Young Thug‘s attorney, Brian Steel, has filed yet another motion in limine on behalf of his client in the ongoing YSL RICO trial.
According to court documents obtained by HipHopX, Young Thug’s attorney, Brian Steel, filed his latest motion on Wednesday (July 5). In the motion, he requested to remove any recorded jail calls made by anyone other than Mr. Williams, arguing that they constitute hearsay and/or violate the Confrontation Clause.
Steel claims that law enforcement officials listen to jail calls, including those made by Young Thug, which could be used against them in other criminal cases. He argues that these conversations should be excluded from the trial because they may contain incriminating information.
Last month, Young Thug’s attorney, Brian Steel, filed two other motions in limine on behalf of his client. These motions argue that Detective Quinn, a prosecution witness, will be falsely representing that Young Thug (whose real name is Jeffery Williams) snitched to the detective in an unrelated murder case.
Attorney Brian Steel is now urging Judge Ural Glanville to exclude Detective Quinn’s testimony, asserting that it’s “not accurate, places Mr. Williams’ character at issue, and is irrelevant to the trial of the above referenced case.”
Furthermore, Steel is also seeking Judge Glanville’s ruling to exclude any 911 calls made by Young Thug in relation to the undisclosed murder case. He argues that Young Thug’s “right to a fair trial” must be preserved.
Brian Steel reportedly also made a request to dismiss the RICO charges against his client and YSL co-defendants, due to the statute of limitations. However, it remains uncertain whether the judge will grant this request.
Brian Steel, representing Young Thug, filed a motion on Friday (June 23), seeking the dismissal of RICO charges against both Young Thug and YSL’s co-defendants. Steel argued 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.”