- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Judge Scott McAfee is ruling on Fani Willis disqualification tomorrow
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:38 am to laxtonto
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:38 am to laxtonto
If you read the findings, the Judge says there is no explicit proof of when the relationship started or stopped, only the potential appearance of impropriety of it being there.
So if there is no proof of it, he let Willis stay. But now the ex-wife will need to prove dates to use the adultery aspect to influence her potential judgment. So you would then have to then depose both Wade and Willis.
So the Judge says no real proof and sets up a system where the divorce attorney will then be forced to get the proof on record if she wants to maximize what she gets in the judgement...
I am not sure if the judge is that subtle/sneaky enough politically to do this to avoid having to force getting his hands dirty by forcing much harsher scrutiny on Willis and Wade in additional hearings or just punting it and most likely getting lucky by having others do the work for him.
So if there is no proof of it, he let Willis stay. But now the ex-wife will need to prove dates to use the adultery aspect to influence her potential judgment. So you would then have to then depose both Wade and Willis.
So the Judge says no real proof and sets up a system where the divorce attorney will then be forced to get the proof on record if she wants to maximize what she gets in the judgement...
I am not sure if the judge is that subtle/sneaky enough politically to do this to avoid having to force getting his hands dirty by forcing much harsher scrutiny on Willis and Wade in additional hearings or just punting it and most likely getting lucky by having others do the work for him.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:45 am to laxtonto
quote:
So the Judge says no real proof and sets up a system where the divorce attorney will then be forced to get the proof on record if she wants to maximize what she gets in the judgement...
Look for a very swift settlement in the divorce proceedings.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:45 am to laxtonto
More interesting component in all of this, if Wade is truly out then what happens to this case? How logistically does this now work now? Does Willis try the case herself? Do they try and bring in someone else?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 8:58 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Replacing Wade, which would remove the impropriety at issue
How does this remove the impropriety issue? The impropriety has already been done. It’s 100 percent a part of this case and a part of the Fulton Co DA’s office. You can’t just fire the guy she was fricking and benefiting financially and say we removed the impropriety, all good now.
This post was edited on 3/15/24 at 9:01 am
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:04 am to laxtonto
quote:
if Wade is truly out then what happens to this case?
They hire a new special prosecutor. Probably will just give a promotion to one of the others working on the case.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:04 am to momentoftruth87
"What is the projected outcome?"
I actually feel bad for him, because legally there's really no way for him not to disqualify her. ...and the left will lambaste him for it.
I actually feel bad for him, because legally there's really no way for him not to disqualify her. ...and the left will lambaste him for it.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:06 am to Blizzard of Chizz
quote:
How does this remove the impropriety issue? The impropriety has already been done. It’s 100 percent a part of this case and a part of the Fulton Co DA’s office.
The impropriety, again I'm spitballing since the ruling hasn't been posted, is the relationship between Willis and Wade.
As long as they're not acting as co-actors on this case, there isn't an issue.
quote:
You can’t just fire the guy she was fricking and benefiting financially and say we removed the impropriety, all good now.
What do you think was going to happen?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:08 am to IT_Dawg
quote:
There’s 2 sets of precedent on how to rule here. I’m guessing he will rule that while it appears there might have been some irregular behavior, it was not proved beyond a doubt. Thus, setting up the appeal on which precendent the judge used…pushing the trial out much further. Also, gives time for the Governors office to open the commission who would now have the authority to remove Fani.
She’s an idiot for not just stepping away from all this. She’s a narcissist that doesn’t see the end of this path, is drastic for her
Guess I was right, unfortunately
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:09 am to laxtonto
quote:
More interesting component in all of this, if Wade is truly out then what happens to this case? How logistically does this now work now?
You saw Wade on the stand. You think he was really contributing to the case?
The lawyering probably improves with him gone.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:11 am to hogcard1964
quote:
I actually feel bad for him, because legally there's really no way for him not to disqualify her. ...and the left will lambaste him for it.
Hogwash. It was a cop out. Splitting the baby. 100% politics. Must be up for reelection.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:11 am to the808bass
He's literally semi retarded. ...and I'm not trying to mean. He is.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:12 am to the808bass
quote:
You saw Wade on the stand. You think he was really contributing to the case?
The lawyering probably improves with him gone.
Correct. I was going to make this point but not right now while people are melting.
It would be hard to downgrade from Wade, based on what he presented on the stand.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:14 am to SlowFlowPro
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:14 am to the808bass
quote:
The lawyering probably improves with him gone.
This is the first case where Trump has some above average attorneys. The DA would certainly benefit from hiring someone better going forward.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:You mean what do we think our shite system should do to a racist misandric DA who perjures herself on the witness stand?
What do you think was going to happen?
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:23 am to NC_Tigah
No no no.
Ignore all that.
Think of what people with advanced degrees are pontificating about. That’s what’s important.
Ignore all that.
Think of what people with advanced degrees are pontificating about. That’s what’s important.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:38 am to SlowFlowPro
The payment issue
So, the Defendants shot their load too early. They needed to gather more evidence to make this argument. Now that Willis and Wade are locked into this story, it opens up a separate avenue to attack either. That attack wouldn't be proper in this litigation or via this motion.
The appearance of impropriety issue
So yeah, what I assumed during the trial. Basically if the issue is caused by the attorney, in a prosecution, a common remedy is to just remove the prosecutor causing the impropriety (which would be either Wade or Willis, in this instance).
Dismissal was not a proportionate remedy:
quote:
Such a reimbursement practice may be unusual and the lack of any documentary corroboration understandably concerning. Yet the testimony withstood direct contradiction, was corroborated by other evidence (for example, her payment of airfare for two on the 2022 Miami trip), and was not so incredible as to be inherently unbelievable. However, as the District Attorney herself acknowledged, no ledger exists. Other than a “best guesstimate,” there is no way to be certain that expenses were split completely evenly - and the District Attorney may well have received a net benefit of several hundred dollars. Despite this, after considering all the surrounding circumstances, the Court finds that the evidence did not establish the District Attorney’s receipt of a material financial benefit as a result of her decision to hire and engage in a romantic relationship with Wade. Simply put, the Defendants have not presented sufficient evidence indicating that the expenses were not “roughly divided evenly,” or that the District Attorney was, or currently remains, “greatly and pecuniarily interested” in this prosecution. Nichols v. State, 17 Ga. App. at 606.
In addition - and much more important - the Court finds, based largely on the District Attorney’s testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case. While a general motive for more income can never be disregarded entirely, the District Attorney was not financially destitute throughout this time or in any great need, as she testified that her salary exceeds $200,000 per year without any indication of excessive expenses or debts. Similarly, the Court further finds that the Defendants have failed to demonstrate that the District Attorney’s conduct has impacted or influenced the case to the Defendants’ detriment. While prejudice is not a required element for disqualification, it is relevant to considerations of due process and the Defendants’ requested remedy of complete dismissal.
So, the Defendants shot their load too early. They needed to gather more evidence to make this argument. Now that Willis and Wade are locked into this story, it opens up a separate avenue to attack either. That attack wouldn't be proper in this litigation or via this motion.
The appearance of impropriety issue
quote:
While formally undefined in Georgia precedent, an appearance of impropriety is generally considered “conduct or status that would lead a reasonable person to think that the actor is behaving or will be inclined to behave inappropriately or wrongfully.” Black’s Law Dictionary 122-23 (11th ed. 2019).4 Borrowing from federal judicial recusal standards, a reasonable person is not an uninformed member of the public with only a passing knowledge of the facts at hand. See Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for Dist. of Columbia, 541 U.S. 913, 924 (2004) (Scalia, J., sitting alone). This must be the standard, as otherwise in this case a casual, uninformed, or misinformed observer might believe the District Attorney must recuse herself merely because her father shares a last name with a co-defendant. Nor is a reasonable person “hypersensitive or unduly suspicious” without an understanding of the “relevant legal standards and judicial practice.” In re Sherwin-Williams Co., 607 F.3d 474, 478 (7th Cir. 2010) (citing In re Mason, 916 F.2d 384, 386 (7th Cir. 1990)).
quote:
One final observation can be gleaned from a careful study of our appellate decisions applying this standard: the remedy can vary. Unlike an actual conflict, the finding of an appearance of impropriety does not automatically demand disqualification. Our Supreme Court has previously analyzed disqualification under an appearance standard in a civil case using a continuum, recognizing that disqualification is not always the appropriate outcome:
quote:
At one end of the scale where disqualification is always justified and indeed mandated, even when balanced against a client’s right to an attorney of choice, is the appearance of impropriety coupled with a conflict of interest or jeopardy to a client’s confidences. In these instances, it is clear that the disqualification is necessary for the protection of the client. Somewhere in the middle of the continuum is the appearance of impropriety based on conduct on the part of the attorney. As discussed above, this generally has been found insufficient to outweigh the client’s interest in counsel of choice. This is probably so because absent danger to the client, the nebulous interest of the public at large in the propriety of the Bar is not weighty enough to justify disqualification. Finally, at the opposite end of the continuum is the appearance of impropriety based not on conduct but on status alone. This is an insufficient ground for disqualification.
Blumenfeld v. Borenstein, 247 Ga. 406, 409-10 (1981); Stinson v. State, 210 Ga. App. 570, 571 (1993) (applying Blumenfield to criminal defense counsel). The Supreme Court further noted that disqualification due to an appearance of impropriety should rarely occur where there is no danger that the actual trial of the case will be tainted. Blumenfeld, 247 Ga. at 407-08; see also Board of Education v. Nyquist, 590 F2d 1241, 1247 (2nd Cir. 1979) (“when there is no claim that the trial will be tainted, appearance of impropriety is simply too slender a reed on which to rest a disqualification order except in the rarest cases”). Similarly, in Billings v. State, 212 Ga. App. 125, 129 (1994), although the Court of Appeals found the existence of an appearance of impropriety, it noted that the appearance could be cured through screening the affected prosecutor from participation or discussion of the affected case. See also Head, 253 Ga. App. at 758 (“Moreover, to insure that no conflict of interest or the appearance of one might develop, the district attorney took the prudent step of ordering the investigator to take no part in the investigation or prosecution of the case.”). These cases indicate that a trial court can consider alternative solutions to cure the appearance of impropriety.
So yeah, what I assumed during the trial. Basically if the issue is caused by the attorney, in a prosecution, a common remedy is to just remove the prosecutor causing the impropriety (which would be either Wade or Willis, in this instance).
Dismissal was not a proportionate remedy:
quote:
Ultimately, dismissal of the indictment is not the appropriate remedy to adequately dissipate the financial cloud of impropriety and potential untruthfulness found here. See Olsen v. State, 302 Ga. 288, 294 (2017) (“Dismissal of an indictment is an extreme sanction, used only sparingly as a remedy for unlawful government conduct.”) (quoting State v. Lampl, 296 Ga. 892, 896 (2015)). 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. 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. See O.C.G.A. § 15-18-5. 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.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:41 am to the808bass
quote:
Think of what people with advanced degrees are pontificating about. That’s what’s important.
There was only minor pontificating involved, and that's b/c some of the law in this area is novel. The overriding legal precedents are neither new (part of the "cultural rot" of contemporary times you love to reference) nor complex.
Posted on 3/15/24 at 9:42 am to SlowFlowPro
9 times out of ten “delay” is one of the top tactics from the defense in criminal litigation, and to that simple end, Trump’s team has done very well no matter the judge’s ruling. Which I happen to believe the judge’s ruling is of benefit to Trump in addition to the delay aspect.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News