The trapper Baby Gang expressed “satisfaction” with the decision of the Milan Review Courtbut also “bitterness” for the two months spent “unjustly” in prison. “They ruined a positive moment in my life and the professional satisfaction for the success of the last album, which ended up at the top of the charts. Now I continue with my path, I continue to work and carry out my project”, he explained to his defender, the lawyer Niccolò Vecchioni, who notified him of the positive outcome of the appeal. The 22 year old at the registry office Zechariah Mouhibis still in prison Busto Arsiziowaiting for an electronic bracelet to be made available to be able to serve his house arrest in his home in the Lecco area.
“The Review recognized, by accepting our requests, that my client did not commit any crimes violation of the provisions – underlines the lawyer Vecchioni – and has always acted within the scope of the authorizations issued by the judges. The Review made a secular and legal evaluation of the facts, without leaving room for moral evaluations, and for this we can only express satisfaction”.
The Review Court ordered his release and house arrest after the Court of Appeal of Milan had aggravated the precautionary measure for the singer at the end of April because, while he was under house arrest with an electronic bracelet, he had published “photos on Instagram” in which it came “portrait holding a gun”, feint, “pointing towards the goal”. In court on Wednesday the trapper said: “It’s as if you took an actor who makes action films and put him in jail.”
Learn more:
“The gun in the photos on social media? Just fiction.” Baby Gang’s appeal: let me out of prison
Even if the “contents” of photos and videos to promote his songs “depose negatively” and “denote” that “he has never intended to distance himself and indeed seems to want to continue to feed an image of himself” inserted “in a illicit lifestyle“, the judges of the Review argued, in the specific case however they are “attributable” to his “expressive choices” within “theexercise of work activity which in any case he was authorized to carry out”, that is, that of a musician. In the provision, the judges accepted the defender’s findings and explained that the 22-year-old had been “gradually” authorized for the “photo shootsthe production of video clips” and could meet one of his collaborators and also “communicate with third parties”, as well as sometimes leaving his home for work.
