The two of them also insisted that DA Willis did not benefit financially from the relationship. They claimed that Willis reimbursed her boyfriend with cash for her share of the expenses incurred during their many trips together. There were no records presented by either side as to how she acquired the cash, or why she didn't write a chcek to her boyfriend. But here's the kicker--since this was the defendants' Motion, the burden of proof is on the defendants, not the state, and the defendants produced nothing to refute what Willis was claiming, as far-fetched as her story seems.
The facts paint a sorry picture. Willis paid her hired special prosecutor $700,000, and the case hasn't yet gotten close to trial. In the closing arguments, defendants' counsel talked as if a speech Willis gave at a church was almost as serious a problem as the special proesecutor mess. Prosecutors are not supposed to speak out publicly about a pending cvase like this, as it can poison the jury pool. In addition, she gave an interview to a writer who was writing a book on the case, further poisoning the jury pool. Also, she contributed to the campaign of someone running against a person she was prosecuting in an earlier corruption case, showing a pattern of politically-motivated behavior on the part of a DA, who is supposed to be above partisan politics.
All of the defendants' counsel were very impressive in their closing arguments. Trump's attorney was especially imporessive (unlike the attorneys in his other cases, who have been largely incompetent). The prosecutor fron the DA's office seemed relatively inept by comparison.
Fortunately for the state, the Motion will be decided by how the judge applies the facts and the law, and not by the ability, or lack thereof, of the attorneys in the case. It is a much closer case that it had initially seemed, and it could go either way. The judge expects to have a decision within the next two weeks. If Willis is disquaified, the case will likely fall apart as a new team would have to start from scratch.
My guess is the judge will rule that the defense has not proven that DA Willis received a financial benefit from her hiring of the special prosecutor, and that she can therefore stay on the case, although he will surely chastise her for her ethical lapses. Put another way, the defendants have not proven that the DA's conduct, as reprehensible as it has been, has deprived them of their right to a fair trial. The Fulton County voters will eventually have the final say if and when DA Willis runs for re-election.
Update on March 16th.The Judge has ruled and it is in line with my comments. DA Willis can stay on the case, but only if she gets rid of the special prosecutor who was her former lover.
What bothers me is the Judge's reference to "the appearance of impropriety". When I was in law school in the early '70s, I was taught that part of the lawyer's ethical duty was to avoid "the appearance of impropriety". But my understanding is that at some later point this was removed from the ethical rules, with "actual impropriety" becoming the new standard.
Apparently Georgia still has this outdated standard, which is not surprising from a deep South state. Still, I cannot argue with the idea that there is something rotten here, and I can't escape the idea that DA Willis is way over her head. The fact that she could not find any better qualified special prosecutor than someone who has zero experience with RICO cases shows just how weak her overly ambitious endeavor is. The Judge's observation that there is an “an odor of mendacity" about the testimony of DA Willis and her lover will continue to cast a dark cloud over the prosecution. The chance that Trump will be convicted in this case is close to zero.
No comments:
Post a Comment