LIVE COVERAGE:

Key witness Gordon Sondland testifies in Trump impeachment hearing.

On Air Now

Listen Now

Weather

clear-day
48°
Sunny
H 64° L 40°
  • clear-day
    48°
    Current Conditions
    Sunny. H 64° L 40°
  • clear-day
    64°
    Today
    Sunny. H 64° L 40°
  • clear-day
    66°
    Tomorrow
    Mostly Clear. H 66° L 47°
Listen
Pause
Error

News on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Listen
Pause
Error

Traffic on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Listen
Pause
Error

Weather on-demand

00:00 | 00:00

Philip Holloway

    Indigent defense is a complicated issue. Criminal defendants have an absolute constitutional right to be represented by competent counsel and the government has to provide counsel for defendants who cannot afford a lawyer. It doesn’t stop there, however. There is more to indigent defense than simply paying the lawyer. A lawyer without resources for investigators and even expert witnesses is like a captain without a ship. As far back as 1957 the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit explained:   Furnishing … a lawyer is not enough: the best lawyer in the world cannot competently defend an accused person if the lawyer cannot obtain existing evidence crucial to the defense, e.g., if the defendant cannot pay the fee of an investigator to find a pivotal missing witness or a necessary document, or that of an expert accountant or a mining engineer or chemist. It might indeed be argued that for the government to defray such expenses which the indigent accused cannot meet, is essential to that assistance of counsel which the Sixth Amendment guarantees …. In such circumstances, if the government does not supply the funds, justice is denied the poor—and represents but a upper-bracket privilege. Most counties in Georgia have a public defender’s office. The Georgia Public Defender Council (GPDC) was created in 2003 and is funded by taxpayers to handle the majority of indigent defense in Georgia. Some indigent defense happens outside this system however. The Grinstead murder trial is one such instance. Ryan Alexander Duke is scheduled to stand trial in Irwin County, Georgia for the murder of high school teacher and beauty queen Tara Grinstead. Duke was arrested with great fanfare in February 2017 for the 2005 alleged murder of Grinstead. He was represented for the next year and a half or so by the public defender’s office for the Tifton Judicial Circuit. He later elected to accept the volunteer services of three Atlanta-area lawyers. His defense is a complicated one and the evidence in the case appears to be extremely voluminous, hyper-technical in some ways, and convoluted. Among other things, the defense is alleging his incriminating statements to investigators qualifies as a “false confession.” For these reasons, the Duke defense team has asked the court to provide funds to pay for defense resources such as investigators and expert witnesses – the sort of resources that any lawyer, prosecutor or defense attorney, needs to properly prepare for and conduct a trial of this magnitude. So far, this funding has been denied. Mr. Duke is of course presumed to be innocent and he is clearly indigent. His election to accept pro bono services of three private attorneys has not changed his indigency. Ironically for Duke, because he accepted the services of volunteer lawyers of his own choosing, he may have to defend himself without the resources he would have had if stayed with the public defender’s office. This illustrates a broader problem with indigent defense in Georgia: How does an indigent defendant level the playing field when represented by private counsel? The Georgia Public Defender Council as an independent state agency and by law is “responsible for assuring that adequate and effective legal representation is provided, independently of political considerations or private interests, to indigent persons…” In 1986, The Georgia Supreme Court held that an indigent defendant has a right to state funds to pay for expert witnesses as related to “critical evidence” that might be open to interpretation among experts. Specifically, the Georgia Supreme Court said that a trial court shall order payment of these funds from public coffers. Every year the legislature funds the GPDC so the GPDC can do its work and pay experts and investigators as needed. The legislature has not made the same provision to fund indigent defense when it occurs outside the framework of the GPDC. So, if the GPDC doesn’t agree to pay these costs, who does? There can be only one answer: the county where the case is pending. But what if the county simply can’t afford it? What if there is a case so big and so complicated that any given county just doesn’t have the money? What if due process and the right to effective counsel demand monies to be paid yet a county – or a court – refuses? Prior to the creation of the GPDC the procedure for obtaining public funds for experts was fairly simple. It was outlined by the Georgia Supreme Court in 1988. Defense counsel – usually court appointed – files a sealed motion with the court explaining what was needed and why. These requests were / are routinely approved so long as the price tag was reasonable. The creation of the GPDC did not abolish this procedure and it is still the norm in many counties in Georgia where indigent defendants are represented by counsel outside of the public defender system. Now back to the earlier question - What if due process and the right to effective counsel demand monies to be paid yet a county – or a court – refuses? Well, in the event of a conviction an appellate reversal may occur. If a trial was expensive the first time around it will be extra costly the second time around. It’s more important to get it right the first time. Judges are obligated to ensure that due process happens in our courts so if the state won’t provide the necessary resources counties are just going to have to step up – and pay up. Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. 
  • From a court watcher’s perspective it’s apparent to most that the upcoming trial of Ryan Duke, charged with the 2005 murder of South Georgia high school teacher Tara Grinstead is sure to be nothing short of a spectacle of epic proportions. We got a preview of things to come during - of all things - a bond hearing where Duke asked, for the first time in two years, to be released on bond. It wasn’t the denial of bond, nor the fact that Duke asked for bond that is particularly noteworthy. It’s what the bond hearing devolved into that raised eyebrows. Despite losing the motion, the defense unexpectedly was able to depose the lead GBI investigator on a wide range of topics in a dress rehearsal for what promises to be a most controversial trial.  To start, let’s have a look at what a bond hearing is supposed to be.  It’s uncommon for bond to be set in murder cases but it’s not unheard of. Courts are supposed to consider the following factors in making bond decisions and the burden of proof is on the defendant to show that he:  Poses no significant risk of fleeing from the jurisdiction of the court or failing to appear in court when required;  Poses no significant threat or danger to any person, to the community, or to any property in the community;  Poses no significant risk of committing any felony pending trial; and  Poses no significant risk of intimidating witnesses or otherwise obstructing the administration of justice.  Probable cause is not an issue and of course neither is guilt or innocence. A bond hearing is not a trial.  The Duke bond hearing started out as most bond hearings do. The defense called Duke’s brother to testify regarding each of the factors set out above. But then it started a downward spiral into the surreal when the prosecutor called the lead GBI case agent as a witness - presumably as a rebuttal to the defense. A state’s witness, such as an investigator, can occasionally testify - to a point - about “what happened” because that’s relevant - to a point - for the court to determine whether the person poses a danger to the community. But in this case, the testimony was literally all over the place and went into minute detail about many things that have never been heard before. The “bond hearing” was effectively transformed into a deposition - a legal luxury not normally available to a criminal defendant in Georgia.  So just what did we learn from this “bond” hearing? We learned that DNA from the bodily fluid of a police officer was mixed with the victim’s blood on some bedding and that “touch DNA” from Grinstead and Duke (along with DNA from at least two other people) was on a latex glove found outside her residence. “Touch DNA” has its own share of problems in terms of reliability and we can safely expect the defense to explore those problems at trial. Some of that other unidentified DNA from the glove could have come from Bo Dukes - the person accused of helping cover up the murder - and who the defense claims is the actual killer.  We learned there were many investigative steps that could have been taken to verify statements made by both Duke and Dukes. The defense will argue that these follow up steps point to a biased investigation. This could have a huge impact in a trial where the defense will claim that the defendants confession was a false confession.  We learned the GBI, in a breach of protocol and constitutional law, interviewed / talked with Duke twice after he had a lawyer. These interviews were undocumented in the GBI case file. They were not recorded. The DA apparently was unaware at the time that this tactic was being employed by the GBI until the defense raised it with them. The agent didn’t even sign in at the jail. We can only speculate as to why not.  On top of all this, an abundance of otherwise inadmissible evidence consisting of hearsay and innuendo managed to come out publicly at a bond hearing. Most of this wouldn’t have seen the light of day at a trial. As the prosecution correctly pointed out “hearsay” may be admissible at a bond hearing, but it still has to be reliable evidence - not a regurgitation of all the salacious rumors from 2005. And it must be relevant to the issue of bond. It may turn out that the DA made a great tactical mistake by calling their lead case agent to testify and turn this bond hearing into an evidentiary free-for-all with no apparent boundaries. At a minimum it was surely heartbreaking for friends and family of the victim to have to re-live all the pain of the last 13 years by having old wounds reopened in such painful detail.  I’ve previously written about why the venue for this trial really needs to be changed. Now more than ever the jury pool is really tainted - as if it weren’t already. Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author. 
  • Irwin County Superior Court Judge Bill Reinhardt appears set to attempt to seat a jury of Irwin County residents in the trial of Ryan Alexander Duke. Duke is charged with the 2005 murder of Irwin County High School teacher and beauty queen Tara Grinstead. The defense asked for a change of venue, the State did not oppose the change, yet the judge has declined. In my view, this is a mistake. This is a case I have followed closely since the beginning. Way back in what seems like another lifetime I was a police officer in the tiny South Georgia town. I grew up in the area and have even practiced law there. Things are just different there. There's really no other way to put it. It's a great place to live and work but it simply has its own unique character. And the same thing holds true for the local legal system. But a unique local 'flavor' can't outweigh due process and absolute right that a defendant has to a fair trial nor can it outweigh the public's strong interest in a process that yields a result that it can have confidence in. In Georgia, criminal defendants have a constitutional right to be tried in the county where the crime is alleged to have occurred. Defendants can waive this right however and seek a trial elsewhere if a fair and impartial jury can't be seated in that county. At any given time, the population of Irwin County is only about ten thousand people. This case touched nearly every person in Irwin County – personally – in one way or another. It was the local citizens who went door-to-door and field-to-field conducting searches for Tara Grinstead in the days, weeks, and months following her disappearance. It's the local citizens who talk about the case day in and day out in homes, restaurants, offices, and other gatherings. It's the locals who read the local paper when leaked excerpts from the GBI case file were published that described Ryan Duke's incriminating statements to law enforcement on the day of his 2017 arrest. It was the local community that loved their high school history teacher. It's the local community that's locked in a continual debate about whether the authorities have charged the right person. On top of all this, the pretrial publicity has been – and will continue to be – extreme and pervasive. Opinions are strong. The bottom line is that nearly everyone in Irwin County has likely heard of the case and surely a great deal has actually been personally affected by it in some way. Besides helping to ensure a fair trial, there are practical reasons why moving the trial just makes good sense. Chief among those practical reasons is this: in the event of a conviction, the issue of venue will be a major part of the appeal and changing venue removes that consideration. This is a strategic reason why the DA most likely did not oppose the change of venue. He doesn't want to have to try this case twice. In the event of a conviction, the DA needs as few appellate issues to deal with as possible. Moving any trial is no small feat. Logistically it's been described as more difficult than taking a three ring circus on the road. It's expensive too. Irwin County just doesn't have the financial resources that a larger jurisdiction has and moving a trial the likes of this one could cause major financial and other upheaval in terms of government resources. None of these considerations outweigh the right to a fair trial, however, and none of them outweigh the public's right to have confidence in the integrity of the process. Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.  
  • Police use of force, deadly or otherwise, has been a particularly hot topic in the news in recent years. In this age of social media and near real-time access to cell phone and other video of law enforcement activity it's inevitable that police work, which has always had an element of violence associated with it, would come under an unprecedented degree of scrutiny. Traditionally, nearly all police work occurred 'out of sight' and accordingly was 'out of mind' - at least to the general public. But those days are over and the police and the public are having to adjust to this 'new normal.'   When I went to the police academy in 1989, I remember being taught in no uncertain terms that deadly force was authorized to stop a fleeing felon. In other words, we were told we could shoot someone who was a felon if they were running away from us. Fortunately I was never in a position to test that dubious training. Police training in all subjects is now light years ahead of where it was then. Training in the area of use of force is even further ahead in my view.   So what is the law in this area? Can an officer lawfully use lethal force against a felon who is merely running away? The answer of course is no. But unfortunately most examples are not that clear.   When we look at any police use of force, there is one word in the English language to consider. That word is: reasonableness   In 1989 the Supreme Court of The United States decided the landmark case of Graham v. Connor and the precedent set by Graham has been the foundation of police training on use of force ever since.   Graham provides that any use of force incident -deadly or otherwise - must be 'objectively reasonable' under the totality of the circumstances and that '[t]he 'reasonableness' of a particular use of force must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer on the scene, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight.' It also clarified 'the 'reasonableness' inquiry in an excessive force case is an objective one: the question is whether the officers' actions are 'objectively reasonable' in light of the facts and circumstances confronting them, without regard to their underlying intent or motivation.'   So the next time we see a viral video of a police shooting or other use of force incident try to apply the apply the Graham standard to it and you'll find that it can be extremely difficult to immediately decide whether it was 'justified.' In fact, the Graham case tells us that these things require a careful, deliberate, and thorough investigation into all the facts and circumstances before deciding that issue. Rarely - if ever - are knee jerk decisions based on a single video or social media post helpful. It's worth noting that under the Graham analysis, the presence or absence of a weapon doesn't prove anything either way. The presence of absence of a weapon is merely one factor that must be considered along with the totality of all other circumstances.   Police work can be - by it's very nature - quite ugly and violent. It's never like it is on TV or in the movies. But it is real life and involves real people. We demand that our police swear to support and defend the constitution and laws so we must in turn judge them - and their actions - according to the constitution and laws as interpreted by the courts. Unlike the court of public opinion or social media, courts and investigators don't have the luxury of picking and choosing what parts of the constitution to apply - in these cases they must follow the Graham analysis to wherever it leads - even if it leads to an unpopular place.   And by the way, it turns out that the 'Fleeing Felon Rule' - which I was taught about in the police academy in 1989 was an old rule, grounded in the old English common law that was largely done away with in 1985 when the Supreme Court decided Tennessee v. Garner and held that the police could be sued for shooting a 15 year-old who was merely fleeing and who otherwise posed no lethal threat. In other words, shooting Garner was not 'reasonable.' Philip Holloway, WSB legal analyst, is a criminal lawyer who heads his own firm in Cobb County, Georgia. A former prosecutor and adjunct professor of criminal justice, he is former president of the Cobb County Bar Association's criminal law section. Follow him on Twitter: @PhilHollowayEsq The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.
  • Holloway is the legal analyst for WSB Radio. 

News

  • U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland testified Wednesday as part of the House impeachment inquiry into President Trump.  >> Read more trending news  He appeared in front of the house Intelligence Committee and said during his opening statement that there was a 'quid pro quo' with Ukraine over investigating former Vice President Joe Biden, The Hill reported.  Read Sondland's opening statement below.  Opening Statement of Ambass... by Geoffrey Rowland on Scribd
  • Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, will testify Wednesday morning before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence about his part in a plan to get Ukraine officials to promise to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son in exchange for the release of millions of dollars of military aid. >> Read more trending news  Sondland will likely be grilled on the reason he testified in a closed-door House hearing that he had not told Ukrainian officials that the military aid was dependent on investigations into the Bidens and election interference in the 2016 presidential election. Sondland revised that testimony earlier this month saying he remembered telling a Ukrainian official that the military aid was 'likely' dependent on the country announcing the investigations. Sondland is set to testify beginning at 9 a.m. ET An afternoon session will be held beginning between 2:30 and 3 p.m. ET. David Hale, the undersecretary of State for political affairs and Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary of Defense for Russian, Ukrainian and Eurasian affairs, will be testifying in the afternoon session. The hearings will be broadcast live on CSPAN, CNN, Fox News and other cable news channels. CBS, NBC, ABC and PBS are also expected to carry the hearings live. Livestream See the livestream below when the hearing starts. Live updates An email about the investigation 10:06 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Sondland is reading an email that the State Department that the department has been refusing to turn over to the committee. Sondland read: Within my State Department emails, there is a July 19 email that I sent to Secretary Pompeo, Secretary Perry, Brian McCormack (Perry’s Chief of Staff), Ms. Kenna, Acting Chief of Staff and OMB Director Mick Mulvaney (White House), and Mr. Mulvaney’s Senior Advisor Robert Blair. A lot of senior officials. Here is my exact quote from that email: “I Talked to Zelensky just now… He is prepared to receive Potus’ call. Will assure him that he intends to run a fully transparent investigation and will ‘turn over every stone’. He would greatly appreciate a call prior to Sunday so that he can put out some media about a ‘friendly and productive call’ (no details) prior to Ukraine election on Sunday.” Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney responded: “I asked NSC to set it up for tomorrow.” Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19, days before the Presidential call. As I communicated to the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to “run a fully transparent investigation” and “turn over every stone” were necessary in his call with President Trump. Explosive opening statement 9:45 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Sondland begins the hearing with a stunning opening statement. He says that Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and former national security adviser John Bolton all were aware of a 'quid pro quo,' dangling a White House visit for the new president of Ukraine to investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter and the 2016 presidential election. 'They knew what we were doing and why,' Sondland said in the opening statement. 'Everyone was in the loop. It was no secret.' He mentioned Pompeo often, saying Pompeo was kept informed as to what was going on. 'State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing,' Sondland said. He said he, Kurt Volker, and Energy Sec. Rick Perry did not want to work with Rudy Giuliani, the president’s personal attorney, but they were told to do so. He said he felt Giuliani was speaking for Trump. 'Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the president of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the president,' Sondland will tell the House Intelligence Committee. Sondland says he knows that the question 'was there a quid pro quo' was being asked by House members. He said that when it comes to the White House meeting sought by Ukraine's leader, 'The answer is yes.' Nunes’ opening statement 9:30 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Nunes slams Democrats for “hijacking the Intelligence Committee and turning it into the impeachment committee.” The Democrats have gathered zero Republican support in the House, Nunes says. He reminds the audience that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said that impeachment had to be a bi-partisan effort. “Did they forget that?', Nunes asked. He tells Schiff that the Republicans have sent a letter to the committee to assert their right to subpoena witnesses and will do so, including Hunter Biden. Schiff’s timeline 9:27 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Schiff presents a timeline of meetings and phone calls involving Sondland, former national security adviser John Bolton and others he says laid the foundation for a quid pro quo that would end up with the Ukrainian president visiting the White House for a meeting with Trump after the announcement of an investigation into the energy company Burisma. The hearing is beginning 9:10 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Sondland is seated and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, has gaveled the hearing to order. Schiff is giving his opening statement. The hearing will begin soon 9 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: The hearing will begin in minutes. Sondland is on Capitol Hill and will be entering the hearing room soon. Not a career diplomat 8:45 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Sondland has not been a diplomat for long. Trump named him EU ambassador after Sondland donated $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee. Sondland was a hotel entrepreneur. What will Sondland be saying 8:30 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Sondland will be answering questions today about his dealings with Ukrainian officials and why he changed testimony he gave in a closed-door hearing in October. He told members of the Intelligence Committee that he had not told Ukrainian officials that they had to announce the start of an investigation into Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company, in exchange for military aid. He later said he may have said investigations should be announced before the military aid was released. Who is testifying this week 8:17 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Eight people will be testifying this week in the House impeachment inquiry. On Tuesday, Alexander Vindman, Jennifer Williams, Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison testified. Today, Sondland, Cooper and Hale appear before the committee. On Thursday, Fiona Hill, who was the top Russia specialist on the National Security Council and David Holmes, a State Department aide who overheard a phone conversation between Sondland and the president on July 26, will testify. Let’s get started 8 a.m. ET Nov. 20, 2019: Good morning and welcome to live updates from the fourth public hearing of the impeachment inquiry. The hearing begins in an hour, at 9 a.m. ET. Testifying first today will be Gordon Sondland, the European Union ambassador. This afternoon, Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant secretary at the Defense Department, will appear before the committee, as will David Hale, the undersecretary of State for political affairs.
  • A man attempting to rob a Houston home Tuesday was fatally shot when the homeowner wrestled the gun away from him, police said. >> Read more trending news  According to police, the incident occurred at 2:25 p.m. in the Westbury section of Houston, KHOU reported. Police said the homeowner was in his garage when he was approached by a man who said he intended to rob him, KTRK reported. The homeowner told police he wrestled the gun away from the would-be robber and fired it, wounding the assailant, KPRC reported. The man was taken to an area hospital, where he was pronounced dead, the television station reported. Police said they found two guns at the scene, but believe both belonged to the robber, according to KHOU. According to police, rounds were fired from both weapons. After an investigation, police took the homeowner in for questioning, the television station reported. Police said evidence will be forwarded to the district attorney to see if any charges should be filed, KPRC reported.
  • More than a dozen New York police officers were hurt in an overnight blaze in the city's Bronx borough, authorities said early Wednesday. >> Read more trending news  According to WPIX and WNBC, the fire began about 11 p.m. Tuesday at a Baychester Avenue apartment building. The 100-plus firefighters who responded had the blaze under control within one hour, officials said. As flames rose from the building's second and third stories, police officers knocked on residents' doors to make sure everyone had made it out safely, WPIX reported. Fourteen of the officers were hurt and treated for smoke inhalation, authorities said. WPIX reported that two residents 'sustained minor injuries' in the blaze. In a tweet, police Chief of the Department Terence Monahan praised the officers who rushed into the apartment building. 'Thankfully, nobody was seriously injured,' Monahan said. 'It's courageous acts like this that earn our officers the name -- NY's Finest.' Investigators are still trying to determine what caused the fire. Read more here or here.
  • A driver has been been charged with first-degree vehicular homicide in a crash that killed a Peachtree Ridge High School student earlier this month. Sean David Taylor, 47, of Sugar Hill, was booked into the Gwinnett County Jail just before 3:30 p.m. Tuesday, records show. Suwanee police believe Taylor may have suffered a medical emergency when his pickup truck slammed into Peachtree Ridge High School junior Samarah Masih as she was leaving an apartment complex on Nov. 10. RELATED: ‘It’s just sad to see her go’: Friends mourn Peachtree Ridge student killed in crash “Further investigation by Suwanee Police detectives determined that due to Taylor’s previous medical history and other recent events he should not have been driving,” authorities said Wednesday in a statement. Masih, 16, was behind the wheel of a Nissan Pathfinder waiting to exit the Residences on McGinnis Ferry complex, Suwanee police previously said. The Nissan was stopped when it was hit just after 1 p.m. Sunday by Taylor’s 2008 Dodge Dakota. The teen was dead at the scene, police spokesman Lt. Robert Thompson said. The truck hit several other vehicles before it swerved onto a private drive and into the complex on McGinnis Ferry Road, he said. Four patients were assessed at the scene, according to an official with Gwinnett County fire, which also responded to the wreck. The conditions of the others involved are unknown. Taylor, 47, of Sugar Hill, was taken to Gwinnett Medical Center with injuries that were not considered life-threatening and later released. In addition to felony vehicular homicide, he is facing misdemeanor charges of failure to maintain lane, following too closely and reckless driving. He remains in the county jail.
  • Who will be competing for the 62nd annual Grammy awards? The nominees were announced Wednesday morning.  >> Read more trending news  Singer/rapper Lizzo leads the pack with eight nominations, including Best Pop Solo Performance, Best R&B Performance, Song of the Year, Record of the Year and Best New Artist. She will have some competition since Beyoncé and Taylor Swift are once again nominees in the female-dominated category of Best Pop Solo Performance, The Associated Press reported.  Billie Eilish and Lil Nas X both earned six nominations each, the AP reported. Eilish, who is 17, is the youngest artist to get nominations in the top four categories of Best Pop Solo Performance, Song of the Year, Record of the Year and Best New Artist. See the nominees and their categories below: