Pa. High Court Won't Toss Judge Brinkley From Meek Mill Case
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied rapper Meek Mill's latest bid to have Philadelphia Judge Genece Brinkley tossed from his case.
August 21, 2018 at 07:49 PM
4 minute read
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court has denied rapper Meek Mill's latest bid to have Philadelphia Judge Genece Brinkley tossed from his case.
In a one-page order issued Tuesday, the justices denied the hip-hop star's request to have a new judge assigned, and said Mill will have to bring his claims to the state Superior Court before the justices will consider his appeal. The order marks the third time the justices have ruled in the case since November when Brinkley sentenced him to a two-to-four-year prison sentence for violating his probation.
Mill had asked the high court to take up his case through its King's Bench jurisdiction, which is rarely used, but has proven successful for the rapper, whose case has garnered national attention and sparked an outcry for criminal justice reforms.
Mill, whose real name is Robert Williams, has been seeking to overturn his decade-old conviction on drug- and gun-related charges, based on arguments that newly uncovered evidence casts serious doubts about the credibility of a key witness at his trial. Brinkley, who handled his initial trial, denied those efforts in a ruling in June that followed a contentious court hearing and claims from Mill's legal team that Brinkley had been acting more as a prosecutor than a judge.
Mill's attorney, Joe Tacopina, said in an emailed statement that the legal team intends to now bring their appeal to the Superior Court.
“Time after time, Judge Brinkley has continued to display unethical behavior as she has presided over Meek's case, and we will work diligently to rectify this grave miscarriage of justice and ensure that Meek's wrongful conviction is overturned and he is granted the new and fair trial that he deserves,” Tacopina said.
The rap artist has been on probation since 2008. After being arrested twice in 2016 on charges that were later dropped, Brinkley sentenced him in November to two to four years in prison. The sentence stunned both Mill's fan base and criminal justice attorneys alike, since neither Mill's probation officer nor the prosecutor on the case had sought jail time.
In March, Mill filed a King's Bench petition with the justices, asking that Brinkley be tossed from the case and that he be allowed out on bail. The justices agreed to release Mill on bail, but said it would not rule “at this juncture” to remove Brinkley.
In the lead-up to the June 18 evidentiary hearing, Mill's legal team asked the judge who supervises Philadelphia's criminal courts to remove Brinkley, but that judge said only a higher court would have the power to remove another Common Pleas Court judge. Mill's team quickly made its second bid to the Supreme Court, saying Brinkley's recent activity, including having a private attorney make public statements about the case and filing lawsuits claiming she suffered potentially disabling injuries, should disqualify her from handling his appeal.
The court split 3-3 on that appeal, with three justices saying Brinkley's “continued involvement has created an appearance of impropriety that tends to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.” One of the justices who denied the petition also suggested Mill could file another appeal after the June 18 hearing.
Brinkley issued a lengthy opinion in late June, saying Mill failed to convince her that newly discovered evidence about possible misconduct of the sole officer who testified at his trial created enough doubt to warrant a new one.
The King's Bench appeal would have sidestepped the state Superior Court, which, according to attorneys, has very little leeway when it comes to reversing a trial court judge's ruling on a post-conviction appeal.
The District Attorney's Office declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllPhila. Med Mal Lawyers In for Busy Year as Court Adjusts for Filing Boom
3 minute read'Recover, Reflect, Retool and Retry': Lessons From Women Atop Pa. Legal Community
3 minute readEDPA's New Chief Judge Plans to Advance Efforts to Combat Threats to Judiciary
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1The Tech Built by Law Firms in 2024
- 2Distressed M&A: Mass Torts, Bankruptcy and Furthering the Search for Consensus: Another Purdue Decision
- 3For Safer Traffic Stops, Replace Paper Documents With ‘Contactless’ Tech
- 4As Second Trump Administration Approaches, Businesses Brace for Sweeping Changes to Immigration Policy
- 5General Warrants and ESI
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250