Legal experts were skeptical of a conflict of interest but said the hearing did not help prosecutors.

Several legal experts who attended Thursday's hearing questioned whether the defense's interrogations and testimony showed a clear conflict of interest over whether Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis and Special Prosecutor Nathan J. Wade financially benefited from their relationship and the persecution. But the experts added that the day's proceedings did not help prosecutors overall.

“This was not a good day for the Attorney General's Office,” said Caren Morrison, a former federal prosecutor and associate professor at Georgia State University College of Law.

The defense spent hours before Judge Scott McAfee investigating the relationship and financial dealings between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade, with a former friend of Ms. Willis testifying that the romantic relationship began before Mr. Wade was hired for the election interference case in Georgia in November 2021. That contradicted prosecutors' timeline and testimony from Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis, who said it started in early 2022.

“Even if the judge finds that there has been no conflict of interest or even the appearance of a conflict, this hearing has, in the public perception, been damaging,” Ms Morrison said. “The laborious collection of travel, bills and expenses does not diminish their reputation and only provides fodder for critics of the case.”

Anthony Michael Kreis, an assistant professor of law at Georgia State University, said the testimony and evidence presented Thursday did not demonstrate a conflict of interest over financial benefits, which he said was the “key issue” that, if proven, would require the Fulton County District Attorney's Office is being disqualified from the case against former President Donald J. Trump and his allies.

But he said Robin Bryant-Yeartie's testimony, which contradicted prosecutors' timeline, could be a “major issue” for Ms. Willis if further evidence shows she and Mr. Wade “have not been so friendly in court.”

Overall, Mr. Kreis said, the hearing was “more drama than it was enlightening,” adding that “this really comes down to credibility and who Judge McAfee tends to believe.” He also said Ms Willis, who strongly denied all the defendants' claims about the relationship, was “the most powerful witness yet”.

But Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University's Loyola Law School, said just being on the witness stand put Ms. Willis in an awkward position.

She is “in a place where no one, let alone an accuser, wants to be. Her judgment and integrity are being tested in the most public way,” Ms. Levinson said.

Richard Painter, a law professor at the University of Minnesota and a former White House ethics lawyer, told The Times in an email that if there is credible evidence that Ms. Willis did not tell the truth to the judge, “it could be devastating for even if the matter is unrelated.”

“I am not impressed by the poor judgment shown by Willis and Wade, which has allowed the defense to take this case far off track,” Mr Painter said. “I think they need to spare us more and just step aside.”

The fact that the hearing took place at all is a “huge blessing for Trump,” Ms. Levinson said.

“Fair or not, the more we hear about Willis' personal relationship with Wade,” she said, adding, “the more the public's confidence in the fairness of this prosecution is shaken.”