A judge in the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump heard closing arguments Friday on a motion to disqualify the prosecutor who prosecuted the case, Fannie T. Willis, on the grounds that she developed a romantic relationship with a subordinate. a conflict of interest.
In a historic criminal case against a former president, lawyers for Mr. Trump and his co-defendants took turns attacking Ms. Willis. John B. Merchant III, who represents defendant Michael Roman, said that if the court finds that the prosecutors’ romance did not create a conflict of interest, “public confidence in the system will be shot.”
But Adam Abbate, a prosecutor in Ms. Willis’s office, called the defense’s attempt to disqualify Ms. Willis “a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case for absolutely no reason other than harassment and embarrassment.”
Defense lawyers on Friday repeatedly argued that the bar for disqualification should be relatively low, arguing that even the appearance of a conflict of interest should lead to Ms Willis being removed from the case because her actions had undermined public trust in her. The question of whether the defense must show an actual conflict or just an appearance could prove pivotal.
“We can show an appearance of a conflict of interest and that’s enough,” Mr. Merchant told Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee.
Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Steven H. Sandow, seized on the issue, arguing that “once you look inappropriate,” the law in Georgia is clear: “That’s enough to get you disqualified.”
Mr. Sadow focused on a speech Ms. Willis gave in January at a Black church in Atlanta, calling her comments “a breach of professional conduct.” Her speech, at Big Bethel African Methodist Episcopal Church, came shortly after the conflict of interest motion was filed.
Ms Willis, who is black, suggested in the speech that the scrutiny of her romantic relationship with the prosecutor she hired to lead the Trump case, Nathan Wade, was racist. Some of these comments he described as part of a conversation he had with God.
“It was a calculated determination by Ms. Willis to prejudice the defendants and their attorneys,” Mr. Sadow said, adding, “You can think of nothing more that would enhance the public conviction of the defendant than the allegation that the defense attorney and the defendants did they make their move based on race and religion?’
With Ms Willis sitting silently at the prosecution table, Mr Abbate told Judge McAfee that appearance alone was not enough to disqualify her.
“The defense has to show an actual conflict,” Mr. Abbate said, adding that he had not done so in this case.
After Mr Abbate tried to bolster his argument by citing a number of previous cases in which a conflict of interest had been found, Judge McAfee interjected that “some of these cases appear to be based on the appearance of impropriety”. But Mr. Abbate said that in each of the exclusion cases he cited, the courts found a “genuine conflict” other than the appearance of impropriety.
The legal arguments of Mr. Trump and his allies were presented by a series of veteran defense lawyers who appeared quite comfortable, while Mr. Abbate gave a more halting, and at times confused, presentation, relying more on the recitation of precedent and case. law.
Regardless, Judge McAfee will be more interested in the substance of the legal questions than in the style of delivery. He said after the arguments that he would rule within two weeks.
Friday’s hearing allowed lawyers for both sides to outline their arguments about a frivolous subplot in the election case — one that has already caused significant embarrassment and turmoil for Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney. Details of her personal life have spilled out in court in Atlanta, where she had hoped to try Mr Trump and 14 co-defendants as soon as this summer.
The stakes are high: If Ms. Willis is disqualified from the case, her entire office will be as well, and the case will likely be handed over to a prosecutor from another jurisdiction. The new prosecutor could choose to continue the case as planned, amend the charges or drop them.
The disqualification would reduce the chances of a trial starting before November’s presidential election, in which Mr. Trump is expected to be the Republican nominee.
The relationship between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade, an Atlanta-area attorney hired in November 2021 to manage the prosecution team, first came to light in January in a motion filed by Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney by Michael Roman, one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants.
Ms. Merchant, who along with her husband, John Merchant, is representing Mr. Roman, claimed the romance began before Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade. He also argued that Mr Wade was not qualified for the high-profile job, for which he has been paid at least $650,000 so far.
Ms Merchant claimed Mr Wade and Ms Willis had engaged in “self-dealing” because the pair went on holiday together which she said Mr Wade had paid for.
In her Jan. 8 filing, Ms. Merchant cited Georgia case law arguing that the situation she presented met the standards for a voidable conflict of interest.
On Friday, Mr. Merchant told the judge that “we have a very personal financial interest here that has been determined in terms of the money that Ms. Willis received as a result of the scheme that she created.”
Ms Willis and Mr Wade have acknowledged having a romantic relationship. But they said it began after Mr. Wade was hired and ended before Trump and 18 of his allies were indicted in August in a sweeping indictment accusing them of conspiring to defeat Mr. Trump in the 2020 election.
Ms Willis said the couple roughly split the costs of the trips they took together, with Ms Willis often using cash to repay Mr Wade for her share.
A defense attorney, Richard A. Rice, Jr., accused prosecutors during Friday’s hearing of living “Robin Leach’s lifestyle of the rich and famous” on vacation.
But Mr. Abbate scoffed at it: “The evidence was that she stayed at a DoubleTree in Napa,” he said of Ms. Willis. “I don’t know it’s a luxury hotel.”
The judge held a series of hearings on the matter in February that at times felt like a mini-trial. Mr. Wade took the stand, as did Ms. Willis, who pushed back angrily against Ms. Merchant’s questions. Ms Willis described feeling lonely after becoming a prosecutor, the violent threats and racist messages she had received and her frustration that the focus on her love life had diverted the nation’s attention from Mr Trump and the 14 co-defendants who remain after. four of those originally charged pleaded guilty.
At a hearing Tuesday, conflicting accounts of when the prosecutors’ romance began came into focus. Ms. Merchant called Terrence Bradley, Mr. Wade’s former lawyer, to the stand, hoping to help prove the relationship began before Mr. Wade was hired.
But Mr. Bradley gave conflicting information. He entered into evidence a text message exchange he had with Ms Merchant months earlier in which he said the relationship was “absolutely” before Mr Wade was hired. But on the witness stand, she repeatedly said she didn’t know when the affair began.
The judge will have to decide which of Mr. Bradley’s stories to believe as he weighs whether to overrule prosecutors.
At Friday’s hearing, Mr Sadow said Mr Bradley’s text messages showed the relationship began before Mr Wade was hired. But the judge seemed unsure.
“Was it ever conclusively shown how he knew this and that he really knew it?” Judge McAfee asked.
Another witness, a former friend and employee of Ms. Willis named Robin Yeartie, also testified that the relationship predated Mr. Wade’s hiring. But under cross-examination, she said she had left the DA’s office on bad terms and was no longer friends with Ms. Willis.
Mr Abbate on Friday dismissed both Mr Bradley and Ms Yeartie as having an ax to grind with prosecutors.
There is already some precedent in the Trump case for impeachment. In July 2022, a judge blocked Ms. Willis from developing a case against Bert Jones, a bogus Trump elector in Georgia in 2020, because Ms. Willis had hosted a fundraiser for one of Mr. Jones’ political opponents. A year and a half after the impeachment, no prosecutor has yet been appointed to continue the investigation into Mr. Jones, who is now Georgia’s lieutenant governor.
Pete Skandalakis, the executive director of the Georgia Board of Attorneys, said in a recent interview that the current situation is different than the one involving Mr. Jones and suggested that it could move more quickly because an indictment has already been filed.
