Prior to the defendants ‘ partial victory, county district attorney Fani Willis, who was previously the defendants ‘ attorney, had to comply with the ruling of the Superior Court in Franklin County, Georgia, according to Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling on Friday.  ,
In response to the judge’s decision, Wade announced his resignation from the event, effective immediately.  ,
McAfee issued a mixed ruling in the election interference case with respect to defendant Michael Roman’s motion ( joined by other defendants, including Trump ) to recuse Willis, her office, and Wade, who the judge referred to as “her romantic partner“.
McAfee determined that the accused ‘ information did not adequately demonstrate a conflict of interest in the case, but it did give the impression of impertinence. He added that Willis ‘ statement at her temple, in which she accused her critics of racial animus,” not crossed the line” that it would prevent the accused from receiving a fair trial.
The situation may proceed until Willis decides who may be on the trial team because of the “established record” that “highlights a considerable appearance of impropriety that infects the present structure of the prosecution team.” One of them had to hit the road.  ,  ,
Certain findings of reality and legal conclusions are included in the court’s 23-page order. In journeyman fashion, the judge walked through the legal posture of the case, and therefore turned to the rules and standards suitable to exact conflicts of interest, an appearance of impropriety, and “forensic misconduct”, which, under Georgia Supreme Court precedent, are inappropriate remarks by a counsel regarding “his personal belief in the plaintiff’s guilt” . ,
No True Conflict of Interest
The judge noted that “prosecutors are held to a special and rigorous expert standard in light of their common duty” as the case opened. According to McAfee, the Georgia Supreme Court recognizes two grounds for a prosecutor’s disqualification: a conflict of interest or forensic misconduct.
Conflicts of interest include acquiring a “personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction”. The judge made the right decision in the first place: a “fact-driven one” determines whether a prosecutor has a conflict of interest in a particular case.
The court moved on to the payment of funds to Wade by the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office.  , While noting that there is nothing, per se, wrong with a special prosecutor being supervised by a “neutral and detached” district attorney, nor is there anything wrong, per se, with romantic relationships between prosecutors, when both occur, as alleged in this case, there is a prima facie argument that raises the question of whether there was financial enrichment and “improper motivations” . ,
The District Attorney’s Office and Wade’s employment contract stipulated a$ 250 hourly rate, which the court determined was “quite low by metro Atlanta standards for an attorney of Wade’s years of service.”
Additionally, the court determined that Willis and Wade engaged in four separate travels between October 2022 and May 2023 that “resulted in documentable expenses.” The trips included an October 2022 cruise to Miami and Aruba, a December 2022 trip to Miami for another cruise, a March 2023 trip to Belize, and a May 2023 trip to Napa Valley, California.
The court also found that the couple took” a number of daylong road trips to Tennessee, Alabama, South Carolina, North Carolina, and other parts of Georgia” . ,
Willis claims that she provided cash reimbursement to Wade for many of the costs associated with those trips. The court determined that while” such a reimbursement practice may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning,” their testimony “withstood direct contradiction” and was supported by additional evidence.  ,
The district attorney’s decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade was shown by the evidence, the court decided.
More importantly, the court found that the “financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor … to indict and prosecute this case”, or that Willis ‘ conduct impacted or influenced the case” to the defendant’s detriment” . ,
McAfee also stated that his findings” no way indicate that the court condones this enormous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the district attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing.”
He pointed out that other entities, such as the state General Assembly, the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, or ultimately the voters of Fulton County “may offer feedback on any unanswered questions that linger” . ,
Court Found Appearance of Impropriety
McAfee then inquired as to whether there was an ostensible lack of proper analysis, noting that Georgia appellate courts require such an analysis when evaluating state prosecutors.  ,
According to McAfee, conduct or status that would cause a reasonable person to believe that the actor is acting or will behave inappropriately or wrongfully is an appearance of impolite.
According to McAfee, quoting from a decision made by then-U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia,” a reasonable person is not an uninformed member of the public with only a passing knowledge of the facts at hand.”
A perceived conflict” threatens confidence in the legal system itself.” If that goes uncorrected, reasoned the judge, it “undermines the legitimacy and moral force” of the judiciary.
Under Georgia case law, disqualification “due to an appearance of impropriety should rarely occur where there is a chance that the actual trial may be tainted,” as opposed to the situation where there is an actual conflict of interest in a case that necessitates recusal of the prosecutor.
After explaining the law, McAfee came to the conclusion that the “record made at the evidentiary hearing established that the district attorney’s prosecution is burdened by an appearance of impropriety.” McAfee argued that Willis and Wade’s” specific conduct” contributed to the appearance, not just by virtue of their status.
According to McAfee, she “allowed the regular and loose exchange of money between them without any precise or verifiable measure of reconciliation” and that Willis” choose to continue supervising and paying Wade while maintaining” a romantic relationship with him. After the motion for recuse was filed, Willis testified that her relationship with Wade was “cemented” and” stronger than ever” and that caused McAfee to wonder.  ,
Notably, McAfee pointed out that Wade’s explanation about the “inaccurate” responses he gave in his divorce proceedings was “patently unpersuasive” and that he had indicated to him that Wade was willing to “wrongly conceal his relationship with the District Attorney.”
More damning was McAfee’s conclusion that Willis ‘ testimony “did not put these concerns to rest,” according to McAfee. That’s judicial- speak for the fact that the judge did n’t believe Willis.
Therein lies the problem: a non- credible prosecutor.
Finally, McAfee remarked that there was” an odor of mendacity” that remains in the case. In other words, the judge was evidencing a signal that many of the witnesses ‘ sworn statements to the court were less than accurate, which raises serious suspicions that they may have been lying.  ,
Improper Comments by Willis
Lastly, McAfee turned to the issue of whether Willis engaged in “forensic misconduct” in her church diatribe.  ,
Of course, a prosecutor will indict or charge someone with a crime if there is strong evidence that the defendant has committed the crime and that there is conclusive evidence to support the claim. However, there are limitations on what prosecutors can say to the public about any particular case because of the incredible power vested in state and federal prosecutors.
Prosecutors typically only discuss the charges and procedural next steps in a case in public and try their case in court.  ,
According to McAfee, Willis delivered a prepared speech to the congregation of a “local Atlanta church on January 14, 2024.” He noted that the speech was televised and was public, and that Willis complained about the Fulton County Commission and” a number of others” who criticized her hiring of Wade. Her speech was made after the motion to recuse was filed, which caused McAfee to write that the defendants in this case may or may not have been the subject of her remarks.
McAfee wrote,” therein lies the danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney”.
More troubling for McAfee was the fact that Willis claimed that her rivals were “playing the race card,” which suggested that the motivation for filing the motion to recuse was racial in nature.  ,
Again, McAfee did not find that the speech” crossed the line” to deny the defendants a fair trial requiring Willis ‘ disqualification. But the judge was highly critical, saying that her speech was “legally improper” and created “dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into” . ,
Willis Or Wade Must Recuse
According to McAfee,” the case cannot proceed until the State chooses one of two options.” Option No. Willis should recuse herself and her entire office in Part 1. Option No. 2 was for Wade to step aside.
That’s a shrewd ruling on the part of the judge.  , It will certainly not make everyone happy, much less the defense, who could appeal the ruling.  ,
Without a doubt, Willis would choose Option No 1. Because she was a relative no one before this case, and because she has too much political investment to just leave the ship right away, her ego will force that choice.  ,
McAfee put the ball in Willis ‘ court by refusing to remove him from the case. Willis and her team will continue to handle the case now that Wade has left.  ,
Given the devastating factual findings made by McAfee, the defendants will have a strong appellate issue to raise in any of these cases.
Willis has always been and continues to be her worst enemy.
This most recent ruling comes in addition to another defamatory one that McAfee issued on Wednesday, in which he dismissed six criminal counts against various defendants, including Trump, because they were too ambiguous to allow the defendants to adequately defend themselves.
Although McAfee gave Willis the option to refile a new indictment, that would necessitate her to reconvene a new grand jury, making her case more complicated and time-consuming.
Have an opinion about this article? To sound off, please email , [email protected] , and we’ll consider publishing your edited remarks in our regular” We Hear You” feature. Include your name, town, and/or state along with the article’s URL or headline.
