Legal
Page: 95
A Los Angeles judge is refusing to grant Tory Lanez a new trial after he was convicted last year of shooting Megan Thee Stallion in the foot, setting the stage for the rapper to be sentenced to as much as two decades in prison.
Attorneys for Lanez (real name Daystar Peterson) had called the case a “miscarriage of justice,” arguing that Judge David Herriford made numerous errors during a star-studded, two-week December trial that resulted in a guilty verdict. But prosecutors later called those claims “vague and unsupported” and urged the judge to uphold the jury’s decision.
At a hearing on Tuesday (May 9) in Los Angeles Superior Court, Judge Herriford sided with prosecutors and denied Lanez’s motion, according to a person with knowledge of the proceedings. Neither prosecutors nor Lanez’s legal team immediately returned requests for comment.
The ruling is not particularly surprising. Such requests for a judge to overturn a jury verdict are rarely granted, reserved for major revelations about procedural errors or withheld evidence. Similar arguments could still be successfully raised in a future appeal.
Tuesday’s decision clears the way for Lanez’s sentencing, in which he potentially faces up to 22 years in prison. It had originally been scheduled for January but was repeatedly delayed due to his request for a new trial. Sentencing is now expected within the next month but could be delayed again.
Lanez was convicted on Dec. 23 on three felony charges over the mid-2020 incident, during which the rapper allegedly shot Stallion (born Megan Pete) in the foot during an argument after a pool party in the Hollywood Hills.
The shooting happened in the early-morning hours of July 12, 2020, when a driver was shuttling Lanez, Stallion and her assistant and friend Kelsey Harris from a party at Kylie Jenner’s house. According to prosecutors, Megan got out of the vehicle during an argument and began walking away when Lanez shouted “Dance, bitch!” and proceeded to shoot at her feet.
Following the incident, Stallion initially told police officers that she had cut her foot stepping on broken glass, but days later alleged that she had been shot. Lanez was eventually charged with the shooting in October 2022.
During the blockbuster trial, Lanez’s lawyers made their best effort to sow doubt over who had pulled the trigger, painting a scenario in which Harris could have been the shooter. But a key defense witness offered only confusing eyewitness testimony, and prosecutors pointed to an earlier interview in which Harris pinned the blame squarely on Lanez. Stallion herself offered powerful testimony that Lanez had been the one to shoot her; neither Lanez nor the driver took the witness stand.
In a motion for a new trial filed in March, Lanez attorneys Jose Baez and Matthew Barhoma argued that Judge Herriford made numerous errors during the course of the trial. Among others, they said he should not have allowed jurors to see an Instagram post that appeared to undermine the rapper’s central defense that Harris actually pulled the trigger. In it, Lanez appeared to personally post a comment that such a suggestion was “not true.”
“The court erred on numerous questions of law in allowing the People to introduce this post, depriving defendant of a fair trial,” Lanez’s lawyers wrote. “The only acceptable remedy for this miscarriage of justice is a new trial.”
Lanez’s lawyers made numerous other arguments, too. They said that key DNA evidence had been mischaracterized and improperly admitted; that Lanez had been denied his right to counsel because his longtime attorney withdrew at the eleventh hour; and that prosecutors had run afoul of a new California law that bans the use of creative expression in criminal trials.
But prosecutors argued back last month that the request for a new trial was groundless. The Instagram comment was a “relatively insignificant piece of evidence,” they argued, among an “overwhelming” amount of testimony and other evidence showing that Lanez had been the one to shoot Stallion.
“The defendant’s brief is replete with colorful rhetoric and conclusory statements, but it lacks substance,” prosecutors wrote. “Despite being nearly 80 pages long, the defendant has failed to cite a single instance of error in the trial court.”
Following Tuesday’s decision, Lanez can still file an appeal of the verdict at a state appellate court. But such a challenge will face an uphill climb: In 2022, California appeals courts overturned a defendant’s guilty verdict in just 19% of cases.
Ed Sheeran gave his first interview on Friday (May 5) in the wake of winning his court case in defense of “Thinking Out Loud.”
“The one thing that felt like the biggest win for me was, afterwards, Katherine Griffin Townsend and her family and everyone came up to me, hugged me and said, ‘We believe you,’” the singer-songwriter said on The Elvis Duran and the Morning Show. “And I got to walk away … from it knowing I did the right thing.”
The star added that he felt in some ways that the court case, in which he’d been accused of stealing parts of Marvin Gaye’s 1973 classic “Let’s Get It On” for his 2014 smash by Gaye’s producer Ed Townsend, had “overshadowed” the other major things happening in his life, such as the premiere of his new documentary Ed Sheeran: The Sum of It All and the release of his latest album Subtract.
“On both sides, it takes a massive toll — both personally and financially — but it’s about heart and integrity, and that’s why I fought it was, I can’t be accused of something that I didn’t do. So I just had to prove that,” he explained.
During the trial, Sheeran took the stand in his own defense, offering an education in songwriting and chord structures, and even breaking into song in different parts of his testimony to prove his point.
However, he’s now ready to focus on moving forward and celebrating his album release and docu-series, which is now airing on Disney+. “I very much see the two things as coming hand in hand,” he told Duran. “You know, the documentary goes with the album and the album goes with the documentary. ‘Cause the last thing I want to do is bring more attention to my personal life, but I felt that opening up that door gave more context to the record.”
Watch Sheeran’s full post-win interview above.
RuPaul’s Drag Race and We’re Here star Shangela has denied allegations in a civil suit filed by a former production assistant on the latter series claiming that the drag star (born Darius Jeremy “DJ” Pierce) drugged and raped him after a 2020 wrap party.
“I can’t begin to explain how hurt and disgusted I am by these totally untrue allegations. They are personally offensive and perpetuate damaging stereotypes that are harmful not only to me, but also to my entire community,” Pierce said in a statement to Billboard on Friday (May 5).
The statement came in reaction to a civil suit filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Wednesday in which Daniel McGarrigle, a We’re Here production assistant, claimed that Pierce sexually assaulted him in February 2020 after a wrap party for the fifth episode of the HBO reality series featuring several Drag Race contestants, according to The Hollywood Reporter.
“An external investigation into this embittered individual’s claims previously concluded that they were completely without merit,” Pierce continued in the statement. The performer added of the new filing, “No one should be fooled: It has no basis in fact or in law, and it will not succeed.”
Pierce added, “As a hardworking and outspoken drag entertainer for more than a decade, I know that I am far from alone in battling ignorance, bigotry and prejudice, all of which played a role in the filing of this complaint. That is why I will fight this entirely meritless lawsuit and not allow it to destroy me and those I love, or harm the causes we all stand for.”
According to THR, McGarrigle alleges in the suit that during party at a Ruston, La., restaurant/bar, Pierce was “heavily flirtatious” with him and bought him several drinks before allegedly suggesting that McGarrigle accompany him to his hotel to help get ready for an early flight. The suit then claims that McGarrigle vomited in the toilet after arriving in Pierce’s room, at which point the performer reportedly offered to get him water and let him lie down until he felt better.
The production assistant claims in the lawsuit he woke up later that evening to a cold liquid that “burned his eyes and nose” being poured on him that was described as a kind of “poppers” (aka amyl nitrite) before Pierce allegedly pulled down his pants and “overpowered” him.
In a separate statement shared with Billboard from producers Buckingham Television and HBO, the representatives for the series said, “Buckingham Television, the production company for We’re Here, received a complaint late summer 2021 regarding an incident that was alleged to have occurred in early 2020. Buckingham and HBO take the safety and well-being of personnel on our shows very seriously, and Buckingham immediately launched an investigation. The investigation concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support these allegations.”
The suit claims that the alleged rape was an act of gender violence, and that McGarrigle suffered damages as a result, including “past and future medical expenses, past and future lost earnings and earning capacity, pain, suffering, emotional distress, mental anguish and embarrassment.” The legal action is seeking unspecified damages from Pierce and Buckingham.
Ed Sheeran was found not liable in the copyright case revolving around his hit single “Thinking Out Loud” on Thursday (May 4).
The singer had been accused of copying the chord structure of Marvin Gaye‘s 1973 classic “Let’s Get It On,” and even took the stand in his own defense during the trial. The legal team for songwriter Ed Townsend, meanwhile, felt they had a “smoking gun” on their side in footage from a Zurich concert in which Sheeran segued between Gaye’s soulful single and his own romantic smash from 2014’s Multiply.
Ahead of the verdict, Sheeran — whose sixth album Subtract is out this Friday (May 5) via Atlantic Records — vowed he would give up music in the event he didn’t win the case that was calling his integrity as a songwriter into question. However, Sheerios can now breathe a sigh of relief that their favorite singer-singer will still be doing what he does best — though he has strong feelings about the viability of cases like this one in the industry and how they can affect our culture.
Read Sheeran’s full statement from the courthouse steps below:
Good afternoon,
I am obviously very happy with the outcome of the case, and it looks like I’m not going to have to retire from my day job after all – but, at the same time, I am unbelievably frustrated that baseless claims like this are allowed to go to court at all.
We have spent the last eight years talking about two songs with dramatically different lyrics, melodies and four chords which are also different and used by songwriters every day, all over the world.
These chords are common building blocks which were used to create music long before “Let’s Get It On” was written and will be used to make music long after we are all gone. They are a songwriter’s ‘alphabet’, our tool kit and should be there for us all to use. No-one owns them or the way they are played, in the same way, nobody owns the colour blue.
Unfortunately, unfounded claims like this one are being fueled by individuals who are offered as experts in musical analysis. In this instance, the other side’s musicologist left out words and notes, presented simple (and different) pitches as melody, creating misleading comparisons and disinformation to find supposed similarities where none exist. They tried to manipulate my and Amy’s song to try to convince the jury that they had a genuine claim, and I am very grateful that the jury saw through those attempts. This seems so dangerous to me, both for potential claimants who may be convinced to bring a bogus claim, as well as those songwriters facing them. It is simply wrong. By stopping this practice, we can also properly support genuine music copyright claims so that legitimate claims are rightly heard and resolved.
If the Jury had decided this matter the other way, we might as well say goodbye to the creative freedom of songwriters. We need to be able to write our original music and engage in independent creation without worrying at every step of the way that such creativity will be wrongly called into question. Like artists everywhere, Amy and I work hard to independently create songs which are often based around real-life, personal experiences. It is devastating to be accused of stealing other people’s songs when we have put so much work into our livelihoods.
I am just a guy with a guitar who loves writing music for people to enjoy. I am not and will never allow myself to be a piggy bank for anyone to shake. Having to be in New York for this trial has meant that I have missed being with my family at my grandmother’s funeral in Ireland. I won’t get that time back.
These trials take a significant toll on everybody involved, including Kathryn Townsend Griffin.
I want to thank the jury for making a decision that will help to protect the creative process of songwriters here in the United States and around the world.
I also want to thank my team who has supported me throughout this difficult process and to all the songwriters, musicians and fans who reached out with messages of support over the last few weeks.
Finally, I want to thank Amy Wadge. Neither of us ever expected that 9 years on from our wonderful writing session that we would be here having to defend our integrity. Amy, I feel so lucky to have you in my life.
We need songwriters and the wider musical community to come together to bring back common sense. These claims need to be stopped so that the creative process can carry on, and we can all just go back to making music. At the same time, we absolutely need trusted individuals, real experts who help support the process of protecting copyright. Thank you.
The man accused of killing 20-year-old Taylor Swift fan Jacob Lewis in a hit-and-run accident as he left the Houston Eras Tour stop last Friday will be charged with felony murder, a prosecutor in the case says.
According to KHOU-11, Lewis and his sister April Bancroft were driving back home from the concert at NRG Stadium when they had car trouble. Lewis started pushing the vehicle to the shoulder when he was struck by a suspected drunk driver — identified by police as 34-year-old Alan Hayes — who fled the scene. A tow-truck driver witnessed the incident and led police to Hayes, who was later arrested.
Hayes is currently being held in jail on $120,000 bond for DWI and failure to stop and render aid. Prosecutor Kelly Marshall told the outlet that Hayes has two prior DWI convictions and was arrested in Montgomery County on drug charges just a few days before the accident.
Meanwhile, Lewis’ sister has expressed gratitude toward Swift fans, who have extended kindness to her and her family in light of her brother’s death. A GoFundMe in Lewis’ name has raised more than $120,000 with the help of $13 donations from Swifties; the family will use the money for funeral costs and a scholarship in Lewis’ name.
“I cannot express the overwhelming happiness and gratitude from every #Swiftie out there,” Bancroft tweeted Sunday. “Thank you thank you thank you. I will get to your messages eventually if I haven’t already, your words have inspired me through my day so much.”
Fugees rapper Pras, accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies spanning two presidencies, was convicted Wednesday (April 26) after a trial that included testimony ranging from actor Leonardo DiCaprio to former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Explore
See latest videos, charts and news
See latest videos, charts and news
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel was accused of funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financier through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, then trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
The defense argued the Grammy-winning rapper from the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees simply wanted to make money and got bad legal advice as he reinvented himself in the world of politics.
Michel first met Malaysian financer Low Taek Jho in 2006, when the businessman usually known as Jho Low was dropping huge sums of money and hobnobbing with the likes of Paris Hilton. Low helped finance Hollywood films, including “The Wolf of Wall Street.” DiCaprio testified Low had appeared to him as a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
Michel also testified in his own defense. He said Low wanted a picture with Obama in 2012 and was willing to pay millions of dollars to get it. Michel agreed to help and used some of the money he got to pay for friends to attend fundraising events. No one had ever told him that was illegal, he said.
Prosecutors said Michel was donating the money on Low’s behalf, and later tried to lean on the straw donors with texts from burner phones to keep them from talking to investigators.
After the election of Donald Trump, prosecutors say Michel again took millions to halt an investigation into allegations Low masterminded a money laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low is now an international fugitive and has maintained his innocence.
Michel also got paid to try and persuade the U.S. to extradite back to China a government critic suspected of crimes there without registering as a foreign agent, prosecutors said.
On that charge, the defense pointed to testimony from Sessions, who was Trump’s top law enforcement officer until he resigned in 2018. Sessions said he’d been aware the Chinese government wanted the extradition but didn’t know Michel. The rapper’s ultimately futile efforts to arrange a meeting on the topic didn’t seem improper, the former attorney general said.
The case against a Fugees rapper accused in multimillion-dollar political conspiracies across two presidencies wound down with closing arguments Thursday (April 20) that capped off a trial that included testimony from actor Leonardo DiCaprio and former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
Prakazrel “Pras” Michel is accused of funneling money from a now-fugitive Malaysian financer through straw donors to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign, then trying to squelch a Justice Department investigation and influence an extradition case on behalf of China under the Trump administration.
“He willingly broke the law to line his pockets and generate access and influence at the highest reaches of government,” prosecutor Sean Mulryne said. “He wanted money. Lots of it. And he got it.”
The defense argued the Grammy-winning rapper from the 1990s hip-hop group the Fugees simply got bad advice as he reinvented himself in the world of politics.
“Mr. Michel is a proud American [and] entrepreneur,” said defense attorney David Kenner. “Mr. Michel was simply being himself – a connector. He saw an opportunity to make easy money for himself, and there’s nothing wrong with that.”
The case is expected to go to a jury on Monday.
When Michel first met Low Taek Jho in 2006, the businessman usually known as Jho Low was dropping huge sums of money and hobnobbing with the likes of Paris Hilton. He helped finance Hollywood films, including The Wolf of Wall Street. DiCaprio testified Low had appeared to him as a legitimate businessman and had mentioned wanting to donate to Obama’s campaign.
Michel also testified in his own defense. He said Low wanted a picture with Obama in 2012 and was willing to pay millions of dollars to get it. Michel agreed to help and used some of the money he got to pay for friends to attend fundraising events. No one had ever told him that was illegal, he said.
Prosecutors said he was donating the money on Low’s behalf and later tried to lean on the straw donors with texts from burner phones to keep them from talking to prosecutors.
After the election of Donald Trump, prosecutors say Michel again took millions to halt an investigation into allegations Low masterminded a money-laundering and bribery scheme that pilfered billions from the Malaysian state investment fund known as 1MDB. Low is now an international fugitive and has maintained his innocence.
Prosecutors said Michel also tried to convince the U.S. to extradite back to China a government critic suspected of crimes there.
“This case is about foreign influence, it’s about foreign money, and it’s about greed,” Mulryne said.
The defense also pointed to testimony from Sessions, who was Trump’s top law enforcement officer until he resigned in 2018. He said he’d been aware the Chinese government wanted the extradition but didn’t know Michel. The rapper’s ultimately futile efforts to arrange a meeting on the topic didn’t seem improper, said Sessions
“What happened in 2017 was not willful and it was not deliberate,” Kenner said.
A new lawsuit claims that GloRilla used unlicensed samples from a decades-old New Orleans hip-hop song in her hit songs “Tomorrow” and “Tomorrow 2.”
The case, filed Wednesday in Louisiana federal court, alleges that GloRilla’s tracks “misappropriated many of the recognizable and key protected elements” from “Street of Westbank,” a 1994 song by the group Dog House Posse.
The complaint is light on specifics, but claims that GloRilla copied many elements from the earlier song, including “musical arrangements, percussion tracks, synthesized orchestration, including but not limited to piano, cello, violin, contrabass, and drum set, and tone and melody.”
Beyond the sample itself, the lawsuit says GloRilla’s songs also “mimic and copy the arrangement of ‘Street of Westbank’ by the choice of the instrumentation accompanying the rap lyrics, the choice of when the instruments drop out and reenter and what instruments drop in and reenter.”
A rep for GloRilla did not immediately return a request for comment on the allegations.
While GloRilla broke out with “F.N.F. (Let’s Go),” her biggest hit to date is “Tomorrow 2” – a remix featuring Cardi B that reached No. 9 on the Hot 100 in October and ultimately spent 22 weeks on the chart.
Based on a comparison of the two songs, the alleged sample appears to be the first few notes of “Street of Westbank,” which are then looped throughout the song; a similar-sounding sequence appears to be looped throughout GloRilla’s song. But the extent to which those similarities actually constitute any violation of copyright law will be litigated in court.
Listen to both songs here:
Read the entire lawsuit here:
A lawsuit filed against Afroman by a group of Ohio police officers after they raided his home is “nothing short of absurd,” the American Civil Liberties Union says – and a clear threat to his First Amendment rights.
In a motion filed Wednesday, the activist group asked an Ohio court to immediately dismiss the case, which claims that Afroman (real name Joseph Forman) caused the officers “emotional distress” by publicizing images of the guns-drawn raid on his home. The ACLU called it “a meritless effort to use a lawsuit to silence criticism.”
“Plaintiffs are a group of law enforcement officers who executed what appears to have been a highly destructive and ultimately fruitless search of a popular musician’s home. Now they find themselves at the receiving end of his mockery and outrage,” the ACLU wrote. “There is nothing the First Amendment protects more jealously than criticism of public officials on a matter of public concern.”
Police raided Afroman’s Ohio home with guns drawn on Aug. 21, smashing down his door and seizing $5,031 in cash and other property. The raid came on a search warrant linked to suspicions of drug trafficking, but no charges were ever filed and the money was later returned.
After the search, Afroman repeatedly posted video and images to social media, using them to express outrage at alleged damage done to his property and at what he viewed as excessive use of force. One video showed officers searching his home under the title “watch cops steal money.” He later used some of those images on t-shirts and other merchandise, including one that compared one of the officers to an obese character from the animated sitcom Family Guy.
Last month, the officers responded by suing the rapper, claiming the posts and merchandise amounted to an unauthorized commercial exploitation of their likeness, as well as an invasion of their privacy. The officers said they had been “subjected to threats, including death threats” because of Afroman’s posts, and had suffered “emotional distress.”
But in Wednesday’s filing, the ACLU said the officers had not come close to making a coherent claim about what Afroman actually did wrong.
“Plaintiffs do not identify the substance of any particular statement in the videos- or for that matter, anywhere else–that they claim is false,” the group wrote. “Instead, the central focus of their complaint is that Mr. Foreman is making money off of his video commentary and related merchandise, and is criticizing Plaintiffs harshly in the process. That is not tortious conduct; it is protected speech.”
As for the accusation about an invasion of privacy, the ACLU called that claim “nothing short of absurd.”
“They were in Mr. Foreman’s home, not their own,” the group wrote. “Nothing about Mr. Foreman’s expression involves matters of plaintiffs’ intimate personal privacy that could be protected by law. To the contrary, his description–and criticism–of their police work is a legitimate matter of public concern.”
An attorney for the officers did not immediately return a request for comment on Thursday.
Drake is facing a new copyright lawsuit claiming he used an unlicensed sample from the song of a Ghanaian rapper on his chart-topping 2022 album, Honestly, Nevermind.
In a case filed Tuesday (April 18) in Manhattan federal court, an artist named Obrafour (real name Michael Elliot Kwabena Okyere Darko) claims Honestly, Nevermind track “Calling My Name” features a short clip of a vocal phrase — “Killer cut, blood, killer cut” — that was pulled directly from Obrafour’s earlier song, “Oye Ohene.”
Unlike many such cases, Obrafour claims to have smoking gun evidence: An email from someone at Republic Records seeking to clear the clip. The June 2022 note allegedly admitted that Drake had already “used samples from the above referenced song” and wanted permission to release it.
But according to the lawsuit, Drake’s album and song — complete with the unlicensed sample — were released just nine days later, before Obrafour had a chance to respond to the email.
“Defendants continue to engage in infringement, despite acknowledging that they needed to secure rights and authorization from Obrafour,” lawyers for the Ghanaian rapper wrote. “Defendants have never accounted to, credited, or otherwise compensated Obrafour for their unauthorized use of the copyrighted work.”
Honestly, Nevermind, which was surprise-released on June 17, 2022, debuted at No. 1 on the Billboard 200 and spent 43 weeks on the chart, though “Calling My Name” was less successful; the track debuted at No. 20 on the Hot 100 but dropped off the following week.
According to his lawsuit, Obrafour received an email nine days earlier bearing the subject line: “Drake ‘Darkness’ (working title) contains samples from ‘Oye Ohene’ Ft Tinny written and performed by Obrafour.”
The sender told Obrafour that they were “currently working on a sample clearance for Republic recording artist Drake” and were seeking “consent for both the master rights and publishing rights” to the clip. On June 13, Obrafuour received a second email that read: “Hi confirming you received this email thanks.”
Then he, says, the album dropped.
“Obrafour had not yet responded to the June 8, 2022 clearance email or the follow-up June 13, 2022 clearance email at the point when Drake’s ‘Honestly, Nevermind’ album was released,” his lawyers wrote in the complaint. “Nonetheless, the infringing work is one of the songs appearing on the “Honestly, Nevermind” album, as released to the world by ‘surprise’ on June 17, 2022.”
Reps for Drake and Republic Records did not immediately return requests for comment.