Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has requested that the YSL RICO trial be postponed.
Willis, according to 11Alive, asked for the trial to be postponed in a filing on Thursday. Willis requested a continuance of the trial date to March 2023 in the filing, which can be viewed in full here. Willis, in particular, has proposed a start date of March 27 of next year. The delay is requested in the filing to ensure defendants “receive effective assistance of counsel.”
According to the filing, 25 of the total 28 defendants are currently in custody, with eight of those 25 not currently represented by counsel. For the time being, the trial is scheduled to begin on January 9, 2023. Willis’ argument that “all defendants need to be tried together” is mentioned in Thursday’s filing, and she also acknowledges that several defendants have requested a speedy trial. Willis believes that delaying the start of the trial would “protect the rights” of everyone involved.
Attorneys for those involved in the case, including Young Thug and Gunna, are presumably opposed to the postponement request.
On behalf of Gunna, co-lead counsel Steve Sadow told Complex on Friday, “Sergio Kitchens (Gunna) is not guilty of the one charge against him and will be ready for trial whenever the Court directs.” But it is time for his pretrial detention to end, and we hope the Court will agree and release him on a reasonable bond at the Oct. 13 hearing.”
Complex has also reached out to Young Thug’s legal team for comment. This article may be updated.
The indictment behind it all has served as another high-profile example of the importance of pushing for creative expression to be protected against use in court, as highlighted throughout coverage of the much-discussed case.
The Protect Black Art petition was launched shortly after news of the YSL RICO indictment broke, and it has since received over 64,000 signatures.
Gunna filed his third bond motion in September. Gunna’s legal team argued in documents obtained by Complex at the time that prosecutors had provided “no evidence” to support claims that their client should be detained until trial.
