Billy Costigan – In a dramatic turn of events in Fulton County, a judge has been accused of giving preferential treatment to prosecutors, leading to a motion of “sabotage” filed by the defense attorney for rapper Young Thug.
The case, involving Young Thug and the alleged gang Young Slime Life (YSL), has been marred by accusations of bias and misconduct, reaching a boiling point this week.
Young Thug’s attorney, Brian Steel, has filed a motion accusing Judge Ural Glanville of favoritism and attempting to undermine the defense. “Judge Glanville must cease from any further contact with this case and another judge shall be assigned to hear this Motion to disqualify/recuse Judge Glanville,” the motion reads, according to Newsweek. Steel claims that Judge Glanville’s actions have compromised the fairness of the trial and calls for his immediate recusal.
The tension between Steel and Judge Glanville escalated last week when the judge held Steel in contempt of court. This decision came after Steel persisted in questioning the secrecy of a meeting between Glanville, prosecutors, a star witness, and the witness’s attorney—a meeting Steel was not informed about. Judge Glanville declined to disclose the discussion’s content and ordered Steel to jail, a decision currently under appeal with the state Supreme Court.
Georgia-based criminal defense lawyer Andrew Fleischman highlighted the intensity of Steel’s motion, describing it as “nuclear” in its severity. Similarly, Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University, noted the irreversible nature of such a filing, calling it “blistering.” Legal analyst Tracy Pearson added that the motion would significantly distract prosecutors, describing it as a “bullhorn in your face” action.
In a sworn affidavit, Steel accused Judge Glanville of falsely portraying him as unprofessional and unprepared in front of the jury, claims that Steel vehemently denies. He also accused the court of violating its duty of neutrality and impartiality.
Additionally, defense attorneys allege that Glanville and prosecutors from District Attorney Fani Willis’s office attempted to intimidate witness Kenneth Copeland into testifying against the defendants. The affidavit asserts that the court participated in coercive actions, effectively making the court a part of the prosecution team.
Judge Glanville’s response to the growing controversy has been notably terse. Last week, when Doug Weinstein, another defense attorney, questioned whether Glanville was concerned about the integrity of the case, the judge replied, “I’d be very careful if I were you.”
This is not the first time the case has encountered serious allegations. In May, defense attorneys accused a deputy in Willis’s office of lying about the accuracy of a transcript of video evidence. Judge Glanville acknowledged the transcript was inaccurate, leading the prosecutor, Adriane Love, to claim that the defense was attacking her personally. Love had previously been reprimanded for a shouting match with Judge Glanville in April.
SF Source Liberty Unlocked Jun 2024