Reply to GA Case

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "GA Case"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]The US legal system is based upon the presumption of innocence.  Courts are not supposed to use circumstantial evidence to convict.  In this case, Ashley Merchant, lawyer representing Michael Roman, would need to present actual evidence of the inappropriate use of funds.  So far, the evidence is circumstantial.  Nathan Wade purchased tickets for a trip that Fani Willis went on.  Willis has countered that she reimbursed him in cash using funds leftover from her last campaign where she loaned her campaign $50K and then kept leftover unused money in cash at home.  There is documented evidence that she took out the $50K to loan to her campaign, which suggests she would have the cash at home to pay for the travel tickets.  A vendor in Napa Valley, one of the places that she traveled with Wade, has said in the news that she purchased $400 of wine at the vineyard and he expected her, like most of his clients, to pay by card, but she pulled out $400 in cash and clearly had more on her at the time, to pay for the wine.  When he commented that it was unusual, she said that she always pays cash.  She has also said she reimburses her dates for expenses because she does not want to be beholden to any man.

In any event, for her to be taken off the case, the defense attorney would need to prove, not circumstantially, but with actual evidence, that she actually benefitted from the money that was paid to Nathan Wade.  The timeline of when they began their romance is a red herring, while it is a conflict of interest, it does not show an actual benefit that Fani Willis received from hiring Nathan Wade.

So, unless Ashley Merchant can show actual evidence and not circumstantial evidence of a financial benefit, there is insufficient grounds to remove either of them from the case. [/quote]

If the factual evidence, cell phone records, contradicts the testimony given by Willis and Wade then nothing more needs to be proven.  In that case not only will they be disqualified from the case they will most likely be removed from the Georgia bar. 
[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics