YTread Logo
YTread Logo

Fani Willis hearing | Closing arguments in effort to disqualify from Georgia Trump election case

Mar 11, 2024
e Lights below Jesus cuts 12 is I think that's it, thank you please take a seat, okay, we're back on the record with 23 sc88 947 uh, starting with the status, if you could have the Council for today identify yourself for the record , very good, afternoon, your honor to Steve Jennifer little to President Trump understood thank you sir St afternoon Richard rice and chrisz of the sir okay on behalf of Mr. Giuliani Alan ston on behalf of the mayor julani Wes thank you on behalf of Mr. Meadows Jim Durham on behalf of Mr. Meadows salutes your appearance on behalf of Mr.
fani willis hearing closing arguments in effort to disqualify from georgia trump election case
Clark Harry mdou your honor Mr. Clark waves on behalf of Mr. Roman good morning judge Ashley Merchant and John Merchant on behalf of Mr. Roman and he salutes on name of Mr. Schaefer good morning good afternoon your honor uh Craig Gillan Anthony Lake and Holly Pearson on behalf of David Schaer and he weighs your presence on behalf of Mr. Floyd. Do we have someone join us on Zoom on behalf of Mr. Floyd? Okay, as the Council had previously attended the previous

hearing

s and this one has been brought to my attention, I will find that today they have stirred up their appearance to discuss, someone on behalf of Miss Leam, in the afternoon, the hon.
fani willis hearing closing arguments in effort to disqualify from georgia trump election case

More Interesting Facts About,

fani willis hearing closing arguments in effort to disqualify from georgia trump election case...

Bill Cromwell, On behalf of Miss Le Pres, okay, thank you, Mr. Cromwell, okay, so I was informed by the Council. collectively for the defendants who were requesting a total of one and a half hours for the argument to be divided among them if, as they already agreed, to effect that, I will have the time, uh, in line. and we'll start ticking the clock and you all may see fit to divide that up however you want and obviously I've also allowed the same amount of time for the State before we get into that, I think there may have been some things to clean up as part of the docket, specifically since we last met.
fani willis hearing closing arguments in effort to disqualify from georgia trump election case
The Council on behalf of Mr. Roman had presented a defense exhibit 39 and, if there is any objection that would like to be included in the file on behalf. of the state we can do that now, but at a minimum I think the intention was for me to admit that collectively as an exhibit at least just for pet purposes, for the record, Mr. B, anything the state wants to add as it relates with exhibit 39, there is no objection from the state. I have a copy for the court reporter. I printed a copy and then sent it. Okay, if you have that marked on St, we'll provide it to the court reporter.
fani willis hearing closing arguments in effort to disqualify from georgia trump election case
Then, as I also indicated on Tuesday, both parties had followed up since the

closing

of evidence D on the 16th. Now I believe both sides have requested to reopen the evidence on behalf of the defense. There were some problems with the cell phone. records and the state has found an additional witness that they would like to present and the instruction that I provided on Tuesday was that for today I think we have reached the point where I would like to hear more about how some of the legal

arguments

apply to what that has already been presented and it may already be possible for me to make a decision, without needing to be material for that decision, which is why we are here today.
I wanted to make sure that we maintained this moment because it is a logistical challenge to get everyone in one room, but recognizing that, again, for the sake of efficiency, if both sides want to reserve some of their time to discuss as if those proposed tests had been admitted , don't hesitate to do so. Present whatever

arguments

you want and if, in fact, it turns out that I need them to be part of the record to make a decision, then we will have to go back and we will make them according to the Rules of Evidence, Mr.
Gill, we have and we have not presented anything, but we also have a suitable witness who we would like to call in

case

the court opens the evidence. I can make an oral statement about who that witness is and what that witness would do. be saying and I could do it, I think in a fairly brief way, uh, if the court would allow me, so that the court understands where I'm coming from and I think also Mr. Cromwell also has a brief document suitable for a witness who has . uh he has spoken and he has an oral problem so so are these ones we have.
This is the first time I've heard of it, as well as these things that have been discussed or shared with the state at all. No, his honor, literally uh. My communication with this particular witness occurred this morning around 10:10 along with Mr. Chris and I know who was on the call with me more than happy to inform the court about what the witness would say, who the witness is and a brief brief summary. of what this particular witness would testify should the court allow the evidence to be reopened and on the record, I would like to state that on behalf of my client, Mr.
Schaer, we want the record to be reopened so that the court can hear what if they want to bring someone from California, let them bring him and we think that the court might want to hear the appropriate evidence and that we are willing to present at least today, okay, so, Mr. Gillan, on that point. and Mr. Cromwell, you know, I have even more evidence in my mind, for the sake of fair notice to the other side, uh, no, I wouldn't like that to be part of the argument today because the state has no idea what what you I'm about to say and I think the purpose of a professor largely in this role and in this context is to at least have the ability to make those initial counterarguments now, I don't think that will stop you After the

hearing

of today, if you want to file it, make it part of the file, so I think both sides have already chosen that they are willing to use that mechanism, but just for today, it kind of appears now without having shown this other side at all even this morning eh, no I think that would be fair.
I did not intend to use what was appropriate in the legal argument. Sure, I just wanted to let the court know that we have an oral CER. We can present it. We can complement the. Record it and file it for the Court's consideration, literally hot off the press, sure we printed it out and drove to the OK, okay, Mr. Crom, is there anything you want to add to that? No, it's an honor, okay, Mr. AB, body, anything. Do you want to add something to that? I don't know what it is, I don't know how to add it, no, okay, just anything, although from a procedural perspective, I mean, from a procedural perspective, I wouldn't go to court like you said several times that the evidence is closed um. this is beyond the scope of your honors decision on Tuesday it seems, but on Tuesday so um I guess we would object at this point and go from there, okay, anything else by way of housekeeping.
Apparently, Ms. the state presented two supplemental exhibits number two and number three about 15 minutes ago, to the extent that they use them in their proper form to talk about the same requested notice, understood as it relates to that, your Your Honor, I think it was very clear on Tuesday. Furthermore, in rights we could argue rebuttal evidence in regards to evidence that was presented by the Defense Council after the evidence was closed and that is almost what it is in Bal's evidence in regards to cell phone records or analysis, um, which was done by a non-expert by Ms.
Okay, Mr. Kell, as far as professional evidence goes, our professional evidence would be a direct refutation of the testimony given in the courtroom, particularly by Mr. Bradley, so we would have a direct rebuttal of that. that's what our property will be, I understand that the ruling I just want to put that on record so that we know that the context is similar for Mr. Cromwell and it relates solely to Mr. Bradley's testimony, okay. Okay, I noticed anything else, so your honor, the proper evidence is basically cooperating with what was admitted as evidence is exhibit 39, chronological taxes.
Okay then, if there's nothing else, I'll hand it over to Miss Merchant to begin the half of the defense, sorry Judge, unfortunately, you're stuck with me today, understood, could you court your honor? John Merchin on behalf of Mr. Roman. Just as a roadmap to give you an idea about time allocation and what I. I'm going to cover uh I've been tasked with speaking to his honor on the issue of conflict and the appearance of a conflict uh and what we believe the evidence shows on that issue uh Mr. Sow um. Mr. Gillum will speak more about the forensic misconduct part of that uh speech by Miss Willis in the Church uh statements made to the media uh court fraud frankly and um the book for which she gave several interviews um so no I'm not going to discuss any of those topics, so if you'd like to ask me, I can certainly try to address them, but that will be the focus of your presentation and then towards the end other people may have specific type arguments, whether in follow up on mine or forensic misconduct, but those are the two lanes, um, that we're going to cover, but I'm going to do the conflict part for you and on that topic, uh, you're, this is a matter of first impression, uh, in Georgia I can't find it. a single

case

that has been published by the court of appeals or the Supreme Court that is based on these facts.
Of course, there are several different appeal cases in court dealing with issues related to the conflict and, more importantly, the appearance of issues related to the conflict. and some of them are based on state law, some of them are based on the ethical rules that govern lawyers, some of them are based on the Sixth Amendment right to due process, which is implicit in everything that we are doing here today. I want to remind the court that we are here today with this motion to

disqualify

Da Willis and her charge because of her sentence. Frankly, she's not supposed to be interested under the Sixth Amendment and it's anything but that, the fact that these proceedings have taken so long and through the complicated way in which we've accomplished it here today, explain that, so while I present my arguments, I want the court to understand that this court, uh repres, presents the guardrails for the sixth amendment in this context and Ms.
Willis has already been disqualified once, so I would encourage the court to remember what Judge MC did Bernie in his disqualification order. The same argument was made in that case about whether or not an actual conflict of interest is necessary or whether the appearance of a conflict of interest might be sufficient on the facts. I want to make it clear to the court that I am Georgia law to suggest and it is very clear that we can demonstrate an appearance of conflict of interest. and that's enough, uh, there is, I'm going to be honest with the court, there was a Lambi State Supreme Court decision in 1996 and then there are two appeals court decisions after that that deal with, uh, and frankly , in some rulings suggesting "An actual conflict is required, but the Georgia Supreme Court, since those decisions were made, has made it quite clear that the appearance of a conflict standard still applies and the reason why that is important thing, I think, is that under the Sixth Amendment, that's where we are." We are in um to preserve the rights of the defendants under that provision and under the cor provisions of Georgia law.
You have to consider the appearance of a conflict and the reason why the appearance of a conflict is so present here, is because if this court allows this type of behavior to continue and allows Das throughout the state, by its order, participate in this type of activities, all the public's trust in the system. will be shot and the integrity of the system will be undermined, and with that kind of public policy and constitutional principles, I wanted to turn to the Georgia law on disqualification and your honor, I'm going to go. to give you the law and then I'm going to talk about the facts and how the law applies at the end, if you want to talk about the facts first, jump right in and I'll be happy to do that.
I'm sure your honor is very well prepared and probably knows all the laws that I'm going to cite to you, but to give you a basic outline of the original pivotal case dealing with conflicts of interest from the Georgia Supreme Court. The court is Williams V State, which is 258 Georgia 305 and there are basically two methods by which a district attorney can be disqualified. One of them is a conflict of interest and I will suggest to the court that that does not mean a real conflict which could mean an appearance of conflict as well and then forensic misconduct, which is important in the Williams case, although in the footnote 4 and I think this is important to the Court's analysis of the facts and where the picture fits into which the court said there was no clear demarcation.
The line between conflict of interest and forensic misconduct and, given a given reason for the prosecutor's disqualification, could be classified as either and I think that's important because we have facts that fit into both boxes, so if the State stands up and says, "Well, there is no real conflict." Here, Judge, that doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't apply to forensic misconduct. Typically forensic misconduct relates to prosecutorial statements designed to impunize the defendant's character before trial and to affect the jury pool we have here that I'm not going to discuss, but theThe facts that we have here are very related to that issue and there is an intersection, something important, and I think this is important for the Court's consideration of the effect that the Court's ruling may have.
I have, um, if you reject this motion, there's a good chance, if it's reversed, that we'll be granted a new trial, which means we're going to have to do this all over again, um in Amusement Sales, versus the State 316 Georgia. pellet 727umese is a case citing Whitworth, which is a physical precedent alone. The court said that if the assigned prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the conviction, the trial court abuses its discretion by denying a motion to

disqualify

him and the defendant is entitled to a new case. trial new trial even without showing prejudice, which means that if we bring it to court today and I believe we have completed the proceedings today and prior to that, Ms.
Willis has developed a very personal interest in this case and your honor denies this motion. uh we will come back again if the appeal in court says we were wrong, so what is that personal interest? So for personal interest to be, there's no definition of that under George's law and it could be a personal financial interest, it could be a personal interest related to a bias against a particular defendant that sort of falls into the category of forensic misconduct, but we have here a very personal financial interest which has been presented in terms of money received by Miss Willis. as a result of the plan that she created um and um, but to get to the question of self-interest in the context of an appearance, I think that's important.
I want to suggest to the court that there are a number of cases um that postdate this actual conflict of interest language that is suggested in some of the cases from the '90s uh that we need to pay attention to what this looks like to the public um. and I agree with uh the whole law and I'm sure the state will stand up here and say it can't be some kind of speculative or conjectural self-interest. We don't have that here, we have something very concrete and, as Judge MC Bernie put it, um real. and palpable, not speculative and remote, that is exactly what we have here, we have demonstrated through the testimony of witnesses, some of whom accuse themselves, that we have a very personal interest in the court's seminal case of the United States that deals with um procedural irregularity um is Young vus that is a case 481 us 787 and that case is the opportunity for conflicts to arise that created at least the appearance of irregularity and that is the case that requires the prosecutor to be disinterested since it is a plan that injects a personal interest Financial or otherwise into the execution process Pro can incorporate irrelevant and inadmissible factors in the prosecutor's decision now that there are a series of Georgia cases that in some way repeat that theme uh Reeves V State 231 Georgia pellet 22 that 1998 case stated that a potential conflict of interest existed and the appearance of wrongdoing existed in Davenport V State 157 Georgia pellet 74, that is a 1981 case that was decided seven years before Williams, when There is at least the appearance of irregularity, the defendant is denied fundamental justice in the state's prosecution of the charges against him.
There are also rules governing prosecutors, lawyers generally are required to preserve and avoid even the appearance of decorum which is brown V State 256 Georgia pellet 603202 2002 head V State um the close personal relationship of a prosecutor with the victim in a case may create at least at least the appearance of a prosecution unfairly based on a private interest rather than one properly based on a public interest claim uh uh ABA Criminal Justice Standards for Standard Prosecution Function 3 uh 3- 1.2 C A prosecutor must avoid the appearance of inappropriate conduct in the performance of the prosecutorial function 3 - 1.7 F the prosecutor must not allow the judgment or professional obligations of the Prosecutor to be affected by personal, financial, professional, business or commercial property other interests or relationships of the prosecutor, so that the rules that govern him in his own profession say that this is wrong because he has developed a financial interest in this case and at least created the appearance of injustice towards these defendants by establishing a relationship , a prosecution relationship with her boyfriend, who she had been dating for 2 years according to testimony, so before I moved. your honor to the specific facts I I I you asked, you know what the self interest is and I think, frankly, as I was trying to figure this out, I think you know it when you see it, it's like um in the concurrence in uh jackob Bellis versus Court Case 1964 Ohio State Supreme Court, Justice Stewart in his concurring opinion and said: I know it when I see you talking about obscenity.
I think you know it when you see it. I think there are enough facts in front of you. You know it when you see it and so I think that that guiding principle helps clarify some of the facts here and I also think that it's not just financial and it should be statewide. I think the Court is very familiar with that case. 295 Georgia 609 In 2014, the Supreme Court essentially said that because the acting father had become a witness in the case and developed a personal interest in the case due to his daughter's relationship with the victim, he was disqualified and not and because disqualified his entire office was disqualified um so moving on to the facts of the honor case um I think I have my paper is 20 minutes, so I have about 8 minutes left um so why the relationship why do we spend so much? time in a relationship between these two people, frankly we couldn't care less if they had a personal relationship outside of work, that's not the problem here, the problem is that they started this relationship in 2019, they were dating for two years. and then she awarded him a contract where public money, whether from Fton County or the state of Georgia, ended up in her pockets.
That decision alone was inappropriate, but what's even more inappropriate is that she and he then used that money for personal activities. vacations and trips um if your honor will remember exhibits 9, 11 and 12 dealt with Wade's um expenses um on trips um if you do the math on that if you look at what he spent and then look at the testimony about what Willis returned because of the cash refund theory which I'll talk about in a second, but if you do the math on what she actually paid and what they testified she paid in cash, you still have uh over $9,200 $9,200 and 9247 to be exact, it's the amount of money that they cannot explain in their testimony and, as your honor, Ru will remember, there was no mention of cash in Mr.
Wade's affidavit when it was the best and first opportunity to raise that. The problem that would have arisen is when the state filed its response in its affidavit that it is not there the first time we heard about the cash. She was here in this courtroom, so I believe she had a, so she received a financial benefit of over $9,200 in this case that she cannot account for and the state cannot account for and the reason we cannot account for it is because they came up with a theory of cash. The cash theory just went up before we got into it, let me ask you this, um, let's say they couldn't if let's say there wasn't even the theory that it had been returned or that there had been any exchange, should there first be a consideration of a materiality requirement?
Have you seen that in this jurisdiction or well, not in this jurisdiction? Have you seen that in any other jurisdiction? I haven't seen that judge and if it was $6 that would still be improper, would it be improper when it is a disqualification per se? Someone you know buys his boss a piece of gum, is that per se disqualifying because there is no materiality requirement, well, no, no, I don't disagree that he may not meet a materiality requirement, but it is a personal benefit , I will not say. that giving a piece of gum is just a justification to disqualify a return.
I think that's part of the point, judge. I think it's fact-based research done by you, so there's a Continuum involved here, yes, but I think the Continuum involves you. looking at whether or not in the grand scheme of things it violates the Constitution and whether or not there is an appearance of conflict and the appearance suggests that she actually received a benefit and we know that she did, they admitted. We don't have to speculate on that, they said that she said that she received a benefit and she said that she repaid certain amounts, so in that sense, your honor, I don't know, $100 would be enough, $200 would be enough, I think. you have to look at it globally and consider all the witnesses consider all the facts consider consider The credibility of the witnesses, frankly, I mean your honor sat here and looked at everyone, so I haven't spent a lot of time getting into the specific testimony because Your Honor knows this very well, but you can assess the credibility of witnesses like FactFinder and, well, you know from a legal perspective, even though you're saying we can't just say the dollar amount, look no further. to be an analysis of the totality of the circumstances I think it is fact specific Judge.
I really don't want you to pin me down on that because there's no law about it. I can't give you a direct answer because I haven't done it. I've seen something like that, I haven't, and I think if we incorporate a materiality requirement into the case law, then you're on a slippery slope, because then it's going to be very serious, the appellate courts are going to be deciding well, $50 is enough. $100 is enough, so I think it's not necessarily the amount of money, it's the fact that you received it and it's not insignificant and I don't think your order has to say why you received $9,200. disqualified I think if we go back to the 20,000 foot level where it is what is the appearance here is this justice for the accused um is does it seem like she is interested in this accusation or does it seem like she is not interested?
She took the stand. I can say that she is not a disinterested person, uh, when it comes to this proceeding, but we also argue that she is not a disinterested person, uh, when it comes to the prosecution as a whole. temptation to defend my wife, and who I believe is an excellent lawyer and member of the bar for 20 years, in good standing, but I will say that this judge not only evaluates the credibility of the witnesses, you evaluate the credibility. of the lawyers um and mr abat stood here in open court in front of the national news and then the national public and called her a liar um I need to address that for a minute um these technological text messages that are now part of the record that is now out there substantial evidence for you to consider, um, proves everything she presented in that motion, everything she tried to get from Mr.
Bradley was absolutely 100% true and not only was it true, she verified through the witness herself that the motion It was precise. before it was introduced, so for the state to come here and challenge its credibility, um, not only is it inappropriate, but it violates Burger v. United States, which is a case that says the state can't just come here and make any argument whatever he wants and I encourage the court to bring it to his attention when he comes up here. We have to be frank towards a court. They can't lie to the court. They can't lie to the public.
They can't lie to the jury. And I think that's what she did. There is another cooperation, from our point of view, she was in this relationship. I think, frankly, based on Mr. Bradley's testimony, his honor can separate the wheat from the chaff when it comes to credibility, but Mr. Bradley had two opportunities to correct the information. He suddenly developed amnesia, but he just didn't. How does the timing of the relationship affect a financial interest? Because it's part of the plan she intentionally created. To give benefits to her boyfriend, so they had, there is a reason. why did they fight so hard with this judge I mean there's a reason there's a reason every subpoena was objected to every question we asked Mr.
Bradley was objected to uh jumping up and down all the obfuscation there's a reason for that they know that if your honor finds out that that relationship began in 2019, that Wade's appointment itself was inappropriate and if that was correct, then he had no business as an average citizen, coupled with the fact that he did not have the approval from them. Not having Fton County's approval to name him in the first place, that undermines the prosecution, creates a structural deterioration in the prosecution, because he had no more reason to be in the Grand Jury Room than I did, so that's what We are concerned and the reason it is important to the judge of the financial piece is how the money ended up coming back to her, she put her boyfriend on the spot, paid him and then reaped the benefits of it.
She created the system and then she didn't tell anyone about it, um, she didn't even tell her dad, so I think if in the grand scheme of things, if you're looking at the totality of the facts, um, I have to sit here in about two minutes to make room for my co-counsel uh if you look at it all together the judges tried it they did this they knew it was wrong they got it right and they didn't do itEven when they were called they tried to create an excuse for it saying that it happened after the fact, now we know it from the testimony.
Mr. and confirmed that Mr. Bradley, his text messages were accurate, not his testimony in court, but, but that fact was accurate, the motion. it's accurate and so um uh I also want to point out um there's no paper trail here uh for the cash um I know this was a I know that she and her father testified um they both testified that they had cash on hand um which I mean keep cash on hand In itself it is not a problem when you are a public official and you have to keep track of the gifts you receive, then you have to keep track of them, but there is no paper trail. deposit history no withdrawal history no receipts none of that so even assuming your testimony may be credible and we don't think it is, you still don't have enough information to keep track of all that money you received and this is just what, but the lack of evidence falls on the state, doesn't it?
Does the lack of evidence fall on the state? to tell your honor, hey, this is where the money went and they certainly had the ability to do it, if they could do it, since they didn't, we have to assume that they can't and if they can't, uh, I just want to remind you very important testimony for Miss Willis to the court. I think it speaks to the credibility of all the court officials who testified that she met with Wade and developed within 10 minutes of talking about the financial piece. I think this is effective. Theory um that cannot be refuted we do not have the capacity to do that um they did it um and they chose not to do it um so with that your honor unless your honor has more questions for me I'm going to sit down and turn uh the The podium is over To my distinguished colleague U Mr.
Cerda, thank you Mr. Merchant, I appreciate the Court's time. Good afternoon, your honor. I'm going to talk about what I would call a subset of forensic misconduct and I'm going to assume that all the law is in place. They have been provided to you in pleadings and emails. You know you don't need me to tell you what the law is, so I just want to set out how the disqualification and then the dismissal of the charge should be carried out under the subset of forensic misconduct. The Council of Roman, this merchant filed his motion to dismiss and disqualify on January 8.
We were in court that Friday of that week when I made it known that we, President Trump, can adopt that motion. I waited and wanted to see what was going to happen before I did it that Sunday, which would be January 14, 2024. Da Willis took it upon himself to go to a historic black church in Atlanta without having responded at all to the client's motion by Miss Merchant, Roman, and made what I have now called The Church Speech and your Lordship refers to it. He didn't necessarily want evidence on that, but he knows what the Church's speech was.
It was recorded on video. It was clear that Miss Willis had notes that she was reading. points out that she had set it up, it was a calculated determination by Ms. Wills to prejudice the defendants and their attorney by making an issue of the fact that the person who was challenged on the Roman motion was black without telling the public or to church. members or anyone else that the reason Mr. uh Wade was being challenged was not because he was black it had nothing to do with race, it had to do with the relationship that had been alleged and then admitted by Ms.
Merchant, Ms. Willis fully assumed opportunity to prejudice the defendants and then later appears in a pleading and says that it was not designed or intended for the defendants or the Defense Council, which, with all due respect , it's just nonsense, the purpose of that was to gain public sympathy. public empathy for what Ms. Merchant had already alleged in her motion now that it was a violation of the rules of professional conduct it was a violation of 3.8 G there is no doubt about it it was not in response to anything that was said it was a statement out of court in order to make a comment on the defendant would be in response to a motion that was filed but not filed in a response in a pleading was filed in response to a motion and the motion were pleadings made as I, if Miss Willis would like to respond at that time, you could have stated the facts of the matter, instead you misstated what the situation was, you took advantage of the opportunity, an ethical violation and the ethical violation makes it clear that you should refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of increasing the public condemnation of the defendants.
Can you think of anything else that would increase the public condemnation of the defendants than alleging that the Defense Council and the defendants were filing their motion based on race and religion? comes to Fton County with all due respect, that's exactly what Miss Willis wanted done and remember the state had not responded yet so what we get from the state is we filed an affidavit as part of their response and that affidavit specifically says and the affidavit is that Mr. Wade specifically says in paragraphs 26 and 27 that the relationship did not begin until 2022, he acknowledges the relationship and says it did not begin until 2022 and the brief filed, the response statement of the state indicates not exactly that, but it says that there was no relationship as of November 1, 2021 and that is on page seven, so now we know that the timing is the problem because Ms.
Merchant made it clear that we alleged and we had evidence that that indicated the timing was before Mr. Wade was hired, not after that, the state has now filed an affidavit and pleading claiming the hiring was after 2022 and then Mr. Wade will testify about the same under oath. Now Miss Yti says that she started in 2019, why would she know it well? I would know because there was a former friend, I know the state is going to come here and say you can't believe, essentially what they're going to say is you can't believe any defense witnesses because they're defense witnesses and just people who They would tell the truth.
It would be Wade and Willis. I suggest to you that that is not accurate. I suggest that the testimony that Mr. Wade and Mr. Willis gave, and I am now dealing specifically with the issue at hand without going into anything else, that gave rise to real concern. about its truthfulness and what is required of a lawyer in this state, who is truthful towards the court and that is 3.3 of the professional rules, specifically um small A1, making a false statement of a material fact or law before a court, so that's what I propose. the court that is the second ethical violation and then you also have 8.4 of the professional rules that says that is a violation of the Georgia rules of professional conduct for an attorney and that is A4 engaged in professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deception or misrepresentation, right?
We have to find that Waade and Willis lied. No, what we should be able to find is that there is a concern. A legitimate concern based on the evidence in this case about its veracity. A legitimate concern about truthfulness that amounts to an appearance of impropriety because. Once you have the appearance of wrongdoing under forensic misconduct, the law in Georgia is clear, that is enough to disqualify, so why should you find that there is a concern with your truthfulness? ERT is the first in which you have that testimony, but then we go to what is more obvious. indication that Willis and Wade were not truthful about the timing and that is exhibit 26 from Bradley's defense came into evidence exhibit 26 from the defense comes in and says and you know I went to this at the last hearing, it says that on January 5, 24 at approximately 9:49 a.m. there are text messages that are exchanged between Miss Merchant and Mr.
Bradley and the text messages simply say a date and that is for Miss Merchant. Miss Merchant says: Does she think she started before she hired him? Bradley, who we now know from the defense's Exhibit 39. I have been texting with Miss Merchant for several months. This is not the first time. There have been months of communications between the two. Mr. Bradley says absolutely now. It is not a speculative word. It is not a speculation. It is a definitive statement. Bradley then, without being prompted, says this. and spontaneously it's important, it started when she left the district attorney's office and was a judge in South Fulton, continue this.
The merchant says or he liked it. She started when she left the DA's office with the appropriate emoji or whatever you call it to say it. he liked her and then Ms. Bradley Mr. Bradley says they met again at the Municipal Court CL conference without being asked, now he is definitely telling Ms. Merchant when he started this relationship. Ms. Merchant says that's what I thought when he was married and then this Merchant says and we're now talking about a couple hours later, she texts and says, based on information and belief, that Willis and Wade They met while they were both serving as magistrate judges and began a romantic relationship at that time and Mr.
Bradley responds that no thanks to the Municipal Court, he doesn't say that was the case. For starters, he's not suggesting she's wrong, Municipal Magistrates Court aside, now we have that and it's inevidence and what does Bradley know? He has put himself in a position where if he testifies truthfully on the witness stand, his honor is in a position to be able to find out if you pick that line from both Wes and Weade, so what is Brad L? Look, you were an assistant US attorney, you know how this works when you have witnesses in this situation.
Mr. Bradley did everything he could do. to avoid answering questions I don't remember I couldn't remember it was speculation anything I could say that would make your honor not believe that Bradley knew when this relationship began I ITS were just plain lies and the truth is in the defense exhibit 26 and so if we adopt the view that he accused himself thoroughly, that he did not engage in truthful conduct, you know, what stands, in general, you would see someone who is accused maybe we have some kind of core that you can point to and say that that's the The time he told the truth in these text messages, was it ever definitively proven how he knew this and that he actually knew it, other than a simple absolute statement, usually if a state has a witness that goes aside, do they have him locked up?
They sat down with a detective and got a full statement. We don't have it here, but what you have is a text message that is a prior statement from Bradley that he made on his behalf and that was not given to him by anyone else. the only thing the court just pointed out is how do we know that he was not speculating, because it is not necessary to accept the fact that he was not speculating in the cases that I provided, I think yesterday by email, the first time it has been discussed. that you can disbelieve that testimony and draw a negative inference, that is the Ferguson case over Lee, the other case you can simply take the previous inconsistent statement as substantial evidence, it has the same value and that is what I am asking you to do to take what was the spontaneous statement in Bradley's defense exhibit 26 and take it at face value which is an indication that Bradley in fact knew and had said he knew it, if you accept that you should have concerns about Willis's veracity and Wade on the time issue and I don't know if this is something that maybe one of your co-counsels we're also going to address, we heard about the type of law that applies, how we are, we are outside the orbit of the In the core Of the cases that we're used to dealing with here, where it's about switching sides or, uh, where someone is in the relationship, the relationship with the client, the proposal that you're putting forward now is that if a representative of the state, a chief prosecutor, the district attorney themselves um they say something that is false in the record that is something that immediately has to be proactively policed ​​by the trial court is basically what I'm talking about is where in the law do we find The remedy for a false statement is usually sent down the street to the bar on the right and that is why I gave you the Registe and Edwards cases yesterday, although those are not prosecutorial cases nor do they deal with prosecutors, they deal with lawyers and in both cases The trial judge found ethical violations on the part of the Defense.
The attorney or potential ethical violations went over the ethical violations and said based on that you are disqualified, you cannot be the attorney of record in this case, which is good for the goose, it is good for the goose if the Defense Council You can be kicked out of a case. due to ethical violations, I suggest that the same thing can happen to prosecutors when the ethical violations have to do with truthfulness cander in court extrajudicial statements uh those are the things that this court can rely on and say based on them again. I find an appearance of impropriety where where where would be the limiting principle uh, the district attorney signs every indictment.assigned to this courtroom, does that mean she's off all cases? to find again I'm not saying you have to find out that she wasn't truthful or that Wade wasn't truthful you don't have to find a fact that they lied all you have to do is find a fact that you have a genuine and legitimate fact Me there are concerns about his credibility and his veracity and once you figure that out, then you can apply the registry and, uh, Edwards, but it's the same principle.
However, if I have genuine concerns about its veracity on a particular occasion, how do they not extend to all criminals? The case that a district attorney brings well is because she testified under oath and so did Mr. Wade. They didn't have to testify falsely. They could have testified truthfully. They could have indicated that the relationship. The timing was, in fact, before Mr. Wade was hired. They chose no. and in that sense that dishonesty that constitutes a violation of their ethical responsibilities this is not signing an accusation this is not presenting an allegation in which both parties have their own positions This is a requirement that every witness has to tell the truth under oath and if If you don't tell the truth under oath or there is significant concern about your credibility then you are violating your ethical rules and as anyone will tell you on your honor.
He already knew it since he was a prosecutor. Prosecutors are held to a higher standard. They are the ones who are supposed to seek justice. They don't have a particular. They are supposed to be selfless when you have the chief prosecutor and the prosecutor. Giving what I'm suggesting is false testimony based on what Yti has said, based on what Bradley said in her text, based on the entire way she presented it to him. Bradley did not want to testify. He first came up with this attorney-client privilege. So fortunately your Honor got into that and then when Bradley knew he had to testify about it, he saw what happened and can draw the inference, as I suggested about Bradley, that what he said in the text message from the evidence defense documentary 26 is It is true that the de facto relationship began before November 1, 2021 that ERT says that and now, without going into any details, the cell phone records show that during that period of time from, say, April 1, 2021 until November 1.
Sorry, on November 30, 2021, there were a substantial number of 35 or more occasions where it appeared from the records that Mr. Wade was in the area where Ms. Willis was staying at the Y apartment, but the most important thing is that it is there. There are two occasions and the state has not challenged them. There are two occasions where the records reflect that it appears that Mr. Wade spent the night in that apartment. The state may say we don't accept that, but they didn't challenge it, and even when they presented what they presented today in supplement 2 and three, they didn't challenge it again, so what does that suggest?
That is corroborating evidence of what he had said of what Bradley said in his text message. It's also impeachment evidence as to what Wade and Will said. about how many times is significant in terms of the times, Mr. Wade did not testify that he was there at least 10 times during that time period, now he has found 35, well a minimum of 35 is fine, but never of the night in the morning, he said I never spent the night somewhere, although only in terms of the fact that he said he had been there and that he had visited the place, uh, and I guess he obviously wasn't keeping a very good accounting of it, but that was not something that was completely denied.
If you ask me if we win at the point where he said more than 10 or around 10 and we say 35, do we win at that point? No, okay, it's not about determining that the overnight rate could increase. some more concern, yes it is and that is why we highlighted it in Mr Midat's affidavit because that suggests that they were not being honest with the court, so how much time have I used? I'm letting you use the suggestive hook again raising questions. I wonder about the burden, is it that we are dealing with an overriding standard? We are dealing with a prevailing standard and it is our burden, there is no doubt about it, so the suggestive takes us there, no, but it corroborates it. evidence of evidence that we present and that is the purpose of cell phone records.
They corroborate what YTI says, they corroborate what Bradley said in the defense, Exhibit 26 and they question the testimony of Wade and Wes to that extent, so if you find by a preponderance of the evidence to be able to finish this if you discover by a preponderance of the evidence that what I call the subset of ethical violations of forensic misconduct has been demonstrated and that there is significant and legitimate concern about the veracity of Wade and Willis. disqualified now, obviously the conclusions about the facts are yours, but the law allows you to do it, you don't have to do it through an actual conflict, that's the other side of the equation and that's what I've argued and I think that is what Mr.
Gib is going to do. Argue before you let go, although this is an interesting classification. You are saying that forensic conduct is not just publicly commenting on the case that indicates guilt. You're saying that forensic conduct is just whatever a district attorney says under that box, no. m I'm saying that inappropriate forensic misconduct as a subset of that would include ethical violations that impact the defendant's ability to get a fair trial, as well as the Court's ability to have faith in the prosecutors these two prosecutors serve. good faith in your own conduct the same idea that is involved, as I said, Defense Council in the two cases that I mentioned, ethical violations can lead to disqualification and I suggest that we have it here, okay, thank you, sir, thank you Where is the shot clock when you need it?
It's right there, your honor, I want to address very directly here what we have is a systematic continuous pattern, a calculated plan that evidences a design to harm the defendants in this case in the minds of the jurors, this is what we have seen. And the problem the DA has is not that the DA made some kind of brief, off-the-cuff statement in an interaction with a reporter like in Williams, that's not what we have here, we have someone who sat down wrote his speech wrote his plan who wrote sat down for uh either two, three or six times with the editors of find me the votes and counted and conveyed his message about this case before it was supposed to be tried in this courtroom and that is the problem we have, we have a pattern of forensic misconduct on behalf of Ms.
Willis, so I mean, we have a pattern of public statements being made. I assume you or your team dove in and read the book. I know you were asked about specific parts of it. The only case I can find that is actually talked about when someone crosses the line in public comments is the Williams case and it talks about there having to be an implication of saying that the defendant is a particular defendant. I am guilty, and even denied it, have you found any cases in Georgia where they actually said that a prosecutor had gone too far in public comments about him?
Is there one? Well, number one, thank God, it doesn't happen often, unfortunately, it already happened. Here now in Williams, the prosecutor had a response to an investigation that the court found inappropriate, but it did not have this pattern. Now it does not necessarily mean a comment on the citation of guilt or innocence, although that was the pattern in Williams are inappropriate comments by a prosecutor, for example, in Williams they locate the nature and consequences of forensic misconduct in the prosecution of a criminal case, a 1955 Columbia Law School article, and how prescient it was when Williams cites that. case in that law school article they talk about much more than just comments about specific fault or references to fault, what you have here, your honor, is a comment and we cannot see it in it.
It does not apply only if a prosecutor said I think the defendant is guilty in my opinion. No, it's more pernicious than what we have here is someone who sat down and Made a plan for two reasons Made a plan for two reasons and what she Reminds me of what the STV Texas court is talking about, and that is that the phase pre-trial can create significant problems for the accused, in fact, more damaging than publicity during a trial, since it can establish the community's opinion as to guilt or innocence? We have here that's exactly what we have and the courtesan talks about the power of the television camera, so what do we have and what did this prosecutor do?
What she chose to do is kind of what was criticized by the Supreme Court. and Shephard B. Maxwell Legal trials are not like

election

s that are won by the use of boardrooms, the radio or the newspaper, that is exactly what we have here, what we have is a deviation, what is this all about , is more insidious. Instead of just making the comments that he made, it's a deflection, what he chose to do was say, "Okay, I've done everything I can to hide the relationship with Nathan Wade and Nathan Wade has done everything he can by filing false documents in their divorce." case to hide his relationship with Miss Willis now and then what did they do right when Miss Merchant filed a motion to disqualify now the game plan has to change the game plan I call the deviation uh the deviation starts to take place it's when when the when the district attorney sat down and wrote, look at the look I'm sure the court has when they watch that video, it's evidence of her speech in church, she's written it all down and she's reading it, she chooses to deflect the The Court asked earlier: Was she not really responding to the motion that had been filed against her?
If she had, she would have looked the members of that church in the face and said, "There has been an accusation that I had a romantic relationship with Mr. Wade and ladies and gentlemen of this congregation, it is true that she did not He did that, he chose to deviate and do two things that are reprehensible for any lawyer, but particularly for the prosecutor, he decided to pull out the race card and the God card, that's what he did and he wrote it down, he went on to deviate from the accusations in the Wade's motion and said he was saying why in his talk public discussion with God why are they only attacking one in reference to Mr. uh Mr.
Wade uh and then he goes on to say God, aren't they the ones who are playing the race card when now they only question one? If she had been honest with that congregation, sincere with the community, she would have said, I had a relationship with him, good, bad, forgive me, whatever, that's what she should have said. said, but he decided to deviate and say the reference to them and the others and it's obviously a reference to the motion presented by Ms. Merchant, uh. she chooses to go after the black man and then continues again swerving and swerving into what I call the third rail in American society, accusing someone on the other side of being racist so-and-so is racist, they're racist, she was the one who played the race card in a way to try to deflect from her own behavior, she goes on to say in her discussions with the Lord God, is that some will never see a black man. as qualified it doesn't matter her accomplishments again the deviation what she is saying The listener is not necessarily in that audience in that church The listener is in Fulton County the potential jurors who will walk into the courtroom and say if they can or not be fair Judge the evidence or judge the defense in this case, she chose to inject race into the minds of the listeners and virtually everyone in this community and literally everyone in this country has reviewed and analyzed Her speech that she gave in a premeditated manner and by including not just the race card, but also by including the religious issue, this is exactly what Hammond V State and our Supreme Court are talking about, condemning as an incendiary appeal to the jury's private religious beliefs, why would he? do that to deviate but now you're not just deviating but then you're going forward and in a way you're telling the community that God is on your side not on these people's side God she said uh and when she speaks uh and she's saying God pray for their souls, I mean God qualified you, I qualified your imperfect, flawed self.
I see you every hour doing my job as if she were telling people in her very, very, very implicit way, injecting into the minds of the jurors that God wants. let him win this case God wants him to prosecute this case and why is he going and why are these others going after the black man. Well, the answer is very simple, as we said in our writing, we did not mention Mrs. Cross, Mr. Cross, the target. woman or Mr. Floyd, the white man, because there was absolutely no evidence and there is no evidence of a personal romantic relationship with him in which she obtained these benefits, that is the reason we did not do that, so she move forward with her uh with the deviation that's exactly what she does uh when she moves forward and talks about a plan interviews over and over again with authors of a book find me the votes where shetalks about a case that is going to be tried in this in the courtroom is reprehensible, so in that specific case, excuse me, leaving aside the fact that she was willing to go on the record before the case had reached the jury .
What specific statements specific to that book do you claim cross the line? For example, her saying, you know, she goes on to talk about all the calls she gets from people calling her racial terms, and you know all the calls are racist, which what he's trying to do and I think there's a reference there to the Maga people, whatever. In that, what she's really saying is that those people who call me and make those statements or those horrible racial slurs towards me are really people on her side of the fence, that's what she's doing and there's no reason for them to.
Your honor is a prosecutor. to a to uh sit down and go ahead with this uh this type of interview that she did it and find the votes, but then they, they, what really happened here is this hiding of the relationship because by hiding in the relationship they have done such Good job, Mr. Wade filed false documents in his divorce case when on May 23, 2023 he spoke about whether he ever had sexual relations with a person during the course of the marriage or including the period of separation, he is still married. He does not have a divorce decree but his answer is none so they ask him if he has ever been entertained or has he been entertained by uh uh by someone from a woman a member of the opposite section in this case a woman from the date of marriage to the present talking about place and time uh and all that that's the answer none why does he do that? because he doesn't want to tell about the relationship he has with Miss Willis and the benefits he has obtained and that he gave to her.
That's exact and what are these answers. It is absolutely reprehensible for a member of the Georgia Bar to present these answers that are inaccurate. What does Miss W mean? Excuse me Miss Willis Miss Willis in her financial report on whether or not she has obtained anything worth $100 or more from a prohibited source the court previously asked what threshold might be good for the financial report is $100 that's all she doesn't reports none of all the benefits that she received from Mr. Wade all the trips all the entertainment all the uh the C the uh the three nights in the sweet luxurious uh in Aruba all of that none of that is here and they say oh well maybe it all evened out even though I can't prove it with cash, that's like saying if I gave the court a Christmas present.
Well, maybe I gave the court a Christmas present and the court gave it back to me. The court has to fill out a form to find out if you received a Christmas. present from anyone, you say, I received one from Mr. Gillan, don't you say, no, well, I gave him one back, so it really equals that they are false reports and, since they are false, what they had to do is say uhoh, the lady Merchant has caught us and what we are going to do is in our response we are going to have Mr. Wade present a false statement, which he does, his statement in this case is false and the evidence that shows that is false in what it refers to the timing, you know and the court previously asked why it matters, you know whether the relationship was before or after November 1, 2021, the answer is they think it matters and frankly, so do I. because when she hires someone and doesn't tell people she's going to foot the bill up to $700,000, hey, I just hired my boyfriend, who's going to take me on a trip to the Caribbean, take me to Aruba, and take me to California.
I hope you know. I don't care that nothing is revealed and the money is gone, but since they got caught they committed what I believe is an additional forensic component of forensic misconduct and that is fraud in this court when they filed that affidavit and now it has been proven. , I think beyond virtually any doubt any doubt that the relationship occurred before November 1, 2020 and the benefits that that was there and we don't have to run around and I love it you know you know we all have. the records that show Mr. Wade about paying for these trips, for the cruises, for the flights, all of this, the only way is that they sat down and met before they testified and presented their story, which is the only way who can save themselves not paying attention to records not paying attention to airlines and flights and vacations and cruises uh i paid him in cash show us your receipts where did you get cash from the bank? oh, I don't.
We don't have any to show us the deposits he had. Well, we never don't have any. What we have here is a fraud on this court that has been proven, I think, overwhelmingly by the evidence and overwhelmingly not just through yuy's testimony. the testimony of Mr. Bradley's emails and text message to Ms. Merchant, as well as all the documents to which they had no response other than "believe me, I gave him money, it evaporated, I don't know." where it came from and he doesn't know what you did with it just trust us and believe us because it's our only way out of the trap that these people sadly set themselves and I and I hate to say I was. because, as the court knows, I was a prosecutor for approximately three and a half million years, it seems that in the federal building and before that I was an assistant district attorney, prosecutors don't act like that, lawyers don't act like that, these people.
It is systematic misconduct and they have to go, thank you, your honor. I'm going to cover some factual details, without repeating too much of what has already been said during the pendency of this investigation in this case, Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis, basically. They lived the lifestyle of the rich and famous by Robin Leech and wrote this based on the acts of the defendants in this case funded by the taxpayers of Fulton County in the State of Georgia with the money that was paid to Mr. Wade through the contract that Ms. Willis got her that flow of money, which is the personal interest that you asked about, she was personally benefiting from the position, from the job, from the scope of the investigation, from the scope of the accusation and of how they carried it out.
And we know this, we know this from The records that have been presented to the court indicate that Mr. Wade paid at least $7,950 for this relationship. That doesn't even include the various dinners, day trips that both Wade and Willis admitted to, so that number is likely even higher, we know from the documents. that Miss Willis only paid $1,394 for a plane ticket, we know from Miss YY, that it was virtually undisputed, there was no evidence presented by the state that questions their time period, that that relationship began in 2019, she saw them kissing , saw them hugging now, whether or not they had sex before January 2022.
I don't know. They admitted sometime in early 2022 and I found it curious that both Wade and Willis went straight to sex, so maybe that's when they started having sex. I don't know, but The Relationship predates that and your combined and overly suggestive focus on that is a red herring to this court and to the defense that that's what they want you to focus on, they want you to ignore all the evidence. that the relationship predates the relationship began in 2019 the relationship continued until 2020 the relationship continued until 2021 um looking at the cell phone Communications in the first 11 months of 2021 alone more than 2000 calls almost 9800 text messages, you know, I don't even think Love Struck teenagers communicate that much um November 29th and November 30th Miss Willis' getaway phone call between Mr.
Willis and Mr. Wade 11:32 that night, shortly after midnight, the phone starts traveling from where Mr. Wade lives and ends where Miss Willis is staying and he is there until about 4:55 a.m. um none of the excuses none of the explanations Mr. Wade gave going to the Porsche experience going to dinner um going to the airport none of that explains I'm pretty sure the Porsche experience isn't open in the middle of the night I'm pretty sure Surely there wasn't a restaurant that he drove 30 to 45 minutes to eat in the middle of the night, right after talking to Miss Willis.
Teenagers have a name for those kinds of calls and those kinds of xades, I won't go into that, um, but the documentary evidence, the objective evidence undermines everything that Beth Wade and Will said. When you look at Miss YY again, she unequivocally said that the relationship began in 2019, she saw physical evidence of a romantic relationship, Mr. Bradley in the text messages which are substantial evidence said that relationship began in 2019 again in January, already You know. Temporary amnesia that was somehow temporarily triggered after Gabe Banks called him. We can question that, but we have statements from him that specifically said that. relationship prior to Mr.
Wade's appointment by Ms. Willis um you asked well Mr. Wade asked what the materiality would be how much is enough well clearly 177,000 is enough um but Fon County has told us has told the Mrs. Willis what is the material reality is $100 in a year she twice signed statements certifications that she did not receive any gifts and even under her forced her forced explanation um there was money there were gifts there were dinners there were excessive contributions flowing to her that exceeded $100 um your excuse or sorry your explanation well, I just paid for it in cash, that doesn't justify a reason why it doesn't hold up in the light of the truth.
Anyone who has ever been in a money laundering trial, a confiscation trial, if that's the explanation we give, the state laughs. oh, I just gave cash. I have no records. I don't have a source. The only thing she could say was a source of the money because at times she said she had between $5 and $1,000 left. The only explanation she has is that sometimes I go to Publix and I can get an extra $50 showing up on her debit card or her credit card. Did they bring those records? No. They brought their bank accounts. No. They brought no documentary evidence.
No. They didn't and why. is that important judge, yes the burden is on us, but according to ocga ocga 24-4 14-22, if a party has evidence in said party's power and within said party's reach, by which he or she can repel a claim and had that power, Miss Willis. had that power, Mr. Wade had that power that they can repel the claim that we have made against them, but they admit to presenting it or, if they present weaker evidence, then you as a FactFinder judge are in your power to ignore it and a presumption arises . that the documentary evidence that is in their possession and that they did not present supports our claim and that is something that the state regularly relies on in criminal trials and that is something that the court should rely on in this case in formulating its factual conclusions . and we know that both Mr.
Wade and Ms. Willis have a hard time expressing the truth when it comes to their relationship. In these cases we know that Mr. Wade lied in his interrogations several times. We know that Ms. Willis falsely certified that she had not received any gifts from anyone and Mr. Wade was clearly a prohibited source, he was someone who did business with Fulton County, anything over $100 any year she had to pay and he put zero um and it defies the imagination that he could somehow forget about all these trips, all these dinners, all these day trips and not deposit that money um you had asked, I think it was Mr.
Gillan, he said at that church speech or anywhere else that the accused were guilty and I think she did in that church speech, she said in that church speech and she was talking about a conversation she apparently had with God talking about her She herself said that this leader has a 95% conviction rate at trial said that the trial team that this leader put together has a 95% conviction rate. I don't see how anyone and I think that was intentionally thought up by Miss Willis. I don't see how anyone can listen to those two statements and not understand that Miss Willis is telling everyone in that church and everyone who is going to hear that in the media afterwards that these defendants are guilty. what she was saying she is a prosecutor she is familiar with the USV Burger every professional every lawyer who has ever been a prosecutor is familiar with the dictates of that US Supreme Court case which is a nasty blow that is inappropriate and that she greatly violated every tenant that a prosecutor must buy to seek truth and justice in a particular case so judge when you look at this the incontrovertible evidence shows that they had a relationship before the incontrovertible evidence shows that mr.
Wade spent lavishly on Miss Willis the incontrovertible evidence shows that the money he was spending on Miss Willis came from this contract that he had and I'm not just talking about the contract as special prosecutor but there are also these other questionable contracts that regardless who appears to be your partner, too I have um, there is a direct financial benefit that Miss Willis received from this um andthe judge analyzes what Miss Bernie said. If simply hosting a fundraiser for a political opponent of the active defendant creates not just the appearance but a real conflict, then what Ms.
Willis has done since in this case creates a real conflict, but again, as the Council previously stated, we only need to show the appearance of a conflict and we have done so based on the evidence, in fact, I believe we have shown a real conflict, but nevertheless, the result should be that Ms. Willis and her office should be disqualified of this case. We still have a few more minutes. I think Mr. Cromo may have something to say. Thank you, honor, thank you, good afternoon, your honor. Harry, please Mr. Clark. I'm going to talk more about conflict and assume that the hardest standard for us to meet is actual conflict, but before I begin I want to add a little to what's already been said about the standards that apply. to the prosecutors our appellant court has said many times that the administration of the law and especially that of criminal law must, like Caesar's wife, be above all suspicion and must be free from all temptation, bias or prejudice to the extent as it is possible for our courts to achieve this.
The first appearance of that I can find is Nichols V State over 100 years ago, 1915, the most recent record of a state in the Supreme Court in 2010, although they do not refer to Caesar's wife, that requirement is also included in the prosecutor's legal oath 15 -1 18-2 requiring impartially and without fear or favor to perform my duties as a prosecutor and receive only my legal compensation so please help me guide the general conflict of interest rule for attorneys is the rule of conduct professional 1.7 and we all know that's all. They instilled in us that we cannot have a conflict of interest and if we do we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified.
The basic idea is that a conflict of interest impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer, that is the test of a conflict and if it can be saluted and if it is disqualifying and that conflict is not only financial, it can be any conflict that affects his independent professional judgment and you see in mgin V pay the court asked what a personal interest was for disqualification purposes, it is anything that affects professional judgment. reflected in the ABA standards that were cited by Mr. Merchant, which list the prosecutor's business, professional, financial, personal political or other interests or relationships and that is actually built into the prosecutor's oath to act impartially and in Judge MC Bernie's previous disqualification order. about political interests, not financial ones, what my colleagues have described as forced misconduct is also recognizable as a conflict of interest based on that foot in the Williams case, the root of all the problems we see in this court right now is a conflict of interest arising from your individual personal interests in perpetuating and hiding your relationship, that is the original sin from which all other problems arise.
There are six different actual conflicts of interest, in this case, any one of which justifies disqualification, but collectively practically compels first the financial conflict that has already been covered secondly, personal ambition, political ambition thirdly, there are an intertwined or complementary pattern of deception and concealment of the relationship and money, fourth, the speech at church, fifth, the protective order motion filed by the father and Mr.'s divorce case, sixth, the path. the state has carried out the defense of this disqualification motion, especially the hearing on the financial part, the court asked for a limiting principle and asked about the materiality the limiting principle is anything that affects the independent professional Judgment of the lawyer that applies we routinely have a county code section that outright prohibits gifts from contractors and that's it, we have by analogy the federal bribery statute which has a threshold of $5,000 18 USC 666 the court asked about burdens and inferences the court can draw a negative inference of the state's failure to present evidence to support the state-based Cash Balance Theory of Invisible Magic Thomas 311 Georgia 407, particularly footnote 19 regarding the question of when the court caused two contracts to be executed for Mr.
Wade after they acknowledged the relationship began, each affected or conflicting depending on the county and common. law, the second conflict is his political ambition for which he was previously reprimanded by Judge MC Bernie and that is also present in this book. The inside flap of this book says they were given exclusive access to thousands of secret documents, emails, text messages and audio recordings. The court has twice denied defense motions to unseal special-purpose grand jury materials. She helped herself to the glory of this book. I submitted certified copies of various sections of the county code. I'm not going to analyze them, but I will tell you. why the body of laws matter, from the state constitution to county ordinances, imposes a day-to-day regime under which she has three obligations: she has to go to the County Commission to get approval to pay him as she did, not can accept gifts from a prohibited source lied she has to disclose the gifts she received she evaded all of those requirements county code section 2-69 prohibits gifts from prohibited sources he was no boyfriend exception disclosure forms evidence is enough for you to definitely discover that your disclosure form for 2022 is false and that it is a false writing that is a real conflict of interest between your legal duty of disclosure, your legal duty of candidacy as a prosecutor and your private and personal interests in hiding the relationship that hides the gifts. and keep the gravy train going for as long as possible your part in the pattern of concealment is a story you see in many divorce cases the husband hides things from his wife how much money he makes from the other woman and what that he spends on the other The woman and he got on the stand lied in his interrogations and he got on the stand and lied about lying in the interrogations and the lawyers from the DA's office just sat there and let him do it, they did nothing to correct obviously perjury. testimony in itself that justifies the disqualification of each of them the reason they lied and covered up was to avoid problems at this time that serve their personal interests to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors the speech in the church that I want Focus on why he did that.
Mr Gillan spoke of how he did it to divert attention from his own misconduct and that of Mr Wade. He violated his public duty as a prosecutor to serve his personal interests and the personal interests of his boyfriend. disqualifying conflict between his personal interest and his public duty that is really operative and M materialized and is based on indisputable facts the next thing that made it a disqualifying conflict of interest was the emergency mode of protection order that he filed in the divorce I filed a certified copy of that as exhibit 37. She filed for a protective order under the Apex Doctrine on the grounds that she is the da.
The entire presentation is expressly based on the state of it as it gives. In fact, she never lets you forget it. She says it 27 times in 12 pages in that filing speaking as she said the circumstances cited suggest that defendant Joyn Wade is using the legal process to harass and embarrass District Attorney Willis and in doing so is obstructing and interfering with a criminal investigation in course in the prayer for relief on page 11 she asked for six months to complete a review of the submissions in the present case investigate and testify to the relevant Witnesses regarding the interference and obstruction this motion maintains that there is no sweetening which is a clear violation of professional conduct rule 3.4 which prohibits lawyers from threatening criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil case abused her power abused her position to threaten her boyfriend's wife with criminal prosecution to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend in her boyfriend's divorce violated his public duties of not making that type of threat to serve his and Mr.
Wade's private personal interests, another real operational conflict, the last category is the conduct of the defense in this hearing, many objections based on attorney-client privilege were made during Mr. Bradley's tenure. testimony, most of those objections were made by the state, but the privilege that is claimed does not belong to the state, it belongs to Mr. Wade, which shows that the DA's office is serving the personal interests of the Da and the Mr. Wade by carrying out further concealment and cover-up. their relationship and not the cause of Justice they have sworn to serve, that is a conflict of interest, it is a continuation of the incorrect pattern of concealment and cover-up that they have engaged in from the beginning, but now they have recruited the entire world.
Enterprise office in the written response to the disqualification motion said this and I quote to be absolutely clear: there is no evidence that Da Willis derived any financial benefit from Mr. Wade, that's on page 15, absolute flaws that put 10 lawyers in this case. his name begins with da so throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of interest the problem here is that da cannot distinguish between his personal interests and ambitions on the one hand and his public duties as a prosecutor on the other and apparently neither can anyone else. In your office you can do it.
Of the six conflicts I have identified, only one is subject to a conflict in evidence. This is a case study on what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest. You have put an irreparable stain on the case think about the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified if this is tolerated we will have more this office is a global laughingstock for their conduct they should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed Ron there is not much oxygen left in the room um, we, we, uh, outlined in the Times based on the entire presentation.
Could your honor consider some time for us to rebut? It's not okay, so I could book what I have five minutes, sure, okay, thank you. Your honor, okay, uh, let's take a quick 5 and we'll be back at 24 to be here from the state, thank you e e for e e yes, for a long time, okay, what's that, yes or no, sir, just me , just me, okay, are we back? on the record stay ready yeah judge I've just been trying to get to a place where I can share my screen we need to go to a host so what's your profile name on zoom your username on zoom, Adam, all just making sure, be patient. us, do you need it immediately? um no, I can start without the right floor, it's yours, so good afternoon, your honor, um, I want to start with some of the things that we covered over the last hour and a half, uh, first starting with um, something that the Mr Merchant made reference in relation to the comments that the state made regarding the basis of good faith in which it was presented to the court in which the Defense Council stated that the evidence that it would show and that I would vigorously present. to the attention of the Court that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations and what I will say or what I will tell the court um and why I say that to the court is because the representations that the Council made were that Miss DEA young Miss Sonia Allen Mr.
Dexter Bonds uh investigator Hill investigator green uh investigator um Ricks all of these people would be called and Mr. Bradley could challenge their knowledge by saying that he specifically in her presence or told her that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were in a romantic relationship and that Miss Willis and Mr. Wade were cohabiting, that everyone knew it and I would appear in court, we did not hear from any of those individuals, Mr. Bradle did not accuse anyone and I say no. one because he did not accuse Mr. Wade in order to properly accuse a witness, he must confront the witness with Mr.
Wade's specific statements and he can watch the YouTube of all the hearings over the last two days. Mr. Wade does not If you are ever confronted with a statement that he stated or said or is alleged to have said to Mr. Bradley, the way you can properly challenge someone is to confront the witness here it would be Mr. Wade and once you make a statement that you believe is inconsistent and you have a witness that can prove that inconsistent inconsistency that is when you call that witness and when Mr. Wade was on the stand he was not once asked if he told you this to Mr.
Bradley in a confidential conversation in his in his um conference room uh that was not covered by the initial client privilege who was not asked the specifics of that conversation was not asked, so any testimony about the which Mr. Bradley testified is inadmissible, it is an inappropriate impeachment because they did not confront Mr. Wade with it, sowhich is where the state would begin with the comments Mr. Merchant made about me, referring to his wife as a liar. I never called Ms. Merchant a liar. I never used those words. I don't know why she made the material misrepresentations.
It could be because Mr. Bradley. I lied to him. I don't know why, but I can present to the court that those were material misrepresentations that were made before this court a few Mondays ago, when everyone was arguing motions to quash certain subpoenas. I would also point out to the Court that during that motion to quash subpoenas, certain subpoenas, Ms. Y's attorney appeared, Mr. Partridge, and made it very clear on that Zoom that Ms. YY had absolutely no knowledge of a romantic relationship. and absolutely no knowledge. of cohabitation, those are the ones with the specific references that he made, so what I would present to the court is that those are considered adoptive omissions that your client has made based on the statements that he made because of the representations that she made to him. and I know it sounds complicated, but what I would tell the court is that Miss YY told Mr.
Partridge because Mr. Partridge told the court that she had absolutely no information about the romantic relationship and that she had absolutely no information about it, but wait, right? making an argument, I should make inferences based on now, these would be attorney-client privileges or Communications, then she is communicating with Mr. Partridge about what his next testimony is, that is why she hired him and you tell me I should infer things based on your communications with him. Absolutely because they are no longer lawyers and clients. Communications when he discloses them to the court and everyone else. As they watch the zoom and attend the hearing, the difference is that there was no request to go behind closed doors, there was no request to go. or have a private conversation with you, as was done with Mr.
Bradley, that would have been the proper procedure, so yes, I ask you to infer that 100%. I ask you to infer that her testimony was, at best, inconsistent because Miss um YY's testimony when she testified was vague, very little description when she questioned him in a very prominent way. It's true? Do you know that Miss Willis and Miss Wade were in a relationship since 2019? At the time you were fired or, sorry, forced to resign from the District Attorney's Office in March 2022, she said yes and then further, when Mr. Seow pressed her, he talks about why she believed they were in a relationship and what was interesting was Miss Y's testimony that they were quite close friends until she left the DA's office and stated in court that annually Miss Willis said I am in a relationship with Mr.
Wade. in 2019, by the way, I want to tell you again in 2020 because we are in the New Year. I am still in a relationship with Mr. Wade and again in 2021. The claim is that Miss Willis then missed YY again and confirmed. Hey, I just want to reconfirm that Mr. Wade and I are still in a relationship, it's absurd, it's absolutely absurd, and more importantly, when Mr. Sadal asked him why he thought they were in a romantic relationship based on his own observations, he said. something he said, he actually asked her if she saw him kissing or hugging, she said yes, but there was no description or qualification as to when it happened. um, what she actually saw or saw, excuse me, was a kiss on the cheek, things of that nature, so I would ask that you frame your testimony from that point of view when you're addressing your credibility, as the court will do with everyone. and each of the witnesses who heard during the testimony of all the witnesses during the hearing.
I'll see if my screen will be shared. Now I want to talk a little bit about the standard and the burden here in this case as it relates to the Defense Council and the claims they've made in the disqualification motion and how I was doing a lot of research. I came across this Cornell Law Review article, a reading/publishing scholarship and they made it very clear that courts have been relatively reluctant to exercise their power to disqualify prosecutors for any reason and that's in line with the standard. What the state would present to the court is that the defense has to show a real conflict and in this case they have to show that the real conflict would be that Ms.
Willis received a financial benefit or gain. and he did it based on or got it based on the outcome of the case, it makes no sense, it makes absolutely no sense and during the three days of extensive evidentiary testimony from all the witnesses and the lengthy examinations of the witnesses by various members of the Council of Defense have still not gotten anywhere we are in the same position we were in on Monday the same claims that were made on Monday have no answers today as before on their honor they could not provide any evidence as Against or against the claims by Ms.
Willis and Ms. Wade about when their relationship began, there is absolutely no evidence to contradict that the relationship did not begin later than March 2022, your honor, I would further appear in court because of this. If your claim or your request to have the indictment dismissed is not met, there is absolutely no evidence that the defendants in this case have had their due process rights harmed in any way. There was no evidence, not a single shred of evidence produced through any of the evidence or witness testimony showing how his constitutional rights and his due process rights were affected at all by the relationship that began in March 2022 with Ms.
Willis and Mr. Wade and therefore the motion to disqualify should be denied and Ms. A. Willis, as the Fulton County District Attorney, and Mr. Wade, as the special prosecutor assigned to this case, They should be allowed to stay on this case and continue and continue to prosecute the case to the end, your honor, until the trial is set by the court. court and it's uh to start now the problems, obviously, um, you've heard a lot from the Defense Council as to uh, what are the problems that you must determine, and here would be the state's argument is that you must find that there is a real conflict if you came or are going to come to the conclusion that you should disqualify Ms.
Willis and the district attorney's office and um and looking uh and what you think you're talking about is this Ventura, it's uh mlin V State MCG l and NN V state 342 Georgia Appeal uh 170 um it's a 2017 case in that case they talk about the standard of proof um that the defense or the burden that the defense must show and go show a real conflict if they say it's a high standard of proof that is definitely not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower burden on any party that is trying to meet that preponderance standard, but it is very clear that the standard is a high standard of proof um for both um in determining whether there is an actual conflict and when there is forensic misconduct um that is found, your honor and I want to go over some of the cases uh that the Defense Council has referenced as they argued here today and in their presentations um and I guess that the bright line standard or um the standard and the grounds for um disqualification um is appropriate uh for your honor to determine um in all cases involving the disqualification of the elected, the elected district attorney is Or you discover that there is a conflict of interests or that there has been some type of forensic misconduct.
I guess those are the two areas that your honor is within your purview when you're looking to resolve an issue related to disqualification now in a recent case State of Levy which is uh 224 Georgia Sorry Lexus uh 31 um it's February 2024 um case I'm here outside of our pellet courts and uh in that case U Judge Pinson wrote that a trial court does not abuse its discretion by not disqualifying an assistant district attorney absent an actual conflict of interest and that is the case that was ruled by the Georgia Court of Appeals about a month ago, your honor, now the case, the cases that The Defense Council has relied on its writings and here today I would present it to the court.
The sites are misleading. They are not applicable and some of them actually support the State's position. And what I would tell you is that the defendants, in many cases, say that they combine the language of the multiple cases and what I would say is that it misrepresents the law in terms of what the law or what is required to for an elected district attorney and his position to be disqualified and what he would present to the court, come on, let's get back to it, show me how, yeah, show him how, so I think the first one they cited was Battle Against the State, without a doubt, A conflict of interest or the appearance of irregularity may be the reasons. of disqualification, well, there are several of these cases that seem to depend solely on the appearance of irregularity, as they recognize that there is some ambiguity here that sometimes pays off and Whitworth dares to venture and we have this quote that appears where it is. only the only view of a real conflict that must be involved, they recognize the ambiguity that you are saying, there is no ambiguity at all.
I'm saying that and why I say that, why with the court presentation is in all those cases. They refer to the appearance of an irregularity, but they refer to that because they also find that there is a real conflict in each of those cases, so their position would be their review of the jurisprudence, there has never been an appeal in the opinion of That's just based on appearance. property when it comes to a prosecutor, a district attorney, yes, that's what I'm saying, what I would say is that in those cases they make reference to the fact that there is an appearance of impropriety, but they make reference to that fact because when you have In a real conflict there is always an appearance of impropriety and that's what those cases represent and I guess that's the main example of what I'm referring to as they combine the language of different separate cases and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety and I would submit to the court that it is not the standard and um in my first reading as uh, your honor, I noticed that each of the cases reference the appearance of impropriety, but also that that appearance arose of the fact that the court found a real conflict in each of those cases, so I won't delve into the issue of analyzing all the cases that the defense had cited, but what I would present to the court and read them. cases is that, um, I discovered that there they are divided into five categories, some that have nothing to do with disqualification at all, some that determine or uh that are about um, I call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict that arises from representing um becoming a prosecutor and then having represented um the defendant U before becoming a prosecutor and then if there is a real personal interest in the outcome and then others talk about U if the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial um at the conclusion and and The case after the conviction and these are some of the cases that the Defense Council had cited in its brief that had absolutely no application.
The issue we are here before your honor today. The first MC Iber State has nothing. What to do or not to do has anything to do with disqualifying someone. I think some of these just relate to sort of an aspiration for broad standards language for prosecutors, so point taken there, but if there's more, okay, move on, as far as U one goes. of the cases that were referenced here previously and also referenced in some of the defense council reports is the most remaining CV state which is 287 Georgia uh 542 and all the cases that fall under this what I would call The category is about a lawyer who previously prosecuted a defendant uh in uh I guess the same type of case or the same case um or similar charges uh and that would be the reason why the courts were, excuse me, the courts determined that the disqualification would be necessary due to the relationship that existed between the former client and the now person being prosecuted, your honor, the following series of slides simply reviews what has been addressed in relation to the standard that is required when dealing with the issue of disqualification uh and um the state would argue and present to the court that the defense must demonstrate a real conflict to disqualify the district attorney and that the real conflict has to be in the form of showing that Ms.
Willis in this case, received a benefit or financial gain in relation to the outcome of the case, like many of the cases that involve personal interests, your honor, everything is based on a contingency fee, where, how much they are paid or a bonus. for example it depends on the outcome of the case, this is how you have to prove that there is a personal interest in the case, we have none of that here and I would submit to the court that we have absolutely no evidence that Miss Willis received any profit or financial benefit, the testimony was that Miss Willis returned everythingtravel-related cash and if you didn't pay it back in cash, it was okay, let me, let me, let me, let me explore this one. a little bit, besides you know you're saying it's just a real conflict, you're also saying it's only if a financial interest is affecting the bottom line, is the bottom line the only one we should care about or is it the prosecution as a whole? is what we should consider in terms of what's at stake, so what I'm thinking about, I'm going to try to propose some hypotheses here.
What if Adas was given a bonus for every move? to suppress, they make $1,000 for every 4th Amendment claim, they make good money now they have an incentive if one of their officers lies to not tell you about it because they want to win that motion to suppress, but maybe that doesn't affect the outcome. because you can win a motion to suppress it or lose it and that does not decide whether you know it will be a guilty or not guilty verdict, but that does not affect the processing of the case but the outcome. Yes, I would definitely agree. that that would be a case where disqualification would simply be necessary and appropriate because it's a situation that involves a contingency fee and I would submit to the court that it actually ends up affecting it could be based on how important the motion to suppress is. true, but if it's something immaterial, you know, I don't know, um, but I guess you're saying that maybe it's not so much about whether it's a null process of guilty or not guilty dismissal at the end of the day, actually is the conduct of the processing that must be examined during the course of the processing is correct in terms of how it affects the processing that would be presented to the court, it will ultimately affect the final outcome of the case if you have a contingency fee based on winning or how do you know if you win a motion to suppress and, uh, you know that if you win, you get a certain AB bonus as your honor referenced, uh, I think that will ultimately affect the outcome of the case because As your honor just said, If there is a case where an officer is lying or where there is no good faith to move forward with that motion, the prosecutor would do it regardless because of the contingency fees that don't just affect the prosecutor's office. at that point in the procedure but ultimately it will affect the entire case because if they won a motion to suppress or I guess the motion would be denied and the evidence would not be suppressed knowing that they did not have a good faith basis for moving forward affects the outcome end of the case, so I think it is twofold, as your honor has referred to.
I think it's in that part of the procedure. I assume that the procedure of the procedure would definitely qualify for the reason, necessary to disqualify a prosecutorial agency, but ultimately that action during the procedure will lead to the final outcome of the case being or depending on a CP contingency like those of the cases a those referred to by the Council and the state that are on the screen like this and Uh, so, returning to the language that you just spoke with. greater amusements and sales of amusements greater amusements is one of those that you refer to the appearance of conflict as dictated, why do you think that is dictated?
I think that quote from that warrants at least the appearance of a conflict of interest, why? is that what was dictated seems very central to the entire issue of the case because I do not disagree with your honor, but in that case a real conflict was found and the appearance was not that they did not find that I would not disagree with theirs, I I would say that my reading of the case is that a real conflict was found, but because of that real conflict there was an appearance of impropriety um and that is the reference um or why the state refers to that case um in relation to the argument that was made. requires a real conflict in the series of U young cases referred to by the Defense Council, as well as Nichols, the state are cases in which there is a personal interest in the case due to the situation and in which in a moment they were opposite parties. and of course there is an interest or vested interest when it comes to prosecuting an opposing party in a civil claim, which is what both cases refer to, which shows that there is a real conflict of interest that relates with the personal benefit of the specific agency of the Prosecutor's Office and what do you think of the Nichols reference, you know it is an older case, sometimes the language can be what we are not used to seeing, but you know they are referring to the metaphor of Caesar's wife. and in general, when that is used as an ethical standard, uh, that is something that goes beyond a simple real conflict, is it not the reproach of the Hereafter entering more into the world of appearances?
Is he putting himself in the Hereafter? aspect of how things look when we talk about Caesar's wife and I think it goes beyond that based on the language of the holding company in that case where it literally says that the individual had a personal interest in obtaining a fee by forcing an agreement in the civil case and use of the criminal case as leverage so that this is not an appearance of impropriety, but is a real conflict of interest and arises due to the individual's personal interest in the final outcome of the case. Your Honor, that's how I would differentiate, I guess, the representative submissions of the Defense Council as it relates to the standard, or the burden that must be shown, and why the state would present to the court, uh and uh, the ruling more recent. of Georgia's appeal in court that it is required to show a real conflict, so I'm going to skip this series of slides we've heard all about W Worth, so I'll go back to what we mentioned before.
What all parties have referenced is that the grounds on which a district attorney can be disqualified is when a conflict of interest is found and when forensic misconduct is found, those are the two grounds that should be I guess. that or within the scope of the Court's jurisdiction as it relates to the issues here, again and again, I return to the most recent case that Judge Pinson wrote about and that is how it should be in not disqualifying the district assistant. attorney um in the absence of an actual conflict of interest, I think the language there is very clear and I think it's very controlling and I think it has a purpose.
I would appear in court because a real conflict of interest is what is required for a district attorney um to be disqualified um because uh the cases um make it very clear um and through the precedent um related to this issue that the disqualification of a prosecutor from district is the latter for lack of better words, a ditch

effort

that must be exercised as it relates to the court and the resolution of certain conflicts that may arise. I think the case law is very clear that everything is supposed to be done in lieu of, or I assume, in lieu of disqualifying the district attorney and unless there is an actual conflict.
What interests me is what your honor found and cannot be cured, so what I would refer to the court, as mentioned above in Lions V State 271 Georgia 639, a case from 1990 1999 where they talk about a theoretical problem or speculative conflict um it will not challenge a conviction uh which means that speculation conjectures things of that nature the assumptions are not enough uh for something to arise in a real conflict and what I would present to the court also is that that refers to the fact that what has to be shown is a real conflict, um, if it's speculation, is there any qualifier there?
However, we are talking about a post-conviction context, you know, competent evidence, obviously we are in a pre-trial phase. I've wondered how important it is. to give that sentence when we are in a pretrial setting, that is, evaluating whether a conviction should be overturned and usually that is a completely different standard where we evaluate as a whole whether there was a fair trial, whether there was a harmless mistake. I know that there is no harmless error when it comes to disqualifications, but just a thought, if you have any reaction, well, I think what your honor said is quite accurate in the sense that, if it is determined that, if the court of neither in the first instance. applied the wrong standard or should have disqualified the district attorney, this leads to an automatic revocation like you said and it goes back to the trial court and I think that is very illuminating in the sense that that is only done if a conflict is shown real. and the fact that it can't just be theoretical speculation or assumptions that would lead to the appearance of inappropriate impropriety, the appearance of conflict that would lead to um, yeah, I mean, I guess I'm borrowing from something like we.
I've been making the other pretrial motions. Special objections appear to be treated differently before trial and after trial. After the trial, they get more approval unless they can show some problems and I wonder if that same principle applies here. with disqualification, well, I would, but I don't have the answer to that, well, what I would say I would also say and I don't remember the exact line, but I know that in Judge MC Bernie's order he addresses some of the concerns that in what is refers to the standard um that applies after conviction versus before trial um during pretrial matters and what I would say to the court is that you signed that in support because I didn't think the state was I'm very pleased with what you know. , the analysis he applied well.
What itches me. The legal analysis. Well, I'm quoting what you're referring to specifically in terms of the standard that will be applied before and after trial. trial does make a difference and what I would say to the court is that the answer is no as it relates to the speculative nature of the allegations or the claims made by the defense attorney as to whether there really is a conflict, Your Honor. What I can't do right now is point exactly to the page at the end of the state argument. I can give you the page number regarding Judge MC Bernie's order.
I think I know what you're talking about, the footnote where you reference the appearance standard yeah, okay um later uh in Lamb B State 267 Georgia 41 um on page 42 is a case from 1996 um where the court says, However, that the conflict must be palpable and have a substantial basis, in fact, a theoretical or speculative conflict will not impunity a conviction that is supported by competent evidence I now understand what relates to the post-conviction factor or the status of the post-conviction case based on Your Honor's prior investigation, 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 a post-conviction or pre-trial conviction um in uh bloomfi the born which is 247 Georgia 406 the 1981 case in that case says that the appeals have not shown us a case in which a by rule was applied to disqualify an attorney based solely on an appearance of improper conduct.
The Georgia cases cited by the appeal do not support the proposition that a trial judge is authorized in Georgia to disqualify an attorney solely based on an appearance of ownership which goes beyond the state's submission to the court of that the standard is that a real conflict must be shown and that the conflict that arises shows that there is a personal interest of the district attorney when it comes to his P, his financial staff. win um that is alleged in the case that has been referenced by all parties here today Whitworth the state 275 Georgia um uh appeal 790 to the 2005 case and that case says that Worth's complaints are based largely on speculation and conjecture that any standard of evidence applies From the record, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying Worth's motion to disqualify Morgan based on his personal interest.
In your conviction, haven't we gotten past the speculation and conjecture aspect of this, although I mean the original? and the core of the financial allegation was that there is a relationship and that money has changed hands. There may still be an open question as to where The Ledger stands, but I think it was conceited that that balance could run one way or the other in the case of the District Attorney. favor is that contested yes what is not questioned is that a relationship developed between and that and that the purchases were made round trip that is the position of the state that is the position of the state but the purchases were made round trip were done back and forth um to either match the money that was spent by one party or the other and if that was not done, cash was exchanged to um match the costs that were paid by either party, but that It is a factual question.
Whether there's an equal split or whether it goes a little bit one way or another or whether it's up to $10,000 one way or another, that's a fact and an issue as a result of the hearing, but it's no longer just the theory that the money changing Chan is no longer speculation or conjecture well, I agree that the money actually changed hands is not speculation and conjecture, but if that money that changed hands had any benefit or financial gain for the district attorney, that It's all speculation and conjecture. I would submit to the court absolutely all speculation and conjecture to harassand honestly shaming the district attorney based on some of the questions that were asked that had absolutely nothing to do with the proceeding we were here in, for example, support for his so-called house, that that was highly irrelevant had nothing to do with the proceedings and the exchange of money between the district attorney and Mr.
Wade the goal of that line of questioning was to embarrass and harass the district attorney again in a way that was very public in some way, that was to impunize his character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the process as it unfolded and the language in a wit that I would subject myself to again. the court requires that an actual conflict be shown, so the reference to speculation and conjecture is again a reference, because speculation and conjecture lead to or amount to an appearance of impropriety, not necessarily an actual conflict, which, as a subject to the court, is what is required based on case law, so in the state, which is 190 Georgia appeal 606, the 1989 case, um and it says that while prosecutors must make sure that it is not taken no unfair advantage of the accused, but he is not a judicial officer, those who are The requirements to exercise the judicial function in the case are the judge and jury.
The prosecutor is necessarily partisan in the case. If we were forced to proceed with the same circumspection as the judge and jury, the sentencing of criminals would be put to an end. which goes to the premise that the appearance of impropriety should apply to judges, not prosecutors, because if that standard were applied in the way referenced in the Southerland case, then there would never be a criminal prosecution because the The state is always going to seem biased when it comes to getting justice for victims or writing the wrong thing when it comes to crimes that the accused has been charged with or accused of, so I want to move on to um I guess the evidence uh that your honor um saw and heard uh during um the last few days um three days total of testimony um as it relates to the witness the witnesses that you heard from um Miss YY who the state would consider disgruntled by former employee that you heard from Terrence Bradley also someone who is a disgruntled former partner um the text messages in the state opinion show that he is vindictive, heard from his own testimony here sitting in court that all he did was speculate and uh any information he had or gathered and it happened to Miss Merchant it was pure mere speculation um I think he said that over and over again when asked if he had personal knowledge um my recollection is about 15 times he said He had absolutely no personal knowledge of a romantic relationship between the father and the Mr.
Wade. She also heard from the special prosecutor. Mr. Wade, a former judge. He heard from the 80th governor of the state of Georgia. Roy Barnes. I heard from Fon County's first elected female district attorney and you heard from her father, who was a practicing attorney of over 40 years, in good standing when he left the practice of law, and what he would present to the court is than Miss Gerti. um testimony was nothing but inconsistent at best uh based on what I referenced to the court um ear in regards to the representations that were made by your Council before are those that are in evidence would be your responses during a motion of annulment that were not subject to cross-examination by the defense attorneys were not even part of the evidentiary record of the hearing again.
I'm a little baffled by the fact that I didn't ask Ms. YY what she told her attorney before coming here and then we could have dealt with privilege issues and whatever else she would have done. I mean, she would agree with the court. is not evidence, but it was a statement by an official of this court to the court during a hearing related to his testimony and how we were going to proceed with his testimony in this hearing, but I would like to make it clear that what was represented as The The reason she, I assume, would not have been an appropriate person to testify, was that she had absolutely no knowledge of the romantic relationship, which was the basis for why her Council said she should not have to testify that she was so low that.
Theory, if accepted, where did the incentive arise between Monday and Thursday for her to completely change things? Where did the incentive come from? She was fighting so hard to avoid the if we go down that path you proposed. fighting not to come here and testify at all and then she comes here and testifies, why would you have testified the way she did if she didn't want to testify so strongly if we're going down this? way of just trying to gauge her interests and this sort of thing. I don't know if I follow that theory and can appreciate it, but I would say that's the reason she didn't want to testify. court is because this is an incredibly public forum where she would have to testify against a former friend and a former boss, and I think the change that wouldn't qualify as an inducement, what would qualify is ultimately when she saw forced to testify with reason, a motive, um, and a bias as to why she testified the way she did, when Miss Merchant asked her the reasons why she left, she kind of went back and forth on the subject and then , as Miss uh uh cross asked her if she quit or if she was forced to leave, she was fired.
She came out and said they gave her the option: you can quit, but either way you leave, you're fired, or you can quit. uh, in a way that, um, you know she wouldn't be officially fired, uh, you know, when she's trying to get future employment and things of that nature, um, so I would present to the court that there is absolutely no incentive, an incentive is not the reason. um, the young lady's testimony changed or the state would say her testimony changed, but it was the reason she testified the way she did because of her bias towards the day, which gave her cause to um, what the state would claim is to be less than honest before.
The court and I would, but we are going to draw inferences based on her fight. The subpoena, why would I have fought if I had such a prejudice and wanted to tell these lies because I didn't want to appear on national television and I have to be exposed to things, well I don't know anyone who wants to testify in court in a normal trial , a normal procedure, but one that I would rate in this high profile, nature where, um, everyone. I would be able to watch and learn what she has to say as it unfolds in the courtroom and would also present to the court that there is a reference to her leaving the DA's office in the text message that was presented in I Think Is it the defense's exhibit 39 that it is because she revealed confidential information in the district attorney's office from the district attorney's office that led to her dismissal and that it was not and I know that I am only because it is more conversational, which I appreciate, I know I may be taking you off script, so I don't want to spend all your time if you need to figure out other things. um, the next Terrence Bradley and um, I believe in the only thing that the State and Defense Council can agree on. that he was less than honest at times during the proceedings and during his testimony, when Mr.
Seal pressed him or asked him why he was fired, he basically chose it as a dispute between partners in a business, but when pressured by Ms. Cross, he was of course that was not the reason and, um, I would present to the court what has been mentioned by defense counsel, um, so perplexing as to why the state would enter into such an issue area, um. the state like the entire Council has when and appearing in court has a duty to come clean and uh, when Miss Cross knew she was going to have to cross paths with Ross, Mr.
Bradley, she knew that he lied and she had a duty to come clean. with the court, in the state's opinion, making the case that what was most important was his credibility and the statements that he had been represented by defense counsel that he had supposedly made in the past, so it was important to bring that to the court's attention. Because when a witness testifies, the court evaluates their credibility and determines whether or not they believe in the truthfulness of the statements made by the witness, so that is the most important factor when determining whether someone is telling the truth or a lie.
Also, he did it reluctantly, when the press finally admitted that he paid the assault victim, you know, eventually started an escrow account that led to, he paid the victim in that case. He testified over a period of three days and, as I referred to the court, he must have said 15 times that he had no first-hand personal knowledge regarding the relationship between Miss Willis and Mr. Wave, what's more important, when they pressed him. U Council could not pinpoint a time when it knew that the relationship occurred um there were many instances where it described that it very well could have fallen within the time frame that was testified to and um by both U Miss Willis and Mr.
Wade in what which refers to the beginning of the relationship or the transition to a date in March 2022 and the end of the relationship in August or the summer of 2023 and as I mentioned to the court the statements that Mr. Bradley made uh the state would maintain which are inadmissible rumors in regards to the statements um that uh he was pressed and asked about um what Mr. Wade told him because Mr. Wade was never confronted with those statements and for impeachment to be appropriate it must be Front to the specific statements that were allegedly made to re-indict him, Mr.
Bradley had every reason to lie. I think the text messages are quite clear, they are very clear in regards to their disdain for Mr. Wade, due to the fact that you know that he was expelled or exiled from a thriving law practice and it was clear that the practice and Mr. Wade sided with the alleged sexual assault victim, making it clear that he assaulted her. due to the fact that he paid her and as I mentioned earlier, you know, Mr. Miss Merchant represented to the court that Mr. Bradley had first hand personal knowledge of basically everything and that he could basically be an impeachment machine I think that your honor mentioned you as the star witness when you were addressing the claims that were made by Miss Cross in relation to Miss Merchant's representations to the court and what I would submit to the court is that all of Mr Bradley's representations in which refers to whether the relationship between Miss Willis and Mr.
Wade began and whether they cohabited because that was a promise that was also made that he could accuse investigators in regards to cohabitation was mere speculation, gossip and insinuations, um, and it is your honor, the pressure that I received and we can correct this while we are all here together is that they, Mr. Bradley, heard directly a statement from each of these individuals that they could be charged with Ms. Merchant is exact that I heard directly which ones we're talking about, well, essentially, that kind of seemed to be all of them, you had said Allen Bon young and then investigators Hill Green and Ricks could be charged directly by statements heard by Mr. .Bradley, yes, in reference to your question, the unequivocal answer was yes and when your honor is reviewing the text messages, I would submit to the court that the text messages do not even say or indicate what was represented to the court in regarding the good faith basis for this disqualification motion as it relates to the testimony and ability to accuse the Witnesses through Mr.
Bradley. What has been referenced by the entire council is Mr. Bradley's statement of uh absolutely as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to Mr. Wade's hiring and the question itself involves speculation because he asked if he believes it began before that she hired him and he says absolutely no says he knows he doesn't. provide some context on how you know and in these text messages and through your testimony in court, the source of your information was unclear, uh, what would you say, what would you say to the court, um, about a lot of things um.
Other than the one conversation that supposedly occurred between Mr. Wade and Mr. Bradley, and I would present to the court that that conversation never occurred, that that would be the state's claim, and how do we know that we know because of that conversation ? was not confronted or Mr. Wade was not confronted with that scam conversation and that is circumstantial and I would even say direct evidence that that conversation did not exist because, based on the representation made by the defense council, it would be clear that that would be a conversation that it would have been related because it was not privileged, as your honor found, that it would have been passed on to Miss Merchant and if that conversation had happened, you better believe that it would have been a conversation that the Defense Council would have confronted Mr.
Wade. and against, andthe reason they didn't was because it didn't exist again. You heard from Mr. John Steve Floyd, from the District Attorney's father. His Honor heard that he was a highly respected member of the legal community for over 40 years, but the importance of his evidence was to provide the court with corroboration in relation to the years leading up to the relationship which became a tryst between the district attorney and Mr. Wade, who testified. The answer is that he moved into his South Fulton home in 2019. The evidence that he moved into that home at that time was his Georgia driver's license, an official government document.
Furthermore, he testified that not only was it not that. Only he and Miss Willis live at the South Folton house, but that he often saw Miss Willis's partner who was not Mr. Wade on numerous occasions, he made reference to the fact that this person had the nickname Deuce and that he kept many of his belongings in Miss Willis' garage. She specifically said that she kept much of his DJ equipment, as she referred to him. When he made it very clear in court that he had never seen Mr. Wade at the South Fon house, which is owned by Miss Willis, he made it clear that he lived in that house with Miss Willis and Miss Willis alone, as well as his two daughters, who occasionally visited that house until after February. 2021, but what precipitated the prompt move of Ms.
Willis to what I would call safe houses for her protection was a protest that occurred outside her home in February 2021 and she later stated in court that Ms. Willis moved into the spring of 2021 and that because of these threats that were taken very seriously, he had only seen his son uh 13 times times um he said in reference to the questions from the Defense Council that um we are in a and I'm just going to be honest with the court. They were trying to make a liar out of Miss Willis. How would she present herself to me in court in the sense that she testified that she was concerned for her safety and the safety of her family? security that included his father and his daughters and Mr.
Floyd staying in that house sort of disproved all of that made it not true, but he testified that he stayed in the house because it was the house where she had put her Blood , Sweat and Tears and was able to buy and stayed in the house because there was a constant presence of officers. She told the court she purchased additional safety equipment. She even went so far as to tell the court. that he slept in different rooms on different nights because he felt that his safety was a great concern, so I would present to the court that that line of questioning was done in an attempt to discredit Miss Willis, but failed, would this be what the state how the state would characterize him then testified about the first time he met Mr.
Wade, which was in 2023 here at the district attorney's office and talked about how he kept cash in his house and why Ms. Willis kept money in cash in his house and what I would say, what the court should take into account is that the state did not ask Mr. Floyd about the cash in his house that came up through defense counsel cross-examination, so I guess that there was an implication that Mr. Floyd only did it because of his preparation with the state and his hearing at the U and seeing news articles uh and uh Clips related to the testimony that had occurred before him, but I would come forward The court says that it is revealing that this information came out through questions that were asked by the Defense Council, which gives credibility to the statements that were made and also explained why he taught his daughter to keep cash. .at home when it comes to financial independence and having a safety net.
It was further testified that he had several safes and that he gave Miss Willis his first safe or her first safe for situations as she described. when she was testifying and what I want to make clear is that during Ms. Willis's testimony she was pressed about the cash and where she kept it, followed her where she rested her head, um and things of that nature trying to further discredit the practice, uh. that he had in relation to keeping cash in his home and why he had the ability to pay cash to Mr. Wade and other people and for other situations and what I would do, what the court should take note of is that there was no evidence that would dispute that at all where was the evidence that would dispute Miss Willis' claim and practice of keeping cash in her home?
I heard from the Governor, former Governor Roy Barnes, and his testimony was significant and important because what he would do, how he would pray it, your honor, it discredits him, let me speak to this point and I think he might have had a more recent opportunity. to review her testimony, what I have to say on the slide is that she was the first choice to lead the prosecution, was that actually her testimony or was it just her testimony, that they asked her to come on board, did she use the words that they asked for? to lead, yes, as I recall, they asked him to lead the prosecution, they asked him to take the position that Mr.
Wade is currently in, who is the lead prosecutor, um, it was said in that way, it also relates with Mr. Barnes' testimony, so I think it can be made very clear. What I remember is that he said leader, but what I can present to the court is that I know that he also said that he was asked to fill the position. that Mr. Wade is currently filling in for the state of Georgia, who at that time is the special prosecutor of the grand jury, right, yes, the special, I guess so, as the special prosecutor who led the investigation that led to the final indictment, which They were here before your honor.
Today he also indicated that the reason he turned down that job was because it didn't pay enough. He said that he had mouths to feed at his law firm and that he didn't want to live the rest of his life either. with bodyguards because he had lived through that during the years that he was governor of Georgia, plus he confirmed Mr. Wade's qualifications, which I still find quite interesting and confusing in terms of attacking Mr. Wade's qualifications in that It's almost as if Ms. Roman's counsel was asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case who she believes is most qualified to try to convict her client.
It's an interesting argument and it also doesn't make sense. If you were to believe the claims and accusations regarding Miss Willis's personal interest in the prosecution and receiving financial benefits in profits, then you would have to believe that she was also dating Roy Barnes, the former Governor and Banks gay uh in addition to the Mr. Wade um if she has this big plan uh to profit from the prosecution of this case because that's what they're saying or they're saying that she is uh she telepathically or uh prophetically I can know that Mr. Barnes and Mr. Banks they would turn down the position so she could then hire Mr.
Wade. It's ridiculous, it's absurd and it's desperate, it's a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case for no reason. her honor, harassment and embarrassment aside, um this, and we've gone over a lot of the testimony and I have to make it clear that it was not presented as evidence that Mr. Banks rejected her, right, that's not that part, how is it? that part of the file? Well, I asked the court to take judicial notices. I have been asked repeatedly that the district attorney had testified about that. I don't remember it right away. I will be frank with the court.
I don't remember if Miss Willis testified about that. That is an accurate fact, but I know that Mr. Banks represented that to the court during Monday's hearing in regards to the allegations that were made. I understand your Honor's position in terms of trying to make sure that we know exactly what's in the evidence and it's not, but uh regardless uh I think your point is clear I think it's evidence of the record as far as it goes. refers to um I guess the issues that led to the actual hearing of this case so I understand your Honor's position um but it came out during several Pro or during a proceeding um uh that was before uh the actual hearing um this slide um is just a graphic showing sort of testimony from both um uh, the district attorney, Ms.
Willis and Mr. Wade, as it relates to how they met, how or when Mr. Wade became the special prosecutor when his relationship became a romantic relationship, um, talking about the trips they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic and, um, when it ended and what I would again tell the court is that those events were consistent and the only person who contradicted that when the relationship began was Miss YY and what I would bring to the attention of the court is that she was represented. to the court that Miss YY was a separate witness from Mr.
Bradley who could bring this cohabitation issue to the foreground and when pressed and asked about it, Missy had absolutely no information related to this supposed living quarters cooh, it was false, she said she had no information they asked her about the trips she said she had no information about the trips but she is such a good friend that Miss Willis confirms every year that Mr. Wade and her remain in a relationship 2019 2020 2021 until their The relationship ended due to your fourth resignation and your friendship is breaking up, your honor, uh, uh, I guess obviously several pieces of evidence were presented, most of them were pieces of evidence that came from U's sealed divorce, Mr.
Wade and um, uh. Miss Joselyn Wade, contracts for the Legal Services trip for tenies and, the text messages, and I would like to make specific reference before today to the only text messages that were before your honor, were us, defense exhibits 26 and 27, which, um, is the Defense claim. Advice that, what that shows is that Mr. Bradley was on information or had information in regards to the relationship that began before March 2022 and that is simply false, those text messages do not contain that does not exactly indicate like Mr. Bradley. I couldn't when the relationship actually began and furthermore you have the testimony and text message evidence that it was mere speculation.
If you, like your honor, review the entire chain of text messages, it is clear that Ms. Merchant and Mr. Bradley are leaving. through what I can describe as nothing more than a simple fishing expedition, uh between the two at first because he wonders about certain members of the district attorney's office who would have information specifically related to a Miss Young. if she would have information and he had no idea, he said he assumed he was speculating and that's the same as every person that was quoted uh in reference uh in the text messages um that was all speculation and you know it was speculation because None of them testified, that is revealing because if it were not mere speculation, if it were not mere gossip and if it were not mere conjecture, each of those people who were subpoenaed would have been called to testify as uh district.
Attorney Willis said: "Mr. Wade was due to be confronted and then charged by Mr. Bradley. He has obviously heard about the phone records and I have a question perhaps because, if it falls within the scope of his honor as to what refers For the determination that your honor must make regarding the disqualification of the district attorney, you also have the affidavit of the employee who worked at the warehouse who confirmed that Ms. Willis did in fact pay cash um UPS to more. of $400 um and I understand that this is part of the state's profits but it is important because that is a witness that the state did not go to find the state that is a witness that went to CNN to confirm what Miss Willis testified to give her credibility and credibility to your statements to the court that you heard about before moving on to that, aside from the fundamental concerns, would you have an answer for the professor of the cell phone records?
I'm going to address that now. I was going to address it later, but I have several fundamental concerns regarding cell phone records. I don't think I've ever done it. Mr. Seal's motion makes it very clear The state uses cell phone records routinely and I agree that we use them routinely, but we use them with an expert and they are always questioned, so, as I said, in the interest of time, leaving aside fundamental concerns. Oh, I thought you were asking. about them focusing on the substance of them, assuming that it would be admissible in boys that he has professed to them which maybe you have that above, but what is the reaction to that, so what I would say initially is that, because of the fact that they were analyzed. by someone was not an expert um the analysis of those cell phone records um were not uh adequately peer reviewed were not U it is clear um from the state's review that the normal practices uh that are used uh to verify the use of what type of data is being used um in reference to the two specific dates um I think they are September 10 and 11 and November 29 and 30 uh the affidavit that is used to say that Mr.
Wade remainsat Miss Willis' house or in the hatville area um because again during the hearing the address um of the condo um YY uh never came out, it was just that it was Hate Phill's condo uh, Mr. Wade's real phone number never was established and the documents that were provided to the state like that were certified business records that did not have a subscriber subpage, so we have no idea that the number belongs to Mr. Wa. Now I understand that his honor wants to look beyond the fundamental issues, and I can appreciate that, but the fundamental things are very important.
It relates to drive capacity, no doubt about that, but if somewhere they were able to survive those fundamental concerns, do you have any reaction? Yes, I do and I can, I'll jump ahead to not do it. So what's interesting? The thing is, the registrations that were provided were for them to start in January 2021 and they go, I think it's until November 30th. I think that's what the records cover for 2021 and you heard from all the witnesses, including the lady. AND that Miss Willis did not move to Bill's hate address until April 2021, that was the testimony of all witnesses in April 2021 and that she had been living at his South Fulton home since she met Mr.
Wade in October from 2019 to when he had to move and the defense council's claim is that Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis began a relationship right after they met in October 2019. What is interesting and revealing is that Mr. Wade doesn't appear once near her home area in South Fulton, but they are dating but in a serious relationship and if you were to believe what the Defense Council says, they have been in a relationship since October 2019 until she moves out. in April 2021, you know, about a year and a half, but he never enters the area of ​​his house, but they want you to believe that's a lie, which is why the Defense Council continued to pressure District Attorney Willis and Mr.
Wade as to whether he had ever been in that house in South Fulton, this corroborates that it was not a lie that he had never been in that house and uh, it is more than suspicious if you have been in a relationship as they claim all this time, but Never I didn't go to the house even once, so I think that tells me what would also come to the Court's attention in the state's initial review of the records that, from January 2021 to March 2021, those times when Miss Willis did. not living again at the Hatef address um she didn't move there until April 2021 that her phone appears in that area 23 times true reconcile that with her testimony that was alluded to I think by the opposing Council the reasons she gave for being in the area, well, those would line up up to 23 times.
I think you know, I didn't have much reason to be there. Well, that's fine, I guess that's the point. I would say yes, that's the point that he made reference to, which is an area that he, um. It was not unusual for him to be there and clearly that is the case because Miss Willis did not live in that area, so again it is further corroboration of what Mr Wade indicated to the court and, I suppose, after Miss Willis he moved. In the condominium in April 2021 they appeared 35 times. Now I want to make it clear to the court that both Ms.
Willis and Mr. Wade never denied that he had been in that condo prior to the specific testimony obtained by Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade. Wade was that he had never, ever laid his head down, uh was the direct quote in that condo, and these records don't prove that he laid his head down anywhere if you believed the analysis or if um If I were to give credence to what he says the non-expert in relation to Mr. Wade's phone being turned on in September and November during the 3 to four hours the phone was allegedly left on, that doesn't refute anything. that was testified to by both Mr.
Wade and District Attorney Willis, was that he visited there, the specific times of his visits were not something that was pursued during cross-examination by both parties, so what I would also present in court is that if you look at the days when it comes to uh SE in September and November, the use, I guess the type of information that is used to make the longitude and latitude graphs of the phone are data logs, they are not voice logs, they are not SMS or text messages, they are data logs and uh. It's not uncommon for an expert to testify, as it relates specifically to AT&T records, that that actual data record is unreliable when it comes to the location of the phone because of the type of information it is, which is data, are not the voice and The SMS that I know, your honor, as has been referenced, is from a prosecutor not only here in this county, but also from the federal government, where this type of information is commonly used, so in the comments What the court did was It is clear that you understood and understand the use of cell phone records as it relates to putting someone in an area and again not a specific location.
I would also draw the attention of the Court as to the validity of the affidavit and The analysis conducted by the expert who was retained by Mr. Seow is that he never once refers to the fact that AT&T records commonly they have duplicate and triplicate entries within the call detail records, that is something that is commonly seen and that is something that is seen in these records and that is something that leads to the incorrect number of times that it has been alleged that the miss Willis and Mr. Wade were in communication via text messages and voicemail and I also presented to the court that that number does not prove anything again, it does not prove that someone is in a relationship, it proves that they were in communication with each other and I think your honor can use your own life experience where this is concerned. to the people you work with or friends you are close with and the number of times you make calls to any of those people I can present in court that I have a friend that I have been friends with for 15 years and she worked in the office previously with me and based on our professional relationship and our personal relationship, the friendship we had and still have, we talk 30 times a day, so that doesn't mean they are in a relationship, so the statement that the number of times that Ms.
Willis and Mr. Wade have spoken to each other, whether through text messages or on the phone, has no validity as to whether they are in a relationship. What I would present to the court is that what was shown through all the evidence was that there has been a real cost to Miss Willis in terms of her life, that she had additional expenses that she had to bear because of her position in the feeling that she told the court that she had a mortgage, but in addition to that mortgage, that in a house in which she no longer lived she had to pay for a safe house, that her house was vandalized, and that there were racial problems . epithets and sexual intolerance that were spray painted on her home, concern for her safety in her life is something that was attested to and the fact that this job has led to her isolation and separation from her family and friends, What was given credibility and the credibility of those statements was provided by her father, Mr.
Floyd, who had only seen his daughter 13 times since all of these cases occurred, the state nature of the statements and the falsehoods that, for example, in these text messages that were intentionally leaked to the media regarding Ms. Willis' daughter subjecting her to her position at the school she failed in college, which is not true, she did in fact graduate from HBCU , but what was leaked to the media is the fact that she failed a school and was moved out by someone other than her father, which again, the Validia of which was never shown and meanwhile, Miss Willis, facing these costs, has been able to continue doing the same. work unrelated to this case, shown by the fact that Atlanta's murder and violent crime rate have decreased while she was in office, which was demonstrated through the testimony of all witnesses and through the evidence that your honor heard was that there was no real conflict that the defense did not provide any real conflict in relation to Miss Wade, I suppose the relationship that arose from the relationship between her and Mr Wade and that there was absolutely no evidence of a financial benefit you obtained in connection with the prosecution of this case and the final outcome of the case.
She benefited from U extending the case for lack of better words by the Grand Jury, the special grand jury recommended that 39 people be indicted, but through her she reviewed the special Grand Jury report and all the evidence with the team . who prosecuted the case, they only went with 19 of the accused, which if she had reached 30, she would have gone with the 39 that there are, according to the defense council's claims, it would have given her the opportunity to certainly find these financial gains that are. He asserted through the Defense Council's allegations, more importantly, why would Ms. Willis repeatedly ask this court to set a trial date as soon as possible if her motive in prosecuting this case was to continue making profits financial as alleged by the prosecution? of this case doesn't line up, it doesn't make sense and it doesn't make sense for a reason because it doesn't exist, more importantly this office has several Rico and large scale cases like this. and much larger, and they also have many high profile prosecutions, if the ultimate goal of Ms.
Wade or, excuse me, Ms. Willis in hiring Mr. Wade was for her financial benefit, then she would put Mr. Wade in each of those cases, although she Certainly could revel in the riches and lavish lifestyle that the Defense Council has referred to, of which there has been absolutely no evidence of the evidence that she declared a Double Tree in Napa, a DoubleTree. Don't know. be a luxury hotel for most people when they go to Napa if they want to experience luxury, uh Napa, stay at the Ritz Carlton, the Four Seasons, things of that nature, not a Double Tree, so the accusations and claims of that Miss Willis was living the Rich and Famous lifestyle is a joke, an absolute joke as far as what you heard, and the secondary problem is forensic misconduct and, for lack of better words, what What needs to be proven is that the statements that were made by Here Miss Willis are related to the prosecution of the case and ultimately the guilt or innocence of the defendants and we do not have any of those statements.
There has been no evidence. Nothing has been provided to her honor as to the specific statements made by Miss Willis. about any of the accused and in relation to the guilt or innocence of any of the accused, I forget which Defense Council made reference to the fact that it said it had a 95% conviction rate. Well what is Ms. Willis' job to instill confidence in the community as to how well she is doing in regards to her constitutional duties and that was exactly what was done when she made reference to having a conviction rate of 95% over the previous year, that he was serving as district attorney, more importantly, that accusations about race and religion were made in his speech and that those comments were directed at the defendants at this table and if you listen to the speech those comments are directed at two elected officials or politicians, I believe it was Margorie Taylor Green and Miss Bridget Thorne, who is a member of the Fen County Board of Commissioners, here she specifically uses their names.
I don't know, I don't know about them, and what I know is that they're not supposed to be sitting. on the table and I have not seen them in my work as it relates to this case, your honor, then those accusations that Ms. Willis committed forensic misconduct are there again, they have no validity to them, there is no evidence of them, as it relates to any of those comments, uh, which is, this is a topic that Judge MC Bernie previously ruled on when these same allegations were alleged in relation to extrajudicial statements made by U Miss Willis um and involved a statement that uh The words "fake electors" were said by Miss Willis and she found that there was absolutely no conduct that was impermissible as far as forensic misconduct goes and, I guess to make the point, at no time in any of the statements that were made uh and that was what is alleged here in regards to the speech that she gave in the church um at no time did she mention the guilt uh or the innocence of any of the accused um she again just He was responding to comments made by Marjorie Taylor Green and Bridget Thorne, two other political appointees, so his comments don't even come close to the realm of any kind of forensic misconduct.
What I find interesting is that the Defense Council wants to make these accusations that Ms. Willis committed this forensic misconduct. for the statements she made in her defense as two public officials unrelated to this case,criticized the work I was doing, I find the hypocrisy interesting in the sense that we have had our own videos released to the media through emails from the Defense Council between The defense council gave it to the media. The defense council made statements in connection with this case. The defense council released the unredacted version of Mr. Wade's cell phone records to the media with his private and personal information. causing the threat of harm to both Miss Willis and Mr Wade to increase.
The most recent example was the text messages that His Honor had not ruled on his admissibility prior to his release and it was made clear during the hearings that the ability to obtain the full chain was something they could not do, but they were given account and the moment they realized it, they released the information to the media simultaneously and handed it over to uh. The state and the court for all reasons obviously stated before your honor that this motion should not be denied because the legal requirements required for the district attorney to be disqualified have not been met.
The defendants have not raised any issues of fact or law to satisfy the legal standard um for disqualification that they must demonstrate an actual conflict. They have not been able to demonstrate that the prosecution of this case was at all the result of a political bias that has been um U. Accusations or accusations have been made as well as proven that the prosecution of this case was motivated by any means or form due to malicious prosecution and have failed to prove that this case was one of prosecution selected for benefit or political gain. all the allegations that have been made during the course of different hearings and proceedings as it relates to this case, what that would leave the court and how the state started the argument is that the courts have generally not been receptive, if not hostile to attempts to disqualify prosecutors based on widespread and institutional conflicts, making clear that the burden of the state standard being very, very high, must be met for a district, an elected district attorney, to be disqualified and that standard there has not been demonstrated a real conflict and, more importantly, in conjunction with that, there has been absolutely no evidence that the district attorney has benefited financially at all, but he benefited financially in conjunction with any outcome of the U, whether now or ultimately as it relates to the prosecution of this case and for all of those reasons, your honor, we respectfully ask that you deny the defense council's motion to disqualify the prosecutor from elected district, Miss Vonnie Willis, okay, thank you, Mr.
Body, I think we have 5 minutes and 44 seconds, that's what it says, Mr. Cromwell, oh, okay, hand it over, got it, Mr. all yours, I'm going to to make a rebuttal, a specific rebuttal, a state somehow presents an argument that we should have asked Mr. Wade questions about his relationship and his communications with Mr. Bradley, when they objected over and over again and the Athletics Council objected time and time again claiming that everything Wade told Bradley was attorney-client privilege, his honor made determinations after Bradley, we did not have the opportunity to call Mr. Wade. coming back to the stand to claim that you can't charge him because you didn't ask him when they objected to us asking him is obviously a false position, as false as it can be now if the court wants to open we will be more than happy to call Mr.
Wade back to the stand, but as the record stands, there could be no confrontation from Mr. Wade when both his Council and the state are arguing that it should not be done second. use some common sense here, forensic misconduct. I got about two minutes of discussion. The rest are about forensic misconduct conflicts that deal with how the state wants you to deal with whether you don't charge someone or not. I'm not saying someone is guilty, yes, assuming you can impunize someone's character to the point that it constitutes forensic misconduct. Why am I sorry, assuming that you?can impunate someone's character to the point that it constitutes forensic misconduct.
I guess if I guess the state's main position was that they weren't talking about you in church, right? and if you're going to listen to it and watch it, start by saying why Commissioner Bridget Thorne and so many others and then he talks about how they attack him for being black, they attack him, not anyone else, they just attack the black man, They are not talking about Miss Thorne or Marjorie Taylor, who they are talking about. us and you know how everyone knows it, because not a single media story reported anything other than Fonnie Willis accusing the defender and the accused of being racist.
Here's the common sense part of this, if you follow the state's position on forensic misconduct. Bonnie Willis could talk about race all day she could say the defendants I'm not saying they're guilty or innocent but they're racist they're racist they're racist and according to the state's position on forensic misconduct that wouldn't be a problem obviously. that it doesn't make any sense the issue we've discussed here about forensic misconduct is not simply the church's speech, it's why he did it, how he did it, calculated and all the other things we talked about with Wade's testimony. and Willis in this case let's get to the relationship issues and the cell phones briefly no one knew there was a relationship between Wade and Willis according to Wade and Willis they never told a soul that they were dating or that there was an intimate relationship relationship they ever hid it from all parts of dad, dad didn't even know they were in a relationship, suggests that somehow in early January 2021 or whatever it was in April that they couldn't have met in Hapeville, they didn't.
They didn't meet anywhere that would allow the public to see them, that's why they met in Yeres because no one else was ever there. Remember the testimony, who else was there besides Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis? They both agreed, no one, no one ever went. there except them, they didn't go to where dad was at Miss Willis' house because dad was there and dad would know no other prosecutor knew, no one knows except the only person who knew was Bradley and YY YY was his best friend at that moment. of Miss Willis and Bradley was Wade's companion now, the only way Wade can walk.
Sorry the only way Bradley can get away is very little time so I'll skip that let's get to a motive which is a The question of who the motive is in this case is Bonnie Willis naan Wade stronger because if they testify truthfully on each point, what if the relationship started before November 1st, they will be disqualified. Who has the best reason to lie? Who has the oldest? lying is at stake, they do it, who wants to stay in this case, whatever the financial reason, they do it in more thank you ma'am, okay, thank you all, uh, I think it has been made very clear with the argument and the What I did today is that there are several legal issues to resolve through various factual determinations that I have to make and those are not what I can make at this time, so I will take the time to make sure I give this. case, it must be fully considered.
I hope to have a response for everyone within the next two weeks, until then if any further issues arise the Council can reach out and we will have an order posted on the docket, thank you. Everything is off the record, thank you Mr.

If you have any copyright issue, please Contact