appearance of impropriety, but also that that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict and each one of those cases i won't belabor the point in going through all of your cases of the defense had cited. but what i would submit to the court and in reading those cases is that i found that there it kind of fell into five categories. that some that didn't concern disqualificatio n at all. some that determined are that we're about i call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict that arises from representing a becoming a prosecutor and then having represented the defendant prior to becoming a prosecutor. and then whether there's an actual personal interests in the outcome. and then others talk about whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial. at the conclusion, and the of the case after conviction and these are some

of the cases that defense counsel had cited within their brief that had absolutely no application to the issue that we're here before, your honor, today. the first mciver be state has nothing to do. has nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. >> i think some of these are just relating to kind of aspiring for broad language about standards to prosecutors. so point taken there but if they're more all right. keep it on so as it relates to one of the cases >> that was referenced here earlier. and as i was also referenced in some of the briefing by defense counsel, is the we're just savy state, which is to 87 georgia, 542.

and i'll all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call category is about a attorney who formerly prosecuted a defendant in i guess the same type of case are the same case or similar charges. and that would be why of course, we're using the courts found that disqualification would be necessary because of the relations kinship that existed between a former client and now person who's being prosecuted, your honor >> the >> next series of slides just goes through what has been dressed as it relates to the standard required. when dealing with the issue of disqualification. and the state would content and submitted the

court that the defense must show an actual conflict in order to have the district attorney disqualified, and that actual conflict has to be in the form of showing that ms willis, in this instance received a financial benefit or gain in relation to the outcome of the case of like any of the cases that are involved personal interests. your honor, it's all based on a contingency fee where how much they're paid or a bonus, for example, is dependent upon the outcome of the case that's how one is to show that there's a personal interests in the case. we have none of that here. and i would submit to the court. we have absolutely no evidence that ms willis received any financial gain or benefit. the testimony was that ms willis paid all of the money back in cash is related to the trips and it didn't pay back in cash. it was let me let me let me let me explore this one a little

bit. so in addition to you know, you're saying it's only an actual conflict. you're are you also saying that it's only if if interest is affecting the final result salt the outcome that's the only one we should be worried about >> or is it that the >> prosecution as a whole is what we should be looking at in terms of a stakes. so what i'm thinking of, i'm just going to dry it, come up with some hypos here. what if adas are given a bonus for every motion to suppress? they win thousand dollars per fourth amendment claim. they win well now they've got an incentive if one of their officers is lying not to tell you about it because they want to win that motion to suppress. but maybe that doesn't affect the outcome because you can win a motion to suppress or losing that doesn't decide whether it's going to be a guilty, not guilty verdict, but doesn't that affect the prosecution of the case, if not the outcome? >> yes i would definitely agree that that would be an instance where disqualification would be necessary and appropriate because it's a situation that involves a contingency fee. and i would submit to the court

that it actually does end up affecting it. >> could based on how important the motion to suppress is. right. but if it's some immaterial, you know, i don't know but i guess so you're saying it's maybe not so much just the whether it's a guilty or not guilty dismissal, know prosity into the day it is actually the conduct of the prosecution that should be looked at throughout the course of the prosecution, correct. >> as it relates to how it affects the prosecution, which i would submit the court ultimately is going to affect the outcome of the case if you have a contingency fee based on winning or how, you know, if you win a motion to suppress and it's, you know, if you when you get a certain bonuses, you're on a reference i think that that is ultimately going to affect the and outcome of the case because as your honor just said, if there's an instance where an officer is lying or that where there isn't a good faith to go forward with that motion. the prosecutor would go forward with regardless because of the

contingency fee, which not only affects the prosecution at that point of the proceedings, but ultimately is going to affect the entire case. because if they were to win a motion to suppress or i guess the motion would be denied and the evidence wasn't suppressed, knowing that they didn't have a good faith basis to go forward affects the ultimate outcome of the case. so i think it's twofold. as your honor, has referenced. i think it's at that part of the i guess the procedure of the proceedings would definitely the qualify for reason necessary to disqualify a prosecuting agency. but ultimately, that action during the procedure will lead to the ultimate outcome of the case being are hinging upon a contingency fee like of the ones in the cases of reference council and the state that are on screen >> so getting into the language again, which you just had up there with greater amusements

and amusement sales. great amusements is one of those you refer to the appearance of conflict why do you what do you think that's dictated? i think the quote from that one is it guarantees at least the appearance of a conflict of interests. why is that diktat seems very central to the holding in the case. >> he goes in i don't disagree with, your honor, but in that case, an actual conflict was found and the appearance and they didn't find that. i would i would disagree with your own. i would my reading of the case is that an actual conflict was found, but because of that actual conflict an appearance of impropriety was seen and that's that's the reference or why the state reference? that case >> in >> relation to the argument that an actual conflict is required and those. >> series of cases, young that

was referenced by defense council's both nichols, these state are both instances where there's a personal interest in the case due to the the generation where at one point they were opposing parties. and of course there's a personal interest of stake as it relates to prosecuting and opposing party in a civil claim, which are what both of those cases of reference which shows that there's an actual conflict of interests that relates to the personal gain of the specific prosecuting agency what do you make of nichols reference to? you know, it's an older case. sometimes the language can be what we were not accustomed to seeing that there's, you know, they they they refer to the metaphor of caesar's wife. and generally when that's used as a ethical standard that's something that goes beyond just an actual conflict, right isn't a beyond reproach getting more into appearance

world? >> is >> it getting beyond, isn't, isn't getting into the appearance aspect of things when we're talking about caesar's wife. >> and i think it goes beyond that based on the language of the holding in that case where it literally says that individual had a personal interest in obtaining a fee by forcing a settlement in the civil case and using the criminal case as leverage. so that's not that's not an appearance of impropriety. that is an actual conflict of interests in which arises because of the individuals personal stake in the, in the end outcome of the case your honor. so that's that's how i would differentiate i guess the representations of defense council as it relates to the standard or the burden that must be shown, and why the state would submit to the court. and the most recent ruling the georgia appellate

courts that an actual conflict is required to be shown so i'm gonna skip through these series of slides you've heard all about what worth >> so i go >> back to what we referenced earlier. what's been referenced by all parties that the grounds in which a district attorney can be disqualified is where a conflict of interest is found and whether forensic misconduct on that that is found. those are the two grounds that are too be i guess. >> all right. within the purview of the court as it relates to the issues here. and again, i go back to the most recent case that was justice pensone wrote about that it must be that by failing to disqualify the assistant district attorney absent an

actual conflict of interests. i think the language there is very clear, and i think it's very controlling. and i think it's purposeful. i would submit to the court because an actual conflict of interests is what is required in order for a district attorney to be disqualified because the cases make very clear. and through the precedent relating to this issue, that a disqualification of a district attorney is the last for a lack of better words, ditch effort. that should be an exercise as it relates to the court in curing a certain conflicts that may arise. i think the case law is very clear that every effort is supposed to be made instead of, i guess, in lieu of disqualify the district attorney and less an actual conflict of interest is what's found, your honor. and it can't be cured

>> so what i would reference to the court >> as was brought up earlier in lions be state to 71, georgia 639 1990, 1990, 1999 case where it talks about a theoretical or speculative conflict well, not impugn a conviction of meaning that speculation conjecture, things of that nature, assumptions are not enough for anything to arise to an actual conflict. and what i would submit to the court as well that that goes to the fact that what it has to be shown is an actual conflict. if it's speculation, is there any qualifier there though, that that's an a post-conviction context? >> no. talking about, you know, competent evidence. we're obviously in a pretrial phase here. i've wondered how much important to give that sentence when we're in a pretrial realm that's that's that's assessing whether to overturn

that conviction. and usually that's you know, kind of an entirely different standard where we assess as a totality was their fair trial as they're harmless error and there's no harmless error when it comes to disqualifications, but just a thought, if you have any reactions, flattening what your honor said, it's pretty on-point in, the sense that if it's found that if the trial court either applied the wrong standard or should have disqualify the district attorney it leads to an automatic reversal, like you said, and it goes back to the trial court and i think that is very enlightening in the sense that that's only done if an actual conflict has shown. and the fact that it can't just be theoretical speculative, or assumptions that would lead to the appearance of impropriety. impropriety the appearance of a conflict that would lead to i mean, i guess what i'm borrowing from as we've been

doing the other pretrial motion, special demurrers seem to get different treatment pretrial and post-trial. post-trial, they get more of a pass unless you can show some issues and i'm wondering if that same principle applies here with disqualification and i would spell i don't have the answer to that. well, what i'll say and i don't remember the exact line, but i know there. and judgment. bernie's order, he does address some of the concerns that as it relates to the standard is applied post-conviction versus pretrial in during pretrial issues. and what i would say to the court is that you sign in support because i didn't think the state was all that pleased with the analysis for you applied well, what i'm saying are you going what i'm saying, what you specifically referenced as to the standard that has to be applied pretrial and >> post-trial, whether it makes a difference. and what i would say that the court as dancers know as it relates to a speculative nature of the

allegations or the claims made by defense counsel as it relates to whether a conflict actually exists. your honor >> what i >> can't do at the moment is zero point exactly to the page at the end of the state's argument. i can give you the page number as it relates to judge mcburney's order? >> i think i know you're talking the footnote where he references the appearance standards all right. all right >> further in lambie state to 67 georgia 41 on page 42 to 1996, case where the court says nevertheless, the conflict must be palpable and have a substantial basis. in fact, a theoretic or speculative conflict. we're not impugn a conviction which is supported by competent evidence. now, i understand as it relates to the post-conviction factor or the status of the case being in post-conviction, based on your honors, earlier inquiry, but i would submit to the court as it

relates to the issue of disqualification, that the standard is the same, whether it's post-conviction or pretrial and bloomfield the bornstein, which is to 47 georgia 406 to 1981 case. in that case, it says the police have not shown as a case where a per say rule was applied to disqualify an attorney on the basis of appearance of impropriety alone. georgia cases cited by the appellee do not stand for the proposition that a trial judge is authorized in georgia to disqualify an attorney solely on the basis of an appearance of propriety, which further goes to the states submission to the court that the standard is that an actual conflict must be shown and that conflict that arises shows there's a personal stake of the district attorney as it relates to the other personal financial gain that's

being alleged so in the case has been referenced by all parties here today, whitworth, the state to 75 georgia appeal 792,000.5 case. in that case, it says whitworth's complaints are largely based on speculation and conjecture applying any evidence standard to the record, it is clear that the trial court did not abuse its discretion is denying worst motion to disqualify morgan based upon his personal interests in his conviction are we we passed the speculation and conjecture aspect of this though. i mean the original and the core of the financial allegation was that there is a relationship and that money has changed hands there's maybe still an open question of where the ledger stands. but i think it was conceded that that balance could run in one way or the district attorney's favor.

>> is that contested >> yes what's what's not contested? is that our relationship did develop >> purchases were made back-and-forth? that's the state's position. >> that is the state's position. but they were made back-and-forth. the purchases were made back-and-forth. either to equal the money that was spent by one party or the other. and if that wasn't done, cash was exchanged in order to equal the cost that were paid by either one of the parties. >> but that's that's a fact at issue, whether it was split even or whether it goes a little bit one way or another, or whether it's all the way $10,000.01 way or another that's a fact that issue as a result of the hearing, but it's no longer just the theory that money you change can no longer speculation or conjecture >> well, i agree that money actually changed hands has not speculation and conjecture, but whether that money that changed hands had any financial benefit

or gain to the district attorney? that is all speculation and conjecture. i would submit to the court. absolutely. all speculation and conjecture to harass and honestly embarrass the district attorney based on some of the questions that were asked that had absolutely nothing to do with the proceedings that we were here. for example, the lean on her alleged house, that that was highly irrelevant, had nothing to do with the proceedings and they exchange of money between the district attorney and mr. wade at the point of that line of questioning was to again embarrass and harass the district attorney in a way that was very public, in a way that was to impugn her character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the proceedings as it unfolded and the language in

whitworth. i would again, submit to the court requires that an actual conflict must be shown which is why the reference to speculation and conjecture is again, a reference because speculation and conjecture leads to or equals an appearance of impropriety, not necessarily an actual conflict, which i submit to the court is what is required based on the case law so in state b. sutherland, which is 190, georgia, feels 606, to 1989 case. and it says, while prosecuting officers should see that no unfair advantage is taken of the accused if he is not a judicial officer though two are required to exercise judicial function in the case or the judge in the jury. the public prosecutor is necessarily a partisan in the

case. if we were compelled to proceed with the same circumspection as the judge and jury. there would be an end to the conviction of criminals which goes to the premise that the appearance of impropriety is to apply to judges, not prosecutors because if that standard was to be applied in the manner in which sutherland case is referencing, then there would never be a criminal prosecution because the state is always going to appear bias as it relates to getting justice for the victims are writing the wrong as it relates to the crimes in which the defendant is been indicted. or accused of

>> i want to move into i guess the evidence that your honor saw and heard during the last couple of days, three total days of testimony as it relates to the witness. the witnesses you heard from ms yeartie, who the state would contain as a disgruntled former employee you heard from terrence bradley also someone who isn't disgruntled former partner the text messages in the states opinion show that he is vengeful. you heard from his own testimony here, sitting before the court that he all he did with speculate and any information that he had garnered. and then passed on to ms merchant was pure mere speculation. i believe he said that over and over again when asked if he had personal knowledge my recollection is around 15 times. he said he had

absolutely no personal knowledge of a romantic relationship between the da in mr. wade. you also heard from the special prosecutor, mr. wade, a former judge you heard from the 80th governor of the state of georgia, roy barnes. you heard from the first female elected district attorney of fulton county, and you heard from her father, who was a 40 plus year practicing attorney and good-standing when he left the practice of law. and what i would submit to the court is that ms yeartie's testimony was nothing more than inconsistent at best based on what i referenced to the court earlier as it relates to other representations that were made by for counsel prior to or those in evidence, would his responses during a motion to quash, which weren't subject to cross-examination by defense attorneys weren't even part of

the evidentiary record of the hearing. again, i'm just kind of puzzled by that. you didn't ask the question of maturity. what did you tell your attorney before coming here and then we could have dealt with privilege issues and whatever else i mean, i would agree with the court. does that an evidence, but it was a statement by an officer of this court if the court during a hearing related to her testimony and how we were to proceed with her testimony in this hearing. but i would >> it's clear that what was represented as to why g would not have, i guess the inappropriate person to testify was that she had absolutely no knowledge of the romantic relationship. that was the basis of why her council was saying that she shouldn't have to testify that that theory, if accepted, where did the incentive arise between monday

and thursday for her to completely change things around? >> where does the incentive >> issues she was fighting so hard to avoid the going down that road. do you propose she was fighting to him not to come in here and testify at all and then she comes in here and testifies why would you testify the way she did if she didn't want to testify so strongly, if we're ever going down this road of trying to gauge your interests and and he's kind of things i don't know if i'm quite following that theory. >> and i can appreciate that, but i would say it's the reason she didn't want to testify of it. submits the court is because this is an incredibly public forum where she would have to testify against a former friend and a former boss. and i think the change i wouldn't qualify. it as an incentive. what i would qualify as ultimately when she was forced to motive i write a motive and a bias as to why she testified in the manner in which she did. when asked by me

this merchant as to the reasons for her leaving, she kind of danced around the issue. and then as ms krause asked her about whether she resigned are forced to leave. she was fired she came out and said she was given the choice. you can either resign, but either way you're leaving your fired, or you can resign in a manner in which she wouldn't be officially fired. you know, when she's trying to get future employment and things of that nature. so i would submit to the court that there's actually no incentive. incentive is not why ms yeartie's testimony changed or the state would contend her testimony change. but it was the reason she testified the way she did was because of her bias towards the da, which is gave her motive to what the state would contend is be less than honest before the court and i but if we're going to draw inferences based on her fighting, the subpoena

>> why would she have >> fought it if she had such a bias and wanted to say these untruths it is he didn't want to come on national television and have to be exposed to the things that well i don't know anybody who wants to testify before a court in a normal trial and norm proceeding. but one what i would qualify in this high-profile, the nature where everybody would be able to watch and learn at what she has to say as it unfolds in the courtroom. and i've further submit to the court there is reference to she left the da's office in the text message that were submitted, and i believe what is it? defense exhibit 39, that it's because she released confidential information in the

da's office from the da's office that led to her firing, that she wasn't some and i know i'm just because it's more conversation which i appreciate it might be getting you off script, so i don't want to use up all your time if you need to get through some other things. >> next, a terrence bradley and i believe the one thing that the state and defense counsel can agree on that he was less than honest at times during the proceeding and during his testimony he when pressed or asked by mr. sadow why he was fired he basically chalked it up to a dispute between partners in a business. but when pressed by ms cross, it was clear that that wasn't the reason. >> and >> what i would submit to the court. what has been referenced by defense counsel as baffling as to why the state would go into such a topic area the

state, as all counsel has a wet appear before the court has a duty of candor and when ms across knew she was mourning to have to cross mr. bradley. she knew he lied, and she had a duty of candor to the court in the state's opinion to expose that more importantly, it goes to his credibility and the statements that had been represented by defense counsel that he allegedly had made in the past. so it was important to bring that to the court's attention because when a witnesses testifying, the court is assessing their credibility and determined to whether to believe the veracity of the statements made by the witness or not. so that is that is the most important factor when

determining whether somebody is a telling the truth or lie furthermore, he reluctantly, when pressed, finally admitted that he paid off the assault victim eventually, it got started with an escrow account and lead to he did pay off the victim in that case. he testified over a span of three days and like i reference to the court, he must have said 15 times that he had no personal firsthand knowledge as it relates to the relationship between ms willis and mr. wade more importantly when pressed by counsel ii, could not pinpoint a time in which he knew that the relationship occurred there were many instances in which he described that very well, could have fallen within the timeframe that was testified and by both ms world, ms willis, and mr.

wade as it relates to the relationship beginning or transitioning into dating in march of 2022 and into the end of the relationship and august are the summer of 2023 and as i referenced to the court of the statements that mr. bradley made, the state would contend are inadmissible hearsay as it relates to the statements that he was pressed and asked about what mr. wade told him because mr. wade was never confronted with those statements. and in order for impeachment to be proper, he must be confronted with a specific statements that are alleged to have been made in order to impeach him again, mr. bradley had every motive to lie. i believe on the text messages are are kinda clear are very clear as it relates to his disdain towards mr. wade, which due, to the fact that he was expelled or exiled from a

thriving law practice and it was clear that the practice and mr. wade sided with the alleged sexual assault victim, which is clear he assaulted her due to the fact that he paid her off and as i referenced earlier, you know, mr. merchant represented to the court that mr. bradley had personal firsthand knowledge basically of it all of everything and that he would be able to basically be in a pitching machine. i think, your honor referenced him as the star witness. when you were addressing the claims that were made by ms cross and relations to ms merchant's representations to the court and what i would submit to the court is that all mr. bradley's representations as it relates to whether or when the relationship between ms willis and mr. wade began and

whether they cohabitate it because that was a promise that was also made that he would be able to impeach the investigators as it relates to cohabitation was mere speculation, gossip, and innuendo and this is your honor the impression i got commissioned. i got then we can correct this while we're all here together, is that they mr. bradley directly overhead? third, a statement from each of these individuals that they could be impeached with. ms merchan, is that accurate >> directly overheard >> which ones are we talking about? >> well, essentially, the kind of seemed to be all of them. you'd said alan ban, young. and then the investigators hill, green and r6 could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by mr. bradley? >> yes >> in reference to your question, the unequivocal answer was yes. and when you're on there, is looking through the text messages, i would submit to the court that the text messages don't even say

or indicate what was represented to the court in relation to the good faith basis for this motion to disqualify as it relates to the testimony of an the ability to impeach witnesses through mr. bradley what's been referenced by all counsel is mr. bradley's assertion of absolutely. as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to mr. wade hiring and the question in itself involves speculation because it asks, do you think it started before she hired him? and he says absolutely, he doesn't say he no. he doesn't provide any context as to how he knows. and in these text messages and through his testimony with the court, the source of his information was unclear >> what i would what was what i would say that the court as to

a lot of things other than the one conversation that allegedly occurred between mr. wade and mr. bradley. and i would submit to the courts of that conversation never occurred. that would be the state's contention and how do we know that? we know that? because that conversation was not confronted. are mr. wade was not confronted with that conversation. and that is evidenced circumstantially. and i'd even say direct as to that conversation non-existing because based on the representation made by defense council, it would be clear that that would be a conversation that would have been relayed to because it wasn't privileged. as your honor, found, that would've been relayed to ms merchant and if that conversation happened you better believe that would have been a conversation that defense counsel would have confronted mr. wade a width and against. and the reason they didn't do that was because it didn't exist again, you heard

from mr. john see floyd third the district attorney, father. as your honor, heard, he was a well-respected member of the legal community for over 40 years. but the importance of his testimony was to provide the core of corroboration as it relates to the years leading up to the relationship that transitioned into dating between the district attorney and mr. wade on what he testified to is that he moved into her south fulton home in 2019. the evidence of his moving into that home at that time was his georgia driver's license, government official government document. he further testified that not only did it wasn't that just ms willis and i'm himself live at the south fulton home, but that he often

would see on numerous occasions the significant other of ms willis that was not mr. wade. he referenced that that person had a nickname of deuce and that he kept a lot of his belongings in the garage of ms willis he specifically said he'd kept a lot of disc jockey equipment, assess is how he referred to it when before the court he made very clear that he had never seen mr. wade at the south fulton home that is owned by ms willis. he made clear that he lived in that home with ms willis and ms willis alone other than her two daughters? that but occasionally visit that home until after february of 2021. but what precipitated the sun move of ms willis to what i would reference as a safe houses for her protection was protests that occurred before

her home in february of 2021 he then express to the court that ms willis moved in the spring of 2021, and that due to these threats that were taken very seriously, he had only seen his child 13 times he said in reference to the questions by defense counsel that we're in a i'm just going to be straight up with the court. it was they were trying to make ms willis a liar. what is how i would submit to the court in the sense that she testified that she was concerned for her safety and her family's safety, which included her father. and her daughters. and that mr. floyd remaining in that home kind of rebutted all of that, made it so it wasn't true. but he testified that he stayed in the home because it was the home that she had put our

blood, sweat, and tears and was able to buy and that he stayed in the home because they were there was constant officer presence. he told the court that he bought extra security equipment even when as far to tell the court that he slept in different rooms on different nights because he because he felt his safety was in such a concern. so i would submit to the court that line of questioning was done in an attempt to discredit ms willis, but fails would be what the state have the state would characterize it. then he testified about the first time that he did meet mr. wade, which is in 2023, here at the district attorney's office and he talked about how he kept cash in his home and why ms willis kept cash in his home. and what i would well the court should take note of is the state didn't ask mr. lloyd about the cash in his home that

came out through the cross-examination of defense council. so there was a i guess the implication that mr. floyd only did so do through his preparation with the state and his hearing and seeing news articles and clips related to the testimony that had occurred prior to him but i would submit to the court that it's telling that that information came out through questions that were asked by defense council, which gives credibility to the statements that were made. and he further explained as to why he taught his daughter to keep cash in the home as it relates to financial independence and having a safety net it was further testified that he had multiple saves and that he gave ms willis his first lockbox or her first lock box for situations as she described, when she was testifying. and what i want to make clear is

during ms willis's testimony, it was pressed about the cash and where she kept it. did it fall? so her where she laid her head and things of that nature of trying to further discredit the practice that she had as it relates to keeping cash in her home and why she had the ability to pay cash to mr. wade and other people and for other situations? and what i would what the court should take note of is that there was no evidence that controverted that at all where where was the evidence that controverted ms willis's claim? and practice of keeping cash in her home. there was none. >> in >> fact, the only evidence was is it was substantiated through the testimony of her father, mr. floyd furthermore, you heard from governor former governor roy barnes and his testimony was significant and

important because what i would i would afraid your honor, the bunks let me on this point and i think you might have had a more recent opportunity to review his testimony than i have. you say on the slide that she was the first choice to lead the prosecution? was that actually his testimony or was he just was his testimony? that he was asked to come aboard. did he use the words that he was asked to lead? >> yes >> maybe. that's my recollection that he was asked to lead the prosecution. he was asked to take the ar he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently on, which is the lead prosecutor it was said in that way as well as it relates to the testimony of mr. maurice. so i think it would be very clear my recollection is that he said lead, but what i can summit that the court that i know he also said that he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently filling for the state of georgia, which is really out of time as special grand jury prosecutor. right >> yeah.

>> the special, i guess. yeah. as the special prosecutor lead the investigation, which led to the ultimate prosecution, that were here before, your honor. today? he also indicated that the reason he turned that job down was because it didn't pay enough. he said he hadn't mouths to feed at his law firm and that he also didn't want to live the rest of his life with bodyguards because he had lived that for years in which he was the governor of georgia furthermore, he confirmed the qualifications of mr. wade, which i still majdi quite interesting and confusing as to attacking mr. wade's qualifications and that it's almost as if ms ms mr. romans, counsel, is asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case, that she sees to be more qualified to attempt to convict her client. it's an interesting argument, and it's

one that makes no sense furthermore, if you were to believe the claims and allegations as it relates to ms willis personal stake in the prosecution, the receiving of financial benefits in games. then you'd have to believe that she was also dating roy barnes, the former governor and gay banks. in addition to mr. wade, if she has this grand plan scheme in order to profit off of the prosecution of this case because that's what they're saying. or they're saying that she's she telepathically or prophetically. i was able to know that mr. barnes and mr. banks would turn down the position so she could then hire mr. way it's ridiculous. it's absurd. and it is desperate. it's in a desperate attempt to

remove a prosecutor from a case with for absolutely no reason your honor. >> other than harassment and embarrassment >> this slide and we've been through a lot of the testimony. most should be clear. there was not introduced in evidence that mr. banks turned her down, right? that's our house. that part of the record i'd ask the court to take judicial notice as has been asked repeatedly the district attorney to testify to that. i don't recall off head i will be fine, but the court i don't recall if ms willis testified to that exact back, but i know that mr. banks represented that >> to the court during monday's hearing as it relates to the allegations that were made. i understand your honors position as it relates to naturally, we know exactly what in the evidence does not. but regardless, i think your point is made. i think it's an evidence of the record as it relates to i guess the issues that led up to the actual

hearing of this case. so i understand your honors position, but it did come out several proceed during a procedure getting that was prior to the actual hearing this slide is just a chart showing the testimony of both the district attorney ms willis, and mr. wade as it relates to how they met how or when mr. wade became the special prosecutor, when their relationship evolved into romantic one talking about the trips in which they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic and when it ended. and what again, i would submit to the court is that those facts were consistent and the only person who contradicted that, the when the relationship started was ms yeartie and what i would bring to the court's attention that it was represented to the court that ms yuri was a witness

other than mr. bradley? who could bring to the forefront is issue of cohabitation. and when pressed and when asked about it, ms you already had absolutely no information as it relates to this alleged cohabitation. it was false. he said she had no information. she was asked about trips. she said she had no information about the trips yet. she's such a good friend that ms willis confirmed each year that mr. wade and her continued to be in a relationship 2019, 2020, 2021, until their relationship ended due to her fourth resignation? and splintering other friendship, your honor you i guess, several exhibits. obviously, we're tendered in most of them or exhibits that came from the sealed divorce of mr. wade and ms jocelyn wade

contracts for legal services, trip itineraries and the text messages and i would specifically reference prior to today, the only text messages that were before, your honor, we're defense exhibits 26 and 27 which it's the assertion of defense council that what those show is that mr. bradley was an information or was had information as it relates to the relationship starting prior to march of 2022. and that's just false those text messages do not contain that. it does not pinpoint just as mr. bradley couldn't when the relationship actually started. and furthermore, you have the testimony and the evidence of the text messages that it was mere speculation if you azure on a reviews the full chain of text messages, it is clearly ms merchant and mr. bradley. i'm going through what i can

describe has nothing else other than a mere fishing expedition between the two of them at first, because it's asked about certain members of the da's office who would had have information as it relates to specifically for one, ms young. it is asked whether she would have information and he had no idea. he said he assumed he was speculating and that is the same as each person that was subpoenaed in referenced in the text messages all of that with speculation. and you know, it was speculation because not a single one of them testified. that's telling because if it wasn't mere speculation, if it wasn't mere gossip, and if it wasn't mere conjecture, each one of those people who were subpoenaed would have been called to testify, like district attorney willis was like mr. wade was in order to be confronted and then impeach by mr. bradley you heard obviously about the phone records and i have a maybe because whether it comes into the purview of your honor, as

it relates to the determination. your honor, is to make as it relates to the disqualification of the district district attorney. you also have the affidavit from the employee who worked at the winery who confirms that ms willis did in fact pay in cash obs to more than $400 i understand that this is part of the proffer of the state, but it's important because that is a witness who the state didn't go find. that is a witness who went to cnn in order to confirm what ms willis testified to further giving her her statements, credibility, and credence before the court you heard about before we move on from that one other than the foundational concerns? would you have a response to the proffer of the cell phone records? >> i have >> i'll get to that now. is any until later, but i have several foundational concerns

as it relates to the cell phone records i don't think i've ever as mr. santos motion makes very clear, the state uses cell phone records routinely, and i would agree with that. we use them routinely, but we use them with an expert and they're always challenged like i said, in the interest of time setting aside the foundational concerns, are that you were asking about focusing on the substance i'm assuming that it would be >> admissible in the guise that he's proffered well, maybe you have that further up, but what's what's the reaction to that? >> so what i would say initially is that due to the fact that they were analyzed by someone who was a non-expert the annotation of those cell phone records were not properly peer reviewed. they were not it's clear from the state's review that the normal practices that are used to check the use of which kind of

data is being used in reference to the to specific dates. i believe it's september 10 and 11th and november 29th and 30th >> the >> affidavit that is used to say that mr. wade remains at ms willis's are in the area of hate-filled because again, during the hearing, the address for the yeartie condo never came out. it was just that it was the hate fill condo the actual phone number from mr. wade was never established, and the documents that were provided to the state as that were certified, business records did not have a subscriber page, so we have no idea that the number belongs to mr. white and i understand, your honor, wants to look past the foundational issues and i can appreciate that. but the foundational steph is very important as it relates to the admissibility of the records. >> no doubt about that. but if somewhere how they were able to survive those foundational concerns >> do you have any >> reaction? >> yes. i i do. and i can skip

forward. so i don't so what's interesting is that the records that were provided were for they start in january of 2021 and they go i believe it's two november 3 yes, i think is what the 2021 at the span of the records. and you heard from the witnesses, including maturity that ms willis did not move into the hate bill addresses april, of 2021. that was the testimony from all of the witnesses. april of 2021, and that she lived in her south fulton home from when she met mr. wade in october of 2019 up until when she had to move and the assertion by defense counsel is that mr. wade and ms willis began a relationship right after they met in october of 2019. what's interesting and what's telling is that mr. wade's handset doesn't once

up here and anywhere near the area of her south fulton home, but they're dating, but they're in a serious relationship. and if you were to believe what the defense council says, that they had been in a relationship from october of 2019 up until she moves april of 2021. so a year-and-a-half or so, but he never once enters the area of her home but they want you to believe that that's a lie, which is why counsel for defense continued to press district attorney willis and mr. wade as to whether he had ever been to that south fulton home? this corroborates that that was not a lie but he had never been to that home. and it's more than suspect if you've been in a relationship as they claim for all this time, but never once ever once went to the house. so i think that's telling what i would also bring to the court's attention in the states initial review of the records that out from january of 2021 to march of 2021 those times when ms

willis did not live again at the hateful address she didn't move there until april of 2021. that is handset appears in that area 23 times sure. >> why does this how do you reconcile that with his testimony that was alluded to, i think by opposing counsel, the reasons he gave for being in the area well, what did it with those line up to 23 times? i think, you know, what anyone had too many reasons for being there, right? >> well, that's one thing that's the point i would say, yes, that is the point. he referenced that. that's an area that he was not uncommon for him to be in and clearly that is the case because ms willis didn't live in that area so again, it's further corroboration as to what mr. wade indicated to the court. and when i guess after ms willis moved into the condo and april of 2021, they appeared 35 times. now, i want to make clear to the court both ms

willis and mr. wade never denied that he had been to that condo before the the specific testimony that was elicited by ms willis and mr. wade was that he knew he had never laid his head. was the direct quote at at that condo, which these records don't prove that he laid his head anywhere. if you were to believe the analysis or if you were to if you were to give credence to what the non-expert says as it relates to mr. wade is handset on in september and november for the three to four hours that the phone is alleged to have remained it doesn't disprove anything that that was testified by both mr. wade and district attorney willis. it was that he visited there the specific hours of his of their visits was not something that was pursued during the questioning of both of the

parties so what i would also submit to the court is that if you look at the days as it relates to set in september and november, the us i guess the type of information that is used to make the plots for the longitude and latitude of the handset is data records. it's not voice records, it's not sms or text messages its data records, and it is not uncommon for an expert to testify as it relates specifically to 18 records that that actual data record is unreliable as it relates to the location of the handset due to the type of information that it is that it's data, it's not the voice and sms which i know, your honor, as has been references, was a prosecutor not only here in this county, but for the federal government where this kind of information is commonly used so in the comments that were made by the court, it was

clear that you understood and understand the use of cell phone records to put somebody in an area and again, not in a specific location. i'd also bring to the court's attention as it relates to the validity of the affidavit and the analysis done by i'm the expert that was hired by mr. sadow. is that not once does it reference the fact that at&t records commonly have duplicate and triplicate entries within the call detail records that is something that is commonly seen and that is something that has seen in these records. and that is something that leads to the incorrect number of times that has been alleged, that ms willis and mr. wade were in communication through texts and voicemails. and i'd also some the court that that number doesn't prove anything again, doesn't prove that anybody's in a relationship it proves that

they were in communication with each other and i think, your honor, can use your own life experience as it relates to people you work with or friends that you are close with. and the nhl number of times that you make calls to any of those people. i can submit to the court that i have a friend who i have been friends with for 15 years and she worked in the office previously with me. and based on our professional relationship and our personal relationship, the friendship that we had had and still have that. we talk 30 times a day so there's that doesn't mean we're in a relationship. so the assertion that the number of times that ms willis and mr. wade have spoken to each other, whether it's through text message or phone has no validity as it relates to them being in a relationship. what i would submit to the court is that what was shown through all

of the evidence was that there's been a true cost to ms willis as it relates to her life, that she had additional expenses that she had to endure. it because of her position in the sense that she told the court that she had a mortgage, but on top of that mortgage, that and how she didn't live in anymore, she had to pay for a safe house that her home was vandalized and there were racial epithets and sexual bigotry that were spray painted onto her house. the concern of her safety in her life is something that was testified to, and the fact that this job has led to the isolation and separation patient of her from her family and friends, which was given credence and the credibility of those statements were provided by her father. mr. floyd, that he had only seen his daughter 13 times since all of these instances occurred. the nature