Was an actual intentional act. Reporter yeah, she certainly did because that car was so far off of the road and away from the parking lot when it happened. Now, some deputies who are still inside are actually looking into whether or not that suspect some mao knew that victim. But everyone here while this was happening was very concerned because it was a busy time at the park. Tonight, a large park the unlikely site of a deadly hitann. Hiking about a half mile from the parking lot when she saw a black audi sedan on a dirt trial. I thought someone was distraught, i thought they were hitting a log. But i was like, no, this woman is were witnessing a murder. Thats a person on the ground. She took this video when she says the woman driving the car tried to get another witness called 911 and park rangers were closing in. Thats when the audi started slowly inching away, and then it peeled out, sped up, and started veering towards the path of other hikers and pedestrians, where they were jumpi
These had application to the issue that were here before your honor today. The first has nothing to do nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. Some of these are relating to aspiring for broad language of outstanding language to prosecutors. Point taken. If there are more keep going. As it relates to one of the cases referenced here earlier, and is also referenced in some of the briefing by Defense Counsel is georgia 542 and all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call cat category, is about an attorney who formally prosecuted a defendant is the same type of case or similar charges. That is why the courts found the disqualification would be necessary because of the relationship that existed between the former client and the person being prosecuted now. The next series of slides goes through what has been addressed as it relates to the standard that is required when dealing with the issue of disqualification and the state would submit to the court that the defense
Of the cases that Defense Counsel had cited within their brief that had absolutely no application to the issue that were here before, your honor, today. The first mciver be state has nothing to do. Has nothing related to the disqualification of anyone. I think some of these are just relating to kind of aspiring for broad language about standards to prosecutors. So point taken there but if theyre more all right. Keep it on so as it relates to one of the cases that was referenced here earlier. And as i was also referenced in some of the briefing by Defense Counsel, is the were just savy state, which is to 87 georgia, 542. And ill all of the cases that fall under this, what i would call category is about a attorney who formerly prosecuted a defendant in i guess the same type of case are the same case or similar charges. And that would be why of course, were using the courts found that disqualification would be necessary because of the Relations Kinship that existed between a former client
Theres not much oxygen left in the room. We delineated the based on the whole presentation. Would your honor consider some time for us in rebuttal . No. Ok. Then can i reserve what i have . Sure. Thats fine. Thank you. Lets take a quick five and we will be back at 2 40ish. Thank you. [indiscernible] ■8 all right. We are back on the record. Are you ready . Yes. Im trying to get to where i can share my screen. We need to add you as a host then. In which defense counsel claimed the evidence would show. I would strongly bring to the courts attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations. What i will say to the court, and why i say that to the court, is because the representations that were made by counsel was that all of these people would be called and mr. Bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by singing that he specifically, in his presence or to him, said that ms. Willis and mr. Wade were in a romantic relationship and that ms. Willis and mr. Wade
No. Ok. Then can i reserve what i have . Sure. Thats fine. Thank you. Lets take a quick five and we will be back at 2 40ish. Thank you. [indiscernible] all right. We are back on the record. Are you ready . Yes. Im trying to get to where i can share my screen. We need to add you as a host then. 01 in which defense counsel claime evidence would show. I would strongly bring to the courts attention that the claims that were made were material misrepresentations. What i will say to the court, and why i say that to the court, is because the representations that were made by counsel was that all of these people would be called and mr. Bradley would be able to impeach their knowledge by singing that he specifically, in his presence or to him, said that ms. Willis and mr. Wade were in a romantic ship and that ms. Willis and mr. Wade were cohabitating. That they all knew that. I would submit to the court, 3ne t hear from any of those individuals. Mr. Bradley impeached no one. I say no one becaus