BREAKING NEWS: Trump's Lawyer Ruthlessly Lays Out Case To Disqualify Fani Willis From Georgia Case

Forbes Breaking News
1 Mar 202421:35

Summary

TLDRThis transcript outlines a legal argument regarding alleged forensic misconduct and ethical violations in a case involving President Trump. The defense argues for the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment, highlighting concerns over DA Willis's public statements at a church and alleged misrepresentation of facts related to a key witness's relationship. The defense scrutinizes the timing of the relationship, citing evidence and witness testimonies to challenge the credibility of the prosecution. This detailed legal discourse underscores the complexities of ensuring fairness and ethical conduct in high-profile legal proceedings.

Takeaways

  • 👩‍⚖️ This is a legal argument regarding prosecutorial misconduct and seeking the disqualification of the lead prosecutor (Ms. Willis) and a key witness (Mr. Wade) in a criminal case against President Trump.
  • 🗣️ The crux of the argument is that Ms. Willis made extrajudicial comments at a church event that were intended to prejudice the defendants and their counsel by falsely portraying their challenge to Mr. Wade as being based on race.
  • 🤥 The argument alleges that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were untruthful in their testimony regarding the timing of their romantic relationship, which is a key issue in determining potential conflicts of interest.
  • 📄 Evidence cited includes text messages from a witness (Mr. Bradley) stating the relationship began earlier than claimed, and cell phone records suggesting frequent contact between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade during the relevant time period.
  • 💻 The argument relies on the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct, specifically rules related to candor toward the tribunal (3.3), extrajudicial statements (3.8), and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation (8.4).
  • ⚖️ The burden of proof being argued is a preponderance of the evidence standard for finding that ethical violations occurred, which could justify disqualification of Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade.
  • 👨‍⚖️ Case law is cited (Registe and Edwards) where ethical violations by defense counsel led to their disqualification, arguing the same principle should apply to prosecutors.
  • 🗳️ The argument posits that if legitimate concerns about truthfulness are found, it creates an appearance of impropriety that justifies disqualification under the "forensic misconduct" subset of prosecutorial misconduct.
  • ⚠️ A potential counterargument is raised about whether concerns over truthfulness in one case would necessitate disqualification in all cases handled by the District Attorney.
  • 🔍 The court is being asked to make factual findings and determinations about whether ethical violations occurred and whether there are legitimate concerns about truthfulness that warrant disqualification.

Q & A

  • What is the core issue being discussed in the transcript?

    -The core issue is a motion filed by a defense counsel to dismiss the indictment and disqualify the lead prosecutor, Fani Willis, and a witness, Mr. Wade, due to alleged ethical violations and concerns about their truthfulness.

  • What specific ethical violations are being alleged against Fani Willis?

    -The main ethical violations alleged against Fani Willis are: 1) Making an extrajudicial statement at a church event that prejudiced the defendants and their counsel by misrepresenting the reasons for the motion against Mr. Wade, violating Rule 3.8(g) of the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. 2) Potentially providing false testimony or statements regarding the timing of her relationship with Mr. Wade, which could violate Rules 3.3 and 8.4 related to candor toward the tribunal and conduct involving dishonesty or misrepresentation.

  • What evidence is being presented to support the allegations about the timing of the relationship between Fani Willis and Mr. Wade?

    -The key evidence presented includes: 1) Text messages (Defense Exhibit 26) between a defense counsel and a witness named Bradley, where Bradley states unprompted that the relationship began when Willis was a judge, contradicting Willis and Wade's testimony. 2) Cell phone records showing numerous occasions where Wade appeared to be in the vicinity of Willis's apartment, including two potential overnight stays, during the period in question before Wade was hired.

  • What legal standard or burden of proof is being applied in determining whether disqualification is warranted?

    -The legal standard being applied is a preponderance of the evidence. The defense has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that there are significant and legitimate concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade, which could warrant their disqualification.

  • What legal precedents or cases are being cited to support the argument for disqualification based on ethical violations?

    -The cases of Registe and Edwards are cited as precedents where trial judges found ethical violations by defense counsel and subsequently disqualified them from representing their clients. The argument is that the same principle should apply to prosecutors who commit ethical violations that raise concerns about their truthfulness.

  • What is the potential limiting principle or concern raised about disqualifying a lead prosecutor based on truthfulness concerns?

    -The potential limiting principle or concern raised is that if the court finds genuine concerns about the lead prosecutor's truthfulness in one case, it could potentially spill over and require their disqualification from every criminal case they bring before the court.

  • How is the defense responding to this potential limiting principle or concern?

    -The defense argues that the disqualification would be specific to this case where Willis and Wade testified under oath, and their potential dishonesty directly violates their ethical responsibilities as witnesses. It would not necessarily extend to other cases where they have not testified or committed ethical violations related to truthfulness.

  • What is the significance of the classification of 'forensic misconduct' used by the defense?

    -The defense is classifying the alleged ethical violations as a subset of 'forensic misconduct' which includes violations that impact the defendant's ability to receive a fair trial and the court's ability to have faith in the prosecutors' good faith conduct. This classification is being used to argue for disqualification as a remedy for such misconduct.

  • What is the overall argument being made by the defense regarding the disqualification of Willis and Wade?

    -The overall argument is that if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there are significant and legitimate concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade based on the alleged ethical violations and evidence presented, then they should be disqualified from the case. The defense argues that this is a appropriate remedy for prosecutors who commit ethical violations that undermine the integrity of the judicial process.

  • What role does the court's factual findings play in determining the outcome of the disqualification motion?

    -The court's factual findings regarding the credibility of the evidence and the existence of legitimate concerns about the truthfulness of Willis and Wade are crucial in determining whether the defense has met its burden of proof for disqualification. The court's assessment of the facts and weighing of the evidence will be pivotal in deciding the outcome of the disqualification motion.

Outlines

00:00

🗣️ Addressing Forensic Misconduct and Motion to Dismiss Indictment

The speaker is addressing a subset of forensic misconduct related to the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment. They mention Cathy Latham's motion to dismiss and disqualify filed on January 8th, and District Attorney Fani Willis' controversial 'Church speech' on January 14th, alleging it was intended to prejudice the defendants and defense counsel by making it a racial issue when it was not. The speaker argues that Willis violated professional rules of conduct by making extrajudicial comments that heightened public condemnation of the accused.

05:03

🕰️ Timing of the Wade-Willis Relationship

The speaker discusses the timing of the relationship between District Attorney Fani Willis and her lead investigator, Cathy Latham's former employer Nathan Wade. The state claims the relationship began in 2022, after Wade was hired, while the defense alleges it started earlier, before his hiring in November 2021. The speaker cites an affidavit from Wade and the state's pleading indicating no relationship as of November 1, 2021, contrasting it with testimony from Yvette Austin-Jones suggesting the relationship started in 2019 when they were both magistrate judges.

10:05

💬 Questioning Truthfulness and Ethical Violations

The speaker argues that there is a legitimate concern about the truthfulness of Wade and Willis regarding the timing of their relationship, which constitutes an ethical violation under the Georgia Rules of Professional Conduct. This includes making false statements to a tribunal (3.3) and engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation (8.4). The speaker suggests that the court need not find they lied but rather have concerns about their credibility, which would amount to an appearance of impropriety under forensic misconduct and grounds for disqualification.

15:06

💻 Evidence from Text Messages and Cell Phone Records

The speaker presents evidence from text messages between Cathy Latham and Bristol Bradley (Defense Exhibit 26), where Bradley definitively states that the Willis-Wade relationship started before Wade was hired, contradicting their testimonies. The speaker also mentions cell phone records showing numerous occasions where Wade was in the area of Willis' apartment, including two instances where it appears he spent the night there before November 2021. This evidence is posited as corroborating Yvette Austin-Jones' account and impeaching Wade and Willis' testimonies.

20:08

⚖️ Arguing for Disqualification Based on Ethical Violations

The speaker concludes by arguing that if the court finds, by a preponderance of the evidence, that there is a significant and legitimate concern about the truthfulness of Wade and Willis due to the alleged ethical violations (subset of forensic misconduct), then they should be disqualified. The speaker cites case law suggesting that ethical violations by defense counsel can lead to disqualification and argues the same principle should apply to prosecutors. The court need not find they lied but rather have concerns about their credibility, constituting an appearance of impropriety.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Forensic Misconduct

Forensic misconduct refers to improper or unethical behavior by legal professionals involved in the forensic aspects of legal proceedings. In the context of the video, it highlights a specific subset of behavior that jeopardizes the fairness and integrity of the legal process. The speaker addresses this in relation to the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment, emphasizing the impact of such conduct on the case at hand.

💡Disqualification

Disqualification refers to the legal process of removing a party, typically an attorney or a judge, from participating in a case due to a conflict of interest or ethical violation. In the script, disqualification is discussed as a necessary step following alleged forensic misconduct, aiming to maintain the integrity of the legal proceedings.

💡Indictment

An indictment is a formal charge or accusation of a serious crime, issued by a grand jury. The script mentions the dismissal of an indictment, which implies dropping all charges against the accused. This step is considered in the context of alleged misconduct affecting the case's fairness.

💡Ethical Violation

Ethical violation in legal terms refers to actions by legal professionals that breach the codes of conduct or ethics established by legal authorities and institutions. The speaker alleges that a prosecutor's actions, aimed at prejudicing defendants through public statements, constitute such a violation, impacting the fairness of the trial.

💡Church Speech

The 'Church Speech' refers to an event where DA Willis addressed a congregation, making statements that allegedly prejudiced the defendants by discussing the race of a person challenged in a motion without mentioning the true basis of the challenge. This speech is cited as an example of ethical violation and misconduct.

💡Public Condemnation

Public condemnation involves denouncing or criticizing someone in a public forum. The video script discusses how extrajudicial comments by a prosecutor had a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused, which is against professional conduct rules for attorneys.

💡Candor Toward the Tribunal

Candor toward the tribunal is a legal obligation requiring attorneys to be honest and straightforward with the courts. The script accuses certain parties of lacking candor, particularly in misrepresenting facts about a relationship's timeline, which raises concerns about their honesty and ethical integrity.

💡Appearance of Impropriety

Appearance of impropriety refers to a situation where the actions of a legal professional might not be unethical per se, but could be perceived as questionable or inappropriate, thus undermining public trust in the legal process. The video script argues that the actions of Willis and Wade give such an appearance, justifying their disqualification.

💡Truthfulness

Truthfulness in the legal context means the obligation of all parties, especially legal professionals, to present facts accurately and honestly. The script challenges the truthfulness of certain testimonies, suggesting that discrepancies and inaccuracies in their statements could indicate a breach of ethical standards.

💡Preponderance of the Evidence

Preponderance of the evidence is a standard of proof in civil cases, requiring that the evidence presented by one side be more convincing than the evidence presented by the other side. The speaker uses this standard to argue that their evidence of misconduct and ethical violations meets the threshold necessary for disqualification.

Highlights

Discussion on a subset of forensic misconduct related to the disqualification and dismissal of an indictment.

Presentation of a motion to dismiss and to disqualify, with a subsequent court appearance to consider President Trump's potential adoption of the motion.

DA Willis's controversial church speech aimed at influencing public perception without addressing the core issue of alleged misconduct.

Allegation of professional misconduct by DA Willis, violating ethical guidelines by making extrajudicial comments.

Examination of the ethical implications of DA Willis's actions in relation to professional rules of conduct.

Discussion on the importance of timing in the relationship allegations and the impact on legal proceedings.

Presentation of evidence challenging the truthfulness of statements made by key figures in the case.

Analysis of the ethical violations and their potential to disqualify the prosecution due to an appearance of impropriety.

Consideration of the credibility concerns surrounding the prosecution and their ethical implications.

Introduction of evidence, including text messages and affidavits, to challenge the prosecution's narrative.

Discussion on the role of the court in addressing prosecutorial misconduct and ethical violations.

Exploration of the legal remedies available for addressing untruthful statements by the prosecution.

Comparison of ethical standards applied to defense counsel and prosecutors in the context of legal proceedings.

Evaluation of the burden of proof in establishing forensic misconduct and its impact on the case.

Conclusion highlighting the argument for disqualification of the prosecution based on ethical violations and misconduct.

Transcripts

00:01

I'm going to speak to what I would call

00:03

a subset of forensic

00:07

misconduct and I'm going to

00:10

assume that all the law that's been

00:12

provided to you in leadings as well as

00:17

emails you know you don't need me to

00:19

tell you what the law is so I want to

00:21

just set up how the disqualification and

00:25

then dismissal of the indictment should

00:27

take place under the subset of forensic

00:29

next

00:33

conduct Roman's Council this Merchant

00:37

filed on January 8th her pleading her

00:41

motion to dismiss and to

00:44

disqualify we were in

00:46

court that Friday of that week in which

00:50

I made it known that we that is

00:53

President Trump May adopt that motion I

00:55

waited to see wanted to see what was

00:57

going to happen before I did so

01:01

that Sunday which would be January the

01:04

14th

01:07

2024 da Willis took it upon herself to

01:10

go

01:12

to a historic black church in Atlanta

01:18

having not responded at all to the

01:21

motion of Miss Merchant's client Roman

01:25

and she made what we've now called The

01:27

Church speech and your honor has

01:29

reference to that

01:30

uh you didn't necessarily want evidence

01:32

on that but you know what the church spe

01:35

Church speech was it was videoed it was

01:38

clear that Miss uh Willis had notes she

01:42

was reading from notes that she had

01:45

prepared it was a calculated

01:47

determination by Miss Willis to

01:50

Prejudice the defendants and their

01:52

councel how so by making an issue out of

01:56

the fact that the person that was

01:58

challenged in the Roman motion

02:00

was black without telling the public or

02:04

the church members or anyone for that

02:07

matter that the reason that

02:09

Mr uh Wade was being challenged was not

02:13

because he was black had nothing to do

02:15

with race it had to do with the

02:18

relationship that had been alleged and

02:20

later admitted to

02:24

by Miss

02:27

Merchant Miss Willis took full

02:29

opportunity

02:31

to Prejudice the

02:33

defendant and then comes along later in

02:35

a pleading and says it wasn't designed

02:37

or intended to be at the defendants at

02:39

all or the defense Council which with

02:41

all due respect is just nonsense the

02:43

purpose of that was to get public

02:45

sympathy public empathy for what Miss

02:48

Merchant had already alleged in her

02:50

motion now that was a violation of the

02:53

professional rules of conduct it was a

02:55

violation of

02:57

3.8

02:58

G

03:00

there's no question about it it wasn't

03:02

in response to anything that was said it

03:06

was a public statement extrajudicial for

03:10

the purpose of making a comment upon the

03:14

defendant what would it would be in

03:16

response to a motion that was filed but

03:17

it wasn't filed in a response in a

03:20

pleading it was filed in response to a

03:23

motion and the motion were allegations

03:26

made as I if this will is wanted to

03:30

respond at that point she could have

03:32

said the facts of the matter instead she

03:35

misstated what the the situation was

03:38

took advantage of the

03:40

opportunity an ethical violation and the

03:42

ethical violation makes it clear that

03:45

you must refrain from making extra

03:47

judicial comments that have a

03:49

substantial likelihood of heightening

03:51

public condemnation of the accused can

03:53

you think of anything more that would

03:56

heighten public condemnation of the

03:57

defendants than alleging

04:00

that defense Council and the defendants

04:03

were making their motion based on race

04:05

and

04:07

religion that's as bad as it gets in

04:09

Folton County with all due respect

04:12

that's exactly that's exactly what Miss

04:14

Willis wanted done and remember the

04:17

state still had not

04:20

responded so then what we get from the

04:25

state is we get an affidavit filed as

04:28

part of their response

04:30

and that affidavit says

04:33

specifically and the affidavit is Mr

04:36

Wade says

04:39

specifically in paragraphs 26 and

04:43

27 that the relationship did not begin

04:48

until

04:51

2022 it acknowledges relationship and

04:54

says it didn't begin until

04:56

2022 and the pleading that's filed the

04:59

states pleading a response indicates not

05:02

exactly that but it says there was no

05:05

relationship as of November 1 of 2021

05:08

and that's on page

05:10

seven so now we know that timing is the

05:13

issue because this

05:16

Merchant made it clear that we alleged

05:20

and had evidence that that indicated the

05:22

timing was before Mr Wade was hired not

05:25

after so the state now has filed an

05:27

affidavit and a leading that claims post

05:32

hiring into

05:34

2022 and then Mr Wade will US testify to

05:39

the same thing under

05:42

oath now miss yti says it began in 2019

05:46

why would she know well she would know

05:48

because she was a former friend I know

05:50

the state's going to get up here and say

05:51

you can't believe essentially what

05:53

they're going to say is you can't

05:53

believe any defense witness because

05:55

they're defense Witnesses and only

05:57

people that would tell the truth would

05:59

be way and Willis I suggest to you that

06:01

that's not accurate I suggest that the

06:03

testimony that M Mr Wade gave and M

06:06

Willis gave and I'm specifically dealing

06:08

now with the timing issue without

06:10

getting into anything else that

06:14

that brought forth a true concern about

06:17

their truthfulness and being what is

06:20

required of a lawyer in this

06:23

state which is cander toward the

06:27

tribunal and that's 3.3 of professional

06:29

rules specifically um small A1 make a

06:34

false statement of material fact or law

06:36

to a

06:37

tribunal so that's as I posited it to

06:40

the court that's the second ethical

06:45

violation and then you also

06:50

have 8.4 of of professional rules it

06:53

says it's a violation of the Georgia

06:55

rules of professional conduct for lawyer

06:57

2 and that's A4 or engaged in a

07:00

professional conduct involving

07:02

dishonesty fraud deceit or

07:04

misrepresentation now do you have to

07:07

find that Wade and Willis lied no what

07:10

you need to be able to find is that

07:12

there is a concern a legitimate concern

07:14

based on the evidence in this case about

07:17

their truthfulness a legitimate concern

07:20

about the truthfulness which equates to

07:23

an appearance of

07:25

impropriety because once you have the

07:27

appearance of impropriety under forensic

07:29

misconduct the law in Georgia is clear

07:32

that's

07:33

enough to

07:35

disqualify so why should you find

07:37

there's a

07:38

concern with their

07:40

truthfulness ERT is the first one you

07:43

have that testimony but then we go to

07:47

what is the most obvious

07:50

indication that Willis and

07:53

Wade we not truthful on the point of

07:55

timing and that's

07:57

Bradley defense exhibit 26 came into

08:00

evidence defense exhibit 26 comes in and

08:05

says and you know I went into this last

08:09

hearing it

08:13

says that on January 5th

08:16

2024 at approximately 9:49 a.m. there's

08:21

text messages that are exchange between

08:23

Miss Merchant and Mr Bradley and the

08:27

text messages go like just date and

08:31

that's for Miss Merchant Miss Merchant

08:34

says do you think it started before she

08:36

hired him Bradley who we now know from

08:40

defense exhibit 39 has been texting with

08:43

Miss Merchant for a number of months

08:45

this is not the first time this is

08:47

months within the the communications

08:50

between the two Mr Bradley says

08:54

absolutely now absolutely is not a

08:57

speculative word that's not speculation

09:01

that's a definitive

09:05

statement and Bradley then

09:08

unprompted as this and unprompted is

09:12

important it started when she left the

09:14

DA's office and was a judge in South

09:20

Fulton goes on Miss Merchant says or he

09:25

she liked it started when she left the

09:27

DA's office with the

09:29

appropriate um Emoji or whatever one

09:33

would call it to say it was liked and

09:35

then M Bradley Mr Bradley say they met

09:37

at the Municipal Court clle conference

09:40

again unprompted he's now definitively

09:44

telling Miss Merchant when this

09:46

relationship

09:49

started Miss Merchant says that's what I

09:51

figured when he was married and then

09:54

this Merchant says and we're now talking

09:56

about a couple hours later

09:59

she texts and says upon information and

10:02

belief Willis and Wade met while both

10:05

were serving as magistrate judges and

10:07

began a romantic relationship at that

10:10

time and Mr Bradley responds no

10:14

Municipal Court thank you doesn't say it

10:17

didn't start then he doesn't suggest

10:20

that she's wrong other than magistrate

10:22

court minicipal now we have that and

10:25

it's in evidence and what does Bradley

10:28

do he knows that he's put himself in a

10:32

position that if he testifies truthfully

10:36

on the witness

10:37

stand your honor is in a position to be

10:40

able to

10:41

find if you choose to that both ws and

10:44

weade lied so what does Bradley

10:47

do look you were an assistant us

10:50

attorney you know how this works when

10:52

you have witnesses in this situation Mr

10:55

Bradley did everything he could possibly

10:57

do to evade answering questions no

11:01

recollection couldn't remember it was

11:04

speculation anything he could possibly

11:07

say that would cause your

11:10

honor not to believe that Bradley knew

11:13

when this relationship started I suggest

11:17

they were clear-cut lies and the truth

11:21

is in defense exhibit 26 and so if we

11:25

take that view that he thoroughly

11:27

impeached himself that he did not give

11:29

truthful

11:30

conduct uh you know what's left standing

11:34

generally you would see someone who's

11:36

impeach be have perhaps we have some

11:38

kind of core that you could point back

11:40

to and say that's the time he was

11:41

telling the truth in these text messages

11:44

is it ever definitively shown how he

11:46

knew this and that he actually did know

11:48

it other than an just a assertion

11:51

outright absolutely usually if a state

11:54

has a witness that goes sideways they've

11:55

got them locked in they've sat down with

11:57

a detective got a full state statement

11:59

we don't have that here but what you

12:02

have is a text message which is a prior

12:04

statement of

12:06

Bradley that he did on his own that was

12:09

not given to him by someone else the

12:12

only thing that the court is just noted

12:15

is how do we know he wasn't speculating

12:18

because you don't have to accept the

12:21

fact that he wasn't speculating the

12:23

cases that I provided I think by email

12:25

yesterday the first um dealing with that

12:28

you can disbelieve that testimony and

12:30

draw a negative inference that's the

12:32

Ferguson case on Lee the other case you

12:35

can simply take the prior inconsistent

12:37

statement as substan of evidence it has

12:39

the same value and that's what I'm

12:42

asking you to do to take what was the

12:44

unprompted statement in defense exhibit

12:47

26 of Bradley and take that on its face

12:51

face value that that is an indication

12:54

that Bradley in fact knew and had said

12:57

he did if you accept

13:00

that you have to have concerns about the

13:05

truthfulness of Willis and Wade on the

13:07

timing issue and and I don't know if

13:09

this is something maybe one of your

13:10

co-counsel were going to address as well

13:12

we heard about kind of the law that

13:14

applies how we're we're outside kind of

13:16

the orbit of of the core of cases we're

13:18

used to dealing with here where it deals

13:19

with side switching or uh where someone

13:22

is in the uh relationship the client

13:25

relationship the proposition you're

13:27

putting forward now is that if a

13:29

representative of the state a lead

13:31

prosecutor of the district attorney

13:33

themselves um says something that's

13:35

untruthful on the record that is

13:37

something that immediately has to be

13:40

proactively policed by the trial court

13:43

is basically what I'm getting at is

13:45

where in the law do we find the remedy

13:46

to an untruthful statement

13:48

generally we send you down the street to

13:50

the bar right and that's why I gave you

13:53

the cases of registe and Edwards

13:56

yesterday while those aren't prosecut

13:58

torial cases or dealing with prosecutors

14:00

they deal with counsel and in both those

14:03

cases the trial judge found ethical

14:05

violations on the part

14:08

of defense counsil or potential ethical

14:11

violations went through the ethical

14:14

violations and said based on that you're

14:17

disqualified you cannot be the attorney

14:19

of record in this case it's good for the

14:21

goose it's good for the gander if

14:23

defense Council can be kicked off of a

14:25

case because of ethical violations I

14:28

suggest this same thing can happen for

14:30

prosecutors when ethical violations deal

14:33

with truthfulness cander to the court

14:37

extrajudicial

14:38

statement uh those are the things that

14:40

this court can rely upon and say based

14:43

on those again I find an appearance of

14:48

impropriety where where would be the

14:49

limiting principle uh the district

14:52

attorney signs every indictment assigned

14:54

to this courtroom does that mean she's

14:56

off every case no it would be when the

14:59

if I found that she's untruthful is that

15:00

what you're kind of suggesting though

15:02

you don't have to find again I'm not

15:04

saying you have to find she was

15:06

untruthful or that Wade was untruthful

15:08

you don't have to make a finding of fact

15:10

that they lied all you have to do is

15:11

make a finding of fact that you have

15:14

genuine legitimate concerns about their

15:16

credibility about their truthfulness and

15:19

once you find that then you can apply

15:22

registe and and uh Edwards well but it's

15:26

the same principle though if I have

15:27

genuine concerns about her truthfulness

15:30

on a particular occasion how do those

15:31

not spill over into every criminal case

15:33

a district attorney brings well it's

15:35

because she testified under oath and so

15:38

did Mr Wade they didn't have to testify

15:41

falsely they could have testified

15:42

truthfully they could have indicated

15:45

that the relationship the timing was in

15:47

fact before Mr Wade was hired they chose

15:50

not to and in that sense that dishonesty

15:54

that constitutes a violation of their

15:56

ethical responsibilities this is not

15:58

sign an indictment this is not filing a

16:01

pleading in which both sides have their

16:03

own positions this is a requirement that

16:06

every witness has to tell the truth

16:09

under oath and if they don't tell the

16:11

truth under oath or there's a

16:12

significant concern about their

16:15

credibility then they're violating their

16:17

ethical rules and as anyone will tell

16:19

you as your honor already knew from when

16:21

you were a prosecutor prosecutors are

16:23

held to a higher

16:26

standard they're the ones that are

16:27

supposed to be Seeking Justice they

16:30

don't have a particular they're supposed

16:32

to be

16:33

disinterested when you have the lead

16:35

prosecutor and the DA giving what I

16:39

suggest to you is

16:43

uh untruthful testimony based on what

16:46

Yer has said based on what Bradley said

16:49

in his text based on the whole way it

16:51

was presented to you Bradley didn't want

16:53

to testify he first came up with his

16:55

attorney client privilege thing on that

16:57

and your honor was fortunately went into

17:00

that and then when Bradley knew he had

17:02

to testify about it you saw what

17:04

happened you can draw the inference as

17:07

I've suggested on

17:09

Bradley that what he said in the text

17:12

message defense exhibit 26 is true the

17:15

relationship in fact started prior to

17:18

November 1st of 2021 that ER says that

17:21

and now without getting into any detail

17:24

the cell phone records the cell phone

17:26

records show that during that period of

17:29

time from let's say April 1 of 2021 to

17:32

November 1st I'm sorry November 30th of

17:35

2021 that there was a number a

17:39

considerable number of 35 or more um

17:43

occasions where it appeared that based

17:46

on the records that Mr Wade was down in

17:49

the area where Miss Willis was saying in

17:52