From watching this timestamp (and knowing nothing else), this seems like a power-tripping judge that does not respect his being called-out for not respecting client/attorney privilege.
Apparently, this morning, the judge (allegedly) had a secret ex-parte conference in chambers with the prosecution and a witness. The witness that is currently on the stand.
From what I hear from attornies, an ex-parte meeting with the witness currently on the stand and one side’s counsel is pretty crazy. But to have that meeting without telling the defense counsel at all is bananas. It feels very mistrial territory to me.
Then, when the defense counsel raises the issue, the judge’s only question is “who told you?” and “how did you find out?”. Seems extremely antithetical to an open court process.
Then, once that question refuses to be answered you get into what you’re talking about. Power-tripping stuff.
But even that seems incompetent. He continuously mixes up civil and criminal contempt throughout the proceedings, until he finally gets is straightened out at the very end (with the help from new counsel that shows up to represent the lawyer he’s trying to jail).
It seems like the defence attorney knew about the meeting with the witness and wanted to intimidate them by showing up unannounced. Notice they agreed to testify then after the defence counsel shows up they have now changed their minds.
> Notice they agreed to testify then after the defence counsel shows up they have now changed their minds.
So, a couple questions about this.
First, when you say "defense counsel shows up", do you mean when they showed up to the trial? To my knowledge the defense counsel didn't show up to face the witness until open court. Are you suggesting the defense counsel intimidated the witness in open court, or that I missed something, and defense counsel intimidated them at another point between the ex parte meeting this morning and the start of court?
Second, you might be mixing up the chronology? They announced on Friday that they weren't going to testify, and would just be taking the fifth on everything. They did so on Friday and Monday. Then there was the secret ex-parte meeting with witness, the prosecution, and the judge this morning, and then the witness testified today. The witness, at the end of the day, promised to return tomorrow to continue testifying. So, I think they changed their mind after the secret ex-parte meeting with the prosecution, not with the defense?
Nah, this news article (it's not very well written) is about the Defence attorney being held in contempt. That's because he shows up at the judges chambers where the witness and the prosecution are having a conference with the judge.
The judge demands to know who told the defence attorney about the meeting. It's a breach of court security. When the defence attorney, refuses he's held in contempt.
I did misread the chronology. The witness was going to testify, said he wasn't going to anymore, then changed his mind to testify again. I was wrong there's no intimidation, I guess the defence attorney was being a busy body?
> That's because he shows up at the judges chambers where the witness and the prosecution are having a conference with the judge.
Do you have any source for that? I didn’t see that claim anywhere in the open court proceedings I watched (in the linked YouTube video), but I did absolutely skip around a bit so could’ve missed it. I also didn’t see that anywhere in the article.
Yep, it's the first two paragraphs of this article "The judge presiding over Young Thug’s lengthy racketeering trial held the musician’s attorney in contempt on Monday after being confronted about a conversation reportedly held between himself, prosecutors and one of the state’s star witnesses.
Brian Steel was escorted out of the courtroom after refusing to tell Judge Ural Glanville how he learned of the meeting, which he said occurred in the judge’s chambers before court began. Glanville sentenced him to spend the next 10 weekends at the Fulton County Jail, totaling 20 days."
What you’re saying here is totally different than the part I quoted of what you said earlier.
You’re saying what I saw in the video. He confronted the judge in open court by bringing a motion in the courtroom during the trial.
That’s totally different from what you wrote, which is what I was asking about:
> That's because he shows up at the judges chambers where the witness and the prosecution are having a conference with the judge.
You said he showed up at the judges chambers _during_ the ex parte meeting. That didn’t happen. He showed up _in the courtroom_ during the trial in which he was representing a defendant.
I'm just going by the article linked here, isn't that what you can see? It says he attended the conference and wouldn't say who told him about it. Not sure how the YouTube links up to it unless either of those accounts is just wrong?
Are you sure the YouTube video is of the same hearing day? Maybe it hasnt happened yet in the YouTube footage? Usually these are multiple days
I think you must've misread something then. The article doesn't say the lawyer attended the conference.
The ex-parte meeting took place in the morning _before_ the YouTube video. The YouTube video covers the proceedings which occur in open court, which is what the article is a summary of.
I've read a fair amount about this at this point, and I'm 100% confident that the lawyer that was briefly arrested did not at any point in time attend the ex-parte meeting.
The only confrontation that took place was in the court room, in open court, as shown in the YouTube livestream linked above.
around the 4h50m45s is the start of the discussion between the judge and the lawyer.
Wild wild day in Georgia courts, apparently