Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11tv State Delivers Closing Arguments in Fani Willis Hearing CSPAN March 1, 2024 10:41pm-12:21am EST
10:41 pm
the problem here is that the da cannot the stink which between her personal interests and ambitions on the one hand and her public duties as a prosecutor on the other. apparently, neither can anyone else in their office. of the six conflicts i've identified, only one is subject to a conflict on the others. this is a case study in what happens when you operate under a conflict of interest. this puts an irreparable stain on the case. think of the message that would be sent if they were not disqualified. if this is tolerated, we will get more of it. this office is a global lacking stop -- laughingstock because of their conduct. they should be disqualified and the case to be dismissed.
10:42 pm
>> there's not much oxygen left in the room. we delineated the based on the whole presentation. would your honor consider some time for us in rebuttal? >> no. >> ok. then can i reserve what i have? >> sure. that's fine. >> thank you. >> let's take a quick five and we will be back at 2:40-ish. thank you. [indiscernible]
10:43 pm
■8>> all right. we are back on the record. are you ready? >> yes. i'm trying to get to where i can share my screen. >> we need to add you as a host then.
10:44 pm
>> in which defense counsel claimed the evidence would show. 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, and why i say that to the court, is because the representations that were made by counsel was that -- all of these people
10:45 pm
would be called and mr. bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by singing that he specifically, in his presence or to him, said that ms. willis and mr. wade were in a romantic relationship and that ms. willis and mr. wade were cohabitating. that they all knew that. i would submit to the court, we didn't hear from any of those individuals. mr. bradley impeached no one. i say no one because he did not impeach mr. wade. in order to properly impeach a witness, you have to confront the witness with specific statements. you can look at the youtube of the entire hearing over the last couple days. mr. wade wasn't once confronted with a statement that he claimed or said to mr. bradley. the way you properly impeach
10:46 pm
somebody, you have to confront the witness. here would be mr. wade. once he makes abs statement that you believe to be inconsistent, you have a witness who can prove that inconsistency, that's when you call the witness. when mr. wade was on the stand, not once was he asked, did you tell mr. bradley this? in a cdein 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. it's improper impeachment. they did not confront mr. wade with it. so that's where the state would begin with the comments that mr. merchant made about me referencing his life as lying. i never called -- i nevsed those words. i don't know why she made the material misrepresentation.
10:47 pm
it baby -- it could be because mr. bradley lied to her. i can submit to the court that those were material misrepresentations that were made to this court a few mondays ago, as everyone was arguing. i would bring to the court's attention that during that motion for certain subpoenas, mysterious attorney appears. he made very clear on that zoom, monsieur it he had no knowledge of a romantic relationship and absolutely no knowledge of cohabitation. those are the specific references that he made. so what i would submit to the court is, those are considedado. that his client has made based on the statements he made beuse of the representations she made to him.
10:48 pm
i know that sounds convoluted. what i would say to the court is, mr. partridge told the court that she had absolutely no information about a romantic relationship and she had no information in regards to -- >> are you making the argument i should be based -- make inferences? she's communicating with mr. partridge about what her upcoming testimony is. that's why she hired him. should i infer things based on her communications to him? >> absolutely. they are notx■f attorney-client communications anymore when he discloses them to the court and everybody else as they watch the zoom and attend the hearing. the differences, there was no request to go on camera. there was no request to attack 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. to infer that r testimony was at best inconsistent.
10:49 pm
the testimony of missy already when she testified was vague. very little description. when asked in a very leading manner, is it true or do you know that miss willis and mr. wade were in a relationship from 2019 into the time you were fired -- forced to resign from the district attorney's office in march of 22. she said yes. ■z
10:50 pm
-- it's absurd. it's absolutely absurd. when she was asked why she believed they were in a romantic relationship based on her observations, she said something, he asked her about kissing or hugging. she said yes. there was no description or qualification 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 are addressing her credibility, as the court will do with every witness that you heard during the testimony of
10:51 pm
all the witnesses during the hearings. let me see if my screen ll share. now i want to talk a little bit about the standards and the burdens here in this instance as it relates to defense counsel
10:52 pm
and the claims that they've made as the motion to disqualify. i was doing a lot of research. that goes along with the standard. what the state would submit to the court is that the defense has to show an actual conflict. they have to show the actual conflict, that ms. willis received a financial benefit or gain and did it, got it based upon the outcome of the case. it doesn't make any sense. it makes absently no sense. during the three days of the extensive testimony of all of the witnesses and the prolonged
10:53 pm
examination of the witnesses by multiple defense counsels, they still got nowhere. we are in the same position we were in on monday. the same assertions that were made on monday have no answers today. they were not able to provide any contrary there is no evidence that contradicts that the relationship did not begin later than around march 2022. the research and or the request that the indictment be dismissed. there's no evidence that the defendant in this case, their due process rights have been harmed and absolutely anyway. there is zero evidence, not a single shred of evidence was deduced through any of the
10:54 pm
exhibits or the witness testimony showing that their constitutional rights were at all affected by the relationship in march of 2022. because of that, the motion to disqualify should be denied and missed willis as the district attorney of fulton county and mr. wade as the special prosecutor assigned to the case should be allowed to remain on this case and continue to prosecute the case until the end, until the trial is set by the court to begin. now the issue is obviously coming of heard a lot from the defense counsel as to what the issues are for you are to be determined. 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 ms. willis and the
10:55 pm
district attorney's office. >> are you talking about mrs. ventura? >> in that case, it talks about the standard of proof that the defense must go to show an actual conflict. they say the high standard of proof -- proof which is not a preponderance of the evidence, which is a much lower for any party who is trying to meet that standard of preponderance. it's very clear that the standard is a high standard of proof. for both when determining whether there is an actual conflict and when there's forensic ms. conflict that's found. i want to go through some of the cases that defense counsel has
10:56 pm
referenced. they argued here today and in their filings. i guess the bright line standard or the standard and the grounds for which disqualification is appropriate for your honor to be ■3determining in all the cases s it relates to disqualifying the elected district attorney. finding that there's conflict of interest or that there's been some sort of friend is -- forensic mix conduct. those are the two areas that your honor, that is in your purview when you are looking to resolve an issue regarding disqualification. in a recent case, lee v state. february of 2024.
10:57 pm
here out of our appellate courts. in that case, the justice 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's the case that was ruled on by the georgia court of appeals about a month ago, your honor. now the cases in which the defense counsel has relied on in their briefs and here today, i would submit to the court that the sites are misleading. inequitable. some of them actually support the states position. what i would say to you is that the defendants in manyns languae multiple cases. what i would say mistake the law as it relates to what the law, what is required in order
10:58 pm
for an elected district attorney and their office to be disqualified. what i would submit to the court is -- >> gback to that. show me how. >> show you how? >> the first one you battle versus the state. certainly a conflict of interest or an appearance of impropriety could be the grounds of disqualification. you remember, a number of these cases rely on the appearance of impropriety. they acknowledge that there is some ambiguity here. sometimes whitworth gets cited to venter and we have this quote. they acknowledge the ambiguity. >> why i would submit that to
10:59 pm
the court is that in all of those cases, they do reference the appearance of an impropriety. they reference that because they also find there's an actual conflict in each one of those cases. >> your position would be your review of the law. >> yes. that's what i'm saying. in those cases, they reference the fact that there's an appearance of impropriety and they reference that fact because when you have an actual conflict , there's always an appearance of impropriety. those are what the cases stand for. i guess that's the main example of what i referenced as, they combined the language from separate and different cases and tell you that the standard is an appearance of impropriety. i would submit that's not the standard. in my first reading, i did notice that the case each
11:00 pm
hat that appearance arose from the fact that the court found an actual conflict in each one of those cases. i won't belabor the point in going through all the cases the defense cited. what i would submit to the court is that i found that they fell into five categories. some that didn't concern disqualification at all. some that determined we were about to voided loyalty. a conflict that arises from representi -- becoming a prosecutor and then having
11:30 pm
-- he must have said 15 times that he had no rs knowledge as t relates to the relationship between ms. willis and mr. wade. more importantly, being pressed by counsel, he 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 .
11:31 pm
as it relates to the written -- relationship transitioning into dating and into the end of the relationship, the summer of 2023. as i referenced to the court, the statements that mr. bradley made were9n inadmissible hearsay as it relates to the statements that he was pressed and asked about what mr. wade told him. mr. wade was n)ter confronted with those statements. in order for impeachment to be proper, he must be confronted with a specific statement inagay motive to lie. i believe the text messages are clear, very clear as it relates to his disdain towards mr. wade. due to the fact that he was expelled or exiled from a thriving law practice and
11:32 pm
it was clear that the practice and mr. wade sided with the alleged victim. it's clear he assaulted her duer off. and as i referenced earlier, ms. merchant represented to the court that mr. bradley had personal first-hand knowledge basically of it all, of everything. and 5that he would be able to basically be an impeaching machine. you're on a him as the star witness when you were addressing the claims that were made by ms. cross in relation to miss merchan's representations to the mit to the court is that all mr. bradley's representations of it relates to when the miss willis and mr. wade began and whether they cohabitated. that was a promise that was also
11:33 pm
made, that he would be able to impeach the investigators as it relates to cohabitation. it was speculation, gossip, innuendo. >> the impression i got is that mr. bradley directly overheard a duals that they could be impeached with. is that accurate? >> directly overheard -- >> they actually seem to be -- all of them could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by mr. bradley. >> yes. >> in reference to your question, the answer was yes. when you are looking to the text messages, i would submit to the court that the text messages don't even say or indicate what
11:34 pm
was represented to the relation to the good faith basis for this motion to disqualify, as it relates to the testimony of and ability to impeach witnesses through mr. bradley. what has been referenced by all counsel is mr. bradley's assertion of, absolutely, as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to mr. wade's hiring. the question in itself involves speculation. it asks, do you think it started before hhired him? he said absolutely. he doesn't provide any context as to how he knows. in these text messages and through his testimony with the court, is the source of -- of his information was unclear. that's what i would say to the court. as to a lot of things, other
11:35 pm
than the one conversation that allegedly occurred between mr. wade and mr. bradley. i would submit to the court that that conversation never occurred. that would be the state's contention. how do we know that? we know that because that conversation was not confronted, wister -- mr. wade was not confronted with that conversation. that is circumstantial evidenceo that conversation not existing. based on the representation made by the defense counsel, it would be clear that that would be a conversation that would have been relayed to. it wasn't privileged, as your honor found. if that conversation happened, you better believe that would have been a conversation that defense counsel would've confronted mr. wade the reason they didn't do that was because it didn't exist.
11:36 pm
again, you heard from mr. john's , the district attorney's 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 court corroboration as it relates to the years leading up to the relationship that transitioned into dating between the district attorney and mr. wade. what he testified to was that he moved into her south fulton home in 20. the evidence of his moving into that home at that time was his georgia driver's license. official government document. he further testified that not only was it just ms. willis and home, but that he often would see on numerous occasions the significant other of ms.
11:37 pm
willis that was not mr. wade. he referenced that person had a nickname of do's and that he kept a lot of his belongings in the garage of ms. willis. he specifically said he kept a lot of his distraught he equipment -- disc jockey equipment. that's how he referred to it. he made very clear that he's never seen mr. wade at the south fulton home. that's owned by ms. willis. he make -- made clear that he lived in that home with ms. willis and ms. willis alone, other than her two daughters who would've asian elite -- occasionally visit the home. after february of 2021. what precipitated the move of ms. willis to what i would ference as a safe house for her protection was a protest that occurred before her home in february of 2021. he then expressed to the court
11:38 pm
that ms. willis moved in the spring of 2021. due to the threats that were taking -- takevery seriously, he had only seen his child 13 times. he said, in reference to the question by defense counsel that were -- i'm going to be straight up with the court. they were trying to make ms. willis a liar is how i would submit to the court. 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 rebutted all of that. made it so it wasn't true.t he d in the home because it was the home that she put her blood, sweat, tears and and was able to buy.
11:39 pm
he stayed in the home because there was constant officer presence. he told the court that he thought extra security equipment. that he slept in different rooms on different nights because he felt his safety was in such a concern. so i would submit to the court that lap -- that that line of questioning was done in an attempt to discredit ms. willis. but it failed. how the state would characterize it. then he testified about the first time that he did meet mr. wade, in 2023 here at the district attorney's office. he talked about how he kept cash in his home and why ms. willis kept cash in his home. what the court should take note ■)of is that the state didn't ak mr. floyd about the cash in his home. that came out through the■n
11:40 pm
cross-examination of the defense counsel. so it was the implication that mr. floyd only did so due to his preparation with the state and his hearing and seeing news articles and clips related to the testimony that 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 the defense counsel, which gives credibility to the statements that were made . 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 safes and that he gave ms. willis his first lockbox -- her first lockbox for situations, as she described when she was testifying. what i want to make clear is that during this willis's testimony, it was stressed about
11:41 pm
the cash and where she kept it, did it follow her where she laid her head and things of that nature, trying to further discredit the practice that she had as it relates to keeping cash in her home and why she didn't have the ability to pay cash to mr. wade and other people and further situations. and what the court should take note of is that there was no evidence that controverted that at all. where was the evidence that controverted ms. willis's and practice of keeping cash in her home? there was none. in fact, the only evidence■;■ ws that it was substantiated through the testimony of her father mr. floyd. furthermore, you heard from former governor roy barnes and his testimony was significant and important.
11:42 pm
because how i would phrase it -->> on this point, you might've had a more recent opportunity to review than i have. you said she was the first choice to lead the prosecution. was that his testimony or was his testimony that he was asked to come aboard? did he use the words that he was asked to lead? >> yeah. that was my recollection. that he was asked to leave the prosecution. he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently in, the lead prosecutor. it was said in that way as well as it relates to the testimony of mr. barnes. i think it's very clear. my recollection is that he said lead. i can submit to the court that i know that he also said that he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently filling for the state of georgia.>> special grand jury prosecutor, right? >> yeah. i guess, leading the
11:43 pm
investigation which led to the ultimate prosecution that we are here for today. he also indicated that the reason that he turned the job down was because it didn't pay enough. he said he had mouths to feed at his law firm. and that he also didn't want to live the rest of his life like that. furthermore, he confirmed the qualifications of mr. wade. which i still find quite interesting and confusing, as to attacking mr. wade's qualifications. it's almost as if mr. romans counsel is asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case that he sees to be more qualified to attempt to convict her client. it's an interesting argument. it's one that makes no sense.
11:44 pm
furthermore, if you were to believe the claims and allegations as it relates to ms. personal stake in the prosecution, the receiving of financial benefits and gains, you would have to believe that she was also dating roy barnes, the former governor and gabe banks in addition to mr. wade. if she has this grand plan, scheme in order to profit off of the prosecution of the case. p3that's what they are saying. or they are saying that she telepathically or pathetically was able to know that mr. barnes and mr. banks were turned on the position so she could then higher mr. wade. it's ridiculous. it's absurd. it's desperate. it's a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case
11:45 pm
for absolutely no reason. other than harassment and embarrassment. we've been through a lot of the testimony. >> that should be clear. it was not interesting evidence -- introducing evidence that mr. burns turned her down. how is that on the record? >> i would ask the court to take judicial notice. it's been asked repeatedly. >> i don't recall is hearing that. >> i don't recall ms. willis testifying to that exact fact. mr. banks represented that to the court during monday's hearing as it relates to the allegations that were made. i understand that. >> just making sure we understand what's exactly in the evidence. regardless, i think your point is made. >> it's in the evidence of the record as it relates to the issues that led up to the actual hearing of this case.
11:46 pm
i understand your honor's position. but it did come out during the preceding that was prior to the actual hearing. this slide is just a chart showing the of both the district attorney ms. willis and mr. wade as it relates to how they met. how and when mr. wade became the special prosecutor, when the relationship evolved into a romantic one. talking about the trips in which they took after their relationship evolved into one that became romantic. and when it ended. again, i would submit to the court that those facts were consistent. the only person who contradicted that when the relationship was miss erie. i would bring to the courts attention that it was represented to the court that she was a witness other than mr.
11:47 pm
bradley who could bring to the forefront this issue of cohabitation. when asked about■; it, absentlyo information as it relates to this alleged cohabitation. it was false. she said she had no information. she was asked about trips. she said she had no information about the trips. yet she is such a good friend that mill -- ms. willis confirmed each year that mr. wade and her continued to be in a relationship. 2019, 2020, 2021 until their relationship do to her forced resignation. and the splintering of their friendship. several exhibits obviously were tendered in. most of them were exhibits that came from the divorce of mr. wade and miss jocelyn wade. the contract for legal services
11:48 pm
and the text messages. i would specifically reference, prior to today the only text messages that were before your honor were exhibits 26 and 27. it's the assertion of the defense counsel that what those show is that mr. bradley was -- had information as it relates to the relationship starting prior to march of 2022. that's just false. those text messages do not contain that. it does not pinpoint when thela. furthermore, you have the testimony and the evidence of the text messages that it was mere speculation. if you review the full chain of text messages, it is clearly miss merchan and mr. bradley going through what i can describe as nothing else other than a mere fishing expedition
11:49 pm
between the two of them at first. it's asked about certain members of the daso would have information as it relates specifically from this young, whether she would have information. he had no idea. he said he was speculating. that's the same as each person that was subpoenaed in the text messages. all of that was speculation. you know it was speculation because not a single one of them testified. that's telling. it wasn't mere speculation. if it wasn't gossip and 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 impeached by mr. bradley. you've heard obviously about the phone records. whether it comes into the purvw determination as
11:50 pm
it relates to the disqualification of the district attorney. yoal affidavit from the employee who works at the winery who confirms that ms. willis did in fact pay in cash, up to more than $400. i understand that this is part of the proffer of the state. it's important because that's a witness who the state didn't go fine. that's a witness who went to cnn in order to confirm what ms. willis testified to, further giving her statements credibility and credence before the court. >> 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 will get to that now. i have several foundational concerns as it relates to the cell phone records.
11:51 pm
i don't think -- the state uses cell phone records routinely. i would agree with that. we use them routinely. but we use them with an expert. they are always challenged. >> in the interest of time, setting aside the foundational concerns -- >> i thought you were asking about them. >> maybe you have thaturaction ? >> what i would say initially is that, due to the fact that they were analyzed by someone who was a non-expert, the analyst asian of the cell phone records were not properly peer-reviewed. it's■f8 clear from the states review that the normal practices that are used to the use of which kind of data is being used, in reference to the two
11:52 pm
specific dates, i believe it is september 10 and 11 and november 29 and 30th. the affidavit that is used to say that mr. wade remains at the area of hapeville -- during the hearing, the address never came out. it was just that it was the hapeville condo. the actual phone number for mr. wade was never established. the documents that were provided to the state that ■xwere certifd business records did not have a subscriber base. we have no idea that the number belongs to mr. wade. i understand you want to look past the foundational issues. i can appreciate that. the foundational stuff is very important as it relates to the admissibility of the record. >> no doubt about that. >> do you have any reaction? >> yes. i do. i will skip forward.
11:53 pm
so what's interesting is that the records that were provided starti january of 2021 and they go to november 30, i think is what the 2021 record is. you heard from all of the witnesses. ms. willis did not move into the hapeville■o address until aprilf 2021. that was the testimony from all the witnesses. april 20 21. she lived in her south fulton home from when she met mr. wade in october of 2019 up until when she had to move. the assertion by wade and miss willis began a relationship right after they met in october 2019. what's interesting and what's telling is that mr. wade's headset doesn't ever once appear
11:54 pm
anywhere near the area of her south fulton home. but they are dating. they are in a serious relationship. if you believe what the defense counsel says, that they've been in a relationship from october 2019 uuntil she moves in april of 2021. a year and a half or so. but he never once enters the area of her home. they want you to believe that's a lie. that's why counsel to -- continue to -- press willis and wade as to whether he'd ever been to that home. this corroborates that that was not a lie. he had never been to that home. it's more than suspect if you've been a relationship as they claim for all this time but never 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. arr] of 2021, those times when miss
11:55 pm
willis did not live at the hapeville address, she didn't move there until april 2021, his handset appears in that area 23 times. >> how do you reconcile that with the testimony that was alluded to by counsel? the reason she gave for being in the area. did those line to 23 times? there can't be too many reasons for being there. >> i think that's the point. i would say yes, that's the point. he referenced that it's an area -- clearly that's the case. ms. willis didn't live in the area. it's further corroboration as to what mr. wade indicated to the courts. after miss willis moved into the condo in april of 2021, they appeared 35 times. i want to make clear to the court, both miss willis and mr.
11:56 pm
wade never denied that he had been to the condo before. the specific testimony that was elicited by miss willis and mr. wade was that he had never laid his head, was the direct quote, at that condo. these records don't prove that he laid his head anywhere. if you were to believe the analysis or if you were to give credence to what the nonexpert says as it relates to mr. wade's handset in september and november for the three to four hours that the phone, that doe't disprove anything that was testified by mr. wade and district attorney wellness -- willis, that he visited there. the specific hours of their visits was not something that questioning of both of the parties. what i would also submit to the
11:57 pm
court is that if you look at the odays as it relates to september and november, the type of information that is used to make the plot for the longitude and latitude of the handset's data records. it's not voice records, sms or text messages, it's data records. it's not uncommon for an expert to testify as it relates specifically to at&t records, that that actual data record is unreliable as it relates to the of the handset due to the type of information that it is. data. not the voice and sms. as it's been referenced, by the prosecutor not only in this county but for the federal government, where this kind of information is commonly used. ■hthe comments that were made by the court, it was clear that you understood and understand the
11:58 pm
use of cell phone records as it relates, to put somebody in an area. again, not in a specific location. i'd also bring to the court's attention as it ratit and the analysis done by the experts that were hired, that not once did it reference the fact that at&t records commonly have duplicate and triplicate entries all detail records. that is something that is commonly seen. that is something that is seen in these records. that is something that leads to the incorrect number of times that's been alleged that ms. willis and mr. wade were in communication through text and voicemail. i would submit to the court that that number doesn't prove anything again.■ ■■adoesn't prove that anybody in a relationship. it proves that they were in
11:59 pm
communication with each other. i think your honor can use your own life experience as it relates to people you work with our friends that you are close with and the number of times that 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. based on our professional relationipndship that we had and still have, that we talked 30 times a day. that doesn't mean we are in a relationship. so the assertion that the number of times that ms. willis had mr. wade spoken to each other, whether through text message or phone, it has no validity. 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
12:00 am
there's a tr cost to ms. willis as it relates to her life. she has a digital -- additional expenses that she had to endure because of her position and the fact that she told the court that she had a mortgage. on top of that mortgage, she had house. her home was vandalized. there were racial epithets and sexual bigotry that were spray-painted onto her house. the concern of her safety and her life is some thing that was testified to. the fact that the job has led to the isolation and separation of her from her family and friends, which was given credence and credibility was provided by her father. mr. floyd had only seen his daughter 13 times since all these instances occurred. the full nature of the statements and falsehoods in
12:01 am
these text messages that were purposely leaked to the media as it relates to ms. willis's daughter, subjecting her position in school, that she flunked out of college which isn't true. in fact, she has graduated from thatwhat was leaked to the medis the fact that she flunked out of school and someone other than her father moved her. the validity of which was never shown. and all the while, miss willis facing these costs has been able to continue to do the work on related to this case, which is shown in the fact that atlanta's murder rate and violent crime rates have decreased while she's been in office. what was shown through the testimony of all of the witnesses and through the evidence that your honor heard was that there wasn't an actual
12:02 am
conflict. that thetual conflict in relation to ms. wade's -- the relationship that transpired from the relationship between her and mr. wade and that there was actually no evidence of a financial benefit that she gained as it relates to the prosecution of this case and the ultimate outcome of the case. the corroboration of all of that is something that your honor is very much aware that she could have financially benefited from stretching out the case for lack of a better word by the special grand jury recommending the 39 individuals be indicted. through r through the special grand jury's report and all of the evidence with the team that indicted the case, they only went with 19 of the defendants. had she gone with all 39, based
12:03 am
on the dassertion, would have gr the opportunity to certainly find these financial games -- gains that are claimed through the allegations of the defense counsel. more portly, why would miss willis repeatedly asked the court to set a trial date as soon as possible if her motive in prosecuting this case was to continue to financially gain, as alleged from the prosecution of this case? it doesn't line up. it doesn't make a reason, because it doesn't exist. more importantly, this office has several large-scale cases like this one and much larger. there's a lot of high profile prosecutions. if ms. willis is ultimate goal by hiring mr. wade was for her
12:04 am
financial benefit, she would put mr. wade on every single one of those cases. so that she could certainly revel in the riches and lavish has been referred to by the defense counsel. which there's been absolute we no evidence of. the evidence was that she sit -- stayed at a doubletree in napa. a doubletree. i don't know that to be a lavish hotel. most people when they go to napa , if they want to lavishly experience napa, stay at the ritz-carlton, the four seasons, things of that nature. the allegations and assertions that ms. willis was living the lifestyle of the rich and famous is a joke. absolute joke. as it relates to what you heard and the secondary issue is the forensic misconduct. for lack of a better word, what has to be shown is that the statements that were made by ms.
12:05 am
willis related to the prosecution of the ce guilt or innocence of the defendants. we have none of those statements. there's been no evidence, nothing provided as it relates to ms. willis's specific statements made about any of the defendants and are in relation to the guilt of venice -- or innocence of any of the defendants. the fact that she had a 95% convention rate. ob is to instill confidence in the community. what else is she doing as it relates to her constitutional duties? that what -- was what had been done when she had 95 conviction rate in the previous year. more importantly, the allegations about race and religion being imputed in her speech, those comments were directed at the defendants at this table. if you listen the speech, the
12:06 am
comments are directed at two elected or political officials. marjorie taylor greene and bridget thorne, who is a member of the fulton county board of commissioners here. she specifically use their names . my knowledge is that they are not supposed to be sitting at the table. i haven't seen them in my work as it relates to this case. so those allegations that ms. willis committed forensic misconduct, there's no validity to them. there's no evidence of them. as it relates to any of those comments. this is an issue. it's been previously ruled on when the same allegations were alleged as it relates to extra judicial statements made by ms. willis and it involves a statement. the words fake electors were said by ms. willis.
12:07 am
they found there was absolutely no comment that was impermissible as it relates to forensic misconduct. i guess to drive home the point. at no point in any of the statements that were made and that are alleged here as it relates to the speech that she made, at the church, at no point did she mention the guilt or innocence of any of the defendants. again, she was merely responding to comments thorne , two other political officials. therefore making her comments not even close in the realm of any sort of forensic misconduct. what i find interesting is that the defense counsel wants to
12:08 am
ke these allegations that ms. willis committed this misconduct by the statement that she made in her defense as to public officials not related to this case. causing the threat of harm to both ms. willis and mr. wade. the most recent instance was text messages that your honor hadn't ruled on their admissibility prior to their release. it was made clear during the
12:09 am
hearing that the ability to get the full chain was something that they were unable to do. but they figured away. the minute they figured away, they released it, the information to the media simultaneously turni it over to the state. for all the reasons stated before your honor, this motion should be denied. legal requirements that are required in order for the district attorney to be disqualified have not been satisfied. the defendants have failed to raise any issue legally or factually to satisfy the legal standards for disqualification. they must show an actual conflict. they been unable to show the prosecutioresult of political bh has been accused. accusations have been made as well as demonstrated that the prosecution of this case was
12:10 am
motivated by any means or anyway because of malicious prosecution. they haven't been able to prove that this case was one of selected prosecution for political benefit or gain. all allegations that have been made during the course of different hearings and the procedures as it relates to this case. what i believe the court -- how the state started the argument was that courts have been generally unreceptive if not hostile to attempt to disqualify prosecutors based on pervasive and institutional conflicts which makes clear that the standard is very high and must be met in order for unelected district attorney to be disqualified. that standard has not been met. an actual conflict has not been shown. more importantly, it's in conjunction with that that there will be no evidence. the district attorney has benefited financially at all.
12:11 am
we would refer -- respectfully request you deny the motion to >÷disqualify the elected distrit attorney ms. fani willis. >> thank you. that's what it says. mr. cromwell. ok. understood. all yours. i'm going to do rebuttals, specific rebuttals. one, the state makes an argument that we should have asked mr. wade questions about his relationship and his
12:12 am
communications with mr. bradley. when they objected over and over and overthe council objected ovd over and over, claiming that everything that bradley was told by wade was attorney-client privilege. your honor made the determinations thereafter to bradley. we didn't get the opportunity to call mr. wade back to the stand to get to claim that you can't impeach him because you didn't ask him when they objected to us asking him is obviously a false position to take. it's a -- as disingenuous as it could be. we would be more than happy to call mr. way back to the stand. as the record stands, there could be no confrontation of mr. wade when both his counsel and the state are arguing that it shouldn't be done. second, let's use a little common sense here.
12:13 am
francis -- forensic misconduct received two minutes worth of discussion. the olive -- all of the rest of it is on conflict. forensic misconduct dealing with the state is is -- is if you don't accuse someone or you don't say that someone is guilty -- >> assuming you can impugn someone's character, why is that easier? assuming you can impugn someone's character to forensic misconduct, i guess the state's primary position was that they weren't taing about e church? >> right. if you listen to it and watch it, it starts off by saying, why does commissnethorne and so many others -- and then it refers to, they attack him for being black, they attack him, not anyone else. they attacked the black man. they are not talking about ms. thorne or marjorie taylor greene. they are talking about us. you know how everybody knows
12:14 am
that? not a single story from the media reported anything other than, fani willis accused t defense and defendants of being racist. here's the commonsense part of this. if you follow the state position on forensic misconduct, fani willis could all day long talk about race. she could say, i'm not saying they are guilty or not guilty but theycf are rist. they are racist. they are racist. according to the states position on forensic misconduct, that wouldn't be a problem. obviously that makes no sense whatsoever. the issue that we've dealt with on forensic misconduct is not some leave the church speech. it's why she did it. how she did it. calculated and all the other things we talked about with the testimony of wade and willis in this case. let's go to the relationship in the cell phone briefly. no one knew that there was a relationship between wade and willis.
12:15 am
according to wade and willis. not a soul was ever told that they were dating or that there was an intimate relationship, ever. they concealed it from all parties. from daddy. daddy didn't ev know they had a relationship. should just -- suggest that somehow in the beginning of 2021, january to whatever it was into april, that they couldn't have met in hapevilthey didn't t would allow the public to see them. that's the reason why they were meeting at near tese. no one else was ever there. remember the testimony? who else was there besides mr. wade and ms. willis? of them agreed. no one. no one ever went there except them. they didn't go to where daddy wasn this willis's house.
12:16 am
daddy was there and that he would know. no o k except who. the one person was bradley. best friend. bradley was the partner of wade. whose motive in this case is the strongest? fani willis. nathan way. if they testify truthfully on every point, what happens if the relationship started before november 1?
12:17 am
they get disqualified. who has the best motive of anyone to lie? they do. who wants to stay on this case, for whatever the financial reason may be? they do. thank you. >> there it is. all right. thank you everybody. i think it's been very much made clear by the made today that there are several legal issues to sort through, several factual determinations that i have to make. those aren't ones i can make at this moment. so i will be takinge that i gete full consideration. i hope to have an answer with everyone for the next two weeks.
12:18 am
if there are any other issues that come up, counsel can reach out. we will have an order posted on the docket. thank you well. we are off the record.
15 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
CSPAN
Television Archive 
Television Archive News Search Service 
Uploaded by TV Archive on
