Fani Willis enters courtroom, state makes closing arguments in hearing on alleged misconduct

CBS News
1 Mar 202443:48

Summary

TLDRThis video script transcribes courtroom proceedings in which the state argues against disqualifying District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade from prosecuting Donald Trump's election case. The state contends that the defense must prove an actual conflict of interest based on Willis receiving a financial benefit, rather than mere speculation or appearance of impropriety regarding her relationship with Wade. The state maintains that the defense failed to provide evidence of an actual conflict that would warrant disqualification under Georgia law, asserting that money exchanged between Willis and Wade was reimbursement, not personal gain.

Takeaways

  • 😐 The defense attorneys alleged that District Attorney Fani Willis and prosecutor Nathan Wade engaged in a conflict of interest and misconduct due to their romantic relationship.
  • 😯 The state argues that the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety, to disqualify Willis and Wade.
  • 💰 The alleged conflict centers around whether Willis or Wade received a financial benefit or gain tied to the outcome of the case.
  • 📝 The state contends the defense failed to provide evidence contradicting when Willis and Wade's relationship began (after Wade's hiring in March 2022).
  • ⚖️ Case law cited by both sides indicates disqualification requires a high burden of proof - an actual conflict, not just speculation or appearance of impropriety.
  • 🔍 A key issue is whether purchases/money exchanged between Willis and Wade created a financial incentive impacting the prosecution.
  • 🤥 The state accuses the defense of misrepresenting evidence and witness testimony to embarrass and harass Willis.
  • 👩‍⚖️ Willis was present in court, suggesting the possibility she may make closing arguments herself.
  • ⌛ If disqualified, an elaborate procedure would delay the prosecution and could lead to dismissal of charges.
  • 💥 The stakes are high, with both sides making aggressive arguments over the potential disqualification.

Q & A

  • What is the central issue being discussed in this hearing?

    -The central issue is whether the District Attorney Fani Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting Donald Trump's election case due to an alleged conflict of interest arising from her romantic relationship with a special prosecutor on the case, Nathan Wade.

  • What is the standard or burden of proof that the defense must meet to get the DA disqualified?

    -According to the prosecution, the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety. They argue the standard is a high burden requiring proof that Willis received a direct financial benefit tied to the outcome of the case.

  • What arguments did the defense make regarding the nature of Willis and Wade's relationship?

    -The defense alleged that Willis and Wade engaged in a coverup and scheme to benefit from their personal relationship. They claim the relationship began before Wade was hired in 2022, based on testimony from a former employee and alleged text/phone records, though Willis and Wade insisted it started in March 2022 after Wade was hired.

  • How did the prosecution respond to the defense's claims about when the relationship began?

    -The prosecution argued the defense failed to provide any evidence contradicting Willis and Wade's testimony that the relationship began around March 2022 after Wade was hired. They claim the defense did not properly impeach Wade on this point during cross-examination.

  • What remedy is the defense seeking if Willis is disqualified?

    -If Willis is disqualified, the defense is seeking to have the indictment against Trump and others dismissed entirely. Alternatively, a new prosecutor would have to be appointed, potentially restarting or delaying the prosecution.

  • What ethical standards or principles did the prosecution argue must be violated for disqualification?

    -The prosecution argued disqualification requires finding an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety. They cited cases stating the test is whether the DA received a direct personal financial stake in the case outcome.

  • How did the prosecution characterize some of the defense's questioning and tactics?

    -The prosecution accused the defense of asking harassing and irrelevant questions aimed at embarrassing Willis, such as inquiries about a lien on her home that had no bearing on whether money improperly changed hands between her and Wade.

  • What cases or legal standards did each side cite to support their arguments?

    -The prosecution relied heavily on cases like Leavy v. State and Mikelberg v. State that they argue establish an actual conflict is required, not just appearances. The defense cited cases like Woodworth v. State that reference appearance of impropriety as grounds for disqualification.

  • Was there any dispute that money was exchanged between Willis and Wade related to expenses or trips?

    -No, both sides appeared to agree that money was exchanged between Willis and Wade related to expenses like trips, but they disputed whether it amounted to a direct financial benefit or gain for Willis tied to the case outcome.

  • What role, if any, might District Attorney Fani Willis play in the closing arguments?

    -The transcript notes that Willis was present in the courtroom and the commentators speculated she may make closing arguments herself, as she was described as defensive and combative when previously testifying about her relationship with Wade.

Outlines

00:00

📺 News Update on Trump's Georgia Election Case

The paragraph provides context for an ongoing news coverage regarding the potential disqualification of Fani Willis, the District Attorney handling the case against Donald Trump and other defendants related to alleged election interference in Georgia. It discusses the implications of Willis's potential removal, including delays in prosecution and the possibility of charges being dismissed. The stakes are described as high, with aggressive allegations from the defense attorneys about a potential conflict of interest stemming from Willis's alleged personal relationship with a special prosecutor in the case, Nathan Wade.

05:01

🗣️ Defense Arguments for Willis's Disqualification

The paragraph details the arguments made by the defense counsel regarding the alleged romantic relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade, the special prosecutor. They claim that information, including text messages and witness testimony, suggests the relationship began before Wade was hired, contradicting Willis and Wade's claims that it started in 2022 after Wade's appointment. The defense alleges a potential coverup and failure to disclose the relationship to the court. However, the state contends that the defense failed to properly impeach Wade's testimony and that their claims amount to improper impeachment.

10:02

⚖️ Questioning the Credibility of a Key Witness

The paragraph focuses on the state's efforts to undermine the credibility of a key witness, Monique Eddie, who previously worked in the District Attorney's office. The state questions Eddie's testimony about witnessing signs of a romantic relationship between Willis and Wade, suggesting her claims were inconsistent and lacked specificity. The state argues that Eddie's testimony should be scrutinized in light of her potentially contradictory statements made through her attorney and the lack of detailed observations.

15:20

🕵️‍♀️ Examining the Legal Standards for Disqualification

This paragraph delves into the legal standards and requirements for disqualifying a district attorney. The state argues that the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, rather than just an appearance of impropriety. It cites case law and legal principles, asserting that an actual conflict requires demonstrating a personal financial gain or benefit for the district attorney based on the case's outcome. The state contends that the defense has failed to provide evidence contradicting the timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship or showing how their due process rights were affected.

20:22

💡 Analyzing Relevant Case Law on Disqualification

The paragraph continues the discussion on legal standards for disqualification by examining relevant case law cited by both the state and the defense. The state argues that the cases referenced by the defense often combine language from multiple cases, potentially misstating the law. The state maintains that the cases support its position that an actual conflict, rather than just an appearance of impropriety, is required for disqualification. It highlights a recent Georgia Court of Appeals ruling emphasizing the need for an actual conflict to disqualify an assistant district attorney.

25:25

⚖️ Defining the Scope of 'Actual Conflict' Requirement

This paragraph explores the scope of what constitutes an 'actual conflict' that warrants disqualification. The state argues that contingency fees or personal incentives that could influence a prosecutor's conduct during specific proceedings, such as motions to suppress evidence, could potentially rise to the level of an actual conflict. However, the state maintains that speculation, conjecture, or assumptions alone do not meet the standard for an actual conflict and would only amount to an appearance of impropriety.

30:25

👨‍⚖️ Examining the 'Appearance of Impropriety' Standard

The paragraph delves deeper into the 'appearance of impropriety' standard and its relation to disqualification. The state contends that case law does not support disqualifying an attorney solely on the basis of an appearance of impropriety. It cites cases that reference the appearance of impropriety but only in situations where an actual conflict was found. The state argues that the reference to the 'appearance of impropriety' arises because an actual conflict inevitably creates such an appearance.

35:26

📖 Dissecting Case Law on Speculation and Conjecture

This paragraph analyzes case law related to the role of speculation and conjecture in disqualification proceedings. The state cites cases that emphasize the need for a 'palpable' conflict with a 'substantial basis in fact,' stating that theoretical or speculative conflicts are insufficient grounds for disqualification. The state argues that these cases support its position that the defense's allegations against Willis and Wade amount to mere speculation and conjecture, failing to meet the required standard of an actual conflict.

40:31

🔍 Addressing Allegations of Financial Gain

The paragraph addresses the defense's allegations regarding potential financial gain or benefit for District Attorney Willis stemming from her relationship with Nathan Wade. The state argues that all such claims are mere speculation and conjecture, aimed at harassing and embarrassing Willis rather than substantiating an actual conflict. It contends that lines of questioning about Willis's personal finances and property were irrelevant to the proceedings and served only to impugn her character publicly. The state maintains that the defense has failed to provide evidence of an actual financial benefit or gain for Willis related to the case's outcome.

Mindmap

Keywords

💡Disqualification

The act of declaring someone as unfit or ineligible to carry out a particular duty or role. In the context of this video, it refers to the potential disqualification of District Attorney Fani Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade from the case against Donald Trump and others for alleged interference in the 2020 election. Defense attorneys argue that Willis and Wade's romantic relationship creates a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety, which, under Georgia law, could lead to their disqualification from prosecuting the case.

💡Conflict of Interest

A situation in which an individual's personal interests clash with their professional obligations or responsibilities. In this case, the defense claims that Willis and Wade's romantic relationship presents a conflict of interest that undermines their ability to impartially prosecute the case. The prosecution counters that an actual conflict, not just an appearance, must be proven to warrant disqualification.

💡Appearance of Impropriety

A circumstance that may not necessarily involve any actual wrongdoing but could create a perception of improper behavior or bias. The defense argues that even the appearance of impropriety resulting from Willis and Wade's relationship is grounds for their disqualification, while the prosecution contends that an actual conflict, rather than just an appearance, is required under Georgia law.

💡Burden of Proof

The legal obligation to prove a claim or assertion through sufficient evidence. In this case, the defense bears the burden of proving that Willis and Wade's relationship constitutes an actual conflict of interest or appearance of impropriety that warrants their disqualification. The prosecution argues that the defense has failed to meet this high burden of proof.

💡Actual Conflict

A real, substantive conflict of interest that directly affects an individual's ability to perform their duties impartially. The prosecution argues that the defense must prove an actual conflict, such as Willis or Wade receiving a financial benefit or gain from the outcome of the case, to justify disqualification. Mere speculation or conjecture about a potential conflict is insufficient.

💡Financial Benefit

A monetary or material gain that could influence an individual's actions or decisions. The prosecution asserts that the defense must prove that Willis or Wade stood to receive a direct financial benefit contingent on the outcome of the case to establish an actual conflict of interest warranting disqualification. The exchange of money between Willis and Wade for personal trips or expenses does not necessarily constitute a disqualifying financial benefit, according to the prosecution.

💡Due Process

The legal principle that guarantees fair treatment and adherence to established rules and procedures in the justice system. The defense claims that Willis and Wade's alleged conduct and failure to disclose their relationship violated the defendants' due process rights, while the prosecution argues that no evidence was presented to substantiate this claim.

💡Impeachment

The process of discrediting or contradicting a witness's testimony through the introduction of evidence or questioning their credibility. The prosecution argues that the defense failed to properly impeach Wade's testimony about the timeline of his relationship with Willis, as required for effective impeachment.

💡Speculation

The act of forming opinions or theories without sufficient evidence or proof. The prosecution contends that much of the defense's arguments and allegations regarding Willis and Wade's relationship are based on speculation and conjecture rather than concrete evidence, which is insufficient to establish an actual conflict of interest.

💡Discretion

The power or authority to make decisions based on one's judgment or reasoning. The prosecution cites case law stating that trial courts have discretion in determining whether to disqualify prosecutors, and that such disqualification should only occur when an actual conflict of interest is found, not merely an appearance of impropriety.

Highlights

The defense counsel claimed they would provide evidence that Willis and Wade were in a romantic relationship before Wade was hired, but they failed to produce any such evidence during the hearing.

The state contends that to disqualify a district attorney, the defense must show an actual conflict of interest, not just an appearance of impropriety or speculation.

The state argues that an actual conflict requires showing that the district attorney received a financial benefit or gain based on the outcome of the case.

The judge questions whether the standard should consider not just the ultimate outcome, but also the conduct of the prosecution throughout the proceedings.

The state cites cases stating that theoretical or speculative conflicts are not enough to disqualify a prosecutor, there must be a 'palpable' conflict with a 'substantial basis in fact.'

The state argues that the defense has not provided any evidence that Willis and Wade's relationship affected Willis's constitutional or due process obligations.

The state contends that embarrassing or harassing questions about Willis's personal finances were irrelevant to whether she received a financial benefit from the case.

The defense cited cases referring to the 'appearance of impropriety,' but the state argues those cases found actual conflicts in addition to appearances.

The state distinguishes between actual conflicts based on personal financial interests versus divided loyalties from prior representation.

The judge questions whether different standards apply for disqualification at the pre-trial versus post-conviction stages.

The state argues that even if money changed hands between Willis and Wade, there is no evidence it provided a financial benefit or gain to Willis tied to the case outcome.

The state cites a recent Georgia appeals court ruling that failing to disqualify requires an 'actual conflict of interest,' suggesting a high bar.

The state references the 'Caeser's wife' ethical metaphor used in case law, suggesting it goes beyond just actual conflicts into appearances.

The state argues that disqualifying an elected district attorney should be a 'last-ditch effort' exercised by courts only when an actual conflict cannot be cured.

The state contends the defense combined language from multiple cases in a misleading way regarding the grounds for disqualification.

Transcripts

00:00

00:01

>> LET'S TAKE A QUICK FIVE AND

00:02

WE WILL BE BACK AT 2:40.

00:06

>> YOU ARE LISTENING TO CLOSING

00:08

ARGUMENTS TO DETERMINE IF FANI

00:13

WILLIS SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM

00:16

DONALD TRUMP'S GENERAL ELECTION

00:17

SUBVERSION CASE BEING HEARD IN

00:24

THE COURTROOM OF FULL COUNTY

00:25

SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE SCOTT

00:26

McAFEE.

00:27

TRUMP AND OTHER DEFENDANTS IN

00:28

THE SELECTION CASE ARE ALLEGING

00:29

THAT WILLIS'S ROMANCE WITH A

00:32

SPECIAL PROSECUTOR SHE SHOWED,

00:33

NATHAN WADE, HAS CREATED EITHER

00:35

A DIRECT CONFLICT OF INTEREST

00:42

OR THE APPEARANCE OF CONFLICT

00:43

OF INTEREST.

00:44

AND THAT'S THE KEY IN GEORGIA

00:45

LAW.

00:45

IF THERE IS, AS THE JUDGE

00:47

DETERMINES, A CONFLICT OF

00:47

INTEREST OR THE APPEARANCE OF

00:49

ONE THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY CAN

00:50

AND SHOULD, UNDER GEORGIA LAW,

00:55

BE DISQUALIFIED.

00:56

IF SHE IS DISQUALIFIED THERE IS

00:57

AN ELABORATE THIS -- PROCEDURE

01:00

THAT THEY WOULD ENGAGE IN TO

01:01

FIND ANOTHER ATTORNEY

01:02

INEVITABLY DELAYING THE

01:02

PROSECUTION OF THE UNDERLYING

01:03

CASE OR GIVING THAT NEW

01:06

PROSECUTING ATTORNEY FRESH EYES

01:08

AND MAYBE SOME OF THE CHARGES

01:10

MIGHT ENTIRELY BE DISMISSED.

01:12

IN OTHER WORDS, A TREMENDOUS

01:13

AMOUNT OF LIMBO WOULD BE

01:16

VISITED UPON THIS CASE IF IN

01:18

FACT FANI WILLIS AND THE

01:21

DISTRICT -- IN GEORGIA WERE

01:25

DISQUALIFIED.

01:25

WITH OUR CORRESPONDENT.

01:31

NICOLE, YOU HAVE BEEN DOWN THIS

01:32

COURTROOM AND COVERING THIS

01:33

CASE FOR VERY LONG TIME.

01:34

THE STAKES ARE HIGH.

01:37

WE HEARD THERE IS THE

01:38

COUNSELORS FOR THE DEFENDERS

01:39

MAKING VERY AGGRESSIVE CHARGES.

01:40

ALLEGING THAT FANI WILLIS AND

01:43

NATHAN WADE ENGAGED IN A

01:46

COVERUP, A SCHEME THAT THEY

01:47

BENEFITED FROM THEIR PERSONAL

01:51

RELATIONSHIP AND DIDN'T

01:52

DISCLOSE IT TO THE COURT.

01:53

HAVING BEEN ACCUSED OF HAVING

01:54

THIS RELATIONSHIP DID ALL SORTS

01:55

OF THINGS TO KEEP INFORMATION

01:56

FROM THE PUBLIC IN THE COURT.

02:00

A PRETTY AGGRESSIVE POSTURE

02:01

FROM THE DEFENDANT'S ATTORNEYS.

02:02

>> AND ALSO ACCUSING FANI

02:04

WILLIS OF PLAYING THE RACE CARD

02:10

AS WELL.

02:11

>> AND THE GOD CARD IN THE SAME

02:12

SPEECH.

02:13

>> GRANTED, THEY ARE ON TRIAL.

02:14

CERTAINLY, AS YOU RAISE, A LOT

02:15

IS AT STAKE IN TERMS OF WHETHER

02:17

OR NOT SHE AND SPECIAL

02:22

PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE COULD BE

02:23

DISQUALIFIED FROM THIS CASE.

02:23

I THINK ANOTHER FASCINATING

02:24

DYNAMIC OF WHAT WE HAVE BEEN

02:26

WATCHING IS, ONCE AGAIN, THE

02:29

TABLES ARE TURNED ON THE

02:30

DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

02:30

YOU BASICALLY HAVE THESE

02:32

DEFENDANT ATTORNEYS.

02:33

SHE'S TRYING TO PROSECUTE OVER

02:34

ELECTION INTERFERENCE

02:37

QUESTIONING HER AND SPECIAL

02:38

PROSECUTOR NATHAN WADE'S

02:39

RELATIONSHIP.

02:41

CERTAINLY IT DOES MATTER IN

02:42

THIS CASE.

02:42

BUT IT'S ALSO VERY I RAISING

02:45

JUST TO SEE THE TABLES TURNED

02:47

WITH THE DEFENDANT QUESTIONING

02:48

A PROSECUTOR IN A CASE THAT IS

02:49

STILL UNDERWAY.

02:52

THAT BEING SAID, LOOK, WE WILL

02:53

HEAR FROM THE STATE WHICH WILL

02:58

MAKE ITS ARGUMENTS.

02:59

EACH SIDE OF COURSE GETTING 90

03:01

MINUTES A PIECE.

03:01

IN THE CORE PART OF THEIR

03:03

ARGUMENT I EXPECT THE STATE TO

03:08

KNOCKDOWN THIS NOTION THAT

03:13

NATHAN WADE AND THE DISTRICT

03:14

ATTORNEY WERE POTENTIALLY BEING

03:15

UNTRUTHFUL.

03:16

WE SAW THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY

03:17

AND NATHAN WADE BOTH TAKE THE

03:18

STAND LAST MONTH DEFENDING

03:21

THEIR RELATIONSHIP.

03:21

OBVIOUSLY ONE IS STILL VERY KEY

03:24

IS THE TIMETABLE OF THEIR

03:25

RELATIONSHIP.

03:26

WHAT SOME OF THESE DEFENDANT

03:29

ATTORNEYS ARE ARGUING IS THAT

03:30

THIS RELATIONSHIP STARTED

03:34

BEFORE NATHAN WADE WAS HIRED.

03:35

WE KNOW FROM TESTIMONY FROM THE

03:36

DISTRICT ATTORNEY AND FROM

03:37

NATHAN WADE, THEY BOTH SAID

03:38

THEIR RELATIONSHIP STARTED IN

03:39

2022.

03:40

AFTER HE WAS HIRED.

03:42

BUT WHAT SOME OF THESE

03:44

ATTORNEYS WANT TO .2 ARE TEXT

03:48

MESSAGES, CELL PHONE RECORDS

03:49

THAT THEY BELIEVE PROVE

03:50

OTHERWISE.

03:52

IN ADDITION TO TESTIMONY FROM

03:53

ANOTHER WITNESS WHO USED TO

03:54

WORK IN THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

03:55

OFFICE WHO DID SAY ON THE STAND

03:59

THAT SHE BELIEVES THE

04:00

RELATIONSHIP WAS UNDERWAY

04:01

BEFOREHAND.

04:01

BUT WHY THAT MATTERS, IT

04:05

ACTUALLY LOOKS LIKE THE

04:06

DISTRICT ATTORNEY IS IN THE

04:08

COURTROOM AS WE SPEAK. I'M VERY

04:13

CURIOUS IF SHE WILL MAKE

04:14

CLOSING ARGUMENTS OR IF SHE IS

04:15

JUST THERE TO OBSERVE.

04:16

WE DID SEE DURING THEIR

04:17

TESTIMONY SHE WAS VERY DEFENSIVE

04:20

, COMBATIVE.

04:21

ALSO VERY EXPLANATORY ABOUT THE

04:22

RELATIONSHIP. WANTING TO MAKE

04:24

SURE SHE GOT HER POSITION OUT.

04:28

WE WILL BE CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT

04:29

ROLE SHE PLAYS, IF ANY, AS WE

04:31

AWAIT THE ARGUMENT.

04:33

>> IT COULD BE A VERY DRAMATIC

04:34

MOMENT WITH THE DISTRICT

04:35

ATTORNEY, FANI WILLIS, IN THE

04:37

COURTROOM.

04:40

I WANT TO BRING IN RICKY, WHO

04:41

HAS ALSO FOLLOWED TODAY'S

04:43

HEARING.

04:43

YOUR IMPRESSIONS?

04:44

RICKY?

04:49

>> Reporter: ONE OF THE THINGS

04:51

WE HAVE TO REMEMBER IS THAT

04:52

THESE DEFENSE LAWYERS HAVE A

04:53

DUTY TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS

04:54

MOTION.

04:55

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS

04:56

UNETHICAL.

04:56

THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT IS

04:58

NEEDLESSLY COMBATIVE.

05:00

THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE

05:01

INFORMATION CAME FROM ATTORNEY

05:05

ASHLEY MERCHANT OVER A PERIOD

05:09

OF MONTHS BY TERENCE BRADLEY.

05:11

TERENCE BRADLEY WAS THE PARTNER

05:14

OF NATHAN WADE.

05:15

HE WAS ALSO HIS DIVORCE

05:17

ATTORNEY.

05:23

NOT DOZENS, IF MAYBE HUNDREDS

05:24

OF TEXT MESSAGES.

05:25

WE CERTAINLY KNOW IT'S A

05:26

MARRIED OF THEM OVER THE

05:30

MONTHS.

05:30

LEAVING THIS MERCHANT TO BE

05:31

ABLE TO FILE A MOTION

05:32

ENCOURAGING HER TO FILE A MOTION

05:36

BECAUSE HE HAD INFORMATION ABOUT

05:41

THE RELATIONSHIP OF NATHAN WADE

05:42

AND FANI WILLIS.

05:45

AN ATTORNEY IN THE POSITION OF

05:48

-- FULLY HAD THE DUTY TO FILE

05:50

THIS MOTION.

05:51

I WILL SAY THIS.

05:56

THIS CASE IS NOT GETTING

05:57

DISMISSED.

05:57

HOWEVER, THE ONE QUESTION THAT

05:58

DOES REMAIN IS WHETHER OR NOT

06:02

FANI WILLIS AND/OR NATHAN WADE

06:04

WILL BE DISQUALIFIED FROM

06:05

CONTINUING THE CASE.

06:10

THE FACT THAT IT MAY CREATE A

06:12

DELAY, THE FACT THAT ANOTHER

06:13

PROSECUTOR MAY HAVE TO LOOK AT

06:15

IT A NEW, THAT IS JUST RECKLESS

06:18

CONDUCT.

06:19

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I

06:22

THINK I'VE SAID BEFORE, THE

06:24

CONDUCT HERE OF FANI WILLIS AND

06:27

NATHAN WADE WAS STUNNING IN

06:30

ITS RECKLESSNESS.

06:35

DOES THAT MEAN THEY GET

06:36

DISQUALIFIED?

06:36

PERHAPS HE HAS, PERHAPS KNOW.

06:37

ONE THING WE KNOW FOR SURE, WE

06:40

SAW THE MIND OF THIS JUDGE.

06:42

EVEN IF HE DOES NOT DISQUALIFY

06:44

THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY, THE ONE

06:49

PLACE THESE COMPLAINTS ARE

06:50

GOING IS DOWN TO THE BAR

06:51

ASSOCIATION.

06:52

AND WE KNOW THAT THERE ARE

06:56

GROUPS OF PEOPLE WERE LOOKING

06:57

AT THIS CONDUCT.

06:59

IT IS SO BASIC TO A LAWYER,

07:03

PARTICULARLY A PROSECUTOR, THAT

07:07

YOU COULD NOT HAVE AN

07:08

APPEARANCE OF PROPRIETY.

07:09

THAT IS --

07:17

>> I BELIEVE SCOTT McAFEE HAS

07:18

RETURNED TO THE COURTROOM.

07:19

THERE HAS BEEN A BRIEF RECESS

07:20

AND HE'S NOW BACK IN THE

07:21

COURTROOM.

07:22

THE PROCEEDINGS ARE CONTINUING

07:22

WE WILL NOW HEAR FROM THE STATE

07:24

IN DEFENSE OF DISTRICT ATTORNEY

07:25

FANI WILLIS . POSSIBLY THE

07:26

DISTRICT ATTORNEY HERSELF.

07:27

LET'S LISTEN IN ON THE

07:28

PROCEEDINGS.

07:31

>> GOOD AFTERNOON, YOUR HONOR.

07:37

I WANT TO START WITH SOME OF

07:39

THE THINGS THAT WERE ADDRESSED

07:40

OVER THE LAST HOUR AND A HALF.

07:41

FIRST, BEGINNING WITH SOMETHING

07:42

THAT MR. MERCHANT REFERENCED AS

07:44

IT RELATED TO THE COMMENTS THE

07:47

STATE MADE IN WHICH WAS

07:52

SUBMITTED TO THE COURT. THE

07:56

DEFENSE COUNSEL CLAIMED THE

07:58

EVIDENCE WOULD SHOW.

08:02

I WOULD STRONGLY BRING TO THE

08:04

COURTS ATTENTION THAT THE

08:05

CLAIMS THAT WERE MADE WERE A

08:06

MATERIAL RISK --

08:09

MISREPRESENTATION.

08:09

AND WHAT I WILL SAY TO THE COURT

08:14

, AND WHY I SAID THAT TO THE

08:16

COURT, IS BECAUSE THE

08:17

REPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE MADE

08:18

BY COUNSEL WAS THAT MS. YOUNG,

08:21

MS. ALLEN, MR. DEXTER BONDS,

08:24

INVESTIGATOR HILL, INVESTIGATOR

08:25

GREEN, INVESTIGATOR RICKS.

08:30

ALL OF THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE

08:32

CALLED AND MR. BRADLEY WOULD BE

08:35

ABLE TO IMPEACH THEIR KNOWLEDGE

08:37

BY SAYING HE SPECIFICALLY, IN

08:42

HIS PRESENCE OR TO HIM, SAID

08:47

THAT MISS WILLIS OR MR. WADE

08:48

WERE IN A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP

08:54

AND THAT MISS WILLIS AND MR.

08:56

WADE OR COHABITATING.

08:56

THAT THEY ALL KNEW THAT.

08:57

AND I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE

08:58

COURT, WE DIDN'T HEAR FROM ANY

09:00

OF THOSE INDIVIDUALS.

09:00

MR. BRADLEY IMPEACHED NO ONE.

09:05

AND I SAY NO ONE BECAUSE HE DID

09:06

NOT IMPEACH MR. WADE.

09:07

IN ORDER TO PROPERLY IMPEACH A

09:09

WITNESS YOU HAVE TO CONFRONT

09:10

THE WITNESS WITH SPECIFIC

09:10

STATEMENTS.

09:11

MR. WADE, AND YOU CAN LOOK BACK

09:12

AT THE YOUTUBE OF THE HEARINGS

09:13

FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS.

09:16

MR. WADE WASN'T ONCE CONFRONTED

09:18

WITH A STATEMENT THAT HAS

09:20

CLAIMED HE SAID TO MR. BRADLEY,

09:25

THE WAY YOU PROBABLY IMPEACH

09:27

SOMEBODY YOU HAVE TO CONFRONT

09:28

THE WITNESS. WHICH WOULD BE MR.

09:30

WADE.

09:33

ONCE HE MAKES A STATEMENT THAT

09:35

YOU BELIEVE TO BE INCONSISTENT,

09:36

AND YOU HAVE A WITNESS THAT CAN

09:38

PROVE THAT INCONSISTENCY,

09:39

THAT'S WHEN YOU CALL THAT

09:40

WITNESS.

09:42

AND WHEN MR. WADE WAS ON THE

09:43

STAND NOT ONCE WAS HE ASKED,

09:46

DID YOU TELL MR. BRADLEY THIS

09:49

IN A CONFIDENTIAL CONVERSATION

09:54

IN YOUR CONFERENCE ROOM.

09:54

IT WAS NOT COVERED UNDER

10:01

ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE.

10:02

THE SPECIFICS OF THE

10:03

CONVERSATION WAS NOT ASKED.

10:03

20 TESTIMONY THAT MR. BRADLEY

10:05

TESTIFIED TO IS IMPERMISSIBLE.

10:08

IT IS IMPROPER IMPEACHMENT.

10:09

BECAUSE THEY DID NOT CONFRONT

10:11

MR. WADE WITH IT.

10:14

THAT'S WHERE THE STATE WOULD

10:15

BEGIN WITH THE COMMENTS THAT

10:16

MR. MERCHANT MADE ABOUT ME

10:18

REFERENCING HIS WIFE AS LYING.

10:23

I NEVER USED THOSE WORDS.

10:24

I DON'T KNOW WHY SHE MADE THE

10:27

MATERIAL MISREPRESENTATIONS.

10:28

IT COULD BECAUSE MR. BRADLEY

10:30

LIED TO HER.

10:31

I DON'T KNOW THE REASON.

10:34

I CAN SUBMIT TO THE COURT THAT

10:36

THOSE WERE MATERIAL

10:36

MISREPRESENTATIONS THAT WERE

10:37

MADE TO THIS COURT A FEW

10:39

MONDAYS AGO AS EVERYONE WAS

10:43

ARGUING THE MOTIONS TO CROSS

10:47

CERTAIN SUBPOENAS.

10:47

I WILL ALSO BRING IT TO THE

10:48

COURTS ATTENTION THAT DURING

10:49

THAT MOTION OF CERTAIN SUBPOENAS

10:54

HER ATTORNEY APPEARED.

10:55

MR. PARTRIDGE.

10:55

AND HE MADE VERY CLEAR ON THAT

10:57

ZOOM THAT SHE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO

11:01

KNOWLEDGE OF A ROMANTIC

11:02

RELATIONSHIP AND ABSOLUTELY NO

11:03

KNOWLEDGE OF COHABITATION.

11:06

THOSE WERE THE SPECIFIC

11:07

REFERENCES THAT HE MADE.

11:11

WHAT I WOULD SUBMIT TO THE COURT

11:13

IS THOSE ARE CONSIDERED

11:15

ADOPTIVE ADMISSIONS.

11:19

HIS CLIENT HAS MADE THEM BASED

11:20

ON THE STATEMENTS HE MADE

11:23

BECAUSE OF THE REPRESENTATIONS

11:24

SHE MADE TO HIM.

11:28

I KNOW THAT SOUNDS CONVOLUTED.

11:29

BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THE

11:31

COURT IS, SHE TOLD MR.

11:34

PARTRIDGE, BECAUSE MR.

11:34

PARTRIDGE TOLD THE COURT, THAT

11:36

THERE WAS NO INFORMATION ABOUT

11:37

A ROMANTIC RELATIONSHIP AND SHE

11:38

HAD NO INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO

11:42

--

11:43

>> THESE WOULD BE ATTORNEY-

11:44

CLIENT PRIVILEGES OF

11:56

MEDICATIONS THEN.

11:57

SHE'S COMMUNICATING WITH MR.

11:57

PARTRIDGE ABOUT WHAT HER

11:58

UPCOMING TESTIMONY IS.

11:59

THAT'S WHAT SHE HIRED HIM.

12:00

AND YOU'RE TELLING ME I SHOULD

12:01

INFER THINGS BASED ON HER TO

12:02

MEDICATIONS TO HIM?

12:03

>> ABSOLUTELY.

12:03

BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT ATTORNEY-

12:04

CLIENT MEDICATIONS ANYMORE WHEN

12:05

HE DISCLOSES THEM TO THE COURT

12:06

AND EVERYBODY ELSE AS THEY

12:07

WATCHED THE ZOOM AND ATTEND THE

12:09

HEARING.

12:09

THE DIFFERENCE IS, THERE WAS NO

12:10

REQUEST TO GO ON CAMERA.

12:11

THERE IS NO REQUEST TO HAVE A

12:13

PRIVATE CONVERSATION WITH YOU,

12:15

AS WAS DONE WITH MR. BRADLEY.

12:18

THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER

12:20

PROCEDURE.

12:20

SO YES, I'M ASKING YOU TO INFER

12:22

THAT 100%.

12:22

I'M ASKING YOU TO INFER THE

12:24

TESTIMONY WAS AT BEST

12:25

INCONSISTENT.

12:26

BECAUSE THE TESTIMONY OF

12:29

MONSIEUR EDDIE, WHEN SHE

12:30

TESTIFIED, VERY LITTLE

12:33

DESCRIPTION WHEN ASKED IN A VERY

12:38

LEADING MANNER, IS A TRUE, OR

12:45

DID YOU KNOW THAT MISS WILLIS

12:47

AND MR. WADE WERE IN A

12:48

RELATIONSHIP FROM 2019 INTO THE

12:55

TIME YOU WERE FORCED TO RESIGN

12:57

FROM THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S

12:57

OFFICE IN MARCH OF 2022?

12:58

SHE SAID, YES.

12:59

AND FURTHER, WHEN PRESSED, HE

13:01

TALKS ABOUT WHY SHE BELIEVED