she chooses to deflect, the court asked earlier, wasn't she really responding to the motion of those that had been filed against her. with that she had. because if she had, she would have looked at members in the church in the face and say, i have been -- there's been an allegation that i had a romantic relationship with mr. wade and ladies and gentlemen, of this congregation, it is true. she did not do that. she chose to deflect and to do two things that are reprehensible. for any lawyer but particularly for a prosecutor, she chose to pull out the racecar and the guard card. that is what she did and she rode it out. she went on to the flight away from the allegations in the wade motion and she said, she is saying, why in her talk public discussion with god, why are

they only attacking one in reference to mr. wade. and then she goes on to say, god, is it them playing the racecar where they only question one? no, if she had been truthful with the congregation, truthful with the community she would have said i had a relationship with him. good, bad, forgive me, whatever. that is what she should have said. but she chose to deflect and say them, the reference to them and the others and they. it is obviously a reference to the motion filed by miss merchant. they choose to go after the black man and she then goes on. again, deflecting away. and deflecting to the -- what i call the third rail, the american society. accusing somebody on the other side of being a racist. so and so is a racist.

they are racist. she was the one playing the race card in a way to try to deflect from her own conduct. she goes on to say and her discussions with the lord, god, is that -- is it that some will never see a black man as qualified no matter his achievements? again, the deflection. what is she saying? the listener is not necessarily in that audience in that church, the listener is in fulton county. the potential jurors who will come into a court room and say whether or not they can fairly judge the evidence or judge the defense in this case. she chose to inject race into the minds of the listeners and virtually everybody in this community and literally everybody in this country as reviewed and analyzed her speech that she made in a premeditated way. and bringing in not only the race card but also in bringing

in the religious matter, this is exactly what happened v estate in our supreme court talks about, condemning is an inflammatory appeal to the jury's private religious bel beliefs. why would she do that? to deflect. but now, not only is she deflecting. but she is then going forward and in a way telling the community, telling the congregation that god is on her side, not on the side of these people. god, she said, in which she is talking and she is saying, pray for their souls. i, meaning god, qualified you. i qualified your imperfect flood self. i see you in every hour. do my work. as -- is telling the folks in her very, very, very implicit way injecting into the minds of the jurors, god wants

me to win this case. god wants me to prosecute this case. and what are these others going after the black man? well, the answer is very simple. as we said in our brief. we do not mention misses cross -- mr. cross, the white female or mr. floyd, the white male, because there was absolutely no evidence in is no evidence of personal or a romantic relationship with them in which she obtained these benefits. that is the reason why we did not do that. so she goes forward with her -- with the deflection. that is exactly what she does when she goes forward and she talks about a planned interview time and time again with authors of the book" find me the votes" where she is talking about cases tried in this courtroom.

>> judge mcafee: so in the specific -- excuse me, instance, setting aside the fact that she was willing to go on the record for a case that haven't even reached the jury, what specific statements from that book do you contend crossed the line. >> craig: for example, she goes on to talk about all the calls that she gets from people calling her racial terms. and, you look all the calls are racist, what she is trying to do and i think there's a reference in there to maga people, or whatever. what she is saying is those people calling me up making those claims or those horrible racial slurs to me are really people on their side of the fence. that is what she is doing and there's no reason, your honor ever for a prosecutor to sit down and go forward with this kind of interview. she did it. but then what really happened

here is this hiding of that relationship because in hiding that relationship, they have done such a good job. mr. wade filed false documents in his divorce case. on may the 23rd, may of 2023, talking about, have you ever had central relations with a person during the court of the marriage or including the period of separation? he still married but he does not have a divorce decree. but his answer is none. then he is asked whether or not on any occasions he has entertained or been entertained by someone, a member of the opposite sex, in this case, a woman, talking about place and time and all that. what is the answer? none. why does he do that? he does that because he does not want to tell about the relationship that he has with miss willis and the benefits that he has gotten and that he gave to her. that is -- and what these answers are absolutely

reprehensible that a member of the state board -- part of georgia would file these answers that are inaccurate. what does ms. wade to -- miss willis do? miss willis on her financial report, was not she has gotten anything of $100 or more in value from a prohibitive source, the court asked earlier about what a threshold might be applicable, if the financial part gets $100, that is it. she does not report any of all of the benefits that she received from mr. wade. all the trips, all the entertainment, all the three nights in the luxury suite in aruba. none of that is here. and they say, oh, well, maybe it all bounced out even though i can't prove it with the cash. will, that is like saying, did i

the court a christmas present. well, maybe i the court a christmas present and the court gave me one back. you say i got one from mr. guillen. you don't say, no, well, i give you one back. so it really evens out. they are false reports and because they are false, what they have to do is they had to say, miss merchant has caught us and so we are going to get in our response, we're going to get mr. wade to file a false declaration which she does. the declaration in this case is falls. and the evidence showing that that is false as it relates to the timing, inner, and and the court asked earlier, why does it matter, you know, if that relationship was before or after november 12021? the answer is, they think it is important. and frankly, i do, too because when she is hiring someone and she is not telling the people who are going to be paying the

tab to $700,000, hey, i just hired my boyfriend who is taking me on trips, the caribbean and taking me down to aruba and taking me to california hoping -- i hope you don't mind. no disclosure whatsoever, and that money flows off. but because they got caught, they then commit what i think is forensic an additional component of forensic misconduct, and that is a fraud on this court. when they filed that affidavit that has now been proven i think beyond virtually any doubt, any doubt that the relationship occurred power to november 1, 2021 and the benefits that were there and we don't have to run around and i love the -- you know, we got all the records showing from mr. wade about the payment for these trips or the cruises to the flights, all of this stuff. what is the only way is a set

around and met together before they testified and came up with their story. it is the only way that they can save themselves. pay no attention to the records. pay no attention to the airlines and to the flights and the occasions and cruises. i paid him back in cash. show us your receipts. where did you take cash out of the bank? ever. i don't have any. well, it shows the deposits that he had. well, never. but we don't have any. what we have here is a fraud on this court, which has been sh shown, i think, overwhelmingly by the evidence and overwhelmingly through not only the testimony, the testimony of the e-mails, of the text from mr. bradley to miss merchant, as well as all the documents that they had no answer to other than the "just trust me, i gave them money, evaporated, i don't know

where it came from and he does not know what he did with it, just please trust us and leave us because it is our only way out of the trap that they set for themselves." these people exactly and i hate to say this as a former -- i was a prosecutor for about 3 1/2 million years it seems in the federal building and i was an assistant d.a. before hand. prosecutors don't act like this. lawyers don't act like this. these people, your honor, it is a systematic misconduct and they need to go. thank you. [papers rustling] >> your honor, i'm going to cover a few factual details without overly rehashing what has already been said. during the pendency of this

investigation in this case, mr. wade and miss willis basically lived the lifestyle of the rich and famous and they did this riding on the backs of the defendants. in this case, funded by the taxpayers of fulton county and the state of georgia. with the morning that was paid to mr. wade to the contract that miss willis got him. that money flow, that is the personal interest that you asked about. she was personally benefiting from that position from the job from the scope of the investigation, from the scope of the indictment and how they conducted it and we know this, we know from the records that have been submitted before the court that mr. wade paid at least $17,095 towards this relationship. that does not even include the various dinners the 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 an airline ticket. we know from security who was pretty much uncontested. there was no evidence presented by the state disputing her timeframe that that relationship started in 2019. she saw them kissing. she saw them hugging. now, whether not they had sex before january of 2022, i do not know. they admitted sometime in early 2022 and i found it curious that they both wade and willis, just went straight to the sex. so maybe that is what they started having sex. but the relationship predated that. and their combined and overly suggestive focus on that is a red herring to this court and to the defense that is what they want you to focus on. they want you to ignore all the

evidence that the relationship predated that. the relationship started in 2019. the relationship continue through 2020, the relationship continued through 2021. looking at the cell phone communications, just in the first 11 months of 2021, over 2,000 calls, almost 9800 texts. i don't even think lovestruck teenagers to make it that much. november 29th, novemb november 30th, escapade. phone call from miss willis. between ms. willis and mr. wade. 11:32 that night. shortly after midnight the phone starts traveling down. from where mr. wade lives and end up where ms. willis is staying and he is there until roughly 4:55 a.m. none of the excuses, none of the explanations that mr. wade gave go into the porsche experience go into dinner, go into the

airport. none of that explains that. i'm pretty sure the porsche experience is [indistinct] in the middle of the night. i'm pretty sure that there were not any restaurants that he drove 30 to 45 minutes to go eat at in the middle of the night right after he had gone to willis. teenagers have a name for those kind of calls and those kind of exploits, i will go into it. but the documentary evidence, the objective evidence, undercuts everything that both wade and willis said. when you look at miss serie d, again, she unequivocally said that relationship began in 2019. she saw physical evidence of a romantic relationship. mr. bradley in the text messages which are substantive evidence says that that relationship began in 2019. again, his -- january, you know,

temporary amnesia that somehow is triggered temporarily after the phone call. we can question that. but we do have statements from him that specifically said that relationship predated mr. wade's appointment ms. willis. you asked -- well, mr. wade you asked what that materiality would be. how much is it, huh? well, clearly, 70,000 is enough. but fulton county has told us, has told mrs. willis what that materiality is. it is $100 in a year. she was signed declarations, certifications that she did not receive any gifts. and even other her strained explanation, there were monies, there were gifts, there were

dinners, there were excess contributions flowing her way that exceeded $100. her excuse or i'm sorry to her explanation, well, i just paid it in cash. that just does not stand to reason. it does not hold up to the light of truth. anyone that has ever been in a money laundering trial, a forfeiture trial, if that is the explanation we give the state, they laugh. oh, i just gave cash. i have no records for it. i have no source for it. the only thing that she can see that was a source for money because at times she said she was down to $510,000. the only explanation she has is, well, sometimes i go to publix and i may get an extra $50. that shows up on your debit card or your credit card. did they bring those records in? no. did they bring her bank accounts in? no. did they bring any documentary -- documentary evidence in?

no, they did not take why is that important? yes, the burden is ours. but under ocg a 24-14-22, if a party has evidence and such party's power and within such party's reach by which he or she may repel a claim they had that power and mr. wade had the power that they could repel the claim that we have made against them they admit to produce it or if they produce weaker evidence, then you as the factfinder, judge, it is in your power to disregard that in a resumption -- presumption arises in what is in their possession, it supports our claim. and that is something that the state relies on regularly in criminal trials. and that is something that the court should rely on in this case when formulating its factual findings. and we know that both mr. wade

and miss willis have some difficulty expressing the truth when it comes to their relationship in these cases. we know, mr. wade lied in his -- multiple times. with no ms. willis falsely certified that she hadn't received any gifts from anybody at mr. wade clearly was a prohibitive source. he was someone doing the width fulton county. anything over $100 in a year, she had to put down. and she put zero. and it defies imagi imaginationt she could somehow forget about all these trips, all these dinners, all of these day trips and not put that money down. you had asked, i think it was mr. gilman. did she say in that church speech or anywhere else that the defendants were guilty? and i think she did in that church speech. she said in that church speech

and she was talking about a conversation that she apparently had with god, talking about herself, she said, this leader has a trial conviction rate of 95%. she said the trial team leader put together has a conviction rate of 95%. i do not see how anyone and i think that was purposely intended by miss willis, i do not see how anyone can listen to those two statements and not take that miss willis is telling everyone in that church and if with that is going to hear that in the media afterwards that these defendants are guilty. that is what she was saying. she is a prosecutor. she is familiar with the u.s. case. every single attorney that has ever been a prosecutor is familiar with the dictates of of the u.s. supreme court case. that is a foul below. that is improper. and she violated pretty much every tenant a prosecutor must abide by to seek truth and

justice in a particular case. so judge, when you are looking at this, the uncontroverted evidence showed that they had a relationship prior. the uncontroverted evidence shows that mr. wade lavishly spent on miss willis. the uncontroverted evidence shows that the morning that he was spitting on miss willis came from this contract that he had and i'm not just talking about the contract as a special prosecutor, but there's also other questionable contracts that no matter whom his partner seem, they also got. there is a direct financial benefit that miss williams received from this. and judge, looking back at what the judge said, if merely hosting a fundraiser for a political opponent of a putative defendant creates not only the

appearance of an actual conflict, then what ms. willis has done since then in this case creates national conflict. but again, as part of counsel has stated, we only need to show the appearance of the conflict. and we have done that by preponderance of the evidence, the fact -- in fact, i think we have shown actual conflict. but nonetheless, the results should be that miss willis in her office should be disqualified for this case. >> judge mcafee: we have a few more minutes. i think mr. cornwell may have something to say. thank you, your -- >> thank you your honor. >> judge mcafee: thank you. >> good afternoon, your honor. i am representing clark. i'm going to talk about conflicts and i'm going to assume the most difficult standard for us to me which is actual conflict. but before i begin that, i want

to add just a little bit to what has already been said about the standards that apply to prosecutors. our appellate courts courts have said often the administration of the law and especially that of the criminal law should like caesar's wife be above suspicion and should be free from all temptation, bias, or prejudice so far as it is possible for our courts to accomplish. but first, the occurrence of that that i can find his michael if he stayed more than 100 years ago, 1915, the most reason in the supreme court in 2010 although they don't refer to at season's wife. that requirement is also embedded in the prosecutor's statutory oath 15-18-2. which requires impartially and without fear or favor discharge my duties as district attorney and take only my lawful compensation so help me god.

the general rule on conflicts of interest for lawyers is in role of professional conduct 1.7. and we all know it is all drummed into 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 lawyer's independent professional judgment. that is the test of a conflict and whether it can be weighed, and whether it is disqualifying. and that conflict is not just financial. he can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment and you see that in maclachlan v pain. the court what was a personal interest for purposes of disqualification. it is anything that impairs professional judgment. that is reflected in the a.b.a.

standards that were quoted by mr. merchant which lists the prosecutor's personal political financial professional business property or other interests or relationships. and that is really embedded in the prosecutor's oath to act impartially. and the early disqualification word by judge mcburney was based on political interests, not financial. what my colleagues had described as forensic misconduct, it is also cognizable as a conflict of interest based on that footnote in the case. the root of all of the problems that we see in this court right now is a conflict of interest arising from their individual personal influence in perpetuating and concealing their relationship to public that is the original sin from which all of the other problems flow.

there are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case. any one of which marks disqualification but, like those collectively practically compel. first, the initial conflict that has already been covered. second, the personal ambition, political ambition. and third, there is a dovetail or complementary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money. fourth, the speech at the church. fifth, the motion for protective order that the d.a. filed and mr. wade's divorce case. sixth, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify especially the hearing. on the financial peace, the court asks for a limiting principle. and asked about materiality. the limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent

professional judgment of the lawyer. that is applied routinely. we have a county code section that slightly prohibits gifts from contractors. period. we have by analogy of 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 from the state failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory based on state the thomas 311 georgia 407, particularly footnote 19. as to the time in question that the court asks about, there were two contracts for mr. wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began. each one of them afflicted or

completed under county and common law. the second conflict is the political ambition for which he was previously testified -- chastised by judge mcburney. the inside flap of their says they were given exclusive access to thousands of secret documents, e-mails, text messages, and audio recordings. the court has twice denied defense motions to unseal special-purpose grand jury materials. she helped herself to get the glory of this book. i introduce certified copies of a number of county code sections. i'm not going to walk through those but i will tell you why they matter. the stack of law from the state constitution down to the countyy ordinances imposes a regime on the d.a. under which she has

three obligations. she has to go to the county commission to get approval to pay him like she did. she cannot accept gifts from. prohibitive source. she has to disclose the gifts that she received. she evaded all of those requirements. section 2-69 of the county code prohibits gifts from prohibited sources which he was an there's no boyfriend exception. the disclosure forms, the evidence sufficient for you to find at her disclosure form for 2022 is false. and it did not say false writing. that is an actual conflict of interest between her duty, a legal duty of disclosure, a legal duty of candor as a prosecutor and her private and personal interests in concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts, and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible.

his part in the pattern of concealment is the story you see in many divorce cases. the husband is hiding things from his wife. how much money he is making to the other woman, and what he is spending on the other woman. and he got on that stand. and he got understand and he lied about line in the interrogatories and lawyers for 38, 38 office, they let him do the d.a.'s office, they let him do it. they did nothing to correct obviously perjury testimony. in and of itself, that wants disqualification of every one of them. the reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble they are in right now. that served their personal interest to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors. the speech at the church. i want to focus on why she did

that. mr. gillen talk about that. she did it to deflect attention from her own misconduct and that of mr. wade. she violated her public duty as a prosecutor serve her personal interests and their personal interests of her boyfriend. that is a disco -- disqualifying conflict, personal interest in public duty. actual operational and materialized and it rests on undisputed facts. the next thing that she do that was a disqualifying conflict of interest was the emergency motion for protective order and she filed in the divorce. i filed a certified copy of that as exhibit 37. she sought a protective order on the grounds that she is that the a. the whole filing is expressly predicated on her status as the a. in fact, she never lets you forget it. she says it 27 times in 12

cases. in that filing, speaking as d.a., she said with circumstances" suggests that the defendant is using the legal process to harass and embarrass district attorney willis and in doing so is obstructing and interfering with an ongoing criminal investigation." on page 11, she asks for 6 months to "complete a review of the filings in the instant case, investigate and depose relevant witnesses with regard to the interference and obstruction in the motion contends ." there's no sugar coat the sugar coating it. it prohibits lawyers from making threats of criminal prosecution to gain advantage in a civil case. she abused her power. she abused her position to

threaten her boy friend's wife with criminal prosecution to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend in the boy friend's divorce. she violated her public duties not to make that kind of a threat in order to serve her private personal interest in those of mr. wade. another actual operational conflict. the last category is the concept of the defense of this hearing. there were a lot of objections made based on attorney-client privilege during mr. bradley's testimony. most of those objections were made by the state. but the privilege being asserted does not belong to the state. it belongs to mr. wade. that shows that the d.a.'s office is serving the personal interests of the d.a. and

mr. wade in carrying out further concealment and cover up of their and not the cause of justice they are sworn to serve. that is a conflict of interest. it is a continuation of the wrongful pattern of concealment and cover-up that they have engaged in since the beginning. but now they have enlisted the entire office in the prize. in the written response to the motion to disqualify, they said this. and ike quote, should be absolutely clear there is no evidence that d.a. willis derived any financial benefit from mr. wade. that is on page 15. flat out false. 10 lawyers in this case put their name on that. starting with the d.a. so throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of int interest.

the problem here is the d.a. cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other and apparently neither can anyone else in this. of the six conflicts i have identified, only one is subject to conflict. this is a case study and what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest? it has put an irreparable stain on the case. think of the message that could be sent if they were not disqualified. if this is tolerated, we will get more of it's office is a global laughingstock because of their conduct. they should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed.

>> your order, there's not much oxygen left in the room. we delineated the terms based on the whole presentation. with your honor consider some time for us in rebuttal? >> judge mcafee: no. >> and can i reserve what i have? >> john m: that is fine. >> thank you, your honor. >> judge mcafee: let's take a quick five and we will back at 240-ish to be here. thank you. >> john r: all right. so away from the superior court we go for a brief break. we don't know exactly how long it will be. but typically these things last anywhere from between 20, 45 minutes. i was quite a presentation, i think, sandra. a lot of people would say that it really keyed in on three things, whether there was just the appearance of a conflict of interest, whether or not nathan wade, fani willis, and terrence bradley were truthful back in --

so they are taking a quick break. we will. we will get to this real quick. and whether or not they were lying to the court, whether they were talking about their relationship. >> sandra: i'm hungry for some legal analysis, john. >> john r: so shannon bream is here kerri urbahn, leah terrel, what did you make of it? did the defense to make its case? interesting turn of events. >> john and sandra and kerri and shannon, absolutely. the lawyer did a fantastic summation to capitalize everything that has been presented. it is not just the appearance. it is the actual conflict and the magnitude of the i'm going to call it the church speech, which was an extrajudicial statement outside the courtroom that purchased donald trump and the other 18 defendants all want to do a quick call school class, go to the u.s. versus vervet. that was unethical but the financial impropriety, if there

was no conflict of interest, the defense is basically stating, why did they lied about the relationship? wade and willis regarding the start date by that life, it starts the domino effect of all the subsequent misrepresentation and i will say this again as a lawyer for 30 years. you never, never, never, never, never, never, never lied to the court. and i think there's been overwhelming without evidence, for the nation to see that fani willis and nathan wade are you basically have lied to the court. twinless point. i will submit to you that this judge is under tremendous local state and national pressure to do the right thing and if he does the right thing, he will face some severe ramifications in my opinion. >> sandra: kerri, what struck you? >> kerri: i agree with leo. i was struck by the pointing out of the appropriateness of the speech where district attorney said god is on my side. for a.d.a. to say that about a case that she is overseeing

before it is even reached a jury is remarkably inappropriate and i think it should be referred to the local bar and it seems to be a violation of the professionals of responsibility. another thing that struck me was the lawyer for the former republican party chair of georgia, i thought he did an excellent job of laying out, dismantling piece by piece the problems in the testimony that both willis and wade have presented and he said this, i have been a federal prosecutor for many years. i have been a lawyer for many years. prosecutors don't act like this. lawyers don't act like this. this is a systemic misconduct and i need to go. >> john r: and shannon, you and i were talking about this before the court wrapped up there. this case will seemed to hinge at a single text message. that was a text message when ashleigh merchant said, did this start before he was hired? responding, absolutely, then i said to you, well, would it only be -- when it only be inappropriate and conflict of

interest if this relationship started before and fani willis is there in court, before he was hired or if they had a relationship after that, would that be inappropriate as well? >> and that is the question. but now it has gotten so much more expensive beyond that question and you heard a couple of the attorneys saying this is not a perjury trial. this judge does not have to decide if someone lied under oath or not. but in this proceeding, he does have a chance to make assessments about credibility and there have been people on the stands who have told differing stories. all of that he can assess and remember, if d.a. willis is disqualified, that means her entire team, her entire office would be blocked from prosecuting and moving this forward. there's a state agency that would then come in and see if this is assigned to a different d.a. somewhere else in the state. is your that would be a massive delay and can change the very structure of the core of the charges, the defendants, all of it but there is a chance this judge says, hey, you have not

come to me. there's a lot of talk of who has the burden of proof and you have not proven to be beyond a shadow of the doubt or question of credibility whatever the burden is here that there was actually something going on here that was nefarious and unethical. only scott mcafee can make that. he has been glamping you heard the attorneys saying, can i have time for a rebuttal. he was like, you know. he is trying to play by the rules and say, we will wrap it up today. >> sandra: leo, perhaps this will be the final topic fani willis has entered the room and the judge said they will be returning. quick thoughts before we get back in here. >> leo: no question, the fact that she is in the courtroom, sandra, john, shannon, kelly, she is going down with that shipped. she is not going to drop out. she is going to go down with the ship and force the judge to make the ruling. that is her presence there is a sign of defiance. >> john r: as we just wait for the court to start back up again, maybe we can put this up. 's was a call f for number one.

of the text messages between terrence bradley and ashleigh merchant. terrence bradley says, it does not surprise me they took so many trips together, ashleigh merchant writes back, he says, florida texas, merchant says that now. , brantley, california, britain, europe, brandy when she moved there. merchant says she can't believe they were so carefully and then says, i am trying to anticipate her response when i blow this up. sandra, we are about to find out. >> sandra: we are indeed. kerri, do you want to get a final thought in here? >> kerri: it will be interesting to see how this plays out. i did think that the discussion around the former divorce lawyer and his text messages and why they cannot get a statement locked down. the judge was making the putt practice would be better if you had a lockdown statement versus these text messages and the defense said, but these are text messages to the defense lawyer and we have the right here? what is the difference? but certainly something to judge

is considering today. >> john r: the one thing that the judge said, shannon, coming in. one thing the judge said that caught my ear was what he was talk about the text message where bradley said, absolutely. the relationship started before he was hired. what you have to prove that brantley actually was telling the truth and that text? >> shannon: and then they said, he went on there totally unprompted and gave all kinds of details. so that was unprompted. that followed on his statement that seemed pretty unequivocal. the word, absolutely. >> sandra: kyle wright, shannon, back in the courtroom. the judge is now speaking. let's listen. >> judge mcafee: was the file name? you are excreting on the zoom. all right. i'm just making sure. bear with us. >> i can start. >> judge mcafee: all right, the floor is yours. >> good afternoon, your honor. i want to start with some of the things that were addressed over

the last hour and a half. first, beginning with something mr. merchant referenced as it related to the comments that the state made in regards to the good faith basis in which was submitted to the court, in which defense counsel claimed the evidence would show up. and i would strongly bring to the court's attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations and what i will say to the court and why i say that to the court is because the representations that were made by counsel was that mistakes are young, miss sonia allen, mr. textus -- dexter lawrence investigator hill, investigator green, investigator rex, all of these people would be called and mr. bradley would be able to impeach their

knowledge by saying that he is specifically in his presence or to him said that miss willis and mr. wade were in a romantic relationship and that miss willis and mr. wade were cohabitating, that they all knew that and i would submit to the court, we did not hear from any of those individuals. mr. bradley impeached no one. and i say no one because he did not impeach mr. wade. in order to properly impeach a witness, you have to confront the witness with the specific statements. mr. wade and you can look back at the youtube of the entire hearings of the last couple days mr. wade was not once confronted with the statement that he claimed or said or that has claimed that he said to mr. bradley the way you properly impeach somebody, you have to confront the witness here with mr. wade and once he makes a statement that you believe to be inconsistent and you have a

witness who can prove that inconsistency, that is when you call that witness. and when mr. wade was on the stand not once was he asked, did you tell mr. bradley this in a confidential conversation in your conference room, that was not covered under attorney-client privilege. that was not asked. the specifics of the conversation was not asked. so any testimony that mr. bradley testified to is impermissible. it is improper impeachment. because they did not confront mr. wade with it. so that is where the state would begin with the comments that mre referencing his wife as wine. and never called miss merchant a liar but i never used those words. i don't know why she made the material written misrepresentations. it could be because to bradley lied to her. i don't know the reason. so but i can submit to the court that those were material

misrepresentations that were made to this court on the day, a few months ago, as everyone was arguing that the motions to quash certain subpoenas. i would also bring to the court's attention that during the motion to quash subpoenas, certain subpoenas, the attorney appeared. mr. partridge, and he made very clear on that zoom that she had absolutely no knowledge of a romantic relationship and no knowledge of cohabitation. those were the specific references that he made. so what i would submit to the court is those are considered adoptive omissions that his client has made based on the statements he made because of the representations she made to him. and it sounds convoluted but what i would say to the court is she told mr. partridge because mr. partridge told the court that she had absolutely no

information about romantic relationship and absolutely no information in regards to -- >> judge mcafee: are you making an argument that these would be attorney-client privileges or communications than? she is communicating with mr. partridge, that is why she has hired him and i should invert things based on the, vacations to him? >> adam: absolutely because they are not attorney-client medications when he discloses them to the court and everyone else as they watch the zoom and attend the hearing, the difference is is there was no request to go on camera. there is no request to go or to have a private conversation with you as was done with mr. bradley. that would have been the proper procedure. so yes, i'm asking you to infer that, 100%. her testimony was at best inconsistent. because the testimony of miss yeartie when she testified was that their little description when asked in a very leading

manner, is is it true or do you know that miss willis and mr. wade were in a relationship from 2019 into the time you were forced to resign from the district attorney's office in march of 2022. she said yes. and then further when pressed by mr. sadow, he talks about why she believed they were in a relationship. and what was interesting from miss yeartie's testimony that they were very close friends of until she left the d.a.'s office, that she asserted to the court that on a yearly basis, miss willis said, i'm in a relationship with mr. wade in 2019. o, by the way, i want to tell you again in 2020, because we we are in a new year, i'm still in a relationship with mr. wade and again, in 2021, the assertion is ms. willis than went back to

miss yeartie and confirmed, i want to read, -- reconfirm me and mr. wade are still in a relationship. it is absurd. it is absolutely absurd. more importantly, when mr. sadow asked her about why she believed that they were in a romantic relationship based on her own observations, she said something, he said he actually asked her, you -- did you see her kissing and hugging? she said yes but there is no description or qualification about when it occurred, what she actually saw, was it a kiss on the cheek, things of that nature. i would ask you to frame her testimony from that standpoint when you are addressing her credibility as the court is going to do with each and every witness that you have heard during the testimony of all the witnesses during the hearing. i'm going to see if my screen will share.

now, i will talk a little bit about the standard and the burden here in this instance as it relates to defense counsel and the claims that they have made and the motion to disqualify. and as i was doing a whole lot of research, i came upon this law review article from cornell

scholarship reading or obligation. and they made very clear that courts have been relatively reluctant to exercise their power to disqualified prosecutors for any reason. and that goes along with the standard width with the estate would submit to the court is that the defense has to show an actual conflict and in this instance, they have to show the actual conflict would be that miss willis received a financial benefit or gain and did it based or not it based upon the outcome of the case. it does not make any sense. it makes absolutely no sense. and during the three days of the instance of testimony, of all of the witnesses and the prolonged examinations of the witnesses by multiple defense counsel, they still got nowhere. we are in the same position we were in on monday.

the same assertions that were made on monday have no answers today as we are before your order. they were not able to provide any evidence as to or to the contrary of miss willis and mist their relationship began. there's absolutely no evidence that contradicts that the relationship did not begin later then or around march of 2022, your honor. i further submit to the court, because of this failure, that their assertion or their request that, when, the indictment be dismissed. there's absolutely no evidence that the defendants in this case, their due process rights have been harmed and absolutely any way. there was zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was produced to any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing how their constitutional rights, their due process rights were all affected by the relationship that began in march of 2022 with

miss willis and mr. wade. and because of that, the motion to disqualify should be denied and miss willis as the district attorney of fulton county and mr. wade as the special prosecutor assigned in this case, the -- should be allowed to remain in this case and continues to prosecute the case to the end, your honor, told the trial is set by the court and is to begin. now, the issue is obviously you have heard a lot from defense counsel as to what the issues are for you to, i guess, determine. and here, it would be the state's contention is that you must find that there's an actual conflict if you where or are come to the conclusion that you should disqualify ms. willis and the district attorney's office and looking at --

>> judge mcafee: i think you are talking about -- >> adam: 342 georgia appeal 170. it is 2017 case. in that case, it talks about the standard of proof that the defense, the burden that the defense must show and go to show an actual conflict is that they say it is a high standard of proof, which is definitely not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower burden for any party who is trying to meet that standard of preponderance. it is very clear that what the standard is is that it is a high standard of proof for both when determining whether there's an actual conflict and when there's a frantic misconduct that is found, your honor. and i want to go through some of the cases that defense counsel has referenced as they argued here today and in their filings and i guess the bright line

standard or the standard of which and the grounds for which disqualification is appropriate for your order to be determining in all of these cases as it relates to disqualifying the elected district attorney, find that there's a conflict of interest or that there's been some sort of forensic misconduct. those are, i guess, the two areas that your honor, that is in your purview for what you are looking to resolve an issue regarding disqualification. now, in a recent case, we via estate, which is to 25 -- i'm sorry, lexis 31, it is february of 2024. it is the case out of our appellate? and in that case, justice pinson wrote that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing

to disqualify an assistant district attorney as an actual conflict of interest and that is the case that was ruled on by the georgia court of appeals about a month ago, your honor. now, the cases in which defense counsel has relied on in the paul reis and here today, i would submit to the court the sites are misleading. in act your and some of them actually support the state's position and what i would say to you is that the defendants in many instances combine language from the multiple cases and kind of what i would say is misstates the law as it relates to what the law or what is required in order for an elected district attorney and their office to be disqualified. and what i would submit to the court is --

>> judge mcafee: let's go back to that back show me how. >> adam: yes. show you how? >> judge mcafee: so i think the first one was battle versus the state. certainly a conflict of interest with the appearance of impropriety, would that be the grounds of disqualification? there are a number of these cases that seem to exclusively rely on the appearance of impropriety. i think they acknowledge that there's some ambiguity that sometimes whitworth gets cited and you got this quote that comes up where they only cite to an actual conflict that must be involved. they acknowledge the ambiguity. you are saying there's no ambiguity whatsoever. >> adam: i am saying that. why i'm saying that, is in all of those cases, they do reference the appearance of an april party but they've referenced that because they also want there's an actual conflict in each one of those

cases. >> judge mcafee: so your position would be there's never been an appellate opinion that relied only on an appearance of the pre-party? >> adam: as it relates to the district attorney, yes, that is what i'm saying. what i'm saying is in those cases, they do reference the fact that there is an appearance of impropriety that they referenced that fact because when you have an actual con conflict, there's always an appearance of impropriety. and those are what of those cases stand for i guess that is the main example of what i referenced as the kind of combine the language from separate, from different cases, and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety and i would submit to the court, that is not the standard. and in my first reading, like your honor, i did notice that the cases each reference the appearance of a pre-party. but also that that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each one of those cases. so i won't belabor the point in

going through all of the cases that the defense had excited, but i would submit to the court is that i found that it kind of fell into five categories. some that did not concern this qualification at all, some that instrument or that were about, i call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict arises from representing a -- becoming a prosecutor and then having representatives, the defendant prior to becoming a prosecutor and then whether there's an actual personal interest in the outcome and then others talk about whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial at the conclusion and the -- of the case after conviction. and these are some of the cases