LIVE: YSL RICO Trial | GA Fani Willis vs. Jeffery 'Young Thug' Williams

are you able to say if there is any material change from the number one under the factual acknowledgement section from 452 to whatever version you're looking at that you think you might have been responding to to jump a just number one under factual acknowled number one okay number one one is the same okay my only question relates to number one okay all right and so as it relates to number one on the factual acknowledgements that you were responding to when you sent 460 Y is that number one the same as in 452 y yes is that the same in the document that has been admitted as one as in a prior hearing just to yes and is that the same as number one on States exhibit 444 y all right we already established that 1 as and 444 y are the same document so we don't need to ask that question for all all right did you convey in 460 Yankees that I have in my hand that you did have did you convey in an email to the state on December 27 2022 at 8:43 PM that is a part of 460 Yankee did you convey changes that needed to be made to the plea agreement in the form that you were looking at whichever one it yes what are those changes reflected in the document that is 1 as and I don't need you to read it no I was going to say all except all all the changes were ultimately Incorporated the only issue with the document 1 as is number eight okay so are there any changes that you saw need to request that you do not see reflected in 1 as and they don't have to just be in States for seats are there any changes in 1 are there any changes that you as to be made that aren't made in 1 as material changes um what I'll do is number by number on well first with number three we indicated [Music] Cann to R number three I don't know of any ruling that the court has made that says he can't indicate what the change that he requested being made and that's what I understand that he was about to explain is going to get into so the question was are there any changes that were requested to 1 that were not made so he's entitled to answer that question okay and if you want a full answer we don't know what he's going to say so he yes the is the final document that got signed right so given all of our discussions Miss love was trying to be careful about what careful [Music] so if you're objecting to okay so Mr Wright would you just follow along with me and let's do this exercise using only the numbers under the factual acknowledgement section in document 1 as may we do that yes all right the so can I can I make a suggestion 1 as is or a version of it for 44 Y is in evidence would it be beneficial to you display it you out my understanding is it's not in evidence 444 Y is in 1 as is the same document so I don't is it not I don't believe it is and and and I please do and and your honor if we can approach I can explain we already discussed this at the bench okay no you're right I remember okay never mind just saying numbers if we could just use the numbers I would see and I'm going to address is that okay sure was there a material change um as it relates to number one of 1 as that you request Ed that was not reflected in number one of 1 as no is there a um material change to count I mean to number two of 1 as under factual acknowledgements no that you requested that was not made no is there a material change to number three of States 1 under factual acknowledgements that you requested but was not made three yes so we'll put that down and we'll come back to it was there a material change to number four in States 1 as that you requested that was not made no was there a material change to number five in States 1 as under factual acknowledgements that you requested that was not made that Mr sled requested that was not made no was there a material change to number six of States exhibit 1 as under factual acknowledgements that Mr Sledge requested through you that was not made no was there a material change to number seven under factual acknowledgements as reflected in States 1 that Mr Sledge requested that were not reflected in number seven on 1 as no can can can you just say same question for number seven same question for number eight okay same question for number eight and if I think number eight wasn't on a prior and yes but and again it wasn't on a prior Edition but it was on the last so but subject the subject matter was one of the things we said okay so your honor I can't ask the same question for okay all right number nine was there a material change regarding number nine that was requested by Mr Sledge through you that is not reflected in number nine under factual acknowledgements of state's 1 as no is there a material change to number 10 on States 1 as on factual acknowledgements requested by Mr sledge that was not made on the final document no same question for number 11 no same question for number 12 no same question for number 13 no same question for number 14 no number 15 same question no number 16 same question no as to uh the sentencing acknowledgements that are reflected in States 1 as under Section Five did you review those are you comfortable telling the jury whether or not you went over those sentencing acknowledgements with your client just yes or no before you explain anything uh I would have went over the entire agreement concluding that section yes okay would you did you allow your client an opportunity to ask any questions that he needed to ask yes did you restrict his ability to ask you questions no um based on your knowledge of over 15 years of interacting with your client did your client appear um comfortable asking you anything he wanted to ask you yes did you answer your client's questions uh as thoroughly as you could possibly do in Your Capacity as his attorney yes did you answer them in a way that based on your 15year knowledge of him you believed he fully I hesitate my answer would be yes but again I I'm not a mind reader so other than perceiving his responses to me and that he seemed comfortable I I can't purport to say what all is going through his mind I didn't ask you that I appreciate your response I appreciate your clarification so I asked the reason question I did for a reason based on your 15 years of knowing him did he give you any indication that he did not understand any one or more of the provisions under number five sentencing acknowledgements which are in 1 as no and when you said yesterday that you had represented Mr Sledge in um two cases over the last 15 years that were fell in in one that was a misdemeanor would you explain like what it is how you're able to determine when he doesn't understand something as it relates to a plea and how you're able to determine when he does understand something what does he do when he doesn't understand something well y I'm going same objection s Jane how do you decide that something needs more clarification when you're interacting with Mr Sledge uh with Mr Sledge or any other client I I just need Mr slge well the point is I'm going to State what's I guess in front of us in terms of what uh any particular paper is going to say make sure that it appears to me that he understands it uh give an opportunity to ask any questions if he doesn't understand it and then in docment such as this where he's going to initial um that's just another way of uh him indicating that he has seen it he's had an opportunity to discuss it with me and he doesn't have any questions uh that we need to address to the court or followup and um do you pay attention to body language when you're asking him if he understands something yes um do you pay attention to pauses or hesitations when he responds in order to determine if he just doesn't want to say it or if he really understands it I don't I don't speculate didn't go that far uhuh I'm trying to get a direct response so that I know how to proceed but I I I understand your question but I'm saying I generally am not going to try to surmise B based on just body language if there's something that creates a red flag for me then I'm going to follow up with a question you're I'm going to ask a question that's gonna hearken back to something yesterday it's gonna sound not relevant I as the course Indulgence for a moment for me to ask this question you remember yesterday when you were telling the jury that um a particular question sounded like a Hot Topic and I asked you what did you see from me that made you think it was a Hot Topic understood okay so when you're talking to your client what do you look for to see or make you feel like he does understand something I'm listening to I believe that question has actually been asked to answer sustained are there non-verbal cues that you look for to see whether or not your client understands them I would say yes I mean I'm looking at their facial expression is does it do they seem to be very C clear on what we're discussing what the topic is what their response is and um you know obviously if the client is very emotional that that's the more obvious but I'm just trying to make sure have you heard it do you understand it and what is your answer and then ultimately we go from there have there been instances during this plea um or any other with Mr Sledge where he's asked you the meaning of certain words that he did not understand I don't have a specific recollection of him asking about the definition of the word however anytime he had a question about the content of a statement or what that means he did not hesitate to ask me okay did you take care to explain what you would consider legal needs or legal terms to Mr sledge that you thought he may have a problem understanding um anything that is of a legal effect Legal character I'm going to make sure he understands in very plain terms uh him or any what that means did you go over each one of the six sentencing acknowledgements um both before and at the time that Mr Sledge signed or initialed the six sentencing acknowledgements in States 1 as yes and what about the last paragraph underneath that sixth sentencing acknowledgement did you go over that with him before and at the time that Mr Sledge signed the document that is label 1 as yes is there anything you haven't Tau about that um you now can think of that makes you um feeling anyway there was something he didn't understand objection calls for speculation all right let's go past that thank you judge when you signed um States 1 as um was it at the same time that Mr Sledge put his signature above yours it would have been immediately after yes right and on the same date that it was signed by the da uh by the assistant district attorney that is in usually he'll sign it I'll sign it then I'll present it to you and then get your signature okay was there any material addition that you asked to be included in St exhibit 1 as that state refused to include there was no addition no okay or rather let me say there no addition that we asked that was not okay was there something you requested be taken out of the plea agreement that is a part of state's 1 and I stopped that question right there for a reason is there something you requested be taken out yes and is it contained within a number number eight okay and at what point did you request that number eight be taken out even in the very beginning in my initial email um we were given an indication that he did not have information wait a minute you're you're getting into it I'm asking you about a time frame just a time frame because of from the very beginning we that was one of the things that was an issue for us was number eight included in any previous iteration before States for based on your notes what iteration did number the date and time that number eight first appeared in well based on your notes and without saying what number eight is understand and and let me work my way backwards I'm going to look through the earlier iterations but I can tell you the one before this exhibit which for my records was iteration number three it was not in there so the subject matter of number eight had been removed from earlier versions was not present in iteration number three three such that it appeared again in iteration four and so would you meury rather what iteration between states 450 and States 456 including St what iteration of that agreement did number eight first appearing just by date and time and ex if it's in there it was not in 451 y do you understand the question I'm ask well no I am I'm sorry I'm answering in a way where so iter by iteration I'll be able to say if it appears at all I do not believe it appeared in any prior iteration in that form but I'm looking to just make sure the subject matter if it did I can answer your question and say it appeared in this if you would if you find it then point it out but otherwise just read to yourself okay in 452 y number four the subject matter of that appears it does not appear in 454 y just you see it appears in 456 y also number eight okay and and I skipped over 455 y but it doesn't not appear in 455 so as you read over and initial 1 with your client yes did you come out did you ever speak to the state about number eight to the best your Rec you request that number removed no I did not I have no recollection of SE number eight I understand he my client initialed it because I can see his initial I also understand it may have been enunciated by the state at The Plea but where we went from 455 wi where it was not in there and then it was in there I don't know how it got there or how we missed it because neither my client or I appeared to have realized it was there and it came in are you saying that you did not read this document before you all signed it no I we read it and and signed it I'm not I can't dispute that but how that number when that was something from the very beginning we were were contesting I can only say we missed it and it's in there all right and when you say you were contesting it how were you what what how did you contest it what did without saying what you say but how did you contest well by telling the state that that information that's the subject matter of that is not something that he has knowledge of or information on so without I'm sort of hamstrung to answer your question all right come and so at the time that this document was being read into the record were you paying attention I was paying attention but I missed it so apparently not not good enough just as when I went over it with my client which I did I'm not like I'm not um saying I didn't but that is something that to this I mean it sort of was a surprise of this trial for me was that was in there and how did we miss it and when you speak of that was a subject matter Beyond it being something you reference and you said it was you saw it in reference in 452 Yankee number four and you saw it in 456 Yan as number eight the final iteration is that fair did I get that right okay do you have notes or do you have an email or a text message or anything that reflects hey 456 or number eight on this document not not the final but number eight take it out to answer your question going back to when this was happening when we saw 4555 it was not in there and everything seemed consistent with what we had asked when we were handed 456 I think we must have assumed and and I don't want to speak for Mr Sledge well that 455 was what was being handed to us to execute and we did not notice because again it's it's an addition it's it's a completely different sort of addition and it's it's in there and again I'm not disputing it is in there but I can't explain to you how we missed what we thought we were signing or what I thought we were signing was 455 not 456 with that additional number eight uh embedded in the factual allegations and I I don't have an acceptable explanation as to how we missed it okay so looking at 455 and you're last um three questions I have looking at 455 is 455 Yankee number8 45 Yankee was the last iteration correct there and I'm not going to go into it but the subject matter of number eight in this is different than what number eight and 456 and so is 455 Yankee number eight what you were trying to agree to yes okay and5 Yanke have [Music] 13 how many factual acknowledgements are in 455 Yankees uh 15 and are there 16 in four in Stacy 1 as here you go yes there's 16 in 1 as and Beyond was there anything um in particular about number 8 on18 that you brought to the state's attention at any time before now in the very beginning when without going into the subject matter you can give me just date and time if there's email you referring to on December 27th the email at 8:43 uhuh item four okay was related to the subject matter of item eight did you respond specifically to item number four I mean did you respond specifically to item number eight when you wrote item number four hold on one second I'm looking for the iteration I had when we sent those responses it may be if maybe if you could hand me I guess the first version or first updated version then because I'm I think I've got my stuff intertwined now okay um but what I was going to say because I was going to reference what the subject matter of number four is do well not out loud but what I was going to say is yes it's the same subject matter and were you speaking specifically to a number four in a previous iteration when you wrot and respond number correct right thank all right cross examination your honor for the record I'm just um putting 1 as back with Miss all right Winfrey and I'm taking back the ones that were not thank you you're welcome that's good morning attorney right good morning uh believe we met Bri ly to introduce myself yesterday or the day before but again I'm Doug Weinstein and I am Damon Kendrick's attorney yes sir if I speak to you in a normal speaking voice can you hear me okay absolutely I don't need to yell or shout you do not okay um we talked about profer sessions and um a profer session again I believe you said is when they defendant meets with the state correct correct um so to avoid legal ease I'm just going to talk about meeting with the state instead of using that word proper okay yes sir all right so if there would have been a meeting between Mr Sledge and the state you would have been there correct yes was there a meeting between Mr Sledge and attorney love before December 27th no not not that I have any recollection of and I was you know I never want to give an incor correct answer so I was cautious but I don't believe we ever actually sat down for a proper was there a meeting between attorney a meeting between Mr Sledge and attorney Hilton before December 27th no was there a meeting between Mr Sledge and any member of the district any attorney in the district attorney's office before the 27th of December not that I'm aware of no what about an investigator with the attorney's office no I have a slight objection just as to clarification because they um I I said the meeting part based on other interactions just they was there any meeting the objection is vague okay let me clarify when I have used the word meeting what I mean is a proper session so to all of those questions if I had in used the word proper session were there proper sessions there I'm not aware of any proper session that was ever conducted or even a more informal interview with anyone from the DA's office or law enforcement as it relates to this case so there being no profer sessions I believe you received the first proposed plea agreement on December the 27th with the series of factual acknowledgements correct yes so how in the world to your knowledge did the state come up with those factual acknowledgements for your client to agree to without having met with your client yeah I'm going to object based on relevance and speculation as it pertains to how the state did something or came up with something over rued I believe the state was trying to surmise through its overall investig well now he asked your personal knowledge so if you could answer that please I don't have any personal knowledge how the state came up with these factual problems so you don't know how the state put those words in your client's mouth as to the characterization okay how many plea negotiations have you conducted in your career definitely over a thousand Maybe two or one to 3,000 over 30 years okay and these PL negotiations are like any other negotiation that takes place between parties correct absolutely there are things that you want in the final agreement right yes there are the things the state wants in the final agreement correct yes do you get everything you want in that final agreement no and is this plea any different than the other please where you don't get everything you want no it's not I have no further questions all right does anybody else have a questions from the defense I have a motion as to um part of that but I'll ask it at the time that we break okay Mr Adams Attorney right good morning sir good morning sir like Mr Weinstein you and I have known each other a long time haven't we yes sir um all right got a number of questions for you and I want to break them down into okay okay and same ground rules if you can't hear me you don't understand the question just ask me to repeat myself clarify whatever you need I'll prob be happy to do that understood all right um um let me kind of start where Mr Weinstein left off proper session um it's been a reference which is a a meeting between your side you and your client and the District Attorney's Office never happened true correct sustained all right um You did receive as we've seen previously that email with the profit for agreement attached is that ask I did you have never seen never received and there is no signed proper agreement and your interest in representing Mr Sledge would have been to try and G whatever the best situation was for him true objection fague and relevance ever R uh absolutely it in any thing the best best interest of my client that is T amount that is the absolute goal um is you know I I want not just keep them home not just some things you might think I want the best possible solution for the case in this case um in representing Mr Sledge you indicated you'd known him for well over 15 years true yes and at the time that you came into this case you were aware of the indictment and exactly what he was charged with in the indictment yes you knew that he was charged with one count of Rico or violating the right Teran in in the RICO Act yes you knew that he was charged in count 30 of the indictment with possession of a firearm by a convicted fellow I did the um count 30 the possession of a firearm by a convicted felon is something that he was accused of or the allegation was that he committed that offense in December of 2021 is that right yes and that was included in in the overall indictment with the RICO County true yes okay um having represented Mr Sledge before you knew not just him but you knew his family as well yes you knew his mother yes and so when you were in court over the course of the last number of days and you heard testimony and questions about um him wanting to get home to his sick mother um is it in fact true that his mother was Ill yes I I can I have personal knowledge that at the time we were going over this stuff that was something he expressed and was um stressed over that was a concern of his yes you knew and and and I want to kind of reference some dates he was arrested somewhere in June around June of 2022 that right that's I I'm I'm relying to some extent but I'll say to the best of my knowledge yes well you know that the case was indicted the indictment was handed out in May of 2022 actually that being the case yes he was arrested not long after okay um you and I I don't want to delve too deeply into it but you you shared that um at least in the early part of that you were you were having some health concerns yourself yes and and let me back up a little the reason I paused on my answer was remember there was sort of an earlier part where he at some point had charges related to this those charges ultimately went away then much later on there was an indictment and then an arrest that's why I sort of paused because I that earlier is not immediately known to me um but as to once this case was indicted then the arrest um even though I was not back to my practice yet I was aware of it and was sort of watching from the sidelines okay you heard you were in court and and heard uh when he was testifying about that previous matter you're referencing in other words his arrest and where he was charged with the murder of Donovan Thomas correct and so at the time that you come into this in 2022 you have knowledge that detectives with the Atlanta Police Department had previously charged him with Donovan Thomas' murder and then ended up dismissing it or dismissing the charges right objection relevance goes to his yes that that's the point I I was aware from before so when this occurred it wasn't it wasn't necessarily something new to me I was already aware that there was some history okay um you mentioned a couple dates when you were testifying earlier uh we talked about you getting into the case somewhere around October or November of 2022 is that about right and when I say get into the case um when you were uh healthy enough right um to kind of jump resume your practice and uh get into Mr sledge's Case yes sir okay um by the time you would have interacted with him or started representing him on this case in either October or November of 2022 MH he would have been in jail for a number of months true correct he would have been in jail at the Fulton County Jail true correct and since he was in jail at the pon County Jail that presupposes and you know that he did not have a bond correct now if you're in jail and you don't have a bond you stay in jail true correct the only way you get out of jail if you're in jail without a bond is you either your case gets dismissed right correct or uh you negotiate some sort of plea or deal that gets you out of jail right correct or you go to trial and you get acquitted and that gets you out of jail correct Mr Sledge wanted to get out of jail yes he had been in jail for a number of months by the time you spoke to him and he was anxious about getting out of jail wasn't he objection Conor um as answered and sustained he discussed with you his desire to get out of jail true objection as answered and it gets into attorney client yes sustained were you attempting to get him out of jail yes all right um now Mr uh Sledge you you were in court previously when there was some discussion about what an offit plea is is that right yes all right now um and one of the things one of the ways that a defendant Mr Sledge could resolve a criminal case is with what's called an Alfred plea right yes now an Alfred plea as you would have discussed with Mr Sledge in one of his previous cases revolves around someone saying I'm not guilty of the charge but I'm going to plead guilty because it's in my best interest is that right correct right and you would agree with me that entering a plea of guilty whether it's under offered or just a straight guilty plea can sometimes be in a person's best interest right oh absolutely and that may sometimes be regardless of whether they consider themselves to be guilty of the offense or not objection on irrelevance correct correct because as as you've testified previously people answer pleas for different reasons isn't that right correct you having um were you the one who did Mr sledge's bond hearing or was it another attorney it was probably me um I just don't have a it was a while ago so it was in late 2022 true well you know what no his arrest on this I wouldn't have been able to do the bond hearing so I'm not sure who represented him for the bond hearing as it relates to that June arrest I was thinking of the old case but as to that I would have to say no I was still on the sidelines where I wasn't cleared to practice yet one thing that you became aware of though when you came on to the case in late 2022 is that as you indicated before Mr Sledge did not have the resources to go to trial correct and it is true as as you he testified did you hear his testimony about that I did and and did you testify Also earlier that you knew that he had limited resources and he just didn't have the resources to take this case to a year plus trial right it was something that was heavy on my mind in terms of when I'd be able to return to practice to be able to assist Mr Sledge because knowing he had limited resources and even I guess because of the relationship over the years even though he didn't have the resources I would have liked to become involved in the case this case um I was going to do what I needed to do to help him and therefore even though it wasn't you know a huge fee for you know or resources for a big year plus whatever kind of trial I wanted to get involved make sure I'm here to get him out of this situation and help him in this case so I know that was a long answer to your question but yes um it was something actually heavy on my mind which made me say let me get back be healthy and effective in making making sure I can represent him one of the things that you would have discussed with your client with Mr Sledge would have been the risks of going to trial is that right yes that is certainly something that you would have counseled him uh to consider in regards to what decision he made every client we're going to have that conversation it is true that you would have counseled him that hey look um Mr Sledge objection y honor when it gets into specifics of the risks that Mr Right considered um existed in this case I think that that is privileged information unless now Mr Sledge has waited all right well Mr U Wright understands the obligations of the attorney client so not reveal any attorney client privileged information and and I was going to say I cannot answer that question because you're asking me something specific to Mr Sledge sure sure um what you knew though um is that had he G to trial and been convicted he would have been facing a long a potentially long period of time in prison I would say I would know for any of my clients that when you're facing these kind of charges the potential um consequence of a conviction could be a very lengthy sentence so it's extremely serious so you want to make sure you can stand guard and do the best to make sure you get the best result for your client and that is something that you would without going into any specifics that is something that is a factor that you would have discussed with Mr Sledge true again not specific to Mr Sledge but to all my clients to make sure that their eyes wide open we we got talk about the good the bad all the possibilities so that you can make sure as an attorney that my clients have a full understanding of the risk the reward and all the possibilities in between so that they make an informed decision on what they want to do you were aware were you not that the state the District Attorney's office was interested in um whether or not your client would testify to take a plea and testify you knew that didn't you yes as of I think the first email was sometime in November when sort of the first um communication that sort of gave us an idea that they would like to talk to him were you ever present in in Court where any representations were made by an assistant DA that we're looking to make deals I first appeared in court in middle of December um that's sort of when I came back but I also appeared on behalf of Mr Sledge I don't remember the details of what occurred that day but I will say when I reached out to the state to say hey let's talk it was middle of December so it was after I think that first couple Court appearances in December okay it would have been after also there was that November 30th correspondence between you and the state true correct I I had not yet responded to them but it was in Middle December that I essentially was now responding to them and saying okay well let's talk and that November 30th email was an email that you received from the state it was unsolicited true um I we you know it's easy when you have emails to say ah I remember this it may have been a phone call where um it is customary that even though you may see us in court all everyone seems to be one side or the other arguing professionals we call each other we talk we communicate about different cases we may have going on so it was not unusual for Miss love or someone from her office to just reach out call me as sort of that first step and I think there might have been a phone call followed by that email um but again I just don't have a recollection of a phone call or what the conversation is but it wouldn't have been unusual I've known Miss love probably 10 12 also maybe 15 years so it you know as one professional and to another it would not be unusual for her to reach out to me that uh basically see is my client uh interested in something now during that period of time from November 30th to whatever it was you reached out to DA's off you would have been talking to your client about what you wanted to do inol coer with all my back towards the mic yeah with all my clients I'm going to communicate to them hey here are Communications or statements or developments anything about their case so again not talking specific with Mr Sledge conversations it is my norm and usual that if a state reached out to me I would have made sure to reach out to him and more often than not um I don't like jail phones so I don't want to be listening to so I will try to go see see my clients and have that conversation at the jail at the jail I want to backtrack a little bit and ask you um you testified just a moment ago that you weren't sure as to whether or not you represented Mr Sledge at the bond hearing in regards to this case is that is that true yeah I just don't have a memory I may have but I may not of I just don't want to misstate something it would it help to refresh your reflection about whether or not you represented him at the bond hearing if I to show you a document absolutely I'm going to show you for purp oford what I've marked as F Williams exhibit 257a and 257b respectively I'm going to go ahead and put those you let you take a look at them Mr Right and once you're done you just tell me whether or not that helps refresh a recollection as to whether um as to who represented Mr Sledge of theond he yes okay seeing this I yeah it does does refresh my recollection okay so tell me if if you would whether or not you did in fact represent Mr Sledge at the bond hearing in this case I I definitely filed for Bond and I either represented him myself or I had someone stand in for me if there was an actual hearing because I'm not sure in that time frame that I had filed for it whether I had been clear so I can at least state I filed for it and I either was there and represented him or I had an attorney stand in my place when de Bon was denied so it's still on me yes okay all right so back to Let's jump back to December now right okay so we're we're in December and if I heard you correctly the state has sent you an email in on November 30th and so now you're talking to your client in mid December to see what he wants to do in regards to the case okay all right um at some point you end up in court and I'm focusing now on December uh 27 December 28th okay because the plea was entered on December 28th true correct all right the correspondences that were shown to you um well we've been using the word iterations of this so-called plea agreement C the first one came to you on December the 27th isn't that right yes and so the very first time that you and all Mr Sledge would have had an occasion to consider the state's proferred plea agreement was one day before he entered his plea true yes and to give you detail that that day I actually once I received it went to see him to go over it and then ultimately it's when I got back that I sent the response so that's why you can see I received it around five or so in the evening I then respond into about eight or so at night because I needed to basically go talk to him and get his feedback and ultimately I then sent feedback back to the state all right so so we're talking now about maybe four or five o'clock p.m. on the evening of the 27th um is when you first receive from the state this plea agreement that they had drafted up right correct that the first one yeah right and and again this plea agreement that they sent to you with the different paragraphs and Provisions was something created by them not by and answered and when you went to the jail to meet with Mr Sledge on the 27th this would have been the first time that he had any opportunity to look at anything called a plea agreement true corre you would have discussed this plea agreement with him true well again not specific Communications with Mr Sledge but with all my clients I'm going to take the plea agreement and go over it with them so um any any meeting where a plea is ultimately in the air and being discussed that yes I'm going to go um get my clients feedback so by the time you see him on the evening of of December the 27th 2022 um you've got a ple agreement with you and you're going to have a conversation with him about whether he wants to take his plea right correct okay there's still of course the option of him going to trial true that that remains an option un L and until he takes the pl but hanging in the air at that time with the plea agreement on one side and potential trial on the other side was his concern about getting out of jail to see about his sick mother true objection as answer sustained also hanging in the air was the possibility of him not having the resources to go to trial objection ask answer and as you would do with any client You' have discussed whether or not there were things in that plea agreement that the client simply could not agree to or would not agree to objection ask an answered I I would say again not specific to Mr Sledge but when a client reviews a plea agreement if there are factual allegations because there's not always factual allegations in the plea agreement but if there are we're going to go over those and if we go over those and there's some disagreement or there's some need for clarification that's something that I will go to the state and indicate hey there's some issues here we need clarification or changes or what have you so that we can make sure these are accurate and in this case you actually did that didn't you I did send an email to the state indicating that um there are some clarifications that we would like okay so we have some there's some negotiations now going on or some correspondences Communications going on back and forth between you and the state you on behalf of Mr Sledge and the state yes from the 27th of December caring into the 28th of December the next day the next day he's at actually in court yes he he's brought into court and you have an opportunity to talk to him in what a holding cell a holding area yes he's in a holding area where it and it's typical a lot of times that client will be one place the state may be in here or in a conference room and I'm sort of the messenger sort going back and forth to help facilitate a negotiation you had the opportunity to discuss with the state that there was a factual allegation in their plea agreement that you did not want or you want it changed remember that correct you talked about number three correct now the subject matter of that number three revolved around y i object as to the characterization of um the number three um and I ask object based on vagueness are we talking number three in 1 as or number three on one of the other exhibits all right the final version yes let's let's um let's reference what ends up being the final version of the plea agreement believe that's state okay um do you have those in front of you I want you to be able um I do not have that all right Mr wght I'm going to give you um what's been marked as States 18s M um and I've some questions I'm to ask you refer to thatf that okay okay you had a chance to to see what would ultimately become stage 1 as and the conditions um the provisions the factual acknowledgements that were part of that document true yes okay prior to the execution of that document on the 28th of December in court you had an opportunity to communicate with the state that you had a problem or y'all had to use your words some concerns about that factual acknowledgement right yes now that factual acknowled acknowledgement revolves around um this incident about a video where Mr Sledge zest have been in a video holding a gun uh making threats to to someone else to another person correct correct when the state presented any of the iterations including that last last one right of the plea agreement they wanted Mr Sledge objection as to what the state the factual acknowledgement revolved around Mr Sledge acknowledging that while associated with YSL and to support and express loyalty to YSL the defendant that will be Mr Sledge and codefendant deian Garlington and quindarius Zachary appeared in a video the video with another person as wherein defendant brandished a weapon used in a driveby shooting and wearing on behalf of YSL defendant threatened to harm a person named Kell a rival gang member who had begun a relationship with defendant's ex Paramore girlfriend that was the factual acknowledgement correct that was the factual acknowledgement yes you communicated with the state and you requested that they change that correct or did it be removed your objection is a compound and I don't they did not change it you h i object and ask that the whatever question there was can you POS a question sure when you saw that factual acknowledgement in the manner that I just read in any of the iterations prior leading up to the 28th you communicated with the state and asked them that it be changed true yes they did not change it true no they did not Mr Sledge still initial that correct correct and that's an example sometimes is other Council has asked you try to get everything you want in the negotiation and some things you may have to live with and ultimately this was an item where someone could try to argue whether two things are true at the same time that is is this just a boy girl and another boy issue or is it a YSL issue but a decision was ultimately made that if it wasn't getting changed weever had to live with it or stop the process and ultimately that stayed but the reason that you wanted it Chang hold on when you spoke to the state you told them that that information was not accurate true true you told them that this wasn't the factual acknowledgement that referen it being uh done on behalf of YSL that that was not true this was about a girl you're objection as to the compound nature of that question you told them that that incident was not about a gang related incident true true you told them that it was about a dispute over a girl true true but they did not change it objection ask and answer will you president you were president in court when Mr Sledge um testified that he thought that he would have an opportunity to notwithstanding his his uh initials explain his answers if put on the stand did you hear that testimony I did did you just again without going into any privilege and then and to your observation well actually strike that did you have a conversation with the state about whether or not Mr Sledge would be able to explain anything that he had some disputes with in the factual acknowledgements the conversation was had back when we were doing The Plea and then even since then it's always been broadcast or at least made clear by me hey if there are some uh differences in some of the content of some of these um my client um will ultimately want to explain if you put him on the stand and he testifies he's going to want to explain what he means as is when he acknowledged this because something can be true but also be true with other components to it it it's not always just one way that one person sees it as opposed to how another person sees it and he wanted to be able to at least explain that I think he often referred to it as his truth and that was really him just wanting to explain you discuss that with a state objection asked an answer you can answer I I would say yes and and again I sometimes the state would agree and they would make changes sometimes they would not agree but it is incumbent on me to make sure hey Eyes Wide Open full disclosure we've told you so it was not going to be a surprise that well Mr Sledge may have a difference of opinion it was your observation that the state wanted this plea to go through as much as Mr Sledge did is that true objection relevance is to and speculation as to what the state wanted was what asked I um I had a belief okay that's also not what was asked well maybe maybe ask your question yeah and relevance is to State one based upon your conversations with the state your knowledge of the case your Communications back and forth with the state your evaluation of the um the plea agreement you formed or you observed that the state was just as interested in getting this plea done as Mr Sledge was isn't that true so objection go ahead objection it calls for speculation about the state and whatever his observation is or belief was is not pertinent to any material sustained was it your observation that the state wasn't really concerned with Mrs really wanted Mr Williams same object J and I have a motion as relat to that sustain ask your next question I thought you waiting to the motion um all right before um before Mr Sledge was brought out into court on that video that we saw and and Enter The Plea I know there wasn't a a proper session but separate and apart from that proper agreement the one we talked about earlier that was mailed to you did you ever get an email from the state saying hey we want to talk to him before he enters a plea I'm not sure if they asked but on the same token my client never expressed an interest in talking to him so I can't necessarily say it was the state or the defense that kept that conversation from happening ultimately the conversations really were just the negotiations back and forth okay let me I got a question I want to jump ahead and ask you about first and then come back to the plea so the p is entered on December 28th 2022 right yes um you had that meeting that we talked about that was talked about on June the 9th of 2024 cor right at any point between December 28th of 22 and June the 9th of 2024 did the state ask you to bring your client in for an interview I on relevance I don't believe so I know we we didn't meet with the state until we ultimately did uh in June of this year um but we always just sort of figured we were standing by and it was always our hope we weren't going to have to testify so we were hoping hey we're on the sidelines and we're no longer relevant in this and then ultimately it was this year that they said ah we need to sit down with you and yes you will be testifying in 20124 in 2024 in the middle of the trial okay um how about this did did you get did the state ever send you any questions that they might want to ask your client objections um relevance as to whether or not the state ever sent any questions all right so um the move on to your next question you knew um when The Plea was entered in December of 2028 that Mr Sledge was a potential witness to be called the trial is that right correct okay and after he entered the plea he got out of jail true objection as answered he didn't just get out of jail as a result of entering the plea though am I right there was a bond component of that also wasn't there uh there was but in fact said the witness be allowed to finish his response yes I'm sorry I thought you were done go ahead well I was going to say I want to say I think the Bond we work that out as part of the ple as well so that that was not going to be an impediment to him getting released so I in other words it really sort of was all connected his plea was on on count one the RICO plea the RICO charge right he also plad guilty on count 30 the possession of a Farm by a convicted fell in charge right correct he was sentenced on count one correct his sentence on count 30 was left open until after the trial this trial concluded correct correct I in my practice I find that is not atypical for States when they do enter into an agreement with a defendant to try to have something held over so that the defendant participation um they can make sure the defendant distance doesn't show up and show out they come and do what they indicate they're going to do and therefore count 30 being held open was not atypical right his his plea agreement and his plea require that uh if called to testify he come in and he testify truthfully consistent with the plea agreement correct correct if because count 30 was left open in terms of sentencing he couldn't get out of jail unless he got a bond on that charge true correct the state consented to a bond on count 30 didn't they yeah I'm going to object as to characterization and and the Court can check and I will not speak on evidence but I believe that this is a matter that all right how much longer is your cross going to be because we're approaching the lunch hour more than a half an hour okay let's break for lunch um and I think we've got a couple of motions to deal with so let's say let's be it's 12:30 now um let's be back at 2 all right what I may do because I have a lunch meeting is let's break now and let's just come back early so can I don't know how long two motions and whatever else we have to deal with it's going to take can we all be back at 1:15 all right I'll see y'all then thank you J e e e e e e e e e the black bar voices of Justice podcast is here to change the game two sharp black law students break down complex cases and policies showing how the law shapes our lives from civil rights to criminal justice they offer fresh perspectives and real world example to understanding the power of the law get ready for a legal reol ution are you ready to get [Music] woke how long you been practicing almost 6 weeks you just can't ask for speculation that's what you're asking for that's basic law it's been basic this country for 40 years 50 years I have no idea why you do something like that is under what under what law you do that okay tell me how you got the information then we can go ahead and go forward I'm not going to say that what I'm going to say is this got how would we object to something we didn't know existed until it was over the court admition ladies and gentlemen dear Black Law student I was once speaking to Black about my aspirations of becoming an attorney he told me I don't want to be a lawyer and I don't want to be an attorney I want to be an advocate I want to make a difference to stand up for those that need it the most to represent the oppressed and to use my knowledge to create change when I think of advocacy I think of zealous advocacy imagine LeBron James coming down the lane dunking on a seven-footer he's dunking with passion and he's dunking with Zeal it doesn't matter if he's going to get swatted he's representing his team and no one represents zealous advocacy than Doug wiin sing welcome Doug right Doug welcome to the black bar podcast man man how am I even GNA proceed after that my wife is I'm gonna insufferable tonight when I get home for sure man we thank you for coming on this podcast with us man we're excited you are to me the architect behind many different parts of this YSL case you're the architect behind so many things I know you probably will share credit but I appreciate you beyond anyone else I really appreciate that so let's talk let's get it I want to know about Doug not YSL Doug not um yet Gotti lawyer I want to know about Doug wiing tell me about okay ask me what do you want to know so I know listen so you went to Franklin Pierce law school right I did which is now the University of New Hampshire law school CRA you have a son that is an hour and 15 minutes doing his first oneel year right away from there in Boston that's right he's right up the road at suffk okay is there a future of Weinstein and Weinstein practice together one day you know a Weinstein and Weinstein practice already in Atlanta there's some personal injury lawyers down here um but no I don't I I don't see him doing this uh I don't know what he's gonna do he seems to be uh the right fit for maybe a pellet work but we'll see you never know what the future holds I'm old he's young a little Brian Steel in there a little pellet work that's you know Brian steel man there's very few people that do trial work and the pellet work and are excellent at both because those are two very different skill sets so I want to talk about work life balance how do you you know balance work and your life I see you on Instagram with your daughter at a restaurant you know your son's in law school how do you balance all that and then like you have like I've been semi stalking your Docket in the federal court so I see all your cases I see all your stuff like how do you do this and be in that courtroom every day you know I honestly right now I'm working too much um just not on purpose it's kind of an accident so yeah I've got some federal cases I've got an arbitration I've got some State Court civil stuff um and what I try to do I just try to be efficient you know I just try to be efficient I make sure I work out every day I have a nine-year-old at home now I try to spend time with him as much as possible you don't find me wasting a lot of time I mean I don't have a lot of afternoon naps I don't my TV watching is almost nil right now you know I listen to some Braves games in the background on the radio but it's family exercise and work so I don't know that I have a good balance I would not recommend my current balance to anyone oh W I know you just can't wait till this trial is is over or just or you have another one right afterwards well you know it's F you say that when this trial is over I have about 60 60 60 criminal cases wow that are waiting to be tried and I'm imagining doing about two to three hopefully not three but maybe two to three cases a month for the foreseeable future until this backlog gets cleared all right so we want to dive into Justice you know one of our focus is to bring voices of justice and we were looking this week and things are happening in Atlanta and in Georgia and it's a Senate Bill 63 um I know you're probably familiar with that it's kind of requiring cash bail 30 additional crimes including 18 that are often known as M demeanors and it goes It goes crazy into this even cash bail for failure to appear for traffic citations that is crazy so so look is your podcast PG ra or can I just talk you can just talk this podcast okay the the criminal our laws and the criminal justice system are all [ __ ] up and the issue is that no one ever lost reelection by being too tough on crime and by the same time you you know what I mean so what happens what I've watched over the years and I haven't always been part of the criminal defense bar for that long but but I still see it what happens is it just ratchets up and ratchets up and ratchets up you get three strikes laws you get this cash bail nonsense um and it's ridiculous it's ridiculous we don't allow Justice judges to have the leeway they should have to use their good judgment that we have elected them for or that they've been put on the bench for to make these decisions we should trust them more um on that same if I can have another minute on that same topic right before before that came into effect that was down I think I'm going to leave out the county but that was down somewhere before a Magistrate Judge and the public defender was talking about needing to bond their client out because if they didn't get them bonded out this week the next week that cash bail uh statute went into effect and the judge would not be able to give a signature Bond and that Magistrate Judge pondered it and said well you know it's the law says I have to give a cash Bond but it doesn't say how much that cash has to be so you might still get some judges that you know give 50 and $100 bonds of course I fully expect them to go and fix that in two years and and bar that but I think it's terrible I think we should let these judges for the most part have the leeway and trust their judgment to do the right thing on bond yeah you know it was so interesting too like that that bill attacks even like bond funds people put together funds to help people get it's like okay now they're limiting three Cash bonds a year like what is that's yeah and I can't believe that's constitutional I think there's speech issues if I now you tell me if I'm right or wrong because unfortunately because I'm so swamped I haven't been following it as much as I'd like to has that portion of the bill of the of the law um has that been enjoyed because I know that part was being challenged I thought yeah so it's still under challenge I according to our local research that we just did but it has join yet so it's kind of interesting that that was even a part of the bill that the governor signed well you know it's the same way and I have not followed cop city either as much as I should it's the same way they're going after these folks for Rico relating to bailing people out and these these bond funds on cop City it this goes against I would say I would say the N NAACP I think has been having these type of bond funds and bail funds going back to the 50s and I know I think ADL has had it the Anti-Defamation League has had these types of funds you you're you're undermining Decades of precedent within the Civil Rights Community by outlawing and making it Rico to bond people out who are who are protesting it's it's it's horrific I'm I'm yeah I'm not a warrior for justice I'm just a big mouth that's offended at what I see you know it's so interesting because up here we're we're up north uh closer to where you went to school outside of New York City like there's movements to get rid of cash bail everything's Ro you know releasing your own recogn right and Georgia's going the opposite direction with that so interesting to me well my law professors would say about that or at least a couple of them they would say vote with your feet meaning if you don't like the state that you're in and the way things are going pick up and move but I think that ignores the reality of a lot of people's lives I don't think Woody I don't think Mr Copeland can pick up and move to another city I don't think a lot of my clients could just pick up and go to New York or California where where there maybe uh more justice so let's move on to something that I hold deep to my heart I come from a family of three generation lawyers and I kind of want to segue into my grandfather was an advocate for public defenders and he's always said fun public defenders fun public defenders that was his thing back in the 60s fun public defenders my grandfather passed away 10 years ago still today we have not funded public defenders right public defenders are not funded correctly no they aren't and their their dockets are overloaded yeah you know so so interesting so last week Brian steel sat down well he he argued a case in front of the Georgia Supreme Court I'm told Brian still did an awesome job with that argument but um he was in front of Michael bogs who's the chief justice of the uh Georgia Supreme Court and he has been like an advocate for funding public defenders funding public defenders help with his backlog he's just been like on the front lines asking the Senate and the governor to fund public defenders and just make a plain even field what do you what do you say to that what's your stance on public defend how can I disagree with that you absolutely have to fund public defenders and look at the YSL case I don't have you been following it from the very beginning like even through jury selection yeah for those of you that haven't I mean there's a public defender on this case Angela D Williams I mean she's a she's a conflict attorney but she was brought in basically as a public defender and they were trying to pay her I'm trying to remember the initial amount I want to say $220,000 total total total like and that number is an exactly right but to Total from start to finish so we'll fund you $5,000 a month with a calf of like 50 or 55,000 and then after that you're working for free um so you know even on a high-profile case like this they're not they're not funding people now she is getting more money now but she had to raise a huge stink and talk about starting an only fan site I mean you shouldn't have to do that it was a whole hearing about that I I remember watching that it was she was saying she'll make $6 an hour oh yeah I I I helped her calculate what she was GNA be making and that's before the trial was extended this long um so it's just absurd and are we really are we really following Gideon way wri when uh we fund our public defenders at such a low level you know and even just to think about there are I was watching there was a Break um in the yl case when it went to the other defendants and I was there was lawyers that didn't even know that they had clients there were people that couldn't even take plea deals because they didn't have representation yeah and they're sitting in jail waiting for this trial that you're on to end to even they don't have I've never been in a public defender but I'm in awe of public defenders the way the way I will watch them sit in a courtroom and when I'm in a courtroom on a calendar call or something I maybe have two cases in that courtroom and the public defender will sit there and they might have 10 or 15 cases on the docket and they're just going from one to the next to the next uh able to really do a remarkable job uh with their clients and it's just they shouldn't be put in that position so let's talk about r street right 901 R Street I think it is right is that right address I think it is you've been an advocate for you know as I see you bring up the conditions about right street it's just it's ridiculous you talk about security concerns yesterday I read an article massive walk out over $1.5 million lawsuit which I think when I read that it has some legal challenges with that I'm not a lawyer I think that's kind of weird the um Sheriff's reply to that sounds a little weird too you know so and then you got woody woody he's talking about the conditions that he was treated um I just read an article this morning Fon County Jail kitchen was shut down they had use Elementary School I think your client was in jail when that happened he was with the exhaust that were there when that happened you know and then you hear that the Fon County Commission said you know they're gonna NX this2 billion dollar plan to renovate it instead they want to spend you know hundred million dollars just to fix up you know to patch a couple holes yeah I what you say I think there's two issues one is the conditions in that jail are atrocious the jail needs to be demolished and rebuilt but more than that there are so it's overcrowded right there are so many people sitting in that jail that have absolutely no business sitting in jail they're sitting in there with minor offenses maybe they have and already have Bond granted of maybe a few thousand dollars but they don't have the money to get out um you know give these guys signature bonds let them out they're going to show back up again but how we can continue what I think we need to do is go back under Federal a supervision of a federal judge somebody needs to order the taxpayers order the council or County Commission to do some type of a bond to raise money to fix that jail the jail is literally falling apart as you heard Woody say on the stand everybody in there has a shank because they have to for their own protection they make Shanks out of pieces of the jail um and I don't see how anyone and by the way I don't even see anything close to the worst part of the jail right I'm just in the part they let me in so but even then anyone that steps foot where I step foot should be an advocate for Bond reform for fixing that jail up for getting people out of there um just walk out uh or this I guess the contractor withdrawing because the jail owes him a million dollars I mean I get the contractor walking out I understand it but Sheriff lat's um fix of individually hiring the contractors back look every contract uh or contractor labor provision contract I've ever worked on has a penalty where if the person you're providing the contractor to hires an employee away from the contractor there's a big penalty they have to pay so I have trouble believing that's not in there it's it's a fiasco yeah you know that's what I was thinking like in law school teachers like most contracts with employment you have to buy the employee from the company that's how they're almost all set up so I so I would figure like okay well you're going to spend millions of dollars trying to buy these Foods you know and then these folks are like wrapped up in controversy there's this chicken pie pie Scandal the phones being brought into the jail I'm like these are folks you're going to buy well you know it's it's a classic situation of you're underpaying the staff there there's a huge demand for phones Chargers you know weapons and that demand and limited Supply is going to make a big price and if you smuggle stuff into that jail you're going to make a lot of money so you can replace them but as long as you're paying these people whatever they're making I don't know 40 50,000 a year and they can sell a phone in there for a few grand they're gonna phones are going to find a way in there and Corruption is going to continue you're gonna have to hike pay you're gonna have to get rid of the overcrowding I don't know what to say it's a mess we got a segment Doug called the Tweet of the week and you actually hit our tweet of the week this week Antonio let's talk my daughter's picture no no no uh this tweet says please stop talking to the cops when you get stopped there I said it nicely now will you please do it or now you do it pretty please now Doug can you tell our listeners why it is so important you know why are you pleading with them to stop talking to police you know there's a movement right among criminal defense some some uncouth criminal defense attorneys like myself which is the shut the [ __ ] up Friday the STFU Friday to try to remind people to not talk to the police and it doesn't seem to be effective so that tweet was me trying a different tact which is just asking nicely to stop talking to the police and I'm not saying this in the sense of a witness to a crime being uncooperative that's not what I'm saying I'm saying when you're stopped by the police you really need to invoke your constitutional rights not say anything get without an attorney present you know get an attorney because you as the individual that has been detained do not have the skill set to interact with trained law enforcement you don't know what to say you don't know how your words are going to be twisted um and you have that right you have the right to be quiet so please just be quiet but and the reason I say it is as a criminal defense attorney we're constantly digging people out of Pro problematic statements that they have made that aren't necessarily um you know oh I killed him with the knife it's not like that it's stupid ass comments like why did you do this and the answer is because I'm not a [ __ ] I mean that's not a great answer I'm gonna have to deal with that answer at trial because I'm not a [ __ ] um so it's stop talking and stop talking on the jail phones even all the jail phones are recorded they tell you they're recorded and here's the issue with the jail phones you can say things on the jail phone and you can watch see this in YSL you can say see things say things on the jail phone that are perfectly innocuous and they get taken out of context and they get twisted yes there's a lot of that they get twisted yeah so um I'm not trying to help people people get away with stuff I'm trying to help people understand their constitutional rights they're there for a reason so let's move on to one of our as we wrap this up and land this plain YSL we're gonna talk yl for just a little bit right to me you are coming off of one of the most dynamic crosses that I saw emotional emal I'll give you that that kind of got him humanized for a second so to me Doug it seemed like like did y'all game plan did y'all strategize this it felt like it was good cop Brian steel Doug came in humanized him and then Max shark just prosecuted him to the Cross like what's good cop smooth guy good cop dad bad cop like I don't want to give too much behind the scenes you know peing at things we do talk to each other generally about what we're going to be going over because we're trying not to um duplicate each other's efforts and I can tell you that my initial cross exam that I prepared was far more extensive than I did but once you know I was just almost sitting there just crossing stuff off on my notebook as Brian still went over it so I was in a very fortunate position because Brian covered almost everything that I wanted to cover so I didn't need to get into it um and I was really at the point was I just wanted to emphasize a few things that he pretty much already covered that directly related to my client but mostly I wanted to show the jury why can you believe Mr copelan is telling the truth now but he lied nine years ago you know and I was again fortunate enough just in looking and preparing for this to have seen Mr copelan on um what was uh UC University I know I'm saying that wrong but but but on a YouTube channel talking about finding God realizing that God exists and I thought that his um his presentation of that felt very sincere but this cross was a very unusual cross that I've never done a cross like this it wasn't confrontational I I I hoped it was compassionate I hoped it was Humane because I wanted to draw that out of Mr Copeland so the jury could see that um and I wanted there were far more open-ended questions than I've ever done in the cross before you know crosses as you learn in law school and as people who watch a lot of this on TV they're supposed to be just leading questions where essentially it's the attorney testifying more than anything but I thought if I could give Mr copelan the opportunity and ask some open-ended questions that you could see the honesty from him he wasn't being led there by me he was speaking from the heart and I thought it would help convince the jury of something that I think is true which is that what he's testifying to right now is the truth versus and he's under oath and he's he's found God versus nine years ago which was he was saying whatever he thought the detectives wanted to hear so that he could avoid going to Rice Street so that he could protect his baby daughter his baby mama protect his family and I thought humanizing and I was fortunate enough to be able to do that and humanize him and not get into what I knew Max was going to get into and that's so interesting like you really like humanized him like we were I have like a group chat a lot of people on Twitter and they were just like all these crying emojis start flowing through when you start talking and it's like man we you made us believe Ken of copelan for those five minutes we just was like right and it really felt like you guys like the the the the state and the defense like switched a little bit where you guys are rehabilitating Copeland you guys did an amazing job at making him look credible um and I think when Mr copelan gets emotional because of the situation that he's in I think it does make him look a little bit more credible as well and so very good call on that on just um you know speaking to him um person like a I'm G to take a little bit of exception only in the sense that and I know you were giving me a compliment I don't think I was making him look credible as much as I was allowing him to present himself and demonstrate his credibility to the jury which is what I wanted I didn't want and I think the other thing um and I think maybe criminal defense attorneys might see this more than prosecutors because we deal with so many people in trouble with the law is that people are multi-dimensional nobody nobody is the worst thing they've ever done in their life people are more than that um and I try to treat everybody with humanity and decency and sometimes on a cross I do have to be sharp um but I hope I'd still do it in a humane way in a respectful way um and uh and kind of you know part of this is I I had a conversation with Christina Weaver the former court reporter in there and if you notice she was always very respectful and decent to witnesses to the defendants and she's kind of the same way these are human beings they're in a very difficult situation it's very stressful so she does what she can to put them at ease and treat them that way and I and I I hope to do the same you know I emulate that oh man that's powerful so moving on you know and I know we're about to L This Plane soon so after you go Max shark goes you know I'm in a group chat and one thing with a whole bunch of law students we like dude how can the world the state redirect that yeah I it's going to be the biggest struggle coming be interested to see I'll say this about Max sharp in general watching this case because I have that front row seat which I love I say I always say have a front row seat and I try to always be learning right you're always learning doesn't matter how long you've been doing this you try to learn so I pick up different techniques from different folks that cross-examine I guess my favorite style in general is Keith Adams style I really like the way he does cross-examinations but you know you can never be someone else you have to be yourself but Max's cross-examination I think was just one of the most effective cross-examinations I've ever seen and part of that is that I don't think any defense attorney in that case on his own has command of every fact in this case the way that Max does Max knows this these six terabytes of Discovery inside and out and he was able to command that tremendous knowledge of the case to build that cross and get to the point that he got to and I saw people on the stream were complaining that it was going a little too slow at first I saw people kind of snapping at Max like speed it up but he he had a process that he had to go through to get to that point that he got to where I think he put significant doubt I would hope in the jury's mind uh as to whether our clients did it and and and who did it I mean who really who really shot Donovan Thomas I have some ideas yeah I I canot yeah I do too you know um and I'll throw my T fo head on for a second you know I don't know who shot Donan Thomas I don't know if the state even knows who shot Donovan Thomas you know so many guns there to my knowledge any any bullet could have flown anywhere you know you this guy in a Barb Shop with a gun you had these guys outside his car had guns in it to me it's not clear enough to know that who did it you know but I can tell you from my view who looks like who had something to do with it I I really don't know who killed him but I can tell after Friday listen to Max Shar if I had a suspect list yeah there's a couple people I love the way Max didn't ask that last question or didn't make that last statement that that was the Capstone to everything he'd been building to it was kind of I I I likened it to the inene and The Sopranos when they're in that Diner and it just goes to Black instantly that's what it felt like with Max he just let it go to Black and let the jury draw their own conclusion as to what that next question was going to be it was genius so no it was the whole thing even Brian steel to you I guess are y'all done cross there's a redirect we'll have the opportunity to recross if they want to give us that opportunity I I relish it yeah I don't know what this redirect is going to be the most exciting thing for for me for you know Adrien love to talk about this thing with her being on her knees and begging for him to testify like how do you come back with all that like how do you bring that full circle you know and it's kind of weird when you don't have a Cooperative witness you know most read direct should be easy for prosecutors because it's their witness do they want to lend credibility back to K I'm not gonna make I'm not gonna make predictions going forward I mean the usual thing that prosecutors say in these types of situations this type because I've never seen this type but where you have a witness that's unsavory for example um is they'll say the prosecutors will always say we in closing we didn't pick our Witnesses the defendants picked our Witnesses um I I would disagree with that with Mr copelan um and I don't know how you fix this situ I mean look I I've been practicing law over 25 years I've had bad weeks I've had bad days we all have um as as much as the prosecution is our opponent in this case you have to feel a little bit for them I mean not as a lawyer I felt a little bit for them I was thrilled for my client and all the other clients because I think we had a great week but these weeks happen and look we're gon to have bad you know there'll be bad days for us ahead I'm sure it'll happen or bad weeks or whatever I'm sure we'll have it won't all be it won't all be this week I'll celebrate this week and then prepare for what happens next but it just seems like you guys are poised and just going about it the right way and just hitting it on well look this isn't over they got a hundred more witnesses to put on but of course then we get our turn but they got a hundred more witnesses to put on so wait to judge their case for when they're done is there any indication that judge Whitaker is going to limit them there anytime that I she has she has basically invited me all of us that if we see cumulative test testimony about to come in that you know we can object and I fully expect her to keep it out like for example they've got two more gang experts they plan to put on they've already put on three and I think I've already pretty clearly planted in the judge's mind that these are going to be mostly duplicates because she's asked the state you know what are these two gang experts going to testify to that the other three haven't so I'm hoping we get some whittling down um I honestly don't think it's been in the state's interest to make this case as plotting as it's been but it's their case you know this is how they chose to put it on yeah you know so so one of the things is like you know to me a lot of stuff is cumulative they're talking about this Infinity expert coming up like what what is that like what do we need that for we know what infinity looks like I don't think it's clear there even an Infinity that's why they have their Infinity expert he's gonna say I can tell from that blurry video it's an infinity I can't wait till y'all cross him on that can't wait well I already knocked out their their video Zoom expert and you probably didn't see that but that was that was before jury selection began this was in Fall of 22 Keith Adams and I got the uh this this video enhancement expert basically thrown out the state withdrew him as an expert and that's just because I have an electrical engineering background and no video so he doesn't know anything so they were like oh okay because they were going to show enhanced they were going to show enhanced video of the driveby I want to see like there's this witness that she claims she's gonna have that talks about Facebook posts and dates I'm like is there a witness that like I I don't know that's gonna be you know I don't know some of these Witnesses are so tedious and boring and but it's their case you know if they think this is persuasive with the jury God bless them so as we wrap it up Doug I want to give you opportunity we have a segment where the guest talks to law students and give them some encouraging words talk to one else out here that are listening to our podcast okay here's my talk let me think I have a few things to say Okay first grd it out through your third year I'm so sorry you have to do a third year of law school I've never had anyone justify to me why you need a third year that also couldn't support a fourth fifth and sixth year so I'm sorry just get through it um I would say I would say to open yourself don't decide on what kind of law you want to practice right off the bat and in law school expose yourself to as many different kinds of law as you can um if you end up summering at a general practice firm and you think you really want to go into you know mergers and acquisition I would say during the summer maybe do a third merger and acquisition but spend that other two-thirds or half your time looking at all the other areas because you don't know what's going to catch your eye so I would just say expand your horizons how's that thank you man and last thing we want to know what are you reading what are you reading we are big on reading here what's your last book you read if you got time I know you're very busy I am what are you currently reading this is this is I don't like the answer to this what I'm currently reading is a history of the Constitutional Convention um which is like sounds really dry and I guess really is dry iist listen to a lot of non-fiction the one I read before that is more interesting I just got through with Bill Bryson's um a short history of everything which is a fantastic book that teaches you like a just a little bit about literally everything and it's a it's a great read you know I'm I'm reading this book me and Antonio we're reading we're we're tag teaming books we're reading this book called above ground by Clint Smith if you could see that book okay what's it about the funny part is it's about poems and um um to to to black men one of the interesting things that the way we got about this book is Judge Glenville actually believe it or not I like judge interview I don't want you to think I don't seriously that's not [ __ ] I like judge Glenville I'm not happy with the case but I like him person and I still think highly of the man um and I don't know what happened you know it is a long trial I don't know um but he was talking about this book in an interview and it made me and I love it it is a great book um shout out to judge GL if you're listening to incredibly accomplished person have y all talked have you mentioned on your podcast his accomplishments no so we are working and getting an interview with him but it is it's uh some logistical things it's bad timing for him right now but he he didn't say no but he said he's fascinating I mean retired one star general from JAG been deployed in Afghanistan at the same time he's doing Jag work he's on the bench here um super nice guy uh very uh kind very considerate I mean yeah I like judge Glenville and it it was it um it pained me to have to do what I did yeah you know he did tell us that when he gets a break he will hit us up but he is um actively working very hard right now which I I believe him 100% well he's got the SP shooter k he's got a bunch of civil cases so but he would be on shout out to judge clam yeah thanks Doug for coming to see us spending a little 30 minutes with us man we really appreciate you um we got a letter we uh we released one last week to um Jeffrey we got one coming out this week to your client yet Gotti it's a heartfelt letter um just encouraging him in the time of his situation e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e looks like it all right Miss love you had two different Notions and one of them um relates to the comment by Mr Weinstein during his cross-examination of Mr Wright specifically um the comment um was maybe about uh an hour and 19 minutes and 32 seconds from when we stopped but specifically the comment that Mr Weinstein made to which the state objected was you don't know how the state put those words in your client's mouth and my objection um that the court sustained obviously is that um it was an improper um comment improper statement put before the jury um and even though the court sustained it Mr Weinstein and others um ongoing efforts have been to um spend a narrative that the state has forced something uh on one of the witnesses or more of the witnesses but those particular words your honor that you put this you don't know how the state put those words in your client's mouth it amounts to Mr wiin making a statement not asking a question and him making an assertion that the state in fact did something that it did not do which was put those words in your client's mouth everybody's heard the testimony and seen what happened um and in as much as that statement was an improper statement in front of the jury um and it could be construed by the jury as something not withstanding any Court's instruction that they could take as fact we would ask that the court under 17875 admonish and rebuke Mr Weinstein statements and admonish him to make no further efforts to put such improper statements before the jury my second motion deals with Mr take one at a time yes there was nothing improper about that question to the witness your honor I was inquiring about the uh facts I'm sorry I'm losing the word but the facts that were put forward that the state created the state doesn't deny that they put those together and gave them to um to to Mr Wright's client without any input from Mr Wright I think it was a proper characterization and it was a question so the witness could answer that just as attorney love has said um all the evidence is out there it's all before the jury the jury can draw what they want from that evidence so there was nothing improper about that and I actually well that's all I'll say so uh I think it was a mischaracterization um it was in the form of a question um but I believe it was a mischaracterization because if we had been talking about the final version that Mr Sledge adopted that might have been a fair statement to say you know they were put in his mouth but these were not things that he ultimately adopted so the state wasn't putting those words in his mouth so I think it was a mischaracterization um I am don't think it goes so far I mean I you objected I sustained it um um it doesn't go so far as to Warrant an admonishment before the jury um but let's try to be careful in our care izations even when we are asking questions all right yes okay what's your second motion Mr Adams question to the same witness um that the state objected to but that the jury heard isn't it true and I'm going to paraphrase that you knew that the state didn't want your client the state wanted Mr Williams that's been the lie that they've been the I'm sorry the narrative that has been promoted from the start we don't agree with it or adopt it and we um certainly don't agree with the idea that we you know do these things without um a basis for them so in as much as Mr Adams made that assertion in front of the jury we do believe that that merits an admonishment and rebuke under 17875 and we would ask that the court give him one all right and you that statement was essentially H it followed it it followed upon um another question that was not as objectionable in in this way um but that had been sustained and Mr Adam she pretty much doubled down on it and said something to the effect that the state wasn't interested in getting Sledge they were interested in getting Williams uh and that's inappropriate to have asked that witness and I don't know why you thought that there was any basis for that being an appropriate question because it would called for speculation anyway so what's your response to the um State's request that you be admonished with regard to that you it was not a question um that was it was a question that I believed was an appropriate question given the context of both this witness's testimony and his his client's testimony previously what we'd heard in the narrative that has been put forth and and quite frankly I believe the evidence has been that the state has been mostly interested in Mr Williams uh as a defendant as opposed to the codefendants particularly as regards this witness and Mr Sledge what has come out and what's been of importance is this meeting that they had on on June the 9th where uh this statement is made that is beneficial to Mr uh to Mr Williams the part about him him advising right uh Mr Copeland or Mr Sledge to take Mr copel Right to the police and and that's left out of of any questioning of Mr Sledge he is he is asked or he is however it comes out there's no discussion about that we're not going to ask you about that whatever portion of it you choose to believe and so there is this narrative that's out there that they appear to be interested in Mr Mr Williams not so much in the codefendants and the fact that all of the codefendants all of the codefendants who took pleas were uh asked made or signed plea agreements where the bulk of The Plea agreements and the jury has heard at least three of them previously the bulk of The Plea agreements make specific reference to Mr Williams Mr Williams as the head of YSL Mr Williams did this there is this this this narrative out there that their attempt that and everyone has gotten probation all of the people that the state has that the jury has heard from has gotten probation after they were denied Bond and and the state took a a harsh position that they did need to be out on the street but the minute they entered pleas they and and implicated Mr Williams in some form of fashion in their plea agreements then they were they were released and so that narrative is out there and I think that that is a that was an appropriate question to ask of this witness who has some knowledge of that how does this witness have any knowledge of the state's desires about who they most want to get with regard to the 19 or so defendants that are indicted in this case because he is a defense attorney representing one of the codefendants who entered into a cent entering into a plea agreement he is familiar with the discovery he made a statement in part of his testimony previously that he knew what the case was about uh and he he started going down the road of talking about Mr Williams before there was an objection made and the objection was sustained and so he does have knowledge of that he knows about the case he knows that Mr Williams is alleged in in this indictment by the state's narrative to be the head of this YSL organization and he knows that The Plea agreements uh have been have been to the benefit of the codefendant who have pled and to the detriment of Mr of Mr Williams and every other defendant still on trial well but he also knows as as we as I asked him one question about was he in court when he heard the statement that was made by the prosecutor before The Plea made by the prosecutor it was Miss Lizzie Rosen wer at the time where the statement was made that we're interested in anyone who wants to make a deal except Mr Williams uh we're willing to make a deal and so he knows this we're not doing this in a blind he's aware of this information I'd like to respond with that yeah I I I I I I don't know um of that statement that Mr Adams is speaking about except Mr Williams if he could point me to something because I wasn't there when she said I wasn't even on the case but i i d I doubt she would have said it but if she did I mean I can't speak to that I'd like to see it since he's made that assertion but the second thing is as it relates to um his assertions regarding the plea agreement Mr um Sledge I believe or Mr either Mr W or Mr Sledge were cross-examined specifically on whether or not the state asked Mr Sledge any questions about defendant Williams and Mr Sledge said no and the idea that we're pushing the narrative when the state itself as the record will reflect elicited the testimony about Mr Williams encouraging Mr Sledge to take Kenneth copelan to the police station belies this argument that the evidence that has been brought out by The Plea agreements and by the state's actions somehow or another support this um in my mind baseless assertion by Mr uh Adams in the form of or in the disguise of a question to Mr SL sledge's attorney there has been Mr sledge's attorney could have been asked whether um the state you know see whether the state asked more questions about one person than another but actually he was asked and he testified that the question and answer session was more of a kind of get to know you session and that when Mr Sledge began talking about Mr Williams the state said the only thing he said about the state is that the state said that's not the question I asked you and when he said something about it appeared to be a hot button issue he later said there was nothing that you did that made me say that I just you know based on you not want you not asking him about that I I made I jumped to that conclusion so putting in front of the witness one this assertion about the state's intention because as if it's the state that's on trial and that the state is doing something um that is just wrong is is it your impression that the state don't really want your client he wants Mr Williams it wasn't an effort to solicit an answer it was an effort to put an assertion in front of the jury that was improper and that can't be taken back and that has been the entire well they're goingon to make that argument yeah regardless I'm sure they did an opening and I'm sure they're going to in closing but um I I don't believe Mr Adams that um there was a any kind of a good faith basis to ask that question and to think that was a proper question for this witness to be able to answer uh but miss love with regard to what you opposes any kind of Curative or admonishment I mean I don't know what that would be I would ask that the court admonish Mr Adams in front of the jury that um the statement he made regarding the intentions of the state as they relate to Mr Sledge and Mr Williams were improper statements by Council that those types of uh count statements um the jury is to remember they are not evidence but that Mr Adams should not um have made that statement in front of the jury and and so they weren't statements it was a question it was just an improper question it and 17875 talks about statements of prejudicial matters not in evidence and your honor it's not there's nowhere in evidence it was a a statement that was dressed up like a question but he made an assertion in the form of a leading question um was it your understanding that the state really didn't want your client he wanted mine and the fact that he dressed it up as a question doesn't take our position is it doesn't take it out of the realm of improper statements put before the jury that fall under 17875 that Merit admonishment at the very least if even if not rebuke but that Mr Adams should be admonished about that statement it was improper and it should not similar statements even in the form of questions or disguised as questions should not be made about the state's intention which one no one else can testify about and two it's it was just it was just wrong to put before the jury um pretend it was a question to this witness joh if I may respond briefly go ahead I have this witness on cross-examination yes and I'm allowed to ask leading questions I will defer to the to the court if the court felt as though the question was an inappropriate question um there was an objection made and the court sustained that objection and I abided by the court sustaining that objection this ises not fall under the amb of 17875 this is not TI for attack where because Miss love was admonished previously now she's trying to find every opportunity to get somebody else admonished that's not what this is now I again I I'll abide by the Court's ruling uh by the Court's sustaining the objection but I've stated on the record what my belief was and what my good faith basis was for asking that question in regards to the narrative being put forth from the beginning of this case um and and I'll I'll stand by I'm trying to look back at the what happened right before that OCT e s okay stain was it was your observation that the state wanted this ple to go through as much as Mr Sledge did the state objetive about on relevance and speculation as to what the state wants oh I actually overruled that one never mind um oh I made it a different kind of rolling um and I said re ask your question based on your conversation with the state your knowledge of the case your Communications back and forth with the state your evaluation of the plea agreement you formed or you observed that the state was just as interested in getting this plea done as Mr Sledge wasn't that true objection calls for speculation about the state as to whatever his observation is or belief was is not pertin to any pertinent to any material I sustained and then you followed that up with was it your observation that the state wasn't really concerned with Mr Sledge with I think it was with getting Mr Sledge but with getting Mr Williams um which would also have been asking for um you know what the state wanted or didn't want which I had just sustained but asking in an even more pointed way so it was inappropriate for you to ask that question question um with regard though to an admonishment any instruction I give is just going to highlight it again for the jury so is that really what you want why don't I just admonish Mr Adams privately not to pull anything like that again or you will get admonished in front of the jury that suffice for now yes it does thank you okay are there other issues we need to raise I just like to Mr steel if you want okay just um before the court or if you'd reconsider Mr um Copeland made it clear in his testimony that the police wanted Mr Jeffrey Williams that that all of he he realized yeah that's a different issue though than the prosecution being just about Mr Williams which y'all can certainly argue all you want but that doesn't make that a proper question to have asked this witness and just okay maybe you resolved it but you said something I found interesting earlier I found a lot of things you say interesting but thrift Thrift versus State seem to agree the courts what I think the cour was saying it's 310 Georgia 499 it's in division 7 like 67 it's 2020 case and it seems to say that a question asked is not contained in 17- um 88-75 but it says pretermit so I don't think they reached that issue but they clearly didn't reach it you know as a statement I just wanted to okay I appreciate that and I I I do think that's correct and so I'm glad to hear that an appell at court also came to the same conclusion thank you yes sir Mr Shar not finished his cross yet I also have a short okay cross examination I wanted and as as you know U Mr Bots was flying solo this morning and I I want to be clear I'm I'm I'm seeking guidance from the there's there's an area of inquiry that I wish to get into but I don't want to be accused of opening any doors okay um Mr Mr um help me out Mr attorney Wright thank you thank you uh attorney Wright um has testified that there was one specific and and I'm going to have to go up there to to see the number there's one specific no not three there's one specific provision that he asked to be removed and the state did in fact remove it okay okay and and I'm not going to dispute anything like that I and I do not plan on getting into the contents of number eight but I do plan on asking Mr Wright um if to his knowledge from the review of The Discovery his client made any such statement to the police and any such statement to the district attorney and the reason I'm asking that is and then I'm going to conclude it so this is not a situation where Mr Sledge said one thing at one point and it was now dis owning what he PRI previously said but rather it's just a situation where he's never said that okay so that's it and I'm not going to get into contents of anything but I just didn't want to be accused of opening a door to the contents I think the contents of number eight are already in front of the jury anyway because it's one of the factual assertions that uh Mr Sledge disputed and so those were read out weren't they it's very confusing they were one prior version number eight is not the same as the ultimate one same so what I believe Mr Wright was what I believe him to have been saying and perhaps I will confirm by having him point to it when when when I'm up there so it won't be read to the jury I believe he was referring to the part where he said he heard his client heard someone say we caught not oh yeah and then and then that other number eight was added in its place so I'm referring to the original number eight okay I don't know if that was the number eight or not whatever yeah you'll have to because I don't know if he even gave a number but yeah that's fine um but I mean I think that y'all know from and that's a legitimate question but I think yall already know from um maybe our discussions up at the bench that um I Believe Miss love made an argument that um his knowledge was based on their post nuts death discussions at the condo and that that and I I may be misremembering it but I think that that was what Miss Love at least indicated was her kind of basis for putting that in so if you ask and though he never made a statement to police it's then possible that she gets into that although y'all we are getting I mean could we focus on what the issues like are in this case please yor um when the court permits there's one more matter that I think I want to okay so do you have any issue with if Mr shart ends up asking you know that line of questioning you're gonna have an issue with that my response has um to do with what Mr uh Wright's answer has already in um if and and I and I actually didn't wi understand what he's asking if it'll open the door I'm not sure what he meant so if he could clarify so that I can respond clearly okay so Mr Wright is being very clear and I think the jury gets it that his client disputed a fact and it was taken out by the state which I appreciate but I I think that Heck if as an attorney ER if I heard that I would be under the assumption that it ended up in the first place there in the first place because he must have said that previously and is now disputing it I'm not going to get into oh the state put this in there without ever hearing it out of your client's mouth I'm not going to get into the The Dramatics of that all I'm just going to try to establish is that to your knowledge he what you asked to be taken out was something that he never said not just that he's denying it now but he never said it okay now I understand so um what my my response is actually I'm going to entail a question as well similar but so in States 452 while Mr Wright was on the stand I asked him about um what what we're discussing now and he brought up himself I don't know how number eight got in there right some that effect and he never said obviously I told you to check it out he said it was oversight on my part but I asked him whether it preceded whether number 460 that email that was sent at 843 on December 27 whether it was sent in response to States 452 which was sent at 506 he said well States 506 did not have number eight in it right right and so that part was fine but then when he gets to he said the next thing he sees is States 453 which um does have it has a version of it has an a version of eight in it um but not that exact language right as we went back and forth and he told us what didn't apply and what did apply what number eight ended up being was a distillation of that original statement that it it contained only the part that he wasn't disputing so it wasn't a matter of and that's a matter your verion is that's what he was saying I think that kid be interpreted more than one way but what Mr Shar wants to ask is to your knowledge from your review of The Discovery and knowledge of the case did Mr Sledge ever say I personally know that somebody from YSL killed nut right no no I'm getting everyone I'm confusing Everyone by by referring to numbers okay I understood Mr Wright to say I asked and this is what the state wanted out I asked the state to remove some uhhuh okay for forget about the numbers eight or whatever what he asked to remove was the statement that someone said we got him bad or something got n down bad okay regardless of what the numberers and I'm not going to ask him what he wanted to get removed I'm not going to get into the contents I'm just going to say what you asked to get removed to your knowledge your client never said it and oh that okay the first place and when you were representing him he never told the state that he never told the state investigators that okay just so it doesn't appear that it's something that he said at one point and is now I understand so so then he the question then is not going to be whether or not um his client ever said that statement that is now factual acknowledgement number eight right it's the the quote that got taken out from some much earlier version um that is I don't know where it is because there's so many different versions but we got that somebody said we got nut down bad or something to that effect of course I'm not going to say what it says right okay but that's what you want to ask about but okay and so um if if the court could inquire if Mr Sharp because we have labeled them all so that they're not confusing you know what exhibit this is going to be on I mean I don't know that anybody or just the date and time I don't know do you have the exhibits available and I gave them to Mr shark but Mr shark can you review and see what exhibit number that is because I don't know if it's on more than one all right and so if he asked that he's gonna ask do you know of anywhere from the discovery that that might have come from or or in his representation Mr Sledge ever telling someone from the state that okay prior which one which whatever the quote is yes of course okay I know it's in Sledge agreement updated 2 sent 154 p.m. on Wednesday December 28th all right that's going to be I think 455 y that is correct 455 Y and under number eight in four sorry but that is one um that is 453 y 455 y was the one that was sent on December 28th at 1:54 p.m. exactly what I just said I'm sorry I thought you said 145 my my apologies okay so it is 455 why right and and I'm not saying it's not in other versions I just know it's I don't know whether it or not I just know it's in that one all right and what number was that please sir it's number eight so it's number eight in 455 y okay correct but of course not number eight in the final version because it's not in the fin right okay okay so you understand what he wants to ask is that and I don't know what you think that might open the door to or not I think it might open the door to the fact that Mr Sledge has testified to the fact that he was at the condo with a number of people one of which is two of which no one of which has given a statement that um Mr Kendrick and Mr steelwell both indicated that um they killed Donovan Thomas using this language I caught that we caught that in nut down bad and the fact that Mr Sledge acknowledged being at that condo during that time if he starts asking and he being Mr chart asks did your review of the discovery reveal that your client said made this statement then it doesn't have any relevance given that one it doesn't show up in the final version but two if his whole purpose is to find out the basis for the state putting in here first then I can inquire further about what his client did say and what his review of Discovery did reveal whether or not that statement was alleged to have been made during a time his client was alleged to have been at the condo with the person alleged to have made it so if that's his only reason then that's what I would I would offer up it's opening a door into that's just from hearing what I'm hearing so far once again I'm not getting into the contents and your honored to answer the question of course it doesn't open the door but I was just doing this out of an abundance of caution and obviously state is trying to jump through a door so is your question gonna be to Mr Wright from whatever however you phrase it whether Mr Sledge ever said he personally heard that I am going to say I'm not going to use the word personally heard I'm not going to use all right what are you gonna ask I'm going to say Mr Wright on direct examination you talked about requesting that a part of number eight on U 455 y be removed and the state removed it right and without getting into contents about what it said is this something based and I'm gonna get into you're his attorney you get Discovery is this something based on your review the discovery that he ever said to the police and I'm not going to say what it is I'm just going to say what you asked to be removed is it based on anything you ever said to the police is it based on anything that he told to the district attorney or any da investigators and and I'm I was just going to conclude it and say Mr Wright so the thing that you asked to be removed it's not a situation where Mr Wright I excuse me Mr Sledge allegedly said something and was now going back on it it's a situation where Mr Sledge had never said such and that's it and I'm not going to say oh the state was doing this and that I'm Gonna Keep it very simple okay that that's that's fine but we've never alleged that the state that mred I think they just want to establish what he just said as his final sentence that Mr Sledge didn't one time say it and then disavow it right and given that it it's not something that has been put before the jury what it is I don't know how it's relevant well I mean Mr sledge's credibility is obviously an issue right and the state is putting it before the jury that Mr Sledge has disavowed what's been put in front of him and I'm just trying to clear it up in front of the jury that he's not yeah I understand it's fine for you to ask that question do not ask it in a way that suggests that the state has no factual basis for having ever suggested maybe that's something he could I'm not going to agree to because then I will let her get into here's why we said this okay completely understand all right everybody understand that that's going to apply to anybody that might examine Mr Wright Okay so all right what else so your honor um once he Mr um okay I'm not going to follow up I'll just redirect if necessary but number uh three Mr Wright um made a particular statement on Cross I think as it relates to number three or it may have been under but I think it was number three and Mr um Adams followed up on it and the question was you asked that number three be changed and then number three the state refused to change it now given that that assertion has been made and has been affirmed by the witness um we believe that the content of number three which I think has already um been put before the jury because it was played I think that the content just number three alone from Mr R December 27th 2022 8:43 p.m. emailed to the state the statement that he made M makes the video may have seen like the issue was Gang Related but it was actually about a girl that Sledge was dating and Carl Kel started kicking it with her that was the real issue behind that not denying the video but the real issue was the girl I think that at this point the language of what Mr Wright responds with becomes very important because of the characterization made during cross-examination which was that Mr Sledge asserted that number three was false and Mr Sledge has stated that he feels like it was false and then Mr Wright asserted that it was false but the language that Mr Wright used to correct that uh assertion does not um it does not assert that um Mr Watts was not a rival gang member in other words it does not dispute any material aspect of it so the only part that we would be asking to Mr Wright to tell the jury verbatim is what his response was to number three so that the jury can fully understand and appreciate what it is that everybody is saying the state refused to change I I can make this easy I'll I'll read that number three from Mr Wright's email out loud to Mr Wright on cross-examination and the jury will get to hear it I'm fine with that and and on behalf of Mr Williams I don't have any objection to that I asked the question um I believe and then it was specifically because Mr Wright had on Cross examination said that on that one number three he specifically asked that it be that it be accepted or changed and so I don't that I think I think the subject matter of that language is is appropriate okay good then that means I can get okay all right sounds good anything else okay let's get Mr Wright and the jury and Mr Adams you J up can we approach really quickly um regarding a witness hang on yeah hold on the jury Mr Wright can come on in e e okay for got for thank you very much joh be seated and Mr Adams you can continue your examination Mr Right welcome back sir thank you sir all right um I think when we left off turnning right I was asking you we had gotten to the point where I was asking you questions about the um the actual plea on the 28th of December okay okay so I want I want to pick up there um all right at the end of everything all of the discussions The Plea agreements um conversations with with your client ultimately Mr Sledge entered a guilty plea correct yes and he was sentenced at least in part yes and he was released from prison from from jail true yes all right um uh part of his sentence requirement of his sentence was he had to he had a curfew is that right uh maybe so I'd have to refer to it but that sounds okay reasonable 10 10 to six sound sound like what you remember if you remember that um again if the curfew was in place at the time he first got released yeah okay he it it's fair to say that even after he had entered his plea and had gotten out of jail he had conditions on him pursuant to his plea and sentence true correct and it was always an unknown is he gonna have to appear testify and you know go through this but that was of course something that was and I the phrase hanging over his head that was that was a condition that was upon him yes the the possibility of him testifying true yes and and of course um the discussions that you would have had with the prosecutor and with your client again I'm not asking you specifically what you told him but subject matter is that if he would to testify it would be expected that he would testify truthfully and consistent with that plea agreement correct correct all right now it it is it would be fair to say and you tell me if I'm right or wrong that um you would of course make him available to speak to either the state and or the defense um in preparation for his testimony correct and um previously with other clients and I presume with Mr uh Mr Sledge it would have been incumbent upon you and you would have discussed with him the necessity of testifying when if he would to be called in testifying truthfully correct correct you've heard the phrase before he's used the phrase and it's been here in uh in court where he said he was of the impression that he would be able to get up and testify to quote his truth you heard that correct okay um you knew and you understood based on the discrepancies that you had with the plea agreement that his truth um might not necessarily agree with the verbatim reading of the plea agreement objection fague as it Rel sustained rephrase the question you you knew that he did not agree with everything that was in the plea agreement correct I understood that he did have issues with some of the factual uh allegations that were contained in it yes okay and so um moving forward then from from that period of time December of 2022 to when the state uh made contact with you about speaking to Mr Sledge in June of 2024 you made him available at that time true yes and if I heard your testimony um and the testimony properly this was a meeting that took place at the Starbucks over in fville correct yes would have been yourself Mr who it was suain all right you testified that the meeting that was had with Mr Sledge at that time was approximately 40 minutes is that accurate objection ask you're H I'm entitled to a throw and Si and cross- examination I'd like to be able to to explore that because it has been made an issue by the state in their questioning okay I don't know that the length of time of the meeting has been made an issue just go on to what it is that you want to get to with this Witness questions yes Ron did you describe in your previous testimony um this meeting as a getting to know you sort of session yes it it didn't seem like a detailed question answer preparation kind of meeting is more of a feeling of feeling each other out getting to know you kind of meeting and giving you a general idea of hey you're you're going to be testifying and therefore you know I'll be asking you questions and so we need to get a sense of each other was there um a discussion from the state of that they advise Mr Sledge of what they would be asking him no there was general questions again but it was not often when you think about prep Witness sprep you think hey I'm GNA got 20 Questions here the 20 questions on be wasn't anything like that it was really more of a introduction to each other get to know you kind of meeting it did not appear to you to be what you would consider a witness prep session correct and that was on June the 9th of this year correct objection ask answered Mr Adams go ahead and just focus in on what it is that um I mean we we're all familiar with what he's already testified at any time after June the 9th of this year and when Mr Sledge was brought in to testify did the state ever in fact conduct a prep session with him where they asked him or discussed questions they might ask him on the stand objection relevance no that was like I said we met the one time and then we've appeared for trial and to be clear clear we appeared to trial a couple times but we weren't called but they did not ask questions or anything we just sort of waited so again trial was really the next instance of any communication between the state and my client did Mr Sledge at any time ever indicate that he would not comport with his plea agreement and come in and testify did he ever ever exhibit any reluctance to come in and testify no did he ever attempt to avoid a subpoena or to avoid um reporting when he was asked to report No in fact for us in our posture we wanted to make it clear if they need to meet with us see us when we need to come in we we were always going to make sure we are there and make ourselves available so that at all times it's clear we're fully cooperating during the course of that meeting um you described and I'm going to use your words that when Mr when Mr Sledge started talking about um What Jeffrey Williams had had said about taking Woody down to the seat of police that quote the prosecutor didn't seem to like that topic what I said then were words to the effect and and I'll say it again now that she made it clear that wasn't what she asked him which is true that wasn't the question that I heard her ask him but ultimately I just my observations were that it was a topic that she wasn't asking about and again it just sort of raised a red flag for me that is this a Hot Topic there's something to that when Mr Sledge testified um that the prosecutor said to him quote I'm not going to ask you about that do you have a specific recollection of him of of that being said what I can say is again I didn't hear Miss love say that but I do know my client indicated that's what he heard so we were both present but we heard things differently so yes he is always always contended that's what he heard and again to the extent that what I heard was not the same did he contend that prior to him being put on the stand you let me rephrase that question so it's clear you heard his testimony when he testified to that understand am I right yes had he indicated that to you that sentiment to you that that's what he heard prior to him coming in here and testifying uh yes I want to um almost done just have one or two last questions for you Mr Mr Wright I I want to jump back to uh early December of 2022 when you were having the back and forth with the with the state okay in regards to the plea agreement and I heard you correctly that was between essentially the 27th and 28th is that right yes um do you recall um stressing to the state or sending them a message um specifically telling them that that you were ready he was good he Mr sled was good to take the plea he didn't want any media and that he just wanted to get back to his family do you remember expressing that sentiment to the state I did I have one moment please turn right thank you that's all I have at this time thank you sir thank you Mr sh good afternoon Mr R good afternoon attorney right good afternoon um May I approach to just see what the witness has in front of them just not this shouldn't be these are no these are all just my own notes okay sure thank attorney Wright on direct examination you made reference to to identifying a portion of a certain factual acknowledgement that you and your client disagreed with and bringing it to the attention of the state correct yes well you you mentioned several but there was one in particular that the state changed for you correct um I need you to give me a little more more info on which one and I'm not going to get into the contents of it but it's in what's been marked 455 y okay I'm not seeing 55 one more time State just it is yes yes now we're throwing a lot of numbers at the jurs okay just so we know what we're talking talking about 455 Y is not the final plea agreement with the final factual acknowledgements correct no okay on 455 why on factual acknowledgement number eight on that document not the final document but number eight on that document isn't it true that you identified that factual acknowledgement and said that you had some problems with that factual acknowledgement and I'm specifically the last part of it um yes okay now as the attorney in this case for Mr Sledge you received Discovery correct yes and you were able to see what your client may have said or did not say to any police officers correct okay and certainly you were representing your client and are aware of what your client may have said or didn't say to any District Attorneys okay and you're aware you would be aware of what your client would have said to any district attorney investigators correct yes okay the part of factual acknowledgement number eight that you asked to be removed and the state removed it okay you with me yes the state removed it we you agree yes okay that part that you asked to be removed um from your review of The Discovery and from representing your client your client never said such a thing correct I I can say that my client never said or adopted that statement and that was one of the reasons he asked it to be removed okay and and I understand he didn't adopt it but to your understanding he never said it correct okay and so and that's why I'm I'm just trying to clarify that portion that you asked to be removed is not something that your client once said and is now disowning or saying he he's changed his mind it's something that was never said objection ask and answer twice um that's correct okay thank you um I just want to talk to you about the timeline of you receiving the The Plea offer in in actual pleading this case Okay um you received the first version of the factual acknowledgements you would agree at approximately 5 o'l PM on on December 27 2022 yes okay and that was the day before the ple was entered correct and as I understand I'm not going to belabor the point as I understand you went to 911 R 901 R Street uh the Fon County Jail to discuss the plea offer with your client yes okay Mr Sledge and do you recall how long you met with him that day now that I don't know um it would have been long enough to make sure we're going over things for me to get a good idea of what his response would be to uh our conversation and the things I was going over with him and then at some point I would leave and then of course as I said later prepare a response email to the uh State and this meeting with your client was this in the you were in the attorney booth at 901 R Street yes okay and as an attorney you know or when you met with Mr Sledge you were on one side of the booth there's a glass objection relevance is to I'm discussing their ability to go over this document AB there's a glass a thick glass barrier in between you and Mr Sledge for this meeting correct and he's on the other side of the thick thick glass correct correct and of course you can you have to talk loud but you can hear each other correct correct and let me at least so you know because this is some time ago I'm assuming I was again because we are almost always in the attorney Booth we get a little key we can unlock it we can go in we can also hand documents back and forth right um that is my recollection of how I met with him which meant I would have been able to hand him a copy so he can read it I can read it you know at the same time and go over whatever we need to go over um I'm sort of stating it because it's so long ago um is it possible that I just saw him through one of the more window only kind of things where I could not have handed them stuff possible I don't remember that I remember being in the attorney Booth okay but I just wanted to point out that yes we can talk as well as hand stuff to each other okay to review well let's let the jury know what we're talking about here so if the attorney Booth if someone's in the attorney Booth if it's being used if it's occupied you can use a visitation Booth correct correct and that also has thick glass in between you and the person you're speaking to correct yes and the only the main difference is there's no pass through in those boots we can all audible stuff's the same but you just can't pass stuff back and forth okay and of course when you met with him on the 27th met with Mr Sledge on the evening of the 27th you had whatever version of the uh ple agreement was in effect at that point but not the final version correct okay all right um do you could you refer to 1 as I have it sir okay thank you um you would agree that in the negotiations with the state your client pled to count one which was conspiracy to commit Rico violation correct yes and he was facing 15 years to serve I mean excuse me he was sentenced the agreement was 15 years to serve on probation correct correct okay and then count 30 he he did plead guilty and according to this agreement um sentencing was withheld yes and would be dismissed if he fulfilled the agreement yes okay at this point sentencing is still withheld correct correct and the maximum he's facing on count 30 is 15 years correct yes okay okay so right when he testified earlier today he had a 15year sentence hanging over his head as well as the probation correct okay and so his maximum exposure is 15+ 15 correct yes I mean technically less will say any time he's already ticked off uh since the agreement but generally speaking it's 15 plus potentially another 15 so and at this point um if he's if he's done a year on probation it would be 29 years instead of 30 years correct okay now you indicated in your review of the final plea agreement um there was one factual acknowledgement that you testified you missed correct correct number eight on the final agreement you missed correct and well I'm not going to ask you to speak on behalf of your client but you missed it yes I I can always say that I missed it and had I seen that I would have immediately because it was of a certain subject that from the very beginning we had sought to exclude from this um but ultimately um for whatever reason um we missed it okay um can you in sentencing acknowledgements number five on that final agreement defendant sentencing acknowledgements yes this final plea agreement between Mr Sledge and state as reviewed by yourself and Mr Sledge indicates that your client is facing as much as 35 years in refinement isn't that correct correct that's what the agreement says correct okay in fact he's facing 30 maybe 29 correct it it would have been a Max of 30 um I'm not so 35 was incorrect um so I object to the characterization um I the language I'd object to the characterization and I don't want to speak further but the question was posed whether it said he faced 35 years and that is an incorrect characterization I can okay do you want to refres is the documents say that if your client does not fulfill the obligations disagreement he may it may result in defendant being sentenced to serve as much as 35 years in confinement in in the Georgia Department of Corrections that is what the document indicates okay is that your client is facing 35 years I I think it would be a more correct statement to say 30 but that point is 30 or 35 a whole lot of time but yes it I think the correct number is 30 all right you're making my point for me gotcha you signed an agreement where your client was fa facing your client you and your client signed an agreement saying that your client was facing 35 years correct and he was really only facing 30 or less objection ask and answer yes your client on that final agreement um there's a word that's crossed off and initialed by your client correct yes okay begin was changed to being it's just a switching the letters right yes okay and that was crossed out and written and initial by your client correct correct all right and you've reviewed the uh video tape you were in here when the video was played of your client taking a plate I was there okay that was something that Miss Love caught and instructed Mr Sledge to cross out an initial correct that sounds correct yes all right that wasn't something that was caught by your client correct all right okay um Mr Wright you in addition to what I first asked you about about number eight the portion of number eight that you pushed back on State and they changed you also push back to acknowledgement number three on the final plea agreement correct correct and okay and number three which you push back on um regarded the video that your client made with ganderia Zachary where he was we'll say threatening a gentleman by the name of Kell or kelvin Watts correct correct okay and you're aware that the factual acknowledgement indicates that your client while associated with YSL and to support and express loyalty to YSL made this video correct and it it indicates the acknowledgement indicates that the video was made on behalf of YSL correct correct okay your honor um I'm going to object to a characterization sustained I mean if you read it carefully and then rephrase on behalf of YSL defendant threatened to harm a person named Kell you can ask that okay but it the acknowledgement indicates that on behalf of YSL defendant that would be your client Mr Sledge threaten to harm a person named Kell correct that's what the acknowledgement says yes okay and you pushed back on that and you sent Miss love an email correct correct actually we we've began taking issue with that characterization from the very beginning and this was I think I testified an example of where we felt one way the state felt another and that was one of the examples where um it was not changed right okay do you have the emails actually this might be do you have 460 in front of you yeah yes going to read to you from your email what you said about acknowledgement three to miss love and this was this email was sent on December 27th at 8:43 p.m. correct yes okay this is the night before Mr Sledge entered his plea correct yes okay you wrote regarding number three the video may have seemed like the issue was Gang Related but it was actually about a girl that Sledge was dating and Kell started kicking it with her that was the real issue behind that not denying the video but the issue was the girl is that what you yes wrote and is that verbatim yes that was verbatim Okay so the point you were trying to get across is you're not denying that that your client Mr Sledge made the video correct and you're not denying that he had an issue with Kell correct but that issue was about a girl yes and you ultimately the state was unwilling to change that factual acknowledgement in the plea agreement correct correct they were unwilling to take out that it was done on behalf of YSL correct and they were unwilling um your honor um I my objection is vague when the question is they were unwilling to take out that it was done an earlier Mr Shar referenced video if he could just clarify okay they were unwilling to change the factual acknowledgements on your client's plea that he was to signed the next day right well again some changes were made but as to that specific one that was one example of where they were not willing to change it even though we had a difference of opinion as to what it was about so the it is still unclear so and factual acknowledgement number I'm sorry okay yes my objection was to because they specify what it were talking about and it may help factual acknowledgement number three which relates to the video that was made yes with your client and Mr Zachary in correct yes okay the state was unwilling to change the language that it was done to support and express loyalty to YSL correct correct and they were unwilling to change the language that it was done on behalf of YSL correct and again I you can clear clear it back up on redirect or are we already yeah that was you still have redirect so you can clear it up then they were unwilling to change the language where it said wherein on behalf of YSL defendant threatened to harm a person named Kell because of that individ idual association with a rival game they were unwilling to change it right all right I I think that the state's objection is a valid one and I don't know if you want to if you need direction um but why don't yall approach e e e e okay attorney right do you remember at this moment in your email you did not indicate specific changes that you wish to have made correct uh actually in my email the way I even described what a I put here are recommended changes and then I went number by number um all the way 8 through 13 for the agreement I had at the time I get it what I it's not like you went through it like you do in Microsoft Word and Market with red or anything like that like an editor would correct correct okay but the the the point you were conveying in that email was it was not Gang Related correct correct and it was over a girl correct as to that issue number three as to number three okay and ultimately the final version of Mr sledge's plea agreement includes language you would agree that it includes language that indicates that the video and the making of the video and the threats were Gang Related correct that number three is an example where there was not a meeting of the minds with the state and that's where they did not remove the information you know consistent with what we were suggesting be removed and the game related versus a girl was where the meeting of the minds was not happening correct correct I mean ultimately the state included sort of both things in there where we were saying it was really about the girl right and you told Mr sledge that he could explain this later to a jury objection judge um one that as answered in province of um attorney CL attorney Cent privileg okay Mr Right from your dealings with Mr Sledge you are aware that Mr Sledge did not completely agree with factual acknowledgement number three objection s and answer suain on the date that he pled he did initial that that factual acknowledgement correct your honor I'm this is the first time I'm questioning this I know but lots of other people already have and we've gotten that information at least a couple of times okay I mean you're welcome to ask whatever it is that you you know were leading up to I believe on Cross you indicated that in negotiations you can't have everything and sometimes you have to live with some things correct correct and your client initialing number three even though he didn't completely agree with it is an example of having to live with things correct I think I previously did state that number three was an example where there wasn't a complete meeting of the minds but his choice was do you walk walk away and proceed with trial or or enter into the plea agreement to go home Mr Sledge would have to live with that as part of the negotiations correct that part is asked and answered sustained all right here's my question is it fair that Mr Stillwell would have to live with your C answer no I'm sorry I'm sorry that is not what I'm meant to add obje relevance an improper question is it fair that Mr still have to do anything is an improper question for this witness so forgive me for sustain was Mr Stillwell a party in these negotiations objection that is again I I'll prent that question was Mr Stillwell party in these negotiations and was it was this was your client signing a FAL acknowledgement that wasn't true is that something that Mr stillo should have to live with sustained the signing of the signing of these incorrect factual factual acknowledgments you would agree that it affects more people than just Mr Sledge correct overruled I will state this any person in a case where there are multiple defendants when they enter to a plea agreement that includes certain factual stipulations that can impact all the defendants not just themselves so uh to your point that yes when Mr Sledge was completing his plea his Focus was on him however there are effects or ramifications that could affect others and your focus your focus second hang on and my objection was to the characterization of the incorrect or improper fact actual acknowledgement so the um answer I think sort of dealt with but my objection was that that was a mischaracterization or improper characterization was well the jurries heard the testimony so was factual acknowledgement number three completely correct from your client's perspective we indicated that we took issue with some of number three some of it we were acknowledging and some of it we took hiss and he and he initialed it and he got to go home correct OB and it affects these other gentlemen back here correct sustained no further question okay does any J questions questions Mr Williams or Mr Harvey okay all right uh anybody need a break before we do redirect okay let's take a quick kind of 10minute break try be back here close to three yes okay right e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for e e left thank you judge Mr Wright you were asked on cross-examination by Mr shart I believe regarding um factual acknowledgement number three that was was contained in the final plea agreement that your client signed do you recall that yes I'm want to ask you ex2 Yan de Tuesday December 27 2022 at 56m as IND the docent that preceded the email in 460 Yankee from you dated December 27th at 2022 at 8:43 p.m. I'll let you paying particular attention to number three and states for 4 52 Yankee yes it does it does appear to be number three in exhibit 452 uh Yankee is what my um email note was referring to all right would you please read exactly what number three in States exhibit 452 Yankee says that was sent to you before you sent the email in 460 Yankee while associated with YSL and to support and express loyalty to YSL defendant and codefendant uh Dam Deon Deon carlington and quindarius Zachary appeared in a video with another person as wherein the defendant brandished a weapon used in a driveby shooting and wherein on behalf of YSL defendant threatened to harm a person named Kell because of the individual's association with the rival gang now exactly what did you respond with relation to number three when you sent that email in 460 Yankee your language what' you say Mr Adams asked answered I allow some leway go ahead and three I said the video may have seemed like the issue was Gang Related but it was actually about a girl that Sledge was dating and Kell started kicking it with her that was the real issue behind that not denying the video but the real issue was the girl on any part of 460 Yankee or any other communication you made with the state did you ever assert on behalf of your client that Kelvin Watts was not a rival gang member no I did not go into no okay and he can explain his I don't I I you I don't mind the explaining but I I wanted to ask with the Court's permission certain questions that are are frankly binary questions yes or no and then if he could be allowed to explain I would just well he said no and he about to explain so you may follow that up your no if you want to with something else go ahead I was simply going to say no um but again the whole point I was trying to make is that it wasn't from our perspective a really a gang related issue it was a girl related issue and then ultimately you did change it however what the change ultimately sort of included both that this it's a girl issue but you also um kept the the fact of some of the YSL and gang contention and that was just just what I would say is sometimes in negotiations you agree to disagree about you know what was that issue okay I'm going to ask you the next question did you ever indicate in any way on behalf of your client that your client was not associated with YSL as stated in the first part of section three of 1 as the factual acknowledgement um there's never been a time where I've ever contended or represented to you that my client was not YSL okay and is there ever any indication from you through your client from your C through you to the state that the portion that says where in defendant brandished a weapon used in a drive by shooting is incorrect inaccurate and or false the answer is no and further again we took no issue with the video the video is what it is the issue was just we were saying sometimes what the motive was the motive was grow related motive not YSL yes he may be YSL and yes the video he does hang on just second over okay go ahead maybe again it's contended he's YSL maybe and the video is what the video is we were simply taking issue at the motive or why the video ended up being created had more it was focused because of this girl situation between two guys the fact that Kell or my client or whoever they are uh was a secondary and we said not the primary issue okay did you ever indicate on behalf of your client in any fashion whether in for 60 or some other way that the portion wherein on behalf of YSL defend defendant threatened to harm a person named kale was false no right all right so is there any statement contain in States exhibit 18x section is there any of that your client through you contended was false at anytime that you convey to the state the part which says that ultimately his actions in the video wait a minute where's the word ultimately in that okay well okay I I'll just start by reading and then I'll pause and explain the part while associated with YSL comma and then here's the part and to express support and loyalty to YSL that part is again it was not a gang motive it that was the part that my comment would take issue with that he wasn't shooting this video or making any comments doing anything this was about the girl not about trying to support or Express loyalty to Y now the rest of the quite honestly the rest of it is essentially just describing the video it's correct and then ultimately at the very end where it was added had begun a relationship with defendants ex Paramore that was correct so the only issue was an inference that it was in the furtherance OR in support and express loyalty to yl that was the only part that we took issue with so that's where when I say sometimes there's something where we agree but also part of it disagree that was the part of disagree and and to not split hairs but did you at at any point say in your email or anywhere else that that part is factually incorrect no but also understand my email came the day before as we started getting into these later vers verions I was here in court I I wasn't sending emails at that point we were communicating verbally back in forth because we were sort of both here so the but the point being is that was something that my recollection is hey we changed it to the extent we're going to change it and that ultimately you weren't going to change it further or excuse me uh eliminate that so my client as he I think testified to would say look some parts I may not have liked and guess what when asked I'll explain it but ultimately I don't want to not do a plea I want to get the plea done so I can move forward and that's that point of compromise thank you for explaining that all right yor I would also at this time um ask the court to conditionally uh admit 452 460 and 453 not for publication at this time but subject to um additional um restrictions as as the court sees fit uh and we can discuss offs the Pres yes Shor thank you while you on cross-examination you testified that some of the factual allegations that were contained in the final plea agreement were not ones that you had agreed to but on Direct am I am I correct that you said number three you asked to be changed and it was changed but not exactly like you wanted and then number eight was one that you said today that you missed back at some point when you were reviewing the document that is correct I okay I have said today that number eight was missed okay and a review of IT versus our earlier um comments to you um they can't be reconciled I mean in other words it's clear that that was not something that we would have anticipated um in other words it was something we objected to and wanted removed ultimately it reappeared in that final version we did sign it again we're not taking I'm not taking the issue we missed it and unfortunately had I seen it the day of I would have paused stopped everything and said up this is a a hard a hard stop we got to figure out we'll come back to that in just a moment okay other than number three and number eight do I remember correctly that everything else your client through you acknowledged was objection H answered sustained when you spoke of some of the factual allegations were number three and number eight the only two you outside of what's contained in the final 1 as is there any other thing that you asked the state to change that we did not answer I did okay we'll move forward now as I said when you mentioned number eight being something that you had not seen before are you able to tell the jury the first time that you can now recall paying attention to number eight um number eight when you were questioning my client and number eight came to light one of the first things I started to do was go back to read to figure out where that came from and of course my reasoning without going into the content was that was one of from the very early things that we said hey this is not accurate and then I'm thinking where'd that come from but I went back I realized it was there how we missed it how I missed it I don't know but apparently I did if I um show you number eight on 455 Yankee uh and an email dated December 28th 2022 at 1:54 p.m. are you able to recall whether this was a document that you reviewed while you were actually in court I believe that was one that I did review while in court I think you said 155 yes sir yes 455 455 now without reading out loud number eight okay read to yourself number eight and after you've done so would you please tell the jury whether number eight under factual acknowledgements under 455 Yankee is something that you ask the state to change if we with just okay because I can't have you read it no no I'm not going to read it okay but what I was going to say is having read it um [Music] ultimately the only the very final part the last sentence really the and and then everything after that and um is the only thing we would have asked to be removed from this paragraph so essentially you could say the almost the last two sentences and so number yes I'm going to object under 403 misleading the jury um Mr Wright has been referring to number eight on the final agreement now we're talk Miss Love is trying to talk about number eight on a prior okay version which is not the same I hear you I think she was maybe about to ask some questions to clarify that I was your honor and just to be clear because there was this um cross-examination about what was agreed to what the state refused to move right so this we believe is a proper line of inquiry and we'll try and keep it as concise as we can so may I continue you may so Mr Wright when you speak of when you speak of um the change you requested on number8 of 455 Yankee does number 8 on 456 Yankee is that the difference and is that the line that you're referring to that appeared in the final well they are two completely different statements right and does 456 Yankee contains a line that is now contained in the final version no what I can see is that in yank 455 Yankee where item eight in that document was the one we had been talking about and we took issue with the last couple sentences of it when it becomes 456 Yankee that is moved to being now number nine the lines in question were in fact removed but a new number eight is inserted and the new number eight is what I said we missed we didn't see that because it had not been part of the prior um version so but but you can sort of see by comparing the two that what happened was it got kicked down to nine a new number eight was put in but number nine does in fact remove the line at issue in the old number eight if if that wasn't confusing okay and what I was asking you is that is that in 456 that line in 456 Yankee is that number eight the line that appeared in the final version it it did and again I'm not sure how we missed it I think because it I'm think thinking and again I can't speak for my client I can only speak for me that we were still going off the last thing uh we had seen honestly I know this final version got emailed to me I'd be interested to know just to be sure what time the plea happened versus this email because that would make sense as to if I didn't see this last verion email before we ended up taking the plea and again I'm not saying it did happen I'm just saying I'm trying in my mind to figure out how we missed that how did that happen and as you were asked on cross-examination about your understanding and your clients uh understanding or initialing of each of these acknowledgments was there any acknowledgment other than three or eight that you ever felt you needed to expl I don't think this particular questions been asked before that you ever felt you needed to express to the state my client may need to explain these further I know that I express to the state that at some point my client I'm sorry I'm I'm going to object because I believe that answer calls for something that invades the problems of the attorney client compation relationship not when he expresses it to the state overule go ahead she indic I I I believe because at some point it was stated to the state that explanation may be necessary I don't recall whether we itemized exactly which items were going I think it was a general statement that hey we're signing it we're agreeing to it but some of this may require explanation and at the proper time and place Cas I.E if he's called to testify he's going to want to be able to explain the answer okay so I think that generally without going into any detailed conversations with my client but that's generally what I recall we were communicating with the state to say we're we're signing we sign us up we're initially we're going forward but some of these things because there are a couple things in here may require further explanation and when asked you'll have a chance to explain were any of those things inclusive of any other acknowledgment or understanding besides the two that you already pointed out um could could I have the final initialed I think could I think your question is going to that I want I just wanna do you have this is 45 I think at some point for reviewing this three and eight be the only ones that I believe he would have oh strike that three and eight were the ones that there seemed to be issues that may require explanation just so just three and eight did you you were asked on Cross examination whether at any point the state as to um sit down with your client did you perceive the November 20th the November 2022 the November 30th 2022 email from the state as a request to sit down with your your client well it was a profer offer so yes that would essentially be your communication uh to see about having a sit down with my client and I think I indicated I received it but we did not respond until middle of December and that response did it include any agreement to sit down uh no it actually was simply saying why don't we talk about a resolution okay and as it relates to the questions on cross-examination about the November 27th email and the November 28th emails and where you were when you were able to review them with your client um you mean December 27th said November yes I did me thank you the December 27th and 28th correspondence um at that time were you and your client aware that you all um were not the only uh people who had yet to resolve your case correct well the question having um known me personally for as long as you've testified you have um did you feel that comfortable enough relevance as what he felt what are you finish your question so I can because the question what was the other one I'm sorry I don't have rephrase all right I'll rephrase uh did did you you were asked on Cross examination about receiving communication and plea offers plea agreements on December 27th and 28th and meeting with your client at the jail and in court do you recall those questions yes at the time that that was going on did you believe believe or did your client indicate to you to express to the state that you needed maybe any additional time to go over those agreements uh no at that time we were very eager to ink a deal and resolve the case and ultimately that's how the 27th happened in the evening as well as once we show up to the courthouse house how on the 28th we were trying to iron out an agreement which we ultimately tendered to the court were you or your client through you ever given the impression or led to believe that if you did not ink a deal on December 28th it would go away no I I don't think there was ever a sense that we were given a deadline it was Hey Now or Never I think it was just a matter of he's expressed uh he had different concerns and different motivations so again not speaking for him but he seemed very um eager to ink a deal if a deal could be had um on the 28th okay and you were also asked about your um desire or willingness to go to trial if your client chose to go to trial rather than Inca deal regardless of the financial Arrangements that you had made would you have continued to represent him I hate to say I could not have afforded to stay on the case and go to trial because a trial of this length would it would have bankrupt me okay I mean there's St starve me I don't know what's the the word but ain't no money being made when you're in a courtroom and if you're not getting paid for being in the courtroom just ain't no money I understood um had without getting into what you told your client um would you have made efforts to arrange for him to have suitable or to okay I withraw did you um ever move to withdraw in this case no again that's something that would have come later depending on the choices my client made okay and because his choice was to get this plea done and to execute it that never became a right kind of consideration you were asked on Cross examination a number of times about um your client's sentence I want to show you what I've marked as States 463 and a copy of which has been not as it's labeled but the certified has been provided in Discovery if there's anyone that wants to see it I'm just giving the copy to the witness okay 463 Yan you were asked on Cross examination whether count 30 was held open until the end of this initial trial do you remember that uh something to that effect yes and do you have any memory of um it being necessary for your client to be sentenced on count 30 as a result of um the way that that particular account had to be filed with the clerk of court actually we put creative language in there where if he um sees his cooperation through we could actually be in a position to withdraw his ple on that count and then it would be n Prost so the one of the benefits is count 30 will go away and then he'll just be on probation for the primary count so that was I guess one of the incentives in this agreement was I I guess you now have both ends the incentive that this C that count could go away or the deterrence that said hey there's a hefty sentence if you go a file and does 463 accurately reflect um your client's final sentence that he was given that day in addition to or under the restrictions of 1 uh it does okay and so would you please tell the jury what your Cent was actually sentenced to on that day I'm going to object s been asked to answered previously well I haven't seen the document to see what it says but it seems to me at least the implication is no it hasn't so I don't know do I need to see the okay not over roll would you please tell the jury what your client ultimate was ultimately the sentence that I'm looking at now indicates 15 years to serve on probation to count one and then 15 years to serve on probation to count 30 consecutive to count one okay which would be 30 years of probation and once this going to the third page which is continuation please sir that if the special conditions outlined uh in this sentence are satisfied and there's a I won't list them but there's a few of them but ultimately he would be allowed to withdraw as please as to count 30 and count would be n that's a old a Latin way of saying dismiss so that he would only he standing on this sentence for count one okay um and I know someone had since I'm here had asked me about whether there was a curfew and I do see where there's a curfew as part of this sentence thank you wrapping up with the last three questions you said that you were asked on Cross examination you testified about um whether or not your client initially was charged with the murder of Donovan Thomas and whether the police dismissed those charges do you remember that I remember the the question the topic qu you know coming up question coming up yes and do you know whether it was the police or the district attorney's office that declined to charge a I I can't say I've known police to ever have that Authority or make those decisions um because my understanding it was the Fulton County DA's office who made the decision not to pursue those charges any further okay and the last question is you spoke earlier about representing your um client in his 2015 case Okay um and entering that plea in his best interest under Alfred you recall that yes and at the time that you representing your client on 22sc 183 yeah we can't really hear you sorry I'm sorry I'm gon to object object and we can approach all right for e e e e e e e for all right so um Miss love my recollection is that the issue of the 20 whatever 17 plea having been an Alfred plea came up during your direct of I don't feel like it was this witness I feel like it was Mr Sledge because it was initially what happened is is that in what my memory that um it did come up with this witness yes it was uh asked okay it originally came up with Mr Sledge on your direct because you started reading the factual basis that's what I was about to say okay so what I was about to say was initi it came up with Mr SP because okay we we all remember why but then how did it come up with this witness on Cross examination the question was asked um if I think something along the lines of it and it may have been by Mr Adams [Music] um what what is an Alfred plea um do you do that because you feel it's in the best interest of your client and does that consist of certain things okay and so because um Mr Adams got into the questioning of what you know what's an a plea was it consist of why do you do it and then there was um I believe believe according to my notes there was questions or there was testimony about Mr sledge's mother being ill and him expressing um stress over that right um my notes then I mean I remember now thank you for recalling it to my recollection so what is it that you want to ask at any time did he request that this plea be made simply in his client's best interest okay did his client ever request of the state to enter this plea in his best interest okay and given that of course since now everybody knows that his client knows what an Alfred plea is it's important that this plea and these statements weren't given or made simply because they were in his best interest okay understanding his Tes ony today that wasn't something that was ever conveyed okay well those two questions did he at any time requested and did his client request it seemed like that would be appropriate I don't know if you intended on some kind of third question or if that was just your argument but did you intend a third question after those two no my my last question was intended to be um was this plea made under offered or was this plea did your client ask us to allow him to make this plea under offer so we know it wasn't under offered so and did he at any time request that the plea be a best interest Alfred ple and did his client ever ask we know the jury doesn't know that's why I was saying that and and I believe that it's well yeah they do because I instructed them already that for the one they could consider they could not consider anything and for this one they could if they found inconsistent statements so yes sir Mr Shar so ask to those two questions I am not going to pretend that I was in the middle of their plea negotiation hold that closer I am not going to pretend I was in the middle of their plea negotiations but um I feel that many of us know that the only individual that was allowed to plead guilty under Alford is uh Mr Sergio kitens who had had zero evidence against him quite frankly and so um I don't think anyone would have perceived that as a option to even ask okay well that's not an evid objection well I would I would object to um those questions being asked because I believe any discussions that he would have had with his client about alord invades the province of the attorney client uh relationship uh can can he be asked whether or not the plea was entered under offit sure that that's that's how the plea was entered but whether or not he had any discussions or whether his client asked him to approach the DA's office in regards to Alit ple I believe uh invades the province of all right if you make if you were to make that objection that would be sustained but that objection would not be valid with regard to whether at any time Mr Wright requested that The Plea be permitted as a best interest so you going to ask that question um thank you and your honor um as Mr Wright has already testified that if his client asked for something from the state he's obligated to convey it to the state I don't believe that um asking him whether all right well he that's already before the jury so okay thank you okay let's get um Mr Wright back in and hopefully the jury will be ready to come on back in I wonder I don't know whether he heard that or not can somebody see whether the jury's ready no I know that the jury Mr Wright's on his way yeah okay is the jury ready great they seem to be okay for thank you go ahead Miss love thank you judge um just two more questions you were on cross-examination did you testify that uh you you were not certain that your client would have to testify uh it was on December 28 2022 correct that the point was if you need them and you need and you want him to testify he will but it wasn't set in stone it was going to be a game time decision once you made the decision and was your client served with the subpoena by the state on December 28 20122 to testify in the trial of this case I don't know if he served subpoena that day I mean we were served as subpoena recently and we've never taken issue with service or the fact that he will appear uh whenever the state wants him to appear so we've we've never made issue of service and finally um you were asked on cross-examination about um an Alfred plea um and it revolving around somebody saying they're not guilty was this one of those pleas this plea no thank you that's all that I have all right thank you is there any uh recross from any of the defense no recross on behalf of Mr Williams all right thank you very much um Mr rght thank you for your time thank you Jud um and remember your client is excused but not released so if he comes back we'll see you again but otherwise understood thank you judge all right call your next witness yes your honor the state calls Mr Thomas Bernett to the stand thank you the uh Thomas brette oh t h o m a s b r n tte good afternoon Mr brette how are you doing hey how are you uh Mr brette did you did you drive or fly here today fly um you're from uh another state Charlotte and what do you currently do for a living I'm a service consultant at an Infinity dealership in Charlotte and what was the first year that you began working for infinti uh 1997 what did you do when you first began working for Infinity in 1997 I was a valet I was a valet while I was going through college and in that capacity would you drive Infinity Cars yes um after that where did you end up did you ever end up getting a degree yes where did you get your degree uh D University and what was your degree in Business Administration uh did you get that here in the state of Georgia yes now after when you first were working as a ballet what was the next job that you had after getting your degree with infinity or just the next job period next job period uh I was in furniture sales what did you do after that uh went back to Infinity uh what Drew you back to Infinity how did you end up back working for them uh just a familiarity I had a relationship with the manager at the store and it kind of asked me was opportunity so I went back now when you went to Infinity did time what was your job position uh currently what I do know service consultant now can you explain for the jury what is a service consultant what what all do you do um so um I meet with the clients or customers that come in for maintenance or repairs on the vehicle I access what the vehicle needs um whether it's uh checked your light on or leak or no starting issue um I basically get the information from the client and put that in a manner so where the technicians can properly diagnose the vehicle once it's diagnosed I reach out to the client um and let them know what repairs are needed and gain the authorization to fix the car and then basically handle the client throughout the process on updating them letting know when the car is ready payment Etc now as a service consult with what all you just described in terms of your job job what all you do in that job is do you have to have familiarity with the makes and models of infinity yes um can you explain for the jury how you gain familiarity with infinity makes and models as a service consultant well we have to do certification tests um quarterly to make sure we're certified and then you know also just being around the vehicles you learn and pick up certain common things about the cars and you have to identify certain things with them to know what year it is what kind of type of oil it takes when you're quoting prices you know you quote them accurately so now as a service consultant is your is your primary focus uh is it true or false that you know you're focused on the clients that come in mainly yes yeah now to Be an Effective service consultant do you with infinity do you have to understand the technician side of the business yes because I have to basically interpret far as what the client is saying far as sometimes help the technician understand what the issue is and then there's a lot of terms and expressions that technicians will explain to what's wrong with the car and sometimes that's not always not customer friendly far as to understand what actually the issue so sometimes I have to do some interpretation far as making it uh a little easier to understand on what actually is going on with the now Mr Bernette jumping back to to after you got your degree and you worked in uh when you first went back to infinti what location were you working out of uh South Atlanta Infinity of South Atlanta is that one on 4201 Jonesboro Road correct now how long did you what year was it that you uh 2005 and how long did you work at that location uh till 2020 20 21 I'm sorry so rough about 15 years yes now over those 15 years how often would you drive Infinity cars in any capacity uh every day would you drive them in both daylight and nighttime yes I've also owned I currently own Infinity and I've also owned Infinities from like 2007 on do you get some perks working for Infinity in terms of owning an infinity or buying one yeah we do get some uh discounts or considerations far as now what kind of vehicle do you currently Drive uh Q50 Infinity Q50 2020 Infinity Q50 now since you've been working for Infinity when did the Infiniti Q50 first come on the market uh 2014 now was when it first came on the market what type of how would you describe an Infinity Q50 uh it's a sport sedan um built on performance um it was pretty unique and design far as at the time far as um it had distinct features as far as the headlights tail lights the front grill um were pretty distinctive at the time when it first came out now is there any Infinity model or make that is similar back in 2014 when the q50s first came on the market no there was a a G37 sedan but it looked to completely different than the Q50 it wasn't really it was a whole different design so now is there any significance to the G37 in terms of the name of that car versus the Q50 uh no in terms of the lettering or numbering oh well like far as the G37 was basically named after the engine size so the 37 is how Infinity used to distinguish what size engine was on the car um when the Q50 came out it was the beginning of the rebadging to where all the late like same models basically had the same so a 50 is the the sedan the four-door sedan a Q60 would be the two-door car and then they identify the engine size by the calus on the side of the car whether it's a 2.0 engine or 3.0 or 3.7 back when it first came out in in 14 now you have described uh decal on the side of the Infinity Q50 is that unique to that making model pretty unique you don't see it a lot on other makes you know most makes don't identify what engin sies in the car I was buy any type of badget on the sides so previously Infinity you would know the engine size based on the name the name and then after that they put a visual indication of the engine size correct they were kind of tired of changing names every time a new engine came out so it went from like G35 to G37 um and then it stopped and then they just changed the badget on all the cars to q that makes sense now are all the Mi models in the infinity Fleet start with Q correct yeah the cars are q and then the SUVs are QX now you were working for infinti in 2014 when the Q50 first came out yes has the Infinity Q50 does it have a sunroof yes uh pretty much more probably 80% of the models or maybe even higher have a sunroof the only ones that don't have a sunroof are the Q50 A's and that's on the back of the car you'll see the A and that was kind of like the base entry level car um which we didn't sell very many of those cars because they dealerships wouldn't order them because they they knew they wouldn't sell them so now when you you said when you went back in 2005 you worked till 2020 what did you do after leaving the South Atlanta Infinity in 2020 I worked uh I moved a few dealerships around initially I took a job as a service manager at a a Nissan store in lra Georgia um that didn't quite work out so I worked at the Nissan and Maro um then I went back to Infiniti um different location I was at the cob County location n and then I worked uh for Lexus for a short period of time before the infinity South Atlanta store asked me to come back and that was in last year so you kind of went full circle back to that South identity yes how did that come about uh I was up there getting the oil change on my car and uh manager that was kind of like a consultant there at the time he was just working parttime he's retired he um him and the current manager asked if I was interested in coming back um I have still a lot of clients that would come through the store asking for me and stuff um so they asked if I had any interest in coming back and you know it it lined up with what I needed at the time so I went back now what do you like about working for Infinity over these years um I like taking care of customers um also like the product hang on to if you hear somebody say objection will you just pause for a minute while I deal with that suain now yes Mr Bernett I'm gonna show you what's been marked as Stacy 459 Yankee and 459 Yankee Alpha again down so the for hand in the witness both 459 Yankee and 459 Yankee Miss fette uh what did I what are 459 Yankee and 459 Yankee Alpha uh both pictures of a Infinity Q50 how uh are you able to uh recognize them uh the shape of the vehicle um the headlights are pretty distinctive uh the front grill um and the tail lights are also pretty distinctive and it also says Q50 on the back of the picture there as well too and for your testimony to the jury would using 459 Yankee and 459 Yankee Alpha Aid you in describing a Q50 for the jury Aid your testimony do you mean that he help with yes yes uh your honor at this time the state is 10 in 459 Yankee and 459 Yankee Alpha for demonstrative purposes all right those are admitted as demonstratives publishing States exhibit 459 Yankee now Mr berett earlier when you were describing a Q50 what is it what is the most significant physical aspects of this making model you mean like what makes a stand out the correct um i' probably say the headlights in the front grill now currently so you've also had an Infinity Q50 you said since 2020 correct how has since it came on the market in 2014 to present day uh has the shape or the vehicle itself changed much not much at all now Mr Bernette does your Infiniti Q50 2020 have how does the front emblem look is it any different in terms of uh lighting uh there's some options on the the newer versions of it like sixing and up where you can it like see lights up at night when the headlights on was that a feature when it first came on the market in 2014 no do you know when that lighting first came into Infinity Fleet in 2016 when they changed the engine sizes in the car it went from a 37 to either a 2.0 or a 3.0 now uh with is that is in 459 Yankee are the rims on the tires is that standard not standard how would you describe those uh those are our standard wheels on it um there's two options there's the 19s and the 18s some have well it's three so 17s 18s and 19s um looking at it those appear to be the 18 in ago now miss brette earlier you had said you mentioned about when infinti got away from naming the cars off the engine size that they had a decal is that correct correct can you uh show the jury if you see it is that decal visible in 459 Yankee uh yes um if you go just slightly back from the front wheel um you can see a silver uh kind of spot or kind of there that's actually the decal that's on it Mr Bernett I'm I'm gonna move this mouse you tell me if I'm getting closer uh keep going okay same direction yeah you're you're right there at it now that is the the decal that indicates the engine size that's correct now turning to 459 Yankee Alpha can you describe for the jury what stands out to you in terms of it is different about the Infinity Q50 compared to other Infinity making models uh just the shape of the tailights are a little different than some of the other models are um they kind of mirror the headlights where they're kind of a little more kind of sunken into the body of the car and what uh do you all have certain naming conventions for the colors that the cars may come in uh yes uh this particular color is Diamond graphite now did you when did you leave the what was your last job in the state of Georgia before you left service consultant at South Atlanta the Jonesboro location and have you when you moved to North Carolina did you work with an Infinity company there same role yes because out in Charlotte yes now back in March of 2016 what location were you working in for Infinity uh Union City um the 4201 Jonesboro Infinity of South Atlanta now do you recall uh a time where any law enforcement Personnel ever came by that location when you were working to interact with you vaguely um there was and I don't remember the exact date or time but there were some officers that came in um they were directed towards me at the time I was like the assistant manager or Lane manager sometimes they'll call it um and I think one of my other employees pointed in my direction um they had some photos or like a poster board of a car and they just kind of asked some questions about what type of car it was um and there may have been a few other questions I don't recall what they were and then they were like Hey we're it's part of an investigation we'll probably be in contact now Mr Bernett do you have any independent memory of what of what kind of car the vehicle was that they showed you in those photographs not not in 2016 okay now I want to publish your honor what's already been admitted as 296 Yankee and I'm the state's going to start the publishing at 8 minutes and 30 seconds right Mr Bernett while that's getting set up in um preparation for your testimony have you hang Sor ibody have you more recently than 2016 review some surveillance video and and photographs for your trial testimony yes you're on a publishing States exhibit 296 Yankee at eight minutes and 29 seconds Miss berett if you can just watch this screen pausing now Mr Bernette Mr Bernette was I know that clip was quick I'm going to publish 292 uh Yankee hotel which is already admitted now is that surveillance video clip that you just watched have you reviewed that before testifying in court here today yes and what vehicle was depicted in 292 Yankee between 8 minutes and 30 seconds and 8 minutes and 40 seconds it was Infinity Q50 now I'm going to briefly on the screen what going to be published is 292 to Yankee Hotel let me know when you can see that is this a steel frame from the surveillance video that we just watched a moment ago it's no yes it looks the same now can you describe for the jury what um stood out to you about being able to identify this as an Infinity Q50 uh the headlights the way they appear you also can see the black grill and it's kind of hard on this one but as it gets closer you can see like a little bit of the logo like the silver reflecting in the front grill area and when you mean when it gets closer you mean when it starts to come I guess closer to where it before it goes off the screen publish in your honor what's already been admitted as 292 Yankee indigo now Mr Bernett is this also a I know it's currently blocked but still frame from the surveillance video that we just watched yeah that still seems to be the same card a q now what I'm going to do Mr brette is I'm GNA replay 292 Yankee at 8:30 you tell me when to stop when you had mentioned the silver emblem right as it as the car gets closer in your words so I'm going to play 292 Yankee starting at eight minutes and 30 seconds and you just tell me when to stop when you think it would be helpful to see that for sorry it's it's real quick it's all right um I'm gonna publish 292 Yankee Juliet which already been admitted is 292 Yankee Juliet you can almost read a reflection of it right in that screen there and when you had describe and by the reflection of it do you mean what what do you mean by that almost like where I guess the lights or the street lights or whatever are reflecting off of it and you can kind of like if you look in between the the headlights you can see there's something there it's not black like the rest of the room and you mean the front part of that Infinity Q yeah the logo that's in the and when you had mentioned this is is this almost basically when you said as the vehicle gets closer as it's driving off screen when you reviewed this surveillance video is uh at what point from where the car currently is to when it's offc screen did you notice that um originally quite well when you originally played it the very first time we spoke about it um I noticed it pretty quickly um to honestly the very first time I looked at I was just looking at the car I didn't even see what was going on in the side and then the second time you R back I saw all the other stuff that was going on with it um so I mean as you recall when I first saw it I was like well that's a Q50 and and you were like how do you know that's a Q50 and we kind of went through the same those like headlights to uh the grill and same thing and then also the tails you can kind of see is it's taking off now thank you Mr BR now since March of 2016 when law enforcement came and spoke to you to present day today uh have do you have any other knowledge or information or any information about this case that this surveillance video is involved in no Mr Brett I'm also going to publish 292 Yankees starting at 10 minutes and 40 seconds through 10 minutes minutes and 47 seconds it's GNA Mr brette that surveillance video uh that we saw is that have you seen that angle before uh today I saw it yeah in in preparation for your testifying and in that do what car do you see in 296 Yankee between 10 minutes and 40 seconds until when we paused it at 10 minutes and 48 seconds the same car from before just a different angle looks like seeing more of the back end of it earlier you had mentioned the quarterly training that you've gotten since working in Infinity can you describe what that entails for the jury um so anytime there's any new models or any new features or anything that's been added to cars um they will have to go through certific certification tests on them um it could be modul to where we have to do like interactive videos and answer questions at the end or it could just be a article that we have to review and then go back and answer question it just depends usually on a brand new model it's more interactive stuff because they want make sure that you're follow along and know what's going on you'll just get straight to the test but sometimes on some of the refresher stuff like if it's just a a spec a specification change like the engine size or new wheel package or something it'll just be like some articles that we just read and then answer the questions based off of that one brief moment y M brette when the infin Q50 came out on the market when was the first time that you drove it did you ever drive a 2014 Infinity Q50 yes it was um besides customers coming in we also had them as laner cars so that was one of our main cars we used as laner Vehicles so we were constantly pulling them up getting customers in and out of that stuff so they yes I've driven them a lot of times and what aspect of the Infinity Q50 made you choose to buy it in 2020 uh the size um the performance of it um it's a pretty fast vehicle it has a lot of power um and from my standpoint it was also pretty reliable because again I see what goes wrong and what from that's what kind of Drew me to it now the dealerships you've or the locations you worked at for infinity have those all been classified as dealerships yes and is your customer either primarily or exclusively people buying a car for themselves brief Indulgence your honor right in terms of do you do you have any familiarity with infinity Vehicles being sold to rental car companies we so they would buy directly from so they buy Herz Enterprise they buy directly from the the manufacturer now we do see them when they come in for recalls and that sort of stuff so they do bring or there's warranty repairs that need to be done on them hurts Enterprise they do bring cars to us for us to service so but like far as purchasing wise they bomb directly from the manufactur and Mr Bernett what is your favorite physical attribute of the 2014 Q50 I'm I'm gonna that's [Music] to I would too that's why with that sedon of the state does not have any more questions for Mr Bernett thank you sir all right thank you does um are there any defense questions for this witness yes sure yes thank you hey how are you um one of the last things you said was that I think mention locre correct because we're close by the airport so we would get a lot of this cars brought in so um do you have any personal interaction with any car any Q50 would been brought into your dealership back in January or February of 2015 I I wouldn't be able to recul that and you would not have been the one to only thing I would do was check it in which basically would mean getting the mileage then played off of it um and doing like a walk around on it for damage that would far as that would be my end of far as expecting it but in 2015 was it 2015 or 16 when the at police came to talk to you about INF I I don't actually remember the exact date no not the date no you though they didn't bring an actual vehicle with them for you to look at or your opin right no they were like photos the Imes you just saw we're [Music] good right the what's that the photos they brought in or well the photos here are color the ones that they you right so these um and I'm going to reference the record 459 and 459a these are the photographs that were presented to you from the state a little while ago right correct right now that's not what I'm talking about though I'm talking about the video that you were looking at um that the St play uh would you agree that was a black and white video I don't know if I would classify as black and white I wasn't the greatest of quality video but I would say it was black and white yes yes um I can tell it's a grayest color I mean just like the color the C that's behind the white one appears to be like a reddish color so's see youle could I say it from the picture no I mean from this no I couldn't say it was dominant graphite but I could say it's gray is in shade though um you said that you recogniz this as an infity of your familiar with correct correct now to be clear you're not you're not a scientif no no scientist noif never been to court before anything for but far as an expert in knowing Infinities I probably would say yes I know a the models okay tell me whether or not that stand Des we're talking about the screen not the pictures right I I could you can barely see the wheels from this all right looking at that image show on screen right now meem this one doesn't capture it he tried to roll it forward to where you could see that there is something silver in it but it technically they couldn't get stop it at the right time don't see at all not in this Frame no in when were Des you said earlier you saw earlier you said that you can almost say correct looking at this vehicle on the on the screen are you able to not on the screen are you to see anyone there's hanging out of not not from this angle no I'm curious um in you know what the 2014 Infinity q50s have I'm going to use it's Infinity connect yes that's track system correct you know all theity Q50 tracking sofware in it allow track the car car time they have the the capability but it has there's a subscription that has to be paid for it to to be able to do it so if if the subscription isn't paid then it's not active far as so you could track it at the time yeah but that was off of the picture though no we just they just had pictur they had like pictures they came back in then there was no videos or anything no the see right now you can't see it from this angle not on the video make correct they as basically to identify what kind of vehicle it was just so C still shots that they show shots from this video I honestly don't know where the pictures I mean it's that was what 15 16 when they came I don't honestly don't know where they got the pictures from they never told no they basically said that they you know they had there may be some further questions they may ask when they be in contact and that was that was that yes I didn't hear anything about it again until April or May I think they reached out um um I guess they still have my number on file from when initially I took the did the interview and they called and asked um if I remembered it and I honestly didn't remember a whole lot of it at the time as we talked further into it I some of it started to come back but I didn't remember what kind of car was involved or any of that until I actually saw the video they played for me yes yes didn't no I I would assume it was just a local uh police they were in uniform so police yes you seen that video and when I that video I'm ref to92 y I think that's the one yes the store or whatever it looked like a store something from from what I could see that's 29 time that's did you see yes sure no I want p okay yep this one yes correct yes no no no no yes yes any other defense attorneys have questions for this witness all right is there any redirect yes go ahead they just asked me to identify the car the vehicle um and since you and I have spoken met you always live yes and previously able to speak with one another the first day met person correct I'm gonna try2 Yankee Alpha it's going to go at a slower pace [Music] okay the pur of the of the record we're starting at 8 minutes and 32 seconds on 292 Yankee Alpha Mr merette did did that help any slowing it down Mr brette not not really that's fair fair now some of the questions do you remember being on Cross examination you asked questions about can you see the decal or can you tell about the tires do you recall that yeah the what questions you just asked yes yeah and with this surveillance video that you've seen is it that they don't exist or you're unable to give an answer on those questions because of the surveillance speculation um have a rules you may answer Mr Bernett okay um of course the wheels and the those things exist on it and you know it's a Q50 so it's kind of hard to being that I know the vehicle it's kind of hard to know okay that's a Q50 and I know where everything is on it at but trying to necessarily make it fit into the video where I can say stop right here I see it it's kind of a little hard to do in real time um and for the courts time I don't know if we got just time to start just dissecting and stopping it every two seconds to see if you can get to there but again I've seen the pictures I drive a Q50 so I know like you know what actually is on the vehicle and where it's located at but um far as trying to using this quality of video far as to stop it is kind of hard to do thank you Mr Bernette the state has no further questions for Mr Bernette all they may have a couple more questions for you sir oh sorry they're but not yes sir we don't mention not in the video no you don't see the uh the em not in the video no not in the video your testimony is that you know it's right so this is not the same car like you me same looks like the same car in the video it's a Q50 you may so you're you're thinking that 459 and 459a which has been given to you by the state you believe that this is the same car that's been shown in that video that's the video is definitely a Q50 yes okay is you think it's this car it appears far as the color and everything else appears to be but does does this again these are all standard things it's not like this it's uh it has custom wheels on it or it has a custom grill those are all the standard things that's on the car so every Infinity has the grill I mean has the logo in the grill every Infinity has the badges on the sides those are the standard headlights those are the standard tail lights right so if it's a Q50 then it's has those things so every Infinity has that uh that emblem on the grill that we can't see on the on the video right Q50 yes every Q50 has that emblem on the side that we can't see on the video right correct every Infinity has maybe standard maybe not standard wheels that we can't see on the video right correct but your testimony to this jury is that these pictures given to you by the state the same vehicle that's on that video correct all right that's all all right now you're free to go all right thank you all right and it's just about 5:00 so I think we'll break for the day and I'm going to remind y'all um sometimes I give you a longer reminder um that you need to decide this case based only on the evidence that's admitted inside this courtroom so please don't use the internet or any other source electronic or otherwise to get any kind of information about this case or about um Concepts in the wall don't read watch listen to any accounts of this trial that might appear um online in print on television on the radio or otherwise including social media don't discuss the case with anybody or allow anybody to discuss it with you or around you including don't discuss it amongst yourselves um leave your notepads notes in the Jury Room and remember for y'all tomorrow it's um a non- jury day we'll be working but U we'll see y'all back Thursday morning at 9: thank you for okay um Miss love you had wanted to I guess tender for admission um 452 453 in 460 why so judge they were all referenced and by conditionally admit what I was asking um for permission to do since they had all been admit um um identified by a witness as a particular thing and true and accurate um reflections of them and because they had been referenced so um much during the testimony my request was to uh tender or admit rather for as evidence 444 y since one as was you didn't even mention 444 y I didn't mention all of them that I wanted to I started but then when the court in seemed inclined not to okay entertain that deal with it right right then right since I didn't know what you were really talking about terms of conditional admission okay right so 444 y so State tenders 444 y um conditional well yeah conditionally upon um any redactions that we either agree on or the court simply instructs have to be made 450 y uh 451 y just 452 453 454 and 456 y as well as 4 60 Y and we have not uh tendered uh for 63 which is the certified which was used to refresh Mr Wright's recollection we're just adding that to the record because it was a document that had been referred to so for conditional admission we were tendering 454 450 I'm sorry 444 why 450 y 451 y 452 y 453 y 454 y 455 y 456 Y and 460 y to the extent that those reflect the emails from Mr Right to the state so there and what about 463 y that was just the last are you tendering that one no I have it in my hand I was about to hand it to miss uh we um Winfrey because it is a document that needs to go as part of the record as something that was used to refresh the recollection I had it and while I had it I just referred to it it's not being tendered okay it's just a um certified of Mr sledge's conviction okay and tell me what you mean by condition Ally admit do you want to do you mean potentially redacted in some way yes yes I do all right um and are there objections to the admission of any of these in any form all of them whatsoever all of them okay um now if if if the point is they were referenced in testimony and therefore for the purposes of the record not to be well I wouldn't consider that admitted right but I mean they're I assume every exhibit that is utilized whether tendered and admitted tendered and excluded or just used with a witness is going to be a part of the record is that yall's understanding as well yes okay so um in terms of admitting them so okay the emails yes yes 450 was you're right the emails we had lengthy discussions about the emails and about the objections and about the problems with some of the things that were discussed in the objections Miss love indicated that she wanted to talk about number three which seemed pertinent and wanted to get the the wording exactly right I had no problem with it the other defense counsil didn't seem to have a problem with it so we read exactly what the wording is there's no need to admit that and there's still problems with the other email the other the other uh factual acknowledgements that are discussed in that email um regarding the prior versions of the agreement um I went through Great Lengths to preview what I was going to ask so it's not to open up any doors for um for quote unquote statements that were never uttered or adopted by the witness to be admitted into evidence the state is now asking the court to just admit documents into evidence that have those statements on it those statements provide nothing to the to the jurors I don't know what conditionally means I I'm never going to agree to admitting things subject to redactions when I don't know what those redactions are um and it's completely unnecessary we have read from the documents to get words correct regarding specific things from those documents specific acknowledgements from those documents and both sides have done that and that's what the testimony is is the documentary the proposed documentary evidence is full of inadmissible hearsay and other and other things um and also provides nothing to the jury at this point so we're going I on behalf of Mr still I should say oppose the um admission of any of those documents at evidence at this time on behalf of Mr Williams I'm going to join in Mr Char response um we also well we've already objected the admiss admission of any of those documents and we would um I also do not know what a conditional admission EV been so right so I guess she means she wants to if possible be able to come to agreement about redactions of them and if not then present them to the court with her proposed redactions which I mean maybe yall can get together and since we have a non-jury day tomorrow we can deal with that tomorrow but I don't mean y'all figure out what the potential redactions are tomorrow I mean have something ready to present yes and so you in as much as the tindering was done today I'll withdraw that request until I have a um um redacted version to show Council for defendant into the court okay um and the conditional the court had it exactly right it was until there was either an agreement or something that the court or then you can present it to me and I'll make a decision yes all right we then have those ready first thing in the morning we will along with the um additional emails that the court told me to have right for me for an in camera inspection and then we I would like for us tomorrow um I know that a couple of people people have forwarded some things for our task list for tomorrow um there is a motion and limony filed by Mr Ryan about um autopsy photos there is a motion in Limon by Mr Williams that provides some law and argument on an issue that we had raised our last non-jury week but not decided about um I can't remember whose statements they were but um some of the wir tap statements we' kind of gotten partway through and gotten I think it's fair to say probably bogged down on one particular call and whether there's hearsay within hearsay and whether it um qualifies under a 01 d2e so we'll Circle back on that issue and maybe make our way a little bit more through that and then I would like for us to um at least start on once everybody's understanding of which exhibits have been admitted and which haven't kind of what the status is of the exhibits so far um I covering everything that anybody's forwarded is there anything else there might be I haven't I haven't yet seen but I I know that they probably are in my in box so we'll um since we should be I guess ready to respond to the Motions in limony if they're if they're new um well the one of them I think is new about the autopsy photos the other one's kind of just a follow up on some of yes sir and we a brief on that yesterday I believe I just want to make sure that what I'm thinking of is is the Williams Mission me separate than um Mr Nicholls brief on that two separate issues yes or or the same issue I did not repeat with the honorable U Mr nich topic yes okay I just added other one all right and honestly that'll probably carry us through the day we probably won't even get through all of it any any any other one other topics or items we need to be thinking about um could the court just um inquire who's the next several witnesses that got kind of sure I know this is a witness issue I was told yeah um so Thursday and Friday who do youall anticipate your Witnesses being second let me get a list officer Adrien pittz Miss Sharon latner potentially crime scene Tech Turner Mr n Bale officer sha heel Turner Bell and who heel Hill officer Shan heel okay all right crime scene Tech Jenkins uh detective Thor okay that we won't get through all of those in two days so that that'll give y'all the list of the next several and and and the one main one if we um the one it's just the Gremlins that are apparently in Residence here in WC that one doesn't seem to be working at all we may need to put new batteries in some of these on our list is um available um that we had mentioned last week that we had approached the bench about regarding ing a condition that they had a lay witness I can't remember do they know who you're talking about I can't remember D know who she I'm G to withdraw that we'll leave it at where we have it right now okay I'll speak to anybody who asks about that but we're Mr Weinstein you seem to want to say something normally different subject all right just briefly I'm not going to be here your honor tomorrow um Miss singer TZ okay but I guess I'm going to go back to the old saw that I keep bringing up your honor and ju just briefly just give me one minute one minute I'm gonna renew my motion for the court to limit the state's time I'm going to cite your Authority Under 24443 24661 And I'm just going to ask you please read If you haven't already us V Reeves it I think it's very persuasive on your ability and the logic and reasoning behind putting a time limit on the state we just got through with a witness your honor that the state said was going to take three hours and we spent now that was just three hours on direct and we just spent a week on that witness your honor we had two witnesses this week five days and then yes your honor I'm not going to disagree with you now that was this is only what this is only it was Tuesday I think it was Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday and then Monday but whatever it was long far far longer than three hours so please look at Reeves again and consider it your honor so I am reticent to say for this witness you can only have X amount of time I'm asking however okay we've got a how many count indictment here with at least eight in addition to the RICO count eight different sets of crimes and the the case law also provides that the state is entitled to and it is you know a violation to prevent them from being able to create presentent their case uh and I know that's not what you're asking but you know it's how how am I to know how long it is going to take them to efficiently present the amount of evidence to cover all of the things that are in this indictment that being said I will say that the not so much honestly even the amount of time that was taken up with Mr Sledge because I assume the three-hour estimate was thinking Mr Mr Sledge was going to be a Cooperative witness and Mr Sledge didn't ultimately end up being so much of a Cooperative witness but y'all I mean the amount of time that was taken up by everybody with Mr Wright was probably a bit excessive and I put everybody who asked questions almost in that category I do think that the state needs to I don't know get more targeted and focused with the examinations and then there seems to be redirects take almost as long as the directs and that should not usually be the case and nobody ought to be rehashing things that have already been established either at I mean a little bit of leeway every once in a while to okay let me let me refamiliarizing to this as I lead into what I want to get to but like a five question you know there's this there's that there's the other that everybody's already heard and I'm addressing this to everybody who might need to hear it that we don't need um and we just don't need to be rehashed ing everything and we also need to think redirect is supposed to only cover things that are in Cross and recross is only supposed to cover things that were in redirect so please get more focused and to the extent that people make the 403 waste of time objection I'm going to take it seriously well you know I think Reeves addresses I guess a lot of that and the need for us to raise 403 by by eliminating that and eliminating the courts or reducing according to judge the judge in that case you know eliminating the need for the court to spend a lot of time on 403s because it forces the state to be more efficient in their presentation of the case and to say that the state is moving with any degree of efficiency or or or I just don't know what to say about the plotting rate that the state plows through the direct examination um and I don't see anything I mean we're we're 100 Witnesses in we got a 100 witnesses to go I know that's a rough number I'm hoping we don't actually have aund witnesses together really would like that to be narrowed down um but I don't think we've gotten to the point yet where we can turn to that topic um but I said a couple of times that the state needs to take a very close and careful look at the witness list that still exists and do everything you can to make sure that we're not being cumulative with our Witnesses and I hear you saying maybe we should be doing the same thing about a time limit and y'all I mean you know I mean I know it's not a trial but incredibly important issues get decided in appellant courts all the time you get you know 20 minutes to talk about something that could be groundbreakingly different so you know I I'm not saying that at some point I might not just say all right you've got five hours for this Witnesses direct and you can do it in that amount of time I'll need to know more about what you need to cover with that witness but it's not outside the realm of possibility I do think think that given how long Mr copen was on the stand that we've made real progress um in that we've now been able to finish two witnesses in far less time than that but yeah I hope three Witnesses three Witnesses in far less time than that so I feel like it is progress but we could probably get more um targeted than we are okay so I can I in in as much as I'm probably the most verbose of us all but I can I can make my questions tighter okay um the intent on redirect has always been to respond to things that I hear brought up on cross and to the extent that I can be more precise in pointing out the specific question that was raised on cross that I'm trying now to have the witness explain further or give an explanation for I will do that as well all right and I do not want to call anybody out in front of the jury I say don't want to excuse the jury constantly that takes a lot of time just for them to even file in there and file back um so you know I I'm telling y'all this now in the strong hope that what you're saying you're going to do you're actually going to do but if I see that it still is as um I don't know the right words but depending upon what I see I may have to deal with it further okay thank you H and I wouldn't keep raising this if my client wasn't stuck at Rice Street so that's the reason and I bring this up every once well I mean I think it's fair to bring up regardless thank your honor I appreciate you hearing me out honor um I also just for the record and so that um the victims that are named in our cases are we we are appreciative of the Court's um affording the state the opportunity to uh effectively present to the jury all the evidence that we have in this case without being cumulative without being redundant but our victims obviously deserve every bit of attention that we have to offer to this and I appreciate the Court's willingness to afford that to the state okay all right if there's nothing else then let's convene at 9 tomorrow thank you