The YSL RICO trial has taken another turn as Young Thug‘s attorney, Brian Steel, has filed yet another motion in limine on his client’s behalf.
Court documents obtained by HipHopDX reveal that Steel filed his latest motion on Wednesday (July 5), where he moved “to exclude any and all recorded jail calls made by anyone other than Mr. Williams as said jail calls are hearsay and/or violate the Confrontation Clause.”
AD LOADING...
In a nutshell, Steel is claiming that any calls made from behind bars have members of law enforcement sitting in and listening on them, which can then be used in other criminal prosecutions. This suggests — though does not definitively confirm — that these conversations are incriminating in nature, which is why Steel wants them excluded from the record.
Check out Steel’s latest motion in limine — the 21st he’s brought on behalf of the “Gang Up” rapper — below.
Last month, Steel filed two other motions in limine on behalf of Young Thug. These motions argued that Detective Quinn, who is a witness for the prosecution, will be falsely representing that Thugger (real name Jeffery Williams) snitched to the detective in an unrelated murder case.
Therefore, attorney Brian Steel requested 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.”
AD LOADING...
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.
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.
AD LOADING...
That request, which was also filed on June 23, 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.”
AD LOADING...
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.”
