Takeaways from the ruling on the conduct of Georgia Trump’s prosecutor

The long-awaited ruling on whether Fani T. Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump and 14 of his allies in Georgia came Friday, forcing her to make an unusual decision.

Ms. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, can maintain control of the state election interference case that has been in the making for more than three years, but only if Nathan J. Wade, an ex-boyfriend, withdraws from the business , which she hired him to manage.

For much of this year, headlines and hearings delving into the romantic relationship between the two prosecutors have overshadowed the case itself, in which the defendants are accused of conspiring to thwart the will of Georgia voters after Trump won the 2020 presidential election had lost.

Defense lawyers exposed the relationship between the accusers, saying there was an untenable conflict of interest. But Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee rejected that argument Friday, sharply criticizing Ms. Willis for a “massive error in judgment.”

Here are some conclusions from the ruling:

The judge found an apparent problem, but no actual conflict.

Judge McAfee said there was not enough evidence to establish that Ms. Willis’ “personal relationship and recurring travel with her lead plaintiff” created a “real conflict of interest.”

He added that “Georgian law does not allow the finding of a conflict of fact simply because of making bad choices – even repeatedly – ​​and it is the court’s duty to limit itself to the relevant issues and applicable law that is properly presented to her.”

But the judge did rule that “the appearance of impropriety remains” and must be remedied. He concluded that “the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the state chooses one of two options.” Either Ms. Willis can step aside, along with her entire office, or Mr. Wade can leave, allowing the case to continue without further distraction.

He emphasized that the appearance problem had to be solved.

“If left uncorrected, this danger will undermine the legitimacy and moral strength of our already weakest branch of government,” he wrote.

The ruling repeatedly criticized Fani Willis.

The judge once worked for Ms. Willis in the district attorney’s office and by all accounts had a positive experience with her as a boss. But in the ruling he was fiercely critical of her behavior, and not just because of the optics of continuing a relationship with a subordinate in such a high-profile case.

He also criticized public comments she made about the case and referred to “the unprofessional manner of the prosecutor’s testimony” when she testified at a combative hearing last month.

Noting that neither side offered definitive evidence of when the romance began, Judge McAfee wrote that “an odor of mendacity lingers” over the case, as well as “reasonable questions” about whether Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were “untruthful have testified about the timing of the affair.” their relationship.” Both told the judge it only started after Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade in November 2021.

No financial motive was found.

The judge rejected a key defense claim: that Ms. Willis had benefited financially from the case, as her romantic partner was paid to run the case and had paid, at least in part, for the vacations they took together.

Judge McAfee noted that Ms. Willis had filed charges against far fewer people than a special grand jury had recommended for indictment, undercutting suggestions that she was trying to inflate legal costs for the case.

“The prosecutor has not acted in any way consistent with the theory that she initiated a financial scheme to enrich herself,” the judge wrote.

The judge opened the door to a possible gag order.

The judge appeared to invite the defense to seek a gag order to prevent Ms. Willis from discussing the case publicly. He said Ms Willis, who is black, had publicly made “racial criticism” of the defense’s decision to expose her relationship with Mr Wade.

He referred to a speech Ms Willis gave at a local church in January in which she suggested the investigation into her decision to hire Mr Wade was racist. The motion alleging a conflict of interest was filed on Jan. 8 by Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Michael Roman, a defendant who is a former Trump campaign official.

The judge said Church’s speech was “too remote from jury selection to establish a permanent blemish on the jury pool,” but nevertheless expressed concern.

He also referred to what he called Ms. Willis’ “unorthodox decision to comment on the record” to the authors of a recent book, “Find Me the Votes,” by journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, noting noted that she spoke to the authors “during the pendency of this matter.”

Judge McAfee wrote that “the time may have come for an order prohibiting the state from mentioning the case in a public forum to avoid adverse pretrial publicity.”

An appeal seems likely, and a trial seems far away.

Mr. Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, Steven H. Sadow, said, “We believe that the court failed to properly attribute the prosecutorial misconduct against Willis and Wade,” adding that “we all will use available legal options as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.”

The defense will almost certainly try to appeal, but the judge must give permission to do so prior to the trial.

It remains unclear when the case will go to trial. Last year, Ms. Willis requested a trial to begin in August, but the judge has not yet set a date. Even with the ruling against disqualification, most legal observers believe it is unlikely a trial will begin this year.