Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis during a hearing on the Georgia election interference case, Friday, March 1, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool)
Embattled Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and a defense attorney argued over the introduction of new evidence in the ongoing disqualification drama, threatening to derail the racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case against former President Donald Trump.
On Tuesday, the district attorney’s office filed a five-page response with the Fulton County Superior Court arguing that two new proposed witnesses should not be allowed to testify about their knowledge of Willis’ admitted relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
On Friday, attorney Craig Gillen, in a four-page reply, took Willis to task for her office’s opposition to one would-be witness in particular.
“The irony of the staff of one district attorney’s office objecting to a member of another district attorney’s office prepared to come forward and testify regarding the disqualification of a district attorney should not be lost on the Court,” the filing reads.
Gillen represents co-defendant David Shafer, the onetime Georgia GOP chair who prosecutors say was integral to the fake electors plot.
As Law&Crime previously reported, Shafer’s request proposes the testimony of Cindi Lee Yeager, a prosecutor in nearby Cobb County.
Yeager’s testimony was offered to substantiate claims made by Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former divorce lawyer and law partner, regarding the timeline of the DA’s relationship with the man she put in charge of the most consequential criminal case in Peach State history.
Bradley said the two prosecutors “absolutely” began dating before Willis hired Wade — but those claims were made out of court. When testifying under oath, Bradley said he could “not recall” or was only “speculating” about various details regarding the Willis-Wade relationship — including when the since-admitted tryst began.
The timeline of the affair is widely considered to be crucial.
Wade was hired on Nov. 1, 2021. The crux of the defense’s argument for removing Willis and Wade is that the district attorney hired her then-boyfriend for the job and reaped something akin to a financial windfall. Testimony that could establish the relationship began years before November 2021 would be highly damaging to the state.
Yeager says when Bradley testified, he made several statements “directly contrary” to what he told her during “numerous” conversations between August 2023 and January 2024, the earlier filing from Shafer offering the prosecutor’s testimony claims.
“Mr. Wade had definitely begun a romantic relationship with Ms. Willis during the time that Ms. Willis was running for District Attorney in 2019 through 2020,” the March 4 filing claims Bradley told Yeager. “Mr. Bradley stated that he had personal knowledge of the relationship between Mr. Wade and District Attorney Willis.”
Later the same day, a markedly similar filing was made offering testimony from Atlanta-based defense attorney Manny Arora.
“Between September through October 2023, Mr. Arora had several conversations with attorney Terrence Bradley regarding the relationship between District Attorney Wills and Nathan Wade,” the motion on behalf of co-defendant Cathy Latham reads.
Arora says Bradley told him Wade and Willis “had definitely begun a romantic relationship” when the district attorney was first campaigning for her job between 2019 and 2020.
The next day, the district attorney’s office objected to either Yeager or Arora being allowed to testify in the disqualification case.
“The law fundamentally favors finality,” the state’s response reads. “It does not allow for endless re-hearings and reopening of evidence based simply upon regret about prior strategy, consistently unsubstantiated positions or political incentive.”
Calling the offers of proposed testimony a “last minute, self-serving barrage,” Willis and her lieutenant Adam Abbate argue the Yeager and Arora testimony would be repetitive and “impermissible hearsay.”
The state also suggests that Yeager’s testimony is intended to help her boss fend off a challenger in an upcoming election.
“Attorney Yeager is employed as second-in-command to Cobb County District Attorney Flynn Brody, whose reelection is currently being challenged by a Deputy District Attorney of the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office,” the response says. “The timing of Attorney Yeager’s proposed testimony is not coincidental.”
Closing arguments in the disqualification hearing were held last week — but that is not much of a barrier should Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee decide the Yeager-Arora evidence is worth hearing under oath. Trial court judges in Georgia have wide latitude to reopen the evidentiary record — they can do so more or less at will.
“In the interest of the ascertainment of the truth relating to the serious issues of prosecutorial misconduct raised by the defense, the Court should decline to strike the proposed testimony of Deputy Chief Assistant District Attorney Yeager and Mr. Arora, and should reopen the evidence to hear and consider their testimony,” Shafer’s latest motion concludes.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
