The prosecution of the racketeering case against former President Donald Trump and several co-defendants by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis is permitted, subject to one significant caveat, according to a ruling made by a Georgia court on Friday.
Due to the "appearance of impropriety" caused by Willis's intimate connection with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee determined that Wade, who she had nominated to lead the case, or Willis and her office should withdraw from the case.
Having Wade go would guarantee that the lawsuit proceeds without additional delay, while removing Willis would put the matter on hold. This is probably going to be an easy decision to make.
The court also determined that there was no "actual conflict" resulting from the connection, a conclusion that would have necessitated Willis's disqualification. "Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied," the court said.
“This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it,” he added.
The prosecution is hindered by an appearance of impropriety, the court did find, however. "As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed," the lawyer wrote. "As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."
The ruling gives Willis a little win and raises the prospect of a trial before the 2024 presidential contest. A fresh prosecutor would have been forced to take up the case, which Willis had spent more than two years developing, if he had been declared ineligible from the start.
The decision by McAfee follows a move made by Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staffer and White House employee who is one of the co-defendants in the election interference case. Roman requested that Willis be disqualified and that the criminal case be dropped due to her alleged “improper” personal relationship with Wade.
"We are here today on this motion to disqualify DA Willis and her office because of her judgment, frankly," Roman's counsel, John Merchant, said to the court during the motion's March 1 arguments.
Roman said that in order for Willis to nominate Wade, she circumvented the regulations, and that she profited monetarily by his appointment, which has brought his office a total of more than $600,000.
Though they eventually admitted to dating, Willis and Wade said that their relationship started after he was named special counsel in November 2021 rather than before.
Informing the court that Willis was the object of a campaign aimed at "tarnishing her reputation," Adam Abbate of the District Attorney's office said that she had not profited monetarily from the appointment. He pleaded with McAfee to reject the disqualification petition, claiming that Roman, Trump, and the other co-defendants in the case had falsely represented the quality of their evidence in "material misrepresentations."
Disqualification may arise if evidence is shown that shows a genuine conflict of interest or the appearance of one, the court said last month while approving an evidentiary hearing on Roman's accusations. He said, "I believe an evidentiary hearing needs to take place to establish the record on those core allegations because I think it is possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification."
During a two-week period, an unprecedented three-day hearing was held, during which both Wade and Willis testified that they had dated for somewhat more than a year after his appointment and that she had not benefited financially from his employment. Wade would sometimes charge Willis's airline tickets to his credit card, but she would pay him back in cash or by picking up other expenses, according to both men.
Lawyers for Roman, meantime, called a witness, Robin Yeartie, a former acquaintance of Willis, who said that the two had been dating long before Wade was chosen special prosecutor. With evidence from Wade's former divorce attorney and law partner, they then tried to support her account.
Terrence Bradley, one of the attorneys representing Roman, had texted another lawyer that Wade and Willis had "absolutely" been dating prior to the meeting. Bradley first resisted answering questions on the witness stand when Wade cited his attorney-client privilege.
After McAfee decided that Bradley may be questioned about the text messages, Bradley testified that he did not know when they began dating and that he had been "speculating" with Roman's attorney.
Bradley was challenged why he would make such a conjecture in a text message to a defense counsel for one of the defendants in the case by Trump's attorney, Steve Sadow. "That is not something I can respond to," he said.
"I am not sure why you would not have said that." Pressed was Sadow.
Bradley exclaimed, "I am not sure."
Sadow answered, "Perhaps it is because you know the truth."
In the complaint, which asserts that they colluded with others to rig the state's election results, both Trump and Roman have entered not guilty pleas.
Due to the "appearance of impropriety" caused by Willis's intimate connection with special prosecutor Nathan Wade, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee determined that Wade, who she had nominated to lead the case, or Willis and her office should withdraw from the case.
Having Wade go would guarantee that the lawsuit proceeds without additional delay, while removing Willis would put the matter on hold. This is probably going to be an easy decision to make.
The court also determined that there was no "actual conflict" resulting from the connection, a conclusion that would have necessitated Willis's disqualification. "Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied," the court said.
“This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it,” he added.
The prosecution is hindered by an appearance of impropriety, the court did find, however. "As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed," the lawyer wrote. "As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."
The ruling gives Willis a little win and raises the prospect of a trial before the 2024 presidential contest. A fresh prosecutor would have been forced to take up the case, which Willis had spent more than two years developing, if he had been declared ineligible from the start.
The decision by McAfee follows a move made by Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staffer and White House employee who is one of the co-defendants in the election interference case. Roman requested that Willis be disqualified and that the criminal case be dropped due to her alleged “improper” personal relationship with Wade.
"We are here today on this motion to disqualify DA Willis and her office because of her judgment, frankly," Roman's counsel, John Merchant, said to the court during the motion's March 1 arguments.
Roman said that in order for Willis to nominate Wade, she circumvented the regulations, and that she profited monetarily by his appointment, which has brought his office a total of more than $600,000.
Though they eventually admitted to dating, Willis and Wade said that their relationship started after he was named special counsel in November 2021 rather than before.
Informing the court that Willis was the object of a campaign aimed at "tarnishing her reputation," Adam Abbate of the District Attorney's office said that she had not profited monetarily from the appointment. He pleaded with McAfee to reject the disqualification petition, claiming that Roman, Trump, and the other co-defendants in the case had falsely represented the quality of their evidence in "material misrepresentations."
Disqualification may arise if evidence is shown that shows a genuine conflict of interest or the appearance of one, the court said last month while approving an evidentiary hearing on Roman's accusations. He said, "I believe an evidentiary hearing needs to take place to establish the record on those core allegations because I think it is possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in disqualification."
During a two-week period, an unprecedented three-day hearing was held, during which both Wade and Willis testified that they had dated for somewhat more than a year after his appointment and that she had not benefited financially from his employment. Wade would sometimes charge Willis's airline tickets to his credit card, but she would pay him back in cash or by picking up other expenses, according to both men.
Lawyers for Roman, meantime, called a witness, Robin Yeartie, a former acquaintance of Willis, who said that the two had been dating long before Wade was chosen special prosecutor. With evidence from Wade's former divorce attorney and law partner, they then tried to support her account.
Terrence Bradley, one of the attorneys representing Roman, had texted another lawyer that Wade and Willis had "absolutely" been dating prior to the meeting. Bradley first resisted answering questions on the witness stand when Wade cited his attorney-client privilege.
After McAfee decided that Bradley may be questioned about the text messages, Bradley testified that he did not know when they began dating and that he had been "speculating" with Roman's attorney.
Bradley was challenged why he would make such a conjecture in a text message to a defense counsel for one of the defendants in the case by Trump's attorney, Steve Sadow. "That is not something I can respond to," he said.
"I am not sure why you would not have said that." Pressed was Sadow.
Bradley exclaimed, "I am not sure."
Sadow answered, "Perhaps it is because you know the truth."
In the complaint, which asserts that they colluded with others to rig the state's election results, both Trump and Roman have entered not guilty pleas.
