Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis made her appearance at a hearing on the Georgia election interference case in Atlanta on Friday, March 1, 2024. (AP Photo/Alex Slitz, Pool)
In a recent court filing, it has been alleged that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and special prosecutor Nathan Wade engaged in witness tampering and suborned perjury. This raises serious concerns in the ongoing disqualification controversy.
In the final stages of the campaign to dismiss the prosecutors from the racketeering (RICO) and election interference case against Donald Trump, a 20-page response has been filed. The response primarily focuses on advocating for the application of specific legal standards.
The filing alleges that the District Attorney and Special Assistant District Attorney (SADA) Wade went beyond perjury and engaged in a deliberate effort to tamper with a witness and persuade them to give false testimony.
Defense attorney Christopher Anulewicz, based in Atlanta, has filed a brief in Fulton County Superior Court on behalf of co-defendant Robert Cheeley. Cheeley, an attorney from Alpharetta, is accused of presenting state legislators with fabricated evidence of electoral fraud following Donald Trump’s defeat to Joe Biden in the 2020 election.
Cheeley’s claims of witness tampering and perjury are based on two key factors. Firstly, they rely on the testimony provided during the four-day hearing regarding allegations of nepotism and self-dealing. This hearing took place before Judge Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court. Secondly, there is a post-hearing request made by co-defendant David Shafer, the former Georgia GOP chair, to re-open the evidence. Prosecutors argue that Shafer played a crucial role in the fraudulent electors scheme.
Another witness recounts a phone call.
As previously reported by Law & Crime, Shafer’s request includes the testimony of Cindi Lee Yeager, a prosecutor from Cobb County.
Yeager’s testimony supports the claims made by Terrence Bradley, Wade’s former divorce lawyer and law partner. Bradley alleges that there were concerns about the timeline of the District Attorney’s relationship with the individual she appointed to handle a highly significant criminal case in Georgia’s history.
According to Bradley, the two prosecutors definitely started dating before Willis hired Wade. However, he mentioned that this information was not presented in court. During his sworn testimony, Bradley claimed to have little recollection or was merely speculating about certain details regarding the relationship between Willis and Wade, including the exact start of their admitted tryst.
Yeager’s testimony was presented by the defense to challenge crucial elements of Bradley’s testimony. This included disputing the nature of the claims made about the relationship and questioning Bradley’s interactions with Willis.
In the Shafer motion, there is a notable emphasis on length.
In or around September of 2023, Mr. Bradley was visiting Ms. Yeager in her office when Mr. Bradley received a telephone call. Ms. Yeager could hear that the caller was District Attorney Willis. District Attorney Willis was calling Mr. Bradley in response to an article that was published about how much money Mr. Wade and his law partners had been paid in this case. Ms. Yeager heard District Attorney Willis tell Mr. Bradley: “ They are coming after us. You don’t need to talk to them about anything about us.”
Defense attorneys have attempted to capitalize on allegations that Wade has been compensated excessively for his services and lacks the necessary qualifications for the job he was supposedly hired to do by his former girlfriend. However, these arguments have failed to gain much momentum in McAfee’s courtroom.
The alleged claim made by Yeager about the phone call raises a more significant concern. It questions whether Bradley misrepresented his connection with the district attorney, and if the district attorney’s office failed to provide accurate information to the court. If the judge deems Yeager to be a credible witness, this could pose challenges for the state’s case. However, it is important to note that Shafer’s motion does not directly accuse Willis and Wade of witness tampering.
The alleged phone call between Bradley and Willis reportedly took place more than three months prior to the disqualification motion being filed in early January of this year by defense attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents co-defendant Michael Roman.
In his response, Cheeley also mentions another phone call that was brought up during Bradley’s testimony, specifically in mid-February and late February.
According to the Cheeley filing, Bradley testified that he received a phone call from another attorney, Gabe Banks. Banks, who is a friend of Fani Willis and a former Fulton County ADA, contacted Bradley prior to his testimony. Interestingly, Banks’ wife currently works at the District Attorney’s Office. During his testimony, Bradley denied having any personal knowledge of the relationship between the District Attorney and SADA Wade, even though he had previously shared this information with Roman’s counsel and Cobb ADA Ms. Yeager.
Bradley talked about the phone call he received from Gabe Banks, a former prosecutor and current defense attorney, during his testimony.
Merchant was taken by surprise when he received that unexpected phone call. It was related to Bradley and his potential involvement in the disqualification case. The defense team had been attempting to prove that Banks made the call on behalf of Wade and instructed Bradley not to testify. However, they had only achieved limited success in establishing this connection.
During the testimony, Merchant skillfully guided Bradley to disclose his perspective on Banks’ mention of his obligations to the attorney-client privilege. The underlying implication was that Bradley should refrain from discussing Wade’s affair with Willis. Despite this, Bradley affirmed that he did not perceive Banks’ call as a threat.
