what i would submit to the court in reading the cases is that i found that they kind of fell into five categories. some that didn't concern disqualification at all. some that determined -- that were about i call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict that arises from representing a -- becoming a prosecutor and then having represented the defendant prior to becoming a prosecutor. and then whether there's an actual personal interest in the outcome, and others talk act whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial at the conclusion of the case after conviction. and these are some of the cases that defense counsel had cited within their brief that had absolutely no application to the issue before your honor today.

mciver has nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. >> some of these are relating to kind of aspiring for broad language for standards for prosecutors. point taken there. but if they're -- keep going. >> as it relates to one of the cases that was referenced here earlier and is also referenced in some of the briefing by defense counsel is 287 georgia 542, and all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call category is about a attorney who formally prosecuted a defendant in, i guess, the same type of case or the same case or similar charges, and that would be why the court

found that disqualification would be necessary because of the relationship that existed between the former client and the person being prosecuted, your honor. the next series of slides just goes through what has been addressed as it relates to the standard that is required when dealing with the issue of disqualification, and the state would contend and submit to the court that the defense must show an actual conflict in order to have the district attorney disqualified and that actual conflict has to be in the form of showing that ms. willis in this instance received a financial benefit or gain in

relation to the outcome of the case. like many of the cases that involved personal interest, your honor, it's all based on the contingency fee, where how much they're paid or a bonus, for example, is dependent upon the outcome of the case. that's how one is to show that there's a personal interest in the case. we have none of that here. i would submit to the court. we have no evidence that ms. willis received any financial gain or benefit. the testimony was that ms. willis paid all of the money back in cash as it related to the trips, and didn't pay back in cash, it was exchanged. >> let me explore this a little bit. >> in addition to, you're saying it's only an actual conflict, you're saying if a financial interest is affecting the final result, the outcome, that's the only one we should be worried about? or is it that the prosecution as a whole is what we should be

looking at as a stake. what if adas are given a bonus for every motion to suppress they win, a thousand dollars for fourth amendment claim they win. now they have an incentive if one of their officers is lying, they don't want to tell you about it. you can win a motion to suppress or lose it. that doesn't dd whether it's going to be a guilty or not guilty verdict, but doesn't that affect the prosecution of the case, if not the outcome. >> that would be an instance where disqualification would be necessary and appropriate because it's a situation that involves a contingency fee, and i would submit to the court that it does end up affecting. >> it could based on how important the motion to suppress is. if it's some immaterial, i don't know, but, i guess, so you're saying it's maybe not so much just the -- whether it's a guilty or not guilty, dismissal,

it is the conduct of the prosecution that should be looked at throughout the course of the prosecution. >> correct, as it relates to how it affects the prosecution, which i would submit to the court ultimately is going to affect the end outcome of the case. if you have a contingency fee based on winning or, you know, if you win a motion to suppress and if you win, you get, you know, a bonus, as your honor referenced, i think that that is ultimately going to affect the end outcome of the case because as your honor just said, there's an instance where an officer is lying or where there isn't a good faith to go forward with that motion, the prosecutor would go forward regardless because of the contingency fee. which not only affects the prosecution, but ultimately affects the entire case because if they were to win a motion to suppress, the motion would be denied, knowing they didn't have a good faith basis to go

forward, affects the ultimate outcome of the case. i think it's two-fold as your honor has referenced. i think it's at that part of the, i guess, the procedure or the proceedings, would definitely qualify for a reason necessary to disqualify a prosecuting agency. ultimately that action during the procedure will lead to the ultimate outcome of the case being or hinging upon a contingency fee like the ones in the cases referenced by counsel in the state that are on the screen. >> and so getting into the language again, what you just had up there with greater amusements and amusements sales. it is one of those, you refer to the appearance of conflict. i think the quote is it guarantees. it's central to the holding of the case.

>> i don't disagree. in that case, an actual conflict was found and the appearance . >> they didn't find that. >> i would disagree. my reading of the case is that an actual conflict was found but because of that actual conflict, an appearance of impropriety was seen, and that's the reference or why the state referenced that case in relation to the argument that an actual conflict is required. and the series of cases, young, that was referenced by defense counsel, as well as nichols v state are both instances where there's a personal interest in the case, due to the situation and where at one point they were opposing parties, and of course there's a personal interest or stake as it relates to

prosecuting an opposing party in a civil claim, which is what both of those cases reference, which shows that there's an actual conflict of interest that relates to the personal gain of the specific prosecuting agency. >> and what do you make of nichols' reference, it's an older case. sometimes the language can be what we're not accustomed to seeing. they refer to the metaphor of caesar's wife. when that's used as an ethical standard, that's something that goes beyond just an actual conflict, right, isn't the beyond approach getting more into appearance world? >> is it getting beyond? >> is it getting into the appearance aspect of things when we're talking about caesar's wife. >> i think it goes beyond that based on the language of the holding in that case where it literally says that individual

had a personal interest in obtaining a fee by forcing the settlement in the civil case and using the criminal case as lever raj. that's not an appearance of impropriety, that's a conflict of interest which rises because of the individual's personal stake in the end outcome of the case, your honor, so that's how i would differentiate, i guess, the representations of defense counsel as it relates to the standard or the burden that must be shown and why the state would submit to the court and the motorist recently ruling out of the georgia appellate courts that an actual conflict is required to be shown. i'm going to skip threw these series of slides. you have heard all about

wentworth. i go back to what we referenced earlier, the grounds in which district attorney can be disqualified is where a conflict of interest is found, and where there's forensic misconduct that is found. those are the two grounds that are to be within the purview of the court as it relates to issues here. again, i go back to the most recent case that was justice pinson wrote about, and that must be by failing to disqualify the assistant district attorney, absent an actual conflict of intersection, i think the language there is very clear, and i think it's very controlling, and i think it's purposeful, i would submit to the court because an actual conflict of interest is what is required in order for a district attorney to be disqualified because the cases make very

clear and through the precedent relating to this issue that a disqualification of a district attorney is the last, for lack of a better word, ditch effort that should be exercised as it relates to the court and curing certain conflicts that may arise. i think the case law is very clear that every effort is supposed to be made instead of or in lieu of disqualifying the district attorney, unless an actual conflict of interest is what's found, your honor, and it can't be cured. what i would reference to the court as was brought up earlier in lions versus state, a 1999 case where it talked about

theoretical or speculative conflict, will not impugn a conviction. speculation, assumptions are not enough for anything to arise to an actual conflict, and what i would submit to the court as well that that goes to the fact that what has to be shown is an actual conflict. if it's speculation. >> is there any qualifier that that is in a post conviction context, talking about competence evidence. we're in a pretrial phrase. i wonder how much import to give that sense in a pretrial. that's assessing whether to overturn a conviction. usually that's an entirely different trial. i know there's no harmless air when it comes to disqualifications. just a thought. >> i think what your honor said

is pretty on point in the sense that if it's found, if the trial court applied the wrong standard or should have disqualified the district attorney, it leads to an automatic reversal, like ux, and it goes back to the trial court, and i think that is very enlightening in the sense that that's only done if an actual conflict is shown and the fact that it can't just be theoretical, speculative or assumptions that would lead to the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of a conflict that would -- >> i'm borrowing kind of from as we have been doing in the other pretrial motions, special demurs seem to get different treatment, preand post trial. i'm wondering if the same principle qualifies with disqualification. i don't have the answer to that. >> what i would also say, and i don't remember the exact line,

but in judge mcburr -- the standard conviction that applies, during pretrial issues and what i would say to the court is that -- >> so support? i didn't think the state was all that pleased with, you know, the analysis applied. legal analysis that is. >> i'm citing what you specifically referenced as to the standard that's to be applied pretrial and post trial, whether it makes a difference, and what i would say is the answer is no as it relates to the speculative nature of the allegations or the claims made by defense counsel as it relates to whether a conflict actually exists, your honor. what i can't do at the moment is

point to the impact page at the end of the state's argument. >> i think i know what you're talking about, the footnote where he references the appearance. >> yes. >> i'm looking at it. >> further in 267 georgia 41 on page 42, it's a 1996 case where the court says nevertheless, the conflict must be palpable and have a substantial basis in fact, a theoretical or speculative conflict will not impugn a conviction which is supported by competent evidence. i understand as it relates to the post conviction factor, the status of the case being in post conviction based on your honor's earlier inquiry, but i would submit to the court that as it relates to the issue of disqualification, that the standard is the same, whether it's post conviction or pretrial. bloomfield, 247 georgia 406, a

1981 case. have not showed a case where a pro se rule was applied on the basis of -- stand for the proposition that a trial judge is authorized in georgia to disqualify an attorney solely based on the appearance of impropriety. it goes to the submission o. court that the standard is an actually conflict must be shown and that conflict rises, shows that there's a personal stage of the district attorney as it relates to their personal financial gain that's being alleged. in the case that's been referenced by all parties here today, whitworth versus state appeal 790, 2005 case.

in that case, whit worth's complaints are largely based on speculation and conjecture. applying any evidence standard to the record it's clear the trial court did not abuse its discretion to disqualify morgan based upon his personal interests in his conviction. >> aren't we past the speculation and conjecture aspect of this, though? the original and the core of the financial allegation is there is a relationship and money has changed hands. there's maybe an open question of where the ledger stands but i think it was conceded that that balance could run in the district attorney's favor. is that contested? >> yes. what's not contested is that a relationship did develop. >> and that purchases were made back and forth, that's the state's position. >> that is the state's position. but they were made back and

forth. the purchases were made back and forth, either to equal the money that was spent by one party or the other and if that wasn't done, cash was exchanged, in order to equal the costs that were paid by either one of the parties. >> right. but that's a fact at issue. whether it was, you know, split even or whether it goes a little bit one way or another, or whether it's all the way $10,000 or another, that's a fact at issue, but it's no longer just the theory that money changed hands, no longer speculation or conjecture. >> i agree money changed hands is not speculation and conjecture, whether that money that changed hands had any financial benefit, that is all speculation and conjecture. i would send it to the court. absolutely all speculation and conjecture to harass and embarrass the district attorney based on questions that were

asked that had nothing to do with the proceedings here. the lien on her alleged house. that was highly irrelevant. had nothing to do with the proceedings and the exchange of money between the district attorney and mr. wade. the point of that line of questioning was to embarrass or harris the district attorney in a way that was very public, and in a way that was to impugn her character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the proceedings as it unfolded. and the language in whitworth, i would again submit to the court requires that an actual conflict must be shown. which is why the reference to speculation and conjecture is, again, referenced bauds because speculation and con

, which is what is required based on the case law. so in state versus sutherland, 190 georgia appeals 606. a 1989 case. and it says while the prosecuting officers should see that no unfair advantage is taken of the accused, he is not a judicial officer. those who are required to exercise judicial functioning in the case are the judge and the public prosecutor is not necessarily a partisan in the case. if we were compelled to the same circumspection as the judge and jury, there would be an end to the conviction of criminals, which goes to the premise that the appearance of impropriety is to apply to judges, not

prosecutors, because if that standard was to be applied in the manner in which the sutherland case s there would never be a criminal prosecution because the state is always going to appear bias as it relates to getting justice drt victims or righting the wrong as it relates to the crimes in which the defendant has been indicted or accused of. >> i want to move in to the evidence that your honor saw and heard during the last couple of days. three total days of testimony as it relates to the witness. the witnesses.

you heard from mr. yeartie who the state would contend is a disgruntled former employee. you heard from terrence bradley, also someone who is disgruntled. former partner. the text messages in the state's opinion show that he is vengeful. you heard from his own testimony here sitting before the court that he -- all he did was speculate and any information that he had and garnered and passed on to ms. merchan was speculation. i believe he said that over and over again when asked if he had personal knowledge. my recollection is around 15 times he said he had absolutely no personal knowledge. >> we're going to take a short break from this because we have a little bit of news out of florida in fort pearce specifically where the judge cannon hearing about the classified documents case and whether they would set a trial date has been going on. it adjourned a few minutes ago

with no resolution on a trial date. still with us, lisa rubin and andrew weissmann, no trial date for classified documents, surpriseing? >> no, i didn't find it surprising. it's anyone's guess. i think there's a tension here. she doesn't want to get reversed by the 11th circuit and removed from the case, and i don't think she wants to set a trial before the general election. that's a tension. i think one way to resolve that is for her to continue doing what she's doing, which is to keep kicking the can down the road. >> can you help us laymen understand how you can do that. how you can keep kicking it down the road. how she has so much discretion and leeway here? >> so picking a trial date is something that judges do a lot of discretion and to be fair there are a lot of pretrial

motions, and one of the things the defense does is keep loading all the of the motions. an experiences judge, a fair, imparable experienced judge is going to make sure that one defendant has due process to make sure that the case does not go to trial before the defendant has enough time to prepare. almost no defendant wants a trial. any day that you can move it away is a good day. so a good judge at some point says enough is enough. this is the date and i'm sticking with it. >> there's also in this very short note i got about what happened. judge cannon said she would take the special council's motion into advisement. i'm stuck on this. no further hearing dates set yet. >> there is a motion to compel additional discovery by former president trump so he can support a motion to dismiss the

indictment on grounds of selective process. the special counsel is out to get me and if i have more information, i can poouf that. in the course of litigating, it would reveal the names and identities and in some cases, testimonial content for two dozen ways. that's what the special counsel's office has asked her to reconsider. if they lose that motion, that's when we'll see the first appeal to the 11th circuit. >> she also might not rule on it anytime soon, right? >> it's possible. by not ruling on it anytime soon, the special counsel's office has the status quo. those materials, those names are still sealed. that's a good thing for the special counsel. >> let's now explain what's going on in the hearing that we

have been watching, the final arguments on whether to disqualify, d.a. fani willis from the election interference case in gather. let's bring in melissa redmon. you're a prosecutor justice program at the university of georgia school of law. good to have you. what do you think so far of the d.a.'s team, the prosecution in their defense? >> the prosecution seems to spend a lot of time arguing about what the burden is, whether it's an appearance of impropriety and conflict. that argue could have been made in a few minutes and the bulk o. time spent on how the defense hasn't met either of those burrs. you take the form of the allegations on tear -- on the

sur face. whenever it started, it mounted an interest why this case was prosecuted. there was no dispute that mr. wade was not her first choice, how many hours he worked that he wasn't paid for. one of the questions judge mcafee asked the defense tackle, whether we look at this. having to move from your home. the personal costs when you're weighing whether or not these can be prosecuted so they could go on the few a vacations. i would focus on the lack of evidence we saw in the evidentiary hearing and whatever the burden is that's a legal determination the judge can pak based on the case they have present already. >> you were the deputy d.a. for

fulton county. you understand. i'm struck by this lawyer is kind of hard to watch. just, i mean, as a layman, he's kind of hard to watch. is this the best the d.a.'s team has to put up. >> adam is a very good attorney. he mainly, from my understanding and i have been going a little while, tries murder cases. when you talk about these nuanced arguments. i don't know if this is something he's used to presenting. i would imagine generally what happens is the whole team gets together and they flush out which cases should be cited, how the arguments should be presented. as a trial attorney, you have to be disciplined and resist temptation to go forward with your plan, and highlight the weakness in the defense argument as opposed to taking the debate

from the defense and responding arguing to them, as opposed to to settle in, they what you were going to say. >> melissa, what have you gleend from the way the judge has been questioning so far. do you have a sense of which way he might be leaning. >> we have an indication of what he's looking for. what is the burden, when is that burden met, like what amounts to personal interest. is it appearance of impropriety. what do those places come into play. is it actual play, and has it been presented, something that meets either of those burdens. that's what he's looking for the attorney to answer. >> greg, one of the moments a little bit earlier when the defense team, which sounds headache the prosecution in it circumstance was giving their

target closing arguments. they brought up testimony from wade's divorce attorney. can you flush out what the text messages had and how convincing they seem to be? >> yeah, we were able to review the text messages a few days ago. it shows that terrence brandley wasn't as reluck taint of a witness as we have seen on the stand. he kept on saying he didn't remember, he didn't know. very evasive, but the texts show that he helped ashley merchan, urged her to disqualify. you go girl. he agreed to the subpoena. defense attorneys, they said essentially that he had lied even thoed they said that.

but those text messages reveal a little bit more to the relationship. >> fulton county is now arguing bradley was disgruntled because of allegations of sexual assault, and that's why he was going after nathan wade. let's listen back in. >> again, mr. bradley had every motive to lie. i believe the text messages are kind of clear, very clear, as it relates to his disdain towards mr. wade, due to the fact that he was expelled or exiled from a thriving practice. it was clear the practice and mr. wade sided with the all theed sexual assault victim. he assaulted her due to the fact that he paid her off.

and as i referenced earlier, ms. merchan represented that mr. bradley had personal firsthand knowledge of it all, and he would be able to basically be an impeaching machine. your honor witnessed as a star witness. in relation to ms. merchant's representations to the court. what i would submit to the court is that all of mr. bradley's representations as it relates to or when the relationship between ms. willis and mr. wade began, and whether they cohabitated. that was a promise that was made, he would be able to impeach the investigators. it was mere speculation, gossip and innuendo. and this is, your honor. >> the impression i got, and we can correct this while we're all here together is there bradley

directly overheard a statement from each of these individuals that they could be impeached for this. is that accurate? >> directly overheard, which ones are we talking about? >> essentially there kind of seem to be all of a sudden of them. you had said allen, young, and then the investigators, hill, green and rich, could be directly impeached by statements heard over mr. bradley. >> the unequivocal answer was yes and no. when your honor is looking through the text messages, i would submit to the court that the text messages don't even say or indicate what was represented to the court in relation to the good faith basis. or this motion to disqualify as it relates to the testimony and the ability to impeach witnesses through mr. bradley. what's been referenced by all

counsel mr. bradley's assertion of absolutely as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to mr. wade's hiring. the question in itself involved speculation. do you think it started before she hired him. doesn't provide context as to how he knows and in the text messages and through the testimony with the court, his source of his information was unclear. was what i would say to the court, as to a lot of things, other than the one conversation that allegedly occurred between mr. wade and mr. bradley, and i would submit to the court that the conversation never occurred. that would be the state's contention. how do we know that?

we know that because that conversation was not confronted or mr. wade was not confronted with that conversation, and that is evidence, circumstantially, and i would say direct because based on the representation made by defense counsel, it would be clear that would be a conversation that would have been relayed to ms. merchan. if that conversation happened you better believe that would have been a conversation that defense counsel would have confronted mr. wade with and against. the reason they didn't do that is because it didn't exist. again, you heard from mr. john c. floyd iii, the district attorney's father. as your honor heard, he was a well respected member of the legal community for over 40

years. the importance of his testimony was to provide the court with corroboration as it relates to years leading up to the relationship that transitioned into dating between the district attorney and mr. wade. what he testified to is he moved into our south fulton home in 2019. the evidence of his moving into the home at that time was his georgia driver's license. official government document. he further testified that not only that just ms. willis and himself live at the south fulton home, but that he often would see on numerous occasions the significant other of ms. willis, that was not mr. wade. that person had a nickname of deuce, and that he kept a lot of

belongings in the garage of ms. willis. he kept disjockey equipment, how he referred to it, before the court. he made it very clear that he had never seen mr. wade at the south fulton home, owned by ms. willis. he made it clear he lived in the home with ms. willis and ms. willis alone, other than her two daughters that would occasionally visit the home until after of february of 2021, but what precipitated the soon move of ms. willis to what i would reference as safe houses for her protection was a protest that occurred before her home in february of 2021. he then expressed to the court that ms. willis moved in the spring of 2021, and due to these threats that were taken seriously, he had only seen his child 13 times. he said in reference to the

questions, by defense council that we're in -- and i'm just going to be straight up with the court. it was they were trying to make ms. willis a liar, is how i would submit to the court in the sense that she testified that she was concerned for her safety and her family's safety, which included her father and dollars, and that mr. floyd remaining in that home kind of rebutted all of that. made it so it wasn't true. he testified she stayed in the home, it was a home she put her blood, sweat and tears in. and he stayed in the home because there was constant officer presence. he told the court he bought extra security. he sleft in different rooms in

different nights. i would submit to the court, the loin of question was done an attempt to discredit ms. willis but failed. how the state would characterize it. then he testified about the first time that he did meet mr. wade in 2023. here at the district attorney's office. he talked about how he kept cash in his home, and why ms. willis kept cash in her home. what the court should take note of is the state didn't ask mr. floyd about the cash in his home. that came out through the cross-examination of defense council. it was the implication that mr. floyd only did so through his reparation with the state, and his hearing and seeing news

articles and clips letted to the testimony that had occurred prior to him. i would submit to the court, it's telling that that information came out through questioned asked by defense counsel which gives credibility to the statements that were made. and he further explained why he taught his daughter to keep cash in the home as it relates to financial independence and having a safety net. it was further testified that he had multiple saves and he gave ms. willis her first lock box for situations as she described when she was teflg, and what i would to make clear, she was pressed about the cash. did it follow her where she laid her head. things of that nature. trying to further discredit the practice she had of keeping cash in her home, and shy she had the

case for mr. wade and other situations. what i would, what the court should take note of is that there was no evidence that con there was noun. the only evidence is it was substantiated through the testimony of her taur, mr. floyd. further more you heard from former governor troy barnes. his testimony was significant and important. how i would phrase it. >> on this point, and i think you might have had a more recent opportunity to review his testimony than i have. you say on the slide she was the first choice to lead the

prosecution. was that actually his testimony or was his testimony he was asked to come aboard? did he use the words, he was asked to lead. >> that's my recollection he was asked to lead the prosecution, asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently in, the lead prosecutor. service said that way as well as it relates to the testimony of mr. barnes. what i submit to the court, i know he also said that he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently filling for the state of georgia. >> a special grand jury prosecutor, right? . >> yeah, as the special prosecutor, lead the investigation, which led to the ultimate prosecution that we're here for today. he indicated that the reason he turned the job down was because

it didn't pay enough. he had mouths to feed at his law firm, and didn't want to live the rest of his life with body guards. he had lived that when he was the governor of georgia. i still find it quite interesting and confusing as to attacking mr. maid's qualifications. it's almost as if mr. roman's counsel is asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case that she sees to be more qualified to attempt to conflict her client. it's an interesting argument. and it's one that makes no sense. if you were to believe the claims and allegations as it relates to ms. willis' personal stake, the receiving of

financial benefits, then you would have to believe she was also dating roy barnes, the former governor and banks. if she has this grand plan scheme in order to profit off of the prosecution of this case because that's what they're saying. or saying that she telepathically or pro fetically -- prophetically was able to know that mr. barnes would turn down the position so she could hire mr. wade. it's ridiculous, absurd, and desperate, a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case for absolutely no reason, your honor. other than harassment. and embarrassment. this slide, and we have been through a lot of the testimony -- >> and i should be clear there. it was not introduced in

evidence that mr. banks turned her down. how is that part of the record? >> i'd ask the court to take judicial notices. have been asked repeatedly. >> unless the district attorney testified to that. i don't recall offhand gl i don't recall if ms. willis testified to that. as it relations to the allegations. >> i want to make sure we know exactly what is in the evidence and what is not. regardless, i think your point is made. >> i think it's in evidence of the record as it relates to i guess the issues that led up to the actual hearing of the case. i understand your honor's position, but it did come out during a proceeding that was prior to the actual hearing. this slide is just a chart showing the testimony of both.

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 their relationship evolved into a romantic one. talking about the trips in which they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic, and when it ending, and again i would submit to the court is that those facts were consistent and the only person who contra contrawas mr. yeartie. a witness other than mr. bradley who could bring to the forefront this issue of cohabitation. when pressed and asked about it, ms. yeartie had no information when it relates to this alleged cohabitation. it was false.

she had no information. she was asked about trips. she said she had no information about the trip, yet she's such a good friend that mrs. willis confirmed each year that mr. wade and her continued to be in a relationship, 2019, 2020, and until their relationship ended due to her forced resignation, and splintering of their friendship, your honor. i guess several exhibits, obviously were tendered in, most of them were exhibits that came from the sealed divorce of mr. wade and ms. joslyn wade. the contracts for legal services, trip itineraries and the text messages. i would reference prior to today, the only text messages were defense exhibits 26 and 27, which it's the assertion of

defense council that what those show is that mr. bradley was -- had information as it relates to the relationship starting prior to march of 2022, and that's just false. those text messages do not contain that. it does not pinpoint just as mr. bradley couldn't when the relationship actually started and furthermore, you have the testimony and the evidence of the text messages that it was mere speculation. as your honor reviews the full chain of text messages, it is clearly ms. merchan, and mr. bradley, going through what i can describe as nothing else other than a mere fishing expedition between the two of them. it's asked about certain members of the d.a.'s office who have information as it relates specifically for one, ms. young. it is asked whether she would have information. he had no idea.

the same as each person subpoenaed adds referenced in the text messages. all of that was speculation. you know it was speculation, because not a single one testified. if it wasn't mere speculation, if it wasn't mere gossip and conjecture, each one of those people would have been called to testify, like district attorney willis was, like mr. wade was, in order to be confronted and impeached by mr. bradley. you have heard obviously about the phone records and whether it comes into the purview of your honor as it relates to the determination, your honor, as it relates to the disqualification of the district attorney, you also have the affidavit from the employee who worked at the winery who confirmed that ms. willis did, in fact, pay in cash up to more than $400.

and i understand this is part of the proffer of the state. that is a witness who went to cnn in order to confirm what ms. willis testified to further giving her statements credibility and credence before the court. e court. you heard about -- >> before we move on from that one, other than the foundational concerns, would you have a response to the proffer of the cell phone relates to the cell phone records. i don't think i've ever, as the motion makes very clear the state uses cell phone records routinely. i agree. we use them routinely but we use them with an expert. they're always challenged. >> right. so, in the interest of time setting aside foundational concerns. >> i thought were you asking

about those. >> no. the focus, assuming admissible in the guise proffered, maybe you have that further. what's the reaction of that? >> so what i would say initially is that due to the fact they were analyzed by someone who was a non-expert, analyzation of those cell phone records were not properly peer reviewed. it's clear from the state's review that the normal practices that are used to check the use of which kind of data is being used in reference to the two specific dates, i believe it's september 10th and 11th, and november 29th and 30th, the affidavit that is used to say that mr. wade remains at ms. willises -- or in the area of hapeville. again, during the hearing the address for the dirty condo never came out. just it was the hate-filled

condo. the actual phone number for mr. wade was never established and the documents that were provided to the state that were certified, did not have a subscriber page. we have no idea the number belongs to mr. wade. i understand your honor wants to look past foundational issues i appreciate that but this step is very important as relates to the availability of the records. >> no doubt. somehow able to survive those initial concerns do you have any reaction? >> yes. i do, and i can -- i will step forward to provide -- so -- what's interesting is that the records that were provided were for, they started january of 2021 and they go, i believe it's to november 30th of 2021. span of the records. you heard from all witnesses

including ms. yeartie ms. willis did not move into the hapeville address until april of 2021. that was the testimony from all of the witnesses. april of 2021, and that she lived in her south fulton home from, when she met mr. wade in october 2019 up until when she had to move and the assertion by defense counsel is that mr. wade and ms. willis began a relationship right after they met in october 2019. what's interesting and telling is that mr. wade's handset doesn't once appear anywhere near the area of her south fulton home but they're dating in a serious relationship. if you were to believe what defense counsel says, had been in relationship october of 2019 up until she moves in april of 2021. so a year and a half or so, but he never once entrance the area

of her home. they want you to believe that's a lie, why counsel for defense continued to press district attorney willis and mr. wade as to whether he'd ever been to that south fulton home. this corroborates that was not a lie. he had never been to that home and it's more than suspect if you've been in a relationship as they came all this time but never once went to the house. so i think that's telling. what i would also bring to the court's attention and the state's initial review of the records, that from january of 2021 to march of 2021, those times when ms. willis did not live, again, at the hapeville address, she didn't move there until april of 2021, that is a hand, his handset appears in that area 23 times. >> sure. reconcile with with testimony alluded to by i think closing counsel. reasons he gave for being in the area. do those line up to 23 times? you know -- well, too many

reasons for being there. right? >> i think that's the point. i would say, yes, that is the point. he referenced that that's an area that he, it was not uncommon for him to be in and clearly that is the case, because ms. willis didn't live in that area. again, further corroboration as to what mr. wade, played to the court, and after ms. willis moved into the condo april of 2021 they appeared 35 times. i want to make clear to the court both ms. willis and mr. wade never denied he'd been to that condo before. the specific testimony that was elicited by ms. willis and mr. wade that he had never laid his head, the direct quote, at that condo, which these records don't prove he laid his head anywhere. if you were to believe the analysis or if you were to -- if

you really give credence to what the non-expert says as it relates to mr. wade's handset in september and november for the three to four hours that the phone is alleged to have remained, that doesn't disprove anything that was testified by both mr. wade and district attorney willis. it was that he visited there. the specific hours of their visits was not something that was pursued during questioning of both of the parties. so -- what i would also submit to the court is that if you look at the days as it relates to, in september and november, the use of, i guess, the type of information that is used to make the plots for the longitude and latitude of the handset is data records. it's not voice records. it's not sms or text messages

it's data records, and it is not uncommon for an expert to testify as it relates specifically to at&t records that that actual data record is unreliable as it relates to the location of the handset, due to the type of information that it is. that it's data. it's not the voice and the sms. i know, your honor, as referenced was the prosecutor not only in this county but for the federal government where this information is commonly used. and the comments made by the court, it was clear that you understood and understand the use of cell phone records as relates to put somebody in an area, and again not in a specific location. that also bringing to the court's attention relates to validity of analysis done by the expert that was hired by mr. sadow is that not once does it

reference the fact at&t records commonly have dub pla kit and triplicate duplicates and seen in these records. that is something that leads to the incorrect number of times that it's been alleged that ms. willis and mr. wade were in communication through text and voicemail. i also submit to the court that that number doesn't prove anything, again. doesn't prove that anybody's in a relationship. it proves that they were in communication with each other and i think your honor can use your own life experience as it relates to people you work with or friends that you are close with and the number of times that you make calls to any of those people. i can submit to the court that i have a friend who i've 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 that we had and still have, that we talk -- 30 times a day. that doesn't mean we're in a relationship. so the assertion that the number of times that ms. willis and mr. wade had spoke ton each other whether through text message or phone, it has no validity as it as relates to being in a relationship. i submit to the court shown through all the evidence was that there's been a true cost to ms. willis and relates to her life, that she had additional expenses she had to endure, because of her position and in the sense she told the court she had a mortgage. on top of that a house she didn't live in anymore had to pay for a safe house that her home was vandalized, and there

were racial epithets, sexual bigotry spray painted on to her house. the concern of her safety and her life is something that was testified to, and the fact that this job has led to the isolation and separation of her from her family and friends which was given credence and credibility of those statements provideed by her father, mr. floyd, that he'd only seen his daughter 13 times since all of these instances occurred. this is a cruel nature of statements and falsehoods that, for example, in these text messages that were purposely leaked to the media as relates to ms. willis' daughter subjecting her -- her position in school that she flunked out of college. which isn't true. which, in fact, she has graduated from the hbcu, but what's leaked to the media is the fact that she