The Child Pornography Charges Might Destroy Tekashi’s Life And Lead Him To Life Imprisonment.

More on this topic

Page Six report says that the prosecutor dealing with the Tekashi Case, are shaving him off the child pornography charges. How far is this true? And if yes. Why is it so? Aka Fanny Hernandez wants that the reports past accusations record white and so giving off the vibes of pleas to keep it away from the jurors in an attempt. Must be in a position to protect the rapper’s images as far as possible.

Past Convictions Dissolved?

We got to know that prosecutors have already confirmed a motion with the Manhattan federal court judge, Paul Engelmeyer. In that petition, he says that the judge must bar offense lawyers to keep away with a discussion of past convictions related to child pornography! But why? Because this is irrelevant to his gang case charges.

Sprouts From what?

Previously, being listed in charges against as a part of nine trey Gangsta Bloods gang; Mack is accused. Ellison, who worked as part of Tekashi Management too detained for the involvement to kidnap and rob him last year. The two accused men have made big lump sum in the Telashi robbery business. Now, hanged for the trials and tribulations.

Oh and then?

Possibly, the testimony have been started by Tekashi. The rapper too spilled out some locked up stuffs about his co defendants. Now Ellison required for requesting the Judge to lock up the Tekashi pretty previous conviction “Use of a Child Less Than 17 Years of Age in a Sexual Performance” in 2015, during the impending trial.

What Do These Prosecutors Mean?

It’s just that the prosecution team doesn’t seem to be interested in Mack and Ellison cross-examine Tekashi. They argue that case for Tekashi (listed as CW-2, cooperating witness #2) must be attended.

According to their statements they say that the defense should be precluded from cross-examining CW-2 about the October 2015 Conviction, which includes the underlying facts supporting the conviction. Because it would suggest that any probative value of that testimony is substantially overshadowed by unfair prejudice.

Furthermore, it seems to be empty and employs no sense. And so shall be skipped.

Popular stories