[ad_1]
ATLANTA – A Georgia judge ruled Friday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis should not be disqualified to process the extortion case against former President Donald Trump and several co-defendants — with one important condition.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee found that the “appearance of impropriety” caused by Willis’ romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade should result in Willis and his office dropping the case. — or simply Wade, whom he had appointed to lead the case.
Within hours of the decision, Willis’ office confirmed that Wade had resigned and she had accepted his resignation. The choice was probably easy: If Willis dropped out, the case would stop, but Wade leaving would ensure that the case continued without further delays. In her letter, Wade said, “I offer my resignation in the interest of democracy, in dedication to the American public, and to move this case forward as quickly as possible.”
Trump’s attorney, Steve Sadow, said in a statement that “while we respect the Court’s decision, we believe the Court did not give appropriate weight to Willis and Wade’s prosecutorial misconduct.”
“We will use all legal options available as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought,” he added.
Willis’ office had no immediate comment on the ruling.
The judge determined that there was no “actual conflict” caused by the relationship, a finding that would have required Willis to be disqualified. “Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal interest in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied,” the judge wrote. .
“This conclusion is in no way an indication that the Court condones this tremendous error in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the opinion of the undersigned that Georgia law does not permit a determination of the existence of an actual conflict simply by making bad decisions, even repeatedly, and it is the duty of the trial court to limit itself to the relevant issues and the applicable law that are presented appropriately. ”He added.
However, the judge also found that “the prosecution is hampered by an appearance of irregularity.”
“As the case progresses, it is easy for reasonable members of the public to question whether the financial exchanges have continued to result in any type of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed,” he wrote. “As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist.”
McAfee also suggested that he was skeptical about Willis and Wade’s testimony that they did not start dating until after he was appointed to the case. He said, “Reasonable questions about whether the district attorney and her hand-picked leader, SADA (special assistant district attorney), testified falsely about the timing of their relationship further support the finding of an appearance of wrongdoing and the need to make proportionate efforts to remedy it. “.
The decision is a partial victory for Willis and leaves open the possibility that the case could be tried before the 2024 presidential election. If Willis had been disqualified completely, the case would have had to go to another prosecutor, who would have the task to catch up on a case Willis spent more than two years building.
McAfee’s ruling comes after a lawyer for one of Trump’s co-defendants in the election interference case, a former Trump campaign and White House staffer. roman michaelfiled a motion to have Willis disqualified and the criminal case dismissed for her alleged “incorrect“ personal relationship with Wade.
That attorney, Ashleigh Merchant, said: “While we believe the court should have disqualified Willis’s office entirely, this opinion is a vindication that everything presented by the defense was true, accurate and relevant to the issues surrounding the case. our clients’ right to a fair trial. “The judge clearly agreed with the defense that Willis’ actions are the result of his poor judgment and that there is a risk to the future of this case if he does not work quickly to resolve the issue.”
Roman’s filing alleges that Willis circumvented the rules to appoint Wade, and that she benefited financially from her appointment, which has netted her position more than $600,000 to date. She also claimed that they were romantically involved prior to Wade’s appointment.
Willis and Wade later acknowledged that they had been in a relationshipbut maintained that it began after he was appointed special prosecutor in November 2021.
The judge approved an evidentiary hearing on Roman’s claims last month and warned: “Disqualification may occur if evidence is presented demonstrating a real conflict or the appearance of one.”
in an extraordinary audience which lasted three days over a two-week period, Willis and Wade took the stand and testified that they had dated for just over a year after he was appointed and that she did not benefit from his work. Both said that while Wade sometimes charged Willis’ plane tickets to her credit card, she paid him in cash or by paying other bills.
In his ruling, McAfee questioned Willis’ judgment.
“Even if the romantic relationship began after SADA Wade’s initial contract in November 2021, the District Attorney decided to continue to supervise and pay Wade while maintaining said relationship. In addition, he allowed the regular and flexible exchange of money between them without any measures “exact or verifiable reconciliation. This lack of a confirmed financial division creates the possibility and appearance that the District Attorney benefited, although not materially, from a contract whose award fell solely within her jurisdiction and oversight,” he wrote.
He also questioned some of Wade’s testimony about why he had claimed that he had not had a romantic relationship with anyone else in a court filing in his ongoing divorce case. “Wade’s patently unconvincing explanation of the inaccurate interrogatories she presented in his pending divorce indicates a willingness on her part to wrongfully conceal her relationship with the District Attorney,” McAfee wrote.
Roman’s lawyers had brought in two witnesses to support their claims about the timing of Willis and Wade’s relationship, including a former friend of Willis named Robin Yeartie and Wade’s former law partner and divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley.
The judge concluded that while Yeartie’s testimony “raised doubt about the State’s claims, it ultimately lacked context and detail.” As for Bradley, who, according to Roman lawyer Ashleigh Merchant, was the source of his misconduct allegations, the judge said he was “unable to give any weight” to his testimony.
“His inconsistencies, his behavior and his generally indifferent responses left too fragile a foundation on which to build conclusions,” the judge wrote.
Bradley had told Merchant in a text message that Wade and Willis’ relationship had “absolutely” begun before Wade’s appointment, but he testified on the witness stand that he had only been speculating.
The judge said that “neither party was able to conclusively establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic relationship,” but “a whiff of mendacity remains.”
He also criticized a speech Willis gave at Big Bethel AME Church in mid-January, after Roman filed his disqualification motion. In the speech, he criticized unnamed “they” who were “attacking” the only black special prosecutor he had appointed to the case: Wade, whom he also did not name.
Willis “attributed the effort to ‘playing the race card.’ He continued to frequently refer to SADA Wade as the “black man,” while his other undisputed SADAs were labeled “a white woman” and “a white man.” The effect of this speech was to cast racial slurs on the defendant’s decision to file this pretrial motion,” McAfee wrote.
Lawyers for Roman and Trump had argued that the comments were made to prejudice potential jurors in the case and were also grounds for disqualification.
McAfee said he “cannot find that this speech crossed the line to the point where the defendants were denied the opportunity for a fundamentally fair trial, or that it required the disqualification of the District Attorney. But it still went legally inappropriate. Providing this type of public information “The comment creates dangerous waters for the district attorney to wade further into.”
Both Trump and Roman have pleaded not guilty in the case, which alleges they conspired with others to overturn the election results in the state.
[ad_2]
Source link
