Posted on 02/28/2024 1:14:35 AM PST by Libloather
Nathan Wade's divorce attorney, Terrence Bradley, had a candid reaction to a piece of evidence he was presented with while on the stand Tuesday in the financial corruption trial of District Attorney Fani Willis.
Bradley, Wade's former divorce attorney and law partner, took the stand Tuesday, where he was shown a series of text messages in which he spoke about the timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship - one of the central issues of the trial.
A clip shows Bradley muttering to himself 'oh dang' as he reviews a series of texts in which he seemingly confirms that Willis and Wade were dating before Willis hired Wade to help prosecute the George case against former President Donald Trump.
One of Trump's attorneys, Steve Sadow questioned Bradley about a series of texts between himself and Ashleigh Merchant - an attorney for Trump co-defendant Michael Roman.
Sadow pointed to a text conversation in which Merchant wrote to Bradley:
'Like just date, don't hire him. Do you think it started before she hired him?' referring to Willis and Wade's romantic tryst and the timing of Wade's hiring.
It is at this point that Bradley whispered to himself 'dang.'
Sadow reads on that Bradley responded to Merchant's question via text: 'Absolutely.'
Bradley subsequently attempted to deny that he knew the actual timeline of Willis and Wade's relationship and his text had been mere 'speculation.'
Sadow then asked him 'why the heck' he would speculate about when they started dating in a text message.
'What you want the court to believe and you want the rest of us to believe, is that for some unknown reason, upon being asked a direct question about when the relationship started, you decided on your own to simply speculate and put it down in a text message...
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.co.uk ...
My thoughts also. Sounded like a moron.
“Wanna get away?”
Why didn’t the Judge find him in Contempt, sanction and Jail him for Perjury and refer him for permanent disbarment?
The fix is in, nothing will happen to Fani.
He muttered Oh dang. Doubtful that made it to the transcript.
“Golly!”
He was using a trick that defense counsel finally called him out on. He was maintaining eye contact with his attorney to see if they’d object to the question. Some attorneys will tell their client to pause after being asked a question so an objection can be raised.
He was walking a very thin line yesterday. His email response to the defense attorney asking him to verify the facts of the motion put him in a box.
He was trying to parse words in order to save his own ass.
Instead of asking a question like "On what date did you observe the defendant..." the lawyer is allowed to ask "Didn't you see the defendant on Monday the 3rd at 4:00am..."
-PJ
Judge said he can look at whomever he wants. Yes most attorneys will advise clients to pause and not blurt out answers in case there is an objection. But his long long pauses with an eventual I do not recall answer was nuts. The man should never play poker!
That was the most pathetic display I have witnessed in quite some time. He just stared ahead and waited for an objectioning. When merchant complained to the judge about it, he pretty much stopped it.
-PJ
“technically an “adverse witness” in a trial who is found by the judge to be hostile (adverse) to the position of the party whose attorney is questioning the witness, even though the attorney called the witness to testify on behalf of his/her client.
When the attorney calling the witness finds that the answers are contrary to the legal position of his/her client or the witness becomes openly antagonistic, the attorney may request the judge to declare the witness to be “hostile” or “adverse.”
If the judge declares the witness to be hostile (i.e. adverse), the attorney may ask “leading” questions which suggest answers or are challenging to the testimony just as on cross examination of a witness who has testified for the opposition.”
https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=884
“(a) A court should not permit leading questions
during the direct examination of a witness...
(b) When a party calls (i) an adverse party, (ii) a
witness identified with an adverse party, or (iii) a
witness who is hostile or becomes hostile during
examination, the court may permit leading
questions in conducting the direct examination. “
I think an example came when one of the attorneys asked something like, “Isn’t it true your text messages were honest and you are lying now because you are under pressure?” That isn’t a real quote but it is close to one of the “questions” asked.
Good for Merchant calling him out in it.
The Viva Frei guy said the state was using their objections to coach the witness on the stand. “I object! It could be he was just XXXXX” - so the objection contained a potential response the guy could (and did) then give. He thought the judge needed to warn the lawyer not to use objections to coach the witness.
Provided he doesn’t rule smart, the contribution and employment issues seems solid for appeal.
His 2 days of testimony were unbelievable.
Watching the prosecution call him out for sexual abuse. He was unprepared for that one.
I can not remember if I lied.
Oh dang!
He brought home the evidence!
Any thoughts on why Ms. Cross was MIA???
Or like he just discovered that his blind date is Fani Willis.
Will this guy be prosecuted and lose his law license for perjury? He needs to be cuffed and duckwalked out of the courtroom.
I’m addicted to this trial. It like a comedy central show. It is a picture into the O’Byden administration. These are just the one’s on camera. Just imagine, nah, it would make you sick or angry. So, just enjoy and know nothing bad will ever happen, aside from death, to anyone connected, to Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
I’m addicted to this trial. It like a comedy central show. It is a picture into the O’Byden administration. These are just the one’s on camera. Just imagine, nah, it would make you sick or angry. So, just enjoy and know nothing bad will ever happen, aside from death, to anyone connected, to Clinton, Obama, or Biden.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.