Drake Wants to Ban Social Media Posts From Being Used in Upcoming Assault Trial
By TheBlast Staff on April 1, 2018 at 11:17 PM EDT
Drake is pleading with a judge to not allow music producer Detail to present evidence from social media in his upcoming assault trial.
Detail – real name Noel Fisher – sued Drake and his bodyguard Chubbs over an alleged 2014 assault at the rapper’s L.A. mansion. He claimed in the summer of 2014, Drake reached out to him to invite him over, claiming the rapper said he wanted to talk about the two working together again.
The producer says he showed up at Drake’s home and immediately ran into Chubbs, who he claims punched him in the face and allegedly broke his jaw.
The alleged injuries were so brutal, the producer says he was hospitalized for days and had to undergo several surgeries. He said he asked Drake to cover his medical bills, but Drake refused. He filed the lawsuit seeking unspecified damages.
Drake fired back saying his bodyguard only acted in self-defense and denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The rapper and his bodyguard demanded the entire suit be thrown out.
The case is headed to trial next month. Recently, Drake asked the judge to ban any evidence of hearsay — specifically any statements that originated from websites, social media and on the Internet — from the trial.
The rapper says due to his fame, his life serves as fodder for various blogs, websites and social media posts. He believes if the stories and posts are presented to the jury, it could lead to the risk of prejudice.
Drake's motion states: "Due to the plethora of news stories available, and after observing Detail’s inclination towards muddying the waters by introducing said news stories during the deposition of Chubbs, Drake is concerned Detail may try to introduce the same stories at trial."
He says it’s very likely that a jury would be more impressed with the written word of a media outlet than the oral testimony of the witnesses themselves.
Drake's attorneys believe the stories "would result only in confusing the jury and skewing their interpretations of the testimony and document presented at trial."
The case remains ongoing.
