EBK Jaaybo Won’t Be Going To Trial?! | Criminal Lawyer Reacts

Added: 2026-06-01

[00:00:00]Hey guys, Lisa Figarero here, board certified criminal defense attorney in Florida. Back to talk to you a little more briefly about EVK Jabbo. We did this whole video about his traffic stop because you guys have been asking for it and I didn't know anything about him or the stop or the case. But what I think people missed is that even though there were some defenses, the case is almost over. It's over. It's all pretty much done. And I'm going to show you why. So, we talked about he got arrested, charged after this traffic stop where he's not alone. He's in the car with his friends.

[00:00:31]They're traveling to a show and then they find some drugs in the car and a firearm and they charge him with possession with transporting it, the whole nine. He also was already on some sort of supervision out of California.

[00:00:46]They had to transport him over here to deal with this case. I thought there was going to be this big fight in this case.

[00:00:52]So, I hadn't gotten to it yet because I'm like, "We got time. We got time.

[00:00:55]They haven't done anything." The defense attorney had filed a motion to sever because him and uh what's the other guy?

[00:01:02]Baby Max, the codefendant. Codefendant, Baby Max, was also in the car. He's actually done some videos and talked about it after the fact. And they're both charged in this case. And the attorney filed a motion to sever to separate them that way. And normally you're going to do that because they both could point the finger at each other, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's like, hey, it wasn't mine, it was his. Um, and then the other guy's attorney can say the same thing. Wasn't mine, it was his. And as long as they're separate, then the jury can determine whether or not that was enough as to that defendant if they gave any statements. Now, if they didn't give any statements, though, they're allowed to try the case together. There's very limited reasons why a judge will allow to remove the case to sever it. Um, but if you don't have any of those kind of incriminating statements that one threw the fing, you know, pointed the finger at the other one, um, they usually can get away with leaving it. But I thought maybe they would have a chance for that in this case, but the order came back pretty early on, like in January. It was denied and Jabbo's attorney had argued that having the trials together would prejudice his right to a fair trial because his defense is irreconcilable with Jones's defense. Baby Max's defense and he >> irreconcilable meaning they don't mix, they don't jive. If his story isn't going to go with my story, so it it it clashes. It creates a problem if he's saying I didn't know it was here. You know, I didn't know it was mine. I mean, I didn't know it was it wasn't mine. It was his, but it but they didn't quite get there. So, it just said it. It was a very vague way, which is probably why it got denied. You needed to be able to say that the other guy is saying it's mine and that's not true or I'm saying it's his and and it seems like they didn't, you know, no snitching. They're not pointing the finger at each other, but then the judge gets to say, "Well, that's not good enough." So, this was the attorney basically trying to imply that that might be something that could happen. So, you should separate us. But if there's no clear-cut evidence that the other guy is making a statement against you, um it's it's really hard to get the judge to separate those. Um just like we saw in the Fio trial where all the codefendants went forward and they had to defend themselves like together, right? it didn't get separated, but there were no statements blaming one over the other. And so the same thing happened here. So even though the defense was trying to argue it was irre irreconcilable um defenses, the judge was like, "Yeah, no." Um he acknowledges that jury instructions may cure the risk of prejudice. Um every time there's a trial, the jury will get instructed on how they should look at the evidence against each codefendant separately. So that that should be good enough. and the defense attorney is saying, "Hey, that's not gonna it's still too risky. Even if you give the instructions to the jury, it's gonna, you know, make it messy. We really need in order for this to be a fair trial, we should get two separate trials and that way Jabel could argue what he has to argue and Baby Max can argue what he wants to argue." But the judge was like, "Yeah, no." Uh, didn't see any severe prejudice. He said, "After thorough review, the court finds that Mr. Gorman has failed to show that a joint trial with his codefendant would compromise his right to a fair trial or his chance of a quiddle. The case is not complex and the use of limiting instructions is likely to cure any risk of prejudice. So the motion is sever is denied. Denied and then um but fine. I thought though there might be some motions filed with respect to the traffic stop or possibly the search or just an argument to be made that he was not aware of those things being there and that they weren't his. And I don't know, but surprisingly enough, I saw a notice of hearing. I'd seen someone say that baby Max was going to take a plea.

[00:05:07]Okay, fine. What's going on with Jable?

[00:05:09]Well, sure enough, they both had notices of hearing. And a notice of hearing is just a document that we file to alert the court, we're planning on addressing something. Well, what's going to be addressed? A change of plea hearing.

[00:05:22]Change of plea. So, he's going to change this plea from not guilty to no contest or guilty, but basically, he's going to enter a plea. Will he be sentenced that day? No. So, on June 4th at 10:00 a.m., they're scheduled for a change of plea hearing. He the court will go through the plea colloquy. Make sure that this is what he wants to do. Make sure he understands he had the right to go to trial. Are you sure this is what you want to do? Are you doing this freely and voluntarily? You're waving your right to a trial. You're waving your opportunity to confront witnesses and all of that, right? And assuming that Jabbo says yes, he understands. If the court accepts it at that point, then they will set off a date for sentencing.

[00:06:05]And then they're going to go through the process of a pre-sentence investigation or or report where probation will interview him and there could be a recommendation. Usually the government will um not usually, it depends. Sometimes the government will say that they'll agree to some kind of guideline range, but typically it's very open at this point.

[00:06:25]No one gives any specifics. They will in federal court give you what's called acceptance of responsibility points because he didn't fight it and go to trial. You get additional points or a reduction for accepting responsibility, but that will get factored in later. So once they do that pre-sentence report, they'll set the sentencing date will be set. The judge will have an opportunity to review that. The defense can make their arguments and we'll see. And because I don't know his prior history, which my understanding is kind of extensive, um all of that will play into what he scores on the uh federal sentencing guideline chart. So, we'll see. If you guys want updates on this case, please let me know. Don't forget to subscribe and then that way we'll alert you with any updates as they come.

[00:07:11]Thanks for watching. We'll be back with some more videos soon. Take care.