As soon as allegations of an inappropriate romantic relationship between Willis and attorney Nathan Wade surfaced last month, speculation about the future of the case began to swirl. Even if the prosecution isn’t derailed, the upheaval has certainly created an unwanted distraction for Willis and her team and could undermine public confidence in the validity of the case.

The defense attorney who first exposed the relationship says it creates a conflict of interest and is asking the judge to toss out the indictment and to prohibit Willis, Wade and their offices from further involvement in the case. In a response filed earlier this month, Willis acknowledged a “personal relationship” but said it has no bearing on the serious criminal charges she’s pursuing and asked the judge to dismiss the motions seeking her disqualification without a hearing.

The law says “disqualification can occur if evidence is produced demonstrating an actual conflict or the appearance of one,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee said during a hearing Monday. Because he believes “it’s possible that the facts alleged by the defendant could result in a disqualification, I think an evidentiary hearing must occur to establish the record on those core allegations.”

  • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    9 months ago

    with her subordinate. How does this not reek of impropriety? reverse the genders and I’m sure you’ll have no problem understanding why it’s wrong.

      • jpreston2005@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        then it’s just favoritism. Public officials can’t be out giving contracts to their lovers. If they had a relationship prior to hiring, then they should have come forward with that at that time.

        • stoly@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          9 months ago

          My summary of your argument: “It’s this. If it wasn’t this, then it’s that. if it wasn’t that, then it’s yon. If it wasn’t yon…”