Motion for mistrial pending in YNW Melly trial
Rapper YNW Melly is on trial in Broward County for a 2018 shooting. The State of Florida will seek death if YNW Melly is convicted. The court is expected to rule Tuesday on a motion for mistrial.
Rapper YNW Melly (Jamell M. Demons) is on trial in Broward County for crimes that occurred in October 2018. He is charged with two counts of first-degree murder. He was 19 at the time of the shooting.
In 2019, YNW Melly “was indicted for two counts of first-degree murder with a firearm.”1 In 2022, the State filed “a superseding indictment add[ing] a sentencing enhancement for benefiting, promoting, or furthering the interests of a criminal gang.”
The State Intends to Seek Death
After the original indictment, in April 2019, the State filed a Notice indicating its intent to seek the death penalty if he is convicted.
In the Notice, the State listed four aggravating factors:
the capital felony was committed for pecuniary gain,
the capital felony was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,
the capital felony was a homicide and was committed in a cold, calculated, and premeditated manner without any pretense of moral or legal justification, and
the capital felony was committed by a criminal gang member.
After the superseding indictment in 2022, “the state did not file another notice of intent to seek the death penalty . . . .” As a result, the defense filed a motion to preclude the state from seeking the death penalty, which the trial court granted. “The state filed a writ of prohibition arguing the trial court exceeded its authority.”
On review, the Fourth District Court of Appeal agreed with the state, clearing the way for the State to seek the death penalty.
The Sun Sentinel covered this here.
Court Ruled 8-4 Capital Sentencing Statute Applies
The trial court has determined that Florida’s new 8-4 capital sentencing statute applies in Melly’s case. A few days after Gov. DeSantis signed the new 8-4 capital sentencing legislation, the State filed a motion seeking to apply the new statute in YNW Melly’s trial.2 Before the trial started, the Court granted the motion.
In the Order, the Court determined that the new statute “is procedural in nature and is therefore applicable to Defendant” and that applying the statute to YNW Melly’s scase “is not fundamentally unfair . . . .” In doing so, the Court referenced the Fifth District Court of Appeal’s ruling in the Hunter/Victorino case. (More here.)
Motions for Mistrial
On Thursday, June 15, Felicia Holmes (the mother of YNW Melly’s girlfriend at the time of the shooting) testified. Ms. Holmes’ testimony is available here, starting at approximately 3:14:00.
At the very beginning of her testimony, Ms. Holmes testified that she felt “threatened.”
At one point during questioning, the prosecutor suggested that Ms. Holmes talk to her attorney. The defense argued this was intimidating. She further testified that she got fired from her job because the prosecution put her in jail.
Later, after several disruptions and sidebars during the prosecution’s questioning of Ms. Holmes, the defense moved for mistrial. The motion came during questioning about whether YNW Melly provided financial support to Ms. Holmes and a statement Ms. Holmes allegedly made about talking to prosecutors about YNW Melly. The exchange starts around 6:35:00 in the video.
The State then continued questioning Ms. Holmes with a line of questioning about Ms. Holmes’ cooperation with law enforcement. The defense objected to almost every question, most of which the Court sustained.
After the State finished its questioning of Ms. Holmes, defense counsel asked Ms. Holmes one question—who she referenced in her initial statement that she feels threatened. She said she feels threatened by the prosecutor.
On redirect, the State asked Ms. Holmes for more details, suggesting Ms. Holmes evaded her obligations to appear in Court. The defense continued to object. In response to the prosecutor’s questions, Ms. Holmes said the State has required her to wear a monitor and has “ruined [her] life.”
At one point, the prosecutor told Ms. Holmes she made a “false statement.”
After redirect, Ms. Holmes was excused. The Court then excused the jurors until Tuesday. (Monday is a holiday.)
After the jury was out of the courtroom, the attorneys discussed the defense’s motions for mistrial. (They made two.) First, the defense argued that the jury has been tainted by the “prejudicial fiasco” that unfolded during Ms. Holmes’s testimony, including the State’s attempts to admit inadmissible evidence.
Second, the defense argued that the State’s suggestion that the defense was “taking care” of Ms. Holmes tainted the jury despite the Court’s instruction to ignore the suggestion. The State argued that the statement did not specifically reference the defense team.
The Court took the motions under advisement and is expected to make a ruling Tuesday. Here’s are news articles about the motion for mistrial.
State v. Demons, 351 So. 3d 10 (Fla. 4th DCA 2022).
TFDP covered the entire legislative process that led to this new statute being enacted. It is available in the Archive.