Judge Scott McAfee ruled that Fani Willis or Nathan Wade must drop the case against Donald Trump and the rest of those accused of electoral interference in Georgia so that it can move forward. In a 23-page document, McAfee states that he does not see sufficient evidence to consider that there was a "conflict of interest" when Willis hired her lover - regardless of when this relationship began - but there is an "appearance of impropriety," so one of them cannot continue with the accusation. Additionally, the judge ruled out a mistrial since "dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy to adequately dispel the financial cloud of impropriety and possible falsehood found here."
Willis Auto by Israel Duro on Scribd
Rules out dismissing Willis
McAfee noted that he is not proceeding to remove Willis because "there has not been a showing that the Defendants’ due process rights have been violated or that the issues involved prejudiced the Defendants in any way. Nor is disqualification of a constitutional officer necessary when a less drastic and sufficiently remedial option is available." However, she may end up out of the case if the State of Georgia decides to remove her while keeping Williams.
The Court therefore concludes that the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the State selects one of two options. The District Attorney may choose to step aside, along with the whole of her office, and refer the prosecution to the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council for reassignment. Alternatively, SADA Wade can withdraw, allowing the District Attorney, the Defendants, and the public to move forward without his presence or remuneration distracting from and potentially compromising the merits of this case..
"There is not sufficient evidence" of conflict of interest
The judge noted that there was "insufficient evidence" that Willis acquired "a personal interest in the prosecution" or that the profit her lover made from his work had any impact on the case itself. However, McAfee criticizes "the terrible error in judgment" and "the unprofessional manner of the district attorney's testimony during the evidentiary hearing," and leaves it up to other institutions to take care of it.
Wthout sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied. This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices – even repeatedly - and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it. Other forums or sources of authority such as the General Assembly, the Georgia State Ethics Commission, the State Bar of Georgia, the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, or the voters of Fulton County may offer feedback on any unanswered questions that linger. But those are not the issues determinative to the Defendants’ motions alleging an actual conflict.
A sentence that "should instill confidence in the process."
In conclusion, McAfee points out that, "the result should instill confidence in the process," and assures that any "reasonable observer," without partisan bias, should see that both sides were heard and allowed to present the evidence they considered appropriate.
Whether this case ends in convictions, acquittals, or something in between, the result should be one that instills confidence in the process. A reasonable observer unburdened by partisan blinders should believe the law was impartially applied, that those accused of crimes had a fair opportunity to present their defenses, and that any verdict was based on our criminal justice system’s best efforts at ascertaining the truth. Any distractions that detract from these goals, if remedial under the law, should be proportionally addressed. After consideration of the record established on these motions, the Court finds the allegations and evidence legally insufficient to support a finding of an actual conflict of interest. However, the appearance of impropriety remains and must be handled as previously outlined before the prosecution can proceed. The Defendants’ motions are therefore granted in part and denied in part.
