“It is neither prudent nor efficient to require the courts, the parties, or taxpayers to run the significant and avoidable risk of having to go through this painful, divisive and expensive process more than once when an existing structural error can be remedied by this court now,” the defendants’ attorneys argued.
The appeal is the latest twist in a drama that began when attorney Ashleigh Merchant filed the first motion to disqualify Willis in January. Merchant, who represents defendant Michael Roman, said Willis hired her boyfriend to oversee the election case, paying his firm hundreds of thousands of dollars. Merchant argued that Willis benefitted from the arrangement when Wade paid thousands of dollars for trips to Aruba, Napa Valley and other locales.
In court documents and testimony, Willis and Wade said their romance began months after she hired him and ended last summer. They said they split the costs of their travels roughly equally. And Willis said the relationship did not influence the prosecution of the case.
McAfee found the defendants had not proved conclusively that the Willis-Wade relationship posed an actual conflict of interest. But he found the appearance of a conflict could continue to haunt the case. So he gave Willis a choice: Either terminate Wade’s involvement in the case or see her and her entire staff disqualified.
McAfee also rejected the defendants’ argument that Willis should be disqualified for comments she made at a Black church in Atlanta in January. In that speech, Willis defended Wade and suggested critics had singled him out because he is Black. The judge found her comments improper, but said they did not rise to the level of misconduct.
In the appeal, the defendants said McAfee erred in failing to disqualify Willis for a conflict of interest and for her statements at the church. They said the case would also allow the appellate court to clarify the standards to which DAs should be held.
The Court of Appeals has 45 days to…
Read the full article here
