Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee ruled that defendants had not met the standard for disqualification of Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis in the high-profile election case, but highlighted several unresolved issues in his March 15 order.
The ruling was much anticipated, as Ms. Willis has been the subject of numerous investigations since allegations of an improper relationship and financial benefit were made early this year.
The embattled district attorney is allowed to continue prosecuting the case against former President Donald Trump and 14 codefendants so long as Nathan Wade, the special counsel she appointed named in the motion to disqualify, is taken off the case. He issued his resignation shortly after the ruling.
The relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade was a “significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team,” the judge ruled, finding that the removal of either Mr. Wade or Ms. Willis’s office would “cure” the issue.
Judge Questions Honesty of Willis, Wade Testimonies
The timeline of the Willis–Wade relationship became the subject of an evidentiary hearing on the disqualification motion.Both Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis said the relationship was only romantic in nature between early 2022 and the summer of 2023 but had provided vague answers when questioned about matters like financial benefit and contradictory answers Mr. Wade gave under oath in his divorce proceedings.
As a result, their testimonies did not put “concerns” that the district attorney was “free from any compromising influences ... to rest.”
“An odor of mendacity remains,” the judge added, but noted that the court is not obligated “to ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court.”
“Reasonable questions about whether the District Attorney and her hand-selected lead SADA testified untruthfully about the timing of their relationship further underpin the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make proportional efforts to cure it,” the judge wrote.
The appropriate remedy to “appearance of impropriety” was not disqualification when a “less drastic” option was available, he wrote.
Judge Found Evidence Lacking
In such a motion, the burden of proof rests on the defense.The district attorney had no requirement to prove a lack of conflict of interest beyond reasonable doubt, but the defense needed to provide such evidence and even after a three-day hearing for which they could subpoena whatever evidence they wished they failed to do so, the judge wrote.
The two witnesses called by the defense in addition to Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were both deemed less than credible.
Robin Yeartie, a former longtime friend of Ms. Willis’s, said she had “no doubt” that a romantic relationship began “shortly” after they met, but could provide no specifics. After being asked by a defense attorney whether she saw them “hugging, kissing,” she echoed this claim in the affirmative.
The state also accused Ms. Yeartie of being a disgruntled ex-employee, as her resignation coincided with a falling out with Ms. Willis.
The judge did not comment on the resignation but noted that the testimony was lacking in “context and detail” even though it “raised doubts about the State’s assertions.”
Terrence Bradley, who the judge expected to be the “star” witness of the case had been the source of the defense’s awareness of the relationship. Mr. Bradley was a former law partner of Mr. Wade’s and had also represented Mr. Wade in his recent divorce.
Yet, on the witness stand, Mr. Bradley said little to nothing, at first improperly invoking attorney-client privilege and later backtracking on his testimony several times.
“His inconsistencies, demeanor, and generally non-responsive answers left far too brittle a foundation upon which to build any conclusions,” the judge wrote.
Ethics Complaints Remain
The judge had also criticized the district attorney for her behavior during and outside her testimony in response to the allegations but said this was not a legal reason to disqualify a prosecutor.“This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing,” the judge wrote.
But Georgia law does not find that “simply making bad choices–even repeatedly” is a conflict, and the court’s role is not to rule on matters not brought before it, the judge added.
Church Speech Was ‘Legally Improper,’ Could Be Grounds for Gag Order
Eight defendants had joined the Roman motion, and several raised arguments of “prejudicial behavior” they believed disqualified the district attorney, and the judge agreed with one raised by attorneys for President Trump, suggesting it could be grounds for a gag order.The judge found that “personal behind-the-scenes anecdotes” and statements Ms. Willis made before the case were not disqualifying.
He criticized her judgment in giving these interviews but ultimately found that the only improper issue any statement could be tied to was still the relationship, which would be cured if Mr. Wade was off the case.
Days after the Jan. 8 filing, Ms. Willis addressed without confirming the allegations in a widely viewed church speech in which she lambasted her critics as playing the “race card” when they only questioned her hiring of Mr. Wade, but not John Floyd or Anna Cross, who are both white.
The state argued that Ms. Willis was not referring to the defendants, but the judge said, “Maybe so. But maybe not. Therein lies the danger of public comment by a prosecuting attorney.”
The comments did cast “racial aspersions” on the defense though it was too early to argue about prejudicing the jury, the judge found.
“But it was still legally improper. Providing this type of public comment creates dangerous waters for the District Attorney to wade further into,” he wrote.
New Motions May Be Filed
The judge also noted that the many defendants joining the motion to disqualify had brought up a host of other arguments that did not advance grounds for disqualification but could have been better served as separated and more targeted motions.For example, defendant Cathleen Latham had argued that Ms. Willis was politically motivated, and the judge said this was a selective prosecution issue that should be submitted as a “motion asking the trial court to exercise its judicial power on equal protection grounds.”
