On June 10, 2024, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Ural Glanville held Young Thug’s lead defense lawyer, Brian Steel, in contempt and ordered him into custody after Steel challenged a meeting between prosecutors and a prosecution witness. The written order called for 20 days in jail, served over ten weekends. Steel’s punishment was stayed while he appealed, and on October 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia reversed the contempt judgment because due process required a different judge to hear the matter.
Why was Brian Steel held in contempt?
The dispute arose during Georgia’s prosecution of Jeffery Lamar Williams, the rapper known as Young Thug. On June 10, state witness Kenneth Copeland testified after an in-chambers meeting with Judge Glanville, Copeland and his lawyer, prosecutors, and investigators. The meeting addressed whether Copeland would testify; it was transcribed. Copeland had earlier declined to testify while invoking the Fifth Amendment, despite receiving immunity.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Let's Get It: Thug Motivation 101 | $13.98 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
My Side of the Tracks | $28.94 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
The BDI Thug | $8.98 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
All My Thugs by Young Phantom | $14.95 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Justify My Thug | Buy on Amazon |
After learning of the meeting, Steel objected and moved for a mistrial. Judge Glanville repeatedly asked Steel to identify the source of his information. Steel refused, saying disclosure would conflict with his professional confidentiality obligations. Glanville then found him in contempt for failing to comply with the judge’s order. The Georgia Supreme Court’s account is in Steel v. The State, S24A1245.
What did the contempt order require?
The June 10 written order directed that Steel be taken to the Fulton County Jail for no more than 20 days, with the time served on weekends over ten weekends. It scheduled the first weekend for June 14–16 and the last to end August 18, 2024, subject to further order. The order is titled Order Holding Brian Steel in Direct Criminal Contempt.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
- This CD has been professionally cleaned and resurfaced. Item is in 100% working order and guaranteed. CD case not included.
That was the sentence imposed by the trial court, not a record that Steel ultimately served the time. The punishment was stayed pending appeal, as reported by the Associated Press.
Why did the Georgia Supreme Court reverse the contempt judgment?
On October 22, 2024, the Supreme Court of Georgia unanimously reversed. It treated the written order as criminal contempt: it punished past conduct and gave Steel no opportunity to purge the contempt. Because Judge Glanville delayed the specific punishment, Steel’s alleged disobedience was directed toward the court; Glanville had also become involved in the controversy underlying the contempt. The court held that due process therefore required another judge to handle the contempt proceeding.
Rank #2
The reversal was procedural. The Supreme Court did not decide that the in-chambers meeting was impermissible, nor did it rule that Steel’s privilege or confidentiality argument prevailed. It did not need to reach most of Steel’s other arguments to resolve the appeal. The holding and procedural reasoning appear in Steel v. The State.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Was Brian Steel taken to jail?
Judge Glanville ordered Steel into custody, but the punishment was stayed while the appeal proceeded. The Supreme Court later reversed the contempt judgment. The available court and news accounts establish the order, stay, and reversal; they do not establish that Steel served the 20-day sentence.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Rank #4
Rank #3
What the ruling does—and does not—settle
- It settled who could hear the contempt matter: due process required a different judge under the circumstances the court identified.
- It did not settle the propriety of the meeting: the reversal was not a ruling that the meeting itself was unlawful.
- It did not resolve Steel’s confidentiality argument: the Supreme Court reversed on the due-process ground without deciding most of his other claims.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
