Tekashi 6ix9ine’s Child Sex Case Shouldn’t Be Brought Up During Trial, Feds Say

6ix9ine is almost certain to be a witness at the upcoming trial of two of the men arrested in his federal racketeering case. Now, it appears the government is trying to keep certain aspects of the controversial rapper’s past off the witness stand.

In documents released Friday, US Attorney Geoffrey Berman asks the judge in the case, Paul Engelmayer, to prevent defense lawyers from asking 6ix9ine about his 2015 guilty plea to use of a child in a sexual performance. 

The plea dates back to a February 2015 incident involving a then-18-year-old 6ix9ine, several other men (only one, Taquan Anderson, was charged), and a 13-year-old girl. Anderson and at least one other man engaged in sexual activity with the girl, and according to a police complaint, 6ix9ine “stands behind the child making a thrusting motion with his pelvis and smacking her on her buttocks.” 6ix9ine shared videos from the evening on Instagram, before the girl’s mother saw them and contacted the police. 6ix9ine pleaded guilty that October, and received two years to fulfill a number of conditions in order to avoid prison. One year after that, in October 2018, the case was finally settled as 6ix9ine was sentenced to four years of probation. 

Friday’s documents reveal Berman saying that 6ix9ine (identified only as “CW-2” for “cooperating witness”) “is expected to testify about various acts of violence that [he] participated, learned about, and/or directed” at the upcoming trial of accused Nine Trey Gangsta Bloods members Aljermiah “Nuke” Mack and Anthony “Harv” Ellison. Berman argues that the details of the 2015 case are likely to prejudice jurors, and have nothing to do with the case at hand.

“[T]he Government respectfully requests that defense counsel be precluded from cross-examining CW-2 regarding…an October 21, 2015 conviction in New York County Supreme Court of Use of a Child Less Than 17 Years of Age in a Sexual Performance,” it reads. “The October 2015 Conviction is likely to cause a jury to unfairly discount CW-2’s testimony due to feelings of disgust concerning the underlying conduct. Cross-examination about this topic would be inappropriate because it would be substantially prejudicial, entirely nonprobative of any relevant issue, and irrelevant to testing the truthfulness of CW-2’s anticipated testimony… [T]he only possible purpose of any cross-examination of CW-2 regarding the October 2015 Conviction would be to inflame the jury against CW-2 in an effort to cause the jurors to reject CW-2’s testimony…”

As of Sunday, neither Ellison nor Mack’s lawyers have responded to the letter.