Key takeaways from Fani Willis ruling
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on Friday ruled District Attorney Fani Willis can remain at the helm of her election interference case against former President Donald Trump. But to do so, special prosecutor Nathan Wade must withdraw.
Hours later, Wade tendered his resignation.
Here are some of the key takeaways from his 23-page decision:
NO ACTUAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST
McAfee said the defense failed to prove the trips Wade and Willis took together amounted to an actual conflict of interest.
“Simply put, the Defendants have not presented sufficient evidence indicating that the expenses were not ‘roughly divided evenly,’ or that the District Attorney was, or currently remains, ‘greatly and pecuniarily interested’ in this prosecution,” McAfee wrote.
The judge said certain facts contradicted the accusation that Willis was trying to profit off the Trump prosecution. For instance, he said, Willis has pushed for an aggressive timetable to bring the case to trial. He also noted that she ultimately indicted fewer people than the special grand jury had recommended face criminal charges.
“(T)he District Attorney has not in any way acted in conformance with the theory that she arranged a financial scheme to enrich herself (or endear herself to Wade) by extending the duration of this prosecution or engaging in excessive litigation,” he wrote.
Prosecution is “encumbered by an appearance of impropriety”
Still, McAfee said Willis’ prosecution team has “a significant appearance of impropriety” as currently structured and that it would need to change for the case to move forward.
“An outsider could reasonably think that the District Attorney is not exercising her independent professional judgment totally free of any compromising influences,” he wrote. “As long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist.”
He noted that Willis had testified that her relationship with Wade has only “cemented” by the allegations and “is stronger than ever.”
“As the case moves forward, reasonable members of the public could easily be left to wonder whether the financial exchanges have continued resulting in some form of benefit to the District Attorney, or even whether the romantic relationship has resumed,” he wrote.
‘STAR WITNESS’ LACKED CREDIBILITY
The judge was unmoved by the testimony of Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former law partner and divorce lawyer, who had been billed as the “star witness” for the defense.
Before defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant filed her motion to disqualify Willis, Bradley had told her in texts that Wade’s relationship with Willis “absolutely” began before she hired him. But on the stand, Bradley was evasive and often said he couldn’t recall details or didn’t know why he answered Merchant’s questions in particular ways.
McAfee has said he was “unable to place any stock in the testimony of Terrence Bradley. His inconsistencies, demeanor and generally non-responsive answers left far too brittle a foundation upon which to build any conclusions.”
Meanwhile, McAfee said the testimony from former Willis friend and employee Robin Yeartie raised doubts about Willis and Wade’s relationship timeline but “ultimately lacked context and detail,” McAfee wrote.
CRITICISM OF WILLIS AND WADE
McAfee made clear that while he was allowing Willis to retain the election case he did not condone her behavior.
The way Willis conducted her relationship with Wade showed “tremendous lapse of judgement,” he wrote. He also called Willis’ combative testimony at an evidentiary hearing last month “unprofessional.”
Wade was also subject to criticism, especially for his answers to questions — called on interrogatories — related to his pending divorce.
Wade’s “patently unpersuasive explanations for the inaccurate interrogatories he submitted in his pending divorce indicates a willingness on his part to wrongly conceal a relationship with the District Attorney,” he said.
QUESTIONS ABOUT WHO TOLD THE TRUTH
Defense attorneys, pointing to testimony from Yeartie and texts from Bradley, argued that Willis and Wade weren’t truthful with the court about when their relationship began.
McAfee concluded “neither side was able to establish by a preponderance of the evidence when the relationship evolved into a romantic one.”
Still, he wouldn’t let Willis and Wade off the hook. While he said it wasn’t the court’s obligation to “ferret out every instance of potential dishonesty from each witness or defendant ever presented in open court,” there were “reasonable questions” about whether Willis and Wade testified truthfully about the timing of their relationship.
That, he said, “further underpins the finding of an appearance of impropriety and the need to make a reasonable effort to cure it.”
THE CHURCH SPEECH
McAfee disagreed with Trump’s attorneys that Willis’ Martin Luther King Jr. Day weekend remarks at a historic Black church in Atlanta constituted socalled forensic misconduct. But the judge cited the speech as a reason why Willis shouldn’t be making statements about the case outside of court.
During the speech, Willis lambasted her critics for playing the “race card” by targeting Wade, who is Black, and not her other two special prosecutors on the case, who are white. Tump’s attorneys said the remarks represented a “glaring, flagrant, and calculated effort to foment racial bias into this case” on behalf of future jurors.
McAfee said that while the speech didn’t cross the red line of denying the defendants a fundamentally fair trial, Willis’ remarks were “legally improper.”