What's going on in Atlanta state court is insane. Criminal defense lawyer Brian Steel was held in criminal contempt yesterday and ordered to serve 10 weekends in jail because he asked the judge about an ex parte communication he had with a witness and the prosecutor, and then had the audacity to refuse to reveal his source about the meeting. The judge has totally lost control of the trial and the proceedings.
The SDFLA Blog is dedicated to providing news and notes regarding federal practice in the Southern District of Florida. The New Times calls the blog "the definitive source on South Florida's federal court system." All tips on court happenings are welcome and will remain anonymous. Please email David Markus at dmarkus@markuslaw.com
Tuesday, June 11, 2024
Young Thug
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
What's amazing is the judge was more concerned with the source of the leak and completely ignored the fact he was engaged in an ex parte communication with a state witness, their lawyer, and the State, that concerned THE TRIAL THEY WERE IN
Brian Steel is a hero.
The judge actually didn't ignore the fact he was in an ex parte communication. He owned it and double downed on it, which is even more shocking. This trial is over. The prosecution must know that any conviction they get is coming back.
That judge is clueless, incompetent, and unethical. The witness he met with (and his lawyer, and the prosecution) had ALREADY BEEN SWORN IN the previous Friday.
Judge thinks ex parte meetings with the witness and prosecutors are "sacrosanct." The word he's looking for is "illegal" or possibly "prohibited."
AT THIS POINT IN TIME
Appellate court should free Steel, grant the mistrial, and disqualify the judge. State shouldn't even be allowed to retry him-jury was sworn in and mistrial resulted from state misconduct (meeting secretly with witness and judge).
20 million right wing pot head gun loving republicans just screened “what!?”
Next, they will blame the Biden administration for trying to limit gun rights in America, as shown by hunters conviction.
The brilliant hypocrisy of the GOP never ceases to amaze.
Help me out here. Steel says he won't disclose the source because it is privileged. Since when has the name of a witness been privileged? I'm not defending the judge's ex parte meeting. I'm just not sure that Steel was justified in keeping the source quiet.
The source isn't necessarily a witness in the case. Possibly a witness to the ex parte meeting, though, which is a distinction.
@938 - I see that distinction. But by raising the issue of the ex parte meeting in the case, the source becomes a witness to an issue in the case; which makes it a distinction without difference.
Also, if you don't represent the source/witness, how can your communications with the source be privileged?
Plus, once you've disclosed the content of the communication, what's left to be privileged? Haven't you waived the privilege at that point?
Even if Steel represents the source and hasn't waived the privilege, an assertion of privilege (at least on the civil side where I spend my time) still involves disclosing basic identifying information about the communication including the names of the people to the communication in a privilege log. I'm not sure if/how that applies in criminal practice though.
To be clear, I am not defending the judge. He appears to have had an improper ex parte meeting with a prosecutor and a witness. Everything that followed from that is tainted. I just don't see (yet - maybe he did) that Steel had grounds to withhold the name of the source.
10:06 AM: Steel is relying on Rule 1.6 of the GA rules of ethics to protect the confidentiality of the source. Under that rule, a lawyer is required to maintain in confidence "all information gained in the professional relationship with a client, including information which the client has requested to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the client, unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or are required by these rules or other law, or by order of the court." Now, the issue is that the judge did order him to disclose the source, which seems to override the ethical obligation, but I think Steel's "backup argument" is that that was not a lawful court order. All that said, it may not make much of a difference in the end since the judge also botched the contempt proceedings, so the finding of contempt should get reversed by the appellate court.
@11:24 - that seems pretty flimsy, but I'm rooting for him.
The judge has issues an order to show cause why everyone in attendance at the ex parte meeting should not be held in contempt. This includes the witness Kenneth Copeland, his lawyer Kayla Bumpus, unnamed prosecutors, and unnamed court security personnel.
Here's a news story with the order itself embedded in the story. https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2024/06/12/ysl-judge-determined-learn-who-leaked-conversation-young-thugs-lawyer/
Years ago in a trial with federal judge Norman Rotteger a Government witness who was a co-def who took a plea was not offering inculpating testimony against my client, Norman called a recess and brought the witness into his chambers and scared the hell out of him if he did not give testimony per the government against the defendant. Once court recessed the witness then give incriminating testimony against the def. Although vigorous objections were made, Norman overruled all of them. The defendant was convicted. This was a case the Government wanted to dismiss but Norman refused and said, " you indicted him, you need to try him". You needed to get along with his Marshall, Sandy, as Norman had strong feeling towards her.
Post a Comment