There may not be a less desirable job in law right now than presiding over the lengthy, messy, highly scrutinized RICO trial against six alleged YSL gang members, including Young Thug, in Georgia. But someone’s gotta do it, and now, that someone is Judge Paige Reese Whitaker. She took over during the trial’s tensest moment yet, after Ural Glanville, the original judge, had been recused over a secret “ex parte” meeting with prosecutors and a witness, Kenneth “Lil Woody” Copeland. Another judge even recused herself from the case before it got to Whitaker.
But so far, Judge Whitaker has been up for the job. Since her first day in court on July 19, she’s seemed intent on finishing the trial, even as she immediately faced issues like how to handle Copeland’s testimony after Glanville’s recusal. While she’s tried to be more efficient than Glanville and stricter on prosecutors at times, she’s also been content to let many of his prior decisions stand. “It’s a tough, tough job for her,” says Cynthia Godsoe, a professor at Brooklyn Law. Since testimony resumed last week, here’s what we’ve learned about Judge Whitaker — and what to expect from her courtroom going forward.
She wants the trial to move forward
Many legal experts thought the YSL trial’s new judge might declare a mistrial immediately to have a clean start, rather than dealing with the trial’s previous issues. Instead, Whitaker began her first hearing by establishing her expectations for the courtroom and figuring out the motions she would have to rule on — early signs that she wanted to see the trial through. Some defendants argued in mistrial motions that the case was fundamentally broken, between Glanville’s past bias, the ex parte meeting, Lil Woody’s testimony, and the difficulty of a new judge taking over a case mid-trial. “This case is like an old house that the present Honorable Judge is tasked with renovating,” wrote Douglas Weinstein, attorney for Yak Gotti, in his motion, per the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. “Every time a piece of pasted-up wallpaper is removed more rot is found hidden underneath. No herculean effort by the present Court can fix the Due Process violations of the last Judge. This house must be torn down.” (Not all defendants motioned for mistrials, though.) Weinstein’s was the final motion that Whitaker denied on August 9, clearing the way for the trial to move forward.
Adante Pointer, a civil-rights attorney, “was actually kind of surprised” Whitaker didn’t grant a mistrial over what he sees as “fatal flaws” in the case, like the ex parte meeting and Glanville’s past remarks toward the defense. But despite the trial’s previous issues, Godsoe says it “would have been, politically, very difficult” for Whitaker to declare a mistrial and restart an already long, costly trial. “She’s sort of stuck with it, meaning from a public perspective,” she says, noting that as a state judge, Whitaker is elected. “People would be furious, right?”
Multiple of the defendants had asked for a mistrial with prejudice, which would not allow the case to be retried. They had to prove the state “goaded” the defense into a mistrial, which is “a very high standard,” says Leigh Ann Webster, an Atlanta attorney who specializes in appeals. “Even as a defense attorney, I’m a little wary that that standard was met here,” she says. “I don’t think that the state wanted a mistrial.”
Now, without a mistrial, issues like the ex parte hearing and Lil Woody’s testimony could eventually be relevant for an appeal, if Young Thug and other defendants are convicted. “I think there are numerous issues that could lead to a reversal on appeal,” Webster says. While the defense attorneys are clearly focused on winning the case, she adds, “They’re definitely doing a good job of preserving issues for appeal.” As for Whitaker? “I actually think it’s much easier cover for her to just [move forward] then be like, well, look, all the issues on appeal — they weren’t on her,” Godsoe says.
And she wants it to go quickly
Whitaker came into the trial looking to set a more efficient pace than Glanville, whose disorganization and long “comfort breaks” had stretched this into the longest trial in Georgia history. “It should not take another seven months,” Whitaker said during her first day in court, after Glanville was recused seven months into testimony. She has been using the jury’s previously scheduled breaks to settle motions related to excluding evidence, or motions in limine — which Glanville had been hearing as they came up, rather than before the trial began. Whitaker has even set a standard for timeliness, scheduling court to begin at 9 a.m. and asking attorneys to be present by 8:45. “And when I say 8:45, I mean 8:45,” she said on her first day.
"When I say 8:45, I MEAN 8:45. I intend to take the bench at 8:45."
— THUGGERDAILY ひ (@ThuggerDaily) July 19, 2024
Whitaker's trial schedule will be 8:45-6pm every day, but she's considering giving the jury half days Friday and handle attorney hearings the rest of the day on Friday. pic.twitter.com/aQS2NtGPxS
In court on August 14, Whitaker said she hopes the trial will be over by Christmas, per the Journal-Constitution. Prosecutors have said they still plan to call around 105 witnesses, so to meet that lofty goal, Whitaker might have to encourage them to pare back that list or limit questioning — which she already said she might do on her first day in court. While it’s within her power as judge, Pointer admits limiting witnesses could be controversial and even be cited on appeal. “If the judge wants to try to rein it in in that type of manner, then once again, she’s opening up another Pandora’s Box,” he says.
Weinstein since filed a motion to limit the prosecution’s case on August 19, the Journal-Constitution reported, citing the trial’s continued delays. “This trial will last well into 2025 if the State is permitted unlimited time to present its case,” he wrote.
She hasn’t fully solved the Lil Woody problem
Whitaker faced an immediate problem when she took over the case: how to proceed with the testimony of Lil Woody. The rapper, who prosecutors allege was also a YSL member and who had been granted immunity, had previously been held in contempt of court for refusing to testify, which led to the controversial ex parte meeting. The defense first motioned for Judge Glanville’s recusal in the middle of Woody’s testimony on June 12, but he continued testifying until the trial was paused on June 17. Once Glanville was recused, all of that testimony was effectively voided. So Whitaker decided that if Woody chose to testify again (rather than be held in contempt), all of his previous testimony from June 12 onward would be struck from the record. On the jury’s return, she asked if any of them would have trouble forgetting Woody’s testimony, and when none said they would, she had their notes from June 12 on taken away.
No juror took the easy way out.
— THUGGERDAILY ひ (@ThuggerDaily) August 12, 2024
All of them have indicated they can disregard parts of Woody's testimony and will remain. We're going forward. pic.twitter.com/E753C0deUi
Webster says it’s a “legal fiction” that jurors listen to all their instructions — even a “difficult” instruction like forgetting multiple days of testimony after a two-month break. “So you consider the first part before the recusal motion, you can’t consider this middle part, and then you can consider everything that comes back,” she says. “That is not how anyone’s mind actually works.” And even if jurors could forget the testimony, Pointer adds, “It’s hard to disregard your feelings about that person, and in his situation, whether he’s credible or not.” He sees asking the jury if they can disregard the testimony as “a very cursory attempt” to rectify the issue in the record.
To Pointer, the difficulty in proceeding with Woody’s testimony only shows why Whitaker should have declared a mistrial. “If that truly is the critical witness that’s going to tie all this together and that they’re going to try to build the foundation of a conviction on, it makes nothing but perfect sense to me where you would declare a mistrial,” he says.
Prosecutors questioned Lil Woody the entire week of August 12 and are expected to finish on August 26 after a preplanned jury break this week. The defense will cross-examine him afterward. However, on August 16, Whitaker told Brian Steel, Young Thug’s attorney, that he could not ask Woody about the ex parte meeting, which jurors have not been informed about. Limiting that questioning could go against defendants’ rights to a “thorough and sifting” cross-examination, according to Webster. “He didn’t want to testify and was willing to go to jail,” she says of the meeting. “He’s saying, like, ‘I’ve never told the truth a day in my life,’ and the prosecutors and the judges are all talking to him. How is that not relevant to his credibility and what he’s testifying to?”
She’s reluctant to change too much — like bond
One of Whitaker’s first orders as the trial’s new judge was denying new requests for bond for many of the defendants. Steel had argued Young Thug was “languishing” under “tortuous” conditions in jail, per Billboard, and that given the trial’s slow pace and pauses, he should be able to be under house arrest. But in a hearing on July 31, Whitaker said Judge Glanville’s recusal did not amount to “changed circumstances” necessary to reconsider bond. However, Whitaker admitted, “I don’t know how I would have decided the bond originally.” Deciding to keep Glanville’s precedent here seemed to indicate that she didn’t want the door open to reconsider all of his rulings.
Godsoe thinks Whitaker had an opening to reconsider bond. “Bail is actually supposed to be an ongoing assessment,” she says. “The trial is going on way longer than it was supposed to, there was just a month-and-a-half-long recess, and the recusal — that is, to me, a material change.” (Whitaker did cite her intent to speed up the trial when she denied bond.) However, judges can be “pretty reluctant” to change bond mid-trial, Pointer adds. While he agrees that Whitaker should have reconsidered bond given the trial’s unique circumstances, he also can see why she didn’t. “A judge like this would not want to get egg on their face if, by chance, defendants are released and something happens that comes back to them,” he says. “I’m sure she thought to herself, Why risk it? But the judge is not supposed to be so self-interested in the process that she overrides and runs roughshod over the defendants’ rights.” In spite of Whitaker’s ruling, Young Thug has seemed upbeat in moments since the trial returned, even laughing with Steel during down time in court.
Enjoy this clip of Thug and team laughing while we wait for Judge to return
— THUGGERDAILY ひ (@ThuggerDaily) July 31, 2024
Note: I don't think she will rule on mistrial motions immediately after returning. Sounds like she called the break to give time for the State to come up with case law regarding evidence redactions pic.twitter.com/3sR3pkIyvp
She’s being stricter on the prosecution
By the end of Judge Glanville’s tenure, defense attorneys were arguing he’d aligned himself with prosecutors. So far, Whitaker is beating those allegations. Since taking over the case, she’s adopted a firmer tone with the prosecution, even reprimanding them at points. “I would like you to take your duty of candor to the court with a bit more seriousness,” Whitaker told chief deputy district attorney Adriane Love on her first day, during an argument over evidence discovery. In the days since, she’s expressed frustration with all attorneys, especially prosecution, over their unpreparedness in court.
“I would like you to take your duty of candor to the court with a little bit more seriousness,” Judge Whitaker tells Chief Deputy DA Adriane Love. pic.twitter.com/JUyq5GFVsY
— Meghann Cuniff (@meghanncuniff) July 30, 2024
Whitaker has also taken a harder line on prosecutors disclosing necessary evidence to the defense — even telling prosecutors, “You better make sure you got all your ducks in a row and you have shared those ducks and ducklings with the defense,” per the Journal-Constitution. The Brady rule, Godsoe says, is an important check on prosecutors since they do not work directly for clients. “They’re really not supposed to be just doing anything to get a conviction — they’re supposed to be doing justice, which includes turning over exculpatory evidence,” she says. On August 9, in response to a motion for a fair trial from defendant Shannon Stillwell, Whitaker ordered prosecutors to watch a training on Brady rights and their “obligations” as a prosecutor, under her direction. The move fell short of the disqualification the defense had been looking for but still came as a surprise. “Isn’t that essentially a full-throated admission that [prosecutors] haven’t been doing what they’re supposed to be doing, which is safeguarding the rights of not only the victims, but the defendants, as well as the judicial system?” Pointer says. “I think that’s an indictment right there.”
Related
