Meek Mill. Photo: Shutterstock.com

With issues including withheld transcripts of meetings, an alleged FBI investigation and a question over the nature of a judge's relationship with a high-profile litigant, the Meek Mill court battle has brought an unusual amount of national attention to the Philadelphia court system. Ever since the hip-hop star was slammed with a lengthy prison sentence for violating his probation, fans have rallied to support him and others in the public eye have used the opportunity to talk about inequality in the American justice system.

But the court of public opinion is very different than the judicial system in Pennsylvania.

Mill, whose real name is Robert Williams, has appealed the two-to-four-year prison sentence that Philadelphia Judge Genece Brinkley imposed last month. As the appeal is proceeding, more allegations are coming into focus regarding the case, which have in turn fueled more speculation in the media. But what issues are likely to sway the Pennsylvania Superior Court?

According to attorneys who spoke with The Legal, some of whom declined to speak on the record, Williams' most salient appellate issue may have largely evaded the public's attention.

Brinkley sentenced Williams to two to four years of incarceration after violating his probation. Williams, who has been on probation since 2008, was arrested twice this year. She handed down the sentence despite the fact that neither the prosecutors nor probation officer involved were seeking any jail time.

Criminal defense attorney Jeffrey Lindy of Lindy and Tauber said it is unusual for a judge to hand down such a large sentence, especially when neither side is calling for prison, and the length of time that the probation was ongoing is also unusual. But, he echoed what several other attorneys said, which is that the judge has full discretion to sentence defendants on probation to the maximum penalty for the offense they were convicted of.

“You don't usually see a probation violator get maxed out by the judge, but everybody knows the score in that courthouse,” Lindy said. “Especially, if she feels she's not being listened to, or particularly that she's being taken advantage of.”

However, Williams' counsel has argued that Brinkley was “enamored” with Williams, claiming that Brinkley told him to switch managers from his New York-based label back to a Philadelphia-based studio and that she requested he re-record a version of a Boyz II Men song that included her name in the lyrics.

That could be a more successful argument, but, according to Fairlie & Lippy attorney Steven Fairlie, those allegations hinge entirely on the proof defense counsel will be able to provide.

“In their motion they listed their proof, but the credibility of their proof hasn't been determined yet,” he said. “You would need to have a trial judge have a hearing and then rule on the credibility of the allegations before an appellate court could review it.”

One of the most eye-catching allegations in the case is Williams' claim that the FBI conducted an investigation into Brinkley's conduct in connection with her handling of his case. Williams' counsel said in court papers that Brinkley had been investigated, and that, since she is now aware of the investigation, she will need to recuse from handling the case going forward.

A recent report by The Philadelphia Inquirer citing three sources with familiarity of the investigation said it was Williams who “pressed” the FBI to investigate Brinkley, and that the “short-lived review” came to an end after Williams refused to wear a wire.

The timing of what Brinkley knew about the FBI's involvement and when is key to how significant that issue may become, according to attorneys. It could call into question any rulings after she was made aware of it, but Williams' filings does not claim that Brinkley knew of the review prior to handing down her sentence in early November, so the issue is likely to only affect the case if the Superior Court decides to remand.

The extent of the investigation and how it was initiated play a role in the consideration too.

“I could see the argument that, if I made up a story about a judge because I wanted to get that judge off the case, I could see an appellate court saying that's not a basis for recusal,” Fairlie said. “But, if there's any truth to the matter, then it provides a very solid basis for recusal.”

Regardless of the credibility of the FBI investigation, Fairlie said the case has likely garnered far too much attention to have Brinkley continue handling the case. That consideration comes down solely to whether the public might perceive an appearance of impropriety.

“It's not as sensational and interesting as all the articles I cited about innuendo and street credibility and motives for not cooperating,” Fairlie said. “The standard doesn't depend on her ability to be fair. It depends upon the public's perception of her ability to be fair.”

According to attorneys, Williams' most promising appellate arguments have largely gone unnoticed by the public, clouded by some of the most spectacular claims made in the media.

For instance, Williams' team has claimed the judge is “infatuated” with the rapper.

Powering that claim is an off-the-record conversation among Brinkley, Williams and his then-girlfriend Nicki Minaj that occurred in chambers in February 2016. It was at this meeting that Brinkley allegedly asked Williams about his management and to cover the Boyz II Men song, “On Bended Knee,” and include a reference to her in the song.

According to Williams' lawyers, it was Brinkley who requested an “uncounseled” discussion. But Brinkley said in an April 2016 hearing that it was Williams who requested the discussion, and that he had attorneys present.

Williams' counsel requested that a transcript of the February 2016 off-the-record conversation be produced for the purpose of preparing their appeal. At the same time they asked that the transcript remain under seal.

However, when Brinkley repeatedly stressed that the transcript would either remain off the record, or be unsealed and made publicly available, defense counsel withdrew its motion to seeking production of the transcript. In the April 2016 hearing, Brinkley confirmed that she talked with Williams about his management, and also said some of the discussion raised security concerns and that Williams cried during some parts of the conversation.

Defense counsel subsequently asked the Superior Court to give them access to the full record, but, after determining that the judge did not issue an appealable order during the meeting that took place at Williams' request, the court quashed the appeal finding that “the court did not rule on the motion, and there is nothing for this court to review.”

Williams' latest appeal again raised the issue of access to the transcript.

Attorneys said lawyers regularly meet in chambers with judges and opposing counsel present. However, parties in the case are not present during those discussions, and it is extremely rare that an attorney would subsequently ask that an off-the-record conversation be transcribed after it has taken place.

Lindy agreed with Brinkley's understanding that the transcript would need to be unsealed if it was put on the record. If the defense wanted to have sealed access, he said the parties would need to file an emergency motion with the Superior Court while the issue was still before Brinkley. However, he said it is unlikely appellate courts would agree to seal the record.

But Lindy called the procedure “awkward” and unlikely to produce a court win for the rapper. Other attorneys said that the uniqueness of the situation might give the Superior Court a reason to have the case reviewed further.

“There's a ton of rumor and innuendo, and not that many facts of record,” Fairlie said. “That needs to get ironed out, and there really needs to be a hearing where the allegations can be set forth and the credibility can be tested.”

Williams' attorney, Joe Tacopina of Tacopina & Seigel, did not return a request for comment left with his spokesman. A spokesman for the First Judicial District, which encompasses the Philadelphia courts, declined to comment.