The Court Rests

Reviewing the details of ASAP's ongoing trial

Intro

Hello to my fellow hunters. This is Kitty.

Today, I am bringing you the facts as the trial of A$AP Rocky unfolds. With the court resting today, I’d like to review the basics of the case and share my takes.

Basic Facts

A$AP Rocky is facing two felony counts of assault with a deadly weapon stemming from an incident on November 6, 2021. The charges allege that Rocky fired a gun at his childhood friend, A$AP Relli, during a heated altercation in Hollywood on a Saturday night. These accusations carry profound legal consequences for the rapper, making this one of the most closely watched trials of the year.

Pre-Trial Evidence

Before the jurors were allowed into the courtroom, the attorneys engaged in a heated discussion over new evidence the prosecution had provided to the defense just before opening statements. This evidence included a ballistic analysis of the casings found at the scene of the altercation, which narrowed the potential discharging firearm to a Glock 43. However, other possible weapons were not ruled out. Donat and Blonae concisely explain the significance of this pre-trial exchange in their respective streams, which are linked in the bibliography. They explain that the analysis suggests that the weapon used may be the type of gun carried by A$AP Rocky’s manager, which may mean he had access.

The defense argued that receiving critical evidence the night before the trial was unfair and asked the court to pause the proceedings. After deliberation, the judge determined that the court would pay for the defense to conduct its ballistic analysis in response, pausing the trial for today. He ruled that the jury would not be presented with any information about the ballistic findings until this process was complete.

My Take: I relied on Donat’s analysis linked in the bibliography to understand this portion of the trial. Donat pointed out that this evidence should have been handled long before the trial started. Ballistic analysis is foundational to a case like this, and for it to surface at the eleventh hour feels disorganized. The timing casts doubt over how evidence is managed in this case and the fairness of the trial.

On Jurors and External Influence

Another layer to consider here is the reality of jury dynamics. While the court aims to present jurors as a closed, unbiased group, assuming they are entirely unaffected by external pressures is unrealistic. Jurors in a high-profile case like this are likely under immense stress, surveillance, and indirect influence. Even with instructions to avoid outside information, the public nature of this trial means they may still be exposed to external narratives. Attorneys on both sides are undoubtedly aware of this reality and may craft their public strategies accordingly. By making evidence public, they may aim to influence both the trial and jurors who might encounter it despite court efforts to isolate them. It is nonetheless interesting to consider how legal strategies in high-profile cases extend beyond the courtroom and into the public sphere.

Jury Selection Controversy

A$AP Rocky’s defense team raised concerns about the lack of Black jurors. However, the judge refused to pause the trial. There are unconfirmed rumors that the prosecution struck Black jurors during selection, which only adds to the conversation about racial dynamics in the courtroom. From observing the jury in person, they don’t seem likely to be particularly sympathetic to Rocky’s case.

My Take: On principle, I believe having Black jurors in criminal cases involving Black defendants is essential. That said, based on what I saw during opening statements, the racial composition of the jury may not significantly affect the outcome of this particular trial.

Opening Statements: The Prosecution’s Case

The prosecution outlined a strong case against A$AP Rocky, presenting a narrative that paints him as the aggressor. They presented substantial evidence and a coherent narrative, though not without its gaps and flaws.

Here are their main points:

• 911 Calls
  The prosecution plans to present 911 calls from bystanders who witnessed the incident and contacted the LAPD.
  

  My Take: The 911 calls corroborate the video evidence. One caller identifies Rocky as the shooter using clothing descriptors, which can be cross-referenced with footage. While compelling, 911 calls are often reactionary and may distort or omit key details.

• Video Evidence
  Footage from four public cameras shows parts of the altercation.
  

  My Take: This could be compelling, as the footage seems to support their claims, but the footage might leave room for interpretation, especially since it’s not all particularly clear.
  

• Police Body Camera Footage
  Bodycam footage from responding officers adds context to the aftermath.
  

  My Take: It may add emotional weight but not conclusively show who started or escalated the altercation.
  

• A$AP Relli’s Testimony
  The prosecution relies heavily on Relli’s account.
  

  My Take: Relli’s role as victim and key witness opens him to scrutiny, but his testimony is critical to the prosecution’s case. Relli’s behavior does raise questions about Rocky potentially being set up.
  

• Text Messages
  Messages between Relli, Rocky, and others are presented as evidence of premeditation.
  

  My Take: These could be damaging, but the defense might argue alternative interpretations.
  

• Bullet Casings
  Relli found casings that police couldn’t locate.
  

  My Take: This raises reasonable doubt and weakens the prosecution’s case. This affirms the defense’s argument that Relli may have ulterior motives.
  
  

Opening Statements: The Defense’s Case

The defense leaned on three main strategies:

1. Attacking A$AP Relli’s Character
The defense portrayed Relli as unreliable and vindictive, questioning his motives and credibility.

My Take: While this strategy is effective, given Relli’s centrality to the prosecution’s case, the defense’s portrayal feels exaggerated without more evidence of dishonesty.

2. Reinterpreting Video Footage
They argued that Relli was the aggressor and that Rocky introduced the gun to de-escalate, even firing it into the air as a deterrent.

My Take: This reinterpretation felt unconvincing. The video shows Rocky as the aggressor, and the defense’s spin only highlights the implausibility of their narrative. That said, the footage also shows Relli following Rocky and others after the initial altercation, raising questions about his intentions—why follow someone who had just threatened you?

3. Prop Gun Argument
Though Rocky is licensed, the defense claims the gun he had was a prop gun, explaining the lack of casings or damage. The defense may also want to make this argument because California is not an open-carry state. It is illegal to carry a firearm openly in public. They claim it was common knowledge that Rocky carried a prop gun and that Relli knew.

My Take: The prop gun story doesn’t hold up. To be frank, it’s not even believable on its face. Plus, it introduces other issues into the narrative they’re trying to paint. If everyone knew it was fake, why would it be practical to use it to threaten at all? It creates more questions than answers and weakens their credibility.

Overall Take

The defense’s opening statement leaned heavily on these strategies: attacking Relli’s character and reframing the most concrete evidence—the video footage and the weapon—as something less incriminating. While these approaches have the potential to raise questions, their execution feels unconvincing. The reinterpretation of the video footage and the prop gun argument, in particular, may alienate jurors by coming across as manipulative or implausible.

Honestly, I think part of the reason this approach falls flat has to do with the defense attorney himself. He comes off as a scumbag attorney who doesn’t inspire trust. And let me add this: I really did not appreciate how comfortable he seemed saying the N-word. On principle, if I were Rocky, I wouldn’t want a non-Black attorney who feels that comfortable throwing around the N-word. It adds to the sleazy, off-putting vibe he gives, and it doesn’t do Rocky any favors.

That said, Rocky having a scumbag attorney isn’t a crime. If he’s innocent, he shouldn’t be convicted just because the defense’s strategy is unconvincing or his attorney is hard to stomach. The defense could sit quietly for the entire trial. Rocky has the presumption of innocence in a criminal trial, and the burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution. The gaps in the prosecution’s case are enough to meet the standard of reasonable doubt without needing to stretch into absurdities.

Now, let me be clear—it’s not that I think the defense has the best case or the most convincing strategy. Far from it. The prosecution has built a strong narrative, and the evidence they’ve presented so far is compelling. But this isn’t about which side has the better story. The prosecution has to convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, and there are genuine gaps in their case that make this difficult. For me, the bullet casings alone introduce enough doubt to make me think an ethical jury would have to go with a “not guilty” verdict based on the strict parameters of reasonable doubt.

That said, the trial is just beginning, and there may be additional evidence that shifts the scales. I wouldn’t want to be Rocky right now with this jury and the high stakes. This is a tough case for both sides and seeing a friendship turn this dark is tragic.

That’s it for now, hunters. This is Kitty Killer. Until next time, y’all be safe out there.

Bibliography

ASAP Rocky's DARK SECRETS + OPENING STATEMENT

ASAP Rocky's FAKE Pistol Defense! Opening Statements Reaction + Thoughts On Plea Deal