Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Yep, it's the first two paragraphs of this article "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."



What you’re saying here is totally different than the part I quoted of what you said earlier.

You’re saying what I saw in the video. He confronted the judge in open court by bringing a motion in the courtroom during the trial.

That’s totally different from what you wrote, which is what I was asking about:

> That's because he shows up at the judges chambers where the witness and the prosecution are having a conference with the judge.

You said he showed up at the judges chambers _during_ the ex parte meeting. That didn’t happen. He showed up _in the courtroom_ during the trial in which he was representing a defendant.


I'm just going by the article linked here, isn't that what you can see? It says he attended the conference and wouldn't say who told him about it. Not sure how the YouTube links up to it unless either of those accounts is just wrong?

Are you sure the YouTube video is of the same hearing day? Maybe it hasnt happened yet in the YouTube footage? Usually these are multiple days


> I'm just going by the article linked here,

I think you must've misread something then. The article doesn't say the lawyer attended the conference.

The ex-parte meeting took place in the morning _before_ the YouTube video. The YouTube video covers the proceedings which occur in open court, which is what the article is a summary of.

I've read a fair amount about this at this point, and I'm 100% confident that the lawyer that was briefly arrested did not at any point in time attend the ex-parte meeting.

The only confrontation that took place was in the court room, in open court, as shown in the YouTube livestream linked above.


At this point I think we can agree that the article is poorly written because we don't even unambiguously understand what actually happened.


I still don’t know what part of the article leads you to believe that there was a confrontation at the judge’s chambers.

I don’t see anything in the article that makes me think that.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: