Contempt Of Attorney For Grammy Winner Defendant Reversed

A contempt finding against a trial attorney has been reversed by the Georgia Supreme Court

A trial court found attorney Brian Steel in contempt of court for refusing to tell the court how he learned about the court’s ex parte hearing with a witness and prosecutors in a case in which Steel is representing one of the defendants. Steel appeals from that contempt order, arguing that the evidence did not support a contempt finding because he did not interfere with the court’s administration of justice, his information was protected by attorneyclient privilege, and due process required the judge to recuse from the contempt proceeding. Because the court delayed punishment, the alleged disobedience was directed toward the court, and the court was involved in the controversy that formed the basis of the contempt, due process required the judge to recuse from the contempt proceeding. We therefore reverse the judgment of contempt imposed by the trial court.

In a criminal RICO case brought under state law, an immunized witness had refused to testify

The following Monday morning, Judge Glanville held an ex parte meeting with the witness, the witness’s counsel, and State prosecutors and investigators to discuss whether the witness would testify for the State. The meeting, taken down by a court reporter and transcribed for the record, took place in Judge Glanville’s chambers and comprised most of the morning, at the end of which the witness said he would testify. The witness gave limited testimony before a lunch recess was taken.

Following the recess, Steel informed Judge Glanville that Steel had learned about the ex parte meeting and moved for a mistrial. Judge Glanville stated that he was “disturbed because that is ex parte” and repeatedly asked Steel to reveal the source of his information, informing Steel that “if you don’t tell me how you got this information, then you and I are going to have some problems.” Steel refused to reveal his source, and Judge Glanville told Steel that it was “disturbing that somehow you have surreptitiously gotten information in regard to the Court’s private ex parte conversation with a party.” Judge Glanville repeatedly told Steel that he was going to hold him in contempt if Steel did not tell him who disclosed the ex parte meeting. Steel claimed that the information was covered by attorney-client privilege; challenged by Judge Glanville, Steel also said it was attorney work product. Judge Glanville then took a recess.

Eventually the attorney was taken into custody

At the end of the day, after jurors were released, Judge Glanville asked Steel if he was willing to reveal who disclosed the ex parte information. Steel informed the court that the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers sent an attorney to represent Steel because the court accused Steel of eavesdropping, which is a crime. Judge Glanville informed Steel’s attorney that he was “about to enter” an order of contempt, was offering Steel another chance to purge, and that was “the only thing I’m trying to do at this point in time.” Steel’s counsel argued that due process required Judge Glanville to refer the matter to another judge since Steel was entitled to a hearing and Judge Glanville would be a witness at that hearing. Judge Glanville rejected those arguments, sentenced Steel to 20 days in jail to be served on weekends, and stated that Steel was not entitled to a supersedeas bond. The written order reflecting this sentence did not provide Steel an opportunity to purge the contempt.

Due process

Because the announcement of a specific punishment was delayed by the trial court, Steel was entitled to additional process. In particular, he was entitled to have the matter heard by a different judge. Steel’s repeated refusal to comply with Judge Glanville’s direct order was conduct directed toward the judge. Steel continued to challenge the propriety of the ex parte meeting and asserted that he could not legally comply with Judge Glanville’s order to disclose his source. The exchange between Steel and Judge Glanville makes clear that Judge Glanville was involved in the controversy. For these reasons, a different judge should have presided over the contempt hearing, and the failure to do so requires reversal.

Courthouse News Serice reported that the judge had been removed from the high-profile case

A fellow Superior Court judge removed the Georgia judge overseeing the criminal racketeering case against Grammy-winning hip-hop artist Young Thug from the case Monday amid complaints he and prosecutors improperly held a meeting with a key prosecution witness.

The rapper and his co-defendant, Deamonte Kendrick, filed the recusal motions after Fulton County Superior Court Chief Judge Ural Glanville held a private meeting on June 10 with prosecutors and a key state witness, Kenneth Copeland, in his chambers.

Glanville defended his conduct when he denied an initial recusal motion from Kendrick, claiming that it was within his authority as judge and that it did not give the prosecution any tactical advantage.

However, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause said in her order that in Glanville “added facts, provided context, questioned the veracity of allegations and otherwise explained his decisions and actions and argued why those actions were proper,” which violates Georgia statutes establishing that a judge cannot rule on their own recusals.

Krause wrote that she generally agreed with Glanville regarding the propriety of his role in the meeting, but it was the judge’s conduct after the meeting that guided her to ultimately remove Glanville from the case.

The trial is being broadcast on Law & Crime. (Mike Frisch)