Transcripts For CNNW CNN 20240704

To republican control of the senate. Stop garvey. Adam schiff for senate. Im adam schiff, and i approve this message. 1808836464. Thats 1808836464. Im Fred Pleitgen in tehran. And this is cnn welcome to. Cnn news central. Im Boris Sanchez alongside jessica dean in washington. And in just moments were going to see some pivotal humans in the Georgia Election subversion case against donald trump and his codefendants, Attorneys For Trump and his codefendants are going to deliver Closing Arguments in their push to disqualify the person who brought thats sweeping case, Fulton County District Attorney, fani willis. They claimed that willis financially benefited from her romantic relationship with one of her top prosecutors nathan wade. Now the judge will ultimately decide if the defense proved those explosive allegations were going to take you live inside the courtroom once those presentations again, which we are expecting momentarily, but first lets take you to Zachary Cohen who was outside the courthouse in atlanta, and also here with us seeing an anchor and chief legal analyst, laura coates. Zach, lets start with you. How are you expecting all of this to play out today you guys any minute, we expect offensive thanks for donald trump and his fellow codefendants to enter into this courtroom in layout for the judge in this case, judge scott mcafee, why the evidence that theyve put forward so far, warrens disqualifying fani willis, the District Attorney here in yoni from the Georgia Election subversion case. And look, theyre going to have to meet the burden. And one of the things we will look, were were looking for for scott mcafee to clarify, today is what that burden is exactly now amounts, whether the evidence amounts to a Conflict Of Interest, theyve argued that the evidence shows that fani willis financially benefited from her romantic relationship with wade or even if the burden is is the appearance of a Conflict Of Interests that could radically change the calculation into whether or not scott mcafee is likely to ultimately disqualify willis but look, the lawyer for the District Attorneys office are going to have a chance to push back and make their own case as to why fani willis should remain on the case. And i dont have to state the state its here for you guys. Its a Pivotal Moment in this case, sources have told me for weeks now that if fani willis is disqualified, people inside the District Attorneys office fear that that means its the case itself is effectively dead because nobody else in this state will want to pick it up because of the political taint that would be on it. And now were also looking to see more from scott mcafee offer any clues as to where he might be leaning coming into this hearing . All a lot of questions coming in, but were hoping that we could at least get some clarity and whether or not we might be headed toward a resolution over the question of whether or not fani willis remains or is disqualified here zach, please standby. We are watching judge Scott Mcafee A Fever Proceedings appear to be getting underway a moment ago, we saw the defense team and the prosecution settling into place before we go to the proceedings. Lets listen to laura coats and what she has to say about what were expecting today. Its been stevie, theres been some fireworks. Its been a hot mess. This has been a happy to cobbler. We are all way down in georgia, right . And atlanta and thinking about it, think about what the stakes are. Zach is right . If fani willis is disqualified and thats a high burden to meet by the way. It is having to show that she had a Conflict Of Interest that actually hurt the defendants, that they cannot have a fair trial, not just issues that are salacious and for the details that people are leaning into here about, but didnt actually impact the ability to have a fair trial bay. Those who are moving for it have to connect those dots. It has to be be a financial benefit of some time. Theyve had trouble establishing that through threadbare and why . Because her having an additional income or a separate income and going dutch, so to speak, cannot be enough to establish Conflict Of Interests. It might surprise people to know that there are romantic endeavors that take place between Police Officers prosecutors, defense kearney, dredges. It is the real does it actually hurt the defendant is the case here. Now today, this judge has had very little patience up till now about how to have this whole thing go down. It is there a burden to prove it . And were going to see if they actually meet it. And so im curious who or what you think about the fact that this controversy, whether or not whatever happens today, it is now, has it tainted kind of Public Opinion on this . And whats the Public Opinion piece of it moving forward, will it have any bearing on in this trial . We ask yourself if you were a juror call to serve in this matter, hoping to focus on the presentation of evidence and instead, youre thinking, know which one of you were involved in whats happening here, trying to get distracted nothing. Weve heard so far it goes to the underlying facts its in the case, so thats the most important part here. We havent touched the allegations against any of those codefendants. There has been no credible evidence to undermine any of those allegations as of yet, the focus is that but the idea that she could be disqualified is not just her. Itd be the entire office. Itd be a separate prosecuting counsel in georgia who traveled would then be due to a point or assign because this is not the most attractive case to want to bring for Security Reasons alone, let alone this scrutiny inside and pay and so the entire office be disqualified, which means they dont have to even follow the grand jury indictment. They dont have to keep this case, keep all the defendant. They could add the defendants, they could not go forward either way. The timeline would be totally thrown off of such a consequential case during a consequences so period in american history, would you say that trumps team has been successful on those two fronts if their strategy has been partly to muddy the waters, as you say, none of what were watching today are up to this point has really been about the facts of the case outside of Sydney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro sort of adjudicating their aspect there angle of this and in the second part of it is the fact that the trump team in all of these cases has tried to delay delay, delay. Its been a success for that defense team hasnt it . This has been death by 1,000 credibility cuts. Why . Because think about when youre in the courtroom and youre listening to the presentation of evidence, and you have a lawyer whose credibility has been challenged, then turning to a witness and trying to challenge. Theres on the stand. Oh, these documents dont actually say this or im checking to believe what you have to say, trying to persuade jury of 12 people on this, may be thinking, well, hold on. Youre not a blank canvas to me. I dont know. So give you the benefit of the doubt in the same way thats a problem. But again, we have not touched the actual meat on the bone of the case, and we have some time between now and if there is a trial, amnesia sets in like you wouldnt believe in a lot of cases. And remember, this is the actual site of the allegations where peoples votes were likely affected or sought to be impacted and that could actually overrule ones irritation with the more salacious, but make no mistake about it. No prosecutor, fani willis, nathan wade, or anyone on that team wants anyone thinking about these aspects as opposed to the facts in this case . Well, thats it. You want them you want them focused on the case and boris, you mentioned i think such a salient point, which is its the muddying of the water is their strategy here because you just said it, weve gotten to the media the case here. Its this is about just muddy up that water as much you possibly can. Optics are very important. Theyre important for jurors. They are important for you. Think about the hint of impropriety. We challenge our Supreme Court justices or judges on conflicts of interests. But for this judge, his focus ought to be the law. I mean, the optics we can all agree. Nobody should be hearing about whether someone likes grey goose versus why whether a bartenders have future cash or not, what trips you had the time we take in had that kind of time to take a prosecutor and cnn, i have an issue with that, but i dont have enough about thinking about this. Judge has to be focused did you meet the burden you brought us here because you want to disqualify an elected official because you say there is a Conflict Of Interest that will mean that these defendants cant get a fair trial so he has to synthesize he has to focus and yes, to follow that legal obligation. I want to bring zach back into the conversation. I believe hes still on okay. Zach has gone well, you got me, kid about one of the things you mentioned, The Burden Of Proof and the challenge that the defense team has to sort of show that there was impropriety, that there was a Conflict Of Interest, et cetera. So, judge mcafee said that hes going to allow this report from a price evan investigator that track the Cell Phone Pings of nathan wade and put them within a certain distance of fani willis at all hours of the night, how could that impact what we see in this hearing . Well, first, lets talk about how the technology would work if you think about the way in which your cell phone on receives data and signals. Its kinda like a baton relay race. As you go to one area, the baton is passed the editor pick it up. Thats how youre able to track someones movements. The investigator, and how i process to get a case in the past and the fbi often does the same thing is to figure out what your course was, what was your actual path based on that baton pinging . What are you and how long were you there . Doesnt tell you what the Text Messages said necessarily doesnt tell you what the nature of the conversation, but the sheer contact of pinging alone, why this is important here is because they have said in testimony that they did not begin a romantic relationship before a certain date, that he did not spend the night. I think it was the phrasing that they asked him about trying to establish that he had visited a particular location where she lived. They were trying to does suggest there was some kind of a loves shaq thats why she didnt live at home any longer. You laugh at that phrase and returned to say, i mean the beat other side about a love shack wasnt part of the child here, but this is a whole thing, right . The tin roof rested. Yeah. But thats the implication there, trying to make here. And so theyre trying to discredit and saying you testified in front of this court about certain dates, you have a duty of candor under your ethical obligations in the courtroom. And this judge knows it and theyre all lawyers. They want to discredit that very testimony. Again, though, does it go to the heart of the matter of disqualification and being able to prove that this is going to hurt the defendants in this action . Likely not. But remember as well heres whats interesting. You have to fight to get that in through an expert that can be qualified. Mrs. Expert, to say what you are presenting it as is actually intended to go to the meat of the matter. Its interesting to figure out how Cell Phone Data works but the defense, who raised the motion got to cutesy when they didnt ask precise questions. We said things like, could you spend the night . Did you sleep over . I have prosecuted sex crimes. We have to be quite precise in the language to actually get the testimony in they tried to dance around an issue. It might hurt them in the end. All right. Well, lets listen and listen in and see as this begins down in your old county of the conflict issue and the appearance of the conflict and what we believe the evidence to show on that issue. Mr. Sadow, mr. Gilliam will be talking more about the forensic misconduct piece of it ms willis is Church Speech statements made to the media. Fraud on the court. Frankly, and the book that she gave several interviews for. So i wont be discussing any of those issues. So you if youd like to ask me, certainly i can try to address them, but that is going to be the focus of their presentation and then towards the end, other folks may have issues specific type arguments, either in follow up to mine or the forensic misconduct, but those are the two lanes that were going to be covering, but im gonna do the conflict piece of it for you on that issue. Your honor this is a matter of First Impression in georgia. I cant find a single case thats been published by the Court Of Appeals or the Supreme Court. That is based on these facts. There of course, number of different Appellate Court cases that deal with conflict related issues. And more importantly, appearance of conflict related issues and some of those are based in state law, some of them are based on the ethical rules that govern lawyers. Some of them are based upon the sixth amendment right to due process. Thats implicit in all of what were doing here today. I want to remind the court that were here today on this motion to disqualify da willis and her office because of her judgment. Frankly, xi is supposed to be disinterested under the sixth amendment and shes anything but that the fact that these proceedings have taken this long convoluted, looted way weve made it here today explain that. So as i present my arguments, i want the court to understand that this court represents the guardrails for the sixth amendment in this context. And ms willis has already been disqualified. Wants so i would encourage the court to remember what judge mcburney did in his order, disqualifying the same argument was made in that case as to whether or not there needs to be an actual Conflict Of Interest or whether or not the appearance of a Conflict Of Interests might be sufficient under the facts. I want to make clear to the court that i the law in georgia suggest and is very clear that we can demonstrate an appearance of a Conflict Of Interest. And that is sufficient. There are there is im going to be candid with the court. There is a Supreme Court decision from 1996 lambie state, and then there are two court of appeal decisions after that debt deal. Frankly, in some dikta that suggests that an actual conflict is required, but the Supreme Court or georgias, since those decisions came down, has made quite clear that the appearance of a conflict like standards still applies. And the reason thats important is i think under the sixth amendment, which is where were at in order to preserve the defendants rights under that under that provision and under corollary provisions of georgia law, youve got youve got to consider the appearance of conflict. And the reason why the appearance of a conflict is so prescient here is because if this court allows this kind of behavior to go on in alouds das across the state by its order to engage in these kinds of activities. The entire Public Confidence in the system will be shot. And the integrity of the system will be undermined. And so with those sort of Public Policy and constitutional principles i wanted to turn to the law in georgia on disqualification. And your honor, im gonna im gonna give you the law and im going to talk about the facts and how they apply the law at the end, if you want to talk about the facts earlier, jump right in and ill be happy to do that. Im sure youre 100 is very wellprepared and probably knows all the law that im going to cite to you. But to give the skeleton outline the original the seminal case that deals with Conflict Of Interest from the georgia Supreme Court is williams v. State. Thats 258, georgia 305. And theyre basically two methods by which you can disqualify a District Attorney. One of them is a Conflict Of Interests, and ill suggest that to the core, that doesnt mean an actual conflict, that could mean an appearance of conflict as well and then forensic misconduct importantly, in the williams case, though in footnote four, and i think this is important for the courts analysis about the facts and where do they which box it fits into the court said there was no clear Demarcation Line between Conflict Of Interests and forensic misconduct given a given ground for disqualification of the prosecutor, might be classifiable as either. And i think thats important because we have facts that fit in both boxes. So if the state stands up and says, well, theres no actual conflict here, judge, that doesnt mean necessarily that it doesnt apply forensic misconduct typically, forensic misconduct relates to statements that the prosecutor designed to impugn the character of the defendant before trial and to effect the jury pool, which we have here, which im not going to discuss, but the facts that we have here very much relate to that issue and theres crossover importantly and i think this is important for the courts consideration of what but in the courts ruling may have it is if you deny this motion, theres a good chance if its reversed that we would be granted a new trial. So that means were going to have to do this all over again in Amusement Sales Versus state 316, georgia appellate lets 727 thats the case that cites whitworth, which is physical precedent. Only. The court said at the assigned prosecutor has acquired a personal interest or stake in the conviction. The trial court abuses this discretion in denying a motion to disqualify the defendant is entitled to a new trial. New trial, even without a showing prejudice so that means if if if we show the court today and i think we have through the proceedings today and before that, ms willis has developed a very personal interest in this and, your honor denies this motion. Were coming back all over again. If the Appellate Courts say, lets say you were wrong. So what does that personal interests so the personal interests can be theres no definition of that under georgia law, and it could be a personal financial interests, it could be a personal interests related to bias against a particular defendant, which sort of falls into the forensic Misconduct Box but we have here a very personal financial interests thats been laid out in terms of money received by ms as a result of the scheme that she set up to get to the issue of personal interest in the context of an appearance. I think thats important. I do want to suggest to the court that there are a number of cases on that a postdate. This actual Conflict Of Interests language that suggests that in some of the cases from the 90s, that you have to Pay Attention to what this looks like to the public and i agree with all of the law and im sure the states going to stand up here and say it cant be a speculative or conjectural type of personal interest and we dont have that here. We have something very concrete. And as judge mcburney put it, actual and palpable, not speculative than remote. Thats exactly what we have here. Weve demonstrated through testimony of the witnesses some of whom impeach themselves that we have a very personal interests in the seminole United States court case that deals with prosecutorial impropriety is young, the us thats a 41 us 787 case. And that case, its the opportunity for conflicts arise that created at least the appearance of impropriety and thats the case that requires that the prosecutor be disinterested since a scheme injecting a personal interest financial, or otherwise into the Enforcement Prospect Process thats may bring irrelevant and impermissible factors into the prosecutorial decision now, there are a number of georgia cases that sort of repeat that theme. Reeves v. State to 31 georgia appellate 22. Thats 1998 case, stated a potential Conflict Of Interest existed in the appearance of impropriety existed davenport v. State 157 georgia appellate 70 for this 1981 case that was decided seven years before williams, when there is at least the appearance of impropriety, a defendant is denied Phantom Fundamental Fairness in the states prosecution of the charges against him or her there were also rules that govern prosecutors lawyers, and in general are bound to preserve and avoid even the appearance of impropriety thats brown v. State to 56 georgia appellate 603 to zero to 2000 to head v. State they prosecutors close personal relationship with the victim in a case may create at least the appearance of a problem execution unfairly based on private interests rather than one properly based on vindication of Public Interest aba, Criminal Justice Standards for the Prosecution Function standard 3. 3 dash one point to see prosecutors should avoid appearance of impropriety and performing the Prosecution Function. Three dash 1. 7 f, the prosecutor should not permit the prosecutor professional judgment or obligations to be affected by the prosecutors personal, political, financial, professional, Business Process pretty or other interests or relationships. So the rules that govern her in her own profession say that this is wrong because shes developed a financial interest in this case into the very least, created the appearance of unfairness towards these defendants by setting up a relationship prosecutorial relationship with her boyfriend that shed been dating for two years according to the testimony so before i move here, ana to the specific facts, ai you asked whats personal interests . I think frankly, as i was trying to figure this out, i think, you know what, when you see it, its just like in the concurrence and jacobellis versus state of ohio Supreme Court case from 1964. Justice stewart and in his Concurring Opinion said, i know when i see yeah. Talking about obscenity, i think you know what when you see it. I think theres enough facts in front of you that, you know it when you see it and i think that the governing principle helps enlightened some of the facts here and also i think its not just financial and mcglothlin we stayed i think courts very familiar with that case tu95, georgia 609 2014, the Supreme Court essentially said that because the actin da had become a witness in the case and developed a personal interest in the case due to his daughters relationship with the victim, that he was disqualified and not men because he was disqualified his entire office was disqualified so turning to the facts of the case, your honor, i think ive got my role is 20 minutes, so ive got about eight minutes left so why why did the relationship why did we spend so much time on a relationship between these two people . We frankly, couldnt care less if they had a personal relationship outside at work that is not what the issue is here the issue is that they began this relationship in 2019. They were dating for two years and then she awarded him a contract where public money, either from Fulton County or the state of georgia ended up in his pockets. That decision alone was improper. But whats even whats even more improper is then she she and he used that money to go on personal vacations and trips if your honour will remember, exhibits 9, 11. 12 dealt with the expenditures by wade on trips if you if you do the math on that, if you look at what what he spent and then you look at the testimony about what was paid back by willis because the Cash Reimbursement Theory will ill talk about in a second, but he if you, if you do the math on what he actually paid for him and what they testified she paid back in cash. You still have over 9,200. 90, 200 in 247 to be exact . Is the amount of money they cannot account for. In her testimony. And as youre on a rule, remember, there was no mention of cash and mr. Wades affidavit when the best and first opportunity to raise that issue would have come up is when the state file their response in his affidavit, that is nowhere to be found in the first time we heard about cash was here in this courtroom and so i think she had he so shes received a personal financial benefit of over 9,200 in this case that she cant account for and mistake can account for. The reason we cant account for it is because they they came up with a cache theory. Cash theory only, only rate were going to that. Let me ask you this. Melissa, they couldnt have lets say the theory wasnt even there that they had paid it back or that there have been any exchange is should there be a consideration of a Materiality Requirement . Now that youve seen that in this jurisdiction or not, its not in this jurisdiction. Have you seen any other jurisdiction . I havent seen that, judge. And if it was 6, i would still be in proper would it be improper where its a per say, disqualification of someone buys their boss of stick of gum. Is that per say, disqualifying because theres no Materiality Requirement well, no, i dont disagree that it may not muted Materiality Requirement, but its a personal benefit. I wont say that getting back to gum is just justification for disqualifying a disregard think thats part of the issue, judge. I think its a factbased inquiries by you. So theres a continuum involved here. Yeah. I but i think i think the continuum involves you looking at whether or not on The Grand Scheme in The Grand Scheme of things, it violates the constitution. And whether or not theres an appearance of a conflict and the appearance suggests that she actually received a benefit. And we know that she did. They admitted it. We dont have to speculate about that. They said that they she said she got a benefit and she said she paid back certain amounts in that regard, your honor, i dont know what 100 be enough with 200 be enough. I think you have to look at it globally and consider all of the witnesses, consider all of the facts, consider consider the credibility of the witnesses. Frankly. I mean, your honor, sat here and watched everybody, so i havent spent a lot of time going into the specific testimony because your honors well aware of it, but you get to evaluate the credibility of the witnesses. Theres the fact finder and just for joining us from a legal perspective though, youre saying we cant just say dollar amount. Look no further. There has to be a totality of the circumstances analysis i think i think its fact specific, judge. I dont really want you to pin me down on that because theres no walnut. I cant give you a straight answer because i havent seen anything like that. I dont and i think if we build a Materiality Requirement into the into the case law, then youre down, youre down a Slippery Slope that and because then its going to be the Appellate Courts are going to be deciding what was 50 enough is 100 enough. So i think its not necessarily the amount of the money. Its the fact that she received it and its not insignificant. I dont think your order has to say because she received 9,200. Shes disqualified. I think if we go back to the 20,000 foot level, wheres the whats the appearance here . Is this fairness to the defendants . Does it appear that she is interested in this prosecution or does it appear that shes disinterested . She took the stand . You can tell shes not a disinterested person when it comes to this proceeding, but we also argue shes not a disinterested person when it comes to the prosecution as a whole im going to leave for all resist the temptation to defend my wife and who i believe to be an excellent lawyer and member of the bar for 20 years in good standing. But i will say this, judge, you dont just evaluate the credibility of the witnesses you evaluate the credibility of the lawyers. And mr. Body stood up here in open court in front of National News and the National Public and called her a liar. I need to address that for one minute this technique, Text Messages that are now part of the record, which now are substantive evidence for you to consider prove everything that she put in that motion, everything that she tried to elicit for mr. Bradley was absolutely 100 true. We not only was it true, she verified through the witness himself at the motion was accurate for it was filed so for the state to get up here and impugn her credibility its not only improper, it violates burger versus United States, which is a case that says the state cant just get up here and make any argument it wants and i encouraged the court to call him out on it when he did when he steps up here. Do we have to have candor towards the tribunal. You cannot lie to the Core Cannot Lie to the public, cannot lie to the jury. And i think thats what he did so theres other corroboration of our view that she she was in this relationship. I think, frankly, based on mr. Bradleys testimony, your honor, can separate the wheat from the shaft when it comes to credibility, but he mr. Bradley had two chances to correct information that he suddenly develop amnesia about, but he just didnt do it how does the timing of the Relationship Impact . A financial interest . Because its part of the scheme she created intentionally in order to give benefits to her boyfriend. So they theres a reason why they fought so hard on in this, judge. I mean, theres a reason theres a reason that every single subpoena was objected to every single question we asked mr. Bradley was objected to the jumping up and down all all of the obvious case. Theres a reason for that. They know that if your honor finds that that relationship started in 2019, that the appointment of weight itself was improper, and if that was improper than he had no business as an average citizen along with the fact that he didnt have approval from they didnt have approved from Fulton County to appoint him in the first place that undermines the indictment, Create Structural Impairment in the indictment because he had no more Business Being in the grand jury room than i did so thats what theyre worried about. And the reason why its important for the financial piece judges, its how the money ended up going back to her. She put her boyfriend in the spot, paid him, and then reap the benefits from it that she created the system and then didnt tell anybody about it. She didnt even tell her dad about it. So i think in The Grand Scheme of things, if youre looking at the totality of the facts and ive got to sit down here about two minutes to make room for my cocounsel if you look at it, everything put together, judges, they tried they did this. They knew it was wrong. They hit it, and they didnt even when they were called out on it, they tried to create an excuse for it by saying it happened after the fact. We know now from the testimony mr. Yeartie confirmed that mr. Bradley his Text Messages were accurate, not his testimony, but but that fact was accurate. The motion is accurate. And so also, i do want to point out theres no paper trail here. Now for the cash i know that this was i know she she and her father both testified both testified that they kept cash youre on hand, which i mean, keeping cash on hand in its in and of itself is not a problem. Were a public official and youre required to keep track of gifts that you receive, then you need to keep track of it. But theres no paper trail. Theres no deposit history, theres no withdrawal history, theres no receipt its none of that. So even even assuming their testimony could be credible, and we dont think that it is, you still dont have enough information to keep to track all that money that she received this is just what would the lack of evidence fall in the state isnt that what business does the lack of adams fall on the state isnt isnt that what burdens come in . It true . Yes. I think they had an obligation to tell, your honor, hey, this is where the money went, and they certainly had the ability to do that if they could do it since they didnt do it, we have to assume they cant. And if they cant i just want to remind the court of very important piece of testimony from ms willis that i think those two credibility of all of the officers of the court who testified she met with wade and they develop in ten minutes after talking about the financial piece, i believe this cash theory that could not be rebutted. We have no ability to do that. They did. And they chose not to do it. So were that, your honour, unless youre on or has more questions for me, im going to sit down and turn the podium over to my distinguished colleague, mr. Sadow. Name mr. Merchant. Appreciate the courts time. Good afternoon, your honor. Im going to speak to what i would call a subset of forensic misconduct and im going to assume that all the law thats been provided to you in meetings as well as emails you know, you dont need me to tell you what the law is, so i want to just set up how the disqualification and then dismissal of the indictment should take place under the subset of forensic misconduct roman council. This merchant filed on january 8 are pleading her motion to dismiss and to disqualify we were in court that friday of that week in which i made it known that we that is President Trump may adopt that motion. I waited to see wanted to see what was going to happen before i did so thats sunday, which would be january the 14th, 2024 da willis took it upon herself to go to a Historic Black Church in atlanta, having not responded at all to the motion of ms merchants client, roman, and she made what weve now call the Church Speech. And your honor, has referenced to that. You didnt necessarily want evidence on that, but you know what the church speak . Church speech was. It was videoed. It was clear that ms willis had notes. She was reading from notes that she had prepared it was a calculated determination by ms willis, too prejudice the defendant and their counsel. How by making an issue out of the fact that the person that was challenged in the roman motion was black without telling the public or the Church Members or anyone for that matter that the reason that mr. Wade was being challenged was not because he was black and nothing to do with race. It had to do with the relationship that had been alleged and later admitted to buy ms merchants ms willis took full opportunity to prejudice the defendants and then comes along later in a pleading and says it wasnt designed or intended to be at the defendants at all, or theyre Defense Council, which will All Due Respect is just nonsense. The purpose of that was to get public sympathy, public empathy for what ms merchant had already alleged in her motion now that was a violation of the professional rules of conduct. It was a violation of 3. 8 g its no question about it. It wasnt in response to anything that was said. It was a public statement, extra judicial for the purpose of making a comment upon the defendants would it would be in response to emotion that was fine, but it wasnt filed in a response in a pleading. It was filed in response to a motion and the motion were allegations made as if this willis wanted to respond at that point, she could have said the facts of the matter. Instead, she misstated what the situation was, took advantage of the opportunity an ethical violation, and the ethical violation makes it clear that you must refrain from making extradition judicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused. Can you think of anything more that would heightened public condemnation of the defendants . Then alleging that the fence council and the defendants were making their motion based on race and religion thats just bad as it gets in Fulton County with All Due Respect. Thats exactly thats exactly what ms willis wanted done. And remember the states still had not responded so then what we get from the state is where you get an affidavit filed as part of their response in that affidavit says specifically in the affidavit is mr. Wade says specifically in paragraph 26. 27 that the relationship did not begin until 2022 it acknowledges the relationship and says it didnt begin until 2022 and the pleading thats filed, the states pleading a response indicates not exactly that, but it says there was no relationship as of november 1 of 2021, and thats on page seven so now we know that timing is the issue because this merchant made it clear that we alleged and had evidenced that indicated the timing was before mr. Wade was hired, not after the state now has filed an affidavit and a pleading that claims post hiring into 2022. And then mr. Wade willis testified to the same thing under oath now, ms ert says it began in 2019. Why would she know . She would know because she was a former friend. I know the state is going to get up here and say you cant believe essentially what theyre going to say is you cant believe any defense witness because their Defense Witnesses and only people would Tell The Truth would be wade and willis i suggest to you that thats not accurate. I suggest that the testimony that mr. Wade gave and ms willis gave, and im specifically dealing now with the timing issue without getting into anything else that that brought forth a true concern about their truthfulness and being what is required of a lawyer in this state which is candor toward the tribunal and thats 3. 3 of the pressure rules. Specifically small a one, make a false statement of Material Fact or law to a tribunal so thats as i posit to the court, thats the second ethical violation and then you also have 8. 4 of the professional rules. It says its a violation of the Georgia Rules Of Professional Conduct for lawyer to and thats a4 engaged in a professional conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation. Now do you have to find that wade and willis slide know what you need to be able to find is that there is a concern of a gediman concern based on the evidence in this case about their truthfulness a legitimate concern about the truthfulness which equates to an appearance of impropriety because once you have the appearance of impropriety under forensic misconduct, the law in georgia is clear. Thats enough. To disqualify. So why should you find theres a concern with their truthfulness here . T is the first one. You have that testimony but then we go to what is the most obvious indication that willis and wade were not truthful on the point of timing and thats Bradley Defense Exhibit 26 came into Evidence Defense exhibit 26 comes in and says you know, i went into this the last hearing. It says that on january the fifth, 2024, at approximately 09 49 a. M. Theres Text Messages that are exchanged between this merchant and mr. Bradley. And the Text Messages go like just date and thats from his merchant this merchant says, do you think it started before she hired him . Bradley, who we now know from defense exhibit 39, has been texting with ms merchants for a number of months this is not the first time. This is months within the communications between the two. Mr. Bradley says absolutely not absolutely is not a speculative word thats not speculation. Thats a definitive statement and bradley, then unprompted as this and unprompted, its important. It started when she left the das office and was a judge in south fulton it goes on, this merchant says she liked it started when she left the das office with the appropriate emoji or whatever one would call it to say, it was liked. And then ms bradley mr. Bradley say they met at the Municipal Court cle conference again, unprompted hes now definitively telling ms merchant when this relationship started ms merchant said thats what i figured when he was married. And then this merchant says, and were now talking about a couple of hours later she texts and says upon information and relief, willis and wade met while both were serving as Magistrate Judges and began a romantic relationship at that time. And mr. Bradley responds, know Municipal Court. Thank you. It doesnt say it didnt start then he doesnt suggest that shes wrong other than Magistrate Court municipal. Now, we have that. Its in evidence. And what is bradley do he knows that hes put himself in a position that if he testifies truthfully on the Witness Stand your honor, isnt a position to be able to find if you choose, do they both willis and wade line . So what is bradley do . But you werent assistant us attorney you know how this works when you have witnesses in this situation, mr. Bradley, did everything he could possibly do to evade answering questions no recollection. Couldnt remember. It was speculation anything he could possibly say that would cause your honor not to believe that bradley knew when this relationship started . I suggest they were clear cut wise, and the truth isnt defense exhibit 26. And so if we take that view that he thoroughly impeached himself, but he did not give truthful conduct whats left standing generally, you would see someone whos in phat. Perhaps we have some kind of core that you could point back to and say thats the time he was telling the truth in these Text Messages. Is it ever definitively shown how he knew this and that he actually did know it other than just a assertion outright. Absolutely usually, if a state has a witness that goes sideways, theyve got them locked in and theyve sat down with a detective. Ive got a full statement we dont have that here. Well, what you have is a text message, which is a prior statement of bradley that he did on his own, that was not given to him by someone else . The, only thing that the court is just noted is how do we know he wasnt speculating because you dont have to accept the fact that he wasnt speculating the cases that i provided. I think by email yesterday, the first dealing with that, you can disbelieve that testimony and draw negative inference. Thats the ferguson case on lee. The other case, you can simply take the prior inconsistent statement as substantive evidence. It has the same value and thats what im asking you to do to take what was the unprompted statement in defense exhibit 26 . Bradley and take that on its face face value, that that is an indication that bradley, in fact knew and had said he did if you accept that you have to have concerns about the truthfulness of willis and wade on the timing issue . And i dont know if this is something maybe one of your cocounsel, were going to dress as well. We heard about the law applies. Hour. Were outside the orbit of the core of cases were used to dealing with here where it deals with sides switching more where someone is in the relationship the client relationship the proposition youre putting forward now is that if a representative, the state a lead prosecutor, the District Attorney themselves assess something thats untruthful on the record that is something that immediately has to be proactively policed by the trial court is basically what im getting at is where in the law that we find the remedy to an untruthful statement generally we send you down the street to the bar, right . And thats why i gave you the cases of registry and edwards yesterday while those arent prosecutorial cases are dealing with prosecutors, they deal with counsel. And in both those cases, the trial judge found ethical violations on the part of Defense Council or potential ethical violations, went through the ethical violations and said, based on that, you are disqualify, you cannot be the attorney of record in extra judicial statement those are the things that this court can rely upon and say based on those, again, i find It Appearance of impropriety. Where would be the limiting principle the District Attorney signs every indictment assigned to this courtroom. Yes. I mean, shes off every case no, it would be when if ive found that shes untruthful, is that what youre kind of suggesting that you dont have to find. Again, im not saying you have to find she was untruthful or the wade was untruthful. You dont have to make a finding of fact that they lie. All you have to do is make a finding of fact that you have genuine, legitimate concerns about there the credibility about their truthfulness. And once you find that, then you can apply register and edwards. Well, but its the same principle that if i have genuine concerns about her truthfulness on a particular occasion, how do those not spill over into every Criminal Case . A District Attorney brings . Well, its because she testified under oath. And so did mr. Wade. They didnt have to testify falsely they could have testified truthfully, they could have indicated that the relationship the timing was in fact, before mr. Wade was hired, they chose not to and in that sense, that dishonesty that constitutes a violation of their ethical responsibilities. This is not signing an indictment. This is not filing a pleading in which both sides have their own positions. This is a requirement that every witness has to Tell The Truth under oath. And if they dont Tell The Truth under oath, or theres a significant concern about their credibility. They violating their ethical rules. And its anyone will tell you as your honor, already knew from when you were a Prosecutor Prosecutors are held to a higher standard theyre the ones that are supposed to be seeking justice. They dont have a particular supposed to be disinterested when you have the lead prosecutor and the da giving what i suggest to you is untruthful testimony based on what ert has said, based on what bradley said in his text, based on the whole way it was presented to you, bradley didnt want to testify. He first came up with this attorneyclient privilege thing on that and youre on hunter was fortunately, went into that and then when bradley knew he had to testify about it, you saw what happened you can draw the inference as ive suggested on bradley thats what he said in a Text Message Defense exhibit 26 is true. The relationship, in fact, started prior to november 1 of 2021. That yeartie says that and now, without getting into any detail Cell Phone Records, the Cell Phone Records show that during that period of time from lets say, April 1 Of 2021 to november 1st. Im sorry, november 30 of 2021, that there was a number it considerable number of 35 or more occasions where it appeared that based on the records that mr. Wade was down in the area where ms willis was saying and yearties department but more important is there are two occasions in the state has not challenged those. There are two occasions where the records reflect that it appears mr. Wade spent the night at that apartment. State may say we dont accept that but they didnt challenge it. And even when they brought forth, but they brought forth today supplemental 2. 3, they didnt challenge it again. So what does that suggest . Thats Corroborating Evidence of what year tay had said of what bradley said in his text message. Its also Impeachment Evidence as to what wade and willis plus said about how many times is that a significant in terms of just the times didnt mr. Wade testified that he was there at least ten times during that timeframe. Youve now found 35 well, minimum of 35. Okay. But never overnight. He said he never spent overnight. But that to the side though, just in terms of the fact that he did say weve been over there that had visited the place and presumably wasnt obviously keeping a very good accounting of it, but that wasnt something that was entirely denied i if youre asking me, do we win on the point that he said more than ten are around ten and we say 35. Do we went on that point or no. Okay. Its not determined the overnight rate might raise some more concerns understood. It does. And thats the reason why we highlighted in the affidavit of mr. Mental status, because that is the just that they were not being honest to the court so then how much time with my use have i im letting them use the hook so suggestive. Again, raising issues. Im wondering about burden as it were dealing with a Preponderance Standard we are dealing with the Preponderance Standard in its far burden. No question about that. So to suggest that get us there nobody it is Corroborating Evidence of evidence that we did put up and thats what the purpose of the Cell Phone Records they corroborate what year t says. They corroborate what bradley said. Defense exhibit 26 and they impeach to that extent, way they willis testimony so if you find by a preponderance of the evidence on me, so i can finish this up. If you find by a preponderance of the evidence that my what i call subset of forensic misconduct, ethical violations has been shown and that there is a significant and legitimate concern about the truthfulness of wade and willis disqualified. Now, obviously, factual findings are yours, but the law allows you to do that. You dont have to do it through an actual conflict thats the other side of the equation. And thats what ive argued and i think thats what mr. Gibbons before i let you go though, this is an interesting classification youre saying forensic conduct isnt just commenting publicly about the case indicating guilt. Youre saying forensic conduct is just anything a District Attorney says, no, i was under that box. Im saying that improper forensic misconduct as a subset of that would clued violations or ethical violations which impact the ability of the defendants to get a fair trial, as well as impact the courts ability to have faith that the prosecutors these two prosecutors, are acting in good faith in their own conduct same idea of dealing with, as i said, Defense Council in the two cases, i mentioned ethical violations. Can give rise to disqualification, and i suggest we have that here. All right. Thank you, mr. Santa. Thank you. Wheres the shot clock when you needed right . Your . Honor, i want to address very directly here what we have is a a systematic, continuous pattern a calculated plan evidencing, designed to prejudice the defendants in this case in the minds of the jurors this this is what we have seen. This isnt an the problem that the District Attorney has. Its not that the District Attorney had some sort of brief off the Cuff Statement in an interaction with a reporter like and williams, thats all we have here. We have someone whos sat down, wrote out her speech, wrote out her plan who wrote as sat down for whether its sick to three or six times with the editors of fine me the votes and told and got her message out about this case before it was supposed to be tried in this courtroom . And so that is the problem that we have. We have a pattern of forensic misconduct on behalf of ms willis. So i mean, we have a pattern of public statements being made take it you are your team has died and and read read the book. I know she was asked about specific portions the only case that i can find actually talking about when someone crosses the line on public comments, is that williams case . And it talks about there has to be an application of saying the defendant a particular defendant is guilty. And it even denied it. Right. So have you found any case in georgia . Were they actually said that a prosecutor had gone too far in their public comments. Does one exist . Well, number one, thank goodness, it doesnt happen often, sadly, its already happened here. Now in williams, the prosecutor had one response to an inquiry of the court found it was improper, but did not have this pattern. Now, it doesnt necessarily mean i comment about the quote, guilt or innocence, although that was a pattern in williams, its the improper comments by a prosecutor for example, in williams, they cite the nature and consequences of forensic misconduct and prosecution of Criminal Case, a 1955 laws of columbia law school, article. And how prophetic that was when they went were williams sites that case in their law school article, they talk about an awful lot more than simply a comments about about specific if It Guilt References to guilt, which you have here. Your honor, is a comment and we cant look at it, doesnt apply only if a prosecutor said, i think the defendant is guilty in my mind no, its more pernicious than that. What we have here is someone who sat down and drew up a plan for two reasons drew up a plan for two reasons. And what she did reminds me of what the coordinate stv texas talks about and that is that pretrial can create major problems for defendant indeed more harmful than publicity during it for all read may set the Community Opinion as to guilt or innocence. Thats what we have here. Thats exactly what we have. And the court and estes talks about the power of the television camera. So what what do we have and what did, what did this prosecutor do . What she chose to do is sort of what was criticized by the Supreme Court and shepherd the maxwell legal trials are like, are not like elections to be won through the use of meeting halls the radio, or are the newspaper thats exactly what we have here what we have is a deflection. What this is all about is, is more insidious than just making the comments that shes made. It say deflection, what she chose to do was to say okay, i have done my best to hide the relationship with nathan wade and nathan wade has done his very best by filing false documents in his divorce case to hide his relationship with ms willis now, and so what what did they do . Now when ms merchant file the motion to disqualify i now, the game plan has to change. The game plan. I call the deflection, begins to take place that reflection is when the, when the, when the District Attorney sat down and wrote out. But look at the look, im sure the court has when you look at that video, its in evidence of her speech, a church she has written now at everything and shes reading from it. She chooses to deflect the court asked earlier, wasnt she really responding to the motion that had been filed against her . Would that she had because if she had she would have looked a members of that church in the face and say, i have been theres been an allegation that i had a romantic relationship with mr. Wade and ladies and gentlemen, thats congregation. Its true she didnt do that she chose to deflect and to do two things that are rep. Free hansel for any lawyer, but particularly for a prosecutor. She chose to pull out the race card and the god card