|
Post by jsd on Mar 7, 2024 20:02:20 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 15, 2024 8:22:47 GMT -5
The ruling is in. Willis has to either step aside or fire Wade. I will see if a written order going into detail has been released to the press.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 15, 2024 8:31:25 GMT -5
So far I’m just finding snippets. There is a 23 page ruling I’m (reasonably) sure trashes Willis in way we attorneys would recognize as “as oh crap he ripped her a new one”:
“Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, in a much-awaited ruling, said that "the established record now highlights a significant appearance of impropriety that infects the current structure of the prosecution team − an appearance that must be removed through the State’s selection of one of two-options."
Either Willis has to withdraw her entire office or Wade must go.
I’m thinking its not over because there may be an open door to investigate Willis for perjury which would have significant (as in nuclear-annihilation-level) consequences to her future involvement down the road. I’d like to see how the judge addressed potential perjury issues if at all.
|
|
|
Post by illinoisfisherman on Mar 15, 2024 8:41:02 GMT -5
A step in the right direction. It will be interesting to see what motions the defense attorneys make now.
|
|
|
Post by misterjr on Mar 15, 2024 8:49:22 GMT -5
Donald J must be spittin' mad!
|
|
|
Post by dragonbait on Mar 15, 2024 8:56:27 GMT -5
Judge McAfee wrote that defendants “failed to meet their burden” in proving Willis’s relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade was a “conflict of interest" enough to merit her removal from the case.
McGee did find an appearance of “impropriety”.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 15, 2024 9:00:38 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 15, 2024 9:15:45 GMT -5
Discussion of the higher role of a prosecutor:
“Actual Conflict of Interest Our highest courts consistently remind us that prosecutors are held to a unique and exacting professional standard in light of their public responsibility – and their power. Every newly minted prosecutor should be instilled with the notion that she seeks justice over convictions and that she may strike hard blows but never foul ones. See Berger v. United States, 295 U.S. 78, 88 (1935) (overruled on other grounds). Most importantly, prosecutors are expected to assume a role beyond a mere advocate for one side and must make decisions in the public’s interest – not their own personal or political interest”
Yep, here’s the skewering: “Without 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.”
In other words, she likely perjured herself and she may yet get walloped for that.
Now remember I told you the appearance of impropriety is what mattered?
“Finding insufficient evidence of an actual conflict of interest does not end the inquiry. Our appellate courts have endorsed the application of an “appearance of impropriety” standard to state prosecutors, even without any explicit finding of an actual conflict. See Battle v. State, 301 Ga. 694, 698 (2017) (“Certainly, a conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety from a close personal relationship with the victim may be grounds for disqualification of a prosecutor.”) (emphasis added); Greater Ga. Amusements, LLC v. State, 317 Ga. App. 118, 122 (2012) (physical precedent only) (“a district attorney may not be compensated by means of a fee arrangement which guarantees at least the appearance of a conflict of interest”) (later deemed persuasive by Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State of Ga., 316 Ga. App. 727, 736 (2012)); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 758 (2002) (“a prosecutor’s close personal relationship with the victim in a case may create at least the appearance of a prosecution unfairly based on private interests rather than one properly based on vindication of public interests. . . . n that case, the individual prosecutor who has the conflict may be disqualified”); Davenport v. State, 157 Ga. App. 704, 705 (1981) (granting new trial after concluding that “nder such circumstances there is at least the appearance of impropriety”); but see Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 794 (2005) (physical precedent only)”
There’s all sorts of juicy quotes in this opinion. I’ll have to go into more detail later. The gist is “she looks shady, so she either needs to leave of make Wade leave.”
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 15, 2024 9:30:53 GMT -5
This is a very good analysis by a legal commentator on Fox. I agree with his analysis. This issues isn’t going away. A cloud of disrepute now hangs over Willis and its going to continue to effect the case. www.foxnews.com/video/6348982609112
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 15, 2024 10:54:40 GMT -5
The judge made the right call in accordance with Georgia law that requires an actual conflict of interest.
She will fire Wade, and come back out swinging hard to extract a pound of flesh.
All the other side issues are nothing compared to the actual ruling on the actual case, and don't matter as this case would be a circus no matter what due to the clowns, and his supporters, involved.
Look for more guilty pleas very soon.
|
|
|
Post by bullfrog on Mar 15, 2024 11:05:52 GMT -5
The judge made the right call in accordance with Georgia law that requires an actual conflict of interest. She will fire Wade, and come back out swinging hard to extract a pound of flesh. All the other side issues are nothing compared to the actual ruling on the actual case, and don't matter as this case would be a circus no matter what due to the clowns, and his supporters, involved. Look for more guilty pleas very soon. Well, yes, no, no, and I dunno. Its generally proper for a judge to seek a ruling that disturbs the case the least as possible. But like the Fox legal commentator says, the judge correctly held that the legal standard is appearance of impropriety, and that burden has been met. Willis looks crooked. So why not remove her? The judge may be setting himself up to be overturned on appeal. Its not consistent to say “Willis looks shady, and that’s the standard, but I won’t remove her.” A whole other level of “appearance of impropriety” has been establish by her behavior on the stand. She’s severely wounded by this ruling and issue. I’ve been right about everything so far, so mark my words on this. She’s likely going to be eaten alive for the perjury issues involved with the hearing on this case. And if she does come back seeking her “pound of flesh,” that’s all the more wrong on her part. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to get their “pound of flesh” on someone because something didn’t go their way. I have no idea whether there will be more guilty pleas.
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Mar 15, 2024 11:09:44 GMT -5
The judge made the right call in accordance with Georgia law that requires an actual conflict of interest. She will fire Wade, and come back out swinging hard to extract a pound of flesh. All the other side issues are nothing compared to the actual ruling on the actual case, and don't matter as this case would be a circus no matter what due to the clowns, and his supporters, involved. Look for more guilty pleas very soon. Every time I think you are galactically stupid, you raise the bar. I forgot you skipped class the day they taught law in law school.
|
|
|
Post by biminitwisted on Mar 15, 2024 11:09:55 GMT -5
The judge made the right call in accordance with Georgia law that requires an actual conflict of interest. She will fire Wade, and come back out swinging hard to extract a pound of flesh. All the other side issues are nothing compared to the actual ruling on the actual case, and don't matter as this case would be a circus no matter what due to the clowns, and his supporters, involved. Look for more guilty pleas very soon. Well, yes, no, no, and I dunno. Its generally proper for a judge to seek a ruling that disturbs the case the least as possible. But like the Fox legal commentator says, the judge correctly held that the legal standard is appearance of impropriety, and that burden has been met. Willis looks crooked. So why not remove her? The judge may be setting himself up to be overturned on appeal. Its not consistent to say “Willis looks shady, and that’s the standard, but I won’t remove her.” A whole other level of “appearance of impropriety” has been establish by her behavior on the stand. She’s severely wounded by this ruling and issue. I’ve been right about everything so far, so mark my words on this. She’s likely going to be eaten alive for the perjury issues involved with the hearing on this case. And if she does come back seeking her “pound of flesh,” that’s all the more wrong on her part. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to get their “pound of flesh” on someone because something didn’t go their way. I have no idea whether there will be more guilty pleas. Am I missing that part? As I understand the ruling, though I have not read it, does it not come down to that in Georgia the standard is actual impropriety, and that burden has not been met?
|
|
|
Post by whitebacon on Mar 15, 2024 11:20:43 GMT -5
Well, yes, no, no, and I dunno. Its generally proper for a judge to seek a ruling that disturbs the case the least as possible. But like the Fox legal commentator says, the judge correctly held that the legal standard is appearance of impropriety, and that burden has been met. Willis looks crooked. So why not remove her? The judge may be setting himself up to be overturned on appeal. Its not consistent to say “Willis looks shady, and that’s the standard, but I won’t remove her.” A whole other level of “appearance of impropriety” has been establish by her behavior on the stand. She’s severely wounded by this ruling and issue. I’ve been right about everything so far, so mark my words on this. She’s likely going to be eaten alive for the perjury issues involved with the hearing on this case. And if she does come back seeking her “pound of flesh,” that’s all the more wrong on her part. Prosecutors aren’t allowed to get their “pound of flesh” on someone because something didn’t go their way. I have no idea whether there will be more guilty pleas. Am I missing that part? As I understand the ruling, though I have not read it, does it not come down to that in Georgia the standard is actual impropriety, and that burden has not been met? [br When do you stop being a petulant child? When does your employer realize he's getting fucked? work from home = bitching on websites all day. A model employee.
|
|
|
Post by garycoleco on Mar 15, 2024 11:28:48 GMT -5
BT shit the bed during his wet dream
|
|