Fani Willis enters courtroom, state makes closing arguments in hearing on alleged misconduct
Summary
TLDRThis video script transcribes courtroom proceedings in which the state argues against disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade from prosecuting Donald Trump's election case. The state contends that the defense must prove an actual conflict of interest based on Willis receiving a financial benefit, rather than mere speculation or appearance of impropriety regarding her relationship with Wade. The state maintains that the defense failed to provide evidence of an actual conflict that would warrant disqualification under Georgia law, asserting that money exchanged between Willis and Wade was reimbursement, not personal gain.
Takeaways
- 😐 The defense attorneys alleged that District Attorney Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade engaged in a conflict of interest and misconduct due to their romantic relationship.
- 😯 The state argues that the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety, to disqualify Willis and Wade.
- 💰 The alleged conflict centers around whether Willis or Wade received a financial benefit or gain tied to the outcome of the case.
- 📝 The state contends the defense failed to provide evidence contradicting when Willis and Wade's relationship began (after Wade's hiring in March 2022).
- ⚖️ Case law cited by both sides indicates disqualification requires a high burden of proof - an actual conflict, not just speculation or appearance of impropriety.
- 🔍 A key issue is whether purchases/money exchanged between Willis and Wade created a financial incentive impacting the prosecution.
- 🤥 The state accuses the defense of misrepresenting evidence and witness testimony to embarrass and harass Willis.
- 👩⚖️ Willis was present in court, suggesting the possibility she may make closing arguments herself.
- ⌛ If disqualified, an elaborate procedure would delay the prosecution and could lead to dismissal of charges.
- 💥 The stakes are high, with both sides making aggressive arguments over the potential disqualification.
Q & A
What is the central issue being discussed in this hearing?
-The central issue is whether the District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting Donald Trump's election case due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade.
What is the standard or burden of proof that the defense must meet to get the DA disqualified?
-According to the prosecution, the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety. They argue the standard is a high burden requiring proof that Willis received a direct financial benefit tied to the outcome of the case.
What arguments did the defense make regarding the nature of Willis and Wade's relationship?
-The defense alleged that Willis and Wade engaged in a coverup and scheme to benefit from their personal relationship. They claim the relationship began before Wade was hired in 2022, based on testimony from a former employee and alleged text/phone records, though Willis and Wade insisted it started in March 2022 after Wade was hired.
How did the prosecution respond to the defense's claims about when the relationship began?
-The prosecution argued the defense failed to provide any evidence contradicting Willis and Wade's testimony that the relationship began around March 2022 after Wade was hired. They claim the defense did not properly impeach Wade on this point during cross-examination.
What remedy is the defense seeking if Willis is disqualified?
-If Willis is disqualified, the defense is seeking to have the indictment against Trump and others dismissed entirely. Alternatively, a new prosecutor would have to be appointed, potentially restarting or delaying the prosecution.
What ethical standards or principles did the prosecution argue must be violated for disqualification?
-The prosecution argued disqualification requires finding an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety. They cited cases stating the test is whether the DA received a direct personal financial stake in the case outcome.
How did the prosecution characterize some of the defense's questioning and tactics?
-The prosecution accused the defense of asking harassing and irrelevant questions aimed at embarrassing Willis, such as inquiries about a lien on her home that had no bearing on whether money improperly changed hands between her and Wade.
What cases or legal standards did each side cite to support their arguments?
-The prosecution relied heavily on cases like Leavy v. State and Mikelberg v. State that they argue establish an actual conflict is required, not just appearances. The defense cited cases like Woodworth v. State that reference appearance of impropriety as grounds for disqualification.
Was there any dispute that money was exchanged between Willis and Wade related to expenses or trips?
-No, both sides appeared to agree that money was exchanged between Willis and Wade related to expenses like trips, but they disputed whether it amounted to a direct financial benefit or gain for Willis tied to the case outcome.
What role, if any, might District Attorney Fani Willis play in the closing arguments?
-The transcript notes that Willis was present in the courtroom and the commentators speculated she may make closing arguments herself, as she was described as defensive and combative when previously testifying about her relationship with Wade.
Outlines
📺 News Update on Trump's Georgia Election Case
The paragraph provides context for an ongoing news coverage regarding the potential disqualification of Fani Willis, the District Attorney handling the case against Donald Trump and other defendants related to alleged election interference in Georgia. It discusses the implications of Willis's potential removal, including delays in prosecution and the possibility of charges being dismissed. The stakes are described as high, with aggressive allegations from the defense attorneys about a potential conflict of interest stemming from Willis's alleged personal relationship with a special prosecutor in the case, Nathan Wade.
🗣️ Defense Arguments for Willis's Disqualification
The paragraph details the arguments made by the defense counsel regarding the alleged romantic relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor. They claim that information, including text messages and witness testimony, suggests the relationship began before Wade was hired, contradicting Willis and Wade's claims that it started in 2022 after Wade's appointment. The defense alleges a potential coverup and failure to disclose the relationship to the court. However, the state contends that the defense failed to properly impeach Wade's testimony and that their claims amount to improper impeachment.
⚖️ Questioning the Credibility of a Key Witness
The paragraph focuses on the state's efforts to undermine the credibility of a key witness, Monique Eddie, who previously worked in the District Attorney's office. The state questions Eddie's testimony about witnessing signs of a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, suggesting her claims were inconsistent and lacked specificity. The state argues that Eddie's testimony should be scrutinized in light of her potentially contradictory statements made through her attorney and the lack of detailed observations.
🕵️♀️ Examining the Legal Standards for Disqualification
This paragraph delves into the legal standards and requirements for disqualifying a district attorney. The state argues that the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, rather than just an appearance of impropriety. It cites case law and legal principles, asserting that an actual conflict requires demonstrating a personal financial gain or benefit for the district attorney based on the case's outcome. The state contends that the defense has failed to provide evidence contradicting the timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship or showing how their due process rights were affected.
💡 Analyzing Relevant Case Law on Disqualification
The paragraph continues the discussion on legal standards for disqualification by examining relevant case law cited by both the state and the defense. The state argues that the cases referenced by the defense often combine language from multiple cases, potentially misstating the law. The state maintains that the cases support its position that an actual conflict, rather than just an appearance of impropriety, is required for disqualification. It highlights a recent Georgia Court of Appeals ruling emphasizing the need for an actual conflict to disqualify an assistant district attorney.
⚖️ Defining the Scope of 'Actual Conflict' Requirement
This paragraph explores the scope of what constitutes an 'actual conflict' that warrants disqualification. The state argues that contingency fees or personal incentives that could influence a prosecutor's conduct during specific proceedings, such as motions to suppress evidence, could potentially rise to the level of an actual conflict. However, the state maintains that speculation, conjecture, or assumptions alone do not meet the standard for an actual conflict and would only amount to an appearance of impropriety.
👨⚖️ Examining the 'Appearance of Impropriety' Standard
The paragraph delves deeper into the 'appearance of impropriety' standard and its relation to disqualification. The state contends that case law does not support disqualifying an attorney solely on the basis of an appearance of impropriety. It cites cases that reference the appearance of impropriety but only in situations where an actual conflict was found. The state argues that the reference to the 'appearance of impropriety' arises because an actual conflict inevitably creates such an appearance.
📖 Dissecting Case Law on Speculation and Conjecture
This paragraph analyzes case law related to the role of speculation and conjecture in disqualification proceedings. The state cites cases that emphasize the need for a 'palpable' conflict with a 'substantial basis in fact,' stating that theoretical or speculative conflicts are insufficient grounds for disqualification. The state argues that these cases support its position that the defense's allegations against Willis and Wade amount to mere speculation and conjecture, failing to meet the required standard of an actual conflict.
🔍 Addressing Allegations of Financial Gain
The paragraph addresses the defense's allegations regarding potential financial gain or benefit for District Attorney Willis stemming from her relationship with Nathan Wade. The state argues that all such claims are mere speculation and conjecture, aimed at harassing and embarrassing Willis rather than substantiating an actual conflict. It contends that lines of questioning about Willis's personal finances and property were irrelevant to the proceedings and served only to impugn her character publicly. The state maintains that the defense has failed to provide evidence of an actual financial benefit or gain for Willis related to the case's outcome.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Disqualification
💡Conflict of Interest
💡Appearance of Impropriety
💡Burden of Proof
💡Actual Conflict
💡Financial Benefit
💡Due Process
💡Impeachment
💡Speculation
💡Discretion
Highlights
The defense counsel claimed they would provide evidence that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship before Wade was hired, but they failed to produce any such evidence during the hearing.
The state contends that to disqualify a district attorney, the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety or speculation.
The state argues that an actual conflict requires showing that the district attorney received a financial benefit or gain based on the outcome of the case.
The judge questions whether the standard should consider not just the ultimate outcome, but also the conduct of the prosecution throughout the proceedings.
The state cites cases stating that theoretical or speculative conflicts are not enough to disqualify a prosecutor, there must be a 'palpable' conflict with a 'substantial basis in fact.'
The state argues that the defense has not provided any evidence that Willis and Wade's relationship affected Willis's constitutional or due process obligations.
The state contends that embarrassing or harassing questions about Willis's personal finances were irrelevant to whether she received a financial benefit from the case.
The defense cited cases referring to the 'appearance of impropriety,' but the state argues those cases found actual conflicts in addition to appearances.
The state distinguishes between actual conflicts based on personal financial interests versus divided loyalties from prior representation.
The judge questions whether different standards apply for disqualification at the pre-trial versus post-conviction stages.
The state argues that even if money changed hands between Willis and Wade, there is no evidence it provided a financial benefit or gain to Willis tied to the case outcome.
The state cites a recent Georgia appeals court ruling that failing to disqualify requires an 'actual conflict of interest,' suggesting a high bar.
The state references the 'Caeser's wife' ethical metaphor used in case law, suggesting it goes beyond just actual conflicts into appearances.
The state argues that disqualifying an elected district attorney should be a 'last-ditch effort' exercised by courts only when an actual conflict cannot be cured.
The state contends the defense combined language from multiple cases in a misleading way regarding the grounds for disqualification.
Transcripts
>> 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