YNW Melly Murder Trial: Defense attorneys representing YNW Melly made a motion for a mistrial late in the afternoon on Thursday, citing improper questioning by the prosecution during the rapper’s double murder trial. The defense took issue with the prosecution’s line of questioning directed at Felicia Holmes, the mother of Melly’s ex-girlfriend and the state’s second witness.
Holmes’ testimony on Thursday was marked by intense drama, a significant departure from the previous day’s relatively calm and technical testimony. The central point of contention revolved around a statement that Holmes allegedly made to Florida law enforcement in December 2018 regarding a FaceTime call between Melly and her daughter immediately following the shooting, which the state claims took place.
The substance of Holmes’ alleged statement touched on crucial details, such as the timing of the shooting, Melly’s phone number at the time, Hamilton’s phone number at the time, the possibility of Melly using a different phone to contact his girlfriend that morning, Melly’s account of what he saw before the shots were fired, and his fear of a potential shooter hiding in the nearby bushes after the violent incident that claimed the lives of his two friends.
However, in a sworn deposition in December 2022, Holmes provided conflicting information compared to her 2018 police statement. She also admitted to not having a clear recollection of exactly what she told the police back in 2018.
Prior to Holmes taking the stand and in the absence of the jury, the defense alerted the court to the prosecution’s ulterior motives. They argued that the state was not genuinely interested in Holmes’ testimony, but rather using the pretext of her alleged memory lapse to impeach her on the stand by introducing her 2018 statement to law enforcement.
Lead defense attorney David A. Howard emphasized to the court that the state’s ultimate objective was to present the entirety of the original statement to the jury, which goes against established case law in Florida. Howard referenced several relevant cases on the matter to support his argument, contending that allowing such a tactic would undermine the existing body of law.
The defense asserted that Holmes would have remembered receiving a call about a murder but had now distanced herself from her previous statement in several significant ways.
“It’s a pretext, it’s in bad faith, it’s improper, and it should not be admitted,” argued Howard. “It’s essentially hearsay.”
In the end, the judge permitted the state to call Hamilton and initially refrained from making a definitive decision regarding the extent or limitation of Holmes’ testimony regarding her 2018 statement. By choosing not to rule conclusively, the state effectively won that round and proceeded to repeatedly attempt to elicit testimony from Holmes about the statement.
These efforts prompted an objection from the defense, and the jury was sent for an extended lunch break.
Eventually, the judge ruled in favor of the defense. The state then argued that the judge had misapplied the case law. After another thorough examination of the case law, the judge partially modified his ruling but generally indicated that if the witness continued to testify in the manner she was, failing to recall the accuracy of her 2018 statement or definitively confirm its accuracy, the court would not admit the previous statement.
As the jurors returned, the questioning became increasingly tense. Eventually, the state requested to treat Holmes as a hostile witness, with lead prosecutor Kristine Bradley suggesting that Holmes consult with her lawyer. The defense and Holmes’ lawyer complained that the state was intimidating the witness, deeming it inappropriate. This exchange led the court to once again recess the jury.
Judge John Murphy III initially admonished the state for the hostile witness request, stating that Holmes was answering all of the state’s questions, just not in the manner the state desired. The judge clearly expressed frustration with the repetitive line of questioning from the state.
“I don’t know where we’re going with this,” the judge remarked.
The court referred to two cases that supported the defense’s objection to introducing Holmes’ 2018 police statement, stating that under the scenarios outlined in the case law, the statement would not be allowed.
Still outside the presence of the jurors, the judge eventually granted the state’s request to treat Holmes as hostile, allowing leading questions due to her apparent unwillingness to be present and the fact that she was wearing an ankle monitor. However, strict conditions were imposed.
Later, the court revisited the same two cases that supported the defense’s objection to introducing Holmes’ 2018 police statement and reiterated that, based on the scenarios outlined in the case law, the statement would not be admitted.
“I don’t want the contents of that statement repeated through leading questions,” the judge stated.
After being formally deemed hostile, Bradley repeatedly asked Holmes the same questions, leading to numerous objections. The defense and the court held several sidebar discussions as the state continued its questioning of the witness. The court consistently ruled in favor of the defense, having previously restricted what the state could ask and how they could question Holmes about her 2018 statement to law enforcement.
Holmes reiterated multiple times that she did not recall the statement, but the state persisted in referring to the statement and questioning whether she was lying then, on the stand, or if she had a habit of lying to the police. Despite sustained objections from the defense, Bradley persisted with this line of questioning.
Several defense objections in other areas were overruled, eventually leading the state to pursue a line of questioning that seemed intended to insinuate that Holmes was being bribed by the defense.
Bradley inquired, “Did you ever state that you were instructed to quit your job and that the defense would ‘take care of us’?”
Confused, Holmes asked, “The defense?”
The defense objected again, leading to another sidebar. Following this, the judge directed the jury to disregard the question, deeming its phrasing completely inappropriate, and sustained the defense’s objection.
The prosecution moved on to a different line of questioning, focusing on Holmes’ daughter’s recollection of events, including any threats made to cooperate with law enforcement and various other incidents. This triggered a series of objections from the defense, which were upheld by the court.
Towards the end of her testimony, Holmes faced questions about the state’s efforts to secure her testimony and the validity of previously issued subpoenas. In response to one question, she mentioned that her attorney had to hire another attorney to handle an appeal “because you tried to get him disbarred.”
Bradley, in violation of the rules, directly testified in the case by stating, “That’s a false statement.”
The defense promptly objected, emphasizing that Bradley was not permitted to testify. The court ruled in favor of the defense, stating, “Counselor, you’re not testifying.”
Shortly after, Holmes concluded her time on the stand, and the jurors were dismissed early.
The court then addressed the motions for a mistrial.
“As certain as the sequence of Tuesday following Monday – I made sure to stay up until 2 o’clock last night – to bring these matters to the court’s attention, it was evident that the state’s intention was to introduce inadmissible out-of-court statements through a witness,” argued defense attorney Howard. “Instead of acknowledging this intention, the state employed a deceptive tactic, claiming to rely on a particular rule of evidence. However, it became apparent that given the witness’ testimony, that specific rule could not be invoked. Consequently, the state reverted to its original plan from the outset – to present evidence from written documents containing out-of-court statements, such as police reports, Instagram posts, and arguments, orally recited by the state itself, fully aware of its impropriety despite the court’s previous ruling prohibiting such actions.”
Howard raised an accusation against Bradley, claiming that her feigned surprise at Holmes’ testimony was not credible. He urged the court to investigate the validity of Bradley’s alleged surprise.
The defense asserted that the state repeatedly attempted to bypass the court’s rules and orders, introducing multiple pieces of evidence that were strictly prohibited, resulting in significant prejudice against the defendant.
Howard further argued, “Mr. Demons has suffered prejudice. This jury witnessed this chaotic situation unfold with numerous sidebars, approximately 10 to 15 after every two questions…all based on insinuations and inadmissible testimony that Ms. Bradley herself introduced and stated on the record. We believe this was a deliberate act that has caused substantial prejudice. The jury has been tainted, and therefore, we request a mistrial.”
Following Howard, defense attorney Stuart Adelstein addressed another basis for their motion for a mistrial.
“In my entire career, I have never encountered a situation where the state insinuated, without any evidence, that the defense team would ‘take care of’ the witness,” stated Adelstein. “Even though the court instructed the jury to disregard it, that question, ‘the defense team would take care of you if answered like this,’ is so improper that it not only prejudices our client on other matters but also taints everyone at this table. Despite the judge’s instructions to ignore it, it is incredibly challenging to overlook something like that.”
“We are filing a motion for a mistrial,” Adelstein concluded.
In response, Bradley clarified that when she mentioned “the defense,” she was not referring to the defense team but to the defendant himself. She explained that her questions were based on the statements allegedly made by the witness on her Instagram account, where the term “they” was mentioned.
Howard dismissed Bradley’s explanation, stating, “That explanation holds no weight, Your Honor. Mr. Demons’ interests have been irreparably prejudiced before this jury.”
The judge decided to defer ruling on the mistrial motions until the following Tuesday.
Continue to check our website (buggingquestions.com) for more articles of this kind. And, please use our comment section as well, we would love to hear from you.
