Courts and the Judiciary

Subterms

    Latest story

    100 Shares169 Views

    What Happens Now in Young Thug’s YSL Trial?

    by

    Already the longest in Georgia history, the star rapper’s trial has been turned upside down. Here’s the latest as the case resumes after an eight-week delay.More than two years since the arrest of the star Atlanta rapper Young Thug on racketeering, gang conspiracy and weapons charges, his trial alongside five co-defendants is already the longest in Georgia’s history. And it is nowhere near finished.On Monday, some 19 months after the start of jury selection and nine months following opening statements, the jury will return to the courtroom to hear testimony for the first time since June 17.They will do so in a changed landscape: Judge Ural Glanville, who had been presiding over the case since the start, was instructed to step down last month and was replaced by Judge Paige Reese Whitaker following a series of heated back-and-forths and motions from the defense about the handling of an uncooperative witness for the prosecution.About 75 witnesses have testified so far, and prosecutors have told Judge Whitaker that they plan to call some 105 more; estimates backed by the new judge predict the trial will likely last through the first quarter of 2025.But the appointment of Judge Whitaker — actually the case’s third judge, because of another typically dramatic twist — is in some ways a fresh start, as she attempts to put a runaway train of a trial back on track.“This has been a long-running and multifaceted proceeding,” Judge Whitaker wrote in one of many decisions she had to make before the case could resume. “Challenges have been myriad and formidable. Frustrations may have been mounting while fortitude was waning.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    More stories

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in Music

      Judge in Young Thug Trial Is Ordered Off the Case

      by

      Judge Ural Glanville, who had overseen the case for more than two years, must step aside for meeting with prosecutors and a key witness without the defense.The unpredictable, much-delayed criminal trial of Young Thug, the Atlanta rap star, has been thrown for another loop: The judge overseeing the case for two years has been ordered to step aside.Following weeks of upheaval in the courtroom over an uncooperative witness, a judge in Fulton County, Ga., ruled on Monday that Judge Ural Glanville, who has already presided over 10 months of jury selection and eight months of arguments, must recuse himself in order to preserve “the public’s confidence in the judicial system.”The trial has been paused for two weeks and will resume once a new judge is assigned to the case.The move to have Judge Glanville removed stemmed from motions by lawyers for Young Thug, born Jeffery Williams, and another of the rapper’s five co-defendants in the sprawling gang conspiracy case after the judge met secretly with prosecutors and a key witness who refused to testify last month. The defense lawyers said they should have been present for, or at least informed of, the meeting, calling it “improper and coercive.”The ruling by one of Judge Glanville’s judicial colleagues disagreed. “While the meeting could have — and perhaps should have — taken place in open court, nothing about the fact of the meeting or the substance discussed was inherently improper,” Judge Rachel Krause wrote in her decision.But the fact that Judge Glanville defended his actions regarding the meeting in court and ruled on related motions instead of immediately referring those decisions to another judge meant that he should step aside to assure fairness, Judge Krause wrote.“This court has no doubt that Judge Glanville can and would continue presiding fairly over this matter if the recusal motions were denied,” the decision said, “but the ‘necessity of preserving the public’s confidence in the judicial system’ weighs in favor of excusing Judge Glanville from further handling of this case.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Judge to Rule Next Week on Whether to Dismiss Alec Baldwin Case

      by

      During a heated hearing, Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers claimed prosecutors had improperly presented evidence to the grand jury considering the fatal shooting on the set of “Rust.”A judge in New Mexico will rule next week on whether to dismiss the involuntary manslaughter indictment against Alec Baldwin in the fatal shooting of a cinematographer on the “Rust” film set, after she closely questioned the lead prosecutor on Friday about her handling of grand jury proceedings.Lawyers for Mr. Baldwin — who was rehearsing with an old-fashioned revolver on the set in 2021 when it fired a live bullet, killing the cinematographer, Halyna Hutchins — had lodged numerous objections to how the case has been handled, calling the prosecution “an abuse of an innocent person whose rights have been trampled to the extreme.”The defense claimed at a hearing on Friday that the prosecution had not sufficiently shown the jurors evidence that could have supported Mr. Baldwin’s case. That included presenting witnesses who could have bolstered the defense’s contention that Mr. Baldwin had no reason to think that the gun was loaded with live ammunition and that actors are not responsible for gun safety on film sets.“The court can have no comfort in this indictment; it can have no comfort in the way it was procured,” a lawyer representing Mr. Baldwin, Alex Spiro, argued at the hearing, which took place virtually. “It cannot possibly believe it was fair and impartial.”Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers have assigned blame to the movie’s weapons specialist, Hannah Gutierrez-Reed, who was convicted of involuntary manslaughter in a trial this year and sentenced to 18 months in prison, and to the movie’s first assistant director, Dave Halls, who has acknowledged that he failed to properly inspect the gun that day and took a plea deal.Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer of the First Judicial District Courthouse in Santa Fe, N.M., questioned the lead prosecutor in the case, Kari T. Morrissey, on the defense’s complaints about how she had presented the case to the grand jury. The judge pressed Ms. Morrissey on the defense’s claim that she had “steered grand jurors away” from their proposed witnesses.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in Movies

      Netanyahu Trial Gets a Hollywood Mention From a Political Rival

      by

      Yair Lapid, a former colleague and now nemesis of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, testified that he had been asked to help a wealthy film producer with a tax break.The leader of Israel’s political opposition, Yair Lapid, testified on Monday in the long-running corruption trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, recounting how Mr. Netanyahu had lobbied him nearly a decade ago to back tax breaks favoring an influential Israeli film producer.The claim is a small part of a yearslong prosecution in which Mr. Netanyahu is accused of granting political favors to several businessmen and media moguls in exchange for expensive gifts and positive news coverage, charges that he denies.The appearance of Mr. Lapid — once a colleague of Mr. Netanyahu’s and now his nemesis — enlivened a slow-moving courtroom process that has largely receded into the background of Israeli public life since it began with great fanfare more than three years ago.Mr. Lapid served as prime minister for several months last year, before losing power to Mr. Netanyahu, Israel’s longest-serving leader, in December.Mr. Lapid briefly gave evidence about two short conversations with Mr. Netanyahu in 2013 and 2014, when he served as Mr. Netanyahu’s finance minister in a coalition government. Mr. Lapid said that Mr. Netanyahu twice had raised the possibility of extending tax exemptions for Israeli citizens who had returned to the country after living abroad, a mechanism that Mr. Lapid opposed.The extension would have benefited Arnon Milchan, a producer of scores of major Hollywood films including “Fight Club” and “Pretty Woman.” Prosecutors say Mr. Milchan gave Mr. Netanyahu’s family expensive gifts, including cigars and Champagne, in exchange for political favors.According to Mr. Lapid, Mr. Netanyahu twice described the tax exemption as “a good law.” But Mr. Netanyahu did not pursue the matter beyond those two exchanges, Mr. Lapid said. The prime minister gave the impression that he simply wanted to go through the motions of asking about it so that he could tell Mr. Milchan that he had tried, Mr. Lapid added.“The whole issue was marginal in real time,” Mr. Lapid said, according to Kan, the Israeli public broadcaster. “It’s hard to remember all the details.”Mr. Netanyahu has been accused of granting political favors to businessmen and media moguls in exchange for expensive gifts and positive news coverage, charges that he denies.Pool photo by Menahem KahanaThe trial began in 2020 and will most likely not hinge on Mr. Lapid’s evidence: It is expected to last several more years and features several more accusations. Among other claims, prosecutors accuse Mr. Netanyahu of promising to pursue legislation that would create unfavorable business conditions for a newspaper owned by Sheldon Adelson, a billionaire supporter of Mr. Netanyahu and President Donald J. Trump, in exchange for positive coverage from one of the newspaper’s competitors.Many Israelis have tuned out of the day-to-day proceedings, with a large proportion having already made up their minds about Mr. Netanyahu. His supporters view the trial as a trumped-up effort to delegitimize an elected prime minister, while his critics say it should disqualify him from office.But regardless of its outcome, the trial has already caused unusual political instability. It has divided Israeli society almost equally between Mr. Netanyahu’s supporters and critics, making it difficult for either Mr. Netanyahu or opponents like Mr. Lapid to win a stable majority in Parliament. That has caused several successive governments to collapse prematurely, leading to five elections in less than four years.The trial is also at the center of an ongoing dispute about the future of the Israeli judiciary.Mr. Netanyahu’s coalition seeks to overhaul the court system, giving the government greater control over the selection of Supreme Court judges and diminishing the court’s power over Parliament. Mr. Netanyahu says the overhaul is necessary to reduce the influence of unelected judges over elected lawmakers, but his critics fear that the plan will ultimately allow him to end his trial. Mr. Netanyahu denies any such intention.Mr. Lapid’s appearance highlighted the nuances beneath the surface of Israeli politics: Though he now seeks Mr. Netanyahu’s political downfall, Mr. Lapid was once his political ally — and socialized with and briefly worked for Mr. Milchan. Under cross-examination, Mr. Lapid recounted how he interviewed Mr. Milchan in the 1990s, during his previous career as a journalist, and even joined Mr. Milchan’s production company for several months.“We remained friends after that,” Mr. Lapid said, according to Kan. “When he would come to Israel, we would meet for dinners. He is a charming man and I liked him.”But that friendship did not extend to helping Mr. Milchan with his tax, Mr. Lapid said.Gabby Sobelman More

    • 113 Shares189 Views

      in Music

      'Framing Britney Spears’: The Long Fight to ‘Free Britney’

      by

      #masthead-section-label, #masthead-bar-one { display: none }What to WatchBest Movies on NetflixBest of Disney PlusBest of Amazon PrimeBest Netflix DocumentariesNew on NetflixAdvertisementContinue reading the main storySupported byContinue reading the main storyThe Long Fight to ‘Free Britney’Britney Spears hasn’t been able to fully live her own life for 13 years, stuck in a court-sanctioned conservatorship. A new documentary by The New York Times examines what the public might not know about the pop star’s court battle with her father for control of her estate.Jan. 25, 2021, 2:09 p.m. ETA new episode of The New York Times Presents, on FX and Hulu, coming Friday, Feb. 5, at 10 p.m.CreditCredit…Ting-Li Wang/The New York Times‘Framing Britney Spears’Producer/Director Samantha StarkWatch on Friday, Feb. 5, at 10 p.m. on FX and streaming on Hulu.“My client has informed me that she is afraid of her father,” Britney Spears’s court-appointed lawyer told a judge in November. “She will not perform again if her father is in charge of her career.”The career of one of music’s biggest superstars — and her life, in some ways — is at a standstill.The country was enthralled with Spears in the 1990s as she suddenly ascended to global superstardom. Then the public seemed to relish watching her personal struggles, turning her life into fodder for late-night talk show zingers, sensationalist interviewers and a thriving tabloid magazine industry.That was a long time ago. These days, Spears is enduring a stranger, and maybe even darker chapter: She lives under a court-sanctioned conservatorship, her rights curtailed. She is not in control of the fortune she earned as a performer.Spears entered the conservatorship in 2008, at age 26, when her struggles were on public display. Now she is 39, and a growing number of her fans are agitating on her behalf, raising questions about civil liberties while trying to deduce what Spears wants.A new feature-length documentary by The New York Times captures what the public might not know about the nature of Spears’s conservatorship and her court battle with her father over who should control her estate.Credit…Photos courtesy of Felicia CulottaThe documentary, “Framing Britney Spears,” features interviews with key insiders, including:a lifelong family friend who traveled alongside Spears for much of her careerthe marketing executive who originally created Spears’s imagea lawyer currently working on the conservatorshipand the lawyer Spears tried to hire in the early days of the conservatorship to challenge her fatherThe new film, on FX and Hulu, also explores the fervent fan base that is convinced Spears should be liberated from the conservatorship, and re-examines the media’s handling of one of the biggest pop stars of all time.Senior Editor Liz DayProducer Liz HodesDirector of Photography Emily TopperVideo Editors Geoff O’Brien and Pierre TakalAssociate Producer Melanie Bencosme“The New York Times Presents” is a series of documentaries representing the unparalleled journalism and insight of The New York Times, bringing viewers close to the essential stories of our time.AdvertisementContinue reading the main story More