Yella Beezy Trial: Attorney on jury's key issues

We have a lot to talk about. Our top story at the top of the 1 o'clock hour here, after 11 days in court, including testimony from five defense witnesses, deliberations in the Yella Beezy capital murder trial began about four hours ago. Ironically, this comes six years to the day that fellow Dallas rapper Moe 3 was shot and killed on I-35. So now jurors must decide whether prosecutors have proven beyond a reasonable doubt Yella Beezy, whose real name is Marquise Conway, paid or promised to pay someone to kill him. Fox 4's Alex Boye is on Verdict Watch for us at this hour and joins us live now from the courthouse with more. Alex, they're in a lunch break. When do they get back? Yeah, that's right, Casey. So they'll get back about 15 minutes from now. I can tell you that we're standing in the lobby outside of the courtroom, and there are several spectators that you may be able to see behind me who are eagerly awaiting alongside media for a possible verdict at some point today. I can tell you that so far the jury has asked two separate questions. Initially, they asked for all of the exhibits that were admitted into evidence, and then separately, they also requested rap lyrics, FBI transcript, and... financial statements. As you mentioned, the jury on a lunch break, they will resume deliberations at 1.15 p.m. Now, the prosecution and defense, as we know, has laid out their final pitch to the jury. They did that yesterday after about two weeks of testimony. Now, the rapper who wants to find out whether he'll be acquitted or possibly spend a life in prison for orchestrating the 2020 murder of Melvin Nobles, known as Dallas Rapper Moe 3. In closing arguments Tuesday, prosecutors Yella Beezy rap song. They believe it brags about a bounty on Moe 3's head. The two rappers had an ongoing feud. Defense attorneys called the lyrics speculative, lacking proof of a crime. When someone shows you and tells you who they are and what they're capable of, you believe them. And he's on Moe 3's head. You don't have to like these guys that I've said before. You don't have to like their music. You might think they're bad people, but you can't convict them. Unless the government rules out every logical, reasonable, that's your deal. So after the murder, prosecutors claim that Yella Beezy traveled back to North Texas and quickly withdrew $40,000 in cash while communicating with the convicted gunman through a middleman. Defense attorneys say that Yella Beezy regularly withdrew large amounts of cash. And again, they're on a lunch break. Up until that point, the jury had deliberated for just over three hours. They will resume at 1.15 p.m. Of course, Casey, we will be here throughout the day. Thank you. We'll be here and bring you the latest as it becomes available. Back to you. We know you will. Fox 4's Alex Boye, we look forward to your reporting and we're on standby. Thank you so much, Alex. So for further context and legal perspective on the proceedings as well as the case itself, we want to bring in our friend, Attorney Raghi Dunn. Raghi, thank you so much for being here. Can you kind of walk us through what happens when the jury gets a case like this? How do the jurors go from picking a foreperson to taking a first vote? Just kind of let us be a fly on the wall inside that room. Sure, what typically happens is the people that are more passive don't want to be the foreperson, and then someone who's been more talkative will generally say, well, I'll do it since nobody wants to do it. One of the things that I was thinking might be a result is a hung jury, but after the questions, those two questions that the jurors asked, I think that indicates more of a propensity for conviction, and I can explain why if you'd like. I imagine a judge is happy when a jury asks a question because that means they are being very diligent in what it is that they have been tasked with to do, right? Well, yes and no. I mean, sometimes they ask a question, the judge doesn't want to have to answer it. And of course, if the judge makes a wrong decision in answering that question, it could lead to an appeal point. And trial judges don't like to be overturned on appeal. So my question next is about timing as the deliberations stretch from hours into a full day if they don't come up with one today, what might jurors be working through and how much can we read into a clock? Does it favor one side or the other? I know this is a back and forth between a lot of trial lawyers. Sure. You know, anything can happen. But as a general proposition, if they're going to convict, it usually doesn't take them as much time unless there's a holdout. So in other words, when the evidence is overwhelming, you can see a lot of quick convictions or in a civil case, quick finding a fault. The longer it runs on, typically that means. That some jurors are struggling with the evidence, that they're taking votes and they're not getting anywhere close. As you know, in a criminal case, you have to have a unanimous vote. So let's talk about the case specifically. When you look at this case, what do you think is the toughest question for the jury to sort of grapple with? I think what they're fighting over is the juxtaposition of the defense said, sure, you've seen these texts, you've seen these phone records, but what is important, Toby Shook said, is what comes out of that witness box. So they, the defense, are trying to say that the documentary evidence that the prosecution put on isn't as important as what came out of the witness box. And I think the concern for the defense now should be, the question was, the jurors wanted Various documents and records, they didn't ask for any testimony to be read back, so that may be that they're being persuaded by the prosecutions, what I would call document proof. We've been through a fair amount of evidence, so the prosecutors pointed to phone records, meeting, of course, this $40,000 cash withdrawal. How well do you think they did at connecting the evidence to an alleged murder-for-hire agreement? I think they did a pretty good job, and I watched both of the closing arguments, and they have a video when it was late at night when there was this exchange of, as the prosecutor said, crisp $100 bills. So I think they did a good job of putting it together. The question, of course, is whether one, all you need is one juror to say it's not beyond a reasonable doubt and get a hung jury. So on the flip side of this, the defense argued investigators had tunnel vision. You know, that's pretty common in terms of an argument for a defense. So where do you think the defense did its best in terms of trying to raise that reasonable doubt? Because as you said, it only takes one juror. Well, great question, Casey. And during closing argument, the defense made a big point that the original investigator, who's now retired, did not testify. So what they said is you had investigators, Johnny-come-latelys, if you will, that led to this indictment and this prosecution. And again, they were pointing at the witness box and say, the original police investigator didn't come testify and tell you. what happened from the horse's mouth, if you will, from the get go. So I think that was very powerful persuasion by the defense. But if the jury's focusing on the lyrics of the song, and of course, the prosecutors played that in closing, right, and all the phone records and the cash withdrawal records, I think they're they will be more likely to convict than if they're focusing on what came out of witnesses mouths on the witness box. No, a big sticking point was this jailhouse phone call, and ultimately the judge decided that that was not going to be played for the jury. There was a back and forth as to why it should. Why did prosecutors want it in and then spell out what the defense's argument was for keeping it out? Well, the prosecutors wanted out because they thought it was pretty damning evidence, and I think the defendant said it was too prejudicial, and I didn't. Wasn't there to see their argument, but typically that would be, it's too prejudicial, it's not reliable, and therefore that shouldn't come in. So with a call out of that case, then what is the evidence that you think carries the most weight that was presented and that the jury is considering? Well, number one, the song with the lyrics where BZ says, you know, I've got a there's a bounty on his head. The fact that they withdraw 40,000, if I remember correctly, came from California to Dallas. They have a video of the exchange. It was at night. OK, if you're paying somebody legitimately, why do you meet up and where the restaurant was closed at night and give them a bag of cash? Right. I think that's pretty powerful. Along with if I remember correctly There were 46 calls between them between 11 in the morning and 11, 10 at night on a 12-hour period. So there's a lot of activity records right around the time that Mo3 was shot. Attorney Raghi Dunn, we really appreciate your insight. Thank you for joining the program this afternoon. You're welcome. Thank you, Casey. Have a great day.