The high-stakes legal battle surrounding rapper YNW Melly (Jamal Demons), who faces double-murder charges, has taken a dramatic turn in the parallel $50 million wrongful death civil lawsuit filed by the families of his alleged victims, Anthony Williams (YNW Sackchaser) and Christopher Thomas Jr. (YNW Juvie). While the criminal case garners headlines, the civil proceedings have delivered a stunning moment of drama, placing Melly’s close friend and fellow rapper, Fredo Bang, directly in the legal crosshairs.

In a sworn deposition that reads like a tense courtroom thriller, Fredo Bang repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment right—the constitutional protection against self-incrimination—to avoid answering critical questions linking him to the events immediately following the murders. The implications of this calculated silence in a civil setting are profound, potentially delivering a decisive blow to Melly’s defense and lending weight to the families’ claims.

The Frantic 4:00 A.M. Plea: A Paper Trail of Panic

The deposition by the attorneys representing the victims’ families focused heavily on the crucial hours immediately following the 2018 murders. The line of questioning hinged on digital evidence: a text message sent from Melly to Fredo Bang at approximately 4:00 a.m., minutes after the alleged homicides.

The message was brief and frantic: “Brazy is right now.”

This text was quickly followed by an 8-minute phone conversation, which, when asked about in the deposition, Fredo Bang claimed he could not recall. Moments after the conversation ended, Melly allegedly sent Fredo his pin-drop location—a clear signal for a pickup. The exchange culminated with Fredo Bang’s alleged reply, “I’m on my way Blood i got you.”

To the prosecution and the civil lawyers, this exchange painted a clear picture: Fredo Bang was the one who picked up Melly, allegedly fresh from the scene of a brutal crime. Given the timeline and the nature of the alleged offense, the lawyers for the family pressed the rapper on whether he had encountered Melly with blood on him. This is where the stone wall of silence began to rise. When confronted with the evidence and the direct question about picking up Melly, Fredo Bang, on the instruction of his attorney, asserted his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent, refusing to confirm or deny the alleged role of getaway driver or assist.

The Legal Leverage: Why Silence is Incriminating in a Civil Case

The consistent refusal to answer questions—invoking the Fifth Amendment repeatedly—is the central, powerful maneuver of the deposition. While a defendant in a criminal trial can invoke the Fifth Amendment without the jury drawing an adverse conclusion, the rules change drastically in a civil lawsuit.

As the family’s lawyer made clear, a jury in a civil case is allowed to be informed that a witness took the Fifth Amendment and can be instructed to draw a “negative inference” from that silence. In essence, the jury can conclude that the reason Fredo Bang would not answer is that the truth would have been damaging or incriminating, either to himself or to YNW Melly. This legal loophole transforms a constitutional right into a devastating piece of circumstantial evidence for the plaintiffs seeking $50 million in damages.

The list of questions Fredo Bang refused to answer under oath is staggering in its cumulative weight:

The Pickup: Did he pick up Jamal Demons (YNW Melly) in the early morning hours of October 26th?
The Weapon: Did he recall a discussion at his house about meeting to go to a field to find a firearm or a bloody weapon? Did he assist with the disposal of a firearm?
The Meeting: Why did all these people, including Melly’s mother and other friends, converge on his house on October 26th?
The Evidence Trail: Was he aware that individuals were accessing his Wi-Fi at his house shortly after the homicides? (Melly’s phone was proven to have connected to Fredo’s Wi-Fi hours after the murders).
The Clothes: Did Melly take off or change his clothes at Fredo’s house on the day of the murders?

For nearly every question directly pertaining to Melly’s whereabouts, actions, or state in the hours immediately following the murders, Fredo Bang and his legal counsel chose silence, repeatedly asserting the Fifth. The lawyers for the victims’ families argued that this wholesale refusal paints a picture of a witness who “is covering for himself or Melly and that he knows something incriminating.”

An Attack on Credibility: The Vlad TV Confessions

To further solidify their case, the family’s legal team strategically undermined Fredo Bang’s general credibility. The deposition heavily featured excerpts from Fredo Bang’s past interviews—notably with Vlad TV and No Jumper—where he had previously made questionable statements.

During the questioning, Fredo Bang was forced to admit to lying in prior public interviews. He acknowledged lying about being able to legally move to Miami, admitting he was only visiting on travel passes while on parole. He also walked back previous claims about being in the studio with Melly “thousands of times,” stating he was “probably lying” and that it was certainly not a thousand times. Even a statement about being in a “good place now” regarding past anger issues was brought up to challenge the rapper’s general veracity.

This line of attack is standard legal strategy: if a witness can be proven to have lied under less stressful circumstances (like an interview), it makes their current testimony, or lack thereof, appear suspect and less trustworthy.

Furthermore, the legal team delved into Fredo Bang’s past felony conviction for attempted murder, illegal use of a stolen firearm, and battery. While his lawyer objected, arguing it was irrelevant, the family’s attorney insisted it was essential background information to establish his ability to testify. The implication was clear: the witness has a past involving violence and criminality, further weakening his posture as a credible, impartial witness.

The Brotherhood and The ‘Free Melly’ Message

The attorneys also highlighted Fredo Bang’s undeniable loyalty to the accused. Fredo Bang confirmed that he has done videos wearing “Free Melly” shirts, though he claimed he was not compensated for this endorsement. When asked directly if he believed what his shirt says—that Melly should be free—Fredo Bang offered a qualified response: “I don’t want to jail nobody but yeah.”

The questions about their relationship also became avenues for the Fifth Amendment. When asked if they ever discussed the rap group fighting over the rights of YNW, Fredo Bang claimed he didn’t get into people’s business. However, his use of the street term “Blood” in the text message to Melly was also addressed, seemingly linking their friendship to street affiliations, which had been a point of focus by the original criminal prosecutor.

Conclusion: The Cost of Silence

The deposition concluded with a series of hard-hitting questions regarding the possibility of other suspects, clothes changing, and whether Fredo Bang called the police upon finding out his friend, Juvie, had been shot. For each, the response was the same: assertion of the Fifth Amendment right.

While Fredo Bang offered no direct testimony that could be used against YNW Melly in the criminal case, the deposition is devastating to the defense in the civil trial. In a civil court seeking $50 million, Fredo Bang’s silence over the pin drop, the alleged pickup, the changing of clothes, and the disposal of a weapon is not merely a non-answer; it is a signal the jury can legally interpret as an admission of guilt or complicity. The civil suit has transformed a friend’s loyalty into a massive legal liability, where a strategic refusal to speak may, ironically, be the loudest and most costly evidence against YNW Melly.