that the defense had excited, but i would submit to the court is that i found that it kind of fell into five categories. some that did not concern this qualification at all, some that instrument or that were about, i call it divided loyalty, which is a conflict arises from representing a -- becoming a prosecutor and then having representatives, the defendant prior to becoming a prosecutor and then whether there's an actual personal interest in the outcome and then others talk about whether the defendant was denied a fundamentally fair trial at the conclusion and the -- of the case after conviction. and these are some of the cases

these had application to the issue that were here before your honor today. the first has nothing to do -- nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. >> some of these are relating to aspiring for broad language of outstanding language to prosecutors. point taken. if there are more -- keep going. >> as it relates to one of the cases referenced here earlier, and is also referenced in some of the briefing by defense counsel is georgia 542 and all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call cat category, is about an attorney who formally prosecuted a

defendant is the same type of case or similar charges. that is why the courts found the disqualification would be necessary because of the relationship that existed between the former client and the person being prosecuted now. the next series of slides goes through what has been addressed as it relates to the standard that is required when dealing with the issue of disqualification and the state would submit to the court that the defense must show an actual conflict in order to have the district attorney disqualified and that actual conflict has to be in the form of showing

miss willis received a financial benefit or gain in relation to the outcome of the case. or any of the cases that involve personal interest. it all is based on the contingency fee, how much they are paid or a bonus is dependent on the outcome of the case. one is to show there is a personal interest. we have none of that. i would submit we have no evidence miss willis received any financial gain or benefit. the testimony was that miss willis paid the money back in cash and -- >> let me explore this. in addition to it is only an actual conflict, are you saying it is only if the financial interest is affecting the final result, the outcome?

that is the one we should be worried about? or is it that the prosecution as a whole is what we should be looking at. what if ada's are given a bonus for every motion to suppress they win, $1,000 for the fourth amendment claim they win. now they have an incentive not to tell you about it because they want to win that motion to suppress. maybe that doesn't affect the outcome. it doesn't decide whether or not it is a guilty or guilty verdict, but doesn't that affect the prosecution of the case? >> that would be an instance where disqualification is necessary and appropriate because it involves a contingency fee and i would submit it does end up affecting -- >> it could but if it is some immaterial -- i don't know. you are saying it is maybe not

so much whether it is guilty or not guilty dismissal, it is the conduct of the prosecution that should be looked at throughout the course of the prosecution. >> correct, as it relates to the prosecution, which will affect the end outcome of the case. if you win a motion to suppress and if you win, you get a certain bonus, that is going to affect the end outcome of the case. in the instance where an officer is lying or there is not a good faith to go forward with that motion, the prosecutor would go forward with it regardless because of the contingency v, which not only affects the prosecution but is going to affect the entire case because if they were to win a motion to

suppress or the motion would be denied and the evidence wasn't suppressed, it affects the ultimate outcome of the case. it is twofold. it is at that part of the procedure, the proceedings, they would definitely qualify for reason necessary to disqualify a prosecuting agency, but ultimately that action would lead to the ultimate outcome of the case of hinging upon a contingency fee like the ones in the cases referenced by counsel. >> judge mcafee: getting into the language, greater amusements is one of those -- why do you think that is -- the quote is it

guarantees at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. >> i don't disagree, but in that case, an actual conflict was found. >> they did not find that. >> i would disagree with your honor. my reading of the case is that an actual conflict was found but because of that conflict, and appearance of impropriety was seen and that is the reference, why the state referenced that case in relation to the argument that an actual conflict is required. in the series of cases, that was referenced by the defense counsel, both instances where there is a personal interest in the case due to the situation

and where at one point they were opposing parties. there is a personal interest or stake as it relates to prosecuting an opposing party in a civil claim, which is what both of those cases referenced. it shows there is an actual conflict of interest. >> what you make of the reference to the older case, sometimes the language can be what we are not accustomed to seeing. they refer to the metaphor of caesar's wife and it is used as an ethical standard, that goes beyond an actual conflict, ri right? is the beyond remotes getting -- beyond reproach getting more into the appearance world? is it getting into the appearance aspect of things where we are talking about

caesar's wife? >> it goes beyond that based on the language. it literally says individuals have a personal interest in obtaining a fee by forcing settlement and using the criminal case as leverage. that is not an appearance of impropriety, that is a conflict of interest that arises because of the personal stake in the end outcome of the case. that is how i would differentiate the representations of the defense counsel as it relates to the standard or the burden that must be shown. and why the state would submit to the court and the most recent ruling out of the georgia appellate courts that an actual conflict is required to be sh shown. i am going to skip through these series of slides. you have heard about them.

i go back to what we referenced earlier, what has been referenced by all parties, the grounds by which a district attorney can be disqualified is where there is a conflict of interest sound and where there is forensic misconduct of that is found. those are the two grounds that are to be within the purview of the court as it relates to the issues here. i go back to the most recent case that the justice wrote about, it must be by failing to disqualify the assistant district attorney absent an official conflict of interest. it is clear and controlling and purposeful. an actual conflict of interest is what is required for a

district attorney to be disqualified because the case is making very clear and through the president relating to this issue that a disqualification of a district attorney is the last ditch effort that should be exercised as it relates to court and curing certain conflicts that may arise. the case law is very clear that every effort is supposed to be made in lieu of disqualifying the district attorney unless an actual conflict of interest is what is found. and, it cannot be cured. what i would reference to the court as was brought up earlier,

a 1999 case where it talks about a serial radical or speculative conflict will not impugn a conviction, meaning that speculation, conjecture, things of that nature, assumptions are not enough for anything to arise to an actual conflict. what i would submit as well is that goes to the fact that what has to be shown is an actual conflict. >> judge mcafee: is there a qualifier there that shows that is in a postconviction context? competent evidence? we are in pretrial here. i have wondered how much important to give that since we are in the pretrial realm. that is assessing whether to overturn the conviction and that is a different standard where we assess as a totality. just a thought, if you have any

reactions. >> what your honor has said is on point. if it is found that the trial court applied the wrong standard or should have disqualified the district attorney, it leads to an automatic reversal and it goes back to the trial court. that is a very in the sense that that is only done if an actual conflict is shown and the fact that it cannot just be theoretical, speculative, or assumptions that would lead to the appearance of impropriety, the appearance of a conflict that would lead to -- >> judge mcafee: i am borrowing from -- special get special treatment unless you can so some issues and i wonder if

the same principle applies, but i don't have the answer to that. >> i don't remember the line, but the judgment, he does address the concerns as it relates to the standard as it is applied postconviction versus pretrial. what i would say to the court is that -- are you showing support i didn't think the state was that pleased with the analysis. >> i am citing what she referenced as the standard to be applied pretrial and posttrial whether it makes a difference and the answer is no as it relates to the speculative nature of the allegations or the claims made by defense counsel as it relates to whether a conflict actually exists.

what i cannot do at the moment is point exactly to the page at the end of the state's argument. i can give you the page number. >> you are talking about the footnote where he references the appearance. >> further, on page 42, a 1996 case where the court says that conflict must be palpable and have substantial basis in fact, theoretical will not impugn the conviction which is supported by competent evidence. i would submit to the court that as it relates to the issue of disqualification, the standard is the same whether it is postconviction or pretrial.

the 1981 case, in that case, it says the appellants has not shown or a personal rule has disqualified an attorney on the basis of impropriety alone. a trial judge is authorized in georgia to disqualify an attorney based on the appearance of impropriety. which further goes to the mission to the court that the standard is an actual conflict must be shown and that conflict that arises shows there is a personal stake as it relates to the personal financial gain that is being alleged. in the case that has been referenced by all parties today,

the 2005 case. it says the complaints are based on speculation and conjecture, applying evidence standard, it is clear the trial court did not abuse its discretion to disqualify based on personal interest in his conviction. >> aren't we passed the conjecture and speculation issue of this so far? there is a relationship and money changed hands. there is an open question of where the ledger stands, but i think it was conceded that that balance could run in the district attorney's favor. is that contested? >> yes. what is not contested is that a relationship did develop. >> and that purchases were made

back and forth. that is the state's position. >> that is the state's position. purchases were made back and forth to eat will the money that was spent by one party or another and if that wasn't done, cash was exchanged to equal the cost that was paid by either one of the parties. >> whether it was split even or it goes a little bit one way or another or whether it is $10,000.01 way or another, that is a fact issue. it is no longer just a theory that money changed hands. >> i agree money changed hands has not speculation or conjecture. the money that changed hands can have financial benefit or gains, that is all speculation and conjecture. absolutely all speculation and

conjecture to harass and embarrass the district attorney based on the questions that were asked that have nothing to do with the proceedings. for example the lien on her house that had nothing to do with the proceedings and the exchange of money between the district attorney and mr. wade. the point of that line of questioning was to embarrass and harass the district attorney in a way that was public and in a way that was to impugn her character as it relates to that line of questioning in front of the court, in front of anyone watching the proceedings as it unfolded. the language, i would submit to the court, an actual conflict must be shown, which is why the

reference is again referenced. speculation and conjecture leads to order equals an appearance of impropriety, not necessary a conflict. >> in state versus sutherland, the 1989 case, while the prosecuting officers should see no unfair advantage is taken of the accused, those required to exercise in the case by the judge and the jury, the public prosecutor is a partisan in the case. if we were to proceed, there would be an end to the conviction of criminals, which goes to the premise that the

appearance of impropriety is to apply to judges, not prose prosecutors. if that standard was to be applied in the manner in which the sutherland case is referencing, there would never be a criminal prosecution because the state is always going to appear biased as it relates to getting justice for the victims or righting the wrongs as it relates to the crimes the defendant has been indicted or been accused of.

during the last couple of days, three total days of testimony as it relates to the witnesses you heard from. one is a former disgruntled employee, someone who is disgruntled, a former partner, the text messages show he is vengeful. you heard from his own testimony here that all he did was speculate and any information he had or garnered and passed on was mere speculation. i believe he said that over and over again when asked if he had personal knowledge. my recollection is around 15 times he said he had no personal knowledge of a romantic relationship between the d.a. and mr. wade. you heard from the special

prosecutor, mr. wade, a former judge, you heard from the 80th governor of the state of georgia, roy barnes, the first female elected -- and what i would submit to the court is that her testimony was nothing more than inconsistent, at best, based on what i referenced to the court earlier as it relates to the representations that were made by her counsel prior to -- >> judge mcafee: are those in evidence that were subject to cross-examination? i am puzzled by that. you didn't ask the question, what did you tell your attorney before coming here and we could

have dealt with privilege issues and whatever else. >> there is not evidence, but there wasn't a statement by an officer of this court during a hearing or related to her testimony and how we could proceed with her testimony. it is clear that what was represented as to why she would not be an appropriate person to testify was she had no knowledge of the romantic relationship. that was the basis of why counsel was saying she should not have to testify. >> where did the incentive arrive between monday and thursday for her to change things around? she was fighting so hard not to

testify at all and then she comes in here and testifies. why would she testify the way she did it she didn't want to testify? i don't know if i am following that theory. >> i appreciate that but i would say the reason she did not want to testify is because this is a public forum where she would have to testify against a former friend and boss. the change, i would not qualify it as an incentive. i would qualify it as, -- >> judge mcafee: a motive and bias as to why she testified in the manner in which she did. when asked by miss merchant asked of the reasons her leaving, she danced around the issue. as miss cross asked whether she

resigned or was forced to leave, she was fired, she came out and said she was given the choice she could resign, but either way you are leaving. you are fired or you can resign in a manner of which she would not be officially fired and when she is getting future employment and things of that nature. i would submit there is no incentive. it is not why the testimony changed but the reason she testified the way she did was because of her biased towards the d.a., which gave her motive to be less than honest before the court. >> if we are going to draw inferences based on her fighting the subpoena, why would she have fought it? >> because she didn't want to come on national television and be exposed to the things that --

i don't know anybody who wants to testify before a court in a normal trial. everybody would be able to watch and learn what she has to say as it unfolds in the courtroom and further submit to the court there is reference to she left the d.a.'s office and the text messages that were submitted, the defense of the other 39, it is because she released confidential information. in the d.a.'s office, from the d.a.'s office that led to her firing. >> judge mcafee: it is more conversational and i might be getting you off script.

>> terence bradley on the one thing the state and defense counsel can agree on, he was less than honest at times during the preceding and during his testimony. when pressed or asked why he was fired, he chalked it up to a dispute between partners. in a business. when pressed by miss cross, it was clear that was not the reason and i would submit to the court, what has been referenced by defense counsel as baffling as to why the state would go into such a topic area, the state, as all counsel has, has a duty of candor.

when miss cross knew she was going to have to cross mr. bradley, she knew he lied and she had a duty of candor to the court to expose that. more importantly, it goes to his credibility. and to the statements that had been represented by the defense counsel that he allegedly had made in the past. it was important to bring that to the court's attention because when a witness is testifying, the court is assessing credibility and whether to believe the veracity of the statements made by the witness or not. that is the most important factor when determining whether somebody is telling the truth or a lie. furthermore, he reluctantly, when pressed, admitted he paid

off the assault victim, it started with an escrow account, led to he did pay off the victim in that case. he testified over a span of three days like i referenced to the court. he said he had no personal first-hand knowledge as it relates to the relationship between miss willis and mr. wade and more importantly, when pressed by counsel, he could not pinpoint a time in which he knew the relationship occurred. there were instances in which he described it could have fallen within the time frame that was testified by both miss willis and mr. wade as it relates to the relationship beginning, or transitioning into dating in march of 2022 and into the end of the relationship in the

summer of 2023. as i referenced to the court, the statements mr. bradley made, they are inadmissible as it relates to the statements he was pressed and asked about what mr. wade told him because he was never confronted with those statements. he must be confronted with the specific statements made in order to impeach him. mr. bradley had every motive to live. i believe the text messages are very clear as it relates to his disdain towards mr. wade, which, due to the fact he was exiled from a thriving law practice and it was clear of the practice and mr. wade sided with the alleged sexual assault victim, which is

clear, he assaulted her due to the fact that he paid her off. as i referenced earlier, miss merchant represented to the court that mr. bradley had personal first-hand knowledge of everything and he would be able to be an impeaching machine. your honor referenced him as the star witness when you were addressing the claims made by miss cross in relations to miss merchant's representations to the court and i would submit all of mr. bradley's representations as it relates to whether -- when the relationship began and whether they cohabitated, that was a promise that was also made, that he would be able to impeach the investigators was gossip and innuendo.

>> we can correct us while we are here together. mr. bradley heard from each of these individuals that they could be impeached with. >> directly overheard. >> it kind of seems to be all of them. they could all be directly impeached by statements overheard by mr. bradley. >> yes. >> the unequivocal answer was yes. when you are looking through text messages, i would submit to the court that the text messages do not say or indicate what was represented to the court in relation to the good faith basis for this motion to disqualify as it relates to the testimony and

the ability to impeach witnesses through mr. bradley. what has been referenced by counsel is mr. bradley's assertion of absolutely as it relates to whether the relationship existed prior to mr. wade's hiring. the question involves speculation because it asks do you think it started. he said absolutely. he doesn't provide context as to how he knows and threw his testimony with the court, the source of his information was unclear. it is what i would say to the court. as to a lot of things. other than the one conversation that allegedly occurred between mr. wade and mr. bradley and i

would submit that conversation never occurred. that would be the state's contention. we know that because that conversation was not confronted. mr. wade was not confronted with that conversation and that is evidence, circumstantially and i would say direct as to that conversation nonexistent. based on the representation made by defense counsel, it would be clear that would be a conversation that would have been related to. it was not privileged that would have been relayed to miss merchant. if that conversation happened, that would have been a conversation defense counsel would have confronted mr. wade with and against and they did not because it did not exist. you heard from the district

attorney's father. he is a well-respected member of the legal community for over 40 years, but the importance of his testimony was to bribe the court with corroboration as it relates to the years leading to relationships that transitioned into dating between the district attorney and mr. wade. he testified that he moved into our south fulton home in 2019. the evidence of him moving into that home was his georgia driver's license, official government document. he testified that not only was it just miss willis and himself living at the home, but that he would often see, on numerous occasions, the significant other of miss willis that was not mr. wade. he referenced that person had a

nickname and he kept a lot of his belongings in the garage. he said he kept a lot of his disc jockey equipment, is how he referred to it before the court. he made very clear he had never seen mr. wade at the south fulton home that is owned by miss willis. he made clear he lived in that home with miss willis and miss willis alone other than her two daughters who would occasionally visit that home until after february 2021, but what precipitated the move to what i would reference as safe houses for her protection was a protest that occurred before her home. he expressed to the court she moved in 2021 and due to these threats that were taking very seriously, he had only seen his

child 13 times. he said, in reference to the questions by defense counsel, that were in a -- they were trying to make miss willis a liar is how i would submit to the court in the sense that she testified she was concerned for her safety and her family's safety, which included her father and her daughters and mr. floyd remaining in that home rebutted all of that, made it so it wasn't true. he testified he stayed in the home because it was the home she put her blood, sweat, and tears in and he stayed in the home because there was constant officer presence. he told the court he bought extra security equipment and he

slept in different rooms on different nights because he felt his safety was such a concern. i would submit that line of questioning was done in an attempt to discredit miss willis but failed. he testified about the first time he met mr. wade here and talked about how he kept cash in his home and why miss willis kept cash in the home. what the court should take note of is the state did not ask about the cash. that came out through the cross-examination of defense counsel. it was an implication that

mr. floyd only did so due to his preparation with the state and hearing and seeing news articles and clips related to the testimony that occurred prior to him. i would submit it is telling that information came out through questions asked by defense counsel, which gives credibility to the statements that were made. he explained why he taught his daughter to keep cash in the home as it relates to financial independence and having a safety net. he had multiple safes and he gave miss willis his first lockbox -- her first lockbox for situations as she described when she was testifying. what i want to make clear, during miss willis' testimony, she was pressed about the cash, where she kept it, trying to further discredit the practice she had as it relates to keeping cash in her home and why she had

the ability to pay cash to mr. wade and other people and for other situations. what the court should take note of is there was no evidence that controverted that at all. where was the evidence that controverted miss willis' claim and practice of keeping cash in her home? there was none. the only evidence was that it was substantiated through the testimony of her father. you heard from former governor roy barnes and his testimony was significant and important. it -- >> judge mcafee: on this

point, you say she was the first choice to lead the prosecution. was that his testimony? was his testimony that he was asked to come aboard? did he use the words he was asked to lead? >> that is my recollection. he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently the lead prosecutor. it was said in that way as it relates to the testimony of mr. barnes. my recollection is he said lead but i know he also said he was asked to fill the position that mr. wade is currently filling for the state of georgia. a quick, as a special prosecutor, lead the investigation, which led to the ultimate prosecution that we are

here before your honor today. he indicated the reason he turned that down was because it did not pay enough. he said he had mouths to feed at his law firm and he did not want to live the rest of his life with bodyguards because he had lived that the years he was the governor of georgia. he confirmed the qualifications of mr. wade, which i still find it interesting and confusing as to attacking mr. wade's qualifications in that it is almost as if the council is asking that the state put a prosecutor on the case that she ceased to be more qualified to attempt to convict her client. it is an interesting argument and one that makes no sense. >> if you were to believe the claims and allegations as it relates to miss willis' personal

stake of receiving financial benefits and gains, you would have to believe she was also dating roy barnes, the former governor and banks, if she has this grand plan scheme in order to profit off of the prosecution's case. that is what they are saying, or they are saying she telepathically or prophetically was able to know that mr. barnes and mr. banks would turn down the position so she could hire mr. wade. it is ridiculous, it is absurd, it is desperate. it is a desperate attempt to remove a prosecutor from a case for absolutely no reason, your honor. other than harassment.

an embarrassment. this slide, we have been through a lot of the testimony. >> judge mcafee: it was not introduced into evidence that mr. banks turn her down. i >> i would ask the court to take judicial notice. >> i don't recall offhand. >> i don't recall if miss willis testified to that. i know mr. banks represented that to the court during monday's hearing as it relates to the allegations that were made. >> i am trying to make sure we understand what is in evidence. regardless, i think your point is made. >> i think it is in evidence as it relates to the issues that led to the actual hearing of this case. i understand your honor's position. it did come out during a proceeding.

that was prior to the actual hearing. this slide is a chart showing the testimony of the district attorney, miss willis, and mr. wade, as it relates to how they met or when mr. wade became the special prosecutor, when their relationship evolved, talking about the trips they took after the relationship evolved into one that became romantic and when it ended and what i would submit to the co court, those facts were consistent and the only person who contradicted that when the relationship started was the other witness. it was represented to the court that she was a witness other than mr. bradley, who could bring to the forefront of this issue of cohabitation and when pressed and asked about it, she had no information as it relates

to this alleged cohabitation. it was false. she was asked about trips and she said she had no information about the trips. yet, she has such a good friend that miss willis confirmed each year that mr. wade and her continued to be in a relationship in 2019, 2,020, 2,021 until her relationship ended due to forced resignation. in the splintering of their friendship. several exhibits were tendered in. most of them were exhibits that came from the sealed divorce of mr. wade and miss jocelyn wade, contracts for legal services and the text messages. i would reference prior to today, the only text messages

were defense exhibits 26 and 27, which is the assertion of defense counsel that what their show is that mr. bradley was -- had information as it relates to the relationship starting prior to march 2022 and that is false. those text messages do not contain that. it does not pinpoint, just as mr. bradley could not, when the relationship started and you have the testimony and evidence of the text messages that it was speculation. the review of the full chain of text messages, it is miss merchant and mr. bradley going through what i can describe it as nothing else than a mere fishing expedition between the two of them because it is asked about certain members of the d.a.'s office who have information as it relates to

miss young, whether she would have information and he said he assumed he was speculating on that is the same as each person that was subpoenaed in reference to the text messages, all of that was speculation and you know it was because not a single one of them testified. that is telling. if it was not speculation or gossip and conjecture, each one of those people who were subpoenaed would have been called to testify like district attorney willis was, like mr. wade was, in order to be confronted and then impeached by mr. bradley. you have heard about the phone records. whether it comes into the purview of your honor as it relates to the determination as it relates to the disqualification of the district attorney. we have the affidavit from the employee who works at the winery who confirmed miss willis did

pay in cash up to more than $400. i understand this is part of the proffer of the state but that is a witness who the state did not go find. that is a witness who went to cnn in order to confirm what miss willis testified to, further giving her statements credibility and credence before the court. >> judge mcafee: other than the foundational concerns, would you have a response to the cell phone records? >> i will get to that now. i was going to get to it later but i have several. i don't think -- the state uses cell phone records routinely and

i would agree with that. we use them routinely but we use them with an expert and they are always challenged. >> setting aside the foundational concerns. focusing on the substance, assuming they would be admissible, maybe you have that further, but what is the reaction on that? >> what i would say initially is due to the fact they were analyzed by someone who is a nonexpert, it was not properly peer-reviewed, is clear from the state's review that the nine -- practices that used to check the use of which kind of data is being used in reference to the two specific dates, the affidavit that is used you to

say miss willis is in the area of -- because the address the phone number was never established. the foundational stuff is very important as it relates to the admissibility. >> if they were able to survive those foundational concerns, do you have any reaction? >> i do and i will skip forward.

the records that were provided were for, they start in january 2021 and they go to november 30th, i think, the span of the records. you heard from all of the witnesses, miss willis did not move into the address until april 2021. that was the testimony from the witnesses. she lived in her home from when she met mr. wade in october 2019 up until when she had to move. the assertion is that mr. wade and miss willis began a relationship right after they met in 2019. what is interesting and telling is that mr. wade's handset does not appear anywhere near the area of her south fulton home, but they are dating. if you were to believe what the defense counsel says, that they

had been in a relationship from 2019 up until she moves april 2021, a year and a half, but he never enters the area of her home. they want you to believe that is a lie, which is why counsel continues to press district attorney willis and mr. wade whether he had been to that home and this corroborates it was not a lie. it is more than suspect if you have been in a relationship for all this time but never once was in the house. i think that is telling. i would also bring to the court's attention that from january 2021 to march 2021, those times when miss willis did not live at the address until april 2021, his handset appears in that area 23 times.

>> how do you reconcile that with his testimony, the reasons he gave her being in the area? do those line up to 23 times? >> i think that is the point. yes. that is the point. he referenced that is an area it was not uncommon to be in and that is the case because miss willis did not live in that area. it is further corroboration as to what mr. wade indicated to the court. after miss willis moved into the condo in april 2021, i want to make clear to the court, both miss willis and mr. wade never denied he had been to the condo before. the testimony that was elicited by miss willis and mr. wade was he had never laid his head, was

a direct quote at that condo, which these records don't prove he laid his head anywhere. if you believe the analysis or to give credence as to what the nonexpert says in relation to mr. wade's handset for the three to four hours the phone is alleged to have remained. it doesn't disprove anything that was testified by both mr. wade and district attorney willis. the hours of their business is something that was pursued during the questioning of both parties. what i would submit to the court is if you look at the days as it relates to september and november, the use, the type of

information that is used to make the plots for the longitude and latitude of the handset is data records. it is not voice records or sms text messages. it is not uncommon for an expert to testify that that data record is unreliable as it relates to the location of the handset due to the type of information that it is. it is data, it is not voice, and i know it has been referenced, where this kind of information is commonly used. the comments made by the court, it was clear that you understood and understand the use of cell phone records as it relates to put somebody in an area and not in a specific location.

i would bring to the court's attention as it relates to the validity of the affidavit an analysis done by the expert that was hired by , not once does it reference the fact the at&t records commonly have duplicate and triplicate entries. that is something commonly seen and something that is seen in these records and that is something that leads to the incorrect number of times it has been alleged that miss willis and mr. wade were in communication through text and voice mail. that number does not prove anything, that anybody is in a relationship, it proves they were in communication with each other and your owner can use your own life experience as it relates to people you work with or friends that you are close with and the number of times you

make calls to any of those people. i can submit to the court i have a friend i have been friends with for 15 years and she worked in the office previously with me and based on our professional and personal relationship, the friendship we had and still h have, we talk 30 times a day. that is not -- that does not mean we are in a relationship. the assertion that the number of times miss willis and mr. wade have spoken to each other whether through text message or phone, it has no validity as it relates to them being in a relationship. what was shown through the evidence is there has been a true cost as it relates to her life, she had additional expenses she had to endure

because of her position and she told the court she had a mortgage but on top of that mortgage, how she did not live in, she had to pay for a safe house. her home was vandalized. there was vandalism spray-painted onto her house. the concern of her safety and her life was testified to in the fact that his job has led to the isolation and separation of her from her family and friends, which was given credence and the credibility was provided by her father, he had only seen his daughter 13 times since these instances occurred. the nature of the statements and the falsehoods, in these text messages that were purposefully leaked to the media as it relate