Terrence Bradley, former law partner and attorney to special prosecutor Nathan Wade, testified about Mr. Wade and Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s relationship in a public court hearing on Feb. 27, responding to attorneys that accused him of misleading the defense with his representations of the relationship.
Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis’s relationship has been at the center of a motion to disqualify the prosecutors from the high-profile election case naming former President Donald Trump and 14 others in an alleged racketeering scheme.
During the testimony, several texts between Mr. Bradley and Ashleigh Merchant, representing defendant Michael Roman, were read aloud in court. The two had texted over a six month period and Mr. Bradley shared several details about the relationship, sometimes unprompted and sometimes in response to Ms. Merchant asking for confirmation.
Among other things, Mr. Bradley had texted Ms. Merchant that he believed the relationship between Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis began after they met at a judicial conference in 2019, that they had gone on several trips together, that he wanted to review the motion to disqualify for accuracy, and that Mr. Wade was “absolutely” hired after he and Ms. Willis were already in a relationship.
However, Mr. Bradley testified that this had all been “speculation.”
Shown some of the text messages, Mr. Bradley said, “I see that message, but I do not recall that.”
“And when I asked you if you thought it started before she hired him, and you responded ‘absolutely,'” Ms. Merchant added before being interrupted by an objection from state attorneys that the source of information was in question.
Disqualification Hearing
The testimony came after two tries during which Mr. Bradley invoked attorney-client privilege on the witness stand, only to have state attorneys then reveal before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee that Mr. Bradley seemed to have improperly interpreted what was covered by attorney-client privilege.
The judge called for a closed-door meeting with Mr. Bradley after his Feb. 16 testimony and later determined that he had information about Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis’s relationship that should be heard in court, calling the Feb. 27 hearing.
“I found that neither Mr. Wade nor Mr. Bradley had met their burden in establishing that the attorney-client privilege applied specifically as it relates to Mr. Bradley’s knowledge of any relationship that existed between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade,” Judge McAfee said.
The subject of the hearing was only for “knowledge that was conveyed to” Mr. Bradley.
“He claimed that it was privileged at the last hearing; I found that it was not,” the judge said.
Mr. Wade, who had already finished his testimony, was sitting with the state attorneys.
This marks the end of witness testimony for the motion to disqualify prosecutors based on alleged conflict of interest and financial benefit for Ms. Willis in the hiring of Mr. Wade.
The judge has also scheduled a March 1 hearing on the motion to disqualify, during which attorneys will argue before the judge.
The attorneys will be allowed to address an investigator’s findings regarding cell phone data allegedly putting Mr. Wade in a location that suggests overnight visits to Ms. Willis’s condo via arguments, but there will be no testimony or new evidence entered as of yet.
Bradley Texted About Relationship, Knowing About Motion to Disqualify
Mr. Bradley had volunteered information about the Wade-Willis relationship knowing Ms. Merchant was filing the motion to disqualify.
Steve Sadow, attorney for President Trump, read a text from Mr. Bradley where he said, unprompted, that the relationship “began when she left the DA’s office and was judge in South Fulton. They met at the Municipal Court CLE conference.”
Mr. Bradley had maintained that “no one told me; I was speculating.”
He also maintained that he did not know when the relationship started and only had one conversation with Mr. Wade about Ms. Willis, and it was in their office with no other parties present. Defense attorneys asked point blank whether he had lied to Ms. Merchant about the relationship.
“I don’t recall,” he said. “I mentioned earlier that I speculated on some things.”
Mr. Bradley confirmed that when he was texting Ms. Merchant he was still friends with Mr. Wade. He later added that he hadn’t spoken to Mr. Wade since he left the firm two years ago.
“What would cause you to put that down as speculation?” Mr. Sadow asked. “You knew that Ashleigh Merchant represented a defendant when you text messaged her. And you knew that the reason that she was asking you questions about Mr. Wade was when she was trying to show when the relationship began, is that correct?”
“Maybe you can explain why you didn’t say ‘I don’t know’,” Mr. Sadow said.
“I don’t know why,” Mr. Bradley said.
Ms. Merchant had sent another text asking whether the relationship began when they were both magistrate judges, which would have been over a year before Mr. Wade was hired by Ms. Willis. Mr. Bradley did not dispute this in his text response and only said “No, municipal court.”
Mr. Bradley was deflective in response to other questions about texts he sent.
“Do you remember telling me that Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade would rendezvous at that [Ms. Willis’s private practice] office?” Ms. Merchant asked.
“Any knowledge that I would have would have come from my client at the time,” he said.
Texts revealed that Mr. Bradley was the one who asked to see the draft of the motion Ms. Merchant was filing, not the other way around as was previously suggested.
He corrected a footnote that mentioned his own contract, but did not point out any other inaccuracies and responded “looks good” via text.
The judge allowed the texts to be entered into evidence over the state’s objection for relevance.
From The Epoch Times
