):
Those two people who were close, I say the oldest
ones have to have been between sixty five and maybe
sixty and seventy because I'm not sure the other one,
but somewhere around that that group was eighteen eighteen.

Speaker 2 (01:00:06):
So do you you think, wow, there was an eighteen
year old somewhere young and.

Speaker 1 (01:00:10):
The youngest one got off. Wow. Okay, okay, yeah, for
a reason actually made sense.

Speaker 2 (01:00:16):
Though, Okay, do you think people were culturally aware, like
they understood what rap lyrics? Because I think that was
a fear of our culture.

Speaker 4 (01:00:25):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:00:25):
A lot of us that's in this industry and in
the business was like, yo, rap lyrics is on trial,
Like they actually have lyrics and they're wrong. This is
what was interesting because and we'll get the Glenville in
the second part of this, but when he allowed lyrics
to come in, right, it's almost like, Okay, who's culturally

(01:00:47):
aware enough in the jury box to know that number
one rappers lie right?

Speaker 1 (01:00:52):
Correct?

Speaker 2 (01:00:52):
That's number one. Number two he could be speaking about
some alleged crimes in his raps as well. We don't
just want to shun it all for it, but there
is a there is some parameters there. You do need
to understand it. Everything that comes out of rapper's mouth
is not truth. What did the jury feel like when
they led seventeen articles of lyrics into the courtroom.

Speaker 3 (01:01:16):
Well, yeah, some people are fully aware of rap music,
and then others may not know certain things and you know,
or certain lingos that was in there, and some holuding
myself though, I mean, yeah, yeah, because.

Speaker 1 (01:01:33):
Some of this stuff don't make sense, like you don't
want to hear.

Speaker 3 (01:01:36):
And I'm a stauncher person on a freedom of speeches,
and so I personally said in my mind that if
you were to put the lyrics in part of this
court case, I'm not going to go buy that because
to me, it's it's unfair. Yes, everything that you talked

(01:01:56):
about and said about rap artists, to me, it is
a freedom of speech of how they're expressing themselves and
and and they're artists for a reason.

Speaker 1 (01:02:07):
And so.

Speaker 3 (01:02:09):
Some folks were unaware of certain linguos which I can't
think of top of my head right now. But to me,
it was a slippery slide to go down, because I'm
going to be the person will tell the jury, Hey,
this is a freedom of speech. This is is unfair
to hit a specific genre of music, a specific group

(01:02:30):
of individuals based on what they're saying inside their their music.

Speaker 1 (01:02:35):
It's it's so unfair, and so.

Speaker 3 (01:02:39):
We we we watched the video and that's reason why
it's like it's like sometimes you know, at the very end,
people were asking about what does this mean?

Speaker 1 (01:02:45):
And what is what when? What does that mean?

Speaker 2 (01:02:49):
You know, because and what was interesting is that again
Glanville let this in.

Speaker 1 (01:02:57):
But then there was a scenario.

Speaker 2 (01:03:00):
Where they brought lil Uzi Vert's name up and this
was an argument between the state and the defense because
they alleged that and again here's something else. You guys
had to deal with the traditional case. But then all
this digital stuff that comes in, it's that's a whole
nother topic. But in this particular time, we're dealing with

(01:03:24):
Glanville letting it in and Mislove brings in the little
Uzi Vert situation with young thug. Well he said five
mil on your head, kid, Oh.

Speaker 1 (01:03:34):
Yeah, serve it that one? Yes to me? I how
do you prove that? But they were wrong because this
wasn't a rap lyric.

Speaker 2 (01:03:42):
This was because lil Uzi had a diamond and playing
it into his head.

Speaker 3 (01:03:47):
And I remember seeing that even before court because it
happened like a couple of years off the time, right, Yes,
I think it actually got taken out.

Speaker 1 (01:03:52):
It's my stolen right. It was a big pink diamond,
and so it went viral.

Speaker 2 (01:03:56):
And rappers do this thing to market themselves, which also
speak to some of the antics that you see. Correct,
So this would lend itself if they had it in
the proper context, it would lend itself to the jury understanding, Oh,
rappers that do some wild stuff to get people talking.

Speaker 1 (01:04:12):
This dude planet a diamond into his head.

Speaker 2 (01:04:16):
So so when Brian still comes up and basically tells
the court and the jury that they were wrong about
the UZI vert thing, what was y'all position, Because I
know you were already saying freedom of speeds, protect this art.
I'm not necessarily gonna corroborate the story based on the lyrics.

Speaker 1 (01:04:37):
But when they're wrong, does this get the other jurors
who are.

Speaker 2 (01:04:41):
On the fence about lyrics to say, oh, they're completely wrong.

Speaker 1 (01:04:45):
I'm no longer getting down the well, you know.

Speaker 3 (01:04:47):
I think you have that because it could be a
generational thing as well. Whereas that some people feel like
that's what they're saying, it sounds so bad, horrible, But
then it takes someone from a younger generation to this
is what this This was going on, right, you know
you have a battle between two artists, and like you said,

(01:05:09):
it's marketing. I think that's what the defense had argued about, that, Hey,
artists will do things to market themselves and also to
start a battle to drive up sales because things will
look different now, you know, we'd look like I'm thirty nine.
So I remember, you know you had the cassette tape
and you have CDs and.

Speaker 1 (01:05:24):
Other things like that. I mean, artists want to make
money and you sell.

Speaker 3 (01:05:27):
So I am assuming that some of the jurors who
were not connected to some of the the lingo and
why different artists were doing what you're doing, they needed
some They needed to be a better understanding. They had
to be told, okay, hey, this is what this is.

(01:05:49):
Just like this was going on, and then I think
it does It did kind of change their perspective during
our deliberation because we couldn't discuss it during the whole time.

Speaker 2 (01:05:57):
That's what's crazy too, is like I sit next to
you while they I thought, y'all can go chop it up.

Speaker 1 (01:06:02):
No no, no, no, it would no no no.

Speaker 3 (01:06:04):
We were every day we were told I want to
say abolition or yeah, he said that.

Speaker 1 (01:06:12):
I've heard him say that at the end of the day. Yes,
I heard him say that.

Speaker 3 (01:06:15):
I look at your social media accounts and we couldn't
look at the news if it had anything on it.

Speaker 1 (01:06:19):
How hard was that it was? It was hard.

Speaker 3 (01:06:21):
It was hard because I mean because I I don't
watch the news news unless like a major event now.

Speaker 1 (01:06:29):
You know, sometimes things.

Speaker 3 (01:06:30):
Will pop up, and I just kind of like it
was pretty fair enough, like I'm not doing it, but
we could not talk about the case.

Speaker 1 (01:06:36):
It's hard for me to believe though, I mean.

Speaker 2 (01:06:39):
Your family, your friends, your they know your part of
this trial. Like, it's hard for me to believe that
one hundred percent of the people on their jury didn't
see anything concerned in that trial. If they did, though,
we don't think about it, right, yeah, no, and you
shouldn't know anything about it, but they did. But you
I'm almost certain you'll agree with that because it's too hard. Hard, man,

(01:07:00):
it's too hard, especially especially the local news and you
see things. Is one of the highest of profiles, it's
the highest profile, it's the highest profile case.

Speaker 3 (01:07:10):
And this case was going it was going to determine
a lot for a lot of artists moving forward. Yes,
and so I believe that whatever happened in this case
and what was presented will give either the state an
opportunity if something were to come up with a different artist,
how to navigate through the system to render a verdict

(01:07:31):
that's going to side with the state.

Speaker 2 (01:07:33):
Yes, Yes, And and I think for people who were
culturally unaware of lyrics, because let's deal with these two points,
you have one point where again you're going to back
in there to deliberate, and let's just say there's a
jury with this one lyric written down, Like I get
what you're saying about all that, but this one lyric

(01:07:55):
right here when he says, shoot at your mama and
she no longer meant to me.

Speaker 1 (01:08:00):
Yeah, and that dude mama was shot. Yeah. Right. It's
it's hard to How did you explain things like that?
Well you have to.

Speaker 3 (01:08:10):
You have to, like like you said, like some artists
will say things and they're lying about it.

Speaker 1 (01:08:17):
It doesn't mean that it's true.

Speaker 3 (01:08:18):
And you had to convince those who didn't understand what
this is what it said, especially the teachers. Yes, Like
I said, we have two folks and there who are teachers,
and we had one individual who kind of side with
because you know, they have kids and you know, gun
violence and all the things, and they kind of feel
sep away. But there were a couple of jurors who

(01:08:39):
were able to pretty much explain, this is what they're saying,
but the common thing was freedom of speech, and this
is an artist making a song that it might have
fit what they want to get across. And then it's
music as an artist to other for folks who want
to you know, listen to music whatever. So we were

(01:09:02):
able to navigate through it.

Speaker 2 (01:09:03):
Yeah, and for me it would have been how bad
do you think those jurors would have felt if they
put him? If they put young thug in jail for
the rest of his life? Right based on the lyrics.
Of course there was more evidence, but if the lyrics
would have driven force, and then they get out of
that trial and bump into the Kendrick and Drake situation, correct,

(01:09:24):
in which you started to say, oh, the lyric thing
is because he's calling them a pedophile and he's not
really a pedipheral.

Speaker 4 (01:09:31):
Right.

Speaker 2 (01:09:31):
They even let it go on the Super Bowl, correct,
So you start to understand that lyrics don't hold as
much weight as they did in that courtroom when you
nailed this young man to the cross, that.

Speaker 1 (01:09:40):
Would have been wild Well, it would have been Wild's.
And that's reason why, like you know.

Speaker 3 (01:09:44):
You had to be very delicate, and that's how we
were doing during the like during deliberation, because I knew
that if the foreman would have the preepest person wanted
to be the foreman, it would have bumped head and
it would have an incidence like that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:02):
Yes, and that's scary, and it is.

Speaker 3 (01:10:05):
It is definitely definitely scary, and not saying that they
wouldn't have been a good foreman about it, but it's
the fact of just conversations on other subjects. It would
have bumped heads with individuals who would have just been like, no,
this is what he's saying, and it would have been
adamant about it. Right.

Speaker 1 (01:10:20):
And so then like you said, this whole beef of.

Speaker 3 (01:10:22):
Drake and Kendricks, you leave out the courtroom and then
now you're seeing it firsthand, this.

Speaker 1 (01:10:28):
Is what's going on.

Speaker 3 (01:10:29):
It's just like, okay, then you My goal was not
to make it to us to make sure it was.
We were going to go by what we were, like,
what was in that courtroom and to be fair about
it and go on by what the state and what's presenting,
and what the defense was debunking, and so anything else
out side of that.

Speaker 1 (01:10:50):
It was no other voyant.

Speaker 2 (01:10:51):
And I bet thug is happy that someone like you
was in there. I'm almost certain he is right because
he needed and that's why the lawyers fight for certain
jerorsm Now, no, know, we're not doing all those kind
of people.

Speaker 1 (01:11:02):
Let's get some of these.

Speaker 3 (01:11:03):
I'm just curious to know. Like I'm curious to know
which which if both sides wanted me or one side.

Speaker 1 (01:11:08):
I mean, I'm just curious. Yeah, I always thought about that.
I was like, what did the state want me or
the defense want me? I don't I bit you it
was Brian Steele. Now I don't.

Speaker 3 (01:11:18):
Look, I'm curious to this day because I think that's
like the ice on the cake though.

Speaker 1 (01:11:23):
Because I wonder who how That's a good question.

Speaker 3 (01:11:26):
Because I literally sat down and I mentioned before just
Attorney Love asked me questions and I literally was saying, hey,
I go about the factors to go and buy the
questionnaire seats. And then Dee Williams asked me a softball
question about horror movies.

Speaker 1 (01:11:39):
And I don't watch horror movies.

Speaker 2 (01:11:40):
I'm not right personally, I'm not paying you to scare.

Speaker 3 (01:11:45):
That's not my my area. And it was a softball question.
And so then after all that, and even after this case,
even in like you know, as you and I were talking,
I'm just curious to know which attorneys wanted which You're right,
that is so funny, and they will probably answer it,
I hope. So they're probably gonna answer it because I'm
probably next. I'm gonna try to do Brian Steele and

(01:12:05):
Keith Adams right that those are two people that want
to see with And I got a relationship because Brian Steele.
I spoke to him while the trial was going on,
because I interviewed rich Homie Kwan, and they were gonna
use before the passing RP Rich Homey Kuan. Uh, they
were gonna use that interview to kind.

Speaker 2 (01:12:22):
Of show you, guys, the relationship between Thug and rich
Homi Kwan wasn't as bad as they presented it. Let's
talk about that. What was your feelings on some of
these relationships, because for all intensive purposes, the state were
saying that, hey, uh, there was a murder of Donovan
Thomas Donovan. Thomas was connected to Wi Fi and Luci

(01:12:44):
and Rich Homi Kwan Young Thug and Rich Homy Kuan
had an issue that caused this whole problem. Correct, did
you guys buy any of that?

Speaker 3 (01:12:53):
People probably bought into it early on. But that's when
I go back into the not enough evidence, the inconsistencies
you want to I mean, and rap rap artists do this,
you know, they they beef back and forth, but at
the same time putting if something doesn't fit, like a puzzle,

(01:13:14):
you can't make it fit. And so I believe that
there are some jurors who were thinking that there was
a beef and or you know, they were friends, and
then this what took place in the state. I'll say,
give it to the state. They tried to together. Like
I said, I think Simone would have probably done a
better job. It's probably making it fit. But in addition,

(01:13:37):
Attorney Love, I think.

Speaker 2 (01:13:39):
Just so you you're saying the evidence was there, but
Love just didn't well, I'll say the evidence was there.

Speaker 3 (01:13:44):
I'll say that the story how it is being presented,
it's just it's just how you delivered a timeline of
and that's why you know, how about presentation styles because
I argued about that towards the very end of the
court case. It is the fact that some things that
have to make make sense. You're going to tell a
story and give us a blueprint. And that's one thing
that bron Still did is that he had a blueprint

(01:14:07):
and he can dissect and tell you, hey, this doesn't
make any sense.

Speaker 1 (01:14:12):
How can you be over here and this and it?

Speaker 3 (01:14:14):
And then it just flowed, whereas that the state tried
to mingle things together and then let you go on
your assumption. But then you go down into the reasonable
doubt and you can't say that this could have happened,
but where's the proof?

Speaker 2 (01:14:28):
Yes, So that was that was a mistake for them
to always say, let the jury think what they want.

Speaker 1 (01:14:33):
It's correct. Well, hold on, now, your your job is
to present a case. Correct. You can't. You can't go
on buy an assumption.

Speaker 3 (01:14:40):
Then you could lock somebody up and like the rest
of their life and ruin their whole entire life. And
that's the reason why I like, you know, go back
to the education things. When when when folks were signing
their name on the dotted line, you know, admitting to
certain things. Yeah, they might have you know, committed certain acts,
but at the same time the state owns them.

All Episodes

Episode Transcript

Host

Looney

Popular Podcasts

On Purpose with Jay Shetty

Stuff You Should Know

Dateline NBC

.css-15opob5{left:0;position:absolute;top:0.8rem;} All Episodes

.css-14f5ked{margin:0;word-break:break-word;display:-webkit-box;-webkit-box-orient:vertical;box-orient:vertical;-webkit-line-clamp:2;overflow:hidden;}Lead Juror on Young Thug Trial: “We Were 3 Votes Away From Life”