Court Report 2: The Defense Won’t Rest

Defense attorney Suri Chadha Jimenez was on the YSL defense team until his client’s charges were dismissed. Now he’s free to offer an inside view of the defense team and weigh in on the prosecution’s tactics. We’ll discuss a big fight over a NPR Tiny Desk Concert, the YFN Lucci deal, and why the debate over whether Young Thug is Truly Humble Under God won’t go away. 

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:02):
King Slime is a production of iHeart Podcasts and Heirloom Media.

Speaker 2 (00:08):
Dude, the lines I just hopped out that goes I'm
driving a dad body. I really into nothing, but I
spent it by the hobby. I was locked inside the trap.
Didn't think about it, but I got out it. Now
my cars and clothes a side.

Speaker 1 (00:25):
Are those all lines?

Speaker 3 (00:27):
And dropping you?

Speaker 4 (00:28):
Yes?

Speaker 5 (00:29):
Do either of.

Speaker 2 (00:30):
Those lines refer to the defendity include humble.

Speaker 6 (00:33):
Undertid No, you know what this song is about.

Speaker 7 (00:37):
It's about coming from nothing. It's about telling your kids,
not that you're riding around the body. It's about telling kids,
if you live under the sun stances that gentleman like
mister Williams did, you may have to kill somebody because
they're gonna kill you.

Speaker 6 (00:53):
I assume they wanted to start strong and and felt
that he was a strong witness.

Speaker 5 (00:57):
To bet lead off.

Speaker 6 (01:00):
But if you bat them lead off, you can't bat
them clean up and bat them seventh in the order as.

Speaker 1 (01:05):
Well, your honor.

Speaker 7 (01:07):
This is critical to me. They are trying to paint
mister Williams as a person he is not.

Speaker 5 (01:12):
This is a good man.

Speaker 1 (01:30):
So I'm George and I'm Christina Lee. This is King
Sloan and of course we were joined here by producer
Tommy Andres.

Speaker 4 (01:36):
Hey, Tommy, I.

Speaker 5 (01:37):
Guess thanks for having me again.

Speaker 3 (01:39):
And we're also joined by Serri Chadahimenez, who was a
defense attorney on the YSL trial until his client was
severed from the case.

Speaker 5 (01:48):
Corderius Dorsey, Right.

Speaker 4 (01:50):
That's correct, not severed, dismissed the charges drop.

Speaker 5 (01:53):
Okay, so what is the difference between severed and dismissed.

Speaker 4 (01:56):
Severed as in many other people that have been severed,
that means that on hold, they're in limbo. Their case
will go on. So all the multiple people that were severed,
either because their attorneys were able to conceive a baby
and bring him to life before the trial is over,
or the attorneys that had other issues, or they had
no attorneys, that's a bigger concern that should be a

(02:18):
big headline. There are multiple people with no attorneys, and
it's been over a year and a half now they
still have not been able to appoint attorneys to everybody
that's waiting on one So those people are just going
to have to wait and have their trial on another day.

Speaker 8 (02:35):
Wow.

Speaker 3 (02:35):
Okay, well, so he's already spent knowledge, so thank you
for joining us.

Speaker 5 (02:38):
Three. Now a little bit about Cordarius Dorcy.

Speaker 3 (02:41):
We'll just talk about he was one of the original
twenty eight defendants, and as we talked about, he's no
longer part of the Rico indictment, and that's because he
was sentenced to a second life sentence right for murder.

Speaker 4 (02:54):
That's correct. Now, mister Dorsey had a case in the
cab County and he had being sentenced to life without
parole for that case. A jury decided that he was
guilty of murder and the judge gave him the max,
and the max is that you will never get out
of prison. So that happened before we even started the straw.

(03:15):
Knowing that they still wanted to go forward against him
while we were on trial, they decided to indict him
on another murder, which he was a suspect in that case.
In essence, what happened is that he was walking down
a shopping center a sidewalk. Somebody pulled a gun on him.
He heard a click, so he turned around and defended

(03:37):
himself and did what he had to do to be
able to walk away. So the person that initially pulled
a gun on him ended up losing his life. A
jury determined that he was guilty, and so he was
convicted to the same thing, life without parole. At the
end of the day, makes no difference. He was already
serving a life without parol sentence. He's not going to

(03:59):
go anywhere. The court and the prosecutors did to him.
Absolutely nothing. He still doesn't change what his life is
going to be. And then the state decided to no
longer prosecute him on the Rico cases because mister Dorsey
had himself on his own, filed a demand for a

(04:20):
speedy trial. His speedy trial was going to run at
the same time that mister Williams was so by them
dismissing his charges, they cannot go forward against them ever. Again,
it's the case is done against him. They claimed that
it was for judicial economy. I'm going to be a
cynic and I'm going to say that the only reason

(04:41):
he was even in the case to begin with is
because they wanted to have a convicted murder sit next
to the celebrity. There was no connection at all between
mister Dorsey and mister Williams other than they happened to
be from Atlanta and they happened to have at one
point grown up in the same neighborhood of Cleveland Avenue Cleveland,
which the DA's office wants to portray as a war zone.

(05:05):
You would think is Gosa over there. You would think
that it's the most dangerous part of town. I know,
there's a great preschool, there's a feeder school to a
private academy that just down the street, wood Were Academy
right there. There's a lot of there's a bit of
gentrification going on, but there is community. There's people that
know each other, that have known each other for generations.

(05:26):
Cleveland Avenue is just like East Atlanta or any other
neighborhood that has been fully gentrified. Now, I don't see
it as dangerous. I've been there myself many times. But anyway,
they wanted to sit a convicted murder next to mister Williams,
and I think that after a while they realized that
even though he had an appointed attorney, that appointed attorney

(05:47):
had a big mouth and they wanted to get rid
of it.

Speaker 3 (05:51):
Well, there you go.

Speaker 5 (05:51):
We brought your big mouth right into the studio today.
So thank you.

Speaker 3 (05:55):
So in the limited series, we talked about this kind
of famous incident. At least it went viral at least
of you having to buy lunch for the entire defense team,
which your choice of Magic City Wings said something all
on its own. But I want to ask you, we've
been curious in here how the defense team functions in
a Rico trial. So you've got all these attorneys at

(06:16):
one point you had, well, not twenty eight, because you
said some of the defendants never had attorneys and still don't,
but some large amount of attorneys. You still have six
defendants with attorneys. Do they function as a team or
are they sort of operating independently?

Speaker 5 (06:31):
How does it work?

Speaker 4 (06:32):
Well? It is as in any prosecution, there's code defendants.
Everybody is an individual, and each man or woman for themselves.
Why because there's always the potential of a conflict right
at one point or another, my client or someone else's
climb My determined it's in my best interest to turn
state witness and save myself because it's okay to be selfish,

(06:52):
and some people, at least eight people have been you
can say selfish or have been self preservation because they
were facing with even though you probably didn't do what
they're claiming you did, or if you did something you've
already been convicted for it. There's a handful of people
that have already been sentenced and served their time and
pay their debt to society for what they did, and

(07:13):
then they brought them back and charge them with RICO
for the exact same acts that they've already paid their
debt to society. So you can sit there in jail
in the bedbug Rice Street for now what it's been
a year and a month of trial, plus the pre
trial detention which was another four or five months, So
you could be there for a year and six months

(07:33):
waiting for a jury to say, no, it's not right
for you to be prosecuted twice for the exact same acts,
or no, they could improve the actual conspiracy or the connection.
And to do that you have to sit in that
courtroom and go to Ry Street every day, be woken
up at three in the morning so you can be
transported to the courtroom. Or you can say, yes, why

(07:54):
I sell this a game, Yes they commit crimes. Yes, yes, ma'am, Yes, ma'am, yes, ma'am.
You can say those things and you get to go home.
So I have nothing negative to say about those young
men that went home and are with their families. You
saw mister Stevens. He's doing great, he's got a cdo,
he's got a good job, he's being a productive member

(08:17):
of society, as well as many of the other men
that were released, and very important point, they're all alive
and well. The main concern, the reason that the state
wants to close the courtroom and get rid of these
cameras is because of the danger to their potential witnesses.
Well a s niche. If somebody's been labeled a niche

(08:37):
is the person with most risk and nothing, absolutely nothing
has happened to them for a year and a month
because there is no danger to them. They're just living
their lives. But going back to the original question, sorry,
I wan't a tangent. Everybody is fighting for themselves. But
at the same time we got to be smart about it.

(08:58):
We're going against the state, a party that has unlimited resources.
They can do whatever they want. They can subpoena fly in,
put in hotels seven hundred people if they want to,
and we have limited time, limited scope. We have our
own practices, so at any time, if we can help
each other, we will. There was not an official agreement,

(09:19):
but if mister Steele is up there arguing something and
I see case law that I think is on point,
I'll text them real quick. Same thing with him. I
got emails We're like, hey, you might want to look
into this. Or when I was reviewing evidence, your client's
name came up on this. Why because it just makes
sense to share it, because we are a united front

(09:39):
to fight this state, because the state has way more
power than any of us individually.

Speaker 8 (09:45):
I would like to note, just while we are taping
this at this very moment, there is a hearing in
that courtroom about banning cameras from the courtroom. Our attorney
is going to be arguing against that, even though we are.

Speaker 5 (10:00):
Not already won that case.

Speaker 8 (10:03):
In order to get into the courtroom, like we had
to fight legally, in order to be physically present in
the courtroom. The prosecution, as you say, believes that there's
a danger by having cameras. I think that is spurious nonsense.
Our attorney is representing us in this regard for free
even though we're a podcast that doesn't rely on video cameras,

(10:27):
and there's like every other media organization that's covering this
is speaking against this today. I honestly don't think that
it's going to happen. I expect Judge Glanville to rule
against that idea. But it goes to this broader thing
and what are they doing, Like, why is it that
they don't want cameras in that courtroom? Because I don't

(10:49):
think it's about witness intimidation. I don't think that's what's
going on.

Speaker 5 (10:55):
What do you think is going on, George?

Speaker 8 (10:57):
I think that the continuing cover this is not reflecting
them in the best light in their own views, and
that they know that if they can shut Law on
Crime's camera off, Law on Crime is going to stop
covering this and everybody essentially is going to stop talking
about it as much. And I sense, I sense that's

(11:19):
what's going on.

Speaker 7 (11:20):
Now.

Speaker 8 (11:20):
They're going to yell at me when I said that,
But I mean, what else am I supposed to conclude?

Speaker 3 (11:24):
I mean, it's hard not to draw that conclusion. I'm saying,
what about you, Christina, what do you think of the
courtroom not having cameras in it? I mean, do you
think that there's a motivation behind that from the prosecution
That is not what they're saying it is.

Speaker 1 (11:38):
I think so certainly. I think limiting access therefore limits
public opinion on this trial to begin with. And I
am very struck by just how many people are tuning
into this every single day, people who might not all
the ways have the opportunity or therefore the bandwidth to

(11:58):
even go into that court room. I think journalists included, honestly,
because court reporters, just like teachers, they all need a
raise because covering this stuff day in and day out,
especially at the speed at which this trial is happening.
I'm not an expert, but I feel like it is
taking a long time. I think is like super super important.
So yeah, you can't help but to wonder about, like

(12:19):
what their motivations might be. If they're so concerned about
prosecution witnesses, why not also be concerned for people who
might have been labeled as a quote unquote snitch, Like
therefore everybody's in danger, right, So I'm not sure?

Speaker 5 (12:32):
Yeah, and why make that decision?

Speaker 4 (12:33):
Now?

Speaker 3 (12:34):
Let's see, you know, has the trial's been televised for
a year and a half.

Speaker 8 (12:39):
Indeed, you know, I was at the capitol yesterday. I
was looking at some legislation which will affect Fulton County's jail.
I might add, oil lobbyist our National Gas lobbyist at
random grabs me and says, George, I love your King
Slime podcast. I listen to it all the time. And
he is effusive with these other like like straight laced

(13:03):
like Brooks Brothers dressed lobbyist guys like you have to
listen to this podcast. I mean you're right, like there
is there's a lot of interest out there in places
you wouldn't expect, like for interest in the trial and
honestly interest in what we're doing with it. By the way,
let me tell you when I was at the Capital Court,

(13:24):
because it's it goes to the question I'm about to ask. Yesterday,
the Georgia State Senate passed a bill that will increase
the number of crimes for which you must pay cash
in order to get out on bond, and it also
essentially outlaws bail funds. Bail funds are an element of

(13:47):
the terrorism prosecution going on with copp City.

Speaker 1 (13:52):
I was about to say.

Speaker 8 (13:54):
Three of the people who are charged or charged because
they were in part because they were a parent we
mis using bail fund money for things that the state
believes was in support of terrorism.

Speaker 5 (14:07):
Yeah, less reminder our listeners outside of Atlanta.

Speaker 3 (14:09):
So sixty one people have been indicted for protesting against
this police training facility that's being built in the south
east side of Atlanta, correct, right, And so this is
another big reco case that's coming down the pipeline in form.

Speaker 8 (14:20):
Count so Fuldhaon County Jail has had death test desks
fifteen last year, ten last year, fifteen, the year before,
and one a couple of weeks ago. It is widely
understood to be a very dangerous jail, and this is
the jail that most of the people in the YSL
case are being held in. We had an episode about
this earlier earlier in the series. At what point do

(14:43):
you believe that the jail conditions are I'm asking you Tochata,
At what point do you believe that the jail conditions
are so dangerous that it becomes an Eighth Amendment violation
and a means of coercion that is constitutionally improper? And
how do you actually get to a point where, like
you can start looking at jail releases because of the

(15:05):
constitutional question.

Speaker 4 (15:06):
Hopefully the federal investigation will get there. At what point
I'm saying back in the nineteen nineties, back when this
jail started to be overcrowded. It's just like anything else.
If you go to a hotel and they'll tell you
we have a thousand rooms and you're like, okay, well
how many rooms are occupied and they say a thousand
and they're okay, let me get another room. And they're like, okay,

(15:27):
you can come on in and bring a thousand more
people in there, even though we've already at capacity. Let's
just double capacity because we can continue to get money.
A hotel wouldn't be able to do that. Nowhere can
do You can't go to a restaurant and have more
people than it's built for because the fire department is
going to shut you down. At what point will somebody
shut down this jail because it's overcrowded. And it's not

(15:48):
only overcrowded with murders and felons and rapists. There are
people there that have been sitting there for months on misdemeanors.
Misdemeanors because they want to change laws and they want
to make it you can't get a signature bond in
certain cases. You must pay. You must pay cash bail.
No one can help you with the bail. So what
they want is they want to keep their beds in
their hotel full and keep collecting money from wherever that

(16:10):
money is coming. That's the real concern, and I hope
that the federal government does the right thing, and I
hope that some people get prosecuted for what they are doing.
That's what they really should be looking into instead of
adding more because the solution is always, well, just give
us more money and we'll build more beds, and that's
not a proper solution. There are people in there that

(16:31):
are mentally ill should be cared for. There are people
in there that are there because they're too poor to
post a bond, and that's where the bail funds come
in there. I cannot talk about the copsity stuff because
there's that gag order there, but I will talk about
bail funds in a sense that coming around Christmas celebrities.

(16:51):
Mister Williams has done it. I think most wrappers in
Atlanta have done it. They go and they bail people out,
they get some money, and they're like, you know what,
for Christmas, We're going to post your bond and you
get to go home. Why because you're only there because
you're broke. Because a judge has already determined that you
are not a risk that you are entitled to bond,
and you should be allowed to come out if you

(17:12):
have money, if you don't have money, surviving there.

Speaker 5 (17:17):
We'll be back after the break.

Speaker 8 (17:25):
We should probably talk about what's happened in court over
the last well.

Speaker 1 (17:29):
I mean I was just about to say, is that
as YSL defendants are being held in Fulham County Jail,
they're probably they're expecting to wait even longer just because
of the sheer amount of evidence that prosecution has. Right,
we're talking terrorbytes, Tommy.

Speaker 5 (17:44):
Terabytes, Yeah, I mean this.

Speaker 3 (17:46):
We even wondering this, seven hundred witnesses on the witness list,
terabytes of information on the hard drive that has the
discovery on it, and we were sort of wondering what
the strategy maybe from prosecutors is of just it feels overwhelming,
you know, certainly to us who are following the case.
But I wonder if that's a strategy just be like,
look how much stuff we have.

Speaker 4 (18:06):
I'm gonna say, I see it as two ways, and
both of them are cynical. It's either they are have
bad faith and they're giving us they're dumping discovery that
is useless. One of the motions that I filed right
before my case was dismissed. Funny enough, never got to
hurt on my motion. It was that on the latest drop,

(18:30):
on the latest dump of discovery, which about a terrabine
and a half. As I'm going through it, As I'm
going through the files, and as everybody has seen this
in your computer, you open you open the hard drive,
and then you open the file and file and file file,
there's just a down menu to get to something going
into at least four or five sub menus. I find

(18:50):
a police report. I remember the exact day, but I
think it was back from twenty sixteen, so not recent.
Because the rules say if the DA's office or law
enforcement doesn't have it, they can't turn it over. Obviously,
they only have to turn over stuff that they have
either them or law enforcement their possession. But this was
a twenty sixteen case. They had a foul stamp of

(19:10):
received by the DA's office. Not even like they can't say, oh,
the officer didn't turn it over to us. Now it
had a damn stamp from the complaint room that they
had received it and the found name was do not
serve yet. That is absolutely horrible. That is them hiding discovery.
They gave us seven hundred witnesses, they give us all

(19:33):
the terribytes, but this stuff that they had, they even
labeled it do not serve yet, and they judged it
absolutely nothing about it because I never got to argue
my motion. My case was dismissed shortly after I foiled
that motion. But so, either they're dumping discovery that's irrelevant
and hiding the important stuff within it, like in a

(19:54):
civil case when you're going against a big multinational corporation
and you're just a small guy, like, okay, here go
through this terabytes. Good luck finding what you need, which
is improper, or they have no idea what the hell
they're doing. They don't even know. They just listed seven
hundred people because they're on the police reports, but they
haven't talked to them. They don't know what they're going
to say. They just put it there in case they

(20:16):
want to call them. But they don't even know their
case themselves. If you've been investigating this case for over
ten years, right over ten years, shouldn't it be a
very clean, crisp outline Like the Trump case. The case
against MAGA is pretty straightforward. Say whatever you want to
say about whoever's running the prosecution in that case. That
man is organized. They don't what they want, they know

(20:39):
the evidence they're going to percent in the YSL case like, Eh,
we don't know. We'll go with it as it goes.
And it's either incompetence or willful hiding of evidence.

Speaker 3 (20:51):
Well and not going all over the place is something
we want to talk about. So there's this talk about
coming back to Mark Belknapp, now one of the detectives,
the detective who literally let us off on the witness stand.

Speaker 1 (21:02):
I mean, I don't know what to make of this,
and Georgia be curious to hear from you too, whether
you're even surprised to see Detective belt Nap again or
at least like the notion to see him again. But essentially,
like what happened over the past couple days or so,
is that prosecution is like, look, we want to bring
back Detective bell Nap because there are some social media
posts concerning Christian Eppinger, you know, trading him c's for bees,

(21:25):
you know, photos of weapons and things like that, and
we need Detective belt Nap to basically outline how all
this is in furtherance of the conspiracy, you know, demonstrating
his gang affiliation.

Speaker 3 (21:35):
The Epinger, by the way, no longer part of the
Rico trial, and also was the one who shot the
police officer or was convicted of shooting a police officer
right shot.

Speaker 4 (21:47):
I'm thinking he was actually shot shot. I don't remember.

Speaker 5 (21:50):
No, he was shot multiple times.

Speaker 8 (21:51):
The police officer was shot six times.

Speaker 5 (21:53):
Six times.

Speaker 1 (21:54):
Yeah, okay, So they want to bring back Detective bell
Nap to discuss the social media posts. And then there
is some conversation that I struggle to wrap my mind around,
which is making sure to distinguish Detective belt Nap as
a fact witness versus like an expert witness. And then
there was like this, I guess, some fiery commentary from

(22:16):
Max Shard where he's basically arguing that by reintroducing Detective
belt Nap as a witness, the jury is going to
take for granted his expertise rather than trying to weigh
it against like everything else that they're hearing.

Speaker 6 (22:30):
This case is music in some ways, it's like a chorus.
The state wants to keep calling this expert to sit
in front of this jury, very close to this jury
and repeat their expert testimony as a trip with all

(22:50):
his training and all his accolades, again and again and
again and again and just and there's a reason why.

Speaker 5 (22:58):
Course it exists in a song.

Speaker 6 (23:01):
It's catchy, it sticks with you, And that's the that's
the repeated testimony that they want to bring in again
and again and again in front of this jury.

Speaker 5 (23:12):
To repeat the same things.

Speaker 4 (23:14):
You're honored.

Speaker 5 (23:15):
There's an extensive.

Speaker 6 (23:18):
Power point that talked about Rock Crew, that talked about bloods,
that talked about sex, money, murder, that talked about colors
and red and bees. And yes, mister Stevens testified to
what he testified to, but Detective bell Nap already testified
as an expert about what a bee stands for, and

(23:40):
what red stands for, and Rock Crew and where Rock
Crew's from. So there's no need to re retread that
information and go over again and again and again.

Speaker 1 (23:54):
So what do we like? What do we think? Is
at the heart of Max Shard's concerns.

Speaker 4 (23:58):
There there are friction, says to when you you bring
in evidence there is an objection. The objection will be bolstering.
He is boultering his own testimony. He came in before
said something as an expert and we're not getting too
much into the legal part of it, because there are
special ways when there's a dual purpose witness, you are
an expert and effect witness. There's a limiting instruction when

(24:21):
you're listening to this part of it. You're going to
take this testimony for whatever, and then this other testimony
will be for facts. Because an expert is at a
higher level, they're there to tell the jury something that
a lay person would not be able to understand when
in their theory. Let's put in my former prosecutor hat
on the people when they look at social media posts

(24:45):
and somebody changes the you know, the I guess the
disease for uh so, what's Christian? So instead of calling
himself Christian Appinger, he goes by brisk because cribs you
might just think, oh, he likes bees better. But cribs
are the natural enemy of the Bloods. Cribs are blue,

(25:07):
so they're Democrats, and Bloods are red, so their Republicans.
So they don't like each other. They hate each other.
So just like Republicans would change these for ours, the
Bloods would change seas for bees. Right, A normal person
wouldn't know that, So you need an expert to tell
you that cool. He came in, he said it, he
started the straw. He was present as an expert, and

(25:29):
explain that to give context to all the other evidence
to come in next. If you want to bring him
back as a fact witness, talk about what you saw,
what did you see? You saw that you saw a
post that you're the one that took down from the
subpoena and you're going to present it because you're the
foundation witness. Then that's it. Shut up, don't say nothing

(25:49):
else because you've already testified as an expert. We don't
need you to bring back your expertise. And that's what
they're trying to do. They're trying to bring him back
multiple times. What is it two or three? They want
to bring him back because in their order of their case,
they claim to have an order even though they were
ordered to give us an outline and they never did.
They claim to know what case they're presenting. And when

(26:11):
they bring it, he's going to continue to say, and me,
as an expert, I know that B. S Kate change
for C's because I don't know why. So that is
improper because that is bolstering his own testimony. It is
also cumulative. That's another objection, cumulative. Sadly, it seems that objections,
legitimate objections are ignored when they come from the defense,

(26:35):
but made up objections when they come from the state.
They always changed the court's mind, which I guess we're
going to talk about that Joe's song later on, which
is just ridiculous. The reason this case is taken years
is because when the court rules something, we as a
defense attorneys, we might you know, bicker a little bit

(26:58):
butt at the point, we will move on. Win some,
you lose some. This is the Trialey's war. You win
some battles, you lose some, you move on to the
next one.

Speaker 8 (27:05):
Uh.

Speaker 4 (27:05):
The state will not just understand that no means no.
When the court says no, they come back. They come
back later, They come back a week later, they come
back a month later, and they keep they keep whining
and whining and whining ontil the court eventually, just like
when you're dealing with a toddler at the grocery store
throwing a tantrum like okay, yes you can have that gum.
That's what it comes down to.

Speaker 3 (27:27):
More on the way, stay with us, speaking of dragging
things out, this is one of the things we were
going to talk about, which is Trantavious Stevens. We were
a little worried that we were going to be behind
with this episode because you know, we put our episodes
out a couple of days later. But Trantavia Stephens still
was on the stand, you know, recently talking about this

(27:49):
truly humble under God thing. Love is continuing to push
him on whether truly humble God is actually the you know,
acronym four. So I want to open this back up
to Christine. Let's start with you, just because this is
kind of in your wheelhouse. You've been following this particular
issue pretty closely. What do you think about this continuing

(28:10):
to swirl around?

Speaker 1 (28:12):
I mean, so just to bring people back up to
speed over the course of like like five days worth
of like actual like core testimony, right, basically, prosecution is saying, hey, look,
Brian Steele, you introduce this idea of young Thug being
truly humble under God as like the moniker for young Thug. Right,
let's go and test that a little bit. So there

(28:35):
has been lots of conversation and cross examination about like, okay, well,
if young Thug says he's truly humble under God? In
what ways has he actually demonstrated that. Let's go through
his catalog and so prosecution is acting. Trontavia Stevens, what
songs can you recall in which young Thug demonstrates that
he's truly humble under God? Trontavious Stevens offers this example,

(28:57):
Dropping Jewels, which is off of Young Thug's most recent
solo album, Punk and So as a follow up to that,
uh da, Adrian Love proceeds to quote lyrics from the
song back of Trontavia Stevens and asks, like da da,
is this young thug acting truly humble under God? Is

(29:17):
this young thug acting truly humble under God? So on
and so forth?

Speaker 2 (29:21):
In Dropping Jules, does offender Williams say, I told my
daughter keep one in the hand. She ain't got a pocket.

Speaker 5 (29:28):
I told my son if he wanted.

Speaker 2 (29:30):
To live, he might catch a body. I told my
son he ain't a cheerleader, but you might got to
catch a vide his driver than Joel, But he still
can't do it. Slop. Are those all lines and dropping
Jewels as well? Yes to either one of those lines
refer to the defendant being truly humble under God association.

Speaker 1 (29:58):
No, all right, And so the debate continues to evolve
in that Brian Steele objects and says, hey, listen, this recitation,
this dramatic reading of the song is not indicative of
how the song is performed, its overall sentiment, so on
and so forth. Let me give you the NPR tiny
disk premiere actually of this song. He did premiere live

(30:21):
before the song actually appeared on the album. And then
there was even conversation about, well, are they even allowed
to present this song right like or this particular performance
of the song right. There were some concerns over whether
the NPR logo should be shown in the video. There
was concerns about like whether this was the truest version

(30:43):
of the song possible.

Speaker 9 (30:45):
The stay has no objection to the official audio for
the song being played for the jury, but not an
NPR concert version where you know, mister Williams can add lea,
mister Williams can say leave out, and we would object
to the NPR.

Speaker 5 (31:05):
Logo being shown. All of that if.

Speaker 10 (31:09):
The state asked question after question and lyric after lyric,
not entirely, and I want to play the whole version,
and I should not be handcuffed by the state saying
specious things like they're not the identical versions, or it's
not the official version. I am playing with Jeffrey Williams
said out of his own mouth live before this jury.
They can see it and it's more audible.

Speaker 1 (31:31):
And as I'm like watching the days of conversation, I
kept thinking, like, this is just going back to lyrics
being used to demonstrate a criminal mindset. The entire time,
I kept thinking, Okay, if we're thinking about how even
folks generally agree that lyrics should be used in a
trial like this, none of this is actually speaking to

(31:53):
like an overt crime. We are still talking about young thugs,
supposed character. That's what this bita is about. But I'd
be curious to hear what you guys think it's.

Speaker 4 (32:04):
That's and that's the concern the lyrics. To me, this
I think this is one of the first instances that
showed us there's gonna be a reversal. The Court of
Appeals is going to come back and say this was improper.
You should have never prevented mister Williams, through his attorney
to give context to what this state elicited. You can't

(32:25):
just come in there Hey, let me play you a
song by my client where he talks about God and
he's a great guy, talks about his upbringing and it's
a catchy song. No, no, no, I want to play
it because they brought it up. It is rule of completeness.
It is very simple. It's not that complex. I having
been an attorney for that long, not as long as
Brian or Bruce or all the other heavy hitters in

(32:46):
that trial. But I know that when the state uses
something a video or an audio or something out of context,
we can put it in context and then the jury decides, yeah, well,
this should just be a slick attorney trying to trick us.
But no, we heard what we heard and the words
say what they say. But the reality is that, as
mister Steele said it, the inflection matters and the context matters.

(33:08):
That's why rule of completeness allows you that when they
want to use something I can put in in context
and saying that this is not the right witness, you
have to wait until later. That's ridiculous because the witness
you spoke about something the state impeached their own witness
with lyrics. So now let's go back, because we're talking

(33:29):
about it right now.

Speaker 7 (33:30):
The State of Georgia said, this is what mister Williams said.
I'm saying, actually what he said was this, and I'm
putting in the completion of the story. You know what
the song is about. It's about coming from nothing. It's
about telling your kids, not that you're writing around the body.
It's about telling the kids, if you live under the

(33:53):
circumstances at a gentleman like mister Williams did, you may
have to kill somebody because they're going to kill you.
It's self. The State of Georgia blacked all that up
in little lyrics and misconstrued what they are.

Speaker 5 (34:07):
I have every right I.

Speaker 7 (34:08):
Need to put this in, and it's not good enough
to say later, judge this trial.

Speaker 4 (34:14):
I have no clue.

Speaker 7 (34:14):
I've never been a case like this. This trial may
go on till Super Bowl next year. I don't want
to do it in seven months. It is right now,
and I should have the authority to do it, your honor.

Speaker 4 (34:26):
That song talks about how where he comes from. Sometimes
to survive, you might have to pull the trigger. You
might have to kill somebody so they don't kill you.
He's not saying go out there and kill everybody. But
he's saying, even though we live in America, the way
that we've been treated, the way that we've being segregated
into neighborhoods that no one cares about, sometimes you're going

(34:48):
to have to defend yourself because you can't trust the police.
That is the theme from the opening statements. The distrust
of the police when you grow up in the circumstances
is there, and you have to help yourself. Nobody is
saying that that song shows that he's pushing why I sail,
he's telling giving orders that he There's other songs that
are that are problematic, you know, talking about very specifically

(35:11):
about a murder that just happened. Uh, and there's details.
So yeah, that's that's probably very relevant. And again you
put it in context with the with an expert of
hip hop that says, in this genre music artists talk
about things that are happening in their neighborhood doesn't mean
they did it. And the jury decides. You say the

(35:32):
words as the prosecute, you read them, you read them
with your inflection, and then I play it. Not allowing
them to play that. I think it's a big mistake
and might bring the case back and this is this
is what I don't even I think that the state
knows they're wrong, but they don't care. They're going to

(35:55):
they know they're going to get reversed, but they don't
care because the reality is that if mister Williams is
convicted along with his other code defendants, he will be
sitting in prison while they appeal the case. Even if
the case is reversed, it's going to take years for
the transcript to be typed out, sent up to the
Court of Appeals, for that to be litigated, then sent

(36:16):
up to the Supreme Court, because whether mister Williams and
his co defendants win the appeal or lose it, then
the state is going to appeal the Court of Appeals
decision and that will take years. So even if all
of this gets thrown out, because the state keeps doing
improper things they shouldn't be doing and they know they
shouldn't be doing, mister Williams is going to be sitting

(36:36):
in prison waiting for the Court of Appeals or the
Supreme Court to do the right thing. And that is terrible.
That is absolutely terrible. You should prosecute a case with
the evidence you have, and you shouldn't be pushing the boundaries.
You shouldn't be crossing that line when you know you
know you're wrong. Rule of completeness is very clear. You
want to use the lyrics, then you're opening yourself up

(36:58):
to the jury listening to the song in the way
that it was meant to be delivered. It's just that simple.
So I I I'm very disappointed at the prosecution in this.
In this particular.

Speaker 3 (37:10):
Instance, one of the things I find that's really interesting
about this is how it swirls around this NPR logo
being on the video.

Speaker 9 (37:16):
I would ask that mister Steele not be allowed to
tell the jurial orient the witness by saying that it's
an NPR tiny desk video.

Speaker 10 (37:27):
I would agree with that, mister Steele, and that sure over.

Speaker 4 (37:31):
Your objection, over your objection, yes.

Speaker 5 (37:34):
Sir, and that.

Speaker 4 (37:39):
He performed it.

Speaker 8 (37:42):
So I expectfully.

Speaker 1 (37:45):
Ask you not limited to.

Speaker 5 (37:50):
Ken and put in.

Speaker 7 (37:52):
So much character events over my objection.

Speaker 10 (37:54):
Now they're saying we don't want n p R because
it somehow.

Speaker 6 (37:58):
I don't really know how.

Speaker 7 (37:59):
I don't really know what wrong with NPR or it's.

Speaker 3 (38:01):
Positive with NBR like over and over, Adrian Low is
basically arguing that we don't want the NPR logo on
this video. And what that obviously says, I mean is
we don't want it to look like white people approve
of this. I mean right, Like that's that to me
when I'm watching that, it's like, that's what an NPR
logo says, Like this is a oh, it's a you know,

(38:22):
she says it's a mellow down performance or whatever. But
really she's arguing about the NPR logo, and they actually won.
They're going to have to take the NPR bug off
of this logo. And I just wonder what you think
about that.

Speaker 8 (38:35):
I mean, again, if it was a it was a
beet logo, I don't think they'd be making that argument.
I am still struck by the fact that we have
spent days in court arguing over this a song that's.

Speaker 1 (38:49):
Not even listed in the indictment.

Speaker 8 (38:50):
Exactly this idea that I mean, and the underlying question
about like the truly humble Undergod thing like is for
evidentiary purposes completely irrelevant, Like I mean, stop me if
I'm wrong here, Like the fundamental evidentiary question is when

(39:11):
young Thug rented a car on behalf of Little Woody,
did he know that car was going to be used
in a drive by. Like, I mean, it's a very
plain evidence question. Like they found drugs and guns at
his house when he was arrested, can they prove they
were his or with that he was in possession of that? So, like,

(39:33):
that's a very straightforward legal evidentiary question. Whether or not
he is truly humble under God should not make a
difference about whether or not he's guilty of an actual crime.
But here we are spending days at this And this
is why I'm asking this question because it seems like

(39:53):
it stopped me if I'm wrong, But both the prosecution
and the defense seemed to be pulling at these threads
hours and days and weeks at times, lengthening the trial.
And the jurors in that room, and this is why
it's important that we be in that room are rolling
their eyes, and they're clearly uncomfortable with it.

Speaker 1 (40:13):
While they're there, if they haven't been dismissed for two
hour lunch.

Speaker 8 (40:16):
Exactly who benefits from a trial going this long in
this way? That's what I'd like to ask you.

Speaker 4 (40:26):
The state will benefit anytime a trial is long, because
people don't want to be there as much as I
wish people had a respect for the privilege and the
honor of being a member of a jury and having
somebody's life or somebody's finances in your hands and making
the right decision. People don't want to be there. They

(40:46):
want to be in and out. They'll try to find
an excuse to get out of it. So if you're
tired of being there, if you've been there for a
year and a half, and you want to go to
your life, to your home, to your career, to your
dying parents, or all the life events you're missing when
somebody is arguing with you about whether or not the

(41:07):
evidence is there to prove that somebody is guilty, be
on a reasonable doubt, maybe you had some maybe had
some points to say, no, I don't think they proved
the case. But eventually you're, you know what, just whatever,
they probably did something wrong. Let's just say they're guilty
and let's go home, because a lengthy trial will always
go against the defense. I don't see it any other way,

(41:30):
because people just want to get out of there, and
truly humble under God is just something that mister Steele
brought up in opening hasn't even been presented as evidence,
But it goes to show that they don't have a
case because they are They're just trying to This is
a middle school argument. Oh no, she said there's no
you said this, No, you said this. Where is the evidence?

(41:52):
Because I mean, Doug is going to be an acrement
for many things. It means different things to different people.
Going back to what does this have to do with
the charges that you against him? Whether or not he
believes in God? Why don't we get into whether or
not God exists. Let's do that. Let's bring some experts.
I mean we should do that, that argument, right, I
just know that. Let's it goes to show that they

(42:15):
don't know their case. They're going a day by day
basis and there if anything, maybe this was the genius
of mister Steele. Get him distracted from the other pieces
of evidence that are hurtful because they spend more time
under the God thing than anything else. Right.

Speaker 1 (42:36):
I mean there were actual other of the acts that
like arrest, that were talked about, but relatively speaking, there
was so much more bandwidth that was dedicated toward this
argument over whether young Thug is truly humble under God
or not. Because other than that, when you're talking about
like you know, young Thug and Gunna being arrested and
where they found drugs and guns and all that type
of stuff. A lot of times it's like they're just

(42:57):
recounting what already happened, and you know, some oftentimes they're saying, well,
that also was like however many years ago. So this
is going to be brief. I'm going to have to
you know, dust the cobwebs off of my collective memory.
But relatively speaking, like there's been so little discussion about
actual overt acts related to this indictment, then this whole

(43:20):
character based debate, which is driving me crazy a little bit.

Speaker 5 (43:27):
We'll be back after the break.

Speaker 8 (43:34):
I have to wonder what the loss of Lizzie Rosenwasser
and Don Geary early in.

Speaker 1 (43:40):
The case meant for attorneys.

Speaker 8 (43:43):
Yeah, so two prosecutors. Don Geary, who apparently had been
working on this thing for nearly ten years.

Speaker 5 (43:51):
He's the one, by the way, who says he's the
king Slime in our show.

Speaker 8 (43:55):
That would be the one. Like late in twenty twenty two,
he quit the office, he quit the Fulton County District
Attorney's office. He's now a prosecutor in Gwennette County, and
a few months later, Elizabeth Rosenwasser, who was a well
respected attorney in that office, went back to the Attorney

(44:17):
General's office to go work as an Assistant Attorney General
in their Major Crimes unit. And so two of the
big heavy hitters who had been gearing up for this
trial were gone. And that's why Adrian Love is the
chief prosecutor in this case. I have to wonder whether
or not she was fully prepared for this.

Speaker 5 (44:38):
He he's a hell of a task to step into.

Speaker 4 (44:40):
We'll say, let's put it this way. When you are
a public servant, which prosecutors are, they don't get paid much.
The main thing that the reason we do the Japanaza
prosecutor for the trial experience and to learn how to
be a great attorney. And there's amazing attorneys that are
our prosecutors or former prosecutors. But you don't just switch jobs.

(45:01):
Will and Nielly because they didn't go into private practice
like Okay, she left the DA's office because she got
hired by King and Spaulding for seven figures. Now she
went just across the street to the AG's office. And
it's probably working on many very important cases, but not
one of the most important cases in Georgia history. So

(45:21):
why would you leave that? Same with mister gear He
is a career prosecutor, I think he was. He did
defense for a little bit with his daughter, and then
he went right back to prosecution because that is his calling,
and he's an amazing prosecutor. He's the one that prosecuted
the shooting of the bus of mister Carter, so he

(45:42):
knows more about this case than anybody else. Probably why
did he leave those Those are questions that are go
show the strength of the case. And you wanted to
talk about Lucci, right.

Speaker 3 (45:55):
I was just going to say, we've got a little
bit of a templat as to what the end of
this could look like. I mean, this is another high
profile rico trial, the rival the alleged rival gang of YSL,
Yfen and YFN Lucci. On January twenty third, just basically,
you know, his case came to a conclusion. They had

(46:15):
thirteen charges I think against him that one of them
was murder. So you know, these are big charges and
he ends up walking away with one count, pleading guilty
to one count of basically being involved in a gang.

Speaker 5 (46:26):
Correct.

Speaker 4 (46:27):
So Tom Yrigo Gaunt, not the finally murder, none of
the very serious charges he was accused of. And I'm
glad he's going to get to go home soon, and
I'm happy he got a great deal, and it seems
like a very reasonable deal.

Speaker 3 (46:39):
And that deal is mostly time served, right, and he's
probably going to be in jail for another three months
or so, right, give or take.

Speaker 8 (46:47):
Bearing in mind, I mean he's a first defender. He's
never been convicted of a crime.

Speaker 4 (46:51):
Before, just like mister Williams. Mister Williams has no family convictions.
I prosecuted him for a family but he completed first defender,
so he's not a follonin.

Speaker 5 (47:00):
Wow, that's interesting. You were on the other side.

Speaker 4 (47:02):
I yes, a long time ago.

Speaker 5 (47:03):
Yes, I knew you worked for the DA's office.

Speaker 3 (47:05):
I didn't realize you were that intimately involved with the
young Thug case.

Speaker 5 (47:09):
That's incredible.

Speaker 4 (47:10):
I was in again unit. I was investigating this case
the DA's office when I came into the case, when
I was appointed this and I put in my entry.
They found a motion to get me off the case
because they said I had a conflict.

Speaker 5 (47:24):
You know how the sausages met.

Speaker 4 (47:25):
My response was what is it that I know? What
do I know? What do I have in my mind
from ten years ago that I remember that you were
not planning to disclose in discovery? There is nothing I
know that you should not be giving out in discovery. Eventually,
I guess they came off of it and they gave
me permission to be in the case. But it's yeah,

(47:48):
there seems to be a lot of stuff they want
to hide. They don't want the cameras in there. They
don't want people to have intimate knowledge of the case
to be involved. It's concerning. But going back to mister
mister Lucci, he had been in jail for years waiting
on a trial COVID or whatever. But still then while

(48:09):
cel truck came after his indictment and the trial got started.
So he's still stuck in jail. And in his case,
it's alleged that he was in the car where somebody
died because he was a drive by shooting, was retaliatory
or self defense or whatever. But somebody died and he
was physically in the car and he didn't pull the trigger.

(48:30):
But party to a crime puts him on the scene
and makes him a member of the gang or whatever.
And the after they gave him is very reasonable. Somebody died,
so you're going to serve some years in prison. I think,
what was it twenty to ten. But they are asking
the parole to let him out once he's done a

(48:51):
third of his sentence, which he's already done most of it.
Very reasonable resolution as far as I know, mister Williams,
I'm not his attorney, but so I know they haven't
even given him an offer. They haven't even say twenty
two turrico would they have not extended an offer. Definitely
not a reasonable offer for him to consider. And wait,

(49:11):
I didn't do what they said they did, but it
might be my best interest to take this deal and
go away for a couple of years, because I'd rather
do that than risking going to trial and being convicted
for twenty plus twenty plus twenty for all the charges
he has. So even though it's the same office, it
is the exact same office as prosking him. It is

(49:31):
the district attorney Fani Willis in charge of both prosecutions.
It seems like the line prosecutors in the Luca case
were a lot more reasonable.

Speaker 5 (49:41):
I mean, what's behind that? Do you think?

Speaker 3 (49:42):
And does do you think that the resolution of the
YFN trial signals anything about the evidence they had? I mean,
are there any parallels do you think between YSL and YFN,
Like it seems like they got to the you know,
they got to the finish line with YFN, and they're like,
maybe we don't have what we think we have, and

(50:03):
maybe it'd be safer for us to make a deal.
I'm just saying as an observer who has no legal
very little legal knowledge, just been watching this, learning with
these guys, it's hard not to draw those conclusions.

Speaker 4 (50:15):
That's one possibility, or also the possibility that when you're
a prosecutor, and when you become a prosecutor and you
go down to pack and you get trained and you
do all that, you have to put your right hand
up and you swear an oath and you say that
one of the things you swear too, is that you
will be a steward of taxpayers dollars because you're not
working for a big law firm that has availables. You
are doing your job with the public's money, and you

(50:38):
have to use that money in best ways you can.
That's why you have the tremendous power of prosecutory discretion.
That's why you don't offer the maximum and take to
try out every single possession of marijuana, because it's a
waste of resources. You want to focus on crimes that
involve victims, people that are hurt. In this case, there's
people that are hurt, right, But you want to do
that in a way that takes in consideration all the

(51:00):
other thousands of cases that your office has. So do
you want to shut down a courtroom for two years
a year and a half so far because of these
six people that you really really really want to get
or you want to be recent and say, you know what, guys,
we think we can prove it, but we don't want

(51:20):
to waste resources. And this is an offer that is
too good for you to say no to. Although I
do believe that they don't have the evidence to convict
mister Williams, they do have evidence that hurts the code
defendens and that's why they want to keep them together.
That's why they fought so hard to object to serverances
because the evidence against other people that is pretty solid

(51:40):
will get by association a guilt to mister Williams and
other young men that I think little Rod, little Rod's
already serving life without parole. Why is he there? That
young man made a mistake when he was a child,
before his brain was fully developed. A jury determined that
he made a mistake and that he needs to pay

(52:00):
by dying in prison. Why is he there? Why are
you pulling him through this? Because life in prison is
a lot easier than life at Rice Street. I'll tell
you that mister Dorsey wanted to go back to prison,
and many times he said, you know what, let's just
take it whatever, because they can't do anything else to him.
He's going to die in prison anyway. Just get me
out of here, let me go back to the system.

(52:21):
But luckily he trusted me, and I said, let's just
keep fighting. Let's just keep fighting, and eventually we got
the result what we're looking for. But people would rather
be in prison than in restreet.

Speaker 8 (52:32):
This idea of jail as punishment is I mean, it's unconstitutional,
like flatly, But how do you get from there to
a federal judge who says that you can't do this?

Speaker 4 (52:44):
I don't even know political power, because I mean political will,
because who wants to stand up for a bunch of
accused criminals?

Speaker 8 (52:53):
Right? The thing with the wif N case, Like, so
there were a dozen co defendants for Raechhon Bennett Lucci,
one of whom was sent back to prison, like they
just dropped the charges and it was after a big
fight over discovery. Another one ended up taking a like

(53:13):
I want to say, it's a ten year deal, Like
I mean, go to prison ten years, like a very
serious deal like this is you know, that's a difficult
that's a difficult term to serve, Like that was not
that was not a sweetheart deal. And so the idea
that there's this range from now we'll just drop the

(53:34):
charges to ten years speaks to like whatever it took,
whatever they think they could get in order to end
that trial, because there was a lot of information in
that trial that I still want to understand better. Like
the other half of all of the shootings that we're
talking about in the YSL case are in the YFN trial,

(53:58):
who was shooting at who? Like who was getting shot
at for example, shatted stillwell was shot at like in
an incident where one of the people in the car
was killed. Like there's details there that I would have
wanted to know that I'm not going to get from

(54:19):
the other side where there's a defense attorney who's probing
and pulling information and explaining in more detail, and like
that's just not going to happen and intensely frustrating, and
it seems to revolve around discovery. What I'm hearing from
other attorneys in other cases is that the district Attorney's

(54:39):
office has made a habit of dumping terrorbytes of discovery
at the last possible moment defendants from all sorts of
different cases and then telling their attorney like, all right,
now we will try it. Let's have a let's talk
dealing now now that you see all of this stuff
and you're realizing how hours it's going to take to

(55:01):
get through the discovery, like yeah, God, take some time,
or or they'll finally turn over the discovery and then go,
you know, don't we don't have it and they'll drop
the case, even though the fellow has been sitting in
Rice Street for eighteen months, where that was the punishment
that they were able to to extract. None of this

(55:23):
stuff shows up in an appeals court never, because it's
never either a deal is taken or charges are dropped
and so there's nothing to appeal. So how do we
like if this is misconduct, how did we get at it?

Speaker 4 (55:38):
You don't know. These prosecutors have pros Victorian immunity. They have.
You can't do it anything to them. You can't sue them.
Even the worst thing that can happen to them is
their conviction gets overturned and now there's a blemish on
their conviction record. They're never gonna sit a day in
a jail for any whatever they did that was improper,
or pay anybody any money. They still get their pay ship.

(56:00):
So nothing, nothing, absolutely nothing happens Toitoria misconduct. Nothing that
I've seen that should change, But I don't think it's
ever going to change. And to contrast that, in the
in the y Offen case with mister there was a range.
Some people got charges drop, some people got ten years
in prison. Some people, I mean, Misterbnnett sentence is a
teen year prison sentence. It's just eligible for Pearl. Every

(56:23):
single person that has resolved a YSL case got the
grave punishment for the horrible things they did, for putting
Atlanta As in a horrible situation for years. They got probation.
Probation that's what you get when you have a DUI.
That's what you get when you do shoplifting.

Speaker 1 (56:44):
Yeah, is there anything else that you feel like is
important to point out as you're taking this all in.

Speaker 4 (56:50):
I think there is a need for the legislature and
the judges. The judges have power to break up this
ridiculous long, multi codefendent prosecution that do not work. Let's
go back to the insurrection people try to take over
the capital back in January sixth, and the FETs have
done an amazing job holding people accountable for what they did,

(57:12):
one by one by one, without wasting people's the people's
money and time, without having jurors sit there for months
or years. There's better ways to prosecute cases. And just
wanting to put a notch in your belt because you
had the biggest, longest running trial is not proper. The

(57:32):
judges sholl sever them anytime somebody comes up with we
have sixty some co defendents that were hanging out at
a forest. Let's have sixty trials. Then you want to
do this, let's do it one by one. Let's stop
this nonsense where it puts pressure on people to cooperate
or to turn state, or to take a deal that
is probably not a great deal. Just to avoid being

(57:55):
in a trial for months, because even if you're not
in jail, jail is a big factor. But let's talk
about the Maga case. Some of those people took deals
because they can't afford an attorney. Mester Trump is not
their pay for their legal bills. I mean, I think
mister Giuliani, what has he got like three hundred dollars
in the bank account. It costs money to have an

(58:17):
attorney seat with you there non stop, and some people
can't afford it, and that is not fair. That's not just.
These people are presumed innocent and they should have a
trial that's a reasonable trial without the waste of resources.
That's how I feel.

Speaker 5 (58:33):
Well, thank you so much. That's a great, great note
to end on.

Speaker 3 (58:38):
We are on video now. If you're watching this on YouTube,
you already know that. But if you're listening to this
as a podcast, know that you can find us on
YouTube on.

Speaker 5 (58:46):
The Iheard YouTube channel.

Speaker 3 (58:48):
Don't do this, so check that out and we'll be
back with more guests. We're posting every other Wednesday, and
we'll be back in another two weeks.

Speaker 1 (59:15):
King Slime is a production of iHeart Podcasts and Heirloom Media.

Speaker 8 (59:19):
It's written and produced by George Cheedy, Christina Lee, and Tommy.

Speaker 1 (59:22):
Andres, mixing sound design and original music by Evan Tyre
and Taylor Chakoi.

Speaker 8 (59:28):
The executive producer and editor is Tommy Andres.

Speaker 1 (59:31):
Our theme music is by Done Deal Special thanks to
Carl Catle.

Speaker 8 (59:36):
For more shows from iHeart Podcasts, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.