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
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
CASES.
>> SO YOUR POSITION WOULD BE
REVIEWED THE CASE AND THERE'S
NEVER BEEN AN IN PALLET OPINION
THAT WAS ONLY ON APPEARANCE OF
PROPRIETY.
>> YES.
THAT IS WHAT I'M SAYING.
THEY DO REFERENCE THE FACT THAT
THERE IS AN APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY BUT THEY REFERENCE
THE FACT BECAUSE WHEN YOU HAVE
AN ACTUAL CONFLICT THERE IS
ALWAYS AN APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY.
AND THAT'S WHAT THOSE CASES
STAND FOR.
THAT IS THE MAIN EXAMPLE OF
WHAT I REFERENCED.
THEY KIND OF COMBINE THE
LANGUAGE FROM SEPARATE AND
DIFFERENT CASES AND TELL YOU
THAT IT IS A STANDARD OF
IMPROPRIETY.
I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT,
THAT IS NOT THE STANDARD.
IN MY FIRST READING, LIKE YOUR
HONOR, I DID NOTICE THAT THE
CASE REFERENCED THE APPEARANCE
OF IMPROPRIETY AND THAT ROSE
FROM THE FACT THE COURT FOUND
AN ACTUAL CONFLICT IN EACH ONE
OF THOSE CASES.
SO I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT IN
GOING THROUGH ALL THE CASES
THAT THE DEFENSE HAD CITED.
BUT WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE
COURT IN REASON OF THOSE CASES,
I FOUND THAT THEY KIND OF FELL
INTO FIVE CATEGORIES. SOME
DETERMINED THEY WERE ABOUT, I
CALL A DIVIDED LOYALTY, WHICH
IS A CONFLICT THAT ARISES FROM
BECOMING A PROSECUTOR AND
HAVING REPRESENTED THE DEFENDANT
PRIOR TO BECOMING A PROSECUTOR.
AND WHETHER THERE IS AN ACTUAL
INTEREST IN THE OUTCOME.
OTHERS TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE
DEFENDANT WAS DENIED A
FUNDAMENTALLY FAIR TRIAL AT THE
CONCLUSION OF THE CASE AFTER
CONVICTION.
ISSUE THAT WE ARE HERE BEFORE
YOUR HONOR TODAY.
THE FIRST HAS NOTHING RELATED
TO THE DISQUALIFICATION OF
EVERYONE.
>> THESE ARE RELATING TO
ASPIRING FOR BROAD LANGUAGE
ABOUT STANDARDS FOR
PROSECUTORS.
POINT TAKEN THERE.
ALL RIGHT, KEEP GOING.
>> SO, AS IT RELATES TO ONE OF
THE CASES, AND IT WAS ALSO
REFERENCED IN SOME OF THE
BRIEFING BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL
IS 287 GEORGIA 542, AND ALL OF
THE CASES THAT FALL UNDER WHAT
I WOULD CALL CATEGORY IS ABOUT
AN ATTORNEY WHO FORMALLY
PROSECUTED A DEFENDANT IN I
GUESS THE SAME TYPE OF CASE OR
SEAM CASE OR SIMILAR CHARGES,
AND THAT WOULD BE WHY THE
COURT, EXCUSE ME, THE COURTS
FOUND THAT DISQUALIFICATION
WOULD BE NECESSARY, BECAUSE OF
THE RELATIONSHIP THAT EXISTED
BETWEEN THE FORMER CLIENT, AND
NOW THE PERSON BEING
PROSECUTED, YOUR HONOR.
THE NEXT SERIES OF SLIDES JUST
GOES THROUGH WHAT HAS BEEN
ADDRESSED AS IT RELATES TO THE
STANDARD THAT IS REQUIRED WHEN
DEALING WITH THE ISSUE OF
DISQUALIFICATION, AND THE STATE
WOULD CONTEND AND SUBMIT TO THE
COURT THAT THE DEFENSE MUST
SHOW AN ACTUAL CONFLICT IN
ORDER TO HAVE A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY DISQUALIFIED, AND THAT
ACTUAL CONFLICT HAS TO BE IN
THE FORM OF SHOWING THAT MS.
WILLIS IN THIS INSTANCE
RECEIVED A FINANCIAL BENEFIT OR
GAIN IN RELATION TO THE
OUTCOME OF THE CASE. LIKE ANY
OF THE CASES THAT INVOLVE
PERSONAL INTEREST, YOUR HONOR,
IT IS ALL BASED ON A
CONTINGENCY FEE WHERE HOW MUCH
THEY ARE PAID OR A BONUS, FOR
EXAMPLE, IS DEPENDENT ON THE
OUTCOME OF THE CASE.
THAT IS HOW, WHEN IT IS TO
SHOW THERE IS A PERSONAL
INTEREST.
WE HAVE NONE OF THAT HERE.
I WILL SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT
WE HAVE NO EVIDENCE THAT MS.
WILLIS RECEIVES ANY FINANCIAL
GAIN OR BENEFIT.
THE TESTIMONY WAS THAT MS.
WILLIS PAID ON THE MONEY BACK
IN CASH AS IT RELATED TO THE
TRIP SEND IF THEY DID NOT PAY
BACK IN CASH --
>> LET ME EXPLORE THIS ONE A
LITTLE BIT.
IN ADDITION TO, YOU ARE SAYING
THERE IS NO ACTUAL CONFLICTS,
AND YOU ARE ONLY SAYING IF A
FINANCIAL INTEREST IS AFFECTING
THE FINAL RESULT, THE OUTCOME,
THAT IS THE ONLY ONE WE SHOULD
BE WORRIED ABOUT? OR IS IT THAT
THE PROSECUTION AS A WHOLE IS
WHAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT
MUSCLE AND I'M THINKING OF, I'M
TRYING TO COME UP WITH
HYPOTHETICALS HERE, WHAT IF
A.D.A.'S ARE GIVEN A BONUS FOR
EVERY MOTION TO SUPPRESS THE
WIN, WELL, NOW THEY HAVE A
DISINCENTIVE IF ONE OF THEIR
OFFICERS IS LYING NOT TO TELL
YOU ABOUT IT BECAUSE THEY WANT
TO WIN THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS.
THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THE
OUTCOME, THAT DOESN'T DECIDE
WHETHER YOU KNOW, A GUILTY OR
NOT GUILTY VERDICT, BUT DOESN'T
IT AFFECT THE PROSECUTION OF
THE CASE AND NOT THE OUTCOME?
>> YES, I AGREE THAT IT WOULD
BE AN INSTANCE WHERE DISC
QUALIFICATION WOULD BE NECESSARY
AND APPROPRIATE, BECAUSE IT IS
A SITUATION THAT INVOLVES A
CONTINGENCY FEE AND I WOULD
SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT IT
ACTUALLY DOES END UP AFFECTING
--
>> IT COULD BASED ON HOW
IMPORTANT A MOTION TO SUPPRESS
IS BUT IF IT IS A MATERIAL, I
DON'T KNOW, BUT I GUESS, SO YOU
ARE SAYING IT'S MAYBE NOT SO
MUCH JUST TO THE WEATHER IT IS
GUILTY OR NOT GUILTY, DISMISSAL
AT THE END OF THE DAY.
IT IS ACTUALLY THE CONDUCT OF
THE PROSECUTION THAT SHOULD BE
LOOKED AT THROUGHOUT THE COURSE
OF THE PROSECUTION.
>> CORRECT, AS IT RELATES TO
HOW IT AFFECTS THE PROSECUTION
WHICH I SUBMIT IS ULTIMATELY
GOING TO AFFECT THE END OUTCOME
OF THE CASE.
IF YOU HAVE A CONTINGENCY FEE
BASED ON WINNING, IF YOU WIN A
MOTION TO SUPPRESS, AND IT IS,
YOU KNOW, IF YOU WIN, YOU GET,
YOU KNOW, A BONUS IS YOUR HONOR
REFERENCED.
I THINK THAT THAT IS ULTIMATELY
GOING TO AFFECT THE END OUTCOME
OF THE CASE, BECAUSE AS YOUR
HONOR JUST THAT, IF THERE IS AN
INSTANCE WHERE AN OFFICER IS
LYING, OR WHERE THERE ISN'T
GOOD FAITH TO GO FORWARD WITH
THAT MOTION, THE PROSECUTOR
WOULD GO FORWARD REGARDLESS,
BECAUSE OF THE CONTINGENCY FEE,
WHICH NOT ONLY AFFECT THE
PROSECUTION AT THAT POINT OF
THE PROCEEDINGS, BUT ULTIMATELY
IS GOING TO AFFECT THE ENTIRE
CASE, BECAUSE IF THEY WERE TO
WIN A MOTION TO SUPPRESS OR I
GUESS THE MOTION WOULD BE DENIED
, AND THE EVIDENCE WAS
OPPRESSED, KNOWING THAT THEY
DIDN'T HAVE A GOOD FAITH BASIS
TO GO FORWARD AFFECT THE
ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE CASE.
SO, I THINK IT IS TWOFOLD, AS
YOUR HONOR HAS REFERENCED.
I THINK IT IS AT THAT PART OF I
GUESS THE PROCEDURE THE
PROCEEDINGS, BUT DEFINITELY
WOULD QUALIFY FOR A REASON
NECESSARY TO DISQUALIFY A
PROSECUTING AGENCY, BUT
ULTIMATELY THAT ACTION DURING
THE PROCEDURE WILL LEAD TO THE
ULTIMATE OUTCOME OF THE CASE
BEING OR HINGING UPON A
CONTINGENCY FEE, LIKE THE ONES
IN THE CASES REFERENCED BY
COUNSEL IN THIS DATE --
>> SO, GETTING INTO THE
LANGUAGE AGAIN, WHAT YOU JUST
HAD UP THERE WITH GREATER
AMUSEMENTS AND AMUSEMENT SALES,
GREATER AMUSEMENTS IS ONE OF
THOSE.
YOU REFER TO THE APPEARANCE OF
CONFLICTS, WHY DO YOU THINK
THAT IS -- I THINK THE QUOTE
FROM THAT ONE IS IT GUARANTEES
AT LEAST THE APPEARANCE OF A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
IT SEEMS CENTRAL TO THE CENTRAL
HOLDING OF THE CASE.
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR
HONOR, BUT IN THAT CASE, AN
ACTUAL CONFLICT WAS FOUND.
>> THEY DIDN'T FIND THAT.
>> I WOULD DISAGREE WITH YOUR
HONOR.
MY READING OF THE CASE IS AT AN
ACTUAL CONFLICT WAS FOUND, BUT
BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL CONFLICT,
AN APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
WAS SEEN, AND THAT IS A
REFERENCE OR BY THE STATE
REFERENCED THAT CASE IN
RELATION TO THE ARGUMENT THAT
AN ACTUAL CONFLICT AS REQUIRED.
AND THE SERIES OF CASES, THAT
WAS REFERENCED BY DEFENSE
COUNSEL'S ARE BOTH INSTANCES
WHERE THERE IS A PERSONAL
INTEREST IN THE CASE DUE TO THE
SITUATION AND WHERE AT ONE
POINT THEY WERE OPPOSING
PARTIES, AND OF COURSE THERE IS
A PERSONAL INTEREST OR'S TAKE
AS IT RELATES TO PROSECUTING AN
OPPOSING PARTY IN A CIVIL
CLAIM, WHICH BOTH OF THOSE
CASES REFERENCE, WHICH SHOWS
THAT THERE IS AN ACTUAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST THAT
RELATES TO THE PERSONAL GAIN OF
THE SPECIFIC PROSECUTING AGENCY.
>> AND WHAT YOU MAKE OF NICHOLS
REFERENCE TO, IT'S AN OLDER
CASE, SOMETIMES THE LANGUAGE
CAN BE, WE ARE NOT ACCUSTOMED
TO SEEING, THEY REFER TO THE
METAPHOR OF CAESAR'S WIFE, AND
GENERALLY WHEN THAT IS USED AS
AN ETHICAL STANDARD, THAT IS
SOMETHING THAT GOES BEYOND JUST
AN ACTUAL CONFLICTS, RIGHT?
ISN'T BEYOND REPROACH GETTING
MORE INTO THE APPEARANCE WORLD?
>> IS GETTING BEYOND?
>> IS IT GETTING INTO THE
APPEARANCE ASPECT OF THINGS
WHEN WE ARE TALKING ABOUT
CAESAR'S WIFE?
>> I THINK IT GOES BEYOND THAT
BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE
HOLDING IN THAT CASE, WHERE IT
LITERALLY SAYS THAT EVEN IF I
HAD A PERSONAL INTEREST IN
OBTAINING A FEE BY FORCING A
SETTLEMENT IN A CIVIL CASE, IT
IS IN THE CRIMINAL CASE IS
LEVERAGE, SO THAT IS NOT AN
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY.
THAT IS AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST WHICH ARISES BECAUSE
OF THE INDIVIDUALS PERSONAL
STAKE IN THE END OUTCOME OF THE
CASE NUMBER YOUR HONOR, SO THAT
, THAT IS HOW I WOULD
DIFFERENTIATE, I GUESS THE
REPRESENTATIONS OF DEFENSE
COUNSEL AS IT RELATES TO THE
STANDARD OR THE BURDEN THAT
MUST BE SHOWN, AND WHY THE
STATE WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT
, AND THE MOST RECENT RULING
OUT OF THE GEORGIA APPELLATE
COURT SET AN ACTUAL CONFLICT IS
REQUIRED TO BE SHOWN.
SO, I'M GOING TO SKIP THROUGH
THESE SERIES OF SLIDES.
YOU'VE HEARD ALL ABOUT
WOODWORTH.
SO, I GO BACK TO WHAT WE
REFERENCED EARLIER, WHICH HAS
BEEN REFERENCED BY ALL PARTIES,
THAT THE GROUNDS IN WHICH A
DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN BE
DISQUALIFIED IS WHERE A
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS FOUND,
AND WHERE THERE IS FRANTIC
MISCONDUCT TO THAT IS FOUND.
THOSE ARE THE TWO GROUNDS THAT
ARE TO BE, I GUESS, WITHIN THE
PURVIEW OF THE COURT AS IT
RELATES TO THE ISSUES HERE.
AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE MOST
RECENT CASE THAT JUSTICE PINSON
WROTE ABOUT. THAT IT MUST BE,
BY FAILING TO DISQUALIFY THE
ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
ABSENT AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST.
I THINK THE LANGUAGE THERE IS
VERY CLEAR, AND I THINK IT IS
VERY CONTROLLING.
I THINK IT IS PURPOSEFUL, I
WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT,
BECAUSE AN ACTUAL CONFLICT OF
INTEREST IS WHAT IS REQUIRED IN
ORDER FOR A DISTRICT ATTORNEY
TO BE DISQUALIFIED, BECAUSE THE
CASE, THE CASES MAKE VERY CLEAR
THROUGH THE PRECEDENTS RELATING
TO THIS ISSUE THAT A
DISQUALIFICATION OF A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY IS, FOR LACK OF A
BETTER WORD, A LAST-DITCH
EFFORT THAT SHOULD BE EXERCISED
AS IT RELATES TO THE COURT IN
CARRYING CERTAIN CONFLICTS THAT
MAY ARISE.
I THINK THE CASE LAW IS VERY
CLEAR THAT EVERY EFFORT IS
SUPPOSED TO BE MADE INSTEAD OF,
OR I GUESS IN LIEU OF
DISQUALIFYING A DISTRICT
ATTORNEY UNLESS AN ACTUAL
CONFLICT OF INTEREST IS WHAT IS
FOUND, YOUR HONOR, AND IT CAN'T
BE CURED.
SO, WHAT I WOULD REFERENCE TO
THE COURT AS WAS BROUGHT UP
EARLIER IN LYONS V STATE 271,
GEORGIA 639, A 1989 CASE WHERE
IT TALKS ABOUT A THEORETICAL OR
SPECULATIVE CONFLICT WILL NOT
IMPUGN A CONVICTION, MEANING
THAT SPECULATION, CONJECTURE,
THINGS OF THAT NATURE,
ASSUMPTIONS ARE NOT ENOUGH FOR
ANYTHING TO ARISE OTHER THAN AN
ACTUAL CONFLICT.
WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE
COURT IS THAT GOES TO THE FACT
THAT WHAT HAS TO BE SHOWN AS AN
ACTUAL CONFLICT.
IF IT IS SPECULATION --
>> IS THERE ANY QUALIFIER THERE
THAT THAT IS IN A
POSTCONVICTION CONTE WHEN
TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW,
COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
WE ARE OBVIOUSLY IN THE
PRETRIAL PHASE HERE.
I'VE WONDERED HOW MUCH IMPORT
TO GIVE THAT SENTENCE WHEN WE
ARE IN A PRETRIAL. THAT'S
ASSESSING WHETHER TO OVERTURN A
CONVICTION. IT'S AN ENTIRELY
DIFFERENT STANDARD WHERE WE
ASSESS IT IN TOTALITY, WHEN
THERE IS HARMLESS ERROR.
THERE IS NO HARMLESS ERROR WHEN
IT COMES TO DISQUALIFICATIONS,
BUT YOUR THOUGHT.
>> I THINK WHAT YOUR HONOR SAYS
IS PRETTY ON POINT IN THE SENSE
THAT IF IT IS FOUND THAT, IF
THE TRIAL COURT EITHER APPLIED
THE WRONG STANDARD OR SHOULD
HAVE DISQUALIFIED THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY LEADS TO AN AUTOMATIC
REVERSAL LIKE YOU SAID AND IT
GOES BACK TO THE TRIAL COURT,
AND I THINK THAT IS -- VERY
ENLIGHTENING IN THE SENSE THAT
THAT IS ONLY DONE IF AN ACTUAL
CONFLICT IS SHOWN, AND THE FACT
THAT IT CAN'T JUST BE
THEORETICAL, SPECULATIVE, OR
ASSUMPTIONS THAT WOULD LEAD TO
THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY
OR THE APPEARANCE OF A CONFLICT
THAT WOULD LEAD TO --
>> I GUESS, I'M BORROWING KIND
OF FROM, AS WE'VE BEEN DOING
THE OTHER PRETRIAL MOTION, SEEM
TO GET DIFFERENT TREATMENT
PRETRIAL THAN POSTTRIAL.
PRETRIAL THEY GET MORE OF A
PASS AND I'M WONDERING IF THE
SAME ISSUE APPLIES HERE WITH
DISQUALIFICATION.
I DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER TO
THAT.
MAC I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT
LINE, BUT I KNOW IN THE JUDGES
ORDER, HE DOES ADDRESS SOME OF
THE CONCERNS AS IT RELATES TO
THE STANDARD AS IT IS APPLIED
POSTCONVICTION VERSUS PRETRIAL.
AND DURING PRETRIAL ISSUES, AND
WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE COURT
IS THAT --
>> SO HE SIGNED AND SUPPORT, I
DIDN'T THINK THE STATE WAS ALL
THAT PLEASED, YOU KNOW, WITH
THE ANALYSIS HE APPLIED.
>> WELL I'M --
>> THE LEGAL ANALYSIS.
>> WHAT HE REFERENCED AS A
STANDARD TO BE APPLIED PRETRIAL
AND POSTTRIAL, WHETHER IT MAKES
A DIFFERENCE, AND WHAT I WOULD
SAY TO THE COURT'S THE ANSWER
IS NO AS IT RELATES TO THE
SPECULATIVE NATURE OF THE
ALLEGATIONS ARE THE CLAIMS MADE
BY THE DEFENSE COUNSEL AS IT
RELATES TO WHETHER A CONFLICT
ACTUALLY EXISTS, YOUR HONOR.
WHAT I CAN'T DO AT THE MOMENT
IS POINT EXACTLY TO THE PAGE AT
THE END OF THE STATE'S
ARGUMENT.
I CAN GIVE YOU THE PAGE NUMBER
AS IT RELATES TO JUDGMENT
BERNIE'S OLD ORDER --
>> I THINK I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE
TALKING ABOUT.
I'M LOOKING AT IT.
>> FURTHER, MAYBE STATE 267
GEORGIA 231 ON PAGE 42 IT IS A
1996 CASE WHERE THE COURT SAYS
NEVERTHELESS COME OF THE
CONFLICT MUST BE PALPABLE AND
HAVE A SUBSTANTIAL BASIS IN FACT
, A THEORETICAL OR SPECULATIVE
CONFLICT WILL NOT IMPUGN A
CONVICTION, WHICH IS SUPPORTED
BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE.
I UNDERSTAND AS IT RELATES TO
THE POSTCONVICTION FACTOR, THE
STATUS OF THE CASE BEING IN
POSTCONVICTION BASED ON YOUR
HONOR'S EARLIER INQUIRY, BUT I
WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT
AS IT RELATES TO THE ISSUE OF
DISQUALIFICATION, THAT THE
STANDARD IS THE SAME WHETHER IT
IS POSTCONVICTION OR PRETRIAL.
AND BLOOM FELD VERSUS
BORENSTEIN WHICH IS 237 GEORGIA
406, A 1981 CASE.
IN THAT CASE THEY SAY THEY HAVE
NOT SHOWN WHERE THEY WERE ABLE
TO DISQUALIFY AN ATTORNEY ON
THE BASIS OF IMPROPRIETY ALONE.
THE GEORGIA CASE DECIDED BY THE
APPELLATE DO NOT STAND BY THE
PROPOSITION THAT A TRIAL JUDGE
IS AUTHORIZED IN GEORGIA TO
AUTHORIZE AN ATTORNEY SOLELY ON
THE BASIS OF AN APPEARANCE OF
PROPRIETY WHICH FURTHER GOES TO
THE STATES SUBMISSION TO THE
COURT THAT THE STANDARD IS, IN
ACTUAL CONFLICT MUST BE SHOWN,
AND THAT CONFLICT THAT ARISES
SHOWS THERE IS A PERSONAL STAKE
WITH THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY AS
IT RELATES TO THE PERSONAL
FINANCIAL GAIN THAT IS BEING
ALLEGED. SO, IN THE CASE THAT
HAS BEEN REFERENCED BY ALL
PARTIES HERE TODAY, WENTWORTH
VERSUS STATE 275 GEORGIA,
APPEAL 790, 2005 CASE.
IN THAT CASE IT SAYS
WENTWORTH'S COMPLAINTS ARE
LARGELY BASED ON SPECULATION
AND CONJECTURE.
APPLYING ANY EVIDENCE STANDARD
TO THE RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT
THE TRIAL COURT DID NOT ABUSE
ITS DISCRETION IN DENYING
WENTWORTH'S -- BASED UPON HIS
PERSONAL INTERESTS AND HIS
CONVICTION.
>> WE PASSED THE SPECULATION
AND CONJECTURE ASPECT OF THIS,
THOUGH?
THE ORIGINAL AND THE FINANCIAL
ALLEGATION WAS THAT THERE IS A
RELATIONSHIP AND THAT MONEY HAS
CHANGED HANDS.
THERE IS MAYBE STILL AN OPEN
QUESTION OF WHERE THE LEDGER
STANDS, BUT I THINK IT WAS
CONCEDED THAT THAT BALANCE
COULD RUN IN ONE WAY, THEN, IN
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S FAVOR.
IS THAT CONTESTED?
>> YES.
WHAT IS NOT CONTESTED IS THAT A
RELATIONSHIP TO DEVELOP, BUT
THEN WE --
>> AND THAT PURCHASES WERE MADE
BACK AND FORTH.
THAT IS THE STATE'S POSITION.
>> THAT IS THE STATES POSITION.
THE PURCHASES WERE MADE BACK
AND FORTH EITHER TO EQUAL THE
MONEY THAT WAS SPENT BY ONE
PARTY OR THE OTHER, AND IF THAT
WASN'T DONE, CASH WAS EXCHANGED
IN ORDER TO EQUAL THE COSTS
THAT WERE PAID BY EITHER ONE OF
THE PARTIES.
>> RIGHT.
BUT THAT IS AN ISSUE, WHETHER
IT WAS, YOU KNOW, SPLIT EVEN OR
WHETHER IT GOES A LITTLE BIT
ONE WAY OR ANOTHER, OR WHETHER
IT IS ALL THE WAY $10,000 ONE
WAY OR ANOTHER.
THAT IS AN ISSUE AS A RESULT OF
THE HEARING, BUT IT IS NO
LONGER JUST A THEORY THAT MONEY
CHANGED HANDS.
IS NO LONGER SPECULATION OR
CONJECTURE.
>> I AGREE THAT MONEY ACTUALLY
CHANGED HANDS IS NOT
SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE, BUT
WHETHER THAT MONEY THAT CHANGED
HANDS HAD ANY FINANCIAL BENEFIT
OR GAIN TO THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY, THAT IS ALL
SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE, I
WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT.
ABSOLUTELY ALL SPECULATION AND
CONJECTURE TO HARASS AND
HONESTLY EMBARRASS THE DISTRICT
ATTORNEY BASED ON SOME OF THE
QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED THAT
HAD ACTUALLY NOTHING TO DO WITH
THE PROCEEDINGS HERE.
FOR EXAMPLE, THE LIEN ON HER
ALLEGED HOUSE, THAT WAS HIGHLY
RELEVANT AND IT NOTHING TO DO
WITH THE PROCEEDINGS IN
EXCHANGE OF MONEY BETWEEN THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND MR. WADE
, AND THE POINT OF THAT LINE OF
QUESTIONING WAS TO, AGAIN,
EMBARRASS AND HARASS THE
DISTRICT ATTORNEY IN A WAY THAT
WAS VERY PUBLIC, AND IN A WAY
THAT WAS TO IMPUGN HER CHARACTER
AS IT RELATES TO THAT LINE OF
QUESTIONING IN FRONT OF THE
COURT, IN FRONT OF ANYONE
WATCHING THE PROCEEDINGS THAT IS
-- AS IT UNFOLDED.
IN THE LANGUAGE IN WENTWORTH I
WOULD AGAIN SUBMIT TO THE COURT
REQUIRES THAT AN ACTUAL
CONFLICT MUST BE SHOWN, WHICH
IS WHY THE REFERENCE TO
SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE IS
AGAIN REFERENCED, BECAUSE
SPECULATION AND CONJECTURE
LEADS TO OR EQUALS AN
APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY, NOT
NECESSARILY AN ACTUAL CONFLICT,
WHICH I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE
COURT IS
5.0 / 5 (0 votes)
BREAKING🔥 Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - FANI's Entire Team REMOVED🚨Trumps Motion of Appeal
BREAKING🔥 Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - FANI'S Last minute change after Attorney Testimony🚨
BREAKING🔥 Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - FANI WILLIS RESIGNATION🚨Accused of Misusing GA Funds
BREAKING🔥 Fani Willis DISQUALIFICATION Saga - Whistleblower Complaint🚨 FANI's Entire Teams Bad News
BREAKING NEWS: Trump's Lawyer Ruthlessly Lays Out Case To Disqualify Fani Willis From Georgia Case
The Faulkner Focus 3/6/24 FULL END SHOW | BREAKING FOX NEWS March 6, 2024