Share this @internewscast.com
Jeffery Williams, aka Young Thug, appears in court on March 4, 2024 (Law&Crime Network)
Just one day after the Georgia Supreme Court overturned a murder conviction because jurors were shown a 33-second rap music video that was more prejudicial than probative, Young Thug’s lawyer called the RICO trial judge’s attention to the decision as a guidepost for ruling on a defense motion to strike rap music videos and lyrics from evidence.
Brian Steel, the attorney for the rapper born Jeffery Williams, on Wednesday supplied a few pages of context and attached the entire decision in Baker v. State to inform Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural Glanville on the use of “rap videos, musical lyrics and the like” during the trial.
“This Honorable Court conditionally admitted evidence of rap videos, musical lyrics and the like in the trial of this case if the prosecution lay a proper foundation for same,” the defense began, before pointing to Baker v. State and its “wonderful analysis” of O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403, the section dealing with the exclusion of relevant evidence that is more prejudicial than probative. “Mr. Williams argued that the admission of these items without foundation that these specific lyrics, videos, words and other artistic expression violates Constitutional and Statutory provisions.”
As Law&Crime reported Tuesday, the Peach State’s top court decided that Morgan Cardelle Baker’s conviction in the 2019 shooting of nightclub security guard Tamarco Head should be overturned because the prosecution insisted on showing jurors a portion of Kobe Crawford’s — aka NoCap’s — rap music video for “Ghetto Angels,” a video that showed Morgan waving around a handgun.
The problem, the 7-2 majority found, is that the state failed to meet its burden of “showing that the error” — the inclusion of the video in evidence — was a “harmless” one, as the high court couldn’t say the video didn’t sway the jury. Rather, the trial court’s allowance of the video into evidence was “an abuse of discretion.”
At Baker’s trial, prosecutors leaned on the rap video to assert that Baker, a close friend and road manager to NoCap, was “promoting” gun violence and surrounded by an “entourage” with guns. Notably, Baker said his participation in the video was him “just trying to be cool,” and he claimed not to know too many specifics about the gun in his hand.
“In response to the prosecutor’s questions about the video, Baker testified that he did not produce the video, that it was about ‘losing loved ones,’ that he thought he had ‘a Glock’ gun in the video, he did not know ‘what kind’ of Glock it was, it was not his gun, and he used it in the video because he was ‘trying to look cool,”” the decision recounted.
Young Thug’s defense argued Wednesday that the prosecution’s lack of knowledge on a host of details about the rap lyrics in question only shows that the state is employing an “attack on character/propensity” to “make a mockery of art” in search of a conviction:
Without the prosecution knowing who wrote the lyrics at issue, when the lyrics were written, when the lyrics were produced, who potentially changed any lyrics, what was the intention of the lyrics, what was the mindset of the person speaking the lyrics, who authorized and promoted and orchestrated the musical videos, whether they were real guns or not, whether the musical videos were done for promotional purposes or the like, Mr. Williams again asks this Honorable Court to exclude any and all of the State’s requested evidence pursuant to the Constitutional provisions previously argued as well as O.C.G.A. § 24-4-401, O.C.G.A. § 24-4-402, O.C.G.A. § 24-4-403 and O.C.G.A. § 24-4-404(a) as this evidence is merely an attack on character/propensity.
It makes no difference that Mr. Williams is charged in Count One–a RICO conspiracy count and other counts with a gang act as the gang act evidence mostly go to gun or drugs except for one (1) count which simply names Murder, Armed Robbery and other crimes. This is not the type of gang act evidence that needs to be coming into trial as same violates the law. This evidence clearly takes a legitimate artist’s work and criminalizes same and the prosecution is attempting to make a mockery of art and transform same into crime without any lawful connection.
Noting that Judge Glanville had already “indicated” there would be a hearing on the motion, Steel submitted the supplemental filing urging the court to “incorporate” State v. Baker “in its analysis” of the issue.
Read the defense’s supplement to its motion to strike here.
