According to Georgia law, for a criminal defendant to prevail on a motion to disqualify the district attorney on grounds of a conflict of interest, the defendant seeking the disqualification must show by actual evidence that a conflict of interest exists AND that the conflict has a specific prejudicial effect in creating a condition of bias against the defendant.
As to the first element, allegations were made that Fani Willis hired special prosecutor Nathan Wade because she was already involved in a romantic relationship and because it would benefit her financially, but none could come anywhere remotely close to being proven by evidence.
The defendant could not produce ANY evidence that there was a relationship at the time Mr Wade was hired or that Fani Willis benefitted financially in any way.
Fani Willis’ father, himself a respected attorney, testified that, at the time Mr Wade was hired, Fani was living with him in his home and had a different relationship and that Mr Wade never came on the scene until long after he was hired. He also testified that he had instructed his daughter to always keep at least six month’s worth of cash on hand because, as African Americans, their credit was not always accepted, especially in the South, but also anywhere else in the U.S.
The bombshell, of course, is that Mr Wade was not even Ms Willis’ first choice. The former governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes (1999-2003), testified that Ms Willis had first contacted him and asked him to take the job, but he declined.
As to the second element, even if an ethical violation had occurred (perhaps sufficient to an issue of infidelity in Mr Wade’s divorce case, but not a conflict of interest in this case), which was never established by evidence, there is no indication at all that it created a condition of bias against the defendant specifically.
According to Georgia law, for a criminal defendant to prevail on a motion to disqualify the district attorney on grounds of a conflict of interest, the defendant seeking the disqualification must show by actual evidence that a conflict of interest exists AND that the conflict has a specific prejudicial effect in creating a condition of bias against the defendant.
As to the first element, allegations were made that Fani Willis hired special prosecutor Nathan Wade because she was already involved in a romantic relationship and because it would benefit her financially, but none could come anywhere remotely close to being proven by evidence.
The defendant could not produce ANY evidence that there was a relationship at the time Mr Wade was hired or that Fani Willis benefitted financially in any way.
Fani Willis’ father, himself a respected attorney, testified that, at the time Mr Wade was hired, Fani was living with him in his home and had a different relationship and that Mr Wade never came on the scene until long after he was hired. He also testified that he had instructed his daughter to always keep at least six month’s worth of cash on hand because, as African Americans, their credit was not always accepted, especially in the South, but also anywhere else in the U.S.
The bombshell, of course, is that Mr Wade was not even Ms Willis’ first choice. The former governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes (1999-2003), testified that Ms Willis had first contacted him and asked him to take the job, but he declined.
As to the second element, even if an ethical violation had occurred (perhaps sufficient to an issue of infidelity in Mr Wade’s divorce case, but not a conflict of interest in this case), which was never established by evidence, there is no indication at all that it created a condition of bias against the defendant specifically.