Young Thug has vehemently denied a Detective’s claim that he snitched to him in a murder trial many years ago — and the rapper’s attorneys in his YSL RICO case are fighting to have that cop’s testimony thrown out.
According to new court documents obtained by HipHopDX, the motions in limine — which were filed on Friday (June 23) and Thursday (June 29) — argue that Detective Quinn, who is a witness for the prosecution, will be falsely representing that the Thugger (real name Jeffery Williams) snitched to the detective in an unrelated murder case.
Therefore, attorney Brian Steel is requesting that Judge Ural Glanville exclude Detective Quinn’s testimony, claiming it’s “not accurate, places Mr. Williams’ character at issue, and is irrelevant to the trial of the above referenced case.”
What’s more, Steel is requesting that Glanville exclude any 911 calls made by Young Thug in connection to this unnamed murder, and that Young Thug’s “right to a fair trial” needs to be preserved.
Check out the filings below:
Brian Steel also reportedly sought to dismiss the RICO charges leveled against his client and all YSL co-defendants due to the statute of limitations, but it’s unclear if the judge will agree to it.
That request, which was also filed on Friday, argues that the accusations are beyond the statute of limitations for a state RICO charge and need to be expunged from the indictment.
“In order to satisfy the crime of RICO conspiracy, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that at least one (1) overt act was committed in furtherance of the conspiracy within the Statute of Limitations,” the motion reads. “To satisfy the Statute of Limitations, the overt act must have occurred within five (5) years of the filing of the Bill of Indictment with the Clerk of Court.”
It continues: “Approximately overt act numbers 62 through 191 are alleged to have occurred on a date within five (5) years of May 9, 2022, the date of the original Bill of Indictment as well as the re-Indictment. The re-indictment was filed with the Fulton County Clerk of Court on August 5, 2022.
“Both the original Indictment as well as the re-Indictment have overt acts numbers 1 through approximately 61 with a date more than five (5) years before the return of the Indictment. Since overt acts numbers 1 through about 61 are outside of the five (5) year Statute of Limitations, these overt acts cannot support a conviction of Mr. Williams (or any of the accused) since said overt acts are outside of the five (5) year Statute of Limitations.”
The motion concludes: “The inclusion of any overt act dated before approximately May, 2017, is other crime evidence barred by the applicable Statute of Limitations and is prejudicial to Mr. Williams and has no probative value. Hence, same must be stricken from this Indictment pursuant to this Special Demurrer/Statute of Limitations Plea in Bar.”