Questions about the conduct of the presiding judge over Meek Mill's probation violation sentence have been swirling for some time now. New details about Judge Genece Brinkley's alleged misconduct has recently emerged.

Earlier this spring, the Philadelphia District Attorney's office asked Judge Brinkley to overturn Meek's 2007 conviction and grant him a new trial after the arresting officer and sole witness in his case, Reginald Graham, was found guilty of corruption. Despite the mounting evidence of Graham's guilt, Judge Brinkley refused and ordered an evidentiary hearing.

According to Bradley Bridge, an attorney for the Defender Association of Philadelphia, Judge Brinkley's decision went against legal precedent.

Bridge reportedly wrote, "I have never had a judge order an evidentiary hearing where the prosecution has concede the legitimacy of PCRA relief," in an affidavit obtained by Complex.

Meek Mill's attorney, Joe Tacopina reportedly filed Bridge's affidavit in court and said, "As Mr. Bridge makes clear, in none of the over 2,000 PCRA cases he has handled, has there ever been an evidentiary hearing when the District Attorney has agreed to a new trial. Judge Brinkley’s insistence on holding such a hearing when the District Attorney’s office has stated in open court that a new trial is warranted subjects Meek to unfair and different treatment, and is a waste of the District Attorney’s and the taxpayers’ resources," in an official statement to Complex.

Meek Mill is scheduled to appear for his evidentiary hearing on June 18.