Fani Willis Accused of Illegally Recording Trump Defendant’s Lawyer

Well, well, well,...THIS is interesting.
Seems Big Fani has backed into the wood-chipper, yet again.

A lawyer for one of former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants in the Georgia case claimed in a new interview that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’s office illegally recorded a phone call between her and a lawyer.

Christopher Kachouroff, an attorney representing Trump co-defendant Harrison Floyd, told legal analyst Phil Holloway that the district attorney’s office recorded a call between her and one of his colleagues without their knowledge or consent.

Apparently, recording a phone call without both participants' consent or knowledge is a felony in Maryland, where the lawyer was physically receiving the call from Willis...which Willis recorded.

In short, Willis engaged in a provable felony.

Maryland has a wiretap law that makes it a felony to record an electronic communication or phone call unless all parties consent to it. But Georgia has only a “one-party consent” law for making recordings, meaning that only one person or party involved has to consent.

...AND Big Fani has further bungled her ridiculous case by drawing more attention to the feloniously-acquired evidence at the center of her case against Trump...

Notably, Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger reportedly recorded his own phone call with former President Trump in which the former president asked him about election fraud in the state and whether any ballots were missing during the November 2020 election.

That phone call is at the center of the Willis case against the former president.

thelibertydaily.com...

Willis is an idiot...and she obviously has no clue what she is doing.
I think most of the country knows this by now.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Yup, Georgia is a one party consent state but Maryland and Florida are not.
If the defense can make a good argument then all those calls might get tossed.
Precedent has been mixed.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

I'm interested in seeing how that turns out.

That's a state vs state law issue.

Which one has precedence?

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: CarlLaFong

I'm interested in seeing how that turns out.

That's a state vs state law issue.

Which one has precedence?

Good question.

Not surprised Willis blindly walked into it though.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Since her act was a felony, is she now called Fanilonious ?

Cheers

a reply to: F2d5thCavv2

The judges and officials who have been protecting Fani are looking like bigger asses every day.
🤡

a reply to: WeMustCare

Evil clowns.

Cheers

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Well to be honest. Why should she even consider this? She's in her state. What she's doing is perfectly legal in GA. The state where the case is being tried is in GA.

Ultimately it's up to the judge whether or not to allow the recordings into evidence. Though I wonder if a transcript of the call wouldn't run afoul the two party consent. who knows.

Looking at the maryland law.
mgaleg.maryland.gov...

There are some exception to the law for certain government entities.

a reply to: grey580

What's really bad is if the call is edited to benefit one party or the other, after being recorded.

That's what happened with the recorded phone call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenburger in January of 2021.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. Fani's not on trial. She said so!

originally posted by: WeMustCare
a reply to: grey580


That's what happened with the recorded phone call between President Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenburger in January of 2021.

Do you mean the 'ILLEGALLY' recorded phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffenburger?

originally posted by: ColeYounger2
a reply to: CarlLaFong

No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. Fani's not on trial. She said so!

Not yet.

But she will be.

originally posted by: grey580
a reply to: CarlLaFong

Why should she even consider this? She's in her state. What she's doing is perfectly legal in GA. The state where the case is being tried is in GA.

Yet, the lawyer she illegally recorded was physically in Maryland where she needed consent to record.

Willis is a DA. She should have known this.
Unless, of course, she is simply unqualified for her job.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

Georgia and District of Columbia are one-party consent states.

www.justia.com...

a reply to: CarlLaFong

So I came across this interesting exception to the two party consent law.

The exception to this in most two party consent states is in the use of the recording as refutation of sworn testimony, in a courtroom.

For example, in California, say you have a recording of someone admitting a crime that you had personally witnessed. You made the recording in the belief that it would record evidence of a serious crime.

You testify in court that the person committed the crime, and that you witnessed it.

The person takes the stand in their own defense, and the prosecutor asks the person if they committed the crime.

They testify “No”.

At that point, you are permitted to disclose the recording to the prosecutor to refute the testimony in court.

This is what happened in the recording made by Amber Frey — at the behest of police, but without a warrant — in the Scott Peterson case, resulting in the conviction of Scott Peterson — who is currently on death row in San Quentin State Prison, for the first degree murder of his pregnant wife Laci Peterson.

Not sure what will happen here with this case. Maybe the judge throws out the recording, maybe he keeps it. Maybe the lawyers will sue in their state. I don't know.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

i mean party 1 or 2 party consent laws are relevant but i thought lawyer client conversations were protected under the 6th amendment?

i THINK the patriot act has a terrorisim clause exemption but thats usualy for like future crimes not past ones ,ie a terror suspect calls a lawyer and tells them to activate the other cell to do a bombing or something

Two party states have an exemption for law enforcement.

a reply to: CarlLaFong

This Whole " Show Trial " will be Dismissed on Appeal . Enough of this Neilson Ratings Type Hype !

a reply to: grey580

The California Supreme Court decision in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., S124739 (July 13, 2006) showed that in a call from a One party consent state to a Two party consent state, the Two party law takes precedence.

originally posted by: TheSemiskepticII
a reply to: grey580

The California Supreme Court decision in Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc., S124739 (July 13, 2006) showed that in a call from a One party consent state to a Two party consent state, the Two party law takes precedence.

The Kearney v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. case was a civil matter, where Kearney was bringing suit against Salomon Smith Barney essentially for invasion of privacy and was seeking economic restitution for damages. If the people in Maryland wanted to bring a civil suit against Fani Willis for damages, this is presumably the legal precedent they would try to use.

However, that's an entirely different matter than the State of Maryland bringing a criminal suit against Fani Willis for violation of a Maryland law, which would raise Constitutional issues.

And in any case, if there is an exemption under Maryland law for recordings done in the course of law enforcement, neither case would probably have a chance.

The article I've been reading on this indicates that as a practical matter courts almost never exclude from trial, evidence gathered by law enforcement agencies across state jurisdictions.