All right, judge, there was one matter that Mr Steele brought to our attention. I don't know if he, what he had intended to introduce a video. I don't know if he intends to do that today, but if he does, it's a matter that would probably be best argued outside the presence of the jury. He served it on us this morning that he intended to do that. So how long is that video? Three minutes, four minutes maybe. Ok. Have you all looked at it? We, yes, we've looked at it. We contend that it is inadmissible through Mr Stevens by Mr Steele under 24 8801 D two A. It's his client's video outside the presence of the jury who served it on this morning that he intended to do that once. No. So my last one of our legal assistance. So the same thing that happened yesterday, but she didn't like it as the pre yes said yes. And then it changed the fortune. Let me Jim. Yeah. Is all right, Mr Steele. Are you trying to show this video today? Thank you. Let's mark it. And can we pull it up? So I can look at it. What, what ex what exhibit are you gonna mark it as Mr? And if he's faster today? Ok, because I'm really, I'm really kind of annoyed with his slowness of pulling up his videos. I'm just teasing. All right, Mr Kwe. Can you, uh can you uh pull it up? Ok. This is no pressure. What? Hold on one second, Mr Coco. I need to get my s so. Ok. What? Ok. Hold on one second. Thank you. Ok. Ok. This is defendant Williams 32. Is that correct, Mr Steele, correct? All right, Mr Kokomo. Go ahead and play it, sir. ST oh fall out in the 20. She just lived. This can't straight for the top of my life on CN. He's a cop. See the do nothing with the I ain't gonna hit it. I'm that. No, we ain't got time to go. Don't take her. She just lived this, ok? Stay friend. But my life bussing on cloud FNFN, hang on. I had a genie like, ok, be me how my wo bitch you can. So I, I believe shit, ok. Straight to the top of my life bing on 1016. I my mama lonely. I swear to God, I do. How will it be beating my shit in the jungle money. Money? I got com happy grinding with no food. I was talking about taking something in front of you. No trouble, trouble or you can't get these snuck on my place and not again, my d, I swear *** gone for all that to my, like you, she check this funny. Yeah, a couple of skins go out next day. You have n the smell of this ocean. You're popping that G TV. Yeah, I do this for Miss Gladys, boy. Oh, the hunt, there was one time is enough, Mr Kokomo. All right. Ok. All right. Um, so Mr Steele, um, you want me to admit this and what's the reason? And I su I suppose you're gonna, you're gonna lay a foundation through, uh Mr Stevens. Good morning, sir. And yes, that is true. And then assuming that foundation is laid to the somber court's satisfaction. The court admits it. Um, there are three things that are pertinent to this uh video. You will look if you don't mind or may remember in overt act number 14 of count one, you will see a photograph that the grand jury attached to that charge and it's Mr Williams along with Mr Copeland. It's a, uh Instagram posting allegedly, uh, with Mr williams' Instagram handle and they are wearing shirts that you see in this video. The shirts are RG and RG. My contention stands for rich gang and rich gang. We're here with, you know, an allegation of a criminal street gang and I want the jurors, I think I'm entitled. I would like like to entitled to show the jurors what rich gang is that is their music uh compilation number two. Um There is a lot of red being worn in um the video that has been just played for the Ensemble Court, which I believe is number 31. If I'm wrong, it's 3232. OK. Thank you. And um Mr Williams is not wearing red in the video. It is being worn by other people. The third reason your honor is there are two witnesses on the state's witness list. Mr Brian Williams, his uh performing name is Birdman and Mr um And of course, I can't remember. It's Lamar. I can't remember his first name. The Qantas Lamar. Thank you. I apologize. Also a performer known as Rich O Mew or um R HQ. He is in that video. He's a performer. It will explain Mr williams' relationship with them and this is not a statement as in OCG A section 24-8 dash 801 D two, A as in uh Lisa and alpha because um I am not looking for this statement for these words of Mr Williams. He, he's part, he is singing in, there are lyrics of Mr Williams that he is singing on this video, but these words are not for the indictment. This was also made in 2012 or 13. I did. Yes, I have to check my notes. All right. Um I got all that. Um How, why do you think that Mister Stevens would be a better witness for a foundation rather than either Birdman or Mr Mr Williams or Mr Lamar Rich told me Kwan, if they're in the video and that they're going to be called, um why wouldn't it be better to lay a foundation for them? Two reasons? First of all, I believe that Mr Stevens can, this is a public domain that doesn't make a difference if it's public or not. You still got, you still have to have some basis of like frame of reference to then kind of just kind of just lay the lay the foundation from that you still have to kind of oriented as to place and space. And um I'm not saying that it's not admissible. It's just, I don't think that he's, unless he has some nexus with that. I mean, you could, then we'd be up here all the time and you just be showing people, oh, what did you understand this or do you ju you know, does this, does this a person that we're looking at? You've got to have context and if he can't provide context, he's not the best person to probably lay the foundation for that. I mean, he can say the obvious but I mean, but he, but he's got no context much like or different like if you have Mr Williams or Mr Lamar come in and they say, OK, well, listen, yeah, I'm in the video and let me tell you in 2000 twe 12 or 13 with the foundation. This is what was going on and here's why we're singing about, you know, Rich Guy. Did you see the difference? No. Well, ok, we'll have to disagree professionally on that one. I'm not, I'm not trying to disagree. No, no, no, no. Look, you're asking me a question, I'm asking you a question. But I'm also, I'm also telling you why I would probably sustain the state's objection at this point. I think it, from the court's perspective, it's admissible. It's just not admissible through him. Well, I I'm going to then ask the court um to con reconsider for 22 issues, first of all. Um And, and I know every ruling is different. I'm aware of that, but the pushing p video that is directly in the indictment, Mr Stevens did not have any type of nexus to this and, and it was objected to and I, I'm telling you, it's, I, I, I'm telling you why I'm, I, as I as the gatekeeper are not going to continue on that, on that line of, of uh of, of introduction. And I don't want to raise a frivolous motion that is the gatekeeper um that you are going to do and that the gates not opening up right now. I mean, I'm just telling you again, I think the, the evidence is relevant and it's admissible for the reasons you just told me. Now, I understand that, you know, this is the state's case in chief and you're trying to get out what you, what you need. He, he's just not the, the, the, the witness to do so. Well, I also like in the court to, um, when I make the motion, I'm making it now than any of the state's witnesses who are going to talk about lyrics, going to talk about videos, going talk about photographs. They have no nexus, they are just pulling things off the internet that's in the public domain. And then if this honorable court just adopts this or not adopts if enforces this ruling, then I'm making a motion to exclude that evidence. I rule on what's in front of me, ok? It's disingenuous to say that, OK, I look at what is presented before me. I try and get it right for both sides, I am not admitting or exclusion, excluding evidence in a vacuum. So for you to say that is disingenuous to the court, I'm going to look at the evidence depending upon the facts and circumstances of what I had before me. If the state has, has an issue of foundation, I'm gonna, I'm gonna hold them account as well and remember what I told you about the lyrics and everything else. It is dependent upon what is presented in terms of a foundation. And I, I believe I made that very clear when we argued that motion with Mr Carlson. So, um I, I'm just telling you, I believe your evidence is for a proper purpose. I just don't believe that Mister Stevens is the, is the right person at this time for the reasons that you. Well, I've just, I've just stated he provides no, he provides no part of it is. You have to, you have to know what's in, what you have to know or have some relevant basis to testify about what's in the, what's, what's in the video or what's in the item, what's in the picture? Mr Stevens struggled with that yesterday. He really did and that's, that's the court's concern, madam. Did you have something you want to say? I do your honor. Additionally, your honor, the requirement of rule 801 D two A that an admission and it does not have to be inculpatory or exculpatory, but that it be offered against a party is designed to exclude the introduction of self serving statements by the party making them. So the state's contention is that if Mr Williams wants to put in words spoken by Mr Williams, Mr Williams will have to take the stand and he can get that in and that he would be the proper person to get in his statements through. Not someone else. That is the reason that they are objecting as strenuous as I've ever been before court disagree. I am not using these lyrics or statements for any type of truth and matter. I am not, I am showing what I told the court, the lyrics as, as everything are not taken for truth. So 801 D two A is not a statement as a state is trying to make, they, they want to say any utterance by Mr Williams is some sort of self serving statement that is not true. It's still, it's still a statement that self serving and it has no, it's got 801 A statement means an all or written assertion or nonverbal conduct of a person if it's intended by the person as an assertion. So all are written assertions pretty broad under 801. I mean, so, um, Mr Steele, if, I mean, you can, you can identify it. I'm telling you how I'm probably gonna rule at this point in time. I'm not, I'm just, and if, if that's your desire, I'm going to tell you that I'm not going to admit it at this time. But however, that I'll reconsider it, um, depending upon who else, um, testifies. So noted. Ok. All right. Let's go ahead. And unless there's anything else we're gonna call for our jury. Yeah.
