One of the shocking things that every litigator discovers after even a little practice is that judges often do not follow the rule of law. As humans, they try not to favor one party over another, even if the law is clear. The law is not always so clear-cut, but there are times when judicial decisions seem to be governed almost by caprice rather than by law. We just arrived at a great example of this phenomenon in Georgia, where Donald Trump and others were indicted for election interference.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee pretends to be an impartial, rule-abiding lawyer, but defense attorneys have told him that one of the prosecutors in the case, Fulton County District Attorney Fannie This prompted the disqualification of two people who identified Willis and his mistress. Specially Appointed Attorney Nathan Wade.
In an age of partisan conflict, no one can believe that we still have anything close to a nation of laws rather than people.
The defense lied on the stand about when Willis and Wade started dating, saying that Willis hired Wade (at a high salary compared to other prosecutors in the office) and that Willis had dated Wade. Claimed that they took repeated vacations together (Willis claimed). (She compensated Wade with cash contributions that cannot be recorded or traced) constitutes a “conflict of interest” or “indication of a conflict of interest.”
Georgia law can be interpreted to require dismissal if there is an “indication of conflict,” but the judge clearly ruled that either Willis or Wade should drop the case based on that proposition. It seems like I did. Mr. McAfee on Friday deferred to Mr. Willis the decision on who to nominate.
Critics immediately began declaring that the judge had “cut up the baby.” This refers to a famous judgment recorded in the Old Testament in which King Solomon, adjudicating a case in which two women claimed to be the child’s mother, offered to cut the child into pieces. Divide into two and give half to each claimant. The real mother’s maternal instincts would not allow her to kill her child to fulfill the sentence, so she begged the king to hand over the baby to the false claimant to save the baby’s life. . Solomon, said to be the wisest king in the history of Israel, then gave the baby whole to his real mother.
Of course, justice was served in this Biblical case. “Splitting the baby” was just a ploy to achieve justice.
Not so in Scott McAfee’s courtroom. If ever there was a conflict, or the appearance of a conflict, in Georgia prosecutors, Willis and Wade certainly committed it. Even if you take only one side out of the case, the dirt will not be removed at all.
The “conflict of interest” rule exists because if a prosecutor has a conflict of interest, there is a presumption that that person cannot be trusted and will not act objectively to promote the interests of justice. As the judge noted, that concern remains, especially given that neither Willis nor Wade were forthcoming about the details of their relationship. If they cannot be trusted to tell the truth on the stand, how can they be trusted to be impartial as prosecutors?
I can’t help but wonder if Mr. McAfee was also upset about trying this seemingly Solomonic solution. Because Mr. McAfee will soon be facing Fulton County voters in his first judicial election (he was appointed by Georgia’s governor to fill a vacancy, but his position is peach It is optional in some states). Of course, this is an argument against the foolishness of selecting judges, but all judges often have a tendency to force parties to compromise or settle.
In our partisan age, it is hard for anyone to believe that we still have anything close to the kind of government of laws rather than men that the framers of the Constitution envisioned. It’s a fair bet that Donald Trump’s lawyers will appeal McAfee’s decision and that Georgia’s higher court will decide on the legitimacy of this particular jurisdiction.
The RICO statute, on which Mr. Willis’ charges were based, was never intended to address anything other than organized crime. If the interpretation is expanded to include something that deviates from honest disagreements about the election, the final appeal is likely to fail anyway. While some justice has been served, with two of the participants in this unjust “litigation” inevitably being dishonored, Judge McAfee’s separation continues to damage the rule of law. .
