"The Court found that there was NO evidence of an actual conflict of interest. However, he did find that the "prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety." And "as long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."
The Court "finds itself unable to place any stock" in the testimony of Terrence Bradley. McAfee also said Robin Yeartie's testimony "lacked context and detail." And he considered the Wade cellphone info but said it didn't say conclusively when the relationship started.
The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the indictment.
The Court ruled that there was "no material financial benefit" derived by Willis in hiring and engaging in a personal relationship with Wade.
The Court "finds itself unable to place any stock" in the testimony of Terrence Bradley. McAfee also said Robin Yeartie's testimony "lacked context and detail." And he considered the Wade cellphone info but said it didn't say conclusively when the relationship started.
The Court ruled that there was "no material financial benefit" derived by Willis in hiring and engaging in a personal relationship with Wade.
I wonder if a higher court could rule differently should the issue comes up again? Either way, the evidence is injected into the system.
Hi fren
it's a duplicate story:
https://greatawakening.win/p/17si9t8pgi/-breaking-georgia-judge-mcafee-r/c/
Never, Me? A duplicate...😏😎🙏🏻
I know right?
"The Court found that there was NO evidence of an actual conflict of interest. However, he did find that the "prosecution is encumbered by an appearance of impropriety." And "as long as Wade remains on the case, this unnecessary perception will persist."
The Court "finds itself unable to place any stock" in the testimony of Terrence Bradley. McAfee also said Robin Yeartie's testimony "lacked context and detail." And he considered the Wade cellphone info but said it didn't say conclusively when the relationship started.
The Court also denied the motions to dismiss the indictment.
The Court ruled that there was "no material financial benefit" derived by Willis in hiring and engaging in a personal relationship with Wade.
Here is the Order: https://twitter.com/KatiePhang/status/1768637197735842251
I wonder if a higher court could rule differently should the issue comes up again? Either way, the evidence is injected into the system.