March 20, 2024 • 50 mins
Legal affairs reporter Meghann Cuniff joins the King Slime crew to discuss the growing animus between the prosecution, defense and even the judge presiding over the YSL trial, and how it could impact the case.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
H King Slime is a production of iHeart Polodcasts and
Heirloom Media.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm sorry I'm talking, and I don't know why I
am being interrupted.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
I would not stop. I was speaking. I'm sorry I
was I know I was speaking. Speak when I'm speaking.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
Both of you all need to just take it down
and not.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
And so you honor if I may finish, because I
was the one speaking before, mister Weinstein. But you have
you have you continually engage in this pattern of behavior, misloved.
You don't want to accept my ruling, and and and
I know you've been an advocate, but at some point stop,
just stop. I made my ruling. Good bad are indifferent
(00:45):
to you. You're gonna win some, you're gonna lose some.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
I do it except okay, No, you don't know. You don't.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
I'm George Cheating and I'm Christina Lee.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
And this is King Slime. The recap.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
There you go, there you go. So hello, hello George,
how are you doing better?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Now?
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Better?
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Now?
Speaker 1 (01:15):
I'm so glad to hear that. It's been a mess.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
It's been a mess.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
We are joined, of course, by executive producer Tommy Andres Hey, Tommy, Hey,
guess and we have a very special guest here to
help us dissect whatever the hell happened over the past
few days in court. So joining us to not only
dissect what's been going on in days forty forty one
and forty two for those who are counting, in addition
(01:40):
to the strategy that we may be seeing from both
sides of the Ysel trial, is who I know as
Megan the reporter, Meghan Quniv. You know, started off as
a newspaper reporter and now she's gone independent after she
rose to fane covering the Tory Lane's trial over in
Los Angeles. Megan, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, thanks for having me before we.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Talk about, like, I guess, like the broader strategy we
need to at least like go through I guess what
we have seen over the past couple of days. So,
for those who don't remember, court was essentially at a
session for seven days, but we've been able to see
some more testimony from Adrian Bean and some really interesting
conversations between prosecution and defense. Maybe I will take everybody
(02:28):
you know one step back just to make recap what
we've supposedly learned from this whole thing. Right, So we
have witnessed testimony from police officers where some people were
saying there are three people in this red Nissan that
did the free Willy incident into the coin laundromat. Some
people say that there were four people in the car.
Some people say that there was a the driver was
(02:48):
a woman who got away and escaped the scene. We
have this nine to one one call for a woman
calling on behalf of her neighbor. Here there's some Ofdale
apartments who basically said that there was a shooter who
walked into this apartment and said that this guy was
named Young Thug or something or something. Jerry doesn't get
to hear that part of the call, so all they've
(03:09):
heard is that some person may have come into this
neighbor's apartment in the moments after the Nissan incident. We've
been able to see jail calls from Adrian Bean or basically,
we've got jail calls from Adrian Bean to his wife
and another unidentified male saying I should have run with
thug because he got away. We have police interviews saying
that where Adrian Bean says that Young Thug was there.
(03:32):
But now we've got this taped interview where Brian Steele
asked Adrian Bean if he was pushed to say that
Young Thug was there. This is on top of the
fact that the defense has essentially said, you know what, remember,
we should remember this incident was on September eleventh, twenty thirteen.
This is more than a decade ago, and Young Thug
was never officially charged with all that. Okay, So with
(03:57):
all of this in mind, Megan, George, what do we
think of all this? Where are we following if you're
jer on this one particular incident, trying to dissect all
of this.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
So I'll start, we wouldn't hear a word of any
of this in a regular murder trial like this is
irrelevant because he was never charged. It's prejudicial in my opinion.
And I'm fascinated by the fact that the District Attorney's
(04:31):
office is introducing this and spending as much time as
they are on it in exhaustive detail. Like if they
are going into this much detail on this specific incident,
you start asking yourself, well, how much more detail are
they going to give for all of the other one
(04:51):
hundred plus counts that there are on this thing? And
how long is this going to take? Yeah?
Speaker 6 (04:58):
No, I definitely agree with that, But in terms of
this being prejudicial because it wasn't sure, I mean, it's
an overt act. Like if this was a murder case
and this was somehow relevant to it, we definitely would
be would be hearing about this just because the fact
that they didn't charge it originally doesn't mean that they
can't come and use it as an overt act in
the Rico conspiracy, which they are now. But they just
(05:21):
have so many overt acts here that it's just it's
just a total waste of time. And I feel like
the last really everything we've heard about in the trial
so far, the last four months has just been you
don't need it for a Rico case, Like I don't
understand why they think they needed such a huge recocase
through all this, And the idea that the jury is
(05:41):
going to be able to stay intact through this is
just like not.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
I don't think it's feasible.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
I mean when you look at the indictment, I mean
they're probably not even like a quarter or of the way
through through it, and we're like, what for four months
into trial?
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Five months into trial, I mean, it's crazy to me,
It really is just crazy.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
To me how big this case is and the lack
of kind of leadership from the judge and kind of
whittling it down and managing the trial.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
I want to come back to this thing you're saying
about like keeping the jury intact, and I want to
preface this by saying, like, Megan, you've covered a lot
of trials and you understand, like you know what a
long trial could do to a jury. We've lost two
jurors so far. Like, jury's got sixteen people in it now,
(06:30):
it's fourteen. If they get below twelve, it's game over
and they've got to start again. You're suggesting that over
the as long as this trial is expected to go,
you don't expect there to be twelve jurors at the end.
Speaker 6 (06:48):
Yeah, I mean I just can't see for the slow
pace that it is and for how incremental they're going here.
I mean, they get maybe a couple hours or three
hours of testimony in a day when they when they
take testimony. So when you just look at the indictment,
the idea that they're ever going to be able to
get through it all within I mean, this could seriously
take like a year or two. And Yeah, the jurors
(07:10):
were screened for a long trial, but you just don't
know what's going to go on with their lives and
the idea that they're all just going to stay intact
for this like it's a real I mean, I mean,
I saw somebody in my Twitter replies say it was
just amazing that McAfee has a opponent in the election
but Glanville doesn't, And I'm like, yeah, that because I mean,
the big warning sign initially when I turned, when I
(07:32):
started paying attention to the trial was how he snaps
and loses his temper at the attorneys and yells, because
that's always a sign of a judge masking management deficiencies
of his own.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
And it just seems like for.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
A big, unusual or unprecedented trial because I've covered trials
that are long, but really the longest trial that I've
ever covered is maybe like two and a half months
or something. I Mean, this is just crazy to me,
how how long it is and how sporadic to test
stimoni is, Like, it's just it's crazy.
Speaker 7 (08:04):
Well, Glanville snapping actually just happened. So let's talk about
this recent incident here, because I think it speaks to
a lot of the relationship between the prosecution and the
defense and Glanville sort of role in mediating between them.
Speaker 8 (08:16):
Can you walk us through a little bit about what happened?
Speaker 6 (08:18):
Yeah, I mean it's stuff that comes up in any trial,
kind of last minute stuff because they can do all
the prep they can, but they can never, you know,
just prevent any issue from coming up. But Glanville really
has a problem with kind of like taking the bull
by the horns. And I guess, God, this was about
I got.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
You, Megan, I got you Megan. So when we first
tuned into court footage, we have what I've called Adrian
Love v. Doug Weinstein's v. Judge Glanville. Right, so essentially
Dot Weinstein, who's representing Diamante Hendrick, otherwise known as rapper
Yah Gotti. He was essentially arguing to suppress interviews from
twenty fifteen with police where Monte Kendrick essentially called for
(09:01):
his lawyer. Adrian Love was saying, like, hey, but listen
when Diamontan Kendrick was going back outside after the fact
after calling for his lawyer to go smoke a cigarette,
he proceeded to continue the conversation. And so I guess
there was some argument over whether Georgia law said that
whatever he said after the fact, even though he called
(09:22):
for his lawyer, was still admissible, and so as Adrian
Love is speaking in paragraphs about why this is admissible,
Doug Weinstein was over it some point.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
I don't know why.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
I'm sorry I was.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
I know I was already when I'm speaking.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Both of you all need to just take.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
It down on that said that Adrian Love could talk
the ears off a donkey.
Speaker 9 (09:56):
You're and I apologize for interrupting the state earlier, but
the state can talk the ears off a donkey. This
continued filibustering has got to stop so that opposing council
can speak.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
And Judge Glanville tried to be like that parent and say, hey,
you guys, just get it together. My ruling is my ruling.
But as you said, Megan, it only continued to smial
from there. That was literally just within the first couple of.
Speaker 8 (10:19):
Minutes, and then the bailiff at Is step in.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
I mean, the reason Love pushes back on him so
much is because a lot of the times it works,
he changes his ruling for but she just seemed I mean,
I mean, it was just, you know, all the back
and forth the sheriff's deputy stepping in, But also like
when you see the sheriff's deputy step in, if you
really pay attention to what Glanville's doing, he's like looking
at his phone at one instant, it's like, what is this?
Speaker 3 (10:43):
What is this.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
Judge doing here? Like he doesn't seem to be really
managing this, this trial and the arguments and the issues
and stuff. It's it's a little concerning.
Speaker 7 (10:53):
Yeah, what do you think about Glanville and the pacing
of the trial too, because we've talked a lot about
how the prosecution and defense have sort of contributed to
the slow of this, but really the judge is the
one running the show, So how is he contributing sort
of personally to the just sort of how long this
is taking.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
I mean, the fact that.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
He has a dog in there with him is a
warning sign. You know, he has a therapy dog. But
a lot of the times you kind of wonder if
the dog is dictating some of the breaks. But there's
been times, especially recently, he's just been straight up like,
you know, oh, I need to take a comfort break.
I need to take a comfort break. But it's to me,
it's just really unusual from what I'm used to. Like
this trial in LA that's going on right now, the
(11:33):
judge does eight am to two or two thirty pm,
and he doesn't do a lunch break. He only does
two ten minute breaks through the whole day. And when
he takes the ten minute break, you can tell he
doesn't even really want to do that, and sometimes he'll
call it back in nine minutes. I mean, he's just
he doesn't want to waste the jury's time, and he
doesn't allow sidebars or anything like that. So that's just
(11:54):
like what I'm used to in terms of trial judges.
So to see this, I mean, granted it's it's Superior Court,
it's not, he's not an Article three judge, but it
just in terms of bringing a huge case like this
in trying to get it tried, it's kind of fascinating
to see what a cluster at all is. I mean,
just the idea that the jury is ever gonna even
get this case, first of all, and then when they do,
(12:16):
I mean, are they going to even remember like half
of this stuff? Like some of the big trials that
I cover, you know, there there's concern about that, like
how are you going to remind the witnesses of the
testimony in the in the very beginning, and that's kind
of what closing arguments are for. But it's like, what
are we gonna have like a two week closing argument here?
I mean, it's it's kind of a joke.
Speaker 7 (12:37):
Yeah, So you wrote about this, Megan, about judges Landville schedule.
So in your writing you said that he limits testimony
to four hours per day, which we just talked about.
Speaker 8 (12:45):
The trial is usually limited to.
Speaker 6 (12:46):
Four I'm not sure if he limits it, but it go.
It's never really been more about four hours. But it's
not like he has like rules. Okay, we never really
see more than like two or.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Three hours between the comfort breaks, the late start time,
I'm the long lunch time. It mounts to about like
four hours.
Speaker 7 (13:03):
And then there's only four days a week usually because
he's you know, serious as judge, so he's got other
things to do. So yes, usually the proceedings are four
days a week. There have been some Friday proceedings, but
not too many. He starts late all the time. Basically
we've all gotten used to that, right, I mean that
usually a half hour two sometimes an hour late, and
then these two hour lunch breaks we talked about, and
then some there's been these random breaks too that just
(13:24):
keep popping up where court gets canceled. So it's interesting.
And the meanwhile, jurors are getting twenty five dollars a
day for this, which as you you know, you brought
up Megan, like you know, not even just keeping people
physically in this case for that long, but I mean
keeping them from just being so damn frustrated.
Speaker 8 (13:42):
And like brokes and broke.
Speaker 7 (13:44):
It's like, man, So anyway.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
That's something I'm watching here. It's just it's just statistical probability. Here.
You have a lot of jurors who are over sixty
years old, Like, what is the likelihood that any one
of them gets an illness like COVID that either you
shut the whole trial down while they're out for a
couple of weeks, or you dismiss them. If they have
(14:09):
an illness that's more serious than that, then you dismiss them.
And how like, take fourteen people, what are the odds
that three of them, over the course of the year
are dismissible for whatever reason? You know, the longer this
plays out, the higher the probability is that you just
(14:31):
don't keep a jury pool together.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
I mean, that's the thing. It's like in efforts to
get a jury that's like representative of our peers, right,
you have the folks who are over sixty, George. But
then on top of that, we're getting additional days off
in April, specifically because I think Judge Glamville referred to
you know, tending to kids who are going on spring
break and things like that. Like, we have real life
events that are supposed to happen that cannot possibly be
(14:56):
accommodated for a trial that Brian Steele has joked but
also maybe not joke is supposed to last until Super
Bowl twenty twenty five if Megan's estimation is correct.
Speaker 7 (15:05):
So yeah, I mean, what happens we get the summer
if some of these people have kids, like you know, well,
and I.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
Think the trial could easily be like changed, Like I mean,
in the article I wrote, like Bruce Harvey talked about
how he thinks there's going to be a change in
approach here pretty soon and that they could be done
by August or September.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
But to be done by August or September, they would
have to really really really change their.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
Approach and just looking into the background, like the politics
at the DA's office and what happened with this case,
how the prosecution team was like replaced after the indictment
was already secured. I don't think the prosecutors that are
going to really feel comfortable changing the case very much
like that.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
You know, they came into the case late.
Speaker 6 (15:45):
This is the case, and this is how they're doing
it because I you know, I said because some people
are saying, oh, the prosecutors are mediocre, and I'm I
don't think they're mediocre.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Like I think Simone Hilton is good.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
I mean, she's she's got a naw she's president of
a National Prosecutors Association or something this year. But you
can tell she's very experienced with the with the types
of cases that are up that are the overt acts,
like a carjacking trial, a home burglary trial, an armed
robbery trial. Same with Christian Adkins. And like DA Love
(16:21):
is probably kind of like a legend in the DA's
office for some of the cases that she's won, like
the murder cases, the robbery cases and stuff. But in
terms of like a big conspiracy case, it's just like
they don't know what they're doing in terms of how
they put it together, but to really blame them when
you hear the background of they weren't even the original
prosecution team. You can just look at all the politics
(16:42):
in the DA's office, especially right now, and feel like
the prosecutors themselves probably feel like they are kind of
stuck because they probably do see that they could look
at the indictment and take out a bunch of stuff
that doesn't need to be in there, but they don't
want to send an indictment back to the jury room
that has a bunch of stuff in there that they
didn't cover. So it's just like kind of this cluster
(17:04):
that it's like a combination of the politics of the
DA's office and then just the oversize of the case
that's created this conundrum for the prosecutorial team. You wonder
if they even really feel like they can make any
changes right now.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
One of the things I'd like you to do is
put this RICO in context with other RECO cases that
you've looked at, like what what does normal look like,
so that we can sort of reset our expectations here.
Speaker 6 (17:31):
I mean, I've only I covered a federal RICO case
in Orange County involving the Mongols motorcycle club, and I
was just kind of surprised to learn about how often
the state RICO charge in Georgia is used, I mean,
against the court reporters a few years ago and things
like that. It seems like it's kind of more of
a looser application in Georgia's state law. But at least
(17:53):
the Mongol's motorcycle club case was all about a conspiracy
with the gang. Like one example, and I cited this
in my article, was that a couple of the overt
acts or the supporting acts for there was a RICO
conspiracy charge and then there was actually just a violation
of RICO, not just they conspired to violate RICO.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
They did violate RICO.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
And some of the overt acts were drug possession like
methambetamine and cocaine possession. But they actually stipulated the defense
and the prosecution stipulated to the fact that those drugs
were those drugs. So they brought the drugs into the
courtroom and everything, but they didn't have somebody from like
a crime lab get up and testify about the testing
(18:35):
process for the drugs, because it's just it's not the
legal question wasn't drug possession or whether the drugs actually existed.
It's whether they were part of the club, whether they
related to the club, and not just the individual members
who'd been arrested at that So the trial was just
a lot shorter. It was like five days a week
and you know, eight thirty am to four thirty pm.
(18:57):
All this testimony was just better managed, so you got
it all in tighter. But also just in terms of
how prosecutors approached it, it was it was a much
more conspiracy case instead of let's have a bunch of
mini trials about all the overt acts, which I feel
like that's what this is.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
So is that how you'd sum up the prosecution strategy
as having these sort of mini trials about the overt acts.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Yeah, And I'm not.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
Sure if it would if we should call it a
strategy or it's just kind of an accidental way of
how they're doing it, because none of them have ever really,
you know, have they done a big conspiracy case like this.
And then, like I said, the kind of last minute
change of the prosecutors and the way these cases work
is they just split up the witnesses and you know,
one prosecutor has a group of witnesses that he takes
(19:41):
care of, and the other prosecutors have their groups of witnesses.
So you just wonder how much talk there is about
actually proving a conspiracy here, because I think Adrian Love
tried to do that in writing her opening. She tried
to write the you know, theme about the wolf pack
and stuff, but you just haven't seen that play out
through their witnesses, and they're completely screwing themselves by having
(20:03):
way too big of a case.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
I mean, they're just.
Speaker 7 (20:05):
Yeah, yeah, the in furtherance of a gang is the
thing we always talk about, the phrase that comes up
here all the time, and we've just I don't know,
from our purchase we've seen I'm curious for years. It
sounds like you're similar, like we haven't really seen that
proven or even even really alluded to as much as
I would have thought so far in this trial, you know, you.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Mean, besides the super slimming cover art.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (20:29):
Yeah, And I almost feel like, I mean, gosh, we
have heard so many witnesses about this red Nissan crashing
into a laundromats, like okay, you know, I mean seriously,
I mean, how many of there have been like fifteen.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
I mean, it almost seems like it would.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
Be overkill if it was just a trial about you know,
a rioting charge or something that was related to this, Mealy,
it would just be overkill here. But for this to
just be three overt acts for one hundred and ninety
one of a Rico conspiracy, you know, it's just way
too much.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
You know what's really interesting is that we're still not
going to hear the end of Adrian Bean as of
this recording. Like he is on the stand right now,
sounding very very sick of being on there by the
way hereby, he asked me, Ques ask me, I'm all
moved on my life, man, I ain't got time for
the game.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
Y'all assassinated me. Man, you're about time? You about time
for mashes now.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
I'm all on u.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Uh all these blogs, all these chunking my face all
over the new and everything like that.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
Keep won't ask the quest. I'm telling you, I don't
don't recall.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
He is over it. He is over saying no, sir, no, ma'am,
I don't recall whatever the paper says. So he is
still on the stand at this moment. And then in
the meantime, yesterday so on Thursday, as the jury was
essentially waiting in the court in the court house to
enter the court room, Adrian Love and Brian Steel are
also debating over this hospital statement that may or may
(21:53):
not exist. Right, So basically what the jury has heard
so far is Adrian Love reading from a police statement
that Adriam Being gave to Detective Quinn in the days
after the incident. But then, as Brian Steele posits, there
has to be another statement taken when Adrian Bean was
at Grady Hospital basically refuting his original statement to Detective
(22:17):
Quinn and saying, like, you know, they the in which
like they tried to pin young thug specifically not only
being the car but being in the driver. And so
there's this hole back and forth about who supposedly is
more robbed over this hospital statement existing not existing, somehow
(22:38):
not materializing, and then this turns into like a whole
shouting match over like who is being more unethical, who
is being more unjust Like in the court of law.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
You are saying to the court that you have a
belief that there is another statement out there.
Speaker 5 (22:54):
There's not.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Because it hasn't been brought up.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
If it brings if it.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Gets brought up, then will correct.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
It at that point in time.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
But right now, I'm going to direct you not to
not to inquire that line.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
You don't have a basis to do so, not true.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Well, go ahead and go ahead and make a.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Statement, and see what happens.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Go ahead and make the statement in contravention to what
I've just told you. And I'm telling you that you
will have some problems in front of me.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I don't know what to make of all this, you guys,
like it really felt produced by Andy Cohen. It felt
like a reunion episode of a Bravo show, but it
was completely unsatisfying.
Speaker 8 (23:36):
It's a little thing on Discovery.
Speaker 6 (23:39):
Her phone never appears in Mark's Phone Wreckers.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
You will have to appear in Core. Here is your subpoenas.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
And I just couldn't believe what I was witnessing, where
like one side is accusing the other of essentially fabricating evidence,
and meanwhile you have Brian Steel over here. That's being like,
Adrian Love is not my boss.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
It is Upscene.
Speaker 8 (24:00):
Hey, miss Love is not my boss. I owe nothing
except to the law and mister Williams. And that's where
I am.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
Yeah, I thought Glandelle said something to Adrian Love that
I thought was interesting, where he was telling her to
stop and calm down, and he.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Was like, I know you're being an advocate.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Will you continually engage in this pattern of behavior and
misloved you don't want to accept my ruling. Yeah, and
I know you've been an advocate, but at some point stop,
just stop.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Which is true. She is an advocate.
Speaker 6 (24:33):
She's an advocate for the state, the laws, the people
of Georgia. But also it just reminded me of another
case I'm covering. There was a magistrate judge in a
transcript said something that the roles of the prosecutor and
the defense are different, Like it's the defense's job to
actually just throw anything at the wall to try to
get it to stick, to advocate for their client. I mean,
(24:55):
that's kind of a glib way to sum it up,
but it really is. You know, the defense should be
putting any argument out there that they can, But to
say that the prosecutor should just be throwing spaghetti at
the wall, it's like this. Prosecutors are held to a
little bit of a higher standard in that they need
to have a clear goal and argument there, so just
the just the way she's so her accusation it's against Steel,
(25:20):
I think did kind of cross the line, especially about
I mean cross the line in terms of what is
the line, but in terms of accusing him of you know,
he's the one who planned who mentioned the hospital to Adrian,
when actually they play the tape back and Adrian is
the one who mentioned the hospital. It's just you think
that the prosecutors need to be a little more careful
(25:41):
and know their evidence a little bit better than what
they're doing there. And then also in just in terms
of the unprofessional professionalism of it, because he said something about,
you know, the rants of da love, which maybe was
a little unprofessional on his party, doesn't need to like
quite use that term. But then she turned around and says,
you know, he needs to stop insulting me. And then
(26:03):
while we're on it, you know, he gets up there
and it's just hysterical and it's like it says that
kind of hyperbolic talk that she turns around and insults
him too. Where it's just and one big problem is
there's no judge up there actually just regulating on all
of this, because in the end, all this stuff just
starts at the top and trickles down.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
All right, we're going to take a break. We'll be
right back after this. And we're back.
Speaker 7 (26:45):
So we had some other interesting news pop in this week,
which was this Supreme Court decision on lyrics.
Speaker 8 (26:52):
So George, this is it just is in Georgia, George's.
Speaker 7 (26:56):
Supreme Court decision on lyrics that may or may not
impact this case. But let's talk talk about if it
will and what it is. So she tells what it is,
so let's start with this.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
It's not actually about lyrics once you drill into the
actual case. Like, just so everybody understands, the Georgia Supreme
Court set aside a murder conviction about a week ago
because prosecutors had shown a thirty three second clip of
(27:23):
the defendant in a music video where the defendant is
waving a gun around and that they viewed that as prejudicial.
And that might be why I was describing this other
stuff as prejudicial. That the idea is in my head
right now as I was reading the As I was
reading the ruling, the fellow who was convicted and whose
(27:45):
conviction was set aside was the road manager for a
rapper named No Cap No Cap who's out of mobile
kind of Look, I'm going to call him a mumble
rapper because the ruling says that the video itself, like
was unintelligible.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
That should be the ultimate barometer for whether someone is
a mumble wrapper or because I can understand future I've
lived in Atlanta all these years. But if the court
of law says.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
Yeah, we can't understand your lyrics, we don't think the
matter right correct, And that's my point, Like, it's not
actually about the lyrics. The lyrics didn't come up in
the trial at all. It was a video with a
bunch of guys with guns and he was one of them,
and he was pointing the gun and waving it at
the camera and whatnot. And essentially the prosecutors showed this
(28:37):
video not like they made an argument saying this is
important evidence because it shows that he was associated with
the guy who was at the concert before the shooting,
and that they knew each other, and that he was
that we have reason to order his dad, why he
was present at the time, and all the rest of this,
(29:00):
except that all of that had effectively been stipulated by
the defense, so all that was left was using this
video to show jurors to say this is a bad
person and you should probably put him in jail, which
is the definition of prejudicial like in fact, like the
(29:20):
closing arguments in the case, we're essentially saying, we have
a gun violence problem in our community and you could
do something about it, and this is what it looks like,
you know, referencing the video, and that was enough. That
was enough for the Supreme Court. Get out of here.
(29:40):
I bring all of this up because we've had some
videos in this.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Case, so many.
Speaker 7 (29:46):
I mean, there's of the one hundred and ninety one
over at X sixty relate to song lyrics or social
media posting, so that's both of those things together. But
we had several emails from lawyers that sent us. They
sent us emails that were like, hey, keep an eye
on this because this might impact the young Thug trial. So, Megan,
I'm actually curious from you, do you think a ruling
(30:06):
like that at the Georgia Supreme Court could have an
impact on this trial, on the Ysel trial, not on.
Speaker 6 (30:13):
The trial as it's going on, but if there's ever
a judgment on this that gets appealed to the Court
of Appeal, of course, a ruling like that would be
factored into the case law. But the idea that it's
going to change the way prosecutors are operating right now, No,
not at all. It's not going to affect the trial
the trial, it could affect the case later on through
(30:36):
the appellate process.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Interesting, I've been saying that all along. I don't think
Brian Steel. I think Brian Steele looking at the evidence
that we expect to emerge eventually. I think he is
assuming that there are going to be convictions in the
case and that he is preserving and preparing for the
appeal like that's going to get all of it thrown out.
Speaker 6 (30:58):
Yeah, I mean any and he'd be committing malpractice if
he wasn't doing that. But like Bruce Harvey, you can
see where he's He's always setting the record for some
kind of appeal on interesting conspiracy theories because well, I mean,
it's it's common to have, you know, a bunch of
code defendants on trial and then maybe some of them
aren't on trial at that time, but their stuff is
(31:21):
being mentioned. But this is just like so extreme what's
going on. But you can definitely tell that Bruce Harvey,
who's by far the most experienced criminal defense attorney in
that courtroom is setting up some kind of appeal or something,
you know, some kind of grounds for an appeal on
the conspiracy. You know, how his client keeps getting kind
(31:44):
of wrapped into these cross examinations, in this information coming
out through cross examination when Bruce Harvey hasn't done anything himself.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
I mean, we've talked a lot about how the it's
the defense's job to I guess, throw spaghetti on the wall,
and we've talked about this preparation, you know, for a
potential appeal. Is there anything else to remark upon as
far as like defense strategy, Like is there any tactics
that have stood out in the past. However, many months
in trial.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
I mean, one thing, and in the prosecutors set the case,
so the defense kind of has to play into that.
But I also feel like the defense is almost making
too much a mistake sometimes by focusing way too in
on the weeds and kind of playing into this game
of like let's make every overact a trial in itself.
But also that I think that aids the defense more
(32:34):
than that it does the prosecution.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
For sure.
Speaker 6 (32:37):
It's not just me, And it's hard to assess things
because trials are all about the big picture, and I
think Bruce Harvey more than anyone, understands that. But he
was really taking issue with some of the doors that
had been opened, like in the cross examination of Tick,
those messages about the web that they were able to
(32:58):
get in, and they ruled it was because the cross
examination of Tick opened up the door for it, because
Brian Steele was, you know, implying that you know, Tick
and a thug. It kind of parted ways and weren't
having much contact. And just the way Bruce Harvey was
arguing against that, he understands the significance of that, and.
Speaker 8 (33:16):
That's why I'm objecting.
Speaker 9 (33:18):
I think it's disingenuous now to say, oh boy, we
think this is eight to one D two E.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
It's it's it's part of the conspiracy. It's not part
of the conspiracy.
Speaker 9 (33:28):
Mister Nichols who was in jail at the time these
things happened, and it.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
Was a good example of how I mean, trials are
about the details, but they're also about the big picture.
And you can get so focused on the details that
you lose track of the big picture, and then people
watching at home can just be like, oh, that was
such a great cross examination. You know, he really nailed Tick,
but they don't understand the big picture of what's coming
and all the evidence and how you know, three months later,
(33:54):
the prosecutors might bring in a bunch of testimony and
evidence that actually makes that cross examination look kind of silly.
But the problem is that the trial is just so
big and there's so many gaps in the testimony that
it's like who even has the memory for all this stuff?
Speaker 1 (34:08):
You know, Yeah, as you've been covering the trial, Megan,
Like for those who haven't gone to Megan's YouTube page,
first of all, she's like posting up the streams. She's
posting like really great clips from court. Whether that's like
these hearings are from actual testimony, and she's even organizing
them into specific categories just so that folks can get
a sense of like what broader themes are sort of
(34:30):
coming up. I'm curious to know from you, like if
there's been any particular moment or even a clip, if
you will, of the trial that has stood out, whether
I hate to call it a favorite, but like almost
like speaks to the absurdity of everything you're talking about.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
I was a fan of the cross examination of Tick
I mean, I think I did a story a while
back that just kind of summed up my coverage. And
the one clip that I included was like a thirteen
minute segment of Brian Steele talking to him about getting
kicked off the rodeo a tour, like you know, all
these years ago because he was committing crimes and just
kind of the way Steel takes him through that.
Speaker 9 (35:08):
And do you remember there came a time that you
and others were accused of wrongdoing on that tour.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Yeah, and that is.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Committing crime, right, yeah?
Speaker 9 (35:26):
Okay, And do you remember Jeffrey Williams repaying a victim
of those crops?
Speaker 7 (35:38):
But I ain't committ no grind?
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Okay, do you remember him?
Speaker 1 (35:41):
I'm not saying you did, but you were a cute
you somebody thought you did, right, Yeah? True, true.
Speaker 6 (35:49):
And then of course there's Glanville sustains some dumb objections
like in the middle of it and like kind of
wrecks it, and then after a few minutes like just
calls a comfort break, like oh, let's put a pin
in it for So it really kind of has like
everything in it from from the trial. But I mean,
Steele is a really skilled trial lawyer, and I thought
it was like an interesting just the way he's kind
(36:12):
of you know, questioning tick there. So that's the one
I would go for. But I mean everything like that's
just as somebody who loves you know, trials and am
used to just watching stuff in court with no access
to cameras to actually have an interesting trial or one
that I'm into and have camera access to all this
and like there's there's so much to do, and I
feel like the public gets way way more out of
(36:34):
that than I mean, there's so many commentary videos on
YouTube and everybody trying to tell you what you're supposed
to think about the testimony. And I mean you see
it in the political world too, you know, the second
the political speeches started, all all the operatives get on
Twitter and start trying to spend it one way or
the other. And we have the same thing going on
with the end Thug trial, where it's like, oh, this
(36:56):
guy was destroyed on the stand, and it's like I
would much just put clips up there and let people
like watch it themselves and give some analysis about like
why the lawyers are asking what they're asking for, But
everybody always asks me, like, like who's winning or do
you think you know? And I just I frankly don't
know how to answer.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Well, it's kind of weird to say, I mean, like,
never mind the question of neutral reportage, like the the
idea that you're we're calling like we're calling this like
color commentators might. It's just it's a little like this
is supposed to be a court. What are we doing?
Speaker 1 (37:34):
You know?
Speaker 4 (37:35):
I am curious about who's your I'd like you to
just who's who are the people that are watching you?
Who are the people that you see that are most
intensely interested in the kinds of cases that you cover,
you mean besides me?
Speaker 6 (37:49):
Yeah, I mean I cover so many different cases like
right now, I mean, and I have been kind of reminded.
And I had a few people comment on my recent
coverage of a judge and federal judge in Orange County
who's dismissing charges against these neo Nazis and releasing them
and there's all this stuff, and then also the FBI
and ex FBI informant who was charged with lying about
(38:10):
the bidens. That's an LA case, and I've done a couple.
I did a story on that, kind of introducing the
judge who was assigned, And I had a few people
comment that my skills in knowledge as like a legal
affairs reporter are so much better spent on stuff like
that than just writing about the drama in the music industry.
So that was kind of a good I mean, I'm
(38:31):
kind of at a you know, trying to figure out
what do I cover and what do I not, and
what do I prioritize and what do I not. But
I think my mailing list is kind of focused on,
you know, l a federal federal courts coverage because it's
a lot of lawyers and a lot of you know,
judges too in LA who who read about you know,
the federal courts coverage. And then also there's so much
(38:54):
political stuff, like there's a big LA Public corruptions saga
that's actually that that's the trial that's.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Going on right now.
Speaker 6 (39:01):
So I have a big readership based on that. But
then I also have a lot of people, you know,
from the hip hop industry who remember me from Tory
Lanez and want coverage of that. But I just as
a journalist have to kind of find, you know, frankly,
a good balance for me. And then also, you know,
what's going to make me a living because I mean people,
I mean, I've kind of like people want me to
just do stuff for free, and you know, it's like, look,
(39:22):
I need to figure out how I'm going to like
survive in this world and maybe eventually buy a house
and you know, maybe eventually retire or something. So I
kind of feel like the hip hop stuff and like
the young fuck stuff is really best preserved for YouTube.
It's perfect for YouTube and TikTok. But the idea that
I should be writing articles about this for my mailing
(39:44):
list when my mailing list is lawyers who could take
one look at this case and know that it's kind
of a joke. Like the story has to be like
the last story I did, I think was good because
it kind of captured that. But to just be writing
articles about you know, hey, here's what a witness said
about the red Nissan no, So you know, it's just
kind of trying to figure that out.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
You know, I understand that I was going to Yeah,
I've been wrestling with this myself, so I mean, and
there are a lot of folks who understand that I'm
a political journalist generally speaking, and that I started to
look at this case because I was looking at the
political impact of crime in Atlanta. One thing leads to another,
and you know, a year and a half later, I'm
(40:27):
looking at two weeks of testimony about a niece read
Nissan and questioning my life choices. Not that I mean
I want listeners hear me like I love you and
I want to serve you, but I'm also like going,
like I keep wanting to come back to like the
fundamental question that like the case Lime podcast started over it,
(40:52):
all of this coverage started over, which is like what
just this What is the impact of this trial and
this what can we see as we're looking at this
that speaks to the bigger, broader picture about what criminal
justice looks like in Atlanta and in the United States,
and where does hip hop intersect with you know, this
policy question around violent crime and how should we be
(41:15):
addressing these this this issue of like violent lyrics in
music and it's nexus to you know, street crime and
all the rest of this like two weeks of.
Speaker 3 (41:31):
Spectacle. Yeah, for sure, I think it's scary.
Speaker 6 (41:35):
It's it's scary that they're I mean, they're being held
without bail for this. And then I mean, I like
we've said we think it's kind of just destined to
end with the jury just kind of dissolving. You know,
they're not going to be able to keep the jury together.
But the idea that that would be like a good
thing for young thug because if that happens, they're just.
Speaker 3 (41:51):
Going to re try them again.
Speaker 8 (41:52):
I mean, it would become.
Speaker 6 (41:53):
Crazy to have that happen. But the idea that if
if that does happen, the prosecutors are just going to
throw up their hands be like okay, well case dismissed.
Of course, not like they're just going to try to
retry him again. So it's like, okay, so what are
we doing here? Is there ever going to be like
some kind of like moment of reckoning for this case
or the prosecutor's office?
Speaker 3 (42:12):
You know, I don't know.
Speaker 7 (42:13):
Yeah, we've talked about it several times about how a
mistrial is actually a nightmare for everyone, Like everyone nobody
wants a mistrial because after this long I mean, good god,
that the having to repeat this whole process again is
a pretty terrible punishment that no one should be given.
But you know, that's an interesting point too, because we
just talked about that Georgia Supreme Court ruling where that
verdict was overturned. But that guy doesn't get away, Like,
(42:36):
they can retry him if they choose to. We don't
know whether they're going to make that choice or not yet,
but they could choose to retry him, which is you
know it is it's like even if you you.
Speaker 8 (42:47):
Even winning, could be a loss in some way.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
Yes, and they're likely too. That's Houston County.
Speaker 7 (42:54):
Like.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
Part of the reason this went down the way it
did was because that that particular cour and that district
attorney are like or like, this is the that is
the guy they want to they want to prosecute, So
they'll come back to it, all right.
Speaker 5 (43:09):
More from King Slime after this.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
This is kiing Slide. We're back.
Speaker 7 (43:27):
So I'm curious, Megan about your sort of broader thoughts
on what this trial says about the criminal justice system
in America and maybe about hip hop specifically, since you
have some of that experience as well. And I guess
I'm trying to get away from the let's move away
from how long it's taking and the bogged down stuff
(43:48):
and more of the big questions that George was just
talking about.
Speaker 8 (43:50):
Anything strike you.
Speaker 6 (43:54):
You know, I think it's just a it's really it
seems like a local political Atlanta story. Just the choice
for them to go after young Thug and and the
fact that he's he's local there, and that all these
crimes are local, because when you read through the indictment
and see all the you know, serious stuff, because I
think a lot of people think that, you know, all
this stuff just happened so long ago, but there was
(44:15):
a murder that happened just in twenty twenty two that
I think just kind of underscores. It's so crazy that
they're focusing on all this old stuff. But I mean,
it frankly just seems like a local criminal case involving
somebody who's famous. I mean, just I'm I'm trying to
think of like some really profound thing to say about
what this says about criminal justice and hip hop, and
(44:36):
I just I think that's a you know, a guy
and you know, alleged gang members who have been well
known in Atlanta for a while, and finally there was
like a political ground swell in the prosecutor's office to
charge them. Like I'm not sure, because I mean, the
criminal the American criminal justice system is just so huge
(44:58):
and vast and in the end, it all just comes
down to individual people, and it kind of comes down
to politics. So it's like what they say about all
politics is local, you know.
Speaker 4 (45:07):
You know, I agree with you in part and disagree
with you in part because you're right, like every case
is individual. Like there's people who commit a murder on
the street are not thinking about grand questions of criminal
justice in the United States. They're doing whatever they're going
to do. And it is, in fact, like it's it's
not just all politics are local. All murder pretty much
(45:29):
is local too. What I'm thinking about is how like
the ymw or why why Yeah Melli case in Florida,
or the recent convictions in New York of like the
Gorilla gang guy and all the stuff that's been going
(45:50):
on in Chicago would drill, and the Memphis stuff that's
been going on recently. What I'm looking for are signs
that prosecutor around the country are looking at this case
and in sort of trepidation of saying, all right, if
I want to roll up a street gig in Louisiana,
(46:14):
in New Orleans that's got a lot of ties to
the music industry, is this what I'm going to go
through in order to get at it, like setting aside
the question of guilt or astance of young thug or
the trial itself. The process here looks nuts, and I'm
imagining other district attorneys looking at this going how do
(46:37):
I not do that? If I'm going to try to
get at any of this?
Speaker 1 (46:41):
I mean, the thing is is that, like going into
the Ysel trial, there was so much news coverage about
the historic precedence, you know, about lyrics and even just
the image of that being used in trial. So it's
not necessarily a new technique. I think what is new
is precisely the reason why it's fitting for Megan to
(47:01):
be on here today is that it's to a national audience.
Even all of these particularly local cases. King Slime is
emblematic of how we've had to talk about Atlanta politics,
how politics being local on the national stage, specifically because
hip hop is the music of the moment. And so
that's the conundrum that people will find themselves in, and
(47:21):
I wonder if these courts are going to be ready
for that sort of scrutiny. So maybe yes, they're looking
to them as a tactic, But like when it comes
to a jury being able to process, what is being
presented in court and court alone. I feel like that's
going to get even more challenging as time wear is
on because of how everything is being documented on social
(47:45):
media and thrown up for everybody to see. It's going
to get harder and harder to ignore the peanut gallery,
the commentary, all that kind of stuff, especially when hip
hop's audience is very much online.
Speaker 6 (48:00):
Know, all I know is that the das that I
know of, like the DA in LA guess going, he
would never bring a case like this.
Speaker 3 (48:06):
LA would never bring a case like this.
Speaker 6 (48:08):
The Orange County DA, Orange County, California is more conservative
and would be like prone to maybe bring a case
like this if they had anyone to bring a case
like this against. I mean, there's no kind of like
hip hop or you know, kind of wrap gang problem
in Orange County. But if there was the idea that
he would think that he needs to take any advice
from some LA, from some DA over on the other
(48:30):
side of the country, like no way, like maybe there's
some you know, it's probably more local, like like southern,
like like you were saying, like New Orleans, you know, Florida.
I mean, if if those people are kind of looking
at this case as some kind of kind of test
for it.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
I wouldn't.
Speaker 6 (48:45):
I wouldn't see any kind of das on like the
West Coast kind of that interested in this.
Speaker 7 (48:51):
That's interesting, So Megan, I'm curious maybe maybe last question here.
So obviously covering this remotely, you know, you're you're in
the in the courtroom for the Tory Lanes trial, So
how is it different, you know, dialing in remotely and
covering this on your computer instead of being in person.
Speaker 3 (49:08):
To me, it's just.
Speaker 6 (49:09):
Great because like the trial is just I mean I
couldn't if I was over that. I mean, it's just
it's a local trial about you know, county cops testifying
about you know, an armed robbery or something, and in
the way it's so slow and stuff.
Speaker 3 (49:22):
I'm just thank god for the for the live stream.
Speaker 4 (49:25):
You know.
Speaker 6 (49:25):
It's just not the kind of case that I'm the
trial that I'm used to covering in terms of like
how it's managed.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
And I couldn't.
Speaker 6 (49:31):
I couldn't last a day over there with all their
with all their breaks and everything. So I mean you
do kind of miss like the you know, if there's
people in the gallery and stuff. But this trial is
just so different in terms of how big and sprawling
it is.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
That.
Speaker 3 (49:48):
You know, trials have like feels to it.
Speaker 6 (49:49):
You can kind of get a vibe from the courtroom,
but I'm not sure if this one would really have that.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
No.
Speaker 9 (49:54):
Fine, wow, okay.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Well, well, thank you so much Megan for joining us.
Of course, if you can find you over on YouTube,
Instagram at TikTok at Meghan qunif you've also got your
subseac what you mentioned Legals Affairs and trials dot com.
Thank you so much for joining us. King Slime is
(50:30):
a production of iHeart Podcasts and Heirloom Media.
Speaker 4 (50:34):
It's written and produced by George Cheaty, Christina Lee, and Tommy.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Andres, mixing sound design and original music by Evan Tyre
and Taylor Chakoi.
Speaker 4 (50:43):
The executive producer and editor is Tommy Andres.
Speaker 1 (50:45):
Our theme music is by Done Deal.
Speaker 4 (50:48):
For more shows from iHeart Podcasts, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
H King Slime is a production of iHeart Polodcasts and
Heirloom Media.
Speaker 2 (00:07):
I'm sorry I'm talking, and I don't know why I
am being interrupted.
Speaker 3 (00:11):
I would not stop. I was speaking. I'm sorry I
was I know I was speaking. Speak when I'm speaking.
Speaker 4 (00:22):
Both of you all need to just take it down
and not.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
And so you honor if I may finish, because I
was the one speaking before, mister Weinstein. But you have
you have you continually engage in this pattern of behavior, misloved.
You don't want to accept my ruling, and and and
I know you've been an advocate, but at some point stop,
just stop. I made my ruling. Good bad are indifferent
(00:45):
to you. You're gonna win some, you're gonna lose some.
Speaker 3 (00:48):
I do it except okay, No, you don't know. You don't.
Speaker 1 (01:02):
I'm George Cheating and I'm Christina Lee.
Speaker 4 (01:05):
And this is King Slime. The recap.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
There you go, there you go. So hello, hello George,
how are you doing better?
Speaker 4 (01:14):
Now?
Speaker 1 (01:15):
Better?
Speaker 5 (01:15):
Now?
Speaker 1 (01:15):
I'm so glad to hear that. It's been a mess.
Speaker 4 (01:18):
It's been a mess.
Speaker 1 (01:19):
We are joined, of course, by executive producer Tommy Andres Hey, Tommy, Hey,
guess and we have a very special guest here to
help us dissect whatever the hell happened over the past
few days in court. So joining us to not only
dissect what's been going on in days forty forty one
and forty two for those who are counting, in addition
(01:40):
to the strategy that we may be seeing from both
sides of the Ysel trial, is who I know as
Megan the reporter, Meghan Quniv. You know, started off as
a newspaper reporter and now she's gone independent after she
rose to fane covering the Tory Lane's trial over in
Los Angeles. Megan, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 3 (02:03):
Yeah, thanks for having me before we.
Speaker 1 (02:05):
Talk about, like, I guess, like the broader strategy we
need to at least like go through I guess what
we have seen over the past couple of days. So,
for those who don't remember, court was essentially at a
session for seven days, but we've been able to see
some more testimony from Adrian Bean and some really interesting
conversations between prosecution and defense. Maybe I will take everybody
(02:28):
you know one step back just to make recap what
we've supposedly learned from this whole thing. Right, So we
have witnessed testimony from police officers where some people were
saying there are three people in this red Nissan that
did the free Willy incident into the coin laundromat. Some
people say that there were four people in the car.
Some people say that there was a the driver was
(02:48):
a woman who got away and escaped the scene. We
have this nine to one one call for a woman
calling on behalf of her neighbor. Here there's some Ofdale
apartments who basically said that there was a shooter who
walked into this apartment and said that this guy was
named Young Thug or something or something. Jerry doesn't get
to hear that part of the call, so all they've
(03:09):
heard is that some person may have come into this
neighbor's apartment in the moments after the Nissan incident. We've
been able to see jail calls from Adrian Bean or basically,
we've got jail calls from Adrian Bean to his wife
and another unidentified male saying I should have run with
thug because he got away. We have police interviews saying
that where Adrian Bean says that Young Thug was there.
(03:32):
But now we've got this taped interview where Brian Steele
asked Adrian Bean if he was pushed to say that
Young Thug was there. This is on top of the
fact that the defense has essentially said, you know what, remember,
we should remember this incident was on September eleventh, twenty thirteen.
This is more than a decade ago, and Young Thug
was never officially charged with all that. Okay, So with
(03:57):
all of this in mind, Megan, George, what do we
think of all this? Where are we following if you're
jer on this one particular incident, trying to dissect all
of this.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
So I'll start, we wouldn't hear a word of any
of this in a regular murder trial like this is
irrelevant because he was never charged. It's prejudicial in my opinion.
And I'm fascinated by the fact that the District Attorney's
(04:31):
office is introducing this and spending as much time as
they are on it in exhaustive detail. Like if they
are going into this much detail on this specific incident,
you start asking yourself, well, how much more detail are
they going to give for all of the other one
(04:51):
hundred plus counts that there are on this thing? And
how long is this going to take? Yeah?
Speaker 6 (04:58):
No, I definitely agree with that, But in terms of
this being prejudicial because it wasn't sure, I mean, it's
an overt act. Like if this was a murder case
and this was somehow relevant to it, we definitely would
be would be hearing about this just because the fact
that they didn't charge it originally doesn't mean that they
can't come and use it as an overt act in
the Rico conspiracy, which they are now. But they just
(05:21):
have so many overt acts here that it's just it's
just a total waste of time. And I feel like
the last really everything we've heard about in the trial
so far, the last four months has just been you
don't need it for a Rico case, Like I don't
understand why they think they needed such a huge recocase
through all this, And the idea that the jury is
(05:41):
going to be able to stay intact through this is
just like not.
Speaker 3 (05:46):
I don't think it's feasible.
Speaker 6 (05:47):
I mean when you look at the indictment, I mean
they're probably not even like a quarter or of the way
through through it, and we're like, what for four months
into trial?
Speaker 3 (05:56):
Five months into trial, I mean, it's crazy to me,
It really is just crazy.
Speaker 6 (06:00):
To me how big this case is and the lack
of kind of leadership from the judge and kind of
whittling it down and managing the trial.
Speaker 4 (06:08):
I want to come back to this thing you're saying
about like keeping the jury intact, and I want to
preface this by saying, like, Megan, you've covered a lot
of trials and you understand, like you know what a
long trial could do to a jury. We've lost two
jurors so far. Like, jury's got sixteen people in it now,
(06:30):
it's fourteen. If they get below twelve, it's game over
and they've got to start again. You're suggesting that over
the as long as this trial is expected to go,
you don't expect there to be twelve jurors at the end.
Speaker 6 (06:48):
Yeah, I mean I just can't see for the slow
pace that it is and for how incremental they're going here.
I mean, they get maybe a couple hours or three
hours of testimony in a day when they when they
take testimony. So when you just look at the indictment,
the idea that they're ever going to be able to
get through it all within I mean, this could seriously
take like a year or two. And Yeah, the jurors
(07:10):
were screened for a long trial, but you just don't
know what's going to go on with their lives and
the idea that they're all just going to stay intact
for this like it's a real I mean, I mean,
I saw somebody in my Twitter replies say it was
just amazing that McAfee has a opponent in the election
but Glanville doesn't, And I'm like, yeah, that because I mean,
the big warning sign initially when I turned, when I
(07:32):
started paying attention to the trial was how he snaps
and loses his temper at the attorneys and yells, because
that's always a sign of a judge masking management deficiencies
of his own.
Speaker 3 (07:43):
And it just seems like for.
Speaker 6 (07:45):
A big, unusual or unprecedented trial because I've covered trials
that are long, but really the longest trial that I've
ever covered is maybe like two and a half months
or something. I Mean, this is just crazy to me,
how how long it is and how sporadic to test
stimoni is, Like, it's just it's crazy.
Speaker 7 (08:04):
Well, Glanville snapping actually just happened. So let's talk about
this recent incident here, because I think it speaks to
a lot of the relationship between the prosecution and the
defense and Glanville sort of role in mediating between them.
Speaker 8 (08:16):
Can you walk us through a little bit about what happened?
Speaker 6 (08:18):
Yeah, I mean it's stuff that comes up in any trial,
kind of last minute stuff because they can do all
the prep they can, but they can never, you know,
just prevent any issue from coming up. But Glanville really
has a problem with kind of like taking the bull
by the horns. And I guess, God, this was about
I got.
Speaker 1 (08:36):
You, Megan, I got you Megan. So when we first
tuned into court footage, we have what I've called Adrian
Love v. Doug Weinstein's v. Judge Glanville. Right, so essentially
Dot Weinstein, who's representing Diamante Hendrick, otherwise known as rapper
Yah Gotti. He was essentially arguing to suppress interviews from
twenty fifteen with police where Monte Kendrick essentially called for
(09:01):
his lawyer. Adrian Love was saying, like, hey, but listen
when Diamontan Kendrick was going back outside after the fact
after calling for his lawyer to go smoke a cigarette,
he proceeded to continue the conversation. And so I guess
there was some argument over whether Georgia law said that
whatever he said after the fact, even though he called
(09:22):
for his lawyer, was still admissible, and so as Adrian
Love is speaking in paragraphs about why this is admissible,
Doug Weinstein was over it some point.
Speaker 3 (09:36):
I don't know why.
Speaker 2 (09:36):
I'm sorry I was.
Speaker 3 (09:45):
I know I was already when I'm speaking.
Speaker 4 (09:49):
Both of you all need to just take.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
It down on that said that Adrian Love could talk
the ears off a donkey.
Speaker 9 (09:56):
You're and I apologize for interrupting the state earlier, but
the state can talk the ears off a donkey. This
continued filibustering has got to stop so that opposing council
can speak.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
And Judge Glanville tried to be like that parent and say, hey,
you guys, just get it together. My ruling is my ruling.
But as you said, Megan, it only continued to smial
from there. That was literally just within the first couple of.
Speaker 8 (10:19):
Minutes, and then the bailiff at Is step in.
Speaker 6 (10:21):
I mean, the reason Love pushes back on him so
much is because a lot of the times it works,
he changes his ruling for but she just seemed I mean,
I mean, it was just, you know, all the back
and forth the sheriff's deputy stepping in, But also like
when you see the sheriff's deputy step in, if you
really pay attention to what Glanville's doing, he's like looking
at his phone at one instant, it's like, what is this?
Speaker 3 (10:43):
What is this.
Speaker 6 (10:44):
Judge doing here? Like he doesn't seem to be really
managing this, this trial and the arguments and the issues
and stuff. It's it's a little concerning.
Speaker 7 (10:53):
Yeah, what do you think about Glanville and the pacing
of the trial too, because we've talked a lot about
how the prosecution and defense have sort of contributed to
the slow of this, but really the judge is the
one running the show, So how is he contributing sort
of personally to the just sort of how long this
is taking.
Speaker 3 (11:08):
I mean, the fact that.
Speaker 6 (11:09):
He has a dog in there with him is a
warning sign. You know, he has a therapy dog. But
a lot of the times you kind of wonder if
the dog is dictating some of the breaks. But there's
been times, especially recently, he's just been straight up like,
you know, oh, I need to take a comfort break.
I need to take a comfort break. But it's to me,
it's just really unusual from what I'm used to. Like
this trial in LA that's going on right now, the
(11:33):
judge does eight am to two or two thirty pm,
and he doesn't do a lunch break. He only does
two ten minute breaks through the whole day. And when
he takes the ten minute break, you can tell he
doesn't even really want to do that, and sometimes he'll
call it back in nine minutes. I mean, he's just
he doesn't want to waste the jury's time, and he
doesn't allow sidebars or anything like that. So that's just
(11:54):
like what I'm used to in terms of trial judges.
So to see this, I mean, granted it's it's Superior Court,
it's not, he's not an Article three judge, but it
just in terms of bringing a huge case like this
in trying to get it tried, it's kind of fascinating
to see what a cluster at all is. I mean,
just the idea that the jury is ever gonna even
get this case, first of all, and then when they do,
(12:16):
I mean, are they going to even remember like half
of this stuff? Like some of the big trials that
I cover, you know, there there's concern about that, like
how are you going to remind the witnesses of the
testimony in the in the very beginning, and that's kind
of what closing arguments are for. But it's like, what
are we gonna have like a two week closing argument here?
I mean, it's it's kind of a joke.
Speaker 7 (12:37):
Yeah, So you wrote about this, Megan, about judges Landville schedule.
So in your writing you said that he limits testimony
to four hours per day, which we just talked about.
Speaker 8 (12:45):
The trial is usually limited to.
Speaker 6 (12:46):
Four I'm not sure if he limits it, but it go.
It's never really been more about four hours. But it's
not like he has like rules. Okay, we never really
see more than like two or.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
Three hours between the comfort breaks, the late start time,
I'm the long lunch time. It mounts to about like
four hours.
Speaker 7 (13:03):
And then there's only four days a week usually because
he's you know, serious as judge, so he's got other
things to do. So yes, usually the proceedings are four
days a week. There have been some Friday proceedings, but
not too many. He starts late all the time. Basically
we've all gotten used to that, right, I mean that
usually a half hour two sometimes an hour late, and
then these two hour lunch breaks we talked about, and
then some there's been these random breaks too that just
(13:24):
keep popping up where court gets canceled. So it's interesting.
And the meanwhile, jurors are getting twenty five dollars a
day for this, which as you you know, you brought
up Megan, like you know, not even just keeping people
physically in this case for that long, but I mean
keeping them from just being so damn frustrated.
Speaker 8 (13:42):
And like brokes and broke.
Speaker 7 (13:44):
It's like, man, So anyway.
Speaker 4 (13:47):
That's something I'm watching here. It's just it's just statistical probability. Here.
You have a lot of jurors who are over sixty
years old, Like, what is the likelihood that any one
of them gets an illness like COVID that either you
shut the whole trial down while they're out for a
couple of weeks, or you dismiss them. If they have
(14:09):
an illness that's more serious than that, then you dismiss them.
And how like, take fourteen people, what are the odds
that three of them, over the course of the year
are dismissible for whatever reason? You know, the longer this
plays out, the higher the probability is that you just
(14:31):
don't keep a jury pool together.
Speaker 1 (14:32):
I mean, that's the thing. It's like in efforts to
get a jury that's like representative of our peers, right,
you have the folks who are over sixty, George. But
then on top of that, we're getting additional days off
in April, specifically because I think Judge Glamville referred to
you know, tending to kids who are going on spring
break and things like that. Like, we have real life
events that are supposed to happen that cannot possibly be
(14:56):
accommodated for a trial that Brian Steele has joked but
also maybe not joke is supposed to last until Super
Bowl twenty twenty five if Megan's estimation is correct.
Speaker 7 (15:05):
So yeah, I mean, what happens we get the summer
if some of these people have kids, like you know, well,
and I.
Speaker 6 (15:10):
Think the trial could easily be like changed, Like I mean,
in the article I wrote, like Bruce Harvey talked about
how he thinks there's going to be a change in
approach here pretty soon and that they could be done
by August or September.
Speaker 3 (15:23):
But to be done by August or September, they would
have to really really really change their.
Speaker 6 (15:27):
Approach and just looking into the background, like the politics
at the DA's office and what happened with this case,
how the prosecution team was like replaced after the indictment
was already secured. I don't think the prosecutors that are
going to really feel comfortable changing the case very much
like that.
Speaker 3 (15:43):
You know, they came into the case late.
Speaker 6 (15:45):
This is the case, and this is how they're doing
it because I you know, I said because some people
are saying, oh, the prosecutors are mediocre, and I'm I
don't think they're mediocre.
Speaker 3 (15:56):
Like I think Simone Hilton is good.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
I mean, she's she's got a naw she's president of
a National Prosecutors Association or something this year. But you
can tell she's very experienced with the with the types
of cases that are up that are the overt acts,
like a carjacking trial, a home burglary trial, an armed
robbery trial. Same with Christian Adkins. And like DA Love
(16:21):
is probably kind of like a legend in the DA's
office for some of the cases that she's won, like
the murder cases, the robbery cases and stuff. But in
terms of like a big conspiracy case, it's just like
they don't know what they're doing in terms of how
they put it together, but to really blame them when
you hear the background of they weren't even the original
prosecution team. You can just look at all the politics
(16:42):
in the DA's office, especially right now, and feel like
the prosecutors themselves probably feel like they are kind of
stuck because they probably do see that they could look
at the indictment and take out a bunch of stuff
that doesn't need to be in there, but they don't
want to send an indictment back to the jury room
that has a bunch of stuff in there that they
didn't cover. So it's just like kind of this cluster
(17:04):
that it's like a combination of the politics of the
DA's office and then just the oversize of the case
that's created this conundrum for the prosecutorial team. You wonder
if they even really feel like they can make any
changes right now.
Speaker 4 (17:18):
One of the things I'd like you to do is
put this RICO in context with other RECO cases that
you've looked at, like what what does normal look like,
so that we can sort of reset our expectations here.
Speaker 6 (17:31):
I mean, I've only I covered a federal RICO case
in Orange County involving the Mongols motorcycle club, and I
was just kind of surprised to learn about how often
the state RICO charge in Georgia is used, I mean,
against the court reporters a few years ago and things
like that. It seems like it's kind of more of
a looser application in Georgia's state law. But at least
(17:53):
the Mongol's motorcycle club case was all about a conspiracy
with the gang. Like one example, and I cited this
in my article, was that a couple of the overt
acts or the supporting acts for there was a RICO
conspiracy charge and then there was actually just a violation
of RICO, not just they conspired to violate RICO.
Speaker 3 (18:13):
They did violate RICO.
Speaker 6 (18:15):
And some of the overt acts were drug possession like
methambetamine and cocaine possession. But they actually stipulated the defense
and the prosecution stipulated to the fact that those drugs
were those drugs. So they brought the drugs into the
courtroom and everything, but they didn't have somebody from like
a crime lab get up and testify about the testing
(18:35):
process for the drugs, because it's just it's not the
legal question wasn't drug possession or whether the drugs actually existed.
It's whether they were part of the club, whether they
related to the club, and not just the individual members
who'd been arrested at that So the trial was just
a lot shorter. It was like five days a week
and you know, eight thirty am to four thirty pm.
(18:57):
All this testimony was just better managed, so you got
it all in tighter. But also just in terms of
how prosecutors approached it, it was it was a much
more conspiracy case instead of let's have a bunch of
mini trials about all the overt acts, which I feel
like that's what this is.
Speaker 7 (19:13):
So is that how you'd sum up the prosecution strategy
as having these sort of mini trials about the overt acts.
Speaker 3 (19:19):
Yeah, And I'm not.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
Sure if it would if we should call it a
strategy or it's just kind of an accidental way of
how they're doing it, because none of them have ever really,
you know, have they done a big conspiracy case like this.
And then, like I said, the kind of last minute
change of the prosecutors and the way these cases work
is they just split up the witnesses and you know,
one prosecutor has a group of witnesses that he takes
(19:41):
care of, and the other prosecutors have their groups of witnesses.
So you just wonder how much talk there is about
actually proving a conspiracy here, because I think Adrian Love
tried to do that in writing her opening. She tried
to write the you know, theme about the wolf pack
and stuff, but you just haven't seen that play out
through their witnesses, and they're completely screwing themselves by having
(20:03):
way too big of a case.
Speaker 3 (20:04):
I mean, they're just.
Speaker 7 (20:05):
Yeah, yeah, the in furtherance of a gang is the
thing we always talk about, the phrase that comes up
here all the time, and we've just I don't know,
from our purchase we've seen I'm curious for years. It
sounds like you're similar, like we haven't really seen that
proven or even even really alluded to as much as
I would have thought so far in this trial, you know, you.
Speaker 1 (20:26):
Mean, besides the super slimming cover art.
Speaker 4 (20:29):
Yeah.
Speaker 6 (20:29):
Yeah, And I almost feel like, I mean, gosh, we
have heard so many witnesses about this red Nissan crashing
into a laundromats, like okay, you know, I mean seriously,
I mean, how many of there have been like fifteen.
Speaker 3 (20:39):
I mean, it almost seems like it would.
Speaker 6 (20:40):
Be overkill if it was just a trial about you know,
a rioting charge or something that was related to this, Mealy,
it would just be overkill here. But for this to
just be three overt acts for one hundred and ninety
one of a Rico conspiracy, you know, it's just way
too much.
Speaker 1 (20:57):
You know what's really interesting is that we're still not
going to hear the end of Adrian Bean as of
this recording. Like he is on the stand right now,
sounding very very sick of being on there by the
way hereby, he asked me, Ques ask me, I'm all
moved on my life, man, I ain't got time for
the game.
Speaker 4 (21:11):
Y'all assassinated me. Man, you're about time? You about time
for mashes now.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
I'm all on u.
Speaker 2 (21:21):
Uh all these blogs, all these chunking my face all
over the new and everything like that.
Speaker 4 (21:27):
Keep won't ask the quest. I'm telling you, I don't
don't recall.
Speaker 1 (21:30):
He is over it. He is over saying no, sir, no, ma'am,
I don't recall whatever the paper says. So he is
still on the stand at this moment. And then in
the meantime, yesterday so on Thursday, as the jury was
essentially waiting in the court in the court house to
enter the court room, Adrian Love and Brian Steel are
also debating over this hospital statement that may or may
(21:53):
not exist. Right, So basically what the jury has heard
so far is Adrian Love reading from a police statement
that Adriam Being gave to Detective Quinn in the days
after the incident. But then, as Brian Steele posits, there
has to be another statement taken when Adrian Bean was
at Grady Hospital basically refuting his original statement to Detective
(22:17):
Quinn and saying, like, you know, they the in which
like they tried to pin young thug specifically not only
being the car but being in the driver. And so
there's this hole back and forth about who supposedly is
more robbed over this hospital statement existing not existing, somehow
(22:38):
not materializing, and then this turns into like a whole
shouting match over like who is being more unethical, who
is being more unjust Like in the court of law.
Speaker 2 (22:49):
You are saying to the court that you have a
belief that there is another statement out there.
Speaker 5 (22:54):
There's not.
Speaker 3 (22:57):
Because it hasn't been brought up.
Speaker 4 (22:59):
If it brings if it.
Speaker 2 (23:00):
Gets brought up, then will correct.
Speaker 4 (23:02):
It at that point in time.
Speaker 2 (23:03):
But right now, I'm going to direct you not to
not to inquire that line.
Speaker 4 (23:08):
You don't have a basis to do so, not true.
Speaker 2 (23:11):
Well, go ahead and go ahead and make a.
Speaker 3 (23:14):
Statement, and see what happens.
Speaker 2 (23:17):
Go ahead and make the statement in contravention to what
I've just told you. And I'm telling you that you
will have some problems in front of me.
Speaker 1 (23:27):
I don't know what to make of all this, you guys,
like it really felt produced by Andy Cohen. It felt
like a reunion episode of a Bravo show, but it
was completely unsatisfying.
Speaker 8 (23:36):
It's a little thing on Discovery.
Speaker 6 (23:39):
Her phone never appears in Mark's Phone Wreckers.
Speaker 3 (23:41):
You will have to appear in Core. Here is your subpoenas.
Speaker 1 (23:45):
And I just couldn't believe what I was witnessing, where
like one side is accusing the other of essentially fabricating evidence,
and meanwhile you have Brian Steel over here. That's being like,
Adrian Love is not my boss.
Speaker 3 (23:58):
It is Upscene.
Speaker 8 (24:00):
Hey, miss Love is not my boss. I owe nothing
except to the law and mister Williams. And that's where
I am.
Speaker 6 (24:11):
Yeah, I thought Glandelle said something to Adrian Love that
I thought was interesting, where he was telling her to
stop and calm down, and he.
Speaker 3 (24:18):
Was like, I know you're being an advocate.
Speaker 2 (24:20):
Will you continually engage in this pattern of behavior and
misloved you don't want to accept my ruling. Yeah, and
I know you've been an advocate, but at some point stop,
just stop.
Speaker 3 (24:31):
Which is true. She is an advocate.
Speaker 6 (24:33):
She's an advocate for the state, the laws, the people
of Georgia. But also it just reminded me of another
case I'm covering. There was a magistrate judge in a
transcript said something that the roles of the prosecutor and
the defense are different, Like it's the defense's job to
actually just throw anything at the wall to try to
get it to stick, to advocate for their client. I mean,
(24:55):
that's kind of a glib way to sum it up,
but it really is. You know, the defense should be
putting any argument out there that they can, But to
say that the prosecutor should just be throwing spaghetti at
the wall, it's like this. Prosecutors are held to a
little bit of a higher standard in that they need
to have a clear goal and argument there, so just
the just the way she's so her accusation it's against Steel,
(25:20):
I think did kind of cross the line, especially about
I mean cross the line in terms of what is
the line, but in terms of accusing him of you know,
he's the one who planned who mentioned the hospital to Adrian,
when actually they play the tape back and Adrian is
the one who mentioned the hospital. It's just you think
that the prosecutors need to be a little more careful
(25:41):
and know their evidence a little bit better than what
they're doing there. And then also in just in terms
of the unprofessional professionalism of it, because he said something about,
you know, the rants of da love, which maybe was
a little unprofessional on his party, doesn't need to like
quite use that term. But then she turned around and says,
you know, he needs to stop insulting me. And then
(26:03):
while we're on it, you know, he gets up there
and it's just hysterical and it's like it says that
kind of hyperbolic talk that she turns around and insults
him too. Where it's just and one big problem is
there's no judge up there actually just regulating on all
of this, because in the end, all this stuff just
starts at the top and trickles down.
Speaker 1 (26:22):
All right, we're going to take a break. We'll be
right back after this. And we're back.
Speaker 7 (26:45):
So we had some other interesting news pop in this week,
which was this Supreme Court decision on lyrics.
Speaker 8 (26:52):
So George, this is it just is in Georgia, George's.
Speaker 7 (26:56):
Supreme Court decision on lyrics that may or may not
impact this case. But let's talk talk about if it
will and what it is. So she tells what it is,
so let's start with this.
Speaker 4 (27:03):
It's not actually about lyrics once you drill into the
actual case. Like, just so everybody understands, the Georgia Supreme
Court set aside a murder conviction about a week ago
because prosecutors had shown a thirty three second clip of
(27:23):
the defendant in a music video where the defendant is
waving a gun around and that they viewed that as prejudicial.
And that might be why I was describing this other
stuff as prejudicial. That the idea is in my head
right now as I was reading the As I was
reading the ruling, the fellow who was convicted and whose
(27:45):
conviction was set aside was the road manager for a
rapper named No Cap No Cap who's out of mobile
kind of Look, I'm going to call him a mumble
rapper because the ruling says that the video itself, like
was unintelligible.
Speaker 1 (28:05):
That should be the ultimate barometer for whether someone is
a mumble wrapper or because I can understand future I've
lived in Atlanta all these years. But if the court
of law says.
Speaker 4 (28:13):
Yeah, we can't understand your lyrics, we don't think the
matter right correct, And that's my point, Like, it's not
actually about the lyrics. The lyrics didn't come up in
the trial at all. It was a video with a
bunch of guys with guns and he was one of them,
and he was pointing the gun and waving it at
the camera and whatnot. And essentially the prosecutors showed this
(28:37):
video not like they made an argument saying this is
important evidence because it shows that he was associated with
the guy who was at the concert before the shooting,
and that they knew each other, and that he was
that we have reason to order his dad, why he
was present at the time, and all the rest of this,
(29:00):
except that all of that had effectively been stipulated by
the defense, so all that was left was using this
video to show jurors to say this is a bad
person and you should probably put him in jail, which
is the definition of prejudicial like in fact, like the
(29:20):
closing arguments in the case, we're essentially saying, we have
a gun violence problem in our community and you could
do something about it, and this is what it looks like,
you know, referencing the video, and that was enough. That
was enough for the Supreme Court. Get out of here.
(29:40):
I bring all of this up because we've had some
videos in this.
Speaker 1 (29:45):
Case, so many.
Speaker 7 (29:46):
I mean, there's of the one hundred and ninety one
over at X sixty relate to song lyrics or social
media posting, so that's both of those things together. But
we had several emails from lawyers that sent us. They
sent us emails that were like, hey, keep an eye
on this because this might impact the young Thug trial. So, Megan,
I'm actually curious from you, do you think a ruling
(30:06):
like that at the Georgia Supreme Court could have an
impact on this trial, on the Ysel trial, not on.
Speaker 6 (30:13):
The trial as it's going on, but if there's ever
a judgment on this that gets appealed to the Court
of Appeal, of course, a ruling like that would be
factored into the case law. But the idea that it's
going to change the way prosecutors are operating right now, No,
not at all. It's not going to affect the trial
the trial, it could affect the case later on through
(30:36):
the appellate process.
Speaker 4 (30:37):
Interesting, I've been saying that all along. I don't think
Brian Steel. I think Brian Steele looking at the evidence
that we expect to emerge eventually. I think he is
assuming that there are going to be convictions in the
case and that he is preserving and preparing for the
appeal like that's going to get all of it thrown out.
Speaker 6 (30:58):
Yeah, I mean any and he'd be committing malpractice if
he wasn't doing that. But like Bruce Harvey, you can
see where he's He's always setting the record for some
kind of appeal on interesting conspiracy theories because well, I mean,
it's it's common to have, you know, a bunch of
code defendants on trial and then maybe some of them
aren't on trial at that time, but their stuff is
(31:21):
being mentioned. But this is just like so extreme what's
going on. But you can definitely tell that Bruce Harvey,
who's by far the most experienced criminal defense attorney in
that courtroom is setting up some kind of appeal or something,
you know, some kind of grounds for an appeal on
the conspiracy. You know, how his client keeps getting kind
(31:44):
of wrapped into these cross examinations, in this information coming
out through cross examination when Bruce Harvey hasn't done anything himself.
Speaker 1 (31:54):
I mean, we've talked a lot about how the it's
the defense's job to I guess, throw spaghetti on the wall,
and we've talked about this preparation, you know, for a
potential appeal. Is there anything else to remark upon as
far as like defense strategy, Like is there any tactics
that have stood out in the past. However, many months
in trial.
Speaker 6 (32:13):
I mean, one thing, and in the prosecutors set the case,
so the defense kind of has to play into that.
But I also feel like the defense is almost making
too much a mistake sometimes by focusing way too in
on the weeds and kind of playing into this game
of like let's make every overact a trial in itself.
But also that I think that aids the defense more
(32:34):
than that it does the prosecution.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
For sure.
Speaker 6 (32:37):
It's not just me, And it's hard to assess things
because trials are all about the big picture, and I
think Bruce Harvey more than anyone, understands that. But he
was really taking issue with some of the doors that
had been opened, like in the cross examination of Tick,
those messages about the web that they were able to
(32:58):
get in, and they ruled it was because the cross
examination of Tick opened up the door for it, because
Brian Steele was, you know, implying that you know, Tick
and a thug. It kind of parted ways and weren't
having much contact. And just the way Bruce Harvey was
arguing against that, he understands the significance of that, and.
Speaker 8 (33:16):
That's why I'm objecting.
Speaker 9 (33:18):
I think it's disingenuous now to say, oh boy, we
think this is eight to one D two E.
Speaker 3 (33:23):
It's it's it's part of the conspiracy. It's not part
of the conspiracy.
Speaker 9 (33:28):
Mister Nichols who was in jail at the time these
things happened, and it.
Speaker 6 (33:33):
Was a good example of how I mean, trials are
about the details, but they're also about the big picture.
And you can get so focused on the details that
you lose track of the big picture, and then people
watching at home can just be like, oh, that was
such a great cross examination. You know, he really nailed Tick,
but they don't understand the big picture of what's coming
and all the evidence and how you know, three months later,
(33:54):
the prosecutors might bring in a bunch of testimony and
evidence that actually makes that cross examination look kind of silly.
But the problem is that the trial is just so
big and there's so many gaps in the testimony that
it's like who even has the memory for all this stuff?
Speaker 1 (34:08):
You know, Yeah, as you've been covering the trial, Megan,
Like for those who haven't gone to Megan's YouTube page,
first of all, she's like posting up the streams. She's
posting like really great clips from court. Whether that's like
these hearings are from actual testimony, and she's even organizing
them into specific categories just so that folks can get
a sense of like what broader themes are sort of
(34:30):
coming up. I'm curious to know from you, like if
there's been any particular moment or even a clip, if
you will, of the trial that has stood out, whether
I hate to call it a favorite, but like almost
like speaks to the absurdity of everything you're talking about.
Speaker 6 (34:46):
I was a fan of the cross examination of Tick
I mean, I think I did a story a while
back that just kind of summed up my coverage. And
the one clip that I included was like a thirteen
minute segment of Brian Steele talking to him about getting
kicked off the rodeo a tour, like you know, all
these years ago because he was committing crimes and just
kind of the way Steel takes him through that.
Speaker 9 (35:08):
And do you remember there came a time that you
and others were accused of wrongdoing on that tour.
Speaker 3 (35:18):
Yeah, and that is.
Speaker 1 (35:22):
Committing crime, right, yeah?
Speaker 9 (35:26):
Okay, And do you remember Jeffrey Williams repaying a victim
of those crops?
Speaker 7 (35:38):
But I ain't committ no grind?
Speaker 3 (35:40):
Okay, do you remember him?
Speaker 1 (35:41):
I'm not saying you did, but you were a cute
you somebody thought you did, right, Yeah? True, true.
Speaker 6 (35:49):
And then of course there's Glanville sustains some dumb objections
like in the middle of it and like kind of
wrecks it, and then after a few minutes like just
calls a comfort break, like oh, let's put a pin
in it for So it really kind of has like
everything in it from from the trial. But I mean,
Steele is a really skilled trial lawyer, and I thought
it was like an interesting just the way he's kind
(36:12):
of you know, questioning tick there. So that's the one
I would go for. But I mean everything like that's
just as somebody who loves you know, trials and am
used to just watching stuff in court with no access
to cameras to actually have an interesting trial or one
that I'm into and have camera access to all this
and like there's there's so much to do, and I
feel like the public gets way way more out of
(36:34):
that than I mean, there's so many commentary videos on
YouTube and everybody trying to tell you what you're supposed
to think about the testimony. And I mean you see
it in the political world too, you know, the second
the political speeches started, all all the operatives get on
Twitter and start trying to spend it one way or
the other. And we have the same thing going on
with the end Thug trial, where it's like, oh, this
(36:56):
guy was destroyed on the stand, and it's like I
would much just put clips up there and let people
like watch it themselves and give some analysis about like
why the lawyers are asking what they're asking for, But
everybody always asks me, like, like who's winning or do
you think you know? And I just I frankly don't
know how to answer.
Speaker 4 (37:15):
Well, it's kind of weird to say, I mean, like,
never mind the question of neutral reportage, like the the
idea that you're we're calling like we're calling this like
color commentators might. It's just it's a little like this
is supposed to be a court. What are we doing?
Speaker 1 (37:34):
You know?
Speaker 4 (37:35):
I am curious about who's your I'd like you to
just who's who are the people that are watching you?
Who are the people that you see that are most
intensely interested in the kinds of cases that you cover,
you mean besides me?
Speaker 6 (37:49):
Yeah, I mean I cover so many different cases like
right now, I mean, and I have been kind of reminded.
And I had a few people comment on my recent
coverage of a judge and federal judge in Orange County
who's dismissing charges against these neo Nazis and releasing them
and there's all this stuff, and then also the FBI
and ex FBI informant who was charged with lying about
(38:10):
the bidens. That's an LA case, and I've done a couple.
I did a story on that, kind of introducing the
judge who was assigned, And I had a few people
comment that my skills in knowledge as like a legal
affairs reporter are so much better spent on stuff like
that than just writing about the drama in the music industry.
So that was kind of a good I mean, I'm
(38:31):
kind of at a you know, trying to figure out
what do I cover and what do I not, and
what do I prioritize and what do I not. But
I think my mailing list is kind of focused on,
you know, l a federal federal courts coverage because it's
a lot of lawyers and a lot of you know,
judges too in LA who who read about you know,
the federal courts coverage. And then also there's so much
(38:54):
political stuff, like there's a big LA Public corruptions saga
that's actually that that's the trial that's.
Speaker 3 (39:01):
Going on right now.
Speaker 6 (39:01):
So I have a big readership based on that. But
then I also have a lot of people, you know,
from the hip hop industry who remember me from Tory
Lanez and want coverage of that. But I just as
a journalist have to kind of find, you know, frankly,
a good balance for me. And then also, you know,
what's going to make me a living because I mean people,
I mean, I've kind of like people want me to
just do stuff for free, and you know, it's like, look,
(39:22):
I need to figure out how I'm going to like
survive in this world and maybe eventually buy a house
and you know, maybe eventually retire or something. So I
kind of feel like the hip hop stuff and like
the young fuck stuff is really best preserved for YouTube.
It's perfect for YouTube and TikTok. But the idea that
I should be writing articles about this for my mailing
(39:44):
list when my mailing list is lawyers who could take
one look at this case and know that it's kind
of a joke. Like the story has to be like
the last story I did, I think was good because
it kind of captured that. But to just be writing
articles about you know, hey, here's what a witness said
about the red Nissan no, So you know, it's just
kind of trying to figure that out.
Speaker 4 (40:05):
You know, I understand that I was going to Yeah,
I've been wrestling with this myself, so I mean, and
there are a lot of folks who understand that I'm
a political journalist generally speaking, and that I started to
look at this case because I was looking at the
political impact of crime in Atlanta. One thing leads to another,
and you know, a year and a half later, I'm
(40:27):
looking at two weeks of testimony about a niece read
Nissan and questioning my life choices. Not that I mean
I want listeners hear me like I love you and
I want to serve you, but I'm also like going,
like I keep wanting to come back to like the
fundamental question that like the case Lime podcast started over it,
(40:52):
all of this coverage started over, which is like what
just this What is the impact of this trial and
this what can we see as we're looking at this
that speaks to the bigger, broader picture about what criminal
justice looks like in Atlanta and in the United States,
and where does hip hop intersect with you know, this
policy question around violent crime and how should we be
(41:15):
addressing these this this issue of like violent lyrics in
music and it's nexus to you know, street crime and
all the rest of this like two weeks of.
Speaker 3 (41:31):
Spectacle. Yeah, for sure, I think it's scary.
Speaker 6 (41:35):
It's it's scary that they're I mean, they're being held
without bail for this. And then I mean, I like
we've said we think it's kind of just destined to
end with the jury just kind of dissolving. You know,
they're not going to be able to keep the jury together.
But the idea that that would be like a good
thing for young thug because if that happens, they're just.
Speaker 3 (41:51):
Going to re try them again.
Speaker 8 (41:52):
I mean, it would become.
Speaker 6 (41:53):
Crazy to have that happen. But the idea that if
if that does happen, the prosecutors are just going to
throw up their hands be like okay, well case dismissed.
Of course, not like they're just going to try to
retry him again. So it's like, okay, so what are
we doing here? Is there ever going to be like
some kind of like moment of reckoning for this case
or the prosecutor's office?
Speaker 3 (42:12):
You know, I don't know.
Speaker 7 (42:13):
Yeah, we've talked about it several times about how a
mistrial is actually a nightmare for everyone, Like everyone nobody
wants a mistrial because after this long I mean, good god,
that the having to repeat this whole process again is
a pretty terrible punishment that no one should be given.
But you know, that's an interesting point too, because we
just talked about that Georgia Supreme Court ruling where that
verdict was overturned. But that guy doesn't get away, Like,
(42:36):
they can retry him if they choose to. We don't
know whether they're going to make that choice or not yet,
but they could choose to retry him, which is you
know it is it's like even if you you.
Speaker 8 (42:47):
Even winning, could be a loss in some way.
Speaker 4 (42:50):
Yes, and they're likely too. That's Houston County.
Speaker 7 (42:54):
Like.
Speaker 4 (42:54):
Part of the reason this went down the way it
did was because that that particular cour and that district
attorney are like or like, this is the that is
the guy they want to they want to prosecute, So
they'll come back to it, all right.
Speaker 5 (43:09):
More from King Slime after this.
Speaker 4 (43:25):
This is kiing Slide. We're back.
Speaker 7 (43:27):
So I'm curious, Megan about your sort of broader thoughts
on what this trial says about the criminal justice system
in America and maybe about hip hop specifically, since you
have some of that experience as well. And I guess
I'm trying to get away from the let's move away
from how long it's taking and the bogged down stuff
(43:48):
and more of the big questions that George was just
talking about.
Speaker 8 (43:50):
Anything strike you.
Speaker 6 (43:54):
You know, I think it's just a it's really it
seems like a local political Atlanta story. Just the choice
for them to go after young Thug and and the
fact that he's he's local there, and that all these
crimes are local, because when you read through the indictment
and see all the you know, serious stuff, because I
think a lot of people think that, you know, all
this stuff just happened so long ago, but there was
(44:15):
a murder that happened just in twenty twenty two that
I think just kind of underscores. It's so crazy that
they're focusing on all this old stuff. But I mean,
it frankly just seems like a local criminal case involving
somebody who's famous. I mean, just I'm I'm trying to
think of like some really profound thing to say about
what this says about criminal justice and hip hop, and
(44:36):
I just I think that's a you know, a guy
and you know, alleged gang members who have been well
known in Atlanta for a while, and finally there was
like a political ground swell in the prosecutor's office to
charge them. Like I'm not sure, because I mean, the
criminal the American criminal justice system is just so huge
(44:58):
and vast and in the end, it all just comes
down to individual people, and it kind of comes down
to politics. So it's like what they say about all
politics is local, you know.
Speaker 4 (45:07):
You know, I agree with you in part and disagree
with you in part because you're right, like every case
is individual. Like there's people who commit a murder on
the street are not thinking about grand questions of criminal
justice in the United States. They're doing whatever they're going
to do. And it is, in fact, like it's it's
not just all politics are local. All murder pretty much
(45:29):
is local too. What I'm thinking about is how like
the ymw or why why Yeah Melli case in Florida,
or the recent convictions in New York of like the
Gorilla gang guy and all the stuff that's been going
(45:50):
on in Chicago would drill, and the Memphis stuff that's
been going on recently. What I'm looking for are signs
that prosecutor around the country are looking at this case
and in sort of trepidation of saying, all right, if
I want to roll up a street gig in Louisiana,
(46:14):
in New Orleans that's got a lot of ties to
the music industry, is this what I'm going to go
through in order to get at it, like setting aside
the question of guilt or astance of young thug or
the trial itself. The process here looks nuts, and I'm
imagining other district attorneys looking at this going how do
(46:37):
I not do that? If I'm going to try to
get at any of this?
Speaker 1 (46:41):
I mean, the thing is is that, like going into
the Ysel trial, there was so much news coverage about
the historic precedence, you know, about lyrics and even just
the image of that being used in trial. So it's
not necessarily a new technique. I think what is new
is precisely the reason why it's fitting for Megan to
(47:01):
be on here today is that it's to a national audience.
Even all of these particularly local cases. King Slime is
emblematic of how we've had to talk about Atlanta politics,
how politics being local on the national stage, specifically because
hip hop is the music of the moment. And so
that's the conundrum that people will find themselves in, and
(47:21):
I wonder if these courts are going to be ready
for that sort of scrutiny. So maybe yes, they're looking
to them as a tactic, But like when it comes
to a jury being able to process, what is being
presented in court and court alone. I feel like that's
going to get even more challenging as time wear is
on because of how everything is being documented on social
(47:45):
media and thrown up for everybody to see. It's going
to get harder and harder to ignore the peanut gallery,
the commentary, all that kind of stuff, especially when hip
hop's audience is very much online.
Speaker 6 (48:00):
Know, all I know is that the das that I
know of, like the DA in LA guess going, he
would never bring a case like this.
Speaker 3 (48:06):
LA would never bring a case like this.
Speaker 6 (48:08):
The Orange County DA, Orange County, California is more conservative
and would be like prone to maybe bring a case
like this if they had anyone to bring a case
like this against. I mean, there's no kind of like
hip hop or you know, kind of wrap gang problem
in Orange County. But if there was the idea that
he would think that he needs to take any advice
from some LA, from some DA over on the other
(48:30):
side of the country, like no way, like maybe there's
some you know, it's probably more local, like like southern,
like like you were saying, like New Orleans, you know, Florida.
I mean, if if those people are kind of looking
at this case as some kind of kind of test
for it.
Speaker 3 (48:44):
I wouldn't.
Speaker 6 (48:45):
I wouldn't see any kind of das on like the
West Coast kind of that interested in this.
Speaker 7 (48:51):
That's interesting, So Megan, I'm curious maybe maybe last question here.
So obviously covering this remotely, you know, you're you're in
the in the courtroom for the Tory Lanes trial, So
how is it different, you know, dialing in remotely and
covering this on your computer instead of being in person.
Speaker 3 (49:08):
To me, it's just.
Speaker 6 (49:09):
Great because like the trial is just I mean I
couldn't if I was over that. I mean, it's just
it's a local trial about you know, county cops testifying
about you know, an armed robbery or something, and in
the way it's so slow and stuff.
Speaker 3 (49:22):
I'm just thank god for the for the live stream.
Speaker 4 (49:25):
You know.
Speaker 6 (49:25):
It's just not the kind of case that I'm the
trial that I'm used to covering in terms of like
how it's managed.
Speaker 3 (49:30):
And I couldn't.
Speaker 6 (49:31):
I couldn't last a day over there with all their
with all their breaks and everything. So I mean you
do kind of miss like the you know, if there's
people in the gallery and stuff. But this trial is
just so different in terms of how big and sprawling
it is.
Speaker 1 (49:45):
That.
Speaker 3 (49:48):
You know, trials have like feels to it.
Speaker 6 (49:49):
You can kind of get a vibe from the courtroom,
but I'm not sure if this one would really have that.
Speaker 1 (49:54):
No.
Speaker 9 (49:54):
Fine, wow, okay.
Speaker 1 (49:56):
Well, well, thank you so much Megan for joining us.
Of course, if you can find you over on YouTube,
Instagram at TikTok at Meghan qunif you've also got your
subseac what you mentioned Legals Affairs and trials dot com.
Thank you so much for joining us. King Slime is
(50:30):
a production of iHeart Podcasts and Heirloom Media.
Speaker 4 (50:34):
It's written and produced by George Cheaty, Christina Lee, and Tommy.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
Andres, mixing sound design and original music by Evan Tyre
and Taylor Chakoi.
Speaker 4 (50:43):
The executive producer and editor is Tommy Andres.
Speaker 1 (50:45):
Our theme music is by Done Deal.
Speaker 4 (50:48):
For more shows from iHeart Podcasts, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.