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

e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay all right yall come on up please and Miss up to the podium one of you can come on up and the other one can just sit in one of those seats right there till it's your turn so you are Miss bordon yes okay and you want to what live stream or what do you want to do yes I wanted to do a live stream in pictures and take notes okay well you're certainly welcome to take notes that is not a problem at all um in terms of live streaming we've already got a lot of different cameras going and so you are welcome to pull from either of the um streams that's already occurring all right your honor I would like to uh if it's okay I would like to submit some reference letters that I have from a civil rights attorney and also the uh news media channels that I've been working with over a decade you certainly may and it absolutely has nothing to do with who you are or who you represent or what you're going to say it's just that we've already got so many pieces of equipment in here it just becomes a kind of a security matter and a distraction to the deputies and frankly to me to have to keep trying to keep track of that many more pieces of equipment and people handling them had you been the first person probably happy would have happily would have given you the right um but it's just you know we've we've already kind of got everything set up there are two different um streams that you can pull from so I'm yeah I'm happy to take them that's that's not the reason for the denial it has nothing to do with who you are and can I say something to sure absolutely so my concern up under the world 20222 and I've been doing this over a decade as a civil rights leader and also an awarded Community uh Advocate we our former mayor so I am aware that there are other cameras but with a case of this nature uh I feel like the community deserves different angles and different perspectives so while they do have a camera and while the camera is on there's still different perspectives and angles that footage goes through some some some other entities that I'm not a part of so even if I was to pull or jump on their train that is separate from me as a civil right Right leader and want wanting to share with the community and making sure that it is a fair trial okay so I don't know if you mean angle is in position that you would take in your reporting or angle is in camera angle when I say angles meaning that for example there there's a camera on right now right that that I'm looking at so if I want to report something or show show something and it's not from his angle that means if I have to jump on what he's doing I'm relying on his footage only so you actually literally mean camera angle yes camera angle either gonna be on the witness the judge the state or one of the defendants yes but it's still there be Alliance of me depending on the footage and I'm pretty sure the footage that they have I know any other time I've work with 25 and 11:46 there's an approval process for that footage and I will also be dependent on that sometimes as well but if I'm able to stream myself then I have more control of that footage okay well if you want to go back in the media room and film from there you may do that okay okay all right all right um anything else um no your honor okay thank you all right and Miss Paul good morning how are you good morning I'm fine thank you for your time today sure and you want um to do still photography and audio yes ma'am my situation is a little bit different even though I am I do have a YouTube channel and I can pull from um the pool which I have done um because I'm a freelance blogger I can't depend on the pool for steal images so my um situation wouldn't be setting up tripods or anything of that nature and I would ensure the Integrity that I'm suppor especially from our seating that we have um that we don't compromise any Integrity of jury or anything of that nature all right and you'd be able to you say still photography and audio you'd be able to pull audio from one of the sources okay and um what would you what kind of equipment are you talking about um Sony ax50 one of those type of Steel cameras so you make any noise I will make sure the settings are off all right you're going to need to be wherever it is that the deputies put you yes and you're not going to be able to move around yes ma'am okay all right and what's what's the camera um I I have a Sony ax um one uh Canon C50 so I'll I'll work with the settings and make sure which one will be Dependable on the fact that will make no noise all right and it'll be you'll be the one operating yes ma'am okay thank you thank you all right m Basi um did you just get alerted this morning that you were going to be the one covering court is it commanded yes we'll get we'll get the paperwork out to y'all probably sometime today okay well since you didn't know until I guess a few minutes ago I'm nothing you can really do about it other than get here as soon as you could so I appreciate you doing that all right does anybody have an issue with anything that occurred over the course of the evening that y'all need to bring up with me or is everybody fine yes sir well Mr chart stood up first your honor we came in today e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e to provide me with anything you found between yourself and any the attorneys for codefendant who have entered please oh okay that's fine is up there because I took you can check and were the parties able to come to any agreement or partial agreement with regard to any of the exhibits that were tendered at the end of the day yesterday y'all haven't what [Music] well I'll hear it after lunch then because I instructed you to get with the defense so that you could see whether y'all could come to any serving agreement so if they haven't seen it yet then I will give y'all the lunch break to accomplish what you were supposed to accomplish yesterday evening [Music] I don't know does anybody have 460 y can y'all check sometimes it's hard to keep track of all the documents identified only yes all right do you locate it were you able to locate it this left okay well I'd imagine that would be easy enough to reproduce it was just pronounce from emails right I mean yeah I'm sure I have a copy of it since you gave it to me if that would help okay I don't think I've made any markings well I have made a marking on it sorry to just yeah look at it to recreate it that's fine nobody was able to find a46 y anywhere okay has anybody checked up in that Podium area okay all right well it can be reproduced it's not the end of the world if we can't find that particular one all right turning to the issues we need to decide uh Miss Abasi your co-counsel had filed a motion limony regarding autopsy photos from the uh Holmes murder State ready to respond to that yes all right and Miss B do you want to make any arguments all right thank youor good morning good morning um your honor um when we get to presenting um this act which is act count one act 79 the state intentionally did not include the um medical examiner um this is a case in which Mr R Mr Ryan has been um convicted of the murder of Jamari Holmes and so it is only the state's intention to bring in three photos and I have a copy of those three photos that I can show Miss Basi through the lead detective in order to minimize um that level of testimony and so we do not we do not plan to stipulate um but we do have we've selected only three photos that we in let's see what they are and I can bring them to the of this hearing yes and for the pur of this hearing your honor the states going lab them States one r r States two r r and States three r and what do y'all plan to present with regard to I mean just kind of a general overview the evidence that will establish that act 79 um generally um you're under what occurred leading up to the homicide of Mr Holmes which was a alluring of Mr Holmes to an apartment complex that Mr Ryan and Mr block um then we believe ambushed Mr um Holmes along with two other um victims they were in a vehicle um Mr Holmes was shot and then um they fled and then subsequent to that there were Instagram postings Facebook postings or excuse me social media postings regarding um YSL um very close in time to um the murder of Mr Holmes around all right and how many witnesses are you going to utilize for that act who are they and what will they generally testify to well that's good to hear I'm you're under to five the witnesses for that act are Miss Sharon lner um star Holmes who's the mother of Mr Holmes Mariah an eyewitness no she is um just would be able to bring in his um in life photo let's figure out a different way to do that especially given that this is not even the trial of that case and speak about Mr Holmes and who he was and that would be sustained and to talk about his involvement who prior to this murder happening he was a juvenile I don't know if any of these other Witnesses would be able to do that um Mariah Smith was someone who he had just met recently who helped set up the robbery that ultimately led to his death okay all right have you moved on to another witness now is Mariah Smith another witness or Mariah Smith is another witness sh so Mariah Smith would be able to say he was a juvenile right she doesn't I don't believe she really Mr Holmes subst how old was he he was 15 at the time of his death um and Miss lner's backing up she would what introduce a 911 call and what's that gonna say it was the initial reporting of the shooting so it was set the time the the time of the shooting um just one call I believe just one okay is that the call I don't think that that's the call initi it may be a different call it's a okay okay um so the Witnesses are the are Skeleton version of what we can present to show absent you know because we cannot just put in the certified to show the facts of the case so we're trying to put in well I mean sure the fact that the murder wouldn't get it as an overt act that is a part of R I understand you need to do a little bit more than that right and so we're trying to um we've scaled that we had um wi I don't need to hear what it was going to be at one point in time Maria Smith is going to say what she was in the she was one of the two young ladies who lured Mr Holmes and his three friends back to the location um or to the location all right then we have one of the two other victims we don't plan on calling both of them okay um so that it' be either mron or Mr Mitchell all right then we have the lead detective on the case who a detective Hogan um then we have Mr Mike sprinkle who will he further brought um did additional evidence of some of the social media that came in later and then last sort of seven not five so Rooney Lee is one of the co-defendants or co-conspirators in this case he is coming in during this portion but he was present during the initial trial of Mr Ry and posted some social media postings with r emojis When Miss Mariah Smith initially testified in that trial and so he's coming he's coming um in that portion but he's not actually a part of the what would prove the actual act but that's why he's included H we can you spell that last name yes sh is o o t n okay okay um when are we going to get to this part of the trial um miror we would believe that we would get to this portion of the trial probably early October okay so fairly soon fairly soon all right can y'all when do y'all know when will y'all know who it's going to be we should know within the next few few weeks within two weeks well two weeks from now is the end of October so I mean the end of September trying to rush that along I believe there was some preliminary preliminary conversations and we do intend on furthering or finishing those conversations with missas and Miss okay well that probably needs to get done before the end of next week can you communicate via phone which we have done and we continue to do at times that are convenient for either Mr bosi or Mr Williams we that communication has not stopped We There were some issues but we've done that as well all right well try to do it in a timely manner please okay let me see the photos and the photos would come in through the detective cop is this third one like test incision or is that the exit wound that is the entrance wound entrance wound yes we don't believe we don't believe the detective will be able to found all right we believe that with some conversation he can talk about the fact that the victim was shot in his head um that that is the victim that he was the that he it was his homicide that he was investigating the picture which I believe is 2 RR with just the area in which the um before it shave before shave I believe that he could talk about where the bullet was or that he was shot in the head um and then then the last um photo not sure if he'll be able to say it's an insance wound um we we' have some further conversations with him regarding um whether or not he was present during the autopsy or not and whether or not he get do you think that there's any chance he was present during the autopsy some have sometimes they are sometimes they are I'm not saying that he would but sometimes they are pres was he president seen before the body was removed yes sir I believe so I believe so I need okay well re assist to the homicide VI okay so if he was at the scene he wouldn't have seen the victim at the scene so that wouldn't be helpful with regard to these photos hey youron we were trying to avoid the Emmy so if we can have some stipulations to that or we can have the Emy come in for why don't yall get together I'm going to hand these back for now and come up maybe you could come up with all sorts of stipulations so we'll revisit that but we are just trying to reduce the need of having to call the medical I'm say that again we are just trying to reduce the need of having to call Dr Sullivan well there's no necessity to call or her can't remember aome okay yes not I cannot on my list I cannot remember if the state is moving for the verdict against Mr Ryan into evidence but I would be objecting under 24-8 d 80322 and um I'm just reading from a case that a jury's verdict that the codefendants were guilty is a hearsay statement the exception to the hearsay rule provides for the admissibility of the final Judgment of guilty as to a felony but not including when offered by the government for purposes other than impeachment judge judgment against other persons other than the accused and then I just pulled up 24-8 d803 and then it's subsection 22 and it specifically says the same what was the state's plan with regard to that I just want to as to the conviction itself yor I believe that it would not be improper and I'll reread the case La that I don't believe that it would be improper to limit as the court did earlier with the conviction itself of the witness um actually because it was not a statement that he made um actually you honor I think that it would be admissible against all of them it wasn't a guilty plea so it's not a statement that the any Judgment of previous conviction is what 22 covers okay so to the extent that the actual certified is tendered then if it is the fact and it could we we don't argue that it you know is probably the fact that that certified alone is admissible only against Mr Ryan but the facts of the murder itself and the circumstances and what he did we'd argue ible against all of the defendants in this case so the the facts right not the actual certifi but I was speaking I can't hear you I mean I know that that mic doesn't want to behave properly but maybe you can borrow the witness stem mic if that one was even working yesterday it wasn't I'll try to hold it carefully so the the certified self um we may have no argument regarding that being used and there being a limiting instruction as to the certified itself against Mr Ryan only but we would also ask and would craft and present to the court an alternative if there is an instruction that is requested that includes language that the facts that are presented that the jury takes as evidence are admissible against all of the defendants including any postings or statements that Mr Ryan or Mr bllac made as a result of or in furtherance of that act for see while the can't pick us up um Mr the person who running camera he hear all of our all well I have that is irrelevant to me I mean I'm not worried about how the media can or cannot hear I'm worried about whether the parties in this case and the court and the jury when the jury's here is able to hear so they'll just have to deal with it oh they can hear what y'all are saying there at the so the that's getting picked up yes well that's problematic okay so you'reall going to need to adjust your microphone in a way that is not picking up attorney work product conversations can you do that okay well then you're not going to be able to just to do the audio if it's picking up attorney work product conversations between the council at the tables I don't know what to I mean some adjustments going to need to be made I doubt if they can hear it all the way over there but what all getting picked up the [Music] State well I appreciate that um but I'd imagine it's going to be pretty constant that they're going to need to talk amongst themselves and it's happened multiple times in trial that people will text us they can hear your conversations at the table so this is a repeated issue that's been okay well thank you for bringing it to my attention where's your feed like your audio feed coming from where's it getting picked up from do you know where the mic is all right Miss pfield can you get it to get on that issue please she's watching on the zoom I assume maybe I should text her to or email her to instant message her on my computer give me just a second so you're attached to what the zoom I don't know what feed the court gets but all right right the can all right Miss pfi's reaching out to it about it now all right we want to turn to where we left off when we were last here which was uh trying to sort out the nest did hear say in one of the wir chop conversations your honor yes before we turn the page could I just get some clarity because I'm confused the state I believe indicated that they they thought the facts of the murder case involving Mr ran were admissible in this trial but the conviction wasn't but then they started talking about limiting instructions and I'm confused are they maintaining that the jury verdict from a separate jury is admissible against in this case or are they are they abandoning that and saying that they're going to get into the facts of this case we we are saying your honor that the conviction itself is admissible and will be tendered and that an instruction should be given that the certified that we intend to introduce that conviction should be considered against Mr Ryan only but the facts of the murder and what happened should be considered as evidence that choose to you know believe it against anyone currently on trial all right so it sounds like you do intend to introduce the certified copy of the conviction yes sir and that that would be accompanied by a limiting instruction that is probably similar to the one I gave before that um that can only be considered against Mr Ryan um of course he's he's charged with the RICO count right right he is okay um and then they would present facts which they would hope to be able to establish not only that a murder occurred but that the murder was part of the RICO conspiracy we would intr and that that would be admissible against everybody charged with the RICO count we would right much like some of the un uh unresolved murders that are in the end IND we would be introducing the evidence that Mr Ryan and Mr bleik did it and what connection we believe it has to yl and what they did to promote yel before during and or after so that evidence we believe is admissible against well we know it's admissible with everybody on on trial now okay does that clarify well it clarified that we do not have an agreement and I'm directly diametric opposed to what the state is saying um couple things first of all that verdict was not was not the verdict of the fact finders in this case which we chose and our our jury and that's Mr Stillwell's jury also your honor um the I I I'd like your honor to know that Mr Ryan's case is currently on appeal it's not a final judgment it's on appeal all right um and I'm I guess I I defer to Mr attorney Steel on this because as I understood it he was he was going through the law that would prevent them from uh presenting this is evidence and it is evidence against us I'm sorry when you say this what do you mean the the conviction I'm not I'm not worried about the facts I understand the facts but the conviction and they want to use it as as proof of an overact which as an element to Mr Ryan well is what they're saying well no they they just said against everyone as far as count one to Rico the facts that they're going to present not the conviction okay well I I don't I don't As I understood the case La as Mr steel was reciting it and maybe I'm wrong but I thought we were at an understanding that they could ex that's exactly what they could not do is take a verdict from another jury and and use it as substantive evidence against anyone in this case um no they can use it against I think that they can use it against Mr Ryan well they're using it against him for a a RICO this was not an admission by Mr Ryan this was not a flea of guilty he was filmed guilty it's still a judgment of conviction well it's not a final judgment it's not appeal dependency of appeal doesn't matter in terms of admissibility it's right there in the statute okay well I I I understood the state said two different things and and so I was seeking Clarity I'm I'm opposed to it I'm stating my objection I don't believe that if if Mr Ryan is charged with a RICO count along with my client and they have the exact same element and the jurries instructed that they need to find the commission of one of the over acts and they're told to consider the jury the con the the finding of a jury a separate jury against Mr Ryan I don't know how they separate that I don't know how a limiting instruction separates that and protects Mr Stillwell's rights and they wouldn't accept that same jury verdict against Mr Stillwell and others for count War I don't think a limiting instruction would be sufficient I think they need to prove that case I think we have some case La that addresses that subject um I'd like to flush it out give Mr shar's objection but I preliminarily point the court to United States versus pulo p l u l l o 14 F3 881 888 is a third circuit 1994 case um and it specifically um speaks to Prior convictions being routinely admitted into evidence at subsequent Rico trials as an ordinary piece of evidence a judgment is subject to evaluation by the down a little bit oh I'm sorry a judgment what as a judgment I'm sorry as an ordinary piece of evidence a judgment is subject to evaluation by the FactFinder who can accept or reject such evidence as it deems appropriate um also United States versus too t 200 f341 in sight 417 to 418 it's a six circuit 2000 case um finding the District Court's admission of evidence of a Cod of Defence prior conviction permissible to establish Rico predicate um here it says because the evidence was not used as collateral asole but again these are cases that I would need to flush out these are just preliminary cases for the Court's consideration um given the argument that I'm hearing Mr Sharp make right now that we would point to as a starting point all right well we're going to have to get that sorted out fairly quickly if we think that within the next two weeks we're going to get to this yes yes or so two weeks or so okay so Mr sh are you clear at least on what the state's position is no okay thank you all right we ready to turn to that Garing and wire t oh yeah I'm not deciding that issue right now we'll come back to that e e sure um evidence before the Garlington wire tab evidence okay then maybe we need to set aside the Garlington wire tap and deal with the um evidence in that's going to come in against Ryan okay I'm we'll wait till he gets back but just trying to figure out which thing to turn to next okay that's fine let's take a quick break for anybody that needs to run to the restroom 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 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e for maybe we should turn to the evidence that's gonna come in on Mr Ryan's on on that that'll happen before the wiretap evidence yes I thought if are you talking about the email that Miss um D Williamson uh I don't know because did she send one recently I thought Miss Abasi and I we that was what we talked about a few moments ago you said y the two of you need to get together by the end of next week to go through those um items so that we wouldn't have to use the Court's time to do that so I guess it was um yes Mr Williams email from that was a long time ago um about all of the exhibits yes sh and okay so yall will get together on that yes to discuss a time okay and can you remind me did did the state decide that y'all can I guess concede that Mr Ryan's um statement to police is in admissible or no okay all right I thought I thought y'all had conceded that but I hadn't written it down on this put that in the issues the what one of the matters that were addressed in an email by Mr Ryan's Council was the Herold busy stabbing I believe Mr Abasi or Mr Mr Williams um move in Lemony regarding excluding that evidence that Mr busy was stabbed the our argument about it being intrinsic Court last said or gave Mr bosi an opportunity to give case law stating that um things that were used after the fact Mr Bas you correct me where I'm wrong but acts that occurred after indictment could not be presented and I think in her brief she indicated that I don't want to speak for her but I think she indicated that she found no no case Li support of that position so prepared to argue okay right and I read it and I marked on it and now all I need to do is find it I need somebody to keep me organized um does State have a response we do and did y'all file a response no we made an argument that um essentially is the same one we're going to make today but based on what they've um put forth will respond specifically to the arguments that are asserted put forth the Mr B's brief um we I think we presented case law and I think that the court saw that case law I won't speak for the court but I believe the court saw and was satisfied that case law does say the acts occur occurring after indictment are not precluded as evidence of the conspiracy right no agreed but it's two separate issues I mean if it's going to be they're not precluded just because they're post indictment but if they're going to be admitted as intrinsic evidence then they have to fall within one of the things that makes them intrinsic evidence that it's the same series of transactions it's necessary to complete the story or it's inextricably intertwined with the evidence about the charged defenses so what are yall contending that it is so in as much as the arguments that are put forth in Mr B's um brief seems to focus specifically on right yeah you're saying it's not any of them never heard so your honor I'll just tell Mr in the court right now um it it is intrinsic to count one um Additionally the conspiracy that um it also is a part of is the YSL gang itself and the conspiracy um that the gang itself makes up um I think we already presented some of the facts of the case to the court um regarding the in concert action by five I believe five YSL members and two others of stabbing one person in defense of Mr Ryan and I know that the court has already read the indictment that describes as the state alleges the conspiracy itself um being preserving protecting and enhancing the reputation power Etc the Enterprise acts that include um assault and threats of violence and of course I'm not reading the entire indictment but in this particular case it falls squarely under um a number of actions that are intended to sort of circle the wagons around yel members show that they will stand up for each other and that they will commit violence on persons who they perceive as threats to members of W uh Mr Ryan after he was indicted there were several at least member that we have listed as an over act who makes assertions about Mr Ryan and his murder charge and subsequent I think conviction um and there are people who perform acts during the course of his trial at Le one person that we believe were intended to intimidate a witness who was actually on the stand at the time um are by way of examples or analogies of other similar acts that are con uh that are committed on behalf of YSL to show their solidarity for instance when Mr Garlington is J other members of yel immediately jump in we have evidence that um when Mr Copeland is jumped at least one person in the courtroom now jumped um just just jumped in just because when it's one of them they going to come to their defense of the acts it is not it is intrinsic it both I mean I guess it would be in but I mean y'all haven't offered it as 404b right and you don't intend to even if I rule against you on the intrinsic well if the Court ruled against us it would be a different AR all right the um actions of Mr ran YSL members in concert in stabbing Mr busy when M Abasi asserts that they're not necessary to complete um the story of the crie um this is our position is that this conspiracy didn't stop at the jail house doors um it's ongoing it's necessary the sees that it is ongoing to show to them the truth and complete the whole truth that we believe our evidence reflects to show them the extent to which YSL members go in order to preserve and protect not only their name their own um but their reputation Mr Ryan Mr eer Mr and Mr McMullen are seeing in the photo that I don't know that the needs to see it but it does we can present it on zoom camera to show the concered action on their in Mr this particular of the video doesn't have five knives in the right all right but the state can prove if it chooses that it's an going conspiracy well necessary to complete the story of the crime and I guess the story of the crime is [Music] not def terms of overa the definition of overa so asev relevant as to that particular issue it's pres of3 that is all right um Miss adasi can you remind me and I don't know which one of Y all cited Murphy uh was that you Missi the part about integral and natural part of the witnesses accounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses which factor did that go to okay well maybe it was just one I Bas well and you know that that's an issue that I've got written down here as something that y'all owe me law on whether an over an act not listed could be the sole basis for a conviction still waiting on that law [Music] not support all right will you go ahead and get that filed this can you get it filed when can you get it filed by Monday by by Friday all right by Monday oh I mean it's GNA be real fun when we get to the verdict form uh I think that we're going to have to get really specific about who what they're finding because I don't think it can be that six found one and three found another and two found a third I think that this case this situation this precise situation came up in Cotman and I could be very very wrong I read it um just I glanced over it briefly but given I think that the court found that given that the court instructed the jurors that their verdict had to be unanimous that um it did not present a reversible issue the defense argued or the appellants had argued that there was no way to tell whether or not they all agreed on the same over act but in giving the court the brief that we intend to present I think we can address that as well I think that that part is easily right so that'll be two different issues there's Canon o verc That's not listed in the indictment be the basis the sole basis for to support report the conviction but then there's also do does the jury need to find unanimously this over ver act specific over ver acts do they need to delineate which overa they are unanimously finding exist to each defendent right and I think that um as it relates to our previous discussion that the court said we would address a little bit later you know whether we number them or whatever I just off the top of my head I think that them listing an act that they found unanimously had been committed as to um the defendants I think would suffice um okay well if we all agree on that then we don't need a brief on that okay so I'm sorry Mr no we hadn't we sort of got sidetracked but all right so we all agree that the jury is going to need to delineate we unanimously find this overt act exists as to each defendant right I mean we're going to break each defendant's count out separately and I think that I agree well and and to to to make certain that we um present clearly to the juror to the court we do believe yes that the jurors have to make a unanimous decision as to um each defendant and as to their over acts but as to whether over acted finds as the one um unanimously has to you know deal with the others we oh no I mean it could be a SE whole wholly entirely separate as to each defendant it needs to be a separate determination as to each defendant but for each individual defendant does the state agree that the jury has to unanimously find two overx one of which needs to or happen within the statute of limitations we we agree they have to at least find one okay that happen within the statute of limitation and it needs to be unanimous that let's say they all find overt act 66 whatever that is I believe it's safest that they find okay uh unanimously okay all right then I don't need law on that because we'll just do that the safe way whether it needs to happen that way or not okay so back to so um so I still will need by Monday whether a v an overt act not listed can be the sole basis for the conviction and now we will go back to the and to what we were talking about which is this um the intrinsic intrinsic allegedly intrinsic right act so I Mr Ryan um give Mr fock is not here but I I will since they were the two that were um that were charged with the murder in one of the overt acts listed on the indictment your honor Mr Ryan and Mr Block have entered a plea of not guilty to count one um and um they are obviously charged with committing an act of violence against um a person as alleged in the indictment uh in a manner that furthered uh the interest of the Enterprise in the conspiracy the um three I guess points that Mr Basi referenced in her brief um were that the inin or the ACT needed to um arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charg offenses necessary to complete the story of the crime or it's inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the uh uncharged offenses and there is an or so it does not have to be all three of so given that the the jury will hear uh EV evidence of Mr Ryan's and Mr Block's uh concerted efforts as they related to Mr Holmes um they will hear evidence of Mr Ryan's actions after the murder of Mr Holmes they'll hear evidence about um the their connections to YSL but the fact that you have other members of YSL acting on behalf of Mr Ryan to support him in a violent way against another person whom they alleged only mess with Mr Ryan's commentary stabbing him just because he messed with Mr Ryan's commentary um show the extent to which um members of YSL go to to assert their dominance even in a situation like the Rice Street jail we and to protect one another to show that you don't mess with one of our own um the argument obviously can be made by anyone yeah this is not really what it's all about but in terms of what the state is required to prove Beyond A Reasonable Doubt to the jury we alone bear that burden given that it's evidence that there is violence committed on behalf of a member of YSL by members of YSL um we believe that it shows that the gang itself conducts itself in a particular way and that the okay let's stop interrupting though I mean assume she'll get to it at some point um that the gang itself um conducts itself in a particular way and in Johnson versus State a supreme court of J Georgia case whose site is 312 Georgia 481 decided September 21st 2021 at pinsight 491 the court said that of course evidence is admissible is intrinsic when um those three elements that we just mentioned exist and they went on to expound and say in applying this test we have explained the evidence pertaining to the chain of events explaining the context motive and setup of the of the crime is properly admitted um if it is linked in time and circumstances with the charged crime the defendants the YSL members are all together they the ones that are included in or that participated in the stabbing of Mr busy are all housed together at the um Rice Street jail the time frame um is uh shortly after their put together in that situation um all together in the Rice Street jail um in this particular case and Johnson it has a set of circumstances that are not exactly the same as this but we believe are analogous in in many ways um and Johnson of course the appellant was charged with participating in criminal Street gang activity and the state's theory was that he was involved in the gambling house shootings um with blood gang affiliate Porter and several unidentified as salant in another restaurant shooting um the evidence related as the court found to the boulevard Place shootings added significant weight to that theory um because the evidence was linked in time and circumstances um with the charged crimes and one victim was member of a violent gang we are not alleging that it is onof fors with our particular case but to the extent that um the Johnson Court um found it pertinent to say that the intrinsic act or the act that the state alleged was intrinsic added significant weight to the state's Theory um for these reasons um we believe that that is analogous to our case as well with five people seven total acting in the same overacting with a an extreme amount of violence on behalf of one person um whose connection We Believe with the five YSL members is just they are all YSL members and they are acting protectively towards him we have um we believe that that incident add significant weight to our theory of the um willingness of YSL members uh to participate in that Enterprise in a manner uh involving violence to protect the dominants and the members of the Enterprise and the Gang itself um so the court found that even though the state didn't charge appell and in connection with the shooting um evidence of incident was relevant to disputed issues in this case so as Mr Ryan has entered a plea of not guilty to count one conspiring to violate the racketeer influenced and corrupt organizations act um by participating in YSL through these acts or conspiring to participate in them um then evidence of the involvement of M Mr bot Mr Ryan Mr ebinger Mr McMullen and Mr Myck all of whom are also charged in this indictment with a conspiracy um evidence of epinger being charged with the shooting of an officer evidence um that Ryan who was promoting YSL while in prison when eer um got a bond for shooting at the police um that block is a codefendant on the murder of Mr Holmes which is an overt act here and that demise McMullen is a named codefendant on the 2015 murder in the same indictment uh shows how intertwined these people this type of action and this gang itself is with one another it's they're all inextricably inter intertwined um with the uh evidence um regarding the the uncharged offense which is the stabbing of Mr busy so we believe that it satisfies the requirement of what it satisfies the requirements um of being an intrinsic act okay which um you know which of the three the the third one um we believe is the strongest in it in that is inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the uncharged defense it's the charge it it should read the charg defense right I mean it needs to be inex right yes that the the case is citing it wrong yes thank you um and that being count one the conspiracy so how is it and you think it's also necessary to complete the story of the crime right you don't you're not asserting that's the same series of transactions as the charged offense are you when the court says um the same series of transactions we believe that it's it is an it's an overa in as much as it could be considered an over act to promote to support the gang so in as much as it is or can be considered an overact um for count one and that it is gang activity which it is all right I'm not quite sure where I got this language but I jotted down and I think this is kind of the definition of inextricably or an explanation of inextricably intertwin with the evidence regarding the charged offense is that it is an integral in natural part of a witness's accounts of the circumstances surrounding the offenses in the indictment anybody so no if that's that's that's as to that mean that's the explanation for what it means to be in inextricably intertwined I think that came from Murphy what years it was okay and I think that language is also in a court of appeals case in 2020 um okay so but I mean if that's what it means for it to be inextricably intertwined with the evidence regarding the charged defense how is that an integral and natural part of a witness's accounts of the circumstances surrounding the indicted offense so if the indicted offense is the conspiracy itself and um our Witnesses talk about what they've observed and we have evidence of what has occurred to further that conspiracy so would this be a witness who's being presented regardless or is this a witness as to I mean obviously if they're just coming in to testify about what happened in the jail that wouldn't be the same thing because I would have already made the determination oh yeah you can talk about this is there going to be any witness who there's no way they can give their account of how it is that any of these defendants is guilty of R without saying without telling the jury about the stabbing no we're not saying that we're not saying that at all so then it's not inextricably intertwined um but it does um it's an uncharged offense it that arises out of the same transaction or series of transactions as the charged offense of count one and the series of transactions is the acts of violence that have been described um one of the over acts as I said is the murder of Mr Holmes by Mr bot uh and Mr Ryan as we've alleged in the indictment uhuh and then how does arise out of that transaction the series of transactions one of them is that the series of transaction is the set of actions that occur after before during and after that murder itself the series of transactions are the over acts that uh help promote the purposes of the conspiracy you have um W Lee posting um I'm sorry we made you a thug so early little Thug you have people who are acting within YSL in support of Mr Ryan um Mr Ryan essentially talking about staying true to yel regardless of his circumstances after the murder all right and are all of those overt acts yes those that I just named are yes alleged overt acts so the series of transactions we would argue it's not as simple matter as on Monday July 3D he got up went to the store bought a gun did that it's all right remind me when the jail stabbing occurred it was February the of January the 1st of 20 31st of 2023 January 31st 2023 yes and he'd been in he'd been in prison I guess since 2019 when did they all get move to the jail Mr Ryan I think and Mr GL those five codefendants were I'd have to look and see in Odyssey when they were transported put together okay you approximate okay that's I mean approximate is fine and also your honor under um 104 and I get that we are still hashing out whether or not it's intrinsic um once the court makes that determination and we believe that it's it's clearly intrinsic regarding um the conspiracy and the Gang itself there there's another argument of of it's its admission and use that trial that we make under one of the other Rules of Evidence but not until we finish this part well I'm curious now as to what that would be just that under and I'm also curious about how the court um will see or not see this position that I'm offering but under 24114 um which specifically deals with um the court handling the admissibility of evidence and the Court's determination of it um 241 104e um expressly says that this code section shall not limit the right of a party to introduc before the jury evidence relevant to way or credibility um and so to the extent that um part of our evidence and it doesn't you know speak to the weight [Music] of the evidence of the murder but we believe that it substantiates and it corroborates our assertion via the over acts that we have listed that there is this conspiracy and that there are uh efforts that are continually made by members of YSL to support uh and protect one another and to advance the dominance and notoriety of the gang through acts of violence and assault all right well I do not think 104 has any bearing whatsoever on whether yall can admit it before the jury okay see I know okay so that takes care of that one all right do you do you have any can you look if you haven't yet for any case law that deals with kind of a similar set of facts Mr shaking his head yes he can look for that oh that is we definitely can I was just trying to make sure that I um fully got what the court was saying so in in saying the same set of facts is of course we can specific as to you know somebody jumping somebody well I mean yeah ideally if you could get that that would be great but no it doesn't have to be that specific but something that deals with gangs in or Rico because what I hear you saying or what I think I understand You' to be saying is that part of why this is intrinsic is because it's necessary to give a full story of how YSL is this ongoing criminal Enterprise that uses violence to protect their members cor am I understanding you correctly you are and thir is dominance and and in support of that I also say that each of the members of YSL block uh eper McMullen Ryan and Fleetwood had all um I believe all of them had brought in been brought in from prison for wio related offenses that they had been convicted of uh epinger had um been sentenced to prison uh off of a probation revocation for an armed robbery after he shot officer Rogers that was a yel related incident um Mr Fleetwood had been brought in from prison uh after shooting at Milton Howard who at the time was driving wife and Luchi vehicle with tenant windows so the argument obviously could be made he didn't know it was um Mr Howard he knew it was an Ops car so all these people are all in incarcerated because of wi cell related offenses and then you put them all in the same little area and they are once more acting as one single bullet against somebody they believe is a threat but I can and we will look for uh a case on all fours with this particular set of circumstances okay I me I I honestly think the 403 argument is easier than whether this is intrinsic but yeah I'll go ahead and hear that because maybe that'll be dispositive of this issue so would M Mr B she let her go first sit see FL did support one here from the state well I mean they have it I'll give you the all you really say in the brief is it doesn't meet 403 you don't really say why okay well that's that's pretty clear that in the 403 analysis deter the prial need degree of similarity temporal remess there are 191 overs I think by time all of those evidence op well that's a lot lower standard okay go ahead judge I've heard um and everyone I believe has heard a lot about the notion of the evidence being cumulative as if there is a um uh a certain amount of evidence the state who Bears this very high burden I'm sure we'll hear told over and over again in closing arguments that the state should be allowed to present to meet that very high burden and I don't believe that cumulative evidence means um proof of a different kind um to show or to prove the same act just because the state has 150 Ways to prove that the defendants conspired to viol at the Georgia RICO statute and the state in an effort to ensure that each of its victims are ad adequately represented and that the jury hears sufficient evidence to allow it to convict each of the defendants doesn't mean that the state should be constrained to putting up one piece of evidence one picture showing somebody throwing up a gang sign can I ask you a question how many of your overa acts if any are um assaults or aggravated assaults that are designed to either protect alleged members of YSL or um promote or continue the I can't remember the word you said but the dominance aert the dominance of YSL as it relates to Mr Ryan or just in general in general since the argument is this is done to protect members of YSL andert assert the dominance of YSL okay since an overa does not have to be a crime um I'll just name them of course so um number nine where defendant Williams uh Asser in one of his songs yl no that is not what I mean I don't mean saying you're GNA do something I mean actual assaults on people we have Mr Holmes's death is alleged by the state to have been a murder of someone that they believe to have been a member of a rival game all right so I'm sorry um I mean I guess maybe so because it's a rival gang that would be dominance yes and that's a ver what 79 or 69 and I can also even be more precise there as I look for that number 79 69 Mr drink's murder is alleged to have been a direct retaliation for the death of two people who were Associates your honor I'm sorry I'm just trying to determine what you're asking are you asking what is what the indictment alleges what over well the indictment is I understand it just broadly alleges that the over acts are done that for those purposes the the indictment broadly alleges several purposes and doesn't delineate which overacts are designed to do what so the answer as far as I understand your question would be all of them they've all I mean I'm asking the state sort of what it I appreciate that position but I think I'd mean it a little bit differently than that and yeah sure they could end up saying and every one of these does all of these things but I'm kind of asking them to be focused on aggravated assaults obviously or Worse murder that are for these very specific purposes so to answer your question about the number for that murder it was number over act number 79 all right also the act on for 28 by Mr MC Mullen over act April 2 April 28 oh okay yeah I'm looking at them in chronological order all right that's fine the acts by uh Mr Garlington Mr Sledge uh those that act of shooting my understanding of what the court said I just want to know what the state's position is that were done to acts of violence done to promote either the notori protect prot the members of YSL or to promote the dominance of YSL so um the shooting We Believe by Mr Winfrey of Lil Wayne's T bus Which would been a different one it's encapsulated in 39 and 40 the shooting of U Mr by Mr Murphy on April the 12th do you have any other over acts where members or alleged members of YSL are basically doing a beat down of anybody because somebody from YSL got threatened or attacked we have what a other ones where they're shooting at other members and we have um where they for instance Mr Kendrick and Mr um Arnold go out and plan to shoot somebody because someone jumped on Mr Arnold in a club and that's an a it is it is we um also I think we have yeah and they are I think act 41 through [Music] 45 is the okay the murder on the 28th that I AG that I talked about all right well y'all see if you can find me some more on point factually case law please okay and I know y'all want a decision but we're g to come back to it yet again and your honor in terms of the number of Acts that we've enumerated in here um does the court want specifics or just the number that's that's right I mean you told me enough that's fine okay I mean it's not like that's critical to my determination okay I just was wondering if there were so many that this was something that would really be cumulative but it doesn't sound like you really have anything that similar to this and as well judge in in terms of judging whether or not something is substantially more prejudicial than probative um it would have to I think I've said it before it would need to tend to sway the jury to convict the defendants on a ground different than something that has been alleged in the indictment and given the allegations that we've made we don't believe that this comes near um that category of cases or circumstances as well judge I know the court is aware but just um to put it out there 403 um is all of these Rules of Evidence are um rules that favor admission and so 403 is not to be used as been alleged to limit the state's ability to present evidence so much as it is it is a permissive um statute that under very rare circumstance es should be used to exclude relevant evidence and the mere fact is that a defendant may feel that oh the state has too much evidence against me is not one of those circumstances that the courts have recognized so actually do speak about prosecutorial need to the extent that the argument through out is that YSL is a gang that everything that has been I'm sorry that YSL is a music label that everything anybody does is just their own independent act that has nothing to do with YSL from day one from openings throughout up to even now the assertion by every defendant is and even the witnesses I did it for myself by myself every step of the way the state is having to tobut that assertion that this is just me I'm a criminal but they aren't so to the extent that there's no one willing to stipulate that crimes are being committed uh by them and others with whom they've conspired to promote or on behalf of YSL the state has a very strong need to present evidence of one concerted efforts to um commit the acts that we've alleged to show the cons conspiracy between the defendants and to show the purpose behind their concerted efforts all right thank you your honor I'm just looking here at somee answer keep looking I'm looking as I I'm speaking here um as far as the prosecutorial need I'm looking at cases the need is there's no other source for that information or at least limited sources of that information um I'm not sure how many hours of gang expert testimony the jury has already heard from about how a crime can further a gang or be part of a g um I think the need to that point for on this principle there is no need they've heard about it in depth they will continue to hear about it and as I said I'm trying to look and see if I can get any more case L specify if we have a level or a test for what all right thank you well if you find set melts feel free to just you know shoot it over in an email that you share with everybody that'll be fine it doesn't need to I mean if you want to file it as a brief that's also fine but what got looking at um some case notes here um prosecutorial need to induce a prior rap related incident yes I'm sorry I'm Sor explaining that the prosecutorial need to introduce a prior rape related incident to show the defendant's intent was high because there was little other evidence supporting the charge of aggravating Sol with intent to that is in case Kirby vers 304 Georgia at 483 and I haven't read that case I'm looking at it it is cited within State 3069 all is that a 404b case or a 4 uh 14 case or 413 case curve this is addressing a 403 is is it in the context of a 404 I don't know but it's it's not a different analysis under 403 as I said I've not read the full yeah I mean it's fine I understand the concept okay let's set that aside and move on to something else so there was a I've got some notes of things we were going to circle back to and one of them was a video of somebody smoking pot wearing a chain and it saying some things BB maybe and epinger something about robbing Smith what was that about I believe that um Mr Shard we were supposed to narrow down what videos the state the state were going we were going to admit I sent that over um a few weeks ago which ones we intended to use I'm not sure we've been able to talk about it in light of the last couple of weeks okay well this was these are notes from back when we had that non jury week which I feel like has been a while ago now yes it was the week of August 19th yeah that's what I thought so is is and that I guess that was with regard to counts 27 through 29 maybe is I think what I wrote down yes you're honor so is that a video y'all intend to utilize we sent over there portions of that video we intended to utilize I believe that the portion that was at issue is not a portion that we need to publish to the jury on you're not going to show the jury portions of the video so it's a the video is maybe approximately five to seven minutes and there's a portion and I want to pull up my notes and see what I actually sent over to defense Council as to what time stance we intend to use but a portion of it is relevant because it shows um Mr epinger and Mr BB the two people alleged to have committed this armed robbery right on the phone and a portion of that video Mr epinger um appears in the think it's like a a Instagram picture Instagram video and BB shows him the chain but there's another portion of the video in which Mr BB is pointing a weapon at the camera so there's just relevant portions and we just haven't had the opportunity to disc got sit on and I can um let defense Council know what date I sent over what the state intends to show all right does defense Council still object to whatever portions these were yes I'll re theil for August 23rd at about 1:5 for BL bless you sent are approximately five clips that probably total together about six minutes of actual viewing is that is that about right Miss Hill yes sir okay so um in in all honesty we haven't had a group disc this is this is all act involving someone that's not sitting here um and if if we could have a couple minutes just to talk as a group to figure out what our stances all right and you know what I may have y'all do that over the lunch hour so the next thing I had a cing back on was and I guess maybe these were from I don't know we were going through maybe one of the sets of statements because I've got like page two 523 513 oh these were the wire Taps maybe um big Nick Waters Road and then oh the comment about yeah this was the wire CHP stuff the um flipping the car and laughing about that and the state had said y'all were going to narrow what you wanted to use from that and let us know you recall call that I don't know um it was e there were two reference numbers one of them was 513 one of them was 523 it was on that chart that you gave us I think on the second page of it Garlington talking about how they came through and thought they were going to come back and they were going to get ready to light them up laughing about chamal drinks murder and the need to reup on drugs to sell and the I had determined that the drug part was in but um y'all were going to look again at that other part you said there was a non here safe purpose for it good wa did y'all ever go back and do that L we'll yes would you kindly just repeat the two reference numbers yes 5 13 or 523 on the chart it's 5113 thank you and then when we got [Music] to 1109 or 11:24 there was an argument that that shouldn't come in against Nichols or still well because they had already been arrested at the time and somebody was going to provide law on that I mean I think yall would need to um establish that they're still a part of the ongoing conspiracy e to and did relisten to the part that on the chart is 1974 and I think the other reference was 1999 and this was um I don't know if the argument was 403 there confusion I think was the argument and upon relising I don't find that to be a 403 issue so that is admissible that was about as far as we had gotten and then of course we still need to Circle back on the that that one that we got bogged down with with the nested heay with Garlington talking to F who talked Quay you talk to re so why don't we break for lunch um y'all got some tasks to do over the lunch break do you have the material for me to look at you have it's not noon yet it's about quarter till noon but okay all right will you just are you g to email it or bring it as a hard copy or what okay all right please do that over the lunch break um let's reconvene at 1:15 my copy of 460 we never did fine okay great thank you thanks 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 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 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 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 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 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 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e to remember to turn it off again when you leave which I maybe it's just going to be an issue it breaks I don't know but I I don't know just I guess try to turn it on and turn it off as you arrive and leave the podium area all right Miss um love I appreciate you sending electronically the uh Communications between the state and the various attorneys whose clients have pled however I think for me it's just going to be easier if you can print them out and give me a hard copy and I'll give you until if you can just have those to me by Monday morning that'll be fine but I just think it'll it's just G be easier for me that way and just um and I didn't go through all of them I started going through them but make sure that if there is there were a couple of emails that um and it was like well into the string so I'm sure if I got to the original email the attachment would be there but just make sure I've got the relevant attachment to okay so I'll I'll just deal with all of that after you give it to be in hard copy form on Monday all right did y'all get an opportunity to try to come to any sort of an agreement if there is any on those items 451 y through I think it was 4555 or so and then 460 y y um it was not an intentional um dis disobeying of the Court instruction what I was doing was um the state's position has um is slightly different than it was with an argument for why okay and whenever the court allows I'll I'll address it if you wants me to start now I'll just start all right so did you give a redacted copy to the defense or you just think it whatever your new position is might change everything it it it will change everything and and um I did also the thing that I had asked Miss Winfrey for that she so kindly provided was what exactly the objections were to the exhibit so that I could address them in turn what I recall specifically um I believe that it was U Mr Stillwell who made the um initial objection that hang on a second can y'all try to be a little more quiet over there so I can I don't know who it is but oh that actually reminds me too before we get into that um just a reminder to everybody that there's not supposed to be any eating in court and that the defendants are not supposed to be on laptops okay that has not changed since I took over this case all right go ahead my recollection is that Mr Stillwell's attorney is the one one Mr shark who originally specified a portion of one of the exhibits that he felt should not be allowed or presented to the jury because it contained information he thought was overly prejudicial if I'm not speaking correctly I'm certain he'll get he'll you know correct me where I'm wrong but other than that um I was wanting to make certain I heard all of the objections so that I could speak to them but if my my not because I'm going to make a proper to the court okay it would be a lot easier I think uh part of their position had been until we know what the state's actually proposing as the redactive exhibit it's hard to make objections so are you ready to share that yes yes I'm ready to address if you would do that that might help the you honor on what theory the state would be seeking to admit out of court state that was part of what I intended to address I'll just well let's let's all get a copy of what it is we they're not they're not redacted it's the ones we gave them so the ones that I have previously identified uh can I have a hard copy of them because that's another one of those things that if I'm having a look on the electronic it's like embedded within several emails yes before I ever get to what I'm supposed to be looking yes judge what I'm going to do is just give to the court my um the copies that I tender and I'm GNA speak for my notes as what it is them and all right well hang on Laura can you have um The Substitute ja come down here and grab these and make some copies for me please thank you I have a tendency to write on things once I get them I'll try not to do that until I get my copies but you're welcome and what for the record I have given to your honor was agreement that have been tendered at Mr I've also tend 44 Yankee which is the docent we were referring to that is an exact duplicate of that 41 Yankee yeah I I mean I I know what they all are so 45 one two three four five and six should be and six and then 46 okay the me to take my seat so I can read yes May thank you your honor starting with Mr sledge's um testimony um the court and I think everybody else is aware that as we referenced Stace exhibit 1 as or 444 um my particular question to him after he started talking about his truth and his ability to tell his truth was um using the guidelines if a acknowledgement that you signed yeah I remember we don't have to like beler the point okay if he picked out several and listed the ones that he said were false and they were three four five six 789 and 62 right with the exception of about four right and then he said that he understood none of the sentencing at the time ackowledgements at the time so um yor under 24667 ocga 24667 your honor um impeachment by contradiction well that's not impeachment by contradiction well that's who can impeach so as I'm reading and I know that is who can Impe who may impeach it's a different one 621 is impeachment by contradiction a witness may be impeached by disproving the facts testified to by the witness right the the reason that I referenced that only is because it was in the the um book that I'm reading from this there's a section that I'm looking at so particularly um a witness may be impeached um by contradiction in several ways um close questioning to elicit concessions of errors and testimony during direct um um questioning a witness about the substance or implications of evidence already produced during the case to suggest contradictions confronting the witness with his own her own contradictory prior statements or calling another witness or introducing other extrinsic contradicting evidence generally speaking the admission of extrinsic evidence for contradiction um impeachment is restricted to non-collateral matters so that evidence that impeaches um by contradiction and is not collateral can be both substantively admissible as well as admissible for its impeachment value and that is coming from Bor b h l r versus panin h a n l o n 199 FD uh 553 and then the parenthetical is surveying uh numerous commentaries um judge with respect to Mr Sledge the reason that I um began my statements to the court about what it is that he said and um will then go into what his lawyer said when I asked his lawyer about uh plea negotiations on the heels of Mr Sledge not just saying he was told he could get up and tell his truth but on cross-examination he was asked repeatedly um through through the use of um allowable leading questions these weren't your words you didn't write it you didn't understand it you didn't know what you were signing you felt like you could come in here and tell your truth you signed it regardless I not directly quoting but essentially even though it wasn't true you signed it and things of that nature were elicited during cross um you signed it because you wanted to get out to go see your sick mom things like that you were in Fulton County Blues that's the only reason you sign it these aren't your words the state these are only the state's words so all of those questions were intended to um attack The credibility of the veracity of the statement that Mr Sledge made on December 28 2022 when he signed the plea agreement and Mr Sledge acquiesced to all of those essentially asserting through his um sort of appications and and and and running back and and um you know pulling back my truth I don't understand I don't recall I don't remember saying that that isn't true um and his pointing out at the state's request the factual acknowledgements that he now asserts were inaccurate or not completely true he allowed um himself and the cross-examining attorney to in front of the jury completely question or to uh undermine The credibility of the statement that he made and his own credibility at the time that he made the statement so as the court has already instructed the jury that the inconsistent statements of a witness are also substantive evidence that may be considered against other um other person on can the court hear me okay yeah all right so as the court has already instructed the jury that um it can now consider that statement as substantive evidence what we've seen is an attempt by the defense to destroy um the jury's Faith In The credibility or veracity of that statement made by Mr Sledge on December 28 2022 so when um questions were posed to his attorney regarding Mr sledge's understanding of those acknowledgements and sentencing agreements um on the one hand after he made clear um that though he's a friend of both sides he's a defense attorney through and through Mr uh Wright though he did clear it up he seemed to um his his answers on cross-examination there were some things that were not true there were some things we didn't agree to he was kind of vague with it and it took belaboring Point by point for him to even acknowledge hey number uh three number eight these the only two anybody took issue with so at this point your honor I believe that the iterations that were presented to Mr Wright and to his client per his words um are important because it is further evidence that corroborates um Mr sledge's understanding of and his understanding of the final plea agreement that is 1 as and 444 Y and his ability to effectively um engage in and uh take have an active hand in that final document that uh he signed on December 28 2022 it points not only it it demonstrates not only the inconsistencies of Mr sledge's testimony but his outright perjury regarding um his purported lack of ability to have any say in what that final document um asserted that he signed it is um illustrative of H the fact that he actually did um have the ability to tell the state what he felt wasn't true and what parts he wanted changed um and I think that um it of our position is that it is relevant in in showing or allowing the jury to judge The credibility of statements Mr Sledge has made on the stand versus The credibility of the statement that he made on December 28 2022 um the statute that I cited earlier it it it substantiates our position that the representations that Mr Sledge um made under oath on December 28 2022 um were part of a long and detailed um negotiation and refinement that Mr Sledge himself took part in um as we I think at this point 24114 might become relevant that's the one I brought up earlier that didn't have any bearing on what we were talking about but in his as much as um 24 uh 11 104 speaks to the Cod session not limiting the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility we believe that um this particular evidence allows the jury it is pertinent evidence that they should be allowed to see to understand fully what was put before Mr Sledge what he did dispute what he did not dispute and what he so that they can compare it with what he finally agreed to and make a better determination about the truth of the statements he made on December 28 2022 I think that the argument that some of the statements that the allegations made by the state those are things that one way or another may be asserted in any event um for instance they caught nut down bad is a statement that we know is going to come out either through the person that said it the person that refer relate to law enforcement that they said it or in his um statement to police if he lies on the stand these aren't matters that are so prejudicial that they should be kept from the jury these iterations if you will the defense wanted to have us reference part of them but pointedly objected when I attempted to have Mr Sledge show or point out differences between a previous iteration and the final version um that previous iteration was not circled there it's one that I have because I did not tender it as a marked exhibit they actually objected to my calling it a previous iteration and I think in attempting to keep from the jury not just the previous iteration but the number of them and the changes that were made and requested and the changes that were not requested as is reflected in 460 y uh we're hiding we're keeping rather from the jury very relevant pertinent evidence that in no way um substantially prejudices either defendant through it admission so I believe that an instruction that these are assertions made by the state essentially questions that they asked the witness then defendant are these true I initial them if they aren't tell me what changes need to be made and that they are not to consider as true from this witness or as take as statements by this witness anything that doesn't appear on States 444 why and that they should look at States exhibit 460 why um as substantive evidence of the defendant through his representative of what he was calling true and not true at the time that the state presented him the iteration that came just before it so it allows them to put in context Mr sledge's factual acknowledgements and sentencing understandings that he signed yes sh um all right so oh batteries thank you all right I've got some batteries oh did they go in here all right so I think that you know there's the 444 y one which is the sign plea acknowledgement that's sort of a separate type than all of the rest of these um correspondences back and forth and are you at this point um saying just so I understand that like as to 460 y you don't even intend to redact it at all all right help me understand what you're saying as to 460 why I'm going to I wanted to redact everything except the one email that Mr Wright sent I I want to take out everything else before I even think I included twice in that 460 y the same email so I would like to redacted out um all of that except the email from Mr Wright to me on December 27th at 8:43 or there about at night wherein he is making statements for his client so they are statements of his client that number one is okay number two is okay and and I say that under um I I would call him an adoptive admission but he is an agent it's an agent right yeah so he is stating his client is stating number one is okay and in order to know what number one is the jury needs to see what number one was that I sent to them which would be uh um the uh exhibit directly preceding which I believe is 452 if I'm wrong I I'll make that correction but the jury should see 452 wherein Mr Sledge says that's okay um they should see whatever he wrote about 450 uh about number two Let me let me ask you something I mean is he really a party opponent anymore he was admitting it in this trial now is that an admission by a party appointment Oh you mean in terms of the you're saying you know this is a statement by Mr sledge's agent which it is but would that get admitted under um the admissions by a party opponent exception to he St I wasn't I wasn't admitting it under so I was just saying that that they are statements of Mr okay all right but under what exception do they come in they are Mr sledge's statements he is a witness who was on the stand who was subject to cross-examination so in as much as they are inconsistent and contradictory to the testimony that he gave okay uh so I can I can see 444 y coming in as a prior inconsistent statement because he definitely testified inconsistently once he was on the stand to what he said in that document which admitted as factually true all of those things that he initialed right so that's a separate item and I'll I'll hear argument on what it let's deal with that one 444 why much okay so don't talk about the rest of them till we get PA not yet because I think this is kind of separate than the rest of okay because it's a different type of document so do you want to say anything else about that you saying it's a prior inconsistent statement and it's um impeaches him by contradiction yes and it corroborates um the state's position and I know why you want it corroborate States position is not a heay exception right I understand that yeah so why is that not come in as a prior inconsistent State youon first I I just have to address one thing and I'm sorry I'm not trying to be a wher this is exhausting because every time we are on the same page and your honor seems to direct us things somehow get relitigated we were up at the bench and we all looked at 444 or we no 444 is a different one but yes 4501 through six and 460 are we talking about the emails right now or are we talking no what I wanted to talk about right now is the actual final plea acknowledgement so I'll address that okay we we all talked about this and we determined what would be admissible is prior inconsistent statements and the state was allowed to read and confront and he acknowledged that he signed so he hasn't he never never said he didn't sign those things he explained it but those those factual acknowledgements on the 1 as which I think is 444 y were read into the record um and fully litigated and we not only heard from Mr Sledge then we heard from Mr sledge's attorney for a day and the whole process of how everything happened was covered at nauseum I think the jury gets it um and there's there's nothing that I would understand to be gained by add by admitting the paper copy of what was testified to and discussed over a week with you know this gentleman and his lawyer on the stand however many days it was that hasn't already been covered additionally your honor of course my stance would be if it were to be admitted it would it would not go back to the jury because it would be continuing witness um it would be you know signed statements written statements and the idea that somehow well that deals more with the with the prior versions but yeah you know yeah I I I I won't get to that yet but you know we've discussed this and now we're back to arguing about it again I don't actually know that we discussed 444 y 1 as well the state sought to admit it at one point is my recollection and and you instructed the state to ask about the ones he was denying and they confronted him and they said this is what you're denying factual acknowledgement I'm using example three and then it was read and then it was discussed and then we went from one to the other to the other the state was certainly not rushed in their examination of Mr sledge so all this has been covered there's no need to admit the um the document into evidence at this time um and it's cumulative but also it should never go back to the jury to begin with so I don't even know what purpose it would serve at this point well we can deal with that later what goes and what doesn't go and what's subject to A continuing witness objection but it's definitely a prior inconsistent statement y'all were given an opportunity to cross him on it he was given an opportunity to explain it um it can come in as extrinsic govern well okay it's pretty clear law I well the other thing is I don't I don't know if he denied you know the other thing is he didn't deny adopting he he he said you know and he gave an explanation I know right but I don't I don't believe that that lays the foundation for a prior inconsistent statement him saying oh I did sign this and this is why I signed it okay and then you know so well the the the the statements on the document say every bit of this is true and I acknowledge every bit of this and he testified consistently to that with regard to the majority of it he did but he he never said at the time he didn't acknowledge it to be true I think he did okay so to me you know I don't know if the entirety of it or just the parts that he denies are admissible but I mean does it really matter it you know one two and 14 through 15 come in um I'd have to really look at it and this is you know the state has not given us a proposed redaction but I don't do you propose to redact that at all no and just as a point of clarification on the first day of direct examination he specifically said that one was not true he he he said that on the second day he came back and said yes but the first day he said no it's interesting that Miss love says that because when she actually was examining him she misspoke and said that he adopted number one so now she's saying he denied it um yes I believe that if we're going to admit them if the state's not willing to redact it then it should not come in all right so what is it that they're proposing that we were the parts that he didn't testify inconsistently with so I I believe that the document as a whole serves to reut his it's a contradiction the document as whole is a contradiction impeachment by contradiction it serves um the other uh the three things that he said he admitted 10 11 and 12 I think I'm sorry five 10 11 12 14 and 15 um provide context to the types of um admissions that he was willing to make a provis context well didn't didn't they watch a video of reading out not just the parts that he said were inconsistent yes just the parts that he said were inconsistent and I believe that the document as a whole is um evidence powerful evidence of what the document contains of the of of the statements that he makes in the documents I think it's evidence um the fact that he signed the fact that the document exists the fact that they can see what it is that he was looking at um and compare it with what it is he is saying on the stand allows them to further assess his credibility it it it cor it corroborates um um what they saw it corroborates his understanding of what it is that he was signing um all right and I if we're talking about is it an exception that permits his admission it being corroborative doesn't get you over that line so yes sir um yeah I now it maybe that what you mean to say is that the entirety of the document needs to come in because that's the only way they can understand it is that what you're saying yes and I'm sorry for not doing it as well as the court did when I say context yes it is the only way that the court that the jury can fully understand the the document and what was before Mr Sledge at the time that he signed it the the state stance is that the jurors can't possibly understand one factual acknowledgement about a video for instance without getting without being provided another factual acknowledgement about gas stations on Cleveland Avenue those G that acknowledgement about gas stations on Cleveland Avenue just sheds light on this acknowledgement about the video that allows the jurors to understand that that's ridiculous you had him admit on the stand the factual associ that he still agreed with right I had him not read from the document did the jury in any way hear the actual acknowledgements that he still acknowledged I believe that the answer is in some form of fashion they did um for instance hang on just a second this love oh and you said it and I think the honorable attorney sh just said it my memory and according to my notes the entire from the swearing in of Mr Sledge then it skipped and then the entirety of his acknowledgements whether he admitted it or did not admit it was read uh over my objection on a video audio from crime and law or long crime and now we're doing it again that's inevidence so I'm objecting to it it's already there and the state at one time told you that they needed that evidence in because it shows demeanor and no and he had opportunity to sit next to his lawyer and that there was no one else in the courtroom and Mr Williams and I and the others weren't there to intimidate him or whatever their word was this is just cumulative he's been in Peach he's been thoroughly impeached so I'm objecting to 444 at all and at the at the appropriate time I like to resp so your recollection is that on the video every factual acknowledgement was red that's according to my notes there was nothing redacted it it went right from the acknowledgements whether he agreed or disagreed it was read by Miss love all right Miss love I know you sent us an email at some point that said here's what I intend to play respectfully Mr steel is incorrect right we do okay so hang on and it's was sent Friday September 6th at 7:45 a.m. and then yeah I think that's the right date and then maybe again to me at 9:54 a.m. right with the court like that we put it on the screen or just reference the portions that we were taking out no oh yeah no you didn't play the ones that he said were true you only played the WIS that he said were false okay okay so and when the court feels it appropriate I just had a couple of more words to say in response to um Mr shar's um response about 444 and impeachment by contradiction and the amount of time spent on it all right I don't I'm not concerned with the amount of time spent on it okay um so the ones that are prior inconsistent statements are the ones that he said were false um so if you're arguing that the entirety of the document should come in what's your basis your basis for that is it's the only way for the state to for the not sorry the jury to understand what what he was willing to admit to and what he wasn't later on what's your argument as to why it should all come in so you're on a reading from Morgan versus um the Morgan versus Covington 648 F3 172 third circuit is a two 2011 case um the doctrine of and this is quoted this is cited from there the doctrine of impeachment by contradiction serves as a means of policing a witness's obligation to speak the truth in response to proper questions and permits courts to admit extrinsic evidence that specific testimony is false of course because other evidence contradicts it um other inadmissible evidence is admissible as rebuttal evidence where Council opens the door to such evidence on Direct or cross examination um the doctrine of Curative myability relates strongly to impeachment by contradiction I won't get all into all of that but um when on Cross examination oh judge app it all right I'm gonna give you your you get documents back thank you Miss coming none of these are the yeah okay sorry to interrupt go ahead yes your honor so we're not just talking about if we were only talking about inconsistent um statements then that would limit us to a portion of it but here on Cross examination um the the entirey of the cross-examination was intended to present to the jury the impression that the statement itself was not knowingly or willingly or voluntarily agreed to and in fact even though the court uh sustained the objection to the question um I believe Mr Shar said it you know or I'm sorry forgive me Mr shark Mr Weinstein said it when he said you know when the state put these words in your client's mouth so the point of it is when on Cross examination um whether it's effective or not when the effort is and the witness has allowed it to happen um that an entire statement is essentially sort of undermined you say you don't you didn't understand it you lied because your mother was not well and you wanted to get out of the out of jail the validity of the statement itself is now it's impeached you know it's almost like you're impeaching the statement itself you're saying that the statement isn't valid um and so in as much as the statement as a whole does allow the jury to understand it does place the few admissions he makes in context we ask that it be admitted as not just a prior inconsistent statement but as impeachment by contradiction your honor a there's no contradiction he said that the state presented me a form that they wrote on their letterhead and asked me to initial it and I did and that's exactly what the form is it's a form that they wrote on their letterhead that they asked him to initial and he did so there's there's no contradiction the document doesn't contradict anything he testified to now I'm a there needs to be a hearsay exception and the the reality is if they're arguing that things are prior inconsistent statements they've already been played in the video and we've already heard it and if there arguing things aren't inconsistent then they shouldn't be played they there's there's no reason for the hearsay to come in so so even if I granted to them that it's a prior inconsistent statement we've just established that we played a video with all of that being read the juri's watched it and that was covered so at this point that that uh form for any hearsay exception that it would fall under that's already been covered by the video all right I'm going to roll on this one that the portions that he disavowed on the stand may come in as extrinsic evidence of the prior inconsistent statement we'll deal later with whether they actually go out as continuing witness or not and for the record which ones are those so I think that would be if everybody has it in front of them um my understanding is he disavowed three or at least portions thereof three four five six these are all under four under you know factual acknowledgements uh 789 and 16 and then every bit of um section five the sentencing acknowledgements he said he didn't understand any of them even though he initialed say I understand fully each of them as well as the paragraph underneath that he also acknowledged on date one of my direct number one I wrote it though he changed that well if he changed it then it was no longer in consistent I mean I didn't when you were like all right here it is in front of you tell me which ones do you have any type of problem with he did not say number one so he don't I mean I made my ruling all right so that's that one that is and I don't know whether you're going to Tinder 444 y that would make more sense you've established that it's the same as 1 as I do okay when umist yes I I'm just I'm I'm going over um the just one moment y okay yes that is um we understand the course r with respect to 444 y all right and I don't think it would come in as you know to come you know whatever it's called the rule of completeness because that would be if one part's introducing it the other part party has the right to do more and this is all one party over here trying to get it all in so that doesn't apply all right I think now we can move on to the rest of them which are all sort of I need a bench the same thing well I guess what's in 460 is not contained in any of 451 through 456 is that correct well 460 is Mr Wright's email to us back okay right and so 460 and by 460 I do mean the last four pages the part where he says let's not do these ones or here are the issues with these ones so do you actually want or need the rest of them in judge because um the answer is yes and under what basis under what evidentiary rule yes um so as to number one um because Mr Sledge um on the second day he um agreed and and made some gave testimony about examples of number one it's not so much that it's an inconsistent statement as it relates to number one but when Mr Sledge on Cross examination asserted that he did not have the ability to change things that we didn't change things for him um showing the way that the the way that um the recommended changes were presented to the state what is not said is as important in our opinion as what is said are we talking right now I'm sorry about just that portion of um 460 that's Mr Wright's 8:43 PM email I should have been clear yes just and the second part U of that is just a duplicate where I ask that you made so we are only talking about Mr wri's December 27 2022 8:43 p.m. uh response to the state uh subject line is reedge agreement updated and with Mr wght on the stand I clarified um what exhibit came in before that that he was responding to which was 452 okay and then what exhibit came after that which I believe was 453 but I'll check my number notes to ensure that that's the case so in as much as number one he's saying okay there's no caveat there's no oh he we needs okay so number two um obviously Mr Sledge agreed to number two um but there is an additional they formed about three years before peanut was shot him offering up that kind of information Mr Sledge offering up that kind of information is nowhere in there is he a 30 um it's a record label all right well nowhere in his factual acknowledgement on number two is it asserted what YSL is it just says def has been a member Andor associate of YSL since blank right so he wouldn't need to say and by the way it's not a gang I agree with that also but in number one where we say what it is we don't use the word game we say something we we we use specific language that he's perfectly okay with and then in number two he makes no effort to you know qualify anything as he did on the stand multiple times okay well as we all know the cas HS that it's actually not illegal to be a member of a criminal street gang it's only illegal to commit crimes and furtherance of well to make crimes period and then it makes it a gang violation to commit crimes and furtherance and that's why number one say right and so I mean number one is whatever number one is but you know that they that number two says oh by the way it was about three years before peanut was shot is that he's offering information and I'm going to defer whatever the Court's ruling is but it's that he's offering additional information he's he's comfortable enough to say that's he's I think that is a okay I think it it was about three years beforehand so it must have been about 2012 okay okay okay so three number three um didn't we read that into the record we did we read the response Mr Wright gave okay and I I believe we did read if I I believe we read as well the portion of 452 that was number three and then the final I I think we read three number threes into the record just so that the court is heing what I believe is a full truth we [Music] read not just that but I asked him to read what he responded to and then how we changed it for him we read number at least the final version of number three many many many times so number four um on back on the email by Mr Wright okay we never read that in right so four I remind we did not the court that we approached about number four there were obvious problems with number four that were inadmissible we were told to stay away from number four the state was told away from number four told to stay away from number four for obvious reasons there's all sorts of speculation in there and now after being told to stay away from it and we were told to stay away from it and we did not address it during cross examination now after Witnesses have testified the state seeking to admit a document that has number four in it and it's just I mean I I don't know what we're doing okay um number five is not even relevant right you H um as it if I may just circle back briefly as it relates to number four there was an objection to it we did we followed the course instruction we did not ask him about it um and when the the issue that I have with number um for not being addressed here is I don't more importantly I don't know how an assertion that the witness did not adopt be is is prejudicial when he is not he he denies it and we change it and we take it out that he was planning he had personal knowledge that they were planning that is powerful because it is a material fact that he doesn't have personal knowledge that they were planning it that's ex judge that's the point that I'm making that he says I did not know that the fact that something that even saying I did not know that is sort of like or that's not true was true but I didn't know it no say he's saying that's not true he ising no he's not he's saying I don't know I think maybe XYZ that is not coming in that needs to be kept out under 403 if nothing else [Music] and that's really the only thing you wanted in right so you're I didn't hear you is is that really the only thing from this that you wanted in when you say this you mean from this being this part the 8:43 p.m email from Mr Wright that is included within 461 I I didn't even the the the language of what he says I didn't even need to have that in I mean I I understand why that would be considered and I understand the Court's position there why it would look like something was pre-planned the the reason that I was asking or seeking to have the assertion in is just to show that he says no to it I don't we could take out all of number four under Mr wri's email and just say no I I don't just he denied it well we can't make it say something no not put the word no he said he said Mr W said on the stand okay that that is something that we did not agree to and we took it and that's exactly the point Mr Right Said all this stuff on we're not going to be admitting 460 Y and that leaves 451 through 456 and those kind of what would be the theory under which those would come in it it your honor provides it contradicts Mr sledge's testimony when I presented him with a prior iteration that there was an OB objection to it being called The Pri iteration and I asked him to show me things that were different it contradicts his testimony that he saw prior iterations and was allowed to make changes to the prior iterations he said on cross the first time he ever saw that plea agreement it might have been the first time that he saw well that was the first time he saw that plea agreement because all of these were prior versions and when I asked him did he see any prior versions my recollection is that he denied I don't remember that I think he said the back and forth between us in the state was up to my lawyer I I left that to my lawyer that and Mr Wright clearly testified that he took a version to speak to Mr Sledge the night before and you know I look I look back at um at all right well subject to that actually being some kind of a and it's so that would be what impeachment by contradiction yes it would okay well you can let me know if he actually testified you're you're in the way that you remember it yes and and and I don't think we should have to litigate this again and and I'm going to explain why the okay the state under the state's Theory I mean why don't they just do this for every case they could write out their facts just send them to a bunch of w Witnesses witness doesn't need to doesn't need to initial them at all and then they take the stand and then we just start bringing in all copies of documents that they wrote and sent to witnesses that Witnesses looked at I mean what it's it's false facts here it's facts that haven't been adopted on these State on these documents there's inadmissible statements on these documents it's it's a mess and and we didn't create this we didn't tell the state to do it this way we didn't tell the state to write their documents and then send them to an attorney write the statements and send them to attorney and see what the uh the codefendant says or the test the witness says we didn't tell them to do it this way they created this problem you get back to me you find some kind of testimony that you think lets you get this in right now they are excluded yes your honor thank you and I will look for that um yes I can't say with certainty but I'm just going to ask if there is also a case which I in my in my mind the recesses of it believe that it may address um specifically like okay well iterations sure okay thanks even if he did even if Mr Sledge did say there were never any other versions in which I don't think he said you've disproved that by presenting the testimony of Mr Wright so I think the given the number of 403 concerns there are with um 451 through 456 they're I'm going to just stand on my ruling excluding them your honor with respect to the 403 concerns that were raised given that 403 um addresses matters that are substantially more prejudicial than probative and given the extent of the cross-examination and the efforts to under mind the um willingness or knowingness of Mr sledge's statements essentially even in the arguments that are made it's essentially the argument is that this isn't a statement that Mr Sledge made um showing that Mr Sledge showing a prior statement contradicting that testimony that's what 444 wi and that's the that was the that's the ultimate one that he signed but showing yes it is it is I know showing that he was truthful and and letting the judge letting the jury decide why you telling stories about that about seeing a prior version We believe is strong evidence that allows them to judge his credibility why he saying what he's saying any bias he may or may not have and help them to determine the truth of which statement they should believe so we would ask that the court um I don't know revive it prior ruling revive the ruling that the court made denied let's move on all right what were yall tasked with over the Lunch Period H we uh reviewed the proposed um segments of those videos that showed Mr BB and Mr effinger referring to the and they weren't referring to it um but it's clearly involving the uh armed robbers that they're charged with that's listed as an over act um I I I can say on behalf of myself and Mr steel we have objections I think Mr steel was going to articulate them all right uh to those segments okay I think um it would probably help for me to be able to see what those are but before we do that um 463 why were you intending to tnder that at all I don't know if that was one that you had included that we said we'll Circle back or not that was the one that was just his sentence that showed that he he got the sentence on the second count too no that was just a referesh thank you all right can you queue up the portions of that video please for h e e e e GA that um you know just the portions of that guilty please so if we're going to be just showing portions of various videos and things if y'all can do that for those as well that moved things along much more quickly thank you judge we will after we um great it out decide okay thank you BB and it'll be Christian eper this is after the armed robbery that both are alleged to have committed Mr BB has recently or did plead to the charges in this indictment regarding this arm all right so I'm sorry timing wise this is shortly after the robbery or shortly after shortly after the robbery okay and we're going to begin the first portion at 112 and it's about 3 seconds from 112 to 115 what going on man what's up and as you see or if you see there um when Christian AB gets on to the call um he throws up the W what we have alleged is the YSL sign and then Dante do it towards him okay um the next portion is 2 minutes and 45 seconds to 2 minutes and 52 seconds nobody out there can you get rid of that box CH I don't know why that does that and so your onor if I need to play back I will but when they're ending the call they both say slat which is a terminology that we are alleging that YSL members Ed and then the last portion is 356 408 but they hit up my they get me out build me a business up and it ends there um just a few things the clothing that he is wearing around I believe this is OTS on the Slime clothing that he is wearing um this is also a public his public page and so immediately after this call he then points a gun at and towards the camera um again going towards our the states theory that um members of YSL operate with violence and using guns to show their threat their notoriety and given everything that has happened in the video those relevant portions those are for this video the three portions Miss excuse me can can I hear I just I didn't quite follow the first thing she said something about what was on the clothing we believe that this is clothing that we've seen on other YSL members it's either OTS or on the OTS on the Slime clo we've seen and we I think we have a few other postor with them wearing similar type of clothing but it has um either YSL or related terminology on the clothing all right and on what piece of clothing is that on his I believe the head piece as well as the short can can you show me that last portion again yeah sure and I started a little all the headpiece and the shorts they a got no environment but they hit them up my artist at me I me a business up and what does he say built me a business up I heard that part what does he say before them is this just to show the clothing no the clothing and the pointing of the gun pointing of the gun and saying hit up my me out bu me a business up I think he's rapping a lyric to a song but he says he hits them up and I have to go back and look at the other portion of the language your honor procedurally are you wanting us to argue these one at a time I think yeah that'll be this set not like well not one portion at a time but like this will be I'll hear the argument as to this so I guess there's the beginning where they're throwing signs the end where they're signing off with the language and then the well the middle the end of their call and then the end of his post where he is wearing particular clothing pointing a gun and saying something IND discernable other than that he's going to build a business up but maybe you can let me know what he's saying but if what he's saying doesn't matter then I have all right I have reason to believe that he's singing a popular okay line from a a song that is not involve anyone in this room okay so is this line of what's the line of clothing is it like a line of clothing you can buy in stores one member of YSL miles Farley who is purportedly a clothing designer he create some some of the clothing I don't know if this is that that's not his clothing one but the clothing says and I have another picture I believe this is from all the same line okay but I mean if this is something he's wearing and you want it in to show that he is a gang member and the clothing says and I want to back up this we believe it says slat on the clothing on the shorts and I'm looking at another act that we have act 143 with him and Christian eer and Christian eper wearing a jacket similar to the pants and the hat set that they are that he's wearing in this particular F and when is this from this video is around October uh 20 after October 10th of 2021 the arm robbery takes place in October of 2021 all right and and tell me why y'all are offering this with the first two portions is to show that um both Mr epinger and Mr BB again right after the robbery um are in communication with each other showing their association with YSL by one using the gang symbols and two using terminology um in which um members of YSL uses and then the last portion of the video which is when he places the gun inside of the video your honor again this is a public posting of Mr BB um and it shows again that members of YSL uses what this gun for no reason comes into this video at the end there's nothing I don't know what the purpose of actually flashing a gun is but to show that he as a member of YSL um has handguns uses handguns um especially coming after an armed robbery which we alleged the armed robbery was what like October 12th October 12th when is this video posted um I just need to pull up the Instagram your honor of when this exactly video was posted can I ask the to State another question while they're looking into that it's being and I'm I'm I'm sincerely asking it's being stated that this is a public posting um and I'm wondering if was it a public posting or was this something retrieved off of his cell phone because those are two different things got an Instagram return for Mr BB show yes so was this on his Instagram page was this a story that disappeared after 10 seconds I I I need a little bit more context about what exactly this video is and where it came from and how it was presented to the public it came from his Instagram return his page you do not believe was a private page and um the Instagram video was of him it's a Instagram call that he makes with epinger so it has to be public because EP need to log into the call when that's how he gets onto the call so is it public between the two of them no forgive me I'm not no I believe it's public to Instagram because to his private page because you just you said it was a public post on a public page but then you said it was from his private page no it's his personal page oh you don't mean it's private you just mean it his personal page but it's a people that are younger than me that are helping me here are telling me that this is not something like if I want to check out what Mr BB was doing on Instagram it's not something that I could find publicly this was a call if you followed like if I know a lot of people have lots and lots and lots of followers like thousands and millions would any follower be able to see this I'm just trusting me he's in the room now to I can Google it all right let's assume for now that it's a public page and we can Circle back my understanding is once the call and this is my confusion while I'm asking to State okay I'm using call but it's not technically a call okay but once the interaction is done it is not saved this is what my understanding is it's not saved on his page so I would not be able to say Hey you know for instance if I said could you watch it while it's going on if it's being posted to the page if you were it I I think it depends if you were invited if you're a follower I mean I whomever all right can they watch it regardless I don't know somebody other than the two people communicating people can watch can watch it are are you saying can watch it if they're given permission to watch it or you saying they can just watch it if they're followers or if it's a public post and then there's clearly something he does even after the communication is over that he's showing in the post all right and does it does it disappear or does it stay up until you take it down I believe it okay so it's up for 24 hours and do we know whether this is an Instagram story okay well we'll assume for now that it's a public Instagram story that's up for 24 hours and I'll add one other thing and I can't say this with c um on one of these calls or what whatever they're called one of these interactions between him and epinger it was determined that no one was in the room so I don't think that there's the room meaning watching so I don't I don't believe that well I I'm not sure that matters if you're posting it to be consumed publicly if there is somebody watching okay well I I think you can tell if there's people watching or not and I don't I I think it was this called but I don't want to swear to it but I I I I have no evidence that anyone was actually watching other than him in so do you know when the post was made have you all been able when the posting point of the Instagram video was taken all right but close in time so it was close it was two days before showing all right the these two individuals okay I think that the first two portions are relevant and not excludable under 403 the third one unless you can get me a whole lot more to explain why that clothing makes any difference at all the fact that he's holding the gun when nobody can when all he's doing is singing doesn't show anything you're right he is representing We Believe with the clothing on YSL prior to an armed robbery that he commits with okay I I understand you believe that but until you can get me some basis to believe that the believe that the clothing is that the clothing yes it makes any difference whatsoever so with with respect to um the case law that has come out after Rodriguez and all in the furtherance of a gang so some of the um P some of the things that courts have named as evidence of furtherance of of it being done in furtherance of the gang is whether or not the person is wearing items of clothing articles of clothing that have or bear the gang name if they say the name if they do things that represent the G in close proximity to the time of the crime I understand that and with the fact that he is pointing the gun at the camera and saying whatever he's saying we would our analogy we draw the analogy that in pointing that gun at the camera if as Miss Hilton is looking we find sufficient to the court satisfaction that YSL clothing in the same sense he's representing YSL as he's pointing that gun at the camera making the statements whever they are singing or otherwise and in doing so he is making a public assertion about wisel's willingness to perform violence to to you know all right y'all get back to me on the clothing I'm Ready the clothing so I'm going to show a portion of the video your honor I think I'm probably stating the obvious but that's not when the arm robbery happened so yeah sounds like two days before yeah so I don't know about what Miss love just said didn't really this has nothing to do with showing that the arm robbery was somehow getting related um if even if he's wearing that clothing but your honor regarding the the clothing again I I I agree with your honor about the ruling and we'll look at the clothing but the gun I don't like the thing about clothing is we can get a screenshot and see what someone's wearing I don't know why we have him wrapping and pointing a gun because that is just what lots of people unfortunately do these days right you honor yes and further what clothing is this because Miss first she said she thought it was one clothing then it might have been somebody else's clothing so can you please tell us what clothing line is this I can't tell you the clothing line I can just tell you that the clothing has slack on it and if we look at his shorts and this is at Tim stamp 3:43 I'm using this Tim stamp and then I also now want to show the court act 143 with someone wearing the same similar clothing and where it's clearly that it says slats on the clothing which is terminology used by YSL so okay show you're showing us where it says this on this clothing so on this clothing with the black base the blue lettering says slat and then there's also some red items but we know that the blue lettering says slat and I know this or we believe it is this because do you have him wearing another gang paraphernalia at other times that's when I'm now then that's going to be sufficient so act 143 your honor which is um We Believe on September 29th 2021 so three so about two weeks before the video Mr epinger who he's in the video with is wearing the similar clothing the slats he just has the jacket version on okay and then BB is wearing the OTS which says only the slimes I don't know who created it but it's slime clothing or slat or YSL Affiliated clothing your honor and that's is who is that is that so that's the same so the person in the jumpsuit is Mr Dante BB this is the person who um had the gun in the video next to him is Mr epinger who was the person who joined so you have both of them a couple of weeks before wearing what y'all alleged to be Gang Clothing yes all right that's enough you can have those two portions that are the beginning and the end of his call and we're not going to do the third portion thank you yes I want to uh if you rule definitively I want to just put my objection on the record these are adequate statements Mr BB and Mr epinger are not here so it cannot be the way I understand the law admission by a party opponent because they're not on trial with us right and therefore it has to come under some sort of co-conspirator hearsay exception and I don't know how this further a conspiracy to say and I believe these are quotes what's going on in the first 112 to 115 your honor and then what's up slat I don't know how that furthers the conspiracy so I'm objecting to the verbal in addition I asked the court there there are a tremendous amount there was a um there was a contest on the internet who can say slat with a song so many times I tried to put that in evidence and your honorable Court sustained mistakes objection and said who cares it's a it's a popular thing that is being said now and who cares that people are on the internet saying that the state just said that slat is important because that's what YSL members use I want to show that everybody everybody uses it and slat was a popular term before 2012 when this supposed gang formed um you will learn if you let it in somebody already established that I know you established it with regard to like some of those other sayings did um yes Mr travus Stevens stated that when he was younger it was made Popular by a rapper an artist named lne so I was stopped from doing so I'm objecting and saying I'm not trying to believe this but I'm objecting are all the verbal statements um and then I just think it's um nothing here to me furthers the conspiracy that's the only way to do thank you all right so that's that issue 3396 and I'm going to find the DAT honor this is after the robbery and we'll play from 10 seconds to two minutes and 52 seconds do you know how far after the robbery um that's the date looking at yes sir this is on 10:13 2021 so one day after day [Music] in the for all let the C th Dan say [Music] I know the [ __ ] going on [ __ ] few things although he's in the bed saying he's in the club throwing gang signs he was actually he threw up the YSL sign in this video he threw up we believe to be the little B blood sign in the video more importantly I freeze frame on the Chain this is the chain that was stolen from the victim two days prior to or a day excuse me prior to the um this video being posted he's also wearing you see his head piece or the hat or the mask that he has on his head is a also another mask that says keep America slim again and then he says this [ __ ] YSL at the end so okay for those reasons we believe that it's relevant um anybody want to argue against that and just like the first one I'm not conceding that this is for publication for the public and I haven't heard how the state is going to lay that type of evidence before the court um and I don't have that evidence so I can't tell you that it was for publication I private okay we'll Circle back on okay um I don't know how the state's going to prove that that is the um chain that was stolen from Mr Smith I bet it looks like a pretty distinctive chain are you g to have somebody to identify that as the proceeds of the robbery the victim goes by the rat named trap commander and that's what said on the chain that is stolen and we intend to call that individual one okay and then um I don't believe that this depending upon if it's public or not I don't believe that this furthers a conspiracy which it has to to the way I understand it for his verbal statement all right can you respond to that yes so looking at the Instagram return we know that this video is from the archive live videos um Instagram does not disclosed at least on our immediate review whether it's a public page but we know it's a live video I imagine he is broadcasting it out to someone because it's a live video he's not broadcasting it to himself and so so a live video is what we discussed earlier he gets on Instagram and anyone who is following him can literally open up his icon toy that he's doing a live video and if you haven't yet are you gonna present somebody to explain to those of us who are not 20 yes that all of this is true yes yon have someone explain Instagram Instagram and because he is posting a day after the armed robbery the boldness of stealing the person's chain and with YSL paraphernalia on and saying YSL um for those reason we do believe it's in furtherance of the ultimate YSL Enterprise conspiracy all right I'm going to rule that admissible uh I am yes when I rule it admissible I have done the 4 or3 analysis and found that for it is not excludable under 403 nothing in there is substantially more prejudicial than privative number 16 and that's going to be from 53 seconds to two minutes and it is Instagram it's also an Instagram video live a live feed as well and this is on October 14th 2021 so two days afterwards yes okay loake face up they did he said so you way [Music] I'm hey I'm at Studio youit yeah I'm lock in right quick about four five hour you'll be back by time you yeah wait and we can stop it at 247 your honor so a few things that occur in this video is um Mr BB is on his way somewhere and Mr epinger joins the call again or joins the video again um you hear him say as he's holding up the chain that they just stole a day before says slap business and then later again they say slap business no rap business um your honor and believe that testimony will come out during this portion that um Darius Smith had went to the police um you know after he had gotten robbed I believe there's and I just that there is some information that he was being threatened after he went to the police okay um after he went to the police Shor um furthermore also in this video you see another co-conspirator miles Farley when they Pan the camera to the individual who's in the front he appears to be sleeping that is um another co-conspirator in this case which is Miles Farley so for those reasons and you see them also in this video putting up the YSL sign as well that for those purposes um this is relevant to show Association to show um the furtherance of the Enterprise um especially even after the arm robbery all right may I your honor yes I am going to wage the same objections that it does not further the hearsay objection to the conspiracy but if your court is consistent then what I'd like you to do is please um wrestle with the idea that the one before 3396 showing the court said that's a specific pendant and um there for it's relevant and Robert occurred the day before this is the following day so two days after it this has the same pendant showing so I would argue that 4 three at some point it's cumulative so those are my arguments all right so I think yes sir yes your honor I have a question as a condition proceeded to the admission of of this particular piece of evidence public or private is a is a condition in terms of the social media whether not the platform was was public correct is that what I'm understanding is a question so you said this was another live feed archive live videos so if they are downloading that information or those documents from a live feed how do they know at the time that it was a that it was public that's what I'm trying to understand I want to make and honestly you may we need to have somebody come like give a profer on all of that I mean I hear you saying your understanding is that it would only be archived if it was the live feed and that live feeds stay up for 24 hours and I think that anybody who wanted to log on to that page could see it or at least anybody who was a follower could see it definitely anyone who's a follower could see it um and I think that's a distinction anyone who's a follower of the person could see it whether or not someone who's not a follower could see it would determine whether or not it was a public or private I don't know if that to me that goes to weight not a disability of the evidence coming in um whether or not it was a private or public page but what we know is a live video other individuals can see that whoever may follow him or if it's a public page people who don't follow him can see it but other people besides himself could view the video I mean this one is it's a communication between and amongst several co-defendants and alleged co-conspirators um given all that she set forth as the different things that were significant I don't think it's just cumulative of him himself sitting there with the chain this is him talking to his what Co his coor of the robbery and talking about slat business and rat business um so it's not simply cumulative it adds a whole lot more um and honestly like whether this one is public or not okay it's them talking in furtherance of the conspiracy so for this particular one it wouldn't be significant to to the ruling whether it's public for that first one it seemed to be I mean for one thing that she was saying that was one of the reasons why but um yeah not not really for this one and for and for the court I'm being told that whenever the court does consider public or private in terms of whether or not it's a condition precedent that there should be some comments or icons demonstrating uh how many viewers are present uh common so I don't think how many viewers actually see it is significant to the fact that you might be putting it out there to be seen or you're putting it out there where it could be seen and in comments and viewers count are key um you know to determine or in allowing uh I'm just just trying to read the right Mor is like would you older people please stop talking about this but but your honor the reason why attorney Matthews is bringing up comments and things of that nature is because when it is public even just public meaning that your own followers can see it you would tend to see commentary from even your own followers so I just don't think that the state has proven that the videos at least the videos that you're considering whether it's public or private even your own followers being able to see it I just don't think they provided any evidence all right well I don't think it really matters for this one um so I find this one to be admissible you're you're yes before and this has nothing to do with the Court's ruling I'm not trying to relitigate anything but while while miss Hilton was speaking um she mentioned Mr deria Smith in their possible threats or or or something of that n of that nature I don't know of anything that I've been told or provided in Discovery that provides any information about that so to the extent that the state's ever going to want to get into anything like that I would expect to be given some information some production of something yes are y'all planning to get into that I believe it's already and we double check I believe it's something that's already in Discovery that after this it was his interview whether it was Mr Smith's interview that he talked about receiving threats because he went to the police and so I'll find specific make sure that they got that okay so there there's no video of any threats or anything no okay okay it's just that he says during the course of his interview with police when he was reporting the crime okay and y'all are familiar with that I'd have to check too I I just didn't remember seeing any videos or yes just said that the last one which is 5860 has more so it's not cumulative of the previous one 3396 but wouldn't 3396 then be then be cumul yeah that's what and that's what I was arguing earlier because you said that it's coming in because it's um it's showing the uh the unique trap commanders what I believe it says on the yeah no I when I just thought that when you said that comment was when you said how do we know it's his necklace I would say and that looks like a pretty unique necklace but wouldn't I mean at some point is it C I know it's short but isn't a cumulative of the next day um you know that is much more to me um him really kind of flaunting the necklace that had just been stolen a day before flashing money throwing gang signs saying if and if he said I heard him say this [ __ ] YSL um I think that is somewhat different than what we see in that 5860 video after all the um videos okay yes after after all of that I just wanted to um make a general as the Court's in instruction on a general matter about cultive nature but I'll let the court go through all of this I just didn't want to well what do you want to know generally what I'm hearing is that whenever a a vi video a picture of something is shown that's slightly similar in nature to something else there's been the cumulative of the 403 objection and the court knows and everyone does that there are 65 counts in this indictment and eight defendants currently on trial and to the extent that some of the evidence in the court has been essentially ruling along these lines but I just wanted to say that to the extent that there are efforts by the state to put in um multiple showings of a defendant doing or other defendants or co-conspirators doing things that may appear similar on different times or at different days this is meant to rebut this continued assertion by councils for eight defendant on trial that this is a record label and nothing more so I just wanted to put out there regarding the cumulative and the 403 objection that we constantly get when there's some similar and the courts ruled the way you know I believe that it's proper but I did want to respond to that um objection that is constantly being made thank you judge to me cumulative isn't whether there's some reason to put it in to rebut something or not it's does do seven or eight different pieces of evidence show the same thing then after like probably two or three four through eight become cumulative so you're not necessarily limited to oh I can only show this one way with one piece of evidence but you don't need to show the same thing eight different ways well yor yes Miss Love's argument May remain the same but it's not eight defendants it's six it's okay you're right that your argument would remain the same I found um where we were referencing at least some indication that maybe the victim was the victim in the arm R was being threatened okay it's going to be in Discovery 7 and within Discovery 7 the last police report it's the first paragraph from May 18 2022 and then the actual text messages that that is referenced in that particular portion of the police report is also found in that same folder in the digital evidence folder okay you're welcome for all right when do you think we all can Circle back on the the evidence that y'all were going to get together on with regard to Mr Ryan Mr Bon right before the court came out we were trying to figure out a time so we'll talk some more after lunch I mean after lunch at the lunch at the end of the day just to try to solidify time with in the next couple of days I'm not sure we're going to have a non-jury day before y'all might get to I mean we might but okay um so did we I have some notations on if we go back to I guess it must have been on this wire chat because that's what we've been going through y r you did ask the state to look at at least before we get to Mr Harvey's motion um to you had notes on two of the recordings um I believe it was what was identified as 513 yes and F slash 523 and then 1109 and 1124 I'll start with the easier one your honor 1109 1124 the state does not intend to use that does make that easy and then I'm not sure if the court just wanted for 53 523 the relevant portions of that [Music] call so on that one um it was the part yeah the flipping the car and laughing part so when I listen to it try I don't know if I hear flip in the car but there is some conversation um that starts at about 35 seconds into the call in which to set the stage this call is at 9 about 9 9:45 p.m. on March 16th and so this is about 9 the home at or the house at 28:30 Waters Road just got shot up earlier late the night before earlier in that day or earlier in that day and Mr Garlington is speaking to someone that we believe to be the white excuse me theasin right who is a member of 30d and when they're on the call they first talk about different types of weed come different types of weed yeah I just said that part and after that de mikon begins to tell theasin about the drive by shooting and he tells them that um 12 had us they shot up big Nick Spot which is the home where they are and we thought that they were going to come back through through um meaning that they thought that the Ops was going to come back through um that they sprayed through the house that they were all in the living room and they're surprised that no one got hit and um and the wasin asked well essentially why do you think it happened and Mr Garlington says one of their little partners just got shot or just got killed in Mechanicville which would have happened on March 14th 2 days prior then at some point time a little later within that call um Mr wri says do y'all have to drop on them NWS and um Deon responds um I I need to play it again what exactly his language was after response to that and that portion from 035 to 140 and then from 148 to 231 there's a small 8 seconds in there that um we wouldn't need to play but those are the two believe relevant portions again they're talking about the opposition first shooting up the place and then being asked by a 30 deep member who we allege they have alliances with YSL um that some members who were formerly 30d are YSL and then they still have an alliance with with 30 he then asked do you have a drop on them meaning are yall going to retaliate as what we would think that they say and that's those are the portions that we believe are relev on and those are the only portions of that yeah the call is only two minutes and 30 seconds so it's really the entirety of the call except for that eight seconds that is between 40 and 48 yes sir yes I believe it's the same call I have it is call 513 um Mr shark gave me that number yeah that it says something to the effect and I was going to object um it says something about MCM Miller's funeral is going to be private and his mother doesn't want Thug there or his money and I don't see how that should come in that would be a hearsay statement I don't see how that furthers a conspiracy if it's not on that call then I have the wrong number I have 514 it's not that call no what let make sure hold on I think it is no I'm sorry well it may not be I don't know so there's two refence there's a ref remember there's a page number and a reference number I'm with Mr steel I I have 513 and I think we're going by the call reference number sheet so the call reference number for 5:13 is the call that I'm just speaking of which is on Mark 16 came through and they were going to come back I have the same date as well you're on 5 316 what what time March so the 9:41 9:41 but we can listen to the call but I just listen to it and I don't hear anything about if it's not an issue there's nothing to discuss but if it is an issue I want it to okay because part of it when you when it was described on this big sheet that y'all shared with everybody was them laughing about the drinks murder right and and I have that happening at four minutes and 20 seconds into the call so and I'm not saying Miss Hilton's wrong maybe this call isn't that long but the parts that you wish to play can we can we just play it yeah because there's a lot of confusion okay because then I guess the part about the drugs comes after all of us okay all right because I definitely wrote down that there was something about you y'all said there was a non here sa purpose and he wanted to show something about flipping the the car and laughing but if y'all aren't going to get into that anymore then that's fine and I think this one and the one before reference a Quay and understandably there's some concern about confusion is it going to be clear for [Music] and I'll apologize I must have listened to 512 which is the 2 minute and 40 second call because they talk about drugs and that call as well but it looks like I was supposed to look look at the call under the one at 9:41 p.m. course for one moment no that's the 502 is also 512 and that's talking about big Nicks and that one also says something about not having a drop on people but we ruled that one or I Ruled that one could come in um but there was a concern about whether we need a 105 with regard to Quay or qua which I'm happy to consider on call at lunch I listened to the two minutes and 40 second call which is the call right above it if we could have a the one that says 502 yes you're around at 6:49 if I can have a brief moment I can listen to the correct call you okay only other one we had talked about but not made a decision on was the nested heay when do we need a quick break why don't we all take a quick break 10 minutes 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 e e e e e take way longer than three minutes I'd just like to recap if we can before Miss Hilton can we recap where we are just for a second sure you can help me with that please judge my notes from our previous sessions said 5113 was open 624 was open 806 was open open the state today said 1109 and I'm going from the reference numbers they weren't going to try to get that in was there a ruling on 513 that's what she needed to go back and listen to again so that's what we're about to hear from her whether she's narrowed okay great and then okay so read those out to me again all right 513 we're going to deal with right now yeah 624 I had that my notes reflect that that was open as well what um open meaning you hadn't rule we have yes agreed that's the one that's the nested here say right no the nested here say well oh okay it nested here here say it was 2119 that's on the next page okay at least that's the one that yeah you're right so I'm trying to figure so what else so 53 624 which is also 635 it's very complicated with the two different num 806 and 820 806 yeah I had you're right I have a note by that both of those that said tomorrow which we apparently never got to that tomorrow there's no ruling on those correct no ruling yet um and on both of those if somebody from the State could listen I think the question for both 63 six I don't know which reference number is which but 624 635 and then 806 820 I think was who is the other talker that's what we were waiting to hear back on but yes that matches up with what I've got as well Mr Harvey all right so if you're ready on the 513 523 one we can do that one4 and 806 okay we just know right now there's a person named on but we don't know we don't know who that person is okay name what's the first name they call him okay which y'all knew also and they don't know who that is and so are y'all asserting that un is a co-conspirator or you have no idea no we're not going to start we don't know who okay and so then is there some other basis under which you're asserting those two whatever they are conversations could come in okay e e heading to sorting through the evidence exhibits today and also judge while the state is discussing among themselves I think I think that's almost as far as we got it is because we stopped well we stopped with I mean we now we got much further but we stopped with um the one that is 2119 that is that nested here that's what I mean and then there's a page and far there's a page and a half I know okay after that yes that's yeah no there are many many pages after that three pages after that judge forgive me for um missing the portions of the um conversation that Mr Harvey was just having I was looking with my colleagues at number 62 4 and 806 are we correct that those are the two that the court is now inquiring about as to yes 513 and 53 we're not we're gonna come back to that one all right sorry okay so go ahead sorry so your honor in advising the person that he calls a about the search warrant at Waters Road and Miss V being on him um one and I'm not yet through and saying this but one the familiarity of the person to whom Mr Garlington is speaking with Miss V and without further explanation as to what Miss V being on him means it becomes apparent that this is a person who is aware that at the time investigator vivito um is someone who has been who's had demikian Garlington on his radar so demikian Garing obviously is talking to someone that he trusts but the 806 call where demon Garlington is telling the called on that he said on the news they got two and one outstanding warrant that just hadn't said my name um he just wanted to make sure he didn't know what was going on um you've made it back okay and the person advising him to keep it to your chest and that Mr Garlington is advising that person that he's trying to make as much as he can now these words all uh lead us to conclude that this person though we don't know his identity he is um a person on whom deian Garlington is relying who he is getting support and advice from as it relates specifically to the conspiracy our arguably in telling um Mr Garlington to keep these matters to his chest this person that he's talking to knows all about Waters Road knows what it's there for knows that um that the knows about the likely knows about what was being kept at Waters Road given that he's not asking wait what what do you mean what about water's role who is Miss V so this could be though we don't know and we're not trying to assert that this is some um NE person we know is you know YSL this seems like reads like he listens like an unindicted co-conspirator someone that he is relying on and trusting for information and guidance as it relates to his actions in this conspiracy those type of actions fall under um what um courts have deemed uh statements um in furtherance of the conspiracy May consist of because of that because of the type of um information he's sharing and the feedback he's getting and the role that this person seems to serve in Mr garlington's life these two statements we'd argue uh would follow up under the co-conspirator statement exception all right does anything need to hear them again I'm having I don't know it seems to me that if we don't know who this person is I don't know my understanding of the case saww and I don't have but I I I'm certain of it being the law I don't and I can get a case is the statement itself cannot establish the conspiracy and the prerequisites of a is of 801 d2e so without knowing who the the the people involved in the conversation are and just going by the conversation itself I don't know if that ever it well I know that that could never satisfy the requirements of A1 d2e under our Supreme Court president and and state in case Georgia as well I what say to that I do I I do not agree with that assessment at all [Music] um the um in 502 this is an 11 circuit case but United States versus miles 290 f3d 1341 is from 2002 um the courts have said in in its admissibility evaluation the court may consider the statement itself as well as extrinsic as extrinsic evidence to qualify the statement need not be necessary this is not what Mr Shar was putting forth It's I think helpful exactly what I just said the statement need not be necessary to the conspiracy but needs only to somehow further the interest of the conspiracy your honor and um personal knowledge of the subject matter on the part of the decant isn't required but um it talks about the statements of unindicted co-conspirators um specifically yor I think a right we know statements of United Pro conspirators can come in if they otherwise qualify what Mr Shard is saying is the what conspiracy and it being in furtherance can't be established by the statement alone is that what you're saying correct J I haven't seen that it can't bootstrap itself and I'll get you so he he'll get he'll get us a case so we'll take it up I I'm reading from the statute it's yes it is the statement must be considered but does not by itself establish the de clearance Authority yeah under the existence or scope of the relationship or the existence of the conspiracy or participation in it y I'm reading from United States versus re R and I'm reading from the St don't talk at the same time let me pull up the statue that would certainly be the easiest place to go to if it answers the question and I have cases your honor as well give me a second as the contents of the statement Shall Not Alone be sufficient to establish the existence of the conspiracy and the particip excuse me participation therein of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered is not tendering the statement we in no way suggest that the content of this statement alone establishes a conspiracy the conspiracy we'd argue has been shown by evidence that we've already presented at trial and more evidence that we will be presenting later on what the content of the statement does show is that the unknown party to whom Mr Garlington is speaking about the uh about things that the conspiracy inherently kind of involves I.E Waters Road Miss V looking for him um the outstanding warrants all of those things that sort of the the conspiracy encapsulate when he does that he is receiving he's giving the statements and he is receiving assurance and the statements made between the two are serving to maintain trust and cohesiveness among them or inform each or or inform of the current state status of the conspiracy which furthers the ends of the conspiracy so long as the other requirements of 801 D2 e are met and that's coming from um a first circuit 2012 case United States versus Rivera r i v r A- d n a t at 682 f310 um especially when you hear given everything Mr Garlington is saying I mean he's literally just telling the guy like you know uh oh miss be is on me blah blah blah blah blah and of course the court anyone can listen to it but he just wanted to make sure you know he didn't know what's going on you made it back okay the man is saying keep it till you check keep it close to your chest um and and Demon is then saying I'm trying trying to make as much as I can now um this particular case that I'm about to point out is a third Circuit Court of Appeals case so it's not anything that the court has to follow it's just sort of instructive but it does speak to the United States versus lelli l g n l l i um and the site is 660 fed ax8 is a 2016 case there the court um found that a statement made by an unknown speaker could qualify for the co-conspirator exception if the government establishes um that the speaker was likely a member of the conspiracy alleged and in United States um versus Helo which is an eth circuit 1985 case and helmo is spelled h e l m e l and that site is 769 f2d 1306 at 1313 um what lelli says or um sites helm for is the parenthetical what is essential is that the government showed that the unknown declarant was more likely than not a co-conspirator and I believe that um the prescriptions that were described earlier regarding the statute alone the statement alone being used to establish a conspiracy is not one applicable here okay all right can I hear this statement again it's been a while since I've heard it Y and judge just so that the court is aware since we are researching in real time there's a notice at the front of lelli that says not president presedential opinion under third circuit internal operating procedure rule 5.7 um such opinions are not regarded as precedents which bind the court I want to make the court aware of that notice e what going on you at inment yes I got my [ __ ] got [Music] got where you at I pull up the me [Music] you said trying to do what I said I CH see F man [ __ ] hit the SP day one was like yeah with I just feel like Miss on [ __ ] Bo [Music] so [Music] who yeah all right your honor I'd also point out a thing I left out um the UN person to whom he's speaking is also advising Mr Garlington giving him more information about the circumstances out there that Mr Garlington was um describing at Waters Road um where he's talking about who all else is still out there so that adds to our argument as well yeah e hello hello what going on [Music] what's hey what's up with you what happened they got and they got okay okay well I want to make sure yeah yeah you know I'm back I back yeah yeah keep that [ __ ] [Music] I'm let you pull up on check out the phone all right all right and if the court um notices Mr I think Mr Garlington does not even start giving details until he's reassured that it's a um who of course then tells him you know you just just keep that close to each chest uh and so forth so I think that both of these calls make it apparent um that this person uh is giving information that serves to underline uh reinforce the underlying purposes of the conspiracy itself um they're providing reassurance their U informing of what's going on um that is putting members of YSL imp Peril Miss vat they're looking for Mr Garlington he knows who she is is so we believe that these all form to tell the court this these are statements of co-conspirators that should be admitted and any argument and Mr Shard I think with regard to and Mr Harvey the issue of the statement alone can't establish the participation of the declarant um I think with regard to Garlington there certainly more and are y'all offering like both sides of the conversation in order that they understand what's going on yes both sides are being offered of the conversation the most important part we feel is what Mr Garlington is saying um his words are more um pertinent because they're reflecting a knowledge of something that just took place is very important and close in time to acts that are alleged via overt Acts or accounts on this indictment so U Mr garlington's words are the most important ones but the other ones are needed for context can I just respond very briefly um to this it's still just the statement itself and every Court the United States Supreme Court and our Supreme Court have specifically said in determining the existence of a of of the admissibility of a co-conspirator statement the trial court may consider both the co-conspirator statements and independent external evidence although the co-conspirator statement alone does not suffice um that's specific language from Dublin versus the state at 302 Georgia 60 pinpoint site 63 but that's the rule and that's the that's the intent of the rule um in the code I have heard nothing but argument about the statement itself but no external evidence other than the statement itself self and that is simply not enough with an unidentified party right period yeah so I think with regard to whomever un is um that it does sound like all you're relying on to establish that un is a co-conspirator and therefore the jury can consider what UNC is saying is what's what he's saying and what he seems to know that's based in the statement itself so I think that if this comes in if these two come in there needs to be an instruction that you know it's only Garlington statements that you can consider in as um hang in as much as unx is providing context to what garlington's statements are um one moment Jor I'm reading statute if the court would indulge me I apologize all right can can you wait just a second because I think Miss Love's trying to absorb the statute right now almost judge I apologize for sure that I'm reading the right area it's the portion of the statute that says the contents of the statement shall not be shall be considered but not alone sufficient to establish a declar Authority Under paragraph C which is not applicable we're not talking about that is not applicable yeah um or the existence of the conspiracy and the participation there end of the declarant and the party against whom the statement is offered under subparagraph e right so if I'm if I'm reading this last portion that Mr Harvey references we're not trying to establish both the existence of the conspiracy right right that part's not the issue and the participation therein against the of the declarant that declarant being un the the Garlington statements are one thing I yall have other evidence that Garlington is a member of this conspiracy but you don't appear to have others for own so um it it's not and I I hesitate to say it but it's not so much un's statements that are important an statements are the ones that give context to Garlington statements and so to the extent that you need to hear what an is saying so that you know what Garlington is responding to that part is important so to the extent that I guess an instruction that statement um you can consider them for context for Garlington statement I mean I I'd have to work through that but my reading of it is that the de an of concern is is Garlington and we're not really that concerned about H well you might not be that know know but if we're if the jury's going to hear it all then why don't you look at both of those portions again and see if there's some way if if it's Garlington that you need um to have just Garlington statements come in and if not what limiting instruction would be appropriate I appreciate the opportunity we will thank you and your honor I I was neor able to verbalize maybe for the record maybe to persuade the court okay um about uh why I didn't believe that Garlington statements were admissible under 801 d2e okay um and my my argument I think the fact that we don't know who ank is is important because certainly knowing who the receivers knowing who Garlington is speaking to would better Ed us as far as whether his statements are in fact in furtherance of a conspiracy or not and at least the second call he seems to be calling un and just saying hey I heard I have a warrant you know what what what should I do and un seems to say you know just stay safe and and get money ready for a lawyer but it it seems that Garlington is concerned about his own legal troubles or the possibility of being charged um I don't really find that as furthering any conspiracy that seems to be um concerns about himself and his his legal future and his and and concerns about being incarcerated but I don't I don't view that in any way shape or form is furthering any conspiracy and um especially since we don't even know who an is but you know me calling if I was involved in a conspiracy me calling my literal Uncle who I reach out to for advice and him saying hey Max um if you think there's a warrant you know start getting your money ready for a lawyer and you know stay in the house I don't know how me asking my uncle for advice would be furthering any conspiracy so I don't I don't believe that garlington's statements at least with that second call um meet the requirements of 801 d2e yeah I think that Mr sh's analysis leaves out if I'm not if I'm mistaken forgive me and he can correct me I think it leaves out a telling him what's going on at Waters Road like who else is still out there in that second call so he's informing him of circumstances that still exist that put members of YSL who incidentally were hiding in and then ran from and apparently took Contraband from and I'm not this is our assertion that we believe the evidence will show so I'm not trying to put something in front of the court that you know is is just my word is bond but an is advising Garlington about circumstances that continue to place YSL members in Peril and an obviously has knowledge of what this conspiracy is he's not asking any kind of questions and then garlington's responding he's wanting to make sure what's going on and is told to keep it to your chest and frankly he doesn't need to be talking to a co-conspirator I I I agree okay I agree but I I still think knowledge of who he's speaking to would certainly sure further elicateam this statement um I mean this I think would come in under I can't remember the name of the case right now but the case that's uh I think the state cited where you know somebody's getting support from their girlfriend or something about you know how to handle the fact that somebody might be on to them um it's not exactly the same but it it does sound like frankly it sounds like this is somebody who knows a whole lot about what's going on at waters's Road and they're sharing information uh in order to stay hidden I don't think respectfully so this is the day after The Waters Road shooting so this is not while Waters Road is in practice and he says I'm pulling up and I think a very common sense reading of what was said there is he's pulling up to where onk is and wants to know who's at un's house I don't the state keeps saying alerting about who's at Waters Road that's not the way I hear that call at all you the court should also be aware that this is the day that police go to search Waters Road and um I think in another call that the court heard on our previous in our previous hearing um they find that those the sticks were removed like they they took guns and stuff out of the um Waters Road the night that they were there initially just to check on the occupants and nobody was willing to come to the door but they found everybody hiding in cubby holes and stuff and so in subsequent calls I think the court hurt last time that they didn't get the scks they were that were in the Attic or wherever it was and now un is talking about my reading or listening to it un is talking about who who's still around and Mr Garlington is talking about Miss I think whether he's saying who's still at waters's Road or who's at wherever he's about to pull up to I just want to make it clear for the record this is not the day to my understanding that Waters Road was surged okay and the state I would love to hear their evidence whoever onk is that he was at Waters Road on that day because it doesn't exist um he's talking about where onk is and I'm pulling up to you and who's over at the house which is not a furthering any conspiracy but you know I understand the Court's ruling um and I just want to state that for the record all right thank you yes I do just want to bring one case this I don't know it in a bit of a different way statements are admissible when the state establishes a basic case of conspiracy independent of the co-conspirator statement um I think looking at this if we look directly at that standard let's out what the statement is what evidence is there to make aent Cas and the case I'm relying on that is Williams versus State 293 Georgia 750 from 2013 um there's another case which quotes the same language it's um newer Franklin versus State 298 Georgia 636 2016 and in both of those they go on to discuss some of the other independent separate apart from the statement evidence which did justify using that co-conspirator exception um but here where we have no information about un except his name is Unk I don't think the state can make that Pharm ofous show I don't either I mean I think that with regard to an there's not enough so that's why I've directed Miss love to figure out whether she can either get in the Garlington statements without UNC statements or if not come up with some appropriate limiting instruction and we can do that your honor and just as a matter of um the prim aaal showing of The Conspiracy itself yeah no I we're not dealing with that I get that and there's enough to show that Garlington is a co-conspirator and that there's a conspiracy this just with regard to all as far as I'm concerned so let me write myself a note and then we'll Circle back to the 513 523 one thank you Jud and this uh case that Miss Abasi just cited just the court mind providing that site one more time both please Court doesn't matter Franklin vers State 298 Georgia 636 2016 and Williams 293 Georgia 750 2013 thank you and I think that the court already has kimp um I do thank all right let's go back to the 513 523 or whatever it was one so the narrowed version that's what you were going to do was figure out going to be from roughly 34 seconds yeah there's there's about three sections around so I'll play the first will be from 34 to 354 I don't need to hear the drug rep again I believe we're past the drug free you know come [Music] out d That's fo I thought they went over there still man some everyday [ __ ] oh yeah heard heard [Music] over come come man we think they come through so we can hit that [ __ ] up 12 12 like we them like we got our like we have to come in have come goam make hit the back door come we I was like go make sure no man it be it be under the house IIT the was on both s and I was like I se on one side I was just sit in the car in the yard yeah I se looking at cars over there go through the other way they know they was over there before like hey come here I'm like hey man I just heard some gun [Music] shot dry man I was in the woods I don't know how he went I was in the wood [Music] yeah so nobody got video shoot and we'll stop it here we'll fast forward to the next relevant portion and we'll say your honor little Quay is not either Mr Nicholls or um Mr Huey that is quatz Arnold who was at the house during the shooting that's are youall gonna stop and tell the jury that that will come out through investigator vivito who was all in the house prior to this call coming in because investigator vivito will testify as to who was there when it occurred but we've always established even when we did the Motions hearing who was at the home and it was never Mr Huey or Mr Arnold and so that will come out well could you just stop at three seconds before that little Quake part get SI right and we can either either remove it or we can do a stipulation so that it can be so the jury can hear it in real time so that the jury do develop okay but because I mean viverito may not be coming till sometime later well this call is coming in through vivito so none of this I think it's stipulation yeah this is not either of these people that are on trial would would cover that safer than if you can either do that or you can take that part out yes we can do the stipulation and ask her and I mean we we all agree that is not either of these individuals I have a solution don't play it don't play it at all Yes um because it's little it's two parties giggling and laughing about what happened at a prior event there's no informing anyone for any purposes of further any conspiracy it's just spilling the beans giggling I would say though that quatz Arnold is important because that individual is in a previous video that we had with caravus nickels that's already in evidence with caravus nickels but just because something's important just because something is to who all was at that house right right hello I'm sorry I'm sorry you are gonna have the detective testified that person being at the house anyway yes I mean I I didn't hear anything in this portion of of the um conversation that does sound like anything other than man can you believe what happened so this portion is out yes so it'll be out I know I hadn't listened to that other portion no I mean she was she was on the cusp of addressing Mr shar's concerns and was wanting to make sure the court knew who was in the house but she had another argument she went to make that explain thank you your yes your so when you hear this portion of the call your they are boasting and bragging about what happened in that home the fact that they were hiding from the police or he was hiding from the police with the other members in the house um we believe that was stated to obtain confidence um between co-conspirators we do believe that this person is the wasin um watt Wright who I mentioned earlier now listen to the next part the next portion starts at 418 much going on got see what going they feel [ __ ] get up on the bridge in the v yeah I heard yeah I heard where the hell you at right here so that's when they say they flip Under the Bridge Under bur and we believe that they are referencing and laughing about chamelle drinks because he just got killed under the bridge which would be the I20 bridge in Mechanicville two days before this fall call okay and you had said before that you had some nonay purpose for it that that wasn't even hearsay that you I mean I don't know what it was but you said that there was some non- hearsay purpose to introduce that so that it didn't need to come in under an exception I don't know I wrote it down I don't know it was you're right that they are speaking in cold and laughing about this particular murder when they say I heard somebody got I heard someone flipped the car in Mechanicsville and then there's like a pause and then they all they both laugh um given that this is again two days after the murder of Mr drinks and we believe that Mr um was a part of that homicide the fact that they are laughing about that particular instance at that time is a non-hate purpose of why this portion of the call will come in I'm going to exclude that so that drug part that we talked about before is the only part of this still referenced earlier today oh yeah they like they mom like well she want to come yeah the yeah I toldot F be be talk anyway like they like no money theyna be tripping yeah you know yeah like damn I know he just like man he know yeah yeah I what you had going on I'm pull up onight or tomorrow or something and your honor that portion is um Mr Wright and Mr Garlington speaking of the murder or the funeral of Christian mcmiller and it's Christian MCM Miller's um funeral and that Mr mcmiller mother did not want Mr Williams to be present um at the funeral we do think think that that is relevant given that we believe that Mr mcmiller Mr Ford's murder was a direct result of Mr Bennett being stabbed in the jail and we do believe that the evidence We Believe will show that the stabbing at the jail was done at the permission of Mr wooden so was a trickle down effect so we believe that Mr Jaden Myer who actually sted um who actually stabbed Mr Bennett asked for permission through the Mikan Garlington to Mr Williams to get permission to do that stabbing that stabbing occurred once that stabbing occurred at the jail and with the information was released to the public on early in March March 2 or March 3rd only about seven days later was Mr um Ford to Mr mil MC Miller um murdered by YN Associates and then the other murder happens when Mr drinks after that I'm your honor and so the fact that Mr um MC Miller's mother does not want Mr Williams at the funeral belief is relevant to show that there is a belief that he is the cause of the murder um of Mr mcmiller and Mr for and in addition to that um I see quick but judge the fact that he is bragging about um the what we believe to be the murder um and that he is informing the person that uh he is talking to that they were going to um come back and they were getting ready to light them up We Believe falls under that in that clip funeral that's the first part turn I think is coming in that that you allow my understanding is everything from the drugs to everything before little Quay can come in when we talk about what it no nothing from this Calla part def part but you're we yes but there's portions of that first car where they discussed that they were going ready to shoot back at them shoot back at the opposition when they were going to come through so early earlier in the call when they're talking about shooting up big Nicks is that this part right so before and being surprised nobody got hit right but the but de says we were getting ready to shoot back at them but we thought it but it ended up being the police and not um not the opposition coming and so I think that that's important that they were willing to shoot back at them if they came back through and to arment that you just to add a little to what Miss Hilton just said them boasting um and bragging to one another um we would argue our statements used to obtain um confidence between co-conspirators and it is serving to um up and maintain trust and cohesiveness a um among them and to inform them of the current status uh status of the conspiracy and in doing so furthers the ends of the conspiracy um as Miss Hilton thank you I understand the argument I appreciate y'all perfecting your Arguments for the record my rulings so the drug part can come in and that's the only part that wire now I have a note that the one above that 502 or 512 there's a reference to a Quay in that one also um and there was a question whether there needed to be a 105 instruction or there could be a stipulation that as to who that was about if y'all know it wasn't yeah in your honor I'll just add to that my notes indicate that the reference to Quay is that he's locked up in that call so that made it especially concerning do y'all know who was being referenced there probably all right and so y'all are going to enter a stipulation that says it's not either of these defendants okay I mean if it's stipulate you rather it be that I can't hear you I rather that it not come in because it's an assumption your honor that they're saying we believe we think that it's martinz be a stipulation that it's not either it's not either of these defendants and again here we intend to introduce testimony through investigator viito who was at the house when she arrived along with the responding officers will talk about who was detained on that day so is it going to be a stipulation that it's that it is whomever Arnold The Quay referenced in here yes that isz Arnold yes we will stipulate that the quatz Arnold that The Quay that they're talking about is quatz Arnold so there another Quay that's being referenced fair enough thank you okay so that takes care of that as well make sure yall get that stipulation together before that gets played all right let's get this nested here say issue taken care of before we break for the day judge can I ask how inclined would be to entertain a request to to do the nested here say not today but on another day why because I want to make certain that we have our um most Cent succinct and clear argument for the court because we going to get one go at and I want to make sure that we do it had you'all already briefed it judge we have briefed something similar that's what we were looking for earlier but I want I don't want to read a brief to the court I just like to give about four lines to the court if I can if the court would indulge us and allow us to just argue it on a different dat that particular one because it's it has layers and I want to make certain that we say clear and I couldn't hear are we just saying hey I me need more time because I haven't reached it yet no judge I'll be clear and I'll say it loudly enough for everyone we are asking to be allowed to make this argument on a day different than today that is it please and thank you the reason is and the reason is we would like the opportunity to make certain that our argument is as concise as possible we don't want to be trying to read a a brief and distill information we have briefed this a similar subject we would like to respond uh more clearly than we believe at this point we would end up doing today well the state has already sent what they thought was the issue to the court which was a two pages from a brief that was filed when in um November of 2023 maybe no 2022 and that was in response to Mr Copeland's statement so the state has had plenty of time to come up with this and you know something we've been asking since December of 2022 for the unindicted co-conspirators they were supposed to have been given to us well over a year ago and now we get in here in unidentified people are being identified now now as unindicted co-conspiracy conspirators and no I object to any additional time because we got some unknown person referenced in this phone call and I don't want to hear anything about oh well now we know who the hell this guy is now we know who we're referring to and now we know that this dude is an unindicted COC spirator as well and I don't even know whether it's a dude so let me undude that reference and apologize and and and the unindicted poent the whomever it is that's unknown that you're referencing as real yes or or what sounds like real yes so judge I'm sorry we got the 9:30 pm Monday 99 supplemental brief by Mr Harvey and we we we want want to just address everything and be concise that's all okay and you know you've all you all have had this for a couple years now and you indicted it you've had this wire T all right you don't need to be talking to her so um I mean I think you're your biggest sticking point is probably the fact that some of this is only coming through real and we're probably going to have the same issue we just had with Unk which is unless you're going to be able to tell us more it's only this statement that is going to be able to establish anything about and obviously real is very knowledgeable about what's going on or they wouldn't be talking to real about this kind of thing but that's only the statement that establishes that so um if we could be allowed at the same time that we address that we provide the court the additional information the court said it'll allow us to do that one the call or if we have to do it before I'm just asking for an additional time to address the the last call just this last one okay so I haven't given you any additional time at this point to do anything about the UN call right that's just that's out no it it was out I thought that the court had said um something about redacting and if there right right yeah yes figure out a a way to yes okay I'm sorry I misunderstood you I mean honestly I'd like for us to do what do you want to just skip over it and move to another one yes if we can and then come back well we certainly have three more pages to get through have y'all looked to see whether you really want or you really feel like all of what's in this is necessary to establish different issues I'm sorry I missed yeah it is three pages have you all done that yete yes so we still have three more sheets worth of this printout that you gave us which is probably 10 calls or so a sheet so maybe 30 more pieces of a call have y'all taken a careful look at that to see whether you really need all of this to establish the issues in the indictment because I mean so it's going to take a long long time to get through and so so obviously your honor we are we are trying as the court um as we go on to pair down where we can as much as we can but at the same time keep defense of priz of things that we may use so that there's no argument that we didn't but we can we can look at it some I'd like for y'all to start making some decisions about oh we're not going to use this so have you done that evaluation yet we on on a lot of others these are the ones we said were going to we wanted to use so what we'll what yes we can do that more and as it relates to these that the court has in front of it your honor um we'll we'll we'll we'll we'll give it another pass okay we'll give it another pass appreciate that um does the court have another day because um that we just or do you just want us to send the one to us um I mean can y'all get that done by Monday too or no we my team is saying we G I'm I'm asking if we could have a couple more days but if we have to we will that's I mean get it we're not going to be able to discuss it next week anyway so get it done so by the 20th thank so we're not arguing today thank you I don't know whether we're going to we're not going to argue the other ones but um there's other stuff we can no I meant the the the the call 2119 we're we're not going to play 2119 prior to the 20th so we um appreciate that so Mr Harvey I guess that your brief that you filed is so impressive and intimidating that they want some time to be able to respond to just just agree to it because it's right so have yall gotten together yet on you Mr steel made us all a nice chart of where he thinks the evidence the status of the various exhibits is um have yall been able to look at it and see where there is any kind of discrepancy in what y'all believe we um we have been looking at that we've not um we've not done that joint effort but we've been comparing Mr ste's chart with what our chart and and where are yall on that we're checking with our team member that's do in the office now okay because had I walked in here at nine dealt with the two rule 22s and then said let's hit the exhibits which I told y'all by email several days ago is what I wanted to do today would y'all have been ready that here okay so that answer sounds like Master exhibit listor that we can for that we believe is up to date um and we can take some time um with over the next couple of days to go over that with any designated person from the defense but we can forward the master exhibit list that we have that we believe is all right y'all exchange that and copy Miss pfield as well and then y'all get together to narrow down where there might be disagreement on the exhibit list yeah because it's going to be a bear and we can't just put it off until the end we need to be doing this a few times as we go along okay so um y'all Mr Ryan's crowd is going to get together on whatever else that evidence might be and where there might be disagreement okay all right and y'all are both going to get me briefs by Monday I think is what I said on the um what was it what did I tell yall to brief anybody know I believe we were supposed to yes over it wasn't not over yeah well somebody wanted to do that a long time ago and never did the other one was um whether or not an overx not listening indictment could solely um be the basis of a conviction on okay no yes that's what was no they haven't yet that's what I would like for them to do okay that was one that was one judge um sure you can wait on that and then okay I guess if a prior conviction which Mr Ryan's murder conviction is alleged to be an overt act um were youall going to break me on whether and how and if that needed to have any kind of a limiting I think instruction or was I just writing that down on my own as an issue um no I don't I think that we earlier today we had said um that his conviction that there should be a limiting instruction as to his conviction we had not fleshed it out or anything but I think it does bear some address I think so H again and I'll do whatever if you want to brief but I can't imagine a limiting instruction to cure you I'm on trial with Mr Ryan and to have this jury be told that another jury in Fon county found Mr Ryan guilty of murder and that his overed act because you're dancing the Court's going to tell the jury to do these this dance because okay don't use the prior conviction against Mr Williams or anyone else of the jury because it's here say but you can use it against Mr Ryan somehow but then it's an overed act against Mr Ryan and if Mr Williams and Mr Ryan are a conspiracy even though Mr Williams is not part of that over act you can use that evidence against Mr Ryan to find the over act and therefore Mr Williams gets convicted on that piece of evidence I don't mentally understand how you're going to cure that the determination is going to be made separately as to each defendant um whether they participated in those and you I think the conviction itself the issue of the conviction not the act of the murder not the evidence or proof of him having convicted the murder just like we've had to um present evidence of other over acts that were external to the conviction itself and you're presenting that evidence anyway that he committed that murder right yes your honor and so the conviction itself and by by conviction I mean the certified isn't the overa it's the actual murder that we are putting up evidence of that we right but you're also wanting to put in the certified copy of the conviction of Mr Ryan for that over act right right and that's what you what we were discussing with the limiting instru right and so there is a danger or or it's it gets complicated about how to tell the jury what they can do with that evidence and you I think and I hadn't looked at the two you know cases that you cited yet the 14 F3 881 and the Toco 200 F3 one that was you right yes you're WR that was the state cases so maybe those will elucidate it somewhat I don't know anyway I I do I just want to follow the court and and Aid the court if we can so whatever I need to do to write but that I think that would be very prejudicial against and that's the danger is is it you know is it going to be is there a way to correctly limit it so I think I need some right some more we something on that would be nice as well all right okay yeah I mean I if you if you wanted to provide that and and then you'll get me the hard copy of the in camera material by Monday also my first thing M right and when we're when we're discussing the prosecutorial need um for the intrinsic acts we're looking at it through the landens of I mean I don't I don't need further evidence on that I mean not evidence further case law on prosecutorial need if y'all want to come up with some great but yes that is exactly what I did want further evidence on was could y'all find something that more factually aligns with your situation and obviously that one y'all were going to file at the same time because you can find case law that factually lines and says no it's out and just flush that out some more um and it being either admissible or inadmissible um because it either does or doesn't complete the story of the crime of the gangs or the crime of the RICO violations or um you know be the same kind of series of events as that because those are the only two that might come in under right it has to right okay so just um making sure that the case that we cases that we bring to the Court's attention addresses that if yes ideally that would be wonderful all right anything else we can do in the next 15 to 30 minutes files to bring so tomorrow in terms of witnesses yeah if it's didn't change that's fine but I know that I think y'all said pits latner Turner Bell Hill Jinx and Thorp I may have that one wrong Jinx was it Jinx or Jenkins Jenkins is that still the plan yes for the for the upcoming two days couple of days yeah okay and then we'll talk again on Friday about what'll come up next week all right anything else okay yeah I didn't know where exactly y'all were going but but somewhere that gives y'all a little bit more room considering the number of people right just you yeah coming up to the podium I want to say thank you your honor for allowing me to come back up again sure um and I'll be real brief I just want to share something U to you and also on the record okay um I appreciate being granted the access to the camera pool and um I just want to respectfully express my concerns that that solution does not fully align with the principles of transparency and equal access uh the decision to limit the media coverage to a single camera controlled by a pool which restricts the diversity of perspectives and erase concerns about control suppressing and also withholding crucial details that can be uh caught by several angles and I know earlier I think I might have shared I am a c rights leader I'm also noted and awarded community advocate for the state of Georgia since 2009 uh the rule 22 provision was designed to ensure that the public and media has Open Access courtroom proceedings and it is not to be limited to a singular Source because that risk tampering with the spirit of that rule by only allowing one feed it is inherent bias ends up being biased with that coverage are you reading from a case or you just reading no I just take some notes I didn't want to spend extra time and I'm just I'm almost done okay I mean so this is just your position it's not case law is I do have some case law I got two of them okay all right go ahead so it assumes that one Viewpoint is sufficient for capturing the full scope of the trial it's essential that different media Outlets are allowed their own access so the public can be provided with a fair and transparent view of all proceedings so I am asking the court to reconsider uh this limitation and uh the transparency of the rule 22 um so when it comes to for example OJ Simpson trial also was a part of Derek uh sioban uh trial we were permitted live streaming to ensure full and unbiased representation of the proceedings if you look up Press-Enterprise coov Superior Court 1986 also Richmond I don't know how to look that up Sor just said okay do you have a site to a reporter like a a case reporter well it's usually like numbers and then a book and then some numbers again I didn't so basically I pulled it if you was type in Press-Enterprise COV Superior Court 1986 c o press Dash I'm sorry I got Enterprise C C is in Charlie o is an Oscar V is in Victor v v yes V is in Victor Superior Court 1986 and I have another one what state this wait a minute this is in a state of I mean I can try that but I don't think that's going to bring anything up for me but anyway what's the next site okay the next one is Richmond newspaper Inc versus Virginia Supreme Court and I also want to share that the Restriction of the live stream and serves a compelling enough interest to Warrant limited media access to to a single perspective again when it comes to civil rights leaders right now I don't see any other civil rights leaders here um also when it comes to community advocacy all right well I apologize to be a civil rights so um I will I do want to go on the record say I have just as much vested interest as a defense team and I did look at the media room what is required I do not have so therefore I would ask the courts if I can bring a computer into the courtroom I don't have to have my phone but just a computer to do it physically in here to do what sorry to U be able to um do my notes also to do a live like commentary from my computer um and I'm also asking the court to uphold the first amendment protection of public access all right there is full Public Access anybody who wants to can watch this trial it is being live streamed with a pooled media of at least six different news organizations it is also being live streamed by an individual who is pooling with another individual whom you are welcome to pool with and so you can do that as well okay so um then are you saying at this point you just want your computer in here so you can do live commentary but you're okay with not filming it because you don't have the capacity to do it from the media room yes Shir and also I would like to I know I bring it up earlier I still would like to submit to the courts U Maui Davis uh Davis v Law Firm did a letter also Channel 11 I work closely oh yeah I mean and I said before I'm happy to I I know Mr Davis and happy to but again I I don't I don't not believe that you are a civil rights leader or that you would be able to add something to what's already in the news and you are certainly welcome to report on you know okay everything about this trial so in there also is a letter from the cab um Mr Robert he was the da the Cab County yeah I know him as well also Channel 11 I work closely with the investigative team they also did me a reference letter as well okay all right yes yes I just this young lady referenced Rich newspaper V Virginia I believe the site is 448 us555 that was a pretty big case so I was familiar with that impr Press Enterprise is 464 us501 okay thanks so um yeah those those numbers and then letters and numbers that's how we lawyers look up cases so I mean the title's nice but it's the numbers that we actually need so okay uh and you know what what would you need to do it from back in the media room is this just be able to uh plug up my computer and oh so you're not worried anymore about being able to film no I could I could make everything work for my computer okay all right well I mean I just gave somebody else the ability to do that so I will revise your uh rule 22 I don't know if you I think it might have already been emailed to you but we'll withdraw that one and do another one and just to make sure I'll be able to come into y gonna have to fit in the media rows that are available here in court so it might get pretty I mean sometimes there are only a few people here sometimes there seem to be a lot of people here but and okay thank you your honor thank you all right anything else well tomorrow is your next court date is that what you meant or no the jury's coming back tomorrow did you mean another when are we gonna have our next non- jury date I don't really know um I'm thinking we could I don't know possibly sometime the week of the seventh later in the week but if we need one before then or if we need one or two before then then we'll have to fit those in I mean I'm planning press to have two full trial weeks for the you know next two weeks of September but do y'all think we're going to need some one or two non-jury days okay all right so then I'll plan we'll plan to do full weeks for the next two weeks and then maybe sometime the week of the 7th we might have a non-jury day or two and if not I mean certainly sometime close therea okay thank you and judge one last iny the um matter that the court brought to our attention I don't from the sound of things regarding the re that we dealt with at the bench no F I don't know what you no I don't I don't know what you mean I'm sorry my memory just may not be as good as yours I'm not quite sure what you're referencing may I approach with just any member of the defense so that I can um yesal e e e e or anything else before we break for the day no okay now anybody else all right all right uh let's see we have the jury back at 9 you know I considering that we've been together all day today hopefully we won't have anything unexpected in the morning do you think we could just plan to convene at like 5: till 9: okay let's do that see y'all tomorrow 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 e e e e