Legal News
Page: 3
The federal judge overseeing Sean “Diddy” Combs’ racketeering and sex trafficking case has denied his request for a gag order against his victims and their lawyers, ruling the demand “unprecedented” and “unwarranted.”
Attorneys for the embattled rapper claimed last month that “inflammatory extrajudicial statements” from victims and their attorneys were hurting his chances of a fair trial, but Judge Arun Subramanian ruled Friday (Nov. 8) that such “an extreme remedy” would threaten free speech.
“The court has an affirmative constitutional duty to ensure that Combs receives a fair trial,” the judge wrote. “But this essential … requirement must be balanced with the protections the First Amendment affords to those claiming to be Combs’s victims.”
“The unprecedented relief that Combs seeks on this motion is unwarranted,” the judge added.
Combs, also known as Puff Daddy and P. Diddy, was once one of the most powerful men in the music industry. But in September, he was indicted by federal prosecutors on charges of racketeering and sex trafficking over what they say was a sprawling criminal operation aimed at satisfying his need for “sexual gratification.” If convicted on all the charges, he faces a potential sentence of life in prison.
Last month, following the latest wave of civil abuse lawsuits against Combs, his lawyer asked Judge Subramanian to issue a sweeping gag order, claiming the lawyers behind the civil cases had made “shockingly prejudicial and false allegations” about him.
“Mr. Combs has a constitutional right to a fair trial, free from the influence of prejudicial statements in the press,” his attorney Marc Agnifilo wrote in the Oct. 20 motion. “These prospective witnesses and their lawyers have made numerous inflammatory extrajudicial statements aimed at assassinating Mr. Combs’s character in the press.”
But in Friday’s decision, Judge Subramanian ruled that the order Combs was seeking was “incredibly broad” and would have “sweeping First Amendment implications.”
“Not all alleged victims will be participants in this case, and a blanket restriction on their speech will silence individuals who may never have anything to do with the proceedings here,” the judge wrote.
The judge said he had “already taken steps to limit what can be said publicly” about the case and was “open to other tailored proposals that will help ensure a fair trial.” He also said Combs could take specific actions in the various civil lawsuits he was facing if the lawyers in those cases misbehave. But he said he could not do anything close to what Combs was seeking.
“A gag order … is an extreme remedy to be issued only as a last resort,” the judge wrote. “What Combs seeks goes even further.”
Separately on Friday, Combs’ lawyers also renewed their request that he be released from jail on a $50 million bond while he awaits trial. That request has been repeatedly denied since Combs was arrested, but the new filing cited the fact that former Abercrombie & Fitch CEO Mike Jeffries — another high-profile defendant accused of sex trafficking in New York — was immediately released on a $10 million bond after he was arrested last month.
“The government recently successfully requested pretrial release for two similarly situated defendants, including a CEO accused of sex trafficking dozens of young men, including through witness intimidation,” Agnifilo wrote in the new motion. “The conditions of release requested in Jeffries pale in comparison to the conditions proposed by Mr. Combs here.”
Federal prosecutors are citing Lil Durk’s lyrics in the criminal case accusing him of ordering his OTF associates to murder rapper Quando Rondo in a 2022 shooting, arguing he sought to “commercialize” the crime by “rapping about his revenge.”
Two weeks after the Chicago rapper (Durk Banks) was arrested and charged with conspiracy to commit murder-for-hire, prosecutors unveiled a new indictment Friday over the 2022 attack at a Los Angeles gas station, which left Rondo (Tyquian Bowman) unscathed but saw friend Lul Pab (Saviay’a Robinson) killed in the crossfire.
The updated indictment added two additional felony counts against Durk on top of the original conspiracy charge, including another murder-for-hire count and a firearms count. It also consolidated Durk’s case with similar charges filed against several of his associates.
Trending on Billboard
But most notably, the amended charges included a brand new allegation: That Durk had directly referenced the shooting in a 2022 song: “Following the attempted murder of [Rondo] and the murder of [Lul Pab], defendant Banks sought to commercialize [Lul Pab]’s death by rapping about his revenge on [Rondo].”
The feds claim that the lyrics to Durk’s song — a track called “Wonderful Wayne & Jackie Boy” — make direct reference to a news clip filmed shortly after the shooting, in which Rondo can be heard screaming “no, no!” after seeing Lul Pab’s dead body.
“Told me they got an addy (go, go)/ Got location (go, go)/ Green light (go, go, go, go, go),” Durk raps in the lyrics referenced in the indictment. “Look on the news and see your son/You screamin’, “No, no” (pu–y).”
The use of rap music as evidence in criminal cases is controversial, as critics argue it threatens free speech and can sway juries by tapping into racial biases. Over the past few years, the practice has drawn backlash from the music industry and led to efforts by lawmakers to stop it. But it has continued largely unabated, most notably in the recent criminal case against Young Thug in Atlanta, in which prosecutors made extensive use of his music.
An attorney for Durk did not immediately return a request for comment.
Like the earlier charges, the new indictment claims that Durk’s Only The Family was not merely a well-publicized group of Chicago rappers, but a “hybrid organization” that also functioned as a criminal gang to carry out violent acts “at the direction” of Durk.
Prosecutors say one of those acts was the 2022 attempted killing of Rondo, allegedly carried out in retaliation for the 2020 killing of rapper King Von (Dayvon Bennett), a close friend of Durk’s.
“Banks put a monetary bounty out for an individual with whom Banks was feuding named T.B.,” referring to Rondo by his initials. “Banks ordered T.B.’s murder and the hitmen used Banks and OTF-related finances to carry out the murder.”
In addition to Durk, prosecutors have also charged several alleged OTF members — Kavon London Grant, Deandre Dontrell Wilson and Asa Houston — as well as two other alleged Chicago gang members named Keith Jones and David Brian Lindsey.
If convicted on all three counts he’s now facing, Durk is facing a potential sentence of life in prison.
Electronic music producer Bassnectar is asking a federal judge to dismiss a long-running civil lawsuit accusing him of sexually abusing three underage girls, arguing that all three alleged victims lied about their ages and had themselves instigated the relationships.
In a motion filed Monday (Nov. 4) in Nashville federal court, attorneys for the DJ (Lorin Ashton) argued that the case did not need to be decided by a jury because the discovery process — the investigation of evidence during a civil lawsuit — had revealed that there was no merit to the allegations.
“Discovery has confirmed that when each of the plaintiffs first contacted defendant, they lied about not only their ages, but also their level of education, as well as their work and life experiences,” his lawyers write. “Each plaintiff admitted to deceiving defendant into believing that she was over the age of eighteen.”
Ashton’s lawyers also say the discovery process has also made “crystal clear” that the DJ “never forced — in any way — plaintiffs into having a sexual relationship with him.”
“To the contrary, the record demonstrates that the pursuit of a sexual relationship between the parties was instigated by Plaintiffs, each of whom was always free to continue it or end it,” his attorneys write. “Plaintiffs simply cannot prove that they were coerced or that they felt that they had no other choice but to engage in a sexual relationship with Defendant.”
The filing comes more than three years after the three women — Rachel Ramsbottom, Alexis Bowling, and Jenna Houston — filed their lawsuit, accusing Ashton of using his “power and influence to groom and ultimately sexually victimize underage girls.”
The lawsuit, which accuses Ashton of sex trafficking, child pornography and negligence, claims that the star would invite minors to his shows, bring them to a hotel room and provide “large sums of cash and other items of value” in exchange for sex.
Last month, Ashton’s attorneys moved for “summary judgment,” meaning the judge would rule on the case without submitting it to a jury. They cited, among many other arguments, that state law enforcement had investigated Ramsbottom’s accusations and federal authorities had looked into Houston’s — and that prosecutors had declined to file charges in both instances.
Responding to that motion last month, attorneys for the accusers blasted Ashton for seeking to dismiss the case, claiming he had made damning admissions during depositions, including “knowing full well” that Ramsbottom was under 18. They also argued that he had clearly “groomed” them in such a way that facilitated the abuse.
“He entered their teenaged lives as a famous celebrity, engendered their trust, and made it such that his withdrawal of affection or the threat thereof, which the plaintiffs now understand to be abusive, caused each to continue their interaction with defendant,” their lawyers wrote at the time.
With Monday’s reply from Ashton’s attorneys, the case is now in the hands of the judge, who will decide in the coming weeks or months whether to order a jury trial or dismiss the accusations. Attorneys for both sides declined to comment.
Rapper Plies is suing Megan Thee Stallion, GloRilla, Cardi B and Souja Boy for copyright infringement over allegations that the 2024 song “Wanna Be” features an uncleared sample from his 2008 track “Me & My Goons.”
The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in Los Angeles federal court, says the Megan and GloRilla stole Plies’ material indirectly – that they used a legally-licensed sample of a Soulja Boy song that itself illegally borrowed from “Goons.”
“Defendant Soulja Boy authorized Megan thee Stallion and GloRilla to sample [his song,]” lawyers for Plies write. “[Wanna Be] incorporates substantial elements of the copyrighted material underlying ‘Me & My Goons,’ without authorization from plaintiffs.”
Trending on Billboard
“Wanna Be,” released by Megan and GloRilla in early April, debuted at No. 11 on the Hot 100. A remix, featuring Cardi, was released in late May. The song features a prominent sample of Soulja Boy’s 2010 track “Pretty Boy Swag,” which spent 16 weeks on the chart that summer.
Plies (Algernod Washington), best known for his 2007 singles “Shawty” and “Hypnotized,” names all four stars (Megan Pete, Gloria Woods, Belcalis Almanzar and Deandre Way) as defendants in the lawsuit, as well as various companies and labels allegedly involved in the song.
Reps for the defendants did not immediately return requests for comment.
Lawsuits like the one Plies filed Wednesday – claiming that a legal sample featured an unlicensed sample – sound strange but aren’t uncommon. In the modern music industry, all samples in major releases are strictly cleared, and even borderline interpolations are often licensed to avoid any risk of litigation. But copyrighted material featured within the sampled songs can be trickier to identify.
Last month, a lawsuit filed by Barry White’s estate claimed that Future and Metro Boomin’s “Like That” sampled from a 1980s hip-hop song that had ripped off White’s music. And in May, a little known New Orleans group sued Beyoncé for the same thing over a sample of Big Freedia featured in “Break My Soul,” though they dropped the case several months later. White’s case remains pending; the case against Beyoncé was quickly dropped.
Read the entire lawsuit here:
Rapper Tekashi 6ix9ine has reached a deal with federal prosecutors after his recent arrest over alleged violations of his supervised release, agreeing to spend a month in prison and another under house arrest.
The rapper was charged last week with breaking the terms of his years-long probation, which stems from a 2018 plea deal he struck with prosecutors over his involvement with a gang called Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods.
In a letter to the judge filed Tuesday, federal prosecutors said Tekashi had agreed to admit to the probation violations and serve one month in prison, followed by a month of home incarceration, a month of less-restrictive home detention, and then finally a month of curfew.
Trending on Billboard
The deal will also extend Tekashi’s supervised release — which had been set to expire in six months – to a full year following his release from prison. The rapper’s attorney did not immediately return a request for comment.
Once a rising star in the world of hip-hop and social media, Tekashi was charged in November 2018 with federal racketeering and murder conspiracy charges over his involvement with a New York street gang called Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods. Prosecutors claimed the gang “wreaked havoc on New York City” by “engaging in brazen acts of violence.”
But just a day after being arrested, Tekashi cut a deal with federal prosecutors to flip on his crew in return for lenience. Taking the witness stand during a 2019 trial, he offered detailed and frank testimony about his involvement in the gang and his former gang mates.
Under the deal with prosecutors, Tekashi was sentenced to two years in prison and five years of supervised release and ordered to serve 1,000 hours of community service and pay a $35,000 fine.
The sentence was set to run until July 2020, but Tekashi was released early, in April 2020, after his attorneys argued that the coronavirus pandemic posed an increased risk to him because he has asthma.
Last week, prosecutors alleged that Tekashi had violated his release conditions on numerous occasions, including by traveling to Las Vegas without permission, failing to submit for drug testing and testing positive for methamphetamine.
At his arraignment hearing, the rapper pleaded not guilty and his attorney argued that the failed drug test was from the use of prescribed Adderall. But the judge was unswayed and ordered him jailed until his next court date, citing a “broader pattern” of misconduct during parole that the judge said suggests a “full spectrum disregard for the law.”
Following Tuesday’s agreement, the judge ordered both sides to appear at a hearing next week (Nov. 12) to explain the plea deal and why the sentence “reflects the proper sentence for these violations.”
This is The Legal Beat, a weekly newsletter about music law from Billboard Pro, offering you a one-stop cheat sheet of big new cases, important rulings and all the fun stuff in between.
This week: Young Thug ends his years-long YSL RICO case with a guilty plea that results in no prison time; UMG accuses distributor TuneCore of “industrial-scale copyright infringement”; Ed Sheeran wins a case over “Let’s Get It On,”; Metro Boomin faces a sexual assault lawsuit; and much more.
THE BIG STORY: Young Thug Heads Home
And just like that, it was all over for Young Thug. More than two years after the Grammy-winning rapper was arrested as part of a sweeping Atlanta gang case, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to serve just 15 years probation with no prison time — a stunning end to a legal saga that rocked the music industry.
Trending on Billboard
Pitting prosecutors in America’s rap capital against one of hip-hop’s biggest stars, the case against Thug and his alleged “YSL” gang raised big questions — about the fairness of the criminal justice system; about violent personas in modern hip-hop; and about prosecutors using rap lyrics as evidence.
Thug, a chart-topping rapper and producer who helped shape the sound of hip-hop in the 2010s, was accused of being the kingpin of a violent gang that had wrought “havoc” on the Atlanta area for nearly a decade. But the case was a mess from the start, featuring endless witness lists, procedural missteps, a jailhouse stabbing and a bizarre episode that saw a judge removed from the case.
How did Young Thug go from that mess — the trial had no end in sight and was set to run well into 2025 — to walking away a free man? Go read my deep dive on the YSL endgame to find out.
Other top stories this week…
“RAMPANT PIRACY” – Universal Music Group filed a lawsuit against TuneCore and parent company Believe over allegations of “massive” copyright infringement, accusing the digital distributor of serving as a “hub” for the widespread dissemination of illegal copies of songs on streaming platforms and social media services, including those by Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga and many others. Seeking a whopping $500 million in damages, UMG claims TuneCore pursued “rapid growth” of its DIY distribution services by turning a blind eye to “rampant piracy” among its users: “Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement,” said the lawsuit. In a statement, Believe and TuneCore said they “strongly refute these claims” and would “fight them” in court.
“MUSICAL BUILDING BLOCKS” – Ed Sheeran won a ruling at a federal appeals court confirming that his “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe the copyright to Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” effectively ending one of several cases over the sonic similarities between the two hits. The lawsuit argued that Sheeran copied a chord progression and rhythm from Gaye’s iconic track, but the appeals court said the two songs share only “fundamental musical building blocks” that are “ubiquitous in pop music” — and that granting a “monopoly” on them to any single songwriter would “threaten to stifle creativity.”
METRO ALLEGATIONS – Superstar producer Metro Boomin was hit with a civil lawsuit over allegations that he raped and impregnated a woman named Vanessa LeMaistre during a drug-and-booze-fueled incident at a recording studio in 2016. The lawsuit claimed that the alleged assault was referenced in a song he produced — a surprising accusation, given that Metro does not write lyrics or rap himself and the lyrics in question were by 21 Savage and Offset.
TEKASHI ARRESTED – Tekashi 6ix9ine (Daniel Hernandez) was arrested and charged over allegations that he violated a plea agreement struck with prosecutors when he infamously agreed to testify against his former Brooklyn gangmates back in 2018. The provocative rapper had just six months left on the five years of supervised release he secured under that deal, but prosecutors accused him of traveling to Las Vegas without permission and failing a drug test for meth. Tekashi denied the charges at an arraignment hearing, but the judge — the same one who signed off on the plea deal — cited a “full spectrum disregard for the law” and ordered him held until his next court date later this month.
MEGAN THEE PLAINTIFF – Megan Thee Stallion sued a YouTuber and social media personality named Milagro Gramz (Milagro Elizabeth Cooper), accusing her of “churning out falsehoods” about the criminal case stemming from the 2020 incident in which Tory Lanez shot Megan in the foot. Calling Gramz a “mouthpiece and puppet” for Lanez, the superstar seemed intent on using the case as a warning shot to other bloggers who allegedly share false information about the high-profile case: “Enough is enough.”
“OPAQUE AND UNFAIR” – A federal appeals court ruled that Live Nation and Ticketmaster must face a class action claiming they abuse their dominance to charge “extraordinarily high” prices to hundreds of thousands of ticket buyers. In doing so, the court rejected Live Nation’s argument that fans had signed agreements that required them to resolve disputes via private arbitration. The court not only called those agreements “unconscionable and unenforceable” but also “opaque and unfair”; “poorly drafted and riddled with typos”; and “so dense, convoluted and internally contradictory to be borderline unintelligible.”
CASSIE VIDEO CLASH – Prosecutors in the case against Sean “Diddy” Combs told a federal judge that they had not been behind the leaking of the infamous 2016 surveillance video showing the rapper assaulting his ex-girlfriend Cassie Ventura, arguing that such accusations were merely gamesmanship by Diddy’s defense team with the goal of trying to “suppress a damning piece of evidence.”
DIDDY ACCUSER UNMASKED – A federal judge in one of the many civil cases against Combs ruled that one of his accusers cannot use a “Jane Doe” pseudonym, saying her right to avoid “public scrutiny” and “embarrassment” does not trump Diddy’s right to defend himself against such “heinous” allegations. The ruling is not binding on other judges, but it could influence how they handle the issue of numerous other cases that have been filed against Combs by Doe plaintiffs.
MADLIB v. EGON – Hip-hop producer Madlib filed a lawsuit against his former manager Eothen “Egon” Alapatt over allegations of “rank self-dealing,” claiming the exec abused his role to claim undue profits from Madlib’s music and commit other alleged misdeeds. The case claims that Egon believes he can “keep profiting from Madlib work and goodwill because there is nothing Madlib can do about it” and is demanding that the artist “buy him out” if he wants to end the relationship.
Universal Music Group (UMG), ABKCO and Concord Music Group have filed a lawsuit against Believe and its distribution company TuneCore, accusing them of “massive ongoing infringements” of their sound recordings, including tracks by Justin Bieber, Ariana Grande, Rihanna, ABBA, Kendrick Lamar, Lady Gaga, DJ Snake, Aqua and more. The companies are seeking “at least $500,000,000” in damages.
In a complaint filed Monday evening (Nov. 4) in Manhattan federal court by Andrew Bart and Gianni Servodidio at Jenner & Block, UMG, ABKCO and Concord Music Group accuse Believe of being “overrun with fraudulent ‘artists’ and pirate record labels” and distributing copies of those fraudulent recordings to various streaming services and social media sites.
Lawyers for the plaintiffs claim that “Believe makes little effort to hide its illegal actions” and that the allegedly infringing recordings are “often minor variants on the names of… famous recording artists and titles of their most successful works.” The complaint says the alleged fraudsters attempt to avoid detection of the allegedly infringing recordings — some of which, they claim, are “sped up” or “remixed” versions of popular songs — by using misspellings of popular artist names, including “Kendrik Laamar,” “Arriana Gramde,” “Jutin Biber” and “Llady Gaga.”
Trending on Billboard
“Believe is fully aware that its business model is fueled by rampant piracy” in “pursuit of rapid growth,” the lawsuit claims, adding that the company has “turned a blind eye” to the infringing content that makes its way to social media and streaming services through its platform.
Additionally, lawyers for UMG and the other plaintiffs say that “Believe has taken advantage of the content management claiming system” on YouTube “to divert” and “delay… payment of royalties” that belong to the record labels. It is “telling,” they add, that after YouTube resolves these conflicts regarding the rightful ownership of these sound recordings, “Believe continue[s] to distribute the exact same track to other digital music service providers and to seek royalties for use of that track from those providers.”
This is not the first time bad actors have been accused of using YouTube’s content management system to claim royalties that are not rightfully theirs. In 2022, two men in Phoenix, Arizona pled guilty to claiming $23 million worth of YouTube royalties from unknowing Latin musicians like Julio Iglesias, Anuel AA, and Daddy Yankee despite having no actual ties to those artists. To facilitate claiming those royalties, the two men, operating under the company name MediaMuv, used AdRev, a rights management firm owned by Downtown.
“Believe is a company built on industrial-scale copyright infringement,” said a spokesperson for UMG in a statement. “Their illegal practices are not limited to cheating artists on major labels but artists on independent labels as well — including artists on the independent labels within the trade bodies of which Believe is itself a member. It’s no wonder that Believe has been outspoken against the streaming reform principles for which so many major and independent labels have been advocating. Why? Because such reforms would undermine and expose their system of building scale and market presence by distributing music for which they have no rights and illegally collecting royalties to enrich themselves and their co-conspirators.”
The complaint specifically charges Believe with direct copyright infringement, contributory copyright infringement, vicarious copyright infringement, direct infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings, contributory infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings and vicarious infringement of pre-1972 sound recordings.
Representatives for Believe and TuneCore did not immediately respond to Billboard‘s requests for comment.
It’s been a busy year for TuneCore’s parent company Believe. On March 1, the French music giant, which was publicly traded on the Euronext Paris stock exchange, announced that its board of directors had approved the move to take it private and that there was an “interested party” looking to acquire it. First, however, the bidder was requesting due diligence information and financial data ahead of making a formal bid. Later that month, the name of the bidder was revealed when it was announced that Warner Music Group (WMG) had issued a formal notice to disclose its interest in acquiring Believe, which also owns publishing administrator Sentric as well as labels like Naïve, Nuclear Blast and Groove Attack.
In early April, however, WMG called off its plans to submit a formal offer. The label did not elaborate on its decision, stating only that it was made “after careful consideration.” On April 19, Believe’s board of directors announced it was supporting an offer to take the company private at 15 euros ($15.98) per share from a consortium of funds managed by TCV, EQT X and Believe chairman/CEO Denis Ladegaillerie. The board’s three independent members unanimously voted in favor of an opinion that the bid was in the interest of minority shareholders.
Fraud and copyright infringement have been hot-button issues in the music business as the industry becomes more and more democratized, offering anyone the opportunity to release music in hours — sometimes minutes — at the click of a button. In response, TuneCore, along with CD Baby, Distrokid and other competitors, set up “Music Fights Fraud,” a coalition designed to stop bad actors from hopping from service-to-service to release songs they don’t own the rights to. A number of initiatives, including Credits Due, have since launched to try to fix metadata problems in the music business that can leave artists susceptible to royalty stealing and fraud, particularly on sites like YouTube.
Still, despite these efforts, TuneCore and other DIY distributors have been accused of allowing bad actors to use their sites to upload infringing or fraudulent content. In August 2020, Round Hill Music’s publishing arm sued TuneCore for “willful and unauthorized use” of 219 of their sound recordings. And in 2022, Billboard reported that some music executives believe Create Music Group games the system on YouTube to claim royalties, with one label source claiming the company was doing so “egregiously.”
Just last month, TikTok also rang the alarm bell about fraudulent content when it backed out of licensing negotiations with Merlin, a coalition of indie labels and distributors, to allegedly curb users uploading works they don’t own the rights to on the platform. TikTok said it would instead pursue individual licensing deals with labels and distributors that it considered to be safe.
British prosecutors say they have been given a file of evidence from police about alleged sexual offenses by comedian Russell Brand and are considering whether to charge him. The Crown Prosecution Service said late Saturday (Nov. 2) that “we have been passed a file by the police to consider a charging decision in this case. […]
When Young Thug went free Thursday (Oct. 31) after more than two years in custody, it didn’t come out of nowhere. It was the crescendo of a series of events that started months ago, transforming an endless, oft-delayed trial into a moment of catharsis for the superstar artist.
In June, the trial against Young Thug’s alleged “YSL” gang had been churning along for more than a year, stretching across 10 months of jury selection and five months of testimony. As the prosecutors worked through a vast list of witnesses, there was no clear end in sight — the trial was expected to run well into 2025, but even that was just a guess.
By this week, the state was handing out plea deals to multiple defendants, including offering one to Thug that would have sent him home immediately. He refused to take it, and his attorneys felt bold enough to simply plead guilty and hope the judge would set him free — a gamble that paid off.
Trending on Billboard
After a whirlwind week, it’s worth asking the question: How on earth did we get here?
The story starts on June 10, when Thug’s attorney Brian Steel made a stunning revelation in open court. He said he had learned of a secret “ex parte” meeting between Judge Ural Glanville, prosecutors and a key witness named Kenneth Copeland, and claimed that it warranted a mistrial.
Up to that point, Glanville’s handling of the case had resulted in an exceptionally slow pace. Though a sprawling racketeering case against many defendants was always going take time, the Glanville approach — featuring an unprecedented 10-month jury-selection process, repeated “comfort breaks,” and other delays in testimony — had put the case on pace to be the longest in state history.
At the June hearing, Steel alleged far more than bad pacing by Judge Glanville. He claimed that during the secret meeting, Glanville had helped prosecutors coerce the uncooperative Copeland into testifying with threats of extended jail time, all without notifying defense counsel.
The revelation set into motion case-changing events. Rather than addressing Steel’s concerns, Glanville repeatedly demanded to know who had told him about the meeting. When Steel refused to do so, the judge held him in criminal contempt and sentenced him to jail time — a ruling that was later overturned on appeal.
In the weeks that followed, Glanville repeatedly maintained that the ex parte meeting had been proper. But amid a barrage of demands that he either declare a mistrial or step aside, he finally referred the issue to another a judge to decide whether he could continue presiding over the trial.
On July 15, Judge Rachel Krause said that he could not. Though she ruled that the meeting did not appear to have been illegal, the judge ruled that Glanville would be removed from the case in order to preserve “the public’s confidence in the judicial system.”
That ruling punted the case to Judge Paige Reese Whitaker, a Fulton County jurist with a reputation for efficiency. She quickly showed why: On her first day on the bench, Whitaker said she wanted to pick up the pace, demanding that prosecutors be more organized in how they were presenting witnesses and testimony. “It should not take another seven months,” Whitaker said at that hearing.
By late September, Whitaker appeared to have reached her wits’ end with the prosecutors trying the case. Visibly frustrated at a Sept. 30 hearing, the judge blasted Chief Deputy DA Adriane Love and other government attorneys for “poor lawyering,” saying that their “haphazard” approach was making the trial more difficult for everyone involved.
“It is baffling to me that somebody with the number of years of experience that you have, time after time after time, continues to seemingly and purposefully hide the ball to the extent you possibly can, for as long as you possibly can,” Whitaker said. “I really don’t want to believe that it is purposeful but honestly, after a certain number of times, you start to wonder how can it be anything but that.”
Weeks later, that same “haphazard” approach led to an incident that set the stage for Thug’s eventual release
During witness testimony on Oct. 23, prosecutors were questioning a witness named Wunnie Lee (aka Slimelife Shawty), a former defendant in the YSL case who signed a plea agreement in exchange for testifying.
While on the stand, prosecutors asked Lee to identify certain defendants by showing him social media posts. While reading one of the posts, Lee read aloud the hashtag #freequa — a reference to a previous prison sentence for Marquavius Huey (aka Qua), one of Thug’s current co-defendants.
That was a crucial error by prosecutors. The jury was not supposed to know which defendants had previously been incarcerated, and defense attorneys argued that the government was supposed to redact the post and prep Lee not to mention it. After the admission before jurors, defense attorneys quickly moved for a mistrial. “We’re not going to be able to unring this bell,” one said.
The misstep quickly drew another sharp critique from Whitaker, who at one point told prosecutors that she was trying to find a way to “fix your sloppiness so that everybody won’t have wasted 10 to 12 months of their lives in this trial.” Though she refused to grant a mistrial that would permanently end the case, Whitaker warned that she might order that the massive trial be started over from scratch.
Faced with that disastrous prospect, prosecutors and defense attorneys quickly began talking about plea deals. Nobody wanted a mistrial: The DA’s office had already sunk years of taxpayer dollars into the costly case, and defendants had already sat in jail for years waiting for a verdict.
Days later, three of Young Thug’s co-defendants — Quamarvious Nichols, Marquavius “Qua” Huey and Rodalius “Lil Rod” Ryan — all reached deals with prosecutors. Two others — Deamonte “Yak Gotti” Kendrick and Shannon Stillwell — who are facing some of the most serious accusations in the case, refused to do so.
Like the other defense attorneys, Thug’s attorneys (Steel and co-counsel Keith Adams) hunkered down with prosecutors over the week to negotiate a potential deal. But at a press conference Thursday, Adams said the DA’s office did not approach the talks in “good faith” and appeared to only be trying to “save face.” Though they offered to let Thug escape the case with only 15 years probation and no prison time, Adams said they also insisted on onerous conditions in which Thug would affirm the state’s accusations against him.
With a judge that had shown herself to be highly skeptical of the prosecutors trying the case, Steel said Thursday that Thug and his legal team made the “excruciating” decision to plead guilty without a negotiated sentence — and to place their faith in Judge Whitaker for a lenient sentence.
“Negotiations totally broke down with the district attorney’s office, horribly broke down,” Steel told reporters. “At that point we believed that justice could be found with the honorable court. Jeffery just wanted to go home.”
The move was extremely risky. Prosecutors promptly told the judge that, in the absence of a negotiated plea deal, they were seeking a draconian sentence against Thug: a whopping 45 years, 25 of which would be served in prison and 20 more on probation.
After that, both Steel and Thug addressed the court, offering impassioned pleas for a light sentence. But before Whitaker handed down her sentence — just 15 years probation, allowing Thug to go home that day — she seemed most swayed by the conduct of the prosecutors themselves.
“It is not lost on the court that the state … was willing to entirely dismiss [several counts] and was willing to give a sentence that permitted Mr. Williams to walk out of the door today,” the judge said. “[The state] does not seem to be particularly worried that Mr. Williams, if on the streets, would be a danger to society.”
Following the sentence, Thug hugged his lawyers. By late Thursday evening, he had been released.
Ed Sheeran’s “Thinking Out Loud” did not infringe the copyright to Marvin Gaye‘s “Let’s Get It On,” a federal appeals court ruled Friday (Nov. 1), saying the two songs share only “fundamental musical building blocks” that cannot be owned by any single songwriter.
In a ruling issued more than a decade after Sheeran’s chart-topping hit was first released, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected an infringement lawsuit filed by Structured Asset Sales, a company that owns a small stake in the rights to Gaye’s song.
The case argued that Sheeran’s song copied a chord progression and rhythm from Gaye’s, but the appeals court said the lawsuit was essentially seeking “a monopoly over a combination of two fundamental musical building blocks.”
Trending on Billboard
“The four-chord progression at issue—ubiquitous in pop music—even coupled with a syncopated harmonic rhythm, is too well-explored to meet the originality threshold that copyright law demands,” a panel of appeals court judges wrote. “Overprotecting such basic elements would threaten to stifle creativity and undermine the purpose of copyright law.”
Looking at the two songs more broadly, the Second Circuit also ruled that Sheeran’s track was clearly not similar enough to Gaye’s to amount to copyright infringement: “Neither the melody nor the lyrics of ‘Thinking Out’ Loud bears any resemblance to those in ‘Let’s Get It On.’ Undeniable and obvious differences exist between them.”
Sheeran has faced multiple lawsuits over “Thinking,” a 2014 track co-written with Amy Wadge that reached No. 1 on the Billboard Hot 100 and ultimately spent 46 weeks on the chart. He was first sued by the daughter of Ed Townsend, who co-wrote the famed 1973 tune with Gaye. That case ended in a high-profile trial last year, resulting in a jury verdict that cleared Sheeran of any wrongdoing.
The case decided on Friday is a separate lawsuit filed by SAS, an entity owned by industry executive David Pullman that controls a different one-third stake in Townsend’s copyrights — meaning a one-ninth stake in the rights to Gaye’s iconic track. In May, weeks after the big jury verdict, a federal judge tossed out the SAS lawsuit, ruling that it was seeking an “impermissible monopoly over a basic musical building block.”
In upholding that decision on Friday, the Second Circuit echoed the earlier ruling’s concern about overprotecting copyrights and threatening future songwriting.
The chord progression and harmonic rhythm at issue in the case are “garden variety” elements that had been used in numerous songs, the appeals court said, pointing to evidence that they had appeared in “Georgy Girl” by The Seekers and “Since I Lost My Baby” by The Temptations — two tracks that predated Gaye’s song by years. The appeals court noted that there is a “limited number of notes and chords available” and that “common themes frequently reappear.”
“In the field of popular songs, many, if not most, compositions bear some similarity to prior songs,” the court wrote, quoting from a treatise on copyright law. “So while a similar chord progression and harmonic rhythm may create a similar sound and feel, that is not enough.”
The ruling is a major victory for Sheeran, but the battle over “Thinking” isn’t quite over yet. SAS also has another lawsuit against Sheeran pending, advancing an unorthodox effort to cite a more expansive copyright covering the sound recording to “Let’s Get It On” rather than the written music. That case has been paused while the earlier lawsuit played out.
In a statement to Billboard following Friday’s decision, SAS owner Pullman criticized the appeals court for citing “two songs out of over 60 million registered songs” in its analysis. And he stressed that the decision had not addressed his company’s arguments relying on a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision about federal regulatory power.
Sheeran’s attorney, Donald Zakarin of the law firm Pryor Cashman, told Billboard that he and his clients were “gratified” by the court’s ruling: “This ruling is consistent with the jury’s rejection of any claim of infringement in the [earlier] case, finding that Ed and Amy independently created ‘Thinking Out Loud.’”