Dad | Husband | Co-Host & Contributor of video-pod @MKTrueCrime | Legal Analyst | @townhallcom Columnist | Certified Flight Instructor~DMs For Subscribers 🦅
29 subscribers
The Prosecuting Attorney's Council is a small state agency without the resources, or likely the inclination, to take on this kind of case
The GA Supreme Court does NOT have to take her appeal
More: 
Page 2 
"According to social media posts, as of September 17, 2024, Ms. Willis was in Los Angeles, California attending fundraising events for her re-election campaign" 
Here's the part that is supposed to say what Krause did that shows her to not be impartial
And in his order, he confesses to the ex parte
Wade alleges that since he was booted from the Trump RICO case by #FaniWillis that he's has a "change in circumstances"
“Defendant urgently requires medical procedures, namely an endoscopy, colonoscopy, and ultrasound, due to severe physical symptoms she has been enduring. These symptoms have significantly impacted her ability to consume
While the trial court factually found DA Willis’s out-of-court statements were improper and Defendants proved an apparent conflict of interest, the trial court erred as a matter of law by not requiring dismissal and DA Willis’ disqualification. This legal error requires the Court’s immediate review.
BUT - she can fix the defects the judge found.
From in or around August of 2023 through January of 2024, Ms. Yeager had numerous, in-person and other conversations with attorney Terence Bradley in which information relating to District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade was discussed"" 
The "Chris" referenced here is Chris Campbell, a law partner of Nathan Wade 
"the State had an obligation to protect at all costs the fundamental fairness in the process and to avoid even the appearance of impropriety regarding the State’s motives or the district attorney’s personal or financial incentives in prosecuting the case. But the State did not do that"
"The State protests that the defense is somehow not entitled to present expert testimony regarding the cell site location information (CSLI) as they allege that the defense failed to comply with this Court’s Standing Discovery Order that mandates prior notice to the opposing party of a party’s intention to introduce expert testimony and because they claim that defense has not precleared the evidence through the process of a Daubert hearing. However, neither of those preconditions apply here because the CSLI information that the defense intends to introduce through the testimony of Mittelstadt is not being offered through expert testimony and Mittelstadt will not be offering any opinion testimony"
