Young Thug’s lawyer held in contempt, ordered to spend 10 weekends in jai

I wasn't following this trial until yesterday when a live stream appeared to me in which the Court was hearing arguments and had already locked up the first chair defense counsel.

It's getting more national attention today. The commentator I was watching said the defense counsel is one of the best in the state of Georgia. When he got locked up (for not disclosing how he became aware of meetings with the Judge, the prosecutors, and a witness), Ashleigh Merchant showed up with another attorney to represent the defense counsel. Those who followed the Fani Willis case might remember that Merchant was the one who'd represented one of the co-Defendants.

Merchant is very good IMO and the Judge seemed very confused about the distinctions between criminal and civil contempt. He wound up entering an Order jailing defense counsel on the weekends but allowing him to continue representing Young Thug in the case. I imagine the appeal was already filed.

I don't have an opinion on whether the ex parte discussions/meetings were appropriate or not, but what a crazy series of events.

Young Thug’s lawyer held in contempt in Atlanta gang trial, sentenced to 10 weekends in jail

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.

****

”We’re not OK with this,” Merchant said. “We’re not going to let this happen to our brother, who was simply doing his job ... This is not how advocates should be treated. It’s hard enough being a criminal defense attorney, and we shouldn’t be threatened with jail.”

Merchant arrived at the Fulton courthouse along with about two dozen other Atlanta attorneys willing to advocate for Steel.

 

Here's one of the earlier clips from yesterday before the attorney got locked up.

 

I don't know Georgia law, but what the prosecution seems to be arguing is that it was a meeting about a witness being compelled to testify (I assume he has been granted immunity?) and those related issues. They say those issues were part of a separate proceeding and defense counsel didn't have a right to be present. The defense seems to be implying that the Judge was involved in trying to strong-arm the witness to help the prosecution at a time during the trial and after the witness had already been sworn in. I don't know what's allowed or what's typical in Georgia.

 

Judge doubled down today. The witness at issue wanted to fire his attorney (whom it appears was representing him on a limited basis in connection with whether he was going to testify). The attorney wanted to withdraw, and everybody else in the courtroom seemed to be okay with it, particularly since the guy is now testifying. The Judge wasn't initially going to allow counsel to withdraw but was told that the 10 day notice requirement for withdraw didn't apply here because the client was in agreement (he actually said he didn't want her anymore).The Judge came back and let her withdraw but issued a written Order to Show Cause to everyone (including her, court staff, etc.) who were at the ex parte meeting, requiring them to show up for a hearing in a couple weeks.

Maybe the Judge knows what he's doing, but the accounts I've been following seem to think the Judge is digging a deeper hole and creating more problems for himself.

 

They argued about your bolded point last night. If I heard correctly, the attorneys representing the defense counsel who was held in contempt take the position that Rule 1.6 of the Professional Rules of Conduct (linked below) applies, whether or not the information came from the client himself or someone else. As such, their position is that by demanding the source of the information, the Court put defense counsel in the position of having to decide between going to jail and hurting his client/potentially losing his Bar card. Interesting issues for sure.

Rule 1.6(a) states, in part, the following: "A lawyer shall maintain in confidence all information gained in the professional relationship with a client, including information which the client has requested to be held inviolate or the disclosure of which would be embarrassing or would likely be detrimental to the client, unless the client gives informed consent, except for disclosures that are impliedly authorized in order to carry out the representation, or are required by these rules or other law, or by order of the court."

https://www.gabar.org/Handbook/index.cfm#handbook/rule57