really responding to the motion that had been filed against her, that she had. if she had, she would have looked the members of that church in the face and say, there's been an allegation that i had a romantic allegation with mr. wade, and ladies and gentlemen, this congregation, it's true. she didn't do that. she chose to deflect, and to do two things that are reprehensible for any lawyer but particularly for a prosecutor. she chose to pull out the race card and the god card. that's what she did. and she wrote it out. she went on to deflect away from the allegations in the wade motion, and she's saying why in her talk, public discussion with god, why are they only attacking one, in reference to mr. wade.

and then she goes on to say, god, isn't it them playing the race card when they only question one. now, if she had been truthful with that congregation, truthful with the community, she would have said, i had a relationship with him. good, bad, forgive me, whatever, that's what she should have said. but she chose to deflect and say them, the reference to them and the others and they. it's obviously a reference to the motion filed by ms. merchan. they choose to go after the black man. and she then goes on, again, deflecting away, and deflecting to the -- what i call the third rail in american society. accusing somebody on the other side of being a racist. so and so is a racist. they're racist. she was the one playing the race

card in a way to deflect from her own conduct. she goes on to say in her discussions with the lord. god, is it that some will never see a black man as qualified no matter his achievements, again, the deflection. what is she saying? the listener is not necessarily in that audience, in church, the listener is in fulton county. the potential jurors who will come into a courtroom and say whether or not they can fairly judge the evidence or the defense in this case, she chose to inject race into the minds of the listeners and virtually everybody in this community, and literally everybody in this country has reviewed and analyzed her speech that she made in a premeditated way in bringing in not only the race card but also in bringing in the religious matter. this is exactly what ham mons v

state and our supreme court talks about an inflammatory appeal to the jurors' private religious beliefs. why would she do that? to deflect. now, not only is she deflecting but she is then going forward and in a way, telling the community, telling the congregation that god is on her side, not on the side of these people. god, she said, and when she was talking and she's saying pray for their souls, i, meaning, god, qualified you. i qualified your perfect and flawed self. i see you in every hour, do my work. as though she's telling the folks in her very very very implicit way injecting into the minds of the jurors god wants me to win this case. god wants me to prosecute this

case. and why is he going -- and why are these others going after the black man. well, the answer is very simple. as we said in our brief. we didn't mention mrs. cross, the white female or mr. floyd, the white male because there was no evidence and is no evidence of a personal romantic relationship with them in which he obtained these benefits. that's the reason why we did not do that. so she goes forward with the deflections. that's exactly what she does when she goes forward, and she talks about planned interviews, time and time again with authors of a book, find me the votes where she's talking about a case that's going to be tried in this courtroom. it's reprehensible. >> so in that specific instance, setting aside the fact that she was willing to go on the record

before a case had even reached the jury, what specific statements from that do you contend crossed the line? >> well, for example, she goes on to talk about all of the calls that she gets from people calling her racial terms. and all the calls are racist. what she's trying to do, and i think there's a reference in there to maga people, whatever, in that what she's really saying is that those people calling me up and making those claims or those horrible racial slurs to me are really people on their side of the fence. that's what she's doing. and there's no reason, your honor, ever for a prosecutor to sit down and go forward with this kind of interview. she did it in find the votes, but then they -- what really happened here is this hiding of the relationship. because in hiding of the relationship, they have done such a good job.

mr. wade filed false documents in his divorce case. on may of 2023, talking about have you ever had sexual relations with a person during the course of the marriage or including the period of separation. he's still married. he doesn't have a divorce decree, but his answer is none. then he's asked whether or not on any occasions he's entertained or been entertained by a member of the opposite sex, in this case, a woman, from the date of the marriage to the present talking about place and time, and all that. what is the answer? none. why does he do that? he does that because he doesn't want to tell about the relationship that he has with ms. willis and the benefits that he has gotten and that he gave to her. and what these answers are are absolutely reprehensible that a member of the state bar of georgia would file these answers

that are inaccurate. what does ms. wade do, excuse me, ms. willis do? ms. willis on her financial report on whether or not she has gotten anything $100 or more in value from a prohibited source. the court asked earlier about what a threshold might be. well, it's a hundred dollars, that's it. she doesn't report any of all of the benefits that she received from mr. wade. all the trips, all the entertainment, all the three nights in the luxury suite in aruba. all of that. none of that is here. and this they say, oh, well, maybe it all balanced out, even though i can't prove it with the cash. well, that's like saying, did i give the court a christmas present. well, maybe i gave the court a christmas present and the court

gave me one back. if the court has to fill out a form if you got a christmas present from anyone, you don't say i got one from mr. gillen. you don't say i gave one back so it evens out. they're false reports. because they're false, what they had to do is say, uh-oh, ms. merchan has caught us. in our response we're going to get mr. wade to file a false declaration, which he does. his declaration in this case is false. and the evidence showing that that is false as it relates to the timing, you know, and the court asked earlier, why does it matter if the relationship was before or after november 1 of 2021? the answer is they think it's important and frankly i do too. because when she's hiring somebody and she's not telling the people who are going to be paying the tab up to $700,000, hey, i just hired my boyfriend who's taking me on a trip to the

caribbean and taking me down to aruba, and taking me to california. hope you don't mind. no disclosure whatsoever, and the money flows on. but pause they got caught, they then commit what i think is an additional component of forensic misconduct, and that is fraud on this court. when they filed that affidavit and now it's been proven, i think, beyond virtually any doubt, any doubt, that the relationship occurred prior to november 1, 2021, and the benefits that were there, and we don't have to run around. and i love, you know, that we've got all the records showing from mr. wade about the payment for these trips, for the cruises, for the flights, all of this stuff, what's the only way as they sat around and met together before they testified and came up with their story.

what's the only way that they can say to themselves, pay no attention to the records, pay no attention to the airlines and to the flights and the vacations and cruises. i paid them back in cash. show us your receipts. where did you take cash ouch the bank ever. i don't have any. show us the deposits that he had. well, never. we don't have any. what we have here is fraud on this court which has been shown, i think, overwhelmingly by the evidence, and overwhelmingly not only the testimony of yeartie, the testimony of the e-mails and the texts from mr. bradley to ms. merchan, as well as all of the documents that they had no answer to other than the just trust me, i gave them money, evaporated, i don't know where it came from and he doesn't know what he did with it.

please trust us and believe us because it's our only way out of the trap that they set for themselves. these people sadly and i hate to say, as the court knows, i was a prosecutor for about three and a half million years it seems in the federal building and i was an assistant d.a. beforehand. prosecutors don't act like this. lawyers don't act like this. these people, your honor, it's a systematic misconduct, and they need to go. thank you. >> your honor, i'm going to cover a few factual details without overly rehashing what has already been said. during the pen investigation, m

wade and ms. willis lived a lifestyle of the rich and famous, riding on the backs of the defendants in this case, funded by the taxpayers of fulton county and the state of georgia. with the money that was paid to mr. wade through the contract that ms. willis got him. that money flow, that is the personal interest that you asked about. she was personally benefitting from the position, from the job, from the scope of the investigation, from the scope of the indictment, and how they conducted it. and we know this -- we know from the records that have been submitted before the court that mr. wade paid at least $17,095 towards this relationship. that does not even include the various dinners, the day trips that both wade and willis admitted to. that number is likely even higher. we know from the documents that ms. willis only paid $1,394 for

an airline ticket. we know from ms. yeartie, who was pretty much uncontested. there was no evidence presented by the state disputing her time frame that that relationship started in 2019. she saw them kissing, she saw them hugging. now, whether or not they had sex before january of 2022, i do not know. they admitted sometime in early 2022, and i found it curious that they both, wade and willis, just went straight to the sex. so maybe that's when they started having sex. i do not know. but the relationship pre-dated that. and their combined and overly suggestive focus on that is a red herring to this court and to the defense that that's what they want you to focus on. they want you to ignore all the evidence that the relationship pre-dated that. the relationship started in 2019. the relationship continued through 2020.

the relationship continued through 2021. looking at the cell phone communications, just in the first 11 months of 2021, over 2,000 calls. almost 9,800 texts. i don't even think love struck teenagers, communicate that much. november 29th and november 30th escapade, phone between ms. willis and mr. wade, 11:32 that night. shortly after midnight, the phone starts traveling down from where mr. wade lives and ends up where ms. willis is staying, and he's there until roughly 4:55 a.m. none of the excuses, none of the explanations that mr. wade gave go into the porsche experience, going to dinner, going to the airport, none of that explains

that. i'm pretty sure the porsche experience isn't open in the middle of the night. i'm pretty sure there weren't any restaurants that he drove 30 to 40 minutes to eat at in the middle of the night right after he talked to ms. willis. teenagers have a name for those kind of calls and escapades, i won't go into it, but the documentary evidence, the objective evidence undercuts everything that both wade and willis said. when you look at mr. yeartie fen, she unequivocally said that relationship began in 2019. she saw physical evidence of a romantic relationship. mr. bradley, in the text messages, which are substantiative evidence said that relationship began in 2019. again, his january, you know, temporary amnesia that somehow

was triggered temporally after gabe banks called him, we can question that, but we do have statements from him that specifically said that relationship pre-dated mr. wade's appointment by ms. willis. you asked what the materiality would be. how much is enough. well, clearly 17,000 is enough. but fulton county has told us, has told mrs. willis what the materiality is. it's $100 in a year. she twice signed declarations, certifications that she remembers -- did not receive any gifts. even under her strained, her strained explanation, there were moneys, there were gifts, there were dinners, there were excess contributions flowing her way that exceeded $100.

her excuse, or i'm sorry, her explanation, well, i just paid it in cash. that just does not stand to reason. it does not hold up to the light of truth. anyone that has been in a money laundering trial, a forfeit trial, if that's the explanation we give the state, we laugh. oh, i just gave cash. i have no records for it. i have no source for it. the only thing that she could say that was a source for the money. at times she said she was down to 500 to a thousand dollars, the only explanation is sometimes i go to publix and may get an extra $50. that shows up on your debit card or credit card. did they bring those records in, no. did they bring her bank accounts in, no, did they bring any documentary in, no, they did

not. the burden is ours. but under ocga 24-14-22, if a party has evidence in such party's power, and within such party's reach, by which he or she may repel a claim and they had that power, and ms. willis had that power. mr. wade had that power that they can repel the claim we have made against them, but they admit to produce it or if they produce weaker evidence, then you as the fact finder, judge, it is in your power to disregard that and a presumption arises that the documentary evidence that is in their possession that they failed to produce supports the claim, and that is something that the state relies on regularly in criminal trials, and something the court should rely on in this case, in formulating its factual findings. and we know that both mr. wade and ms. willis have some difficulty expressing the truth when it comes to their

relationship in these cases. we know mr. wade lied in his interrogatories, multiple times. we know ms. willis falsely certified that she hadn't received any gifts from anybody. and mr. wade clearly was a prohibitive source, doing business with fulton county. anything over a hundred dollars in a year, she had to put down, and she put zero. and and it defies imagination that she could somehow forget about these trips, these dinners, these day trips and not put the money down. you would ask, i think it was mr. gillen. did she say in that church speech or anywhere else that the defendants were guilty? and i think she did in that church speech. she did in that church speech, and she was talking about a conversation that she apparently had with god, talking about

herself. this leader has a trial conviction rate of 95%. she said the trial team this leader put together has a conviction rate of 95%. i do not see how anyone, and i think that was purposefully intended by ms. willis, i do not see how anyone can listen to those two statements and not take that ms. willis is telling everyone in that church and everyone that's going to hear that in the media afterwards that these defendants are guilty. that is what she was saying. she is a prosecutor, she's familiar with the u.s., every attorney that's been a prosecutor is familiar with the dictates of that u.s. supreme court. that is a foul blow. that is improper, and she violated pretty much every tenant a prosecutor must abide by to seek truth and justice in a particular case.

judge, when you're looking at this, uncontroverted evidence shows that they had a relationship prior. the uncontroverted evidence shows mr. wade lavishly spent on ms. willis. the money he was spending on ms. willis came from this contract that he had, and i'm not just talking about the contract as a special prosecutor. but there's also those other questionable contracts no matter whom his partner seemed to be, they also got. there is a direct financial benefit that ms. willis received from this. and, judge, looking back at what judge said, if merely hosting a fundraiser for a political opponent of a defendant creates not only the appearance but an actual conflict, then what ms.

willis has done since then in this case creates national conflict, but, again, as prior counsel has stated, we only need to show the appearance of the conflict. and we have done that by a preponderance of the evidence. in fact, i believe we've shown an actual conflict. nonetheless, the results should be that ms. willis and her office should be disqualified from this case. we have a few more minutes, i think mr. cromwell may have something to say. thank you, your honor. >> thank you. >> harry mcdough, i'm going to assume the most difficult standard, which is actual conflict, before i begin that, i want to adjust a little bit to what has already been said about the saturdays that apply to

prosecutors. our appellate courts have said often, the administration of the law and especially that of the criminal law should like caesar's wife be above suspicious, free from bias, prejudice, so far as it's possible for our court to accomplish it. the first occurrence is nickels versus state, 115 years ago, the in 2010, although they don't refer to caesar's wife. that requirement is also embedded in the prosecutor's statutory oath 15-18-2 which requires impartially and without fear or favor discharge my duties as district attorney and take only my lawful compensation so help me god.

the general rule on conflicts of interest for lawyers is rule of professional conflict 1.7, and we all know, it's drummed into us, that we cannot have a conflict of interest, and if we do, we have to withdraw or we will be disqualified. the basic idea is that a conflict of interest impairs the lawyer's independent professional judgment. that's the test of a conflict, and whether it can be waived and whether it's disqualifying. and that conflict is not just financial. it can be any conflict that impairs your independent professional judgment, and you see that mclaughlin v payne. the court asked what was a personal interest for purposes of disqualification. it's anything that impairs professional judgment. that's reflected in the ada standards that were quoted by

mr. merchan which lists the prosecutor's personal, political, financial, professional business property or other interests or relationships and that's really embedded in the prosecutor's own oath to act impartially. and the earlier disqualification order by the judge was based on political interests, not financial. what my colleagues have described as forensic misconduct is also cognizable as a conflict of interest based on that footnote in the williams case. the root of all of the problems that we see in this court right now is a conflict of interest arising from their individual personal interests in perpetuating and concealing their relationship. that's the original sin from which all of the other problems flow. there are six different actual conflicts of interest in this case. any one of which warrants

disqualification but collectively, practically compelling. first, the financial conflict that's already been covered. second, the personal ambition, political ambition. third, there's a dove tailed or complimentary pattern of deceit and concealment of the relationship and the money. fourth, the speech at the church. fifth, the motion for protective order that the d.a. filed. in mr. wade's divorce case, six, the way the state has conducted the defense of this motion to disqualify, especially the hearing. on the financial piece, the court asks for a limiting principle, and asks about materiality. the limiting principle is whatever impairs the independent professional judgment of the lawyer. that is applied routinely.

we have a county code section that flatly prohibits gifts from contractors, period. we have by analogy, the federal bribery statute which has a threshold of $5,000. 18 usc 666. the court asks about burdens and inferences. the court can draw a negative inference from the state's failure to produce evidence to support the invisible magic cash balancing theory, based on state v thomas, 311 georgia 407 particularly footnote 19. as to the timing question that the court asked about there were two contracts from mr. wade executed after they acknowledged the relationship began. each one of them are conflicted under county and common law. the second conflict is for which

he was previously chastise bid judge burrny, that is also present in this book. the inside flap says they were given quote exclusive access to thousands of secret documents, e-mails, text messages, and audio recordings. the court has twice denied defense motions to unseal special purpose grand jury materials. she helped herself to get the glory of this book. i introduce certified copies of a number of county code sections. i'm not going to walk through those. i'll tell you why they matter. the stack of law from the state down to the county orinances impose as regime under which she has three obligations. she has to get approval to pay

him like she did. she can not accept gifts from a prohibited source. she has to disclose the gifts that she received. she evaded all of those requirements. section 2-69 of the county code prohibits gifts from prohibited sources. there is no boyfriend exception. the disclosure forms the evidence is sufficient for you to find her disclosure form for 2022 is false. and that it is a false writing. that's an actual conflict of interest between her duty, legal duty of disclosure. legal duty of candor as a prosecutor, and her private and personal interests in concealing the relationship, concealing the gifts, and keeping the gravy train rolling for as long as possible. his part in the pattern of concealment is a story you see in many divorce cases, the

husband is hiding things from his wife. how much money he's making, the other woman and what he's spending on the other woman, and he got all of that, he got on the stand and lied about lying in the interrogatories. and the lawyers for the d.a., the d.a.'s office, they just sat there and let him do it. they did nothing to correct obviously perjured testimony. in and of itself it warrants disqualification of every one of them. the reason they lied and covered it up was to avoid the trouble they're in right now. that served their personal interests to the detriment of their public duties as prosecutors. the speech at the church, i want to focus on why she did that. mr. gillen talked about that. she did it to deflect attention

from they are own misconduct and that of mr. wade. she violated her public duty as a prosecutor to serve her personal interests and the personal interests of her boyfriend. that is a disqualifying conflict between her personal interest and her public duty that is actual, operational, and materialized. and it rests on undisputed facts. the next thing that she did was the emergency motion for protective order that she filed in the divorce. i certified copy of that. she filed a protective order on the grounds she's the d.a. the whole filing is expressly predicated on her status as d.a. in fact, she never lets you forget it. she says it 27 times in 12 pages. in that filing speaking as d.a.,

she said, the circumstances that the defendant is using the legal process to harass and embarrass district attorney willis, and in doing so is obstruct asking interfearing with an ongoing criminal investigation. and the prayer for relief on page 11, she asks for six months to, quote, complete a review of the filings in the instant case. investigate and depose relevant witnesses with regard to the interference and obstruction this motion contends. there's no sugar coating it. that's a clear violation of rule of professional conduct, 3.4h which prohibits lawyers from makesing criminal threats of prosecution to gain advantage in a civil case. she abused her power. she abused her position to threaten her boyfriend's wife with criminal prosecution.

to gain advantage for herself and her boyfriend and her boyfriend's divorce. she violated her public duties not to make that kind of a threat in order to serve her private, personal interests and those of mr. wade. another actual operational conflict. the last category is the conduct of the defense of this hearing. there were a lot of objections made based on attorney client privilege during mr. bradley's testimony. most of those objections were made by the state. but the privilege being asserted does not belong to the state. it belongs to mr. wade. that shows that the d.a.'s office is serving the personal interests of the d.a. and mr. wade in carrying out further

concealment and cover up of their relationship. and not the cause of justice they are sworn to serve. that is a conflict of interest. it's a continuation of the wrongful pattern of concealment and cover up that they have engaged in since the beginning. but now they've enlisted the entire office in the enterprise. in the written response to the motion to disqualify, they said this, and i quote. to be absolutely clear, there's no evidence that d.a. willis derived any financial benefit from mr. wade. that's on page 15. flat out false. ten lawyers in this case put their name on that, starting with the d.a. so throw another log on the bonfire of conflicts of interest. the problem here is the d.a.

cannot distinguish between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other, and apparently neither can anyone else in their office. of the six conflicts i have identified, only one is subject to a conflict. this is a case study in what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest. put an irreparable stain on the case. think of the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified. if this is tolerated we'll get more of it. this office is a global laughing stock because of their conduct. they should be disqualified and the case should be dismissed. >> your honor, there's not much oxygen left in the room.

we delineated the times based on the whole presentation. would your honor consider us some time for rebuttal. >> no. >> can i reserve what i had, five minutes. >> that's fine. >> thank you, your honor. >> let's take a quick five and we'll be back at 2:40ish to hear from the state. thank you. we have been listening for the past hour and a half to the final arguments, the closing arguments, if you will, in the case to disqualify, the hearings to disqualify d.a. fani willis from trying the rico case for the efforts to overturn the 2020 election down in georgia. back with me katie phang, lisa rubin, lisa redman. we have been watching this, and the impression is that judge

mcafee is getting, you know, asking some tough questions of these defense attorneys who are trying to claim that there's a conflict of interest. >> reporter: there are tough questions, and a couple i want to highly for our viewers are the following. there are legal standards that are applied in court hearings. you heard judge mcafee ask steve sadow, preponderance of the evidence is the standard. they have to carry the burden, proving through a preponderance of the evidence that an actual conflict of interest exists, then judge mcafee will deny this motion. when mcafee says suggestive, yes, there are things that are suggestive of a conflict. but is suggestive the same as preponderance of the evidence, and of course steve sadow had to say, no, it's not.

even if judge mcafee doesn't like what he's heard, legally speaking, that's a problem for the defense. the other thing you have heard today is the judge keeps on asking him where does the proof come in, if you make this big deal about fani willis's team not bringing in proof of the cash withdrawals or the cash reimbursements to nathan wade, mcafee is like isn't that your problem, your burden to carry to prove these things. those are critical questions that mcafee asked of the defense, speaks to what he is thinking. lastly, immateriality. what is mcafee trying to get. the defense has been doing a dance on the answer. they're saying, well, sure, judge, a dollar or stick of gum maybe isn't enough but in this instance, there's $17,000

allegedly the benefit to fani willis. that's another thing for judge mcafee that he's focusing on, rt materiality of the amount of the benefit. but the state has to get up and make its own closing arguments so i would expect judge mcafee will have tough questions for the state as well. >> let's stay a little bit of what we heard. the steve sadow and the other lawyers kept saying that you have to throw her out because of ethical concerns. because of that, she should be disqualified. the judge asked, if that's the standard, what happens in this case? listen. >> if i have genuine concerns, how does that not spill over to every case a district attorney brings. >> she testified under oath and so did mr. wade. they didn't have to testify

falsely. they could have testified truthfully. they could have indicated that the relationship, the timing was before mr. wade was hired. they chose not to. that dishonest constitutes a violation of ethical responsibilities. this is not signing an indictment, filing a pleading in which both sides have their own positions. this is a requirement that every witness has to have to tell the truth under oath. if they don't tell the truth under oath or there's a significant concern about their credibility, they're violating their ethical rules. as anyone will tell you, your honor knew from when you were a prosecutor, prosecutors are held to a higher standard. >> if she should be held to a higher standard, she should be taken off every case. by the way, fani willis is in the courtroom. we'll see if she has anything to say for herself directly when

the state makes their final arguments. >> a standard question that judges have in almost every case, if you are right, what's the limiting principle, what are the effects of what you're ask k. the judge correctly was saying, you're saying i should find that based on this evidence that ms. willis lied on the stand. that's assuming you were to find that, that he could say, i disagree, i don't think she lied. what he was saying, if i find that, what does that mean not just for this case, but every case. she signs the indictments of every case, and the answer that was given when you have to give some limiting principle. there's no way the judge is going to be saying every case she signs an indictment, there's a difference between signing an indictment, and in this particular case taking the stand and lying about the particular allegations here. i have to say that i think

almost every single question that was asked was favorable to the states in terms of materiality, limiting principles, the financial interests here, all were questions that were tough for the defense, but could be when we see the state argue its case that he has equally tough questions. >> let's also just briefly talk, lisa, why have this hearing in the first place? >> this hearing was necessary once he decided to have an evidentiary hearing at all. >> you're talking about the whole thing? >> the whole thing. i don't know why it was necessary. we talked about the legal standard. this never met the threshold. even if all the facts were established. judge mcafee felt the appearance of impropriety justified having a hearing. and now that he opened that pandora's box, here we are. i agree with andrew that all the

questions he has asked so far favor the sate. one other that he asked that i found interesting. we're far outside the core of the cases. if a representative says something untruthful, do i have to deal with that or refer to the state bar. >> the judge is back in the chamber, back on the record. let's listen. >> i just am trying to get to where i can share my screen. >> we need to add you as a host then. >> what's your screen name on the zoom just making sure. do you need it right away? >> no, i can start without. >> good afternoon, your honor, i want to start with some of the things addressed over the last hour natch, -- and a half,

something mr. merchan related to the comments the state made in regards to the good faith basis which was submitted to the court. and which defense counsel claimed the evidence would show, and i would strongly bring to the court's attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations. what i will say to the court is the representations made by the counsel, ms. degentleman young, ms. sonya allen, investigate hill, investigator green, investigator ricks, all of these people would be called and mr. bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by saying that he in his presence or to him

said that ms. willis or mr. wade were in a romantic relationship, and that they were cohabitating, they knew that. i would submit to the court we didn't hear from any of those individuals. mr. bradley impeached no one, and i say no one. in order to properly impeach a witness, you have to confront the witness with specific statements. you can look at the you tube of the entire hearing, mr. wade wasn't once confronted with a statement that claimed that he said to mr. bradley the way you properly impeach somebody, you have to confront the witness, here would be mr. wade, and once he makes a statement you believe to be inconsistent, and you have a witness who can prove that

inconsistency, that's when you call that witness, and when mr. wade was on the stand, not once was he asked, did you tell mr. bradley this in a confidential conversation in your conference room that was not covered under attorney/client privilege. that was not asked. the specifics of that conversation was not asked. any testimony that mr. bradley testified to is impermissible, improper impeachment, they did not confront mr. wade with it. that's where the state would begin with the comments that mr. merchan made about me referencing his wife as lying. i never called ms. merchan a liar, i never used those words. i don't know why she made the material representations. could be mr. bradley lied to her, i don't know the reason, but i can submit to the court that those were material misrepresentations that were made to this court on the day -- a few mondays ago, as everyone

was arguing the motion to quash certain subpoenas. during that motion to quash certain subpoenas, ms. yeartie's attorney appeared, mr. partridge and made very clear ms. yeartie had no knowledge of a relationship and no knowledge of cohabitation. those were the specific references that he made, so what i would submit to the court is those are considered adopted omissions that his client has made based on the statements he made because of the representations she made to him. i know that sounds convoluted. what i would say to the court is mr. yeartie told mr. partridge because mr. partridge told the court she had no information about a romantic relationship and no information in regards to -- >> are you making an argument

that i should make inferences made -- she's hired him and you're telling me i should infer things based on her communications to him. >> they're the no attorney/client communications when he discloses them to the court and everybody else as they watch the zoom and attend the hearing. the difference is there was no request to go in camera. there was no request to have a private conversation with you as was done with mr. bradley. that would have been the proper procedure. yes, i'm asking you to infer that 100%. i'm asking you to infer her testimony was at best inconsistent because the testimony of ms. yeartie when she testified was vague, very little description when asked in a leading manner, is it true or

do you know that ms. willis and mr. wade were in a relationship from 2019 into the time that you were -- excuse me, you were forced to resign from the district attorney's office in march of '22. she said yes, and then further when pressed by mr. sadow, he talked about why she believed they were in a relationship, and what was interesting from ms. yeartie's testimony that they were pretty close prends up until she left the d.a.'s office, that she asserted to the court that on a yearly basis ms. willis said i'm in a relationship with mr. wade in 2019, oh, by the way, i want to tell you again in 2020, because we're in a new year, i'm still in a relationship with mr. wade, and again in 2021, the assertion is ms. willis went back to ms. yeartie, i want to reconfirm,

we're still in a relationship. it's absurd. it's absolutely absurd. when mr. sadow asked why she believes they were in a romantic relationship. do you see them kissing or hugging, there was no description about when it occurred, what she actually saw, was it a kiss on the cheek, things of that nature. i would ask you to frame her testimony from that standpoint when you're addressing her credibility. as the court is going to do with each and every witness that you heard during the testimony of all the witnesses during the hearing. i'm going to see if my screen will share.

i'll talk a little bit about the standard and the burden here in this instance, as it relates to defense counsel and the claims that they have made in the motion to disqualify, and as i was doing a whole lot of research, i came upon this law review article from cornell, a scholarship reading or

publication. and they made very clear that courts have been relatively reluctant to exercise their power to disqualify prosecutors for any reason. and that goes along with the standard the state would split to the court is the defense has to show an actual conflict. in this instance, they have to show the actual conflict would be that ms. willis received a financial benefit or gain and did it based or got it based upon the outcome of the case. it doesn't make any sense. it makes absolutely no sense. during the three days of the extensive testimony of all of the witnesses and the prolonged examinations of the witnesses by multiple defense counsel, they still got nowhere. we're in the same position we were in on monday, the same assertions that were made on monday have no answers today as

before, your honor. they were not able to provide any evidence to the contrary of ms. willis and mr. wade's assertions of when their relationship began. there's absolutely no evidence that contradicts that the relationship did not begin later than or around march of 2022, your honor. i further submit to the court, because of this failure, their assertion or request that one, the indictment be dismissed. there is no evidence that the defendants in this case, their due process rights have been harmed in absolutely any way. there was zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was produced through any of the exhibits or the witness testimony showing how their constitutional rights, their due process rights were at all affected by the relationship that began in march of 2022 with ms. willis and mr. wade.

because of that, the motion to disqualify should be denied and ms. willis, as the district attorney of fulton county and mr. wade as the special prosecutor assigned in this case should be allowed to remain on this case and continue to prosecute the case to the end, your honor, until the trial is set by the court and is to begin. now, the issues obviously you've heard a lot from defense counsel as to what the issues are for you to, i guess, determine and here it would be the state's contention that you must find there's an actual conflict if you were or are to come to the conclusion that you should disqualify mr. willis and the district attorney's office, and looking at -- >> is this ventura. >> mcglynne v state.

342 georgia appeal. 170. it's a 2017 case. in that case it talks about the standard of proof that the defense or the burden that the defense must show and go to show an actual conflict. they say it's a high standard of proof, which is definitely not a preponderance of the evidence. which is a much lower burden for any party who's trying to meet that standard of preponderance. it's clear that what the standard is that is a high standard of proof for both when determining whether there's an actual conflict, and forensic misconduct that is found, your honor. and i want to go through some of the cases that defense counsel has referenced that they argued here today in their filings. and i guess the bright line standard or the standard in the grounds for which

disqualification is appropriate for your honor to be determining in all of the cases as it relates to disqualifying the elected district attorney, you either find that there's a conflict of interest or there's been forensic misconduct. those are, i guess, the two areas that your honor is in your purview. when you are looking to resolve an issue regarding disqualification. now in a recent case, lee v state, lexus 31. it's february of 2024 case here out of our appellate courts, and that case, justice pinson wrote that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to disqualify an assistant district attorney absent an actual conflict of interest. that is a case that was ruled on

by the georgia court of appeals about a month ago, your honor. now, the cases in which defense counsel have relied on in their briefs and here today, i would submit to the court the sights are misleading. and some of them actually support the state's position, and what i would say to you is that the defendants in many instances combine language from the multiple cases and kinded of what i would say is mistakes the law as what is required in order for an elected district attorney and their office to be disqualified, and what i would submit to the court is. >> let's go back to that. show me how.

>> yes. >> i think the first one it sited is battle versus the state. conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety would be the grounds of disqualification. >> there are a number of these cases that seem to exclusively rely on the appearance of impropriety. they acknowledge there's ambiguity, sometimes went worth, and cited to ventura, and we have this quote where they cite to an actual conflict that must be involved, but they acknowledge the ambiguity, you're saying there's no ambiguity whatsoever. >> i am saying that, and why i am saying that, why i would summit that to the court, in all cases they reference the appearance of impropriety but they reference that because they find there's an actual conflict in each one of those cases. >> your position would be, your review of the case law, there's

never been an appellate decision that relied on appearance of impropriety. >> that is what i'm saying. in those cases they reference the fact that there's an appearance of impropriety but reference that fact because when you have an actual conflict there's always an appearance of impropriety and those are what those cases stand for, and i guess that is the main example of what i reference as they kind of combine the language from separate and different cases and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety, and i would submit to the court that is not the standard and my first reading like your honor, i did notice that the cases each reference the appearance of impropriety but that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each one of those cases. so i won't belabor the point in going through all of the cases that the defense had cited but

what i would submit to the court in reading the cases is that i found that they kind of fell into five categories. some that didn't concern disqualification at all. some that determined -- that were 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 interest in the outcome, and others talk act whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial at the conclusion 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 before