Left to right: Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis arrives before she speaks after winning the Democratic primary on Tuesday, May 21, 2024, in Buckhead, Ga. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson), Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause (Fulton County Superior Court), Attorney Ashleigh Merchant speaks in court Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024, in Atlanta. (AP Photo/Brynn Anderson, Pool).
During a marathon Thursday hearing related to the Georgia election interference and racketeering (RICO) case against Donald Trump, the judge overseeing the case lost her patience with both sides.
“Okay. Listen. Everybody. We need to dial all of this back,” Fulton County Superior Court Judge Rachel Krause said, interspersing a series of briefly pregnant pauses, her annoyance palpable, as the open records-focused hearing stretched well past hour four.
In the case, attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents co-defendant Michael Roman in the underlying RICO matter, has accused Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office of violating the Georgia Open Records Act by failing to provide documents related to the employment and remuneration of Nathan Wade – the former special assistant district attorney forced to resign from the RICO prosecution due to his onetime romantic relationship with Willis.
Earlier on Thursday, Krause gave Merchant a qualified win – allowing her to question a member of the DA’s office, in detail and at length, about the ways those public records requests were handled.
On the stand was Dexter Bond, the deputy of operations for the DA’s office. In his role, he serves as the agency’s records custodian.
After several minutes of preliminary questions about the county’s open records portal, Merchant brought a series of documents up on a public viewing screen. Starting with the DA’s employee handbook entries on public records compliance, the attorney meticulously guided her witness through each document – and throughout his testimony, Bond played the role of a combative witness.
The back-and-forth came to a standstill when Merchant asked Bond if “it was possible” she “believed” the DA’s had complied with a certain public records request. The clear upshot of this question was that Merchant now thinks she was intentionally misled into believing the DA’s office had complied with the request when it had not done so.
An attorney for the DA’s employees objected on grounds of speculation. Though terming the question “pretty argumentative,” Krause overruled and directed the witness to answer.
Bond replied, raising his voice, said: “When it comes to you and what I think you believe, it can be anything, Ashleigh Merchant.”
A few beats passed before the judge laid into the witness and the questioning attorney about their apparently shared lack of respect – and the general tenor of the late afternoon session.
“I feel like instead of being educated, I’m listening to an argument,” Krause said. “And I’m tired of listening to an argument. I would like to be educated about the processes that Mr. Bond follows to perform his duties. And about what you believe, Mrs. Merchant, to be the shortcomings of what those processes are.”
The judge felt obligated to make this intervention after roughly an hour of questioning over various documents. And, to that end, the judge said, the process had been a bit too laborious.
“I would also remind everybody that I can read quite well,” Krause sarcastically intoned. “And that most of what we’re arguing about is reflected in written documents – that are part of the record – that I can review. Now, to the extent that the parties wish to understand what was meant by those words, those are fair questions. But half of our time has been spent with people trying to agree that the document says this or the document says that.”
The judge then essayed a metaphor but cut herself off mid-sentence.
“Let’s just, everybody, take a deep breath, and try not to argue with each other,” Krause went on. “And that applies to Mrs. Merchant and Mr. Bond – in terms of trying to answer the questions so that the court can understand what processes are followed and whether they were followed, or should have been, in this case. That’s what I’m trying to figure out.”
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]
