- A bevy of attorneys were back in the courtroom for the final hearing before the prosecutor
- Lawyer said revelations about her relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade create “the appearance of conflict.”
Fani Willis’ future prosecution of Donald Trump in the Georgia election case hangs in the balance as attorneys began their closing arguments at her disqualification hearing on Friday.
Trump’s co-defendants have called for Willis to be kicked out of the case, claiming she hired her accuser Nathan Wade after she started dating him.
First in court on Friday after a series of successful televised hearings was John Merchant, the husband and partner of Ashleigh Merchant, who first made bombshell claims about the accusers’ affair.
“If this court allows this type of behavior to continue… the public’s confidence in the system will be completely shattered. The integrity of the system will be undermined,” Merchant said.
He said a team of attorneys in the case could show “an appearance of conflict,” and he said that alone is enough under state law.
Fani Willis’ future in prosecuting Donald Trump in Georgia election case hangs in the balance as attorneys prepare to make their closing arguments at her disqualification hearing
He also raised the prospect of a mistrial, which could force a second time-consuming trial in a sprawling case involving Trump and 18 co-defendants.
If the decision is reversed, “we’ll get a new trial,” he said. “It means we have to do this all over again.”
He described some details that emerged during stunning hearings about Willis having “a persecutory relationship with her boyfriend.” He was referring to a famous Potter Stewart Supreme Court ruling in an obscenity case.
“I guess you know it when you see it,” he said, citing a conflict of interest in the case. Merchant said Wade and Willis were unable to account for $9,247 in charges after Willis stated she often used cash and kept large amounts of money in her home.
Willis has filed charges against Trump and 18 co-defendants in connection with Trump’s election efforts in the state
Attorney John Merchant raised the possibility that without a finding of conflict the entire case would have to be retried
Attorney Craig Gillen, who represents co-defendant David Shafer, blasted Willis for playing the ‘race card’
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee indicated he may have enough evidence to rule on the motion
Steven Sadow, who represents Trump, said both Wade and Willis were untruthful when they testified that their relationship only began after Wade joined her team of prosecutors.
He said the testimony “highlighted a genuine concern about the veracity of what is required of a lawyer in this state, which is candor before the tribunal.”
Craig Gillen, a lawyer for another co-defendant, accused Willis of doing something “reprehensible” in her speech at an Atlanta church during a Sunday service honoring Martin Luther King Jr., after the affair allegations were first reported to had come to light in a legal file.
“She chose to take out the race card and the God card. That’s what she did,” Gillen said.
The lawyers appeared in court Friday after text messages between Wade’s divorce attorney Terrence Bradley and a lawyer for a co-defendant of Donald Trump showed damning information about Wade’s affair with Willis.
Bradley, the former divorce lawyer and partner of Wade, took the stand on Tuesday, where he was shown a series of text messages in which he discussed the timeline of Willis and Wade’s relationship — one of the central issues of the trial .
Michael Roman and other co-defendants in Trump’s case want 53-year-old prosecutor Fanni Willis disqualified because of what they call an “inappropriate” relationship.
Defense attorney Richard Rice cited evidence of communication between the couple. “I don’t even think teenagers in love communicate that much,” he said, comparing their trips to the Caribbean and Napa Valley to “Lifestyles of the Rich and Famous.”
Fulton County Superior Judge Scott McAfee indicated he may have enough evidence to rule on the disqualification request.
“I think we have reached the point where I would like to hear more about how the legal arguments apply to what has already been presented, and it may already be possible for me to make a decision without the arguments for it need to be of essential importance. decision,” he said at one point.