Highlights of the judge’s decision in the Georgia Trump case
A judge overseeing the criminal election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump in Georgia declined Friday to disqualify the district attorney leading the prosecution, Fani T. Willis, over a romantic relationship she had with the attorney she had hired to handle the case. Nathan J. Wade.
But even as the judge, Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court, rejected the claim by one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, Mike Roman, that the relationship created an actual conflict of interest by giving Ms. Willis a financial interest in the case, the judge also ruled that it created ‘a significant appearance of impropriety’.
The judge gave her two choices: either Mr. Wade leaves her prosecution team, or she and her office must put the case aside.
Here are highlights from the Judgment of 23 pages:
A combination of factors raises a legitimate question.
On their own, the two main issues raised by the defense – that Mr Wade is paid hourly and that two members of the prosecution team were in a relationship – would not be an issue. But together they raise a deeper issue, the judge wrote.
Financial gain was not proven and did not appear to be a motivating factor.
The judge wrote that Willis’ claim that she saw Mr. Wade in cash for the trips they took together was “unusual” and “understandably concerning” but “not so incredible as to be inherently incredible,” and the evidence did not show that she received any material benefit as a result of her decision to hire Mr. Wade and pursue a romantic relationship.
More importantly, the judge found, the evidence showed that financial gain was “not a motivating factor” for Willis in charging and prosecuting the case.
Willis showed a “massive error of judgment” and acted unprofessionally.
Although the judge concluded that the evidence did not establish an actual conflict of interest, the judge nonetheless suggested that the prosecutor’s conduct was problematic in a way that others — including an ethics committee and voters — might want to address.
The situation still raises an “appearance of impropriety.”
Even if no actual conflict exists, the judge wrote, “a perceived conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public threatens confidence in the legal system itself.” The combination of factors that made Ms. Willis’s question of whether a conflict legitimate, he wrote, means that such an appearance of impropriety remains in the case.
The judge also wrote that “reasonable members of the public could easily question whether the financial exchanges continued to result in some form of benefit to the prosecutor, or even whether the romantic relationship resumed,” adding : “As long as Wade continues to monitor the case, this unnecessary perception will continue.
A persistent “smell of mendacity” means that the two cannot continue in the case together.
The judge expressed skepticism about testimony about when Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade’s relationship blossomed into a romantic relationship and portrayed the continued mixing of professional and personal relationships as untenable.
The relationship between the two plaintiffs has not been shown to have violated the defendants’ rights or harmed them in any way, the judge wrote, and disqualifying Ms. Willis is unnecessary when a less drastic remedy is available: Mr. Wade can leave the prosecutor. team.
There may be a gag order.
The defense had also asked the judge to disqualify Ms. Willis because of public comments she made, including at an Atlanta church on Jan. 14, in which she vaguely complained about her opponents and accused them of playing “the race card.” Although the judge ruled that her comments did not amount to unlawful handling of the case in public, the judge nevertheless scolded her and suggested that he might soon issue a gag order to prevent further public comments.
The relationship is an unacceptable distraction.
In summary, the judge wrote that regardless of the outcome of the case, it is important that the way it unfolds builds public confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the process. While there is no legal basis to support a finding that the prosecutor has an actual conflict of interest, he found that the appearance of impropriety should still be addressed – indicating that Mr. Wade should leave the prosecution team in some way. .