Fani Willis enters courtroom, state makes closing arguments in hearing on alleged misconduct

>> LET'S TAKE A QUICK FIVE AND

WE WILL BE BACK AT 2:40.

>> YOU ARE LISTENING TO CLOSING

ARGUMENTS TO DETERMINE IF FANI

WILLIS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM

DONALD TRUMP'S GENERAL ELECTION

SUBVERSION CASE BEING HEARD IN

THE COURTROOM OF FULL COUNTY

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SCOTT

McAFEE.

TRUMP AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN

THE SELECTION CASE ARE ALLEGING

THAT WILLIS'S ROMANCE WITH A

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR SHE SHOWED,

NATHAN WADE, HAS CREATED EITHER

A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST

OR THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT

OF INTEREST.

AND THAT'S THE KEY IN GEORGIA

LAW.

IF THERE IS, AS THE JUDGE

DETERMINES, A CONFLICT OF

INTEREST OR THE APPEARANCE OF

ONE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN

AND SHOULD, UNDER GEORGIA LAW,

BE DISQUALIFIED.

IF SHE IS DISQUALIFIED THERE IS

AN ELABORATE THIS -- PROCEDURE

THAT THEY WOULD ENGAGE IN TO

FIND ANOTHER ATTORNEY

INEVITABLY DELAYING THE

PROSECUTION OF THE UNDERLYING

CASE OR GIVING THAT NEW

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FRESH EYES

AND MAYBE SOME OF THE CHARGES

MIGHT ENTIRELY BE DISMISSED.

IN OTHER WORDS, A TREMENDOUS

AMOUNT OF LIMBO WOULD BE

VISITED UPON THIS CASE IF IN

FACT FANI WILLIS AND THE

DISTRICT -- IN GEORGIA WERE

DISQUALIFIED.

WITH OUR CORRESPONDENT.

NICOLE, YOU HAVE BEEN DOWN THIS

COURTROOM AND COVERING THIS

CASE FOR VERY LONG TIME.

THE STAKES ARE HIGH.

WE HEARD THERE IS THE

COUNSELORS FOR THE DEFENDERS

MAKING VERY AGGRESSIVE CHARGES.

ALLEGING THAT FANI WILLIS AND

NATHAN WADE ENGAGED IN A

COVERUP, A SCHEME THAT THEY

BENEFITED FROM THEIR PERSONAL

RELATIONSHIP AND DIDN'T

DISCLOSE IT TO THE COURT.

HAVING BEEN ACCUSED OF HAVING

THIS RELATIONSHIP DID ALL SORTS

OF THINGS TO KEEP INFORMATION

FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE COURT.

A PRETTY AGGRESSIVE POSTURE

FROM THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS.

>> AND ALSO ACCUSING FANI

WILLIS OF PLAYING THE RACE CARD

AS WELL.

>> AND THE GOD CARD IN THE SAME

SPEECH.

>> GRANTED, THEY ARE ON TRIAL.

CERTAINLY, AS YOU RAISE, A LOT

IS AT STAKE IN TERMS OF WHETHER

OR NOT SHE AND SPECIAL

PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE COULD BE

DISQUALIFIED FROM THIS CASE.

I THINK ANOTHER FASCINATING

DYNAMIC OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN

WATCHING IS, ONCE AGAIN, THE

TABLES ARE TURNED ON THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

YOU BASICALLY HAVE THESE

DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS.

SHE'S TRYING TO PROSECUTE OVER

ELECTION INTERFERENCE

QUESTIONING HER AND SPECIAL

PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE'S

RELATIONSHIP.

CERTAINLY IT DOES MATTER IN

THIS CASE.

BUT IT'S ALSO VERY I RAISING

JUST TO SEE THE TABLES TURNED

WITH THE DEFENDANT QUESTIONING

A PROSECUTOR IN A CASE THAT IS

STILL UNDERWAY.

THAT BEING SAID, LOOK, WE WILL

HEAR FROM THE STATE WHICH WILL

MAKE ITS ARGUMENTS.

EACH SIDE OF COURSE GETTING 90

MINUTES A PIECE.

IN THE CORE PART OF THEIR

ARGUMENT I EXPECT THE STATE TO

KNOCKDOWN THIS NOTION THAT

NATHAN WADE AND THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY WERE POTENTIALLY BEING

UNTRUTHFUL.

WE SAW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

AND NATHAN WADE BOTH TAKE THE

STAND LAST MONTH DEFENDING

THEIR RELATIONSHIP.

OBVIOUSLY ONE IS STILL VERY KEY

IS THE TIMETABLE OF THEIR

RELATIONSHIP.

WHAT SOME OF THESE DEFENDANT

ATTORNEYS ARE ARGUING IS THAT

THIS RELATIONSHIP STARTED

BEFORE NATHAN WADE WAS HIRED.

WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY FROM THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND FROM

NATHAN WADE, THEY BOTH SAID

THEIR RELATIONSHIP STARTED IN

2022.

AFTER HE WAS HIRED.

BUT WHAT SOME OF THESE

ATTORNEYS WANT TO .2 ARE TEXT

MESSAGES, CELL PHONE RECORDS

THAT THEY BELIEVE PROVE

OTHERWISE.

IN ADDITION TO TESTIMONY FROM

ANOTHER WITNESS WHO USED TO

WORK IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE WHO DID SAY ON THE STAND

THAT SHE BELIEVES THE

RELATIONSHIP WAS UNDERWAY

BEFOREHAND.

BUT WHY THAT MATTERS, IT

ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS IN THE

COURTROOM AS WE SPEAK. I'M VERY

CURIOUS IF SHE WILL MAKE

CLOSING ARGUMENTS OR IF SHE IS

JUST THERE TO OBSERVE.

WE DID SEE DURING THEIR

TESTIMONY SHE WAS VERY DEFENSIVE

, COMBATIVE.

ALSO VERY EXPLANATORY ABOUT THE

RELATIONSHIP. WANTING TO MAKE

SURE SHE GOT HER POSITION OUT.

WE WILL BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT

ROLE SHE PLAYS, IF ANY, AS WE

AWAIT THE ARGUMENT.

>> IT COULD BE A VERY DRAMATIC

MOMENT WITH THE DISTRICT

ATTORNEY, FANI WILLIS, IN THE

COURTROOM.

I WANT TO BRING IN RICKY, WHO

HAS ALSO FOLLOWED TODAY'S

HEARING.

YOUR IMPRESSIONS?

RICKY?

>> Reporter: ONE OF THE THINGS

WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT

THESE DEFENSE LAWYERS HAVE A

DUTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS

MOTION.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS

UNETHICAL.

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS

NEEDLESSLY COMBATIVE.

THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE

INFORMATION CAME FROM ATTORNEY

ASHLEY MERCHANT OVER A PERIOD

OF MONTHS BY TERENCE BRADLEY.

TERENCE BRADLEY WAS THE PARTNER

OF NATHAN WADE.

HE WAS ALSO HIS DIVORCE

ATTORNEY.

NOT DOZENS, IF MAYBE HUNDREDS

OF TEXT MESSAGES.

WE CERTAINLY KNOW IT'S A

MARRIED OF THEM OVER THE

MONTHS.

LEAVING THIS MERCHANT TO BE

ABLE TO FILE A MOTION

ENCOURAGING HER TO FILE A MOTION

BECAUSE HE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT

THE RELATIONSHIP OF NATHAN WADE

AND FANI WILLIS.

AN ATTORNEY IN THE POSITION OF

-- FULLY HAD THE DUTY TO FILE

THIS MOTION.

I WILL SAY THIS.

THIS CASE IS NOT GETTING

DISMISSED.

HOWEVER, THE ONE QUESTION THAT

DOES REMAIN IS WHETHER OR NOT

FANI WILLIS AND/OR NATHAN WADE

WILL BE DISQUALIFIED FROM

CONTINUING THE CASE.

THE FACT THAT IT MAY CREATE A

DELAY, THE FACT THAT ANOTHER

PROSECUTOR MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT

IT A NEW, THAT IS JUST RECKLESS

CONDUCT.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I

THINK I'VE SAID BEFORE, THE

CONDUCT HERE OF FANI WILLIS AND

NATHAN WADE WAS STUNNING IN

ITS RECKLESSNESS.

DOES THAT MEAN THEY GET

DISQUALIFIED?

PERHAPS HE HAS, PERHAPS KNOW.

ONE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE, WE

SAW THE MIND OF THIS JUDGE.

EVEN IF HE DOES NOT DISQUALIFY

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE ONE

PLACE THESE COMPLAINTS ARE

GOING IS DOWN TO THE BAR

ASSOCIATION.

AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE

GROUPS OF PEOPLE WERE LOOKING

AT THIS CONDUCT.

IT IS SO BASIC TO A LAWYER,

PARTICULARLY A PROSECUTOR, THAT

YOU COULD NOT HAVE AN

APPEARANCE OF PROPRIETY.

THAT IS --

>> I BELIEVE SCOTT McAFEE HAS

RETURNED TO THE COURTROOM.

THERE HAS BEEN A BRIEF RECESS

AND HE'S NOW BACK IN THE

COURTROOM.

THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONTINUING

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE STATE

IN DEFENSE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY

FANI WILLIS . POSSIBLY THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY HERSELF.

LET'S LISTEN IN ON THE

PROCEEDINGS.

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

I WANT TO START WITH SOME OF

THE THINGS THAT WERE ADDRESSED

OVER THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF.

FIRST, BEGINNING WITH SOMETHING

THAT MR. MERCHANT REFERENCED AS

IT RELATED TO THE COMMENTS THE

STATE MADE IN WHICH WAS

SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. THE

DEFENSE COUNSEL CLAIMED THE

EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW.

I WOULD STRONGLY BRING TO THE

COURTS ATTENTION THAT THE

CLAIMS THAT WERE MADE WERE A

MATERIAL RISK --

MISREPRESENTATION.

AND WHAT I WILL SAY TO THE COURT

, AND WHY I SAID THAT TO THE

COURT, IS BECAUSE THE

REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE

BY COUNSEL WAS THAT MS. YOUNG,

MS. ALLEN, MR. DEXTER BONDS,

INVESTIGATOR HILL, INVESTIGATOR

GREEN, INVESTIGATOR RICKS.

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE

CALLED AND MR. BRADLEY WOULD BE

ABLE TO IMPEACH THEIR KNOWLEDGE

BY SAYING HE SPECIFICALLY, IN

HIS PRESENCE OR TO HIM, SAID

THAT MISS WILLIS OR MR. WADE

WERE IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP

AND THAT MISS WILLIS AND MR.

WADE OR COHABITATING.

THAT THEY ALL KNEW THAT.

AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE

COURT, WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANY

OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

MR. BRADLEY IMPEACHED NO ONE.

AND I SAY NO ONE BECAUSE HE DID

NOT IMPEACH MR. WADE.

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY IMPEACH A

WITNESS YOU HAVE TO CONFRONT

THE WITNESS WITH SPECIFIC

STATEMENTS.

MR. WADE, AND YOU CAN LOOK BACK

AT THE YOUTUBE OF THE HEARINGS

FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.

MR. WADE WASN'T ONCE CONFRONTED

WITH A STATEMENT THAT HAS

CLAIMED HE SAID TO MR. BRADLEY,

THE WAY YOU PROBABLY IMPEACH

SOMEBODY YOU HAVE TO CONFRONT

THE WITNESS. WHICH WOULD BE MR.

WADE.

ONCE HE MAKES A STATEMENT THAT

YOU BELIEVE TO BE INCONSISTENT,

AND YOU HAVE A WITNESS THAT CAN

PROVE THAT INCONSISTENCY,

THAT'S WHEN YOU CALL THAT

WITNESS.

AND WHEN MR. WADE WAS ON THE

STAND NOT ONCE WAS HE ASKED,

DID YOU TELL MR. BRADLEY THIS

IN A CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION

IN YOUR CONFERENCE ROOM.

IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

THE SPECIFICS OF THE

CONVERSATION WAS NOT ASKED.

20 TESTIMONY THAT MR. BRADLEY

TESTIFIED TO IS IMPERMISSIBLE.

IT IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT.

BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONFRONT

MR. WADE WITH IT.

THAT'S WHERE THE STATE WOULD

BEGIN WITH THE COMMENTS THAT

MR. MERCHANT MADE ABOUT ME

REFERENCING HIS WIFE AS LYING.

I NEVER USED THOSE WORDS.

I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE MADE THE

MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS.

IT COULD BECAUSE MR. BRADLEY

LIED TO HER.

I DON'T KNOW THE REASON.

I CAN SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT

THOSE WERE MATERIAL

MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE

MADE TO THIS COURT A FEW

MONDAYS AGO AS EVERYONE WAS

ARGUING THE MOTIONS TO CROSS

CERTAIN SUBPOENAS.

I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO THE

COURTS ATTENTION THAT DURING

THAT MOTION OF CERTAIN SUBPOENAS

HER ATTORNEY APPEARED.

MR. PARTRIDGE.

AND HE MADE VERY CLEAR ON THAT

ZOOM THAT SHE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO

KNOWLEDGE OF A ROMANTIC

RELATIONSHIP AND ABSOLUTELY NO

KNOWLEDGE OF COHABITATION.

THOSE WERE THE SPECIFIC

REFERENCES THAT HE MADE.

WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT

IS THOSE ARE CONSIDERED

ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS.

HIS CLIENT HAS MADE THEM BASED

ON THE STATEMENTS HE MADE

BECAUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIONS

SHE MADE TO HIM.

I KNOW THAT SOUNDS CONVOLUTED.

BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE

COURT IS, SHE TOLD MR.

PARTRIDGE, BECAUSE MR.

PARTRIDGE TOLD THE COURT, THAT

THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT

A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP AND SHE

HAD NO INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO

--

>> THESE WOULD BE ATTORNEY-

CLIENT PRIVILEGES OF

MEDICATIONS THEN.

SHE'S COMMUNICATING WITH MR.

PARTRIDGE ABOUT WHAT HER

UPCOMING TESTIMONY IS.

THAT'S WHAT SHE HIRED HIM.

AND YOU'RE TELLING ME I SHOULD

INFER THINGS BASED ON HER TO

MEDICATIONS TO HIM?

>> ABSOLUTELY.

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ATTORNEY-

CLIENT MEDICATIONS ANYMORE WHEN

HE DISCLOSES THEM TO THE COURT

AND EVERYBODY ELSE AS THEY

WATCHED THE ZOOM AND ATTEND THE

HEARING.

THE DIFFERENCE IS, THERE WAS NO

REQUEST TO GO ON CAMERA.

THERE IS NO REQUEST TO HAVE A

PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH YOU,

AS WAS DONE WITH MR. BRADLEY.

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER

PROCEDURE.

SO YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO INFER

THAT 100%.

I'M ASKING YOU TO INFER THE

TESTIMONY WAS AT BEST

INCONSISTENT.

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF

MONSIEUR EDDIE, WHEN SHE

TESTIFIED, VERY LITTLE

DESCRIPTION WHEN ASKED IN A VERY

LEADING MANNER, IS A TRUE, OR

DID YOU KNOW THAT MISS WILLIS

AND MR. WADE WERE IN A

RELATIONSHIP FROM 2019 INTO THE

TIME YOU WERE FORCED TO RESIGN

FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

OFFICE IN MARCH OF 2022?

SHE SAID, YES.

AND FURTHER, WHEN PRESSED, HE

TALKS ABOUT WHY SHE BELIEVED

THEY WERE IN A RELATIONSHIP.

WHAT WAS INTERESTING FROM THE

TESTIMONY THAT THEY WERE PRETTY

CLOSE FRIENDS UP UNTIL SHE LEFT

THE DAS OFFICE, THAT SHE

ASSERTED TO THE COURT THAT, ON

A YEARLY BASIS, MISS WILLIS

SAID, I'M IN A RELATIONSHIP

WITH MR. WADE IN 2019.

BY THE WAY, I WANT TO TELL YOU

AGAIN IN 2020. WE ARE IN A NEW

YEAR, I'M STILL IN A

RELATIONSHIP WITH MR. WADE.

AND AGAIN, AND 2021, THE

ASSERTION IS MISS WILLIS THEN

WENT BACK AND CONFIRMED, HEY I

JUST WANT TO RECONFIRM ME AND

MR. WADE ARE STILL IN A

RELATIONSHIP.

IT'S ABSURD.

IT'S ABSOLUTELY ABSURD.

MORE PORTLY, WHEN ASKED ABOUT

WHY SHE BELIEVED THAT THEY WERE

IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP

BASED ON HER OWN OBSERVATIONS

SHE SAID SOMETHING, HE ACTUALLY

ASKED HER, DO YOU SEE THEM

KISSING OR HUGGING?

SHE SAID, YES.

BUT THERE IS NO DESCRIPTION OR

QUALIFICATION OF WHEN IT

OCCURRED, WHAT SHE ACTUALLY SAW

COULD HAVE BEEN A KISS ON THE

CHEEK.

THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO FRAME HER

TESTIMONY FROM THAT STANDPOINT

WHEN YOU ARE ADDRESSING HER

CREDIBILITY, AS THE COURT WILL

DO WITH EACH AND EVERY WITNESS

THAT YOU'VE HEARD DURING THE

TESTIMONY OF ALL THE WITNESSES

DURING THE HEARING.

I'VE GOT TO SEE IF MY SCREEN

WILL SHARE.

>> I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE

STANDARD AND THE BURDEN HERE IN

THIS INSTANCE AS IT RELATES TO

THE DEFENSE COUNSEL AND THE

CLAIMS THAT THEY HAVE MADE IN

THE MOTION TO DISQUALIFY.

AS I WAS DOING A LOT OF

RESEARCH I CAME UPON THIS LAW

REVIEW ARTICLE FROM CORNELL. A

SCHOLARSHIP READING OR A

PUBLICATION.

THEY MADE VERY CLEAR THAT --

RELUCTANT TO EXERCISE POWER TO

DISQUALIFY PROSECUTORS FOR ANY

REASON.

THAT GOES ALONG WITH THE

STANDARD. BUT THE STATE WOULD

SUBMIT TO THE COURT IS THEY

HAVE TO SHOW AN ACTUAL

CONFLICT.

AND IN THIS INSTANCE THEY HAVE

TO SHOW THE ACTUAL CONFLICT

WOULD BE THAT MISS WILLIS

RECEIVED A FINANCIAL BENEFIT OR

GAIN, AND GOT IT BASED UPON THE

OUTCOME OF THE CASE.

IT MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE.

DURING THE THREE DAYS OF THE

EXTENSIVE TESTIMONY OF ALL OF

THE WITNESSES, AND THE

PROLONGED EXAMINATIONS OF THE

WITNESSES BY MULTIPLE DEFENSE

COUNSEL, THEY STILL GOT

NOWHERE.

WE ARE IN THE SAME POSITION WE

WERE IN ON MONDAY.

THE SAME ASSERTIONS THAT WERE

MADE ON MONDAY HAVE NO ANSWERS

TODAY, AS BEFORE, YOUR HONOR.

THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE

ANY EVIDENCE TO THE CONTRARY OF

ASSERTIONS OF WHEN THEIR

RELATIONSHIP BEGAN.

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE

THAT CONTRADICTS THAT THE

RELATIONSHIP DID NOT BEGIN

LATER THEN OR AROUND MARCH OF

2022, YOUR HONOR.

I FURTHER SUBMIT TO THE COURT,

BECAUSE OF THIS FAILURE, THAT

THERE ASSERTION OR REQUEST THAT

THE INDICTMENT BE DISMISSED.

THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE

DUE PROCESS RIGHTS HAVE BEEN

HARMED AND ABSOLUTELY ANYWAY.

THERE WAS ZERO EVIDENCE. NOT A

SINGLE SHRED OF EVIDENCE WAS

PRODUCED TO ANY OF THE EXHIBITS

OR THE WITNESS TESTIMONY

SHOWING HOW THEIR

CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, THEIR

DUE PROCESS RIGHTS WERE AT ALL

AFFECTED BY THE RELATIONSHIP

THAT BEGAN IN MARCH OF 2022

WITH MISS WILLIS AND MR. WADE.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT THE MOTION

TO DISQUALIFY SHOULD BE DENIED

AND MISS WILLIS, AS THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY A PHONE

COUNTY, AND MR. WADE, A SPECIAL

PROSECUTOR SIGNED IN THIS CASE

TO BE ALLOWED TO REMAIN ON THIS

CASE AND CONTINUE TO PROSECUTE

THE CASE TO THE END, YOUR

HONOR.

UNTIL THE TRIAL IS SET BY THE

COURT TO BEGIN.

OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE HEARD A LOT

FROM THE DEFENSE COUNSEL WHAT

THE ISSUES ARE FOR YOU TO

DETERMINE.

AND HERE WOULD BE THE STATE

CONTENTION THAT YOU MUST FIND

THERE IS AN ACTUAL CONFLICT IF

YOU WERE, OR ARE TO COME TO

THAT CONCLUSION THAT YOU SHOULD

DISQUALIFY WILLIS IN THE

DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

>> IS THIS VENTURE?

>> IT IS MIKEL IN THE STATE.

342 GEORGIA APPEAL. 170.

IT'S A 2017 CASE.

IN THAT CASE IT TALKS ABOUT THE

STANDARD OF PROOF THAT THE

DEFENSE MUST SHOW AN ACTUAL

CONFLICT. THEY SAY IT'S A HIGH

STANDARD OF PROOF, WHICH IS

DEFINITELY NOT A PREPONDERANCE

OF THE EVIDENCE.

WHICH IS A MUCH LOWER BURDEN

FOR THE IN PARTY IS TRYING TO

MEET THAT STANDARD OF

PREPONDERANCE.

BUT IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT WHAT

THE STANDARD IS, IT IS A HIGH

STANDARD OF PROOF FOR BOTH WHEN

DETERMINING THERE IS AN ACTUAL

CONFLICT AND WHEN THERE IS

FORENSIC MISCONDUCT THAT IS

FOUND, YOUR HONOR.

I WANT TO GO THROUGH SOME OF

THE CASES THAT TO THE DEFENSE

COUNSEL HAS REFERENCED AND THEY

ARGUE HERE IN THE FILINGS.

THE BRIGHT LINE STANDARD, OR

THE STANDARD IN THE GROUNDS FOR

WHICH DISQUALIFICATION IS

APPROPRIATE FOR YOUR HONOR TO

BE DETERMINING. IN ALL CASES AS

A RELATES TO DISQUALIFYING THE

ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

WE FIND THERE IS A CONFLICT OF

INTEREST OR THAT THERE HAS BEEN

SOME SORT OF FORENSIC

MISCONDUCT.

THOSE ARE THE TWO AREAS, YOUR

HONOR, THAT IS IN YOUR PURVIEW

WHEN YOU ARE LOOKING TO RESOLVE

AN ISSUE REGARDING

DISQUALIFICATION.

IN A RECENT CASE, LEAVY STATE,

IT'S FEBRUARY OF 2024.

I'M HERE OUT OF OUR APPELLATE

COURTS.

IN THAT CASE THEY WROTE A TRIAL

COURT DID NOT ABUSE DISCRETION

BY FAILING TO DISQUALIFY AN

ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY --

ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

AND THAT IS THE CASE THAT WAS

RULED ON BY THE GEORGIA COURT

OF APPEALS ABOUT A MONTH AGO,

YOUR HONOR.

THE CASES IN WHICH THE DEFENSE

COUNSEL HAS RELIED ON HERE

TODAY, I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE

COURT THAT THE SITES ARE

MISLEADING AND INAPPLICABLE.

SOME OF THEM ACTUALLY SUPPORT

THE STATES POSITION.

WHAT I WOULD SAY TO YOU IS THAT

THE DEFENDANTS, IN MANY

INSTANCES, COMBINED LANGUAGE

FROM THE MULTIPLE CASES. WHAT I

WOULD SAY IS MISSTATES THE LAW

AS IT RELATES TO WHAT IS

REQUIRED IN ORDER FOR AN

ELECTED DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND

THEIR OFFICE TO BE DISQUALIFIED.

WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE

COURT IS --

>> LET'S GO BACK TO THAT.

SHOW ME HOW.

>> YES.

SHOW YOU HOW?

>> THE FIRST ONE WAS BATTLE

VERSUS THE STATE.

CERTAINLY A CONFLICT OF

INTEREST OR A APPEARANCE OF

IMPROPRIETY.

THE GROUNDS OF DISQUALIFICATION.

THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THESE

CASES THAT SEEMS TO EXCLUSIVELY

RELY ON -- THEY ACKNOWLEDGE

THERE WAS AMBIGUITY HERE.

WHITWORTH GETS CITED TO

VENTURE.

THEY COME UP WITH THIS IS THE

ONLY SITE TO AN ACTUAL CONFLICT

THAT MIGHT BE INVOLVED.

THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THE AMBIGUITY.

YOU'RE SAYING THERE IS NO

AMBIGUITY WHATSOEVER.

>> I AM SAYING THAT.

WHY I WOULD SUBMIT THAT TO THE

COURT IS IN ALL OF THOSE CASES

THEY DO REFERENCE THE

APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.

BUT THE REFERENCE THAT BECAUSE

THEY FIND THERE IS AN ACTUAL

CONFLICT IN EACH ONE OF THOSE