YNW Melly appear surprised in court after a ruling by the judge in his double murder trial in Broward County, Fla., on June 15, 2023.
Defense attorneys for YNW Melly moved for a mistrial late Thursday afternoon following a dramatic series of improper questions directed toward a witness – and direct testifying – made by the prosecution in the rapper’s double murder trial.
The state’s second witness on Thursday was Felicia Holmes, the mother of the defendant’s ex-girlfriend, Mariah Hamilton. Fireworks frequently appeared as she took the stand – a marked departure from Wednesday’s relatively tame and technical testimony.
Largely at issue was a December 2018 statement Holmes is alleged to have made to Florida law enforcement about a FaceTime call between Melly and her daughter, Mariah Hamilton, that the state says occurred immediately after the shooting.
The substance of that statement, insofar as the state showed their hand, concerned: key times about the shooting; Melly’s phone number at the time of the shooting; Hamilton’s phone number at the time, whether Melly might have used a different phone to call his girlfriend that morning; what Melly said he saw just before the shots cut through the still Florida air; and his fear of a shooter possibly hiding in the bushes after the violence that claimed the lives of his two friends.
Holmes, however, gave a sworn deposition in December 2022 that differs on key details in the 2018 police statement. She has also said she does not clearly remember exactly what she told police in 2018.
Before the witness was called, and outside the presence of jurors, the defense warned the court that the state wasn’t really interested in Holmes’ testimony, but, rather, “disingenuously” using the “pretext” that Holmes forgot what she said to police about the immediate aftermath of the murders to try and impeach her on the stand by using her 2018 statement to law enforcement.
The state’s end goal, lead defense attorney David A. Howard stressed to the court was to get the entirety of the original statement before the jury – and that’s against longstanding case law in Florida.
“This body of law would not exist” if this kind of thing is allowed, Howard said, referencing several cases on the subject provided to the court. The defense said that Holmes would have remembered getting a call about a murder – but that she has made clear, she now backs away from that statement in several ways.
“It’s a pretext, it’s in bad faith, it’s improper, and it should not be admitted,” Howard argued. “It’s essentially hearsay.”
In the end, the judge allowed the state to call Hamilton and initially deferred from making any real decision about the extent or limitation of Holmes’ testimony about her 2018 statement. By declining to definitively rule, the state effectively won that battle – and went on to repeatedly try and get Holmes to testify about that statement.
Those efforts prompted the defense to raise an objection, and the jury was sent to take a long lunch.
The judge eventually ruled in the defense’s favor. So, the state argued the judge had incorrectly applied the case law. The judge then, after another lengthy look at the case law, slightly walked back his ruling but generally indicated that if the witness continued testifying the way she was – by failing to recall the accuracy of her 2018 statement or definitively say one way or the other whether her prior statement was accurate – the court would not allow the previous statement in.
As jurors returned, the questioning was often tense. Eventually, the state asked to treat Holmes as a hostile witness – with lead prosecutor Kristine Bradley recommending Holmes speak to her lawyer. The defense and Holmes’ lawyer complained the state was intimidating the witness and that this was untoward. This bit of back-and-forth led the court to send the jury into recess once again.
Judge John Murphy III initially upbraided the state for the hostility request. Murphy said that Holmes was answering all of the state’s questions – just not in the way the state wanted. The judge was also clearly frustrated with the state’s repetitive line of questioning.
“I don’t know where we’re going with this,” the judge said.
The court read back through two cases used to generally sustain the defense’s objection to introducing Holmes’ 2018 police statement and said that under two separate scenarios outlined by case law, the statement wouldn’t be allowed in.
Still outside the presence of jurors, the judge eventually allowed the state to treat Holmes as hostile, asking leading questions because she obviously doesn’t want to be there and is wearing an ankle monitor – but with strict caveats.
The court later read back through the same two cases used to generally sustain the defense’s objection to introducing Holmes’ 2018 police statement and said that under two separate scenarios outlined by case law, the statement wouldn’t be allowed in.
“I don’t want the contents of that statement regurgitated in the form of leading questions,” the judge said.
Formally ruled hostile, Bradley asked Holmes the same questions several times – prompting numerous objections. The defense and the court called for several sidebars as the state continued its questioning of the witness. The court repeatedly ruled in favor of the defense; after previously limiting what the state could ask – and how the state could ask – Holmes about her 2018 statement to law enforcement.
Over and over, Holmes said she did not remember that statement – but the state kept referring to the statement and asking the witness whether she was lying then, on the stand, or if she had a practice of lying to police. Bradley pressed in this fashion over numerous sustained objections from the defense.
Several defense objections, in other areas, were overruled – eventually leading the state to a line of questioning clearly intended to suggest that Holmes was being paid off by the defense.
“You never made a statement to the effect of you were told to quit your job and the defense would ‘take care of us?”” Bradley asked.
“The defense?” Holmes asked, puzzled, and said: “No.”
The defense objected again, and another sidebar was called. After that, the judge instructed the jury to disregard the question – saying, “the way it was phrased was totally improper” and sustaining the defense’s objection.
The state moved on to another line of questioning about Holmes’ daughter’s recollection of events, whether they made threats to cooperate with law enforcement and various other events. This led to another series of objections raised by the defense and sustained by the court.
At one point, near the tail end of her testimony, Holmes was asked questions about the state’s efforts to secure her testimony and the validity of previously issued subpoenas. In response to one question, the witness said her attorney had to hire an attorney to appeal “because you tried to get him disbarred.”
In response, Bradley directly testified in the case, which is not allowed, by saying: “That’s a false statement.”
The defense quickly leaped and loudly objected, and the court ruled in the defense’s favor, saying: “Counselor, you’re not testifying.”
Holmes left the stand soon after that, and jurors were excused early.
The court then addressed the motions for mistrial.
“As sure as I could predict that Tuesday comes after Monday – I made sure to stay up until 2 o’clock last night – to get these cases, to alert the court to what was the state’s obvious intention: to put a witness on there for the purpose of introducing out-of-court statements that are otherwise inadmissible,” defense attorney Howard said. “Instead of at least admitting that that was what the state intended to do, it advanced a ruse, pretext, that they were seeking to do so under [a certain rule of evidence], it turns out that [particular rule of evidence] given the witness’ testimony, could not be employed. And, so, the state then went back to plan one – the original one all along – of the state reading evidence from written documents of out-of-court statements, including police reports; statements on Instagram; arguments being had, into the record, through the state’s own mouth, knowing very well it was improper, that the court had ruled that it should not and could not be done.”
Howard accused Bradley of feigning surprise at Holmes’ testimony in a statement to the court, calling the state’s alleged surprise “not a credible statement” and suggesting the court investigate “to discern the veracity of that contention.”
The defense said the state repeatedly tried to “circumvent” the court’s rules and orders and introduced several pieces of evidence that they were not permitted to introduce “to the substantial prejudice” of the defendant.
“Mr. Demons has been prejudiced,” Howard went on. “This jury sat there and watched this fiasco unfold with at least 10, maybe 15, sidebars after every two questions…All predicated on the implications and the inadmissible testimony that Ms. Bradley, herself, read into and spoke into the record. And for that reason, we think that it was deliberate. It is highly prejudicial. This jury has been tainted, and we move for a mistrial.”
Next, defense attorney Stuart Adelstein addressed a second basis for the defense’s mistrial motion.
“In my entire career, I’ve never heard the state imply with no evidence whatsoever that the defense team would ‘take care of’ this witness,” attorney Adelstein said. “And even though the court gave that instruction and told them to ignore it. That question: ‘the defense team would take care of you if answered like this,’ is so improper that not only does it taint our client on the other questions, but it taints everybody at this table. But despite the judge – your honor’s – instructions to ignore it, it’s pretty hard to ignore something like that.”
“We’re moving for a mistrial,” Adelstein added.
Bradley, in response, said she was not referring to the defense team when she said “the defense” but the defendant himself. She said she was basing her questions on the “they” referenced in statements allegedly made by the witness on her Instagram account.
“That means nothing, your honor,” Howard said in response to the prosecutor’s explanation. “Mr. Demons’ interests have been irreparably prejudiced before this jury.”
The judge said he would defer ruling on the mistrial motions to next Tuesday.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
