These are facts not in evidence... We have testimony from a former friend and a "can't recall" disgruntled former partner who was dismissed for sexual misconduct. They say the two were involved before he was hired. They say they were acquaintances, who later became romantic... and then parted ways, remaining friends
They sound like adults, whose live are no one's fucking business. Basically, this looks like a smear job.
That's one point.
Next, we have the fact that Fani Willis hired Wade after two other attorneys had turned her down... one citing reluctance to live his life needing bodyguards. Nathan Wade isn't intimidated by Donald or any of you violent MAGAts.
Lastly... exactly how do you imagine there's any conflict of interest? I know people having sex is yucky... especially black people (eewww!) But what part of that prejudices the case against your this scumbag criminal defendant that you're twisting yourself into a pretzel to get off? Suppose she's guilty of fucking half the staff of the Fulton Town Hall. What's it got to do with anything at all?
As a matter of both common sense and Georgia law, a prosecutor is disqualified from a case due to a “conflict of interest” only when the prosecutor’s conflicting loyalties could prejudice the defendant leading, for example, to an improper conviction. None of the factual allegations made in the Roman motion have a basis in law for the idea that such prejudice could exist here – as it might where a law enforcement agent is involved with a witness, or a defense lawyer with a judge. We might question Willis’s judgment in hiring Wade and the pair’s other alleged conduct, but under Georgia law that relationship and their alleged behavior do not impact her or his ability to continue on the case.
The Law of Prosecutorial Disqualification in Georgia
Under Georgia law, “[t]here are two generally recognized grounds for disqualification of a prosecuting attorney. The first such ground is based on a conflict of interest, and the second ground has been described as ‘forensic misconduct.'” Williams v. State, 258 Ga. 305, 314, 369 S.E.2d 232, 238 (1988). There is no allegation of “forensic misconduct” in this prosecution. A conflict of interest may arise when the prosecutor has “acquired a personal interest or stake in the defendant’s conviction.” Id. “[A] conflict of interest requires more than a theoretical or speculative conflict. An actual conflict of interest must be involved.” Ventura v. State, 346 Ga. App. 309, 311, 816 S.E.2d 151, 154 (2018) (quoting Whitworth v. State, 275 Ga. App. 790, 793 (1)(b), 622 S.E.2d 21 (2005)).
Georgia appellate courts have recognized several discrete categories of conflicts of interest for the purposes of prosecutorial disqualification. First and most commonly, a conflict of interest has “been held to arise where the prosecutor previously has represented the defendant with respect to the offense charged.” Williams, 258 Ga. at 314, 369 S.E.2d at 238. See also Lamb v. State, 267 Ga. 41, 42, 472 S.E.2d 683, 685 (1996) (“[A] conflict of interest would arise if a defense attorney were to ‘switch sides’ and prosecute his former client.”); Frazier v. State, 257 Ga. 690, 693(9), 362 S.E.2d 351 (1987). Second, a prosecutor may be disqualified if he is a fact witness in the case against the defendant. McLaughlin v. Payne, 295 Ga. 609, 614, 761 S.E.2d 289, 294 (2014). Third, a conflict of interest may arise due to the prosecutor’s relationship with a victim. See Battle v. State, 301 Ga. 694, 698, 804 S.E.2d 46, 51 (2017) (“[A] conflict of interest or the appearance of impropriety from a close personal relationship with the victim may be grounds for disqualification of a prosecutor.”); Head v. State, 253 Ga. App. 757, 757, 560 S.E.2d 536, 537 (2002). Fourth, a conflict of interest leading to disqualification exists when a special prosecutor is compensated by a contingency fee that is paid only if a conviction is secured, because that fee arrangement creates “at least the appearance of a conflict of interest between his public duty to seek justice and his private right to obtain compensation for his services.” Greater Georgia Amusements, LLC v. State, 317 Ga. App. 118, 122, 728 S.E.2d 744, 747 (2012) (physical precedent only). See also Amusement Sales, Inc. v. State, 316 Ga. App. 727, 736, 730 S.E.2d 430, 438 (2012) (adopting reasoning of Greater Georgia Amusements to hold that “disqualification was warranted in light of the SADAs having a personal financial stake in the outcome” due to contingency fee arrangement).
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
