LIVE: Trump Georgia case hearing on district attorney Fani Willis misconduct claims

Crime-Fraud Exception

• The crime-fraud exception to attorney-client privilege may apply if communications between an attorney and client were made in furtherance of a crime or fraud.
• The party seeking to overcome the privilege must establish the existence of a crime or fraud by a preponderance of the evidence.
• The court notes that the crime-fraud exception has not been applied in Georgia in a similar context and that there is no clear precedent for the fraud upon the court theory in this jurisdiction.
• The court indicates that it will consider the arguments and may conduct an in-camera review of the communications to determine if the crime-fraud exception applies.

Witness Testimony

• Mr. Bradley, the witness, asserts that he lacks personal knowledge of a romantic relationship between Miss Willis and Mr. Wade outside of communications with his client.
• The court finds that the crime-fraud exception does not apply in this case because it has not been established that the communications between Mr. Wade and Mr. Bradley were in furtherance of a crime.
• Mr. Bradley recalls Miss Willis visiting his office on two occasions with a security detail, but he does not remember the exact dates or whether it was before or after she became the DA.
• Mr. Bradley also recalls that Miss Willis's security team changed at some point.
• The witness, Miss Merchant, confirmed that she had received and reviewed the motion to disqualify in a case and acknowledged its accuracy to her knowledge.
• Miss Merchant confirmed that she had exchanged text messages with Miss Willis and Mr. Wade but denied Mr. Wade ever asking to use her credit card to pay for trips.
• Miss Merchant confirmed that she worked as a taint lawyer under a contract with the Fulton County District Attorney's office, which was proposed by Mr. Wade.
• Miss Merchant stated that Mr. Wade was part of the transition team for Miss Willis and spent a significant amount of time at the DA's office during that period.
• Miss Merchant clarified that she and Mr. Campbell were both hired by DA Willis on January 25th, 2021, but there might have been an earlier contract for first appearance work before the taint contract.
• The witness, Mr. Bradley, is being questioned about his communications with Mr. Wade and Miss Willis prior to November 1, 2021.
• Mr. Bradley confirms that he never socialized with Mr. Wade and Miss Willis outside of a professional setting prior to November 1, 2021.
• Mr. Bradley cannot recall if Mr. Wade ever mentioned socializing or going out to dinner with Miss Willis before November 1, 2021.
• Mr. Bradley also cannot recall if Mr. Wade mentioned visiting Miss Willis at her then-current abode before November 1, 2021.
• Mr. Bradley confirms that the knowledge he imparted in the text messages came from Mr. Wade.
• Mr. Bradley has not discussed his testimony with the District Attorney's office or given permission for his attorneys to speak with them.

Attorney-Client Privilege

• Mr. Stockton possesses information that is inconsistent with Mr. Wade's testimony about the timeline of his relationship with Ms. Willis, but this information is privileged.
• The court will review the case law provided by Mr. Stockton to determine if there is a variation of the crime-fraud exception that applies in this situation.
• The discussion centered around the interrogatory responses filed by Mr. Bradley in the divorce case.
• Mr. Bradley confirmed that he had reviewed the interrogatory responses and had knowledge of all the information and material related to the case.
• Mr. Bradley clarified that he withdrew from the divorce case between July and December of 2022, prior to the filing of the interrogatory responses in May 2023.

Witness Cross-Examination

• Ms. Merchant, the opposing counsel, indicated that her cross-examination of Mr. Bradley might be lengthy and requested a 5-minute break.
• The defense attorney, Miss Cross, argues that Mr. Bradley's previous testimony about the reason for leaving the firm being covered by privilege may not have been accurate, and requests an in-camera conversation with Mr. Bradley to clarify this issue.