June 24

Parrish v. State


During a heated exchange between YSL attorney Brian Steel and the judge presiding over the YSL RICO trial, Ural Glanville, attorney Steel moved to have Judge Glanville recuse himself from the trial. Judge Glanville refused to do so, saying that the attorneys requesting him to step aside had not cited any factual evidence that he should recuse, but instead had only made assertions without factual backing. Glanville cited the case Baptiste versus State as the precedential basis for his decision. Attorney Steel argued that Baptiste actually supports the defense’s contention that Glanville should step aside. We have made an audio recording of the Baptiste case so that you can listen to it and decide for yourself which side is citing the case correctly. Search our channel for the video.

In addition to Baptiste, attorney Steel cited another case, Parrish versus State, when arguing that Glanville should recuse. Parrish is an appellate case tried by attorney Steel’s law firm, and Steel cites the case in support of his contention that pleadings made by an attorney, on behalf of his or her client, become a statement of the client.

As it relates to the YSL case, Steel says that other YSL lawyers contend that Glanville “got involved with speaking with Mr. Copeland, and assisted in Mr. Copeland testifying against Mr. Williams. “ Steel says he has added the court to the witness list, and plans to call the court as a witness during the trial, as a result of the aforementioned meeting with witnesses Woody Copeland.

To help provide the public with additional context for Steel’s citation to the Parrish case, we present the full case here in audio format. You can also find a link to the written decision in the description.

Click here to download Parrish v. State 


You may also like

Baptiste v. State

Baptiste v. State


{"email":"Email address invalid","url":"Website address invalid","required":"Required field missing"}

Get in touch

0 of 350