Summary: Willis may have had a net financial benefit from hiring Wade, but it was small. Her repeated efforts to bring the case to trial quickly suggest no improper motive to delay. Thus, despite a "tremendous lapse in judgment" and "unprofessional" demeanor, no actual conflict.
But, there is an appearance of impropriety, because there is evidence of financial benefit and romantic relationship with a subordinate.
Judge strongly suggests that the Fulton County District Attorney's Office was dishonest about when the relationship began. "Odor of mendacity"
The standard on Willis' comments is very vague in Georgia, but the judge clearly does not approve of Willis' "unorthodox decision" to talk to the authors of a book about her case as it was proceeding, nor her speech claiming that criticism was racist.
I like this concluding paragraph a lot. The trial should appear fair to someone without partisan blinders on.
That's a reasonable ask!
Fani Willis get either DQ her whole office and let someone with better judgment take over or her Wade can withdraw.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In 1938, a Polish Jew living in Paris, Herschel Feibel Grynszpan, learned that his family had been arrested and deported.
He entered the German embassy, claiming to be a spy with valuable information, and shot an embassy official, Ernst vom Rath.
The Germans, of course, claimed that this was an enormous outrage--just part of the historical plot of the Jews to destroy the Aryan race.
They planned a series of pogroms in response, to be carried out by government agents out of uniform, encouraging the public to join in.
Initially, he was to be tried in Paris. Once war began between Germany and France, the lawyer asked for an immediate trial, figuring that an acquittal was likely. But as the German army approached, Grynszpan escaped.
In The Florida Star v. B. J. F, 491 U.S. 524, 526 (1989), a rape victim sued a newspaper for printing her name, arguing that it violated a Florida law protecting her privacy.
Even though the name of a rape victim is substantially less newsworthy than the name of a public official, the Supreme Court of the United States said that publishing that name was protected by the First Amendment.
When you say we don't have "jurisdiction" over them you have to come up with some tortured definition where if you can imagine a law does not apply to illegal immigrants (or people here on a visa), that means no jurisidiction.
But one problem with that is that children are also exempt from many laws, adult criminal responsibility, the draft, etcetera, and yet no one would argue that they aren't subject to American jurisdiction.
A quick and dirty explanation for why Shannon Stillwell was acquitted of the murder of Shymel Drinks in the YSL case (in my view).
1. The victim was killed with a .40 caliber, and there was no evidence that Stillwell ever owned a .40.
The gang "expert," Viverito, tried to claim that she recognized the bottom of a Glock 27c in a video that Stillwell posted on social media, but she has no special expertise or training with firearms, and her whole basis is that she held one, once, at a gun store.
2. The State claimed that Stillwell shot the victim from a rental car as he pulled up alongside him at a light. But even though investigators carefully swabbed the car, they did not find any gunshot residue inside of it. It would be difficult to completely scrub the car.