IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA

STATE OF GEORGIA |
| CASE NO.
v. |
| 23SC188947
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, |
RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, |
JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, |
MARK RANDALL MEADOWS, |
KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, |
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK, |
JENNA LYNN ELLIS, |
RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, |
ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, |
MICHAEL A. ROMAN, |
DAVID JAMES SHAFER, |
SHAWN MICAH TRESHER STILL, |
STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE, |
HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD, |
TREVIAN C. KUTTI, |
SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL, |
CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM, |
SCOTT GRAHAM HALL, |
MISTY HAMPTON a/k/a EMILY MISTY HAYES |
Defendants. |

STATE’S OBJECTION TO AND MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT

DONALD JOHN TRUMP’S PROPOSED SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT 38 SUBMITTED
IN VIOLATION OF O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 ET SEQ., DAUBERT, AND THE COURT’S
OWN STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER FOR CRIMINAL CASES

COMES NOW, the State of Georgia, by and through Fulton County District Attorney Fani

T. Willis, and both objects to and moves the Court to exclude Defendant Donald John Trump’s

proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38, which has been improperly submitted to the Court for

consideration, in violation of O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701 et seq., the United States Supreme Court’s

ruling in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and the Court’s own

Standing Case Management Order for Criminal Cases. Supplemental Exhibit 38 contains both

1
telephone records that have not been admitted into evidence and an affidavit and other documents

containing unqualified opinion evidence. For the reasons set forth below, the Court must exclude

Defendant Trump’s inadmissible proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 from consideration, or, at a

minimum, it must also consider the State’s rebuttal evidence that demonstrates the unreliability of

the unqualified opinion evidence improperly introduced by Defendant Trump.

I. Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 was improperly submitted in

direct violation of the Court’s own Standing Case Management Order for Criminal
Cases and should not be considered.

While Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 cleverly avoids the use of the

term “expert,” it is clear that Defendant Trump’s submission is an attempt to have the Court

improperly receive unqualified opinion evidence as written “expert” testimony. The Court’s own

Standing Case Management Order for Criminal Cases states as follows:

Experts. Any party seeking to rely on expert testimony at trial (or any evidentiary
hearing) must provide written notice to the opposing party. This notice must
include a meaningful summary of the expert’s testimony as well as his or her
qualifications to serve as an expert witness. This notice must be provided at least
14 days before the Final Plea/Trial Calendar Call and seven days before any
evidentiary hearing requiring expert testimony.

Amend. Standing Case Mgmt. Order for Crim. Cases at 3, Aug. 24, 2023, (emphasis added),

attached as “Exhibit A.” Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 violates this

mandate of the Court in four ways: (1) Defendant Trump provided no written notice to the State;

(2) Defendant Trump provided no summary of the purported expert’s testimony; (3) Defendant

Trump provided no information related to qualifications of the witness to serve as an expert

witness; and (4) no notice was provided at least seven days before the evidentiary hearing that

began on February 15, 2024.

At the conclusion of the portion of the hearing held on February 16, 2024, counsel for

Defendant Trump stated:

2
 We are in the process of, if the court will allow us, to obtain certain phone records,
and we’d like the record kept open for the introduction of those phone records. We
have them in draft, informally. We do not have certification of them.1 And they
would deal with—if you’ll remember I asked Mr. Wade about certain activity down
in Hapeville during the time period—and it deals with that specific time period.
We’re talking about February or March of 2021 through November 1st. … We
would want to—if what we believe is there based on our preliminary research, is
there—we’d like to reopen and introduce records and someone to explain what
they mean.

JudgeScottMcAfee, “2/16/24 Roman Motion Hearing Day 2 – 23SC188946,” YouTube (last

accessed Feb. 23, 2024), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=351j4vLffYU at 7:02:30.

Counsel for Defendant Roman also stated:

As soon as we got a hearing date and the State’s response to what happened—when
the State responded February 9th and admitted to the relationship but put parameters
on the timing—I sent subpoenas out in response to that. The problem is Delta,
AT&T, and all these folks aren’t super fast about all that. I know Delta—we’re also
waiting, I wanted to remind the Court—waiting for those records to be submitted
in camera. And AT&T actually e-mailed me these phone records yesterday
morning on the way to court.

Id. at 7:03:52.

Representations made by counsel for Defendant Trump and Defendant Roman make very

clear to the Court several relevant facts: (1) defense counsel issued subpoenas for the telephone

records at issue on or about February 9, 2024; (2) defense counsel had the subpoenaed telephone

records in their possession at least as early as February 15, 2024; and (3) defense counsel always

intended to attempt to introduce both the telephone records and an expert witness “to explain what

they mean.” In spite of this, Defendant Trump made no effort to comply with the Court’s own

Standing Case Management Order for Criminal Cases. Defendant Trump provided no written

1
This statement by counsel for Defendant Trump was untruthful. Defendant Trump’s own
proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 and the assertions of counsel for Defendant Roman
demonstrate Defendant Trump had a business record certification in his possession on February
16, 2024. See “Exhibit B,” Certificate of Authenticity dated Feb. 15, 2024.

3
notice to the State in advance of the hearing, provided no summary of the testimony, and provided

no information related to qualification to serve as an expert witness. The Court’s Standing Case

Management Order for Criminal cases was specifically intended to prevent parties from

ambushing opposing counsel with purported expert evidence without allowing opposing counsel

a meaningful opportunity to review the evidence, review the purported expert’s report and

qualifications, and obtain its own expert in rebuttal. The Court cannot now allow Defendant Trump

to bypass this protective procedure when, in other cases, it has excluded expert evidence for a

party’s failure to follow the Standing Case Management Order for Criminal Cases. All parties

coming before this Court must be treated equally; indeed, “treating like cases alike promotes a

system of equal treatment under the law rather than one built on arbitrary discretion.” Ammons v.

State, 315 Ga. 149, 169 (2022) (quoting THE FEDERALIST NO. 78, at 529 (Alexander Hamilton)

(Jacob E. Cooke ed., 1961)) (Pinson, J., concurring) (cleaned up); see also O.C.G.A. § 15-6-6.

II. Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 was improperly submitted in

direct violation of O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701 et seq. and the United States Supreme
Court’s ruling in Daubert and cannot be considered by the Court.

Effective July 1, 2022, the General Assembly revised longstanding Georgia evidence rules

regarding lay and expert witness opinion testimony by applying the provisions of O.C.G.A. § 24-

7-701 et seq. to criminal matters, substantially consistent with the standards set forth by the United

States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993). The

provisions “shall apply in all proceedings” with limited exceptions that do not apply here.

O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(a) (emphasis added). Defendant Trump now seeks to submit Supplemental

Exhibit 38, which contains, among other things, an affidavit of witness Charles Mittelstadt that

consists of opinions based on scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge within the

scope of O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702. This type of opinion testimony is specifically prohibited if a witness

4
has not been qualified as an expert. O.C.G.A. § 24-7-701. No applicable exceptions exist under

Georgia law. Prior to providing expert opinion testimony, the Court must make each of the

following findings based on evidence in the record:

(1) The expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of
fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue;

(2) The testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data;

(3) The testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and

(4) The expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case.

O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b). The party advancing the expert testimony has the burden of establishing

its admissibility under O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(b). Stern v. Pettis, 357 Ga. App. 78, 80 (2020); accord

United States v. Frazier, 387 F.3d 1244, 1260 (11th Cir. 2004)2. Here, none of the required findings

have been made by the Court, and no timely, competent evidence that complies with the Court’s

Standing Case Management Order in Criminal Cases exists in the record that would establish even

one of these factors, as our law requires. Indeed, Defendant Trump has provided no competent

evidence whatsoever that would establish that Mittelstadt is in fact an expert in anything.

Moreover, the telephone records at issue themselves, which form the basis of Mittelstadt’s

purported expert testimony, are not properly in evidence. No one has authenticated the telephone

records at issue, and the “Certificate of Authenticity of Domestic Records Pursuant to Federal

Rules of Evidence 902(11) and 902(13)” is insufficient. O.C.G.A. § 24-9-902(11) states that a

party intending to offer business records into evidence under that code section “shall” make both

2
Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702(f), in interpreting and applying these rules, the Court is
authorized to “draw from the opinions of the United States Supreme Court in Daubert v. Merrell
Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993); General Electric Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136
(1997); Kumho Tire Co. Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (1999); and other cases in federal
courts applying the [same] standards … .”

5
the records and the declaration available for inspection “sufficiently in advance of their offer into

evidence to provide an adverse party with a fair opportunity to challenge such record and

declaration.” Contemporaneously providing the certificate of authenticity and the telephone

records to the State after the close of evidence is not sufficiently advance notice to provide the

State with a fair opportunity to challenge the records and the declaration. See Gregory v. State, 342

Ga. App. 411, 417 (2017) (failure to comply with notice requirement excusable only because the

business records themselves were provided in discovery well in advance of trial); Salas v. JP

Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 334 Ga. App. 274, 279 (2015) (failure to comply with notice

requirement only excusable because plaintiff received business records themselves as part of

motion for summary judgment and had time to challenge records before filing their response). The

Court should not excuse Defendant Trump’s failure to comply with O.C.G.A. § 24-9-902(11) when

it is clear from the record that Defendant Trump subpoenaed the records as early as February 9,

2024, and had both the records and the declaration in his possession by February 15, 2024. Rather

than providing notice to the State at that time, he never provided notice and instead is now

attempting to ambush the State with these unauthenticated records only five business days in

advance of the scheduled closing arguments to deprive the State an opportunity to rebut.

The Court should not now reopen the evidence, disregard its own standing order, and allow

Defendant Trump the opportunity to qualify Mittelstadt as an expert witness when it has declined

to do the same in other cases. All parties coming before this Court must be treated equally.

III. If the Court determines that Defendant Trump’s inadmissible, untimely proposed
Supplemental Exhibit 38 can be considered, the Court must also consider the State’s
rebuttal evidence.

Notwithstanding the inadmissibility of Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit

38 under the Court’s Standing Case Management Order for Criminal Cases and under O.C.G.A. §

6
24-7-701 et seq., pursuant this Court’s own evidentiary ruling against the State at the hearing, the

phone records at issue are inadmissible. When the State attempted to impeach the testimony of

defense witness Terrence Bradley concerning the circumstances surrounding his departure from

Wade Bradley Campbell Firm, the Court ruled that the State could not introduce extrinsic evidence

contradictory to Bradley’s testimony for the purpose of impeachment:

Under [Rule] 608, I don’t see how this isn’t well beyond the core facts at issue. I
think you confronted with him, I think he answered them as he saw fit, and
argument can be made as a result. But to go down a whole mini trial on whether he
did or did not do this and the circumstances of his leaving the firm, I don’t see how
that gets past 608.

JudgeScottMcAfee, “2/16/24 Roman Motion Hearing Day 2 – 23SC188946,” YouTube (last

accessed Feb. 23, 2024), available at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=351j4vLffYU at 7:13:07.

Here, Defendant Trump attempts to do the exact same thing: introduce extrinsic evidence

purportedly contradictory to Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade’s testimony for the purpose of

impeachment. If the Court did not allow the State to impeach with extrinsic evidence, it cannot

allow Defendant Trump’s attempt to do the same thing. All parties coming before this Court must

be treated equally.

But even if, in spite of all of these evidentiary deficiencies, the Court determines that it can

still consider Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38, the phone records simply do

not prove anything relevant. The records do nothing more than demonstrate that Special Prosecutor

Wade’s telephone was located somewhere within a densely populated multiple-mile radius where

various residences, restaurants, bars, nightclubs, and other businesses are located. The records do

not prove, in any way, the content of the communications between Special Prosecutor Wade

and District Attorney Willis; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade was ever at any

particular location or address; they do not prove that Special Prosecutor Wade and District

7
Attorney Willis were ever in the same place during any of the times listed in Supplemental

Exhibit 38; and, in fact, on multiple relevant dates and times, evidence clearly demonstrates

that District Attorney Willis was elsewhere, including at work at the Fulton County District

Attorney’s Office AND VISTING THE THREE CRIME SCENES WHERE A MASS

MURDER MOTIVATED BY RACE AND GENDER BIAS HAD TAKEN PLACE. See, e.g.,

“Exhibit C,” Calendars and E-mails Showing District Attorney Willis at DA’s Office.

IV. Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38, which is clearly

inadmissible and has little evidentiary value, was not filed in good faith and is
simply another attempt to garner media attention.

The State submits that Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38, was not filed

in good faith but instead is nothing more than another attempt to garner salacious headlines in the

media. See “Exhibit D,” New York Post Article. Some of these headlines, including the attached,

were patently false, and many others were misleading. Roughly simultaneous with the filing,

counsel for Defendant Trump immediately provided unredacted cell phone records, which

contained personal identifying information belonging to Special Prosecutor Wade and District

Attorney Willis, to members of the media. See “Exhibit E,” Steve Sadow E-mail.3 Portions of

Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplement Exhibit 38, including cell phone records with personal

identifying information, were then quickly distributed on social media. See “Exhibit F,”

@CitizenFreePres Tweet.

Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 includes an attempt to introduce

evidence by affidavit even though Defendant Trump insisted that the State was disallowed from

doing so and compelled Special Prosecutor Wade to testify. Defendant Trump’s proposed

3
Attorney Sadow’s contact information has been redacted from this exhibit at the direction of
District Attorney Willis to protect his safety, a courtesy she was not provided.

8
Supplemental Exhibit 38 fails to comply with the Court’s standing order and evidentiary rules

regarding notice or qualification of expert witnesses. Moreover, the State questions whether

Defendant Trump legally obtained cell site location information, which is generally only

obtainable after a finding of probable cause and issuance of a search warrant. For all of these

reasons, it is clear that Defendant Trump’s proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 is in admissible, was

not filed in good faith, and should not be considered by the Court.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court must exclude Defendant Trump’s inadmissible

proposed Supplemental Exhibit 38 from consideration.

Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of February 2024,

FANI T. WILLIS
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

/s/ Adam Abbate

Adam Abbate
Georgia Bar No. 516126
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Fulton County District Attorney’s Office
136 Pryor Street SW, 3rd Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
[email protected]

9
Exhibit A.
 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON Counii-ED IN OFFICE
STATE OF GEORGIA AG 24 208
arson
IN RE: PROCEDURE FOR ALL TCGer 9)
CRIMINAL CASES ASSIGNED JUDGE SCOTT MCAF!
TO JUDGE MCAFEE'S DIVISION |50)7 3 -£/- ce:5227F

AMENDED! STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER FOR

CRIMINAL CASES IN JUDGE SCOTT MCAFEE’S DIVISION
For all criminal cases assigned to this division, the Court HEREBY ORDERS
that the following deadlines, policies, and procedures govern. Absent express
permission from the Court, no exceptions, extensions, or waivers to the
requirements set forth herein are allowed.
COMMUNICATING WITH THE COURT
1. General. While the Court encourages counsel to communicate with Chambers,
Such communication shall be in writing and emailed to Litigation Manager
Cheryl Vortice ([email protected]) with copies of such
communication also provided to all counsel of record unless the matter is a proper
exparte filing.
2. Email. The Court, via the Litigation Manager, communicates with counsel via
email whenever possible. At the entry of appearance of counsel, attorneys are
required to provide an email address through the filing or by subsequently
emailing Litigation Manager Cheryl Vortice. Ifyou do not personally check your
emails, you must arrange to have your emails forwarded to someone in your
office who will be responsible for checking them and informing you of the
messages/documents that have been sent. To avoid inappropriate ex parte
communications, submit all questions, explanations, or discussions conceming
your case by email, with a copy to opposing counsel. Appropriate ex parte
communications are excepted from this rule. To prevent miscommunications and
inappropriate ex parte communications, avoid telephoning chambers except in
exceptional circumstances.

! This Order supersedes Standing Case Management Order for Criminal Cases in
PLEA AND ARRAIGNMENT
1. Appearance and Waiver. Each new case assigned to this division will be set for a
Plea and Arraignment hearing date. Unless expressly excused by the Court, no
later than 48 hours prior to the hearing date, counsel may file a Waiver of
Amaignment personally signed by the defendant indicating that the defendant is
entering a plea of Not Guilty and waiving formal arraignment. If properly
waived, defendants are not required to appear at arraignment.
2. Bond Motions/Hearings: Motions for bond will not be heard at arraignment
unless filed no later than 48 hours prior o the arraignment date. All bond motions
must be filed with the Office of the Clerk of the Superior Court. Any bond
motions filed prior to the docketing of the charging document
(indictment/accusation) must be refiled or will be deemed withdrawn. Parties
filing motions are required to deliver a courtesy copy to opposing counsel and fo
Litigation Manager Cheryl Vortice. The State shall provide notice to victims or
other interested parties as required by law.
3. Scheduling Order. At the time of arraignment and entry of a Not Guily plea
(whether by waiver or announcement), the Court will enter a separate Case
Specific Scheduling Order (“CSSO”) in each defendant's case setting the
specific deadlines for discovery and motions. Re-indicted cases are bound by
the CSSO dates, notices, and published calendars for the originally indicted
case absent good cause shown and further orderofthis Court
4. Reciprocal Discovery: Any defendant opting into reciprocal discovery shall
provide written notice to the prosecuting attomey at or prior to artaignment,
OCGA. 17-16:2(a).
DISCOVERY
I. General. The parties shall promptly and completely comply with the
requirements of O.C.G.A. § 17-16-4 by the specific Discovery Date deadline as
set forth in the separate CSSO entered in each defendant's case. Any
supplemental discovery must be supplemented as soon as practicable, but in any
event no later than five business days afier receipt of any additional
information, documents, reports, or other matters which are subject to
disclosure pursuant to applicable criminal discovery statutes.
2. Extensions. Any request for an extension of the Discovery Date deadline shall
be submitted by written motion to the Court by the Discovery Date deadline.
Page 2018
Standing Case Management Orde or
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott MeAfees Division
 Such motions must provide a detailed, fact-based explanation of the need for
the extension including the amount of time needed to provide outstanding
discovery, along with a proposed order for the Courts consideration. As with all
motions, a courtesy copy of any motion for extension must be provided to
Judge MeAfee’s Chambers via email to Litigation Manager Cheryl Vortice. Any
outstanding forensic testing requested by either party must be brought to the
Courts attention by way of a timely request for extension filed prior to the
Discovery Deadline to prevent delays in the trial and other Court dates and
deadlines,
3. Compelling Discovery. The parties are directed to comply with all discovery
obligations. The parties are ordered not to file “form” motions seeking an order
compelling the generalized disclosureofdiscoverable materials or the general
exclusion of evidence. Any such non-specific “form” motions will not be
considered by the Court. Should a party need to file a motion to compel
discovery, the party shall itemize the articulable and case-specific instances in
which the party believes the opposing party has failed to comply with discovery
obligations. Such motion may be filed any time after the Discovery Date
deadline has passed and no later than the Motions Due Date which is identified
in the separate CSSO entered in each defendant’s case. Complaints concerning
untimely discovery will not be considered as a basis to delay trial unless the
issue has been previously raised with the Court.
4. Experts. Any party seeking to rely on expert testimony at trial (or any
evidentiary hearing) must provide written notice to the opposing party. This
notice must include a meaningful summaryofthe expert's testimony as well as
his or her qualifications to serve as an expert witness. The notice must be
provided at least 14 days before the Final Plea/Trial Calendar Call and seven
days before any evidentiary hearing requiring expert testimony.
CASE MANAGEMENT/PRETRIAL CONFERENCE

1. General. A Case Management/Pretrial Conference will be scheduled in the

CSSO to take place at the close of the specific Discovery and Motions
deadlines. All discovery and reciprocal discovery shall be completed prior to
the Case Management/Pretrial Conference. Cases ready for the Final Plea/Trial
Calendar Call and without filed pretrial motions may be removed from this
calendar at the request of the parties by contacting Litigation Manager Cheryl
Vortice. Defendants that are represented are not required to appear at the Case
Management/Pretrial Conference.
Page of
Standing Case Management Orde for
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott MeAfess Division
2. Order to Confer in Advance. The Court hereby orders the parties to confer
before the Case Management/Pretrial Conference to determine whether any
outstanding motions or issues can be narrowed or resolved by agreement.
3. Discussion. Parties should be prepared to discuss the production and review of
discovery (including whether the State can inform the Court and defense
counsel that all discovery has been produced), evidentiary and other legal issues
expected to be raised pretrial, probabilityof dispositionof the case without trial,
whether either party anticipates introducing any expert testimony, any logistical
concerns (such as out-of-state witnesses) relating to the scheduling of trial, and
any other matters requiring the Courts attention.
MOTIONS
1. General. The due date for all motions is the specific Motions Due Date deadline
as set forth in the separate CSSO entered in each defendant's case. Motions
filled after that date are untimely and will not be considered, absent a showing of
just cause for the late filing. Copeland v. State, 272 Ga. 816, 817 (2000); USCR
31.1. All motions, proposed orders, and other submissions to the Court shall be
printed or typed with not less than double-spacing between the lines, except in
block quotations or footnotes. Margins shall be no less than one inch at the top,
bottom, and sides. The type size shall not be smaller than 12-point Courier or
‘Times New Roman font
2. Application. The motion filing requirements and deadlines apply to all motions
and notices, including but not limited to: immunity motions under O.C.G.A. §
26-3-24, demurrers, pleas in bar or abatement, State’s notice of 0.C.G.A. §§ 24-
4-404(b), 24-4-413, and 24-4-414 evidence, State’s notice of intention to use
child hearsay, defendant's notice of intent to raise issues of incompetency,
insanity, or mental illness, defendant's notice of intent to raise alibi defense, and
defendant’ notice of intent to introduce evidence of specific actsofviolence by
victim against third parties. These deadlines do not apply to motions in limine
involving discrete evidentiary issues, the significance of which is not readily
apparent until focused trial preparation. However, untimely motions improperly
cast as motions in limine which are not true in limine motions, such as motions
10 suppress, to dismiss, or to sever defendants, will not be permitted after the
Motions Due Date deadline absent a showing ofjust cause.
3. Filing, Courtesy. and Service Copies. All motions must be filed with the Office
dof8
Standing CasePage
Management Orde for
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott MeAfees Division
 a courtesy copy to opposing counsel and to chambers via email to Litigation
Manager Cheryl Vortice. The courtesy copies of motions must be received in
Chambers the same day that the motions are filed in the Clerk's office.
Particularization Required. Only those motions sufficiently particularized as to
provide legal notice to the opposing parties will be considered by the Court.
Generalized and omnibus motions are not to be filed, andif filed will be denied
as vague, dilatory, and in violation of this order. Motions must specify, with
particularity, the item, statement, or event at issue and must be tailored to the
facts of the case at hand. Each motion shall be limited to a single issue and filed
separately. Thus, a general motion seeking to suppress all statements or all
evidence is insufficient and will be denied. The motion must identify the
specific statement or evidence that the movant is seeking to suppress, and must
provide a theory of suppression.
4. Published Motions Hearing Calendar. The Court will publish a calendar for the
Motions Hearing Date identified in the separate CSSO entered in each
defendant's case, which will be held prior to the time set for the Final Plea/Trial
Calendar Call. If no motions which require a hearing are timely filed, the case
will not appear on the Motions Hearing Calendar
5. Motions and Orders in Re-indicted Cases. If a case is re-indicted, all timely
filed motions and all orders from the previously indicted case are adopted and
effective in the newly indicted case unless the prior motion or order was
addressed by the new indictment (¢.g., a demurrer to the original indictment)
FINAL PLEA AND TRIAL CALENDAR CALL
1. General. A Final Plea and Trial Calendar Call will be held on a date determined
by the Court, which will typically occur at the Case Management/Pretrial
Conference. The State will not be allowed to place the case on the Dead Docket
or re-indict after the Final Plea Calendar absent good cause shown and further
order of this Court. Reductions in charges will be handled by the Court on a
case-by-case basis. Attorneys and defendants must appear at the Final Plea
Calendar unless the case has been previously resolved. The Final Plea Date
shall not be reset absent good cause shown and express orderofthis Court. Ifa
party has announced “ready for trial” at a previous Trial Calendar Call, in-
person appearance at any subsequent Trial Calendar Call may be waived upon
approval by the Court.
Page Sof
Standing Case Management Onde for
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott MeATee's Division
2. Order to Confer in Advance. The Court hereby orders the parties to confer
before the Final Plea Date to determine the State’s offer and whether the
defendant will enter a pleaofguilty or move forward to trial.
3. Entering Guilty Pleas. Negotiated or non-negotiated pleas may be entered at
any time prior to the Final Plea Date. The parties are directed to contact
Litigation Manager Cheryl Vortice to schedule a date for entry ofa plea prior to
the Final Plea Hearing. The Final Plea Date is the last opportunity to present a
non-negotiated plea which can then be withdrawn at the optionof the defendant
at the time of sentence pronouncement. This right of withdrawal must be
exercised on the record in open Court and expires when the Court adjourns for
that day. The Court will afford a defendant one opportunity to enter a non-
negotiated plea up until the Final Plea date. If a non-negotiated plea has been
withdrawn by the defendant, the defendant will not be allowed to withdraw a
guilty plea at any point in the future.
4. Accountability Court Sentence Recommendations. A defendant must have been
interviewed and accepted by the Accountability Court program (Drug Court,
Behavioral Health Treatment Court, or Veteran's Court) prior to sentencing for
the Court to consider the recommendation.
5. Continuance/Request for Status Conference. In the event a party intends to seek
a continuance or has any other problem with going forward with trial on the
assigned Final Plea and Trial Date due to incomplete productionofdiscovery,
incomplete witness information, client difficulties, a request for a psychological
evaluation, or otherwise, that party must notify the court by written request for a
continuance and/or a status conference at least seven days before the Final
Plea/Trial Date absent good cause shown. The written request must specifically
identify the grounds for the continuance, conference, or other problems with
going forward with trial
APPEARANCE AT ALL CALENDARS AND HEARINGS
1. Attorneys. No attorney shall appear in that capacity before the Court nil the
attorney has filed an entry of appearance that fully complies with U.S.C.R. 4.2
or a notice of substitution of counsel that fully complies with U.S.C.R. 4.3(3).
Attomeys are required to appear at all published calendars and properly noticed
court appearances unless a proper Leave of Absence in accordance with
US.CR.: 16.1 or0 162, or a proper conflict
on! letter; in accordance with U.S.C.R.
6 of 8
Sanding CasePage
Management Order for
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott MeAfe's Division
 Court. Note that any LeaveofAbsence not filed or served pursuant to U.S.C.R.
16.1 or 16.2, or filed prior to entry of appearanceof counsel in the case at issue
and not served upon chambers, stands denied under U.S.C.R. 16.4. Note that
unless US.CR. 17.1 is followed in all its subsections, then the attorney shall
not be deemed to have a conflict pursuant to U.S.C.R. 17.1(A).
2. Defendants. Unless expressly excused by the Court, defendants must appear at
all calendar calls and properly noticed court dates for his or her case evenifhis
or her attorney has a properly filed conflict letter, leave of absence, or other
expressly excused absence. Failure to report shall result in forfeiture of any
bond which may have been set and issuanceof a bench warrant for the arrest of
the defendant.
3. Virtual Appearance. All calendars issued by the Court will specify whether the
proceeding is “In-Person Only,” “Virtual Only,” or “Virtual and/or In-Person.”
Counsel and parties may appear in any manner specified by the published
calendar. The Court may authorize counsel and/or the parties to appear in a
manner different than specified on the calendar, but only upon specific request
and authorization by the Court. Witnesses may appear virtuallyif agreed by the
parties and authorized by the Court. See U.S.C.R. 9.1-9.2. Video links provided
for a hearing shall not be shared with anyone for any reason absent express
permission from the Court
MISCELLANEOUS
I. Withdrawal. If a defendant procures new counsel, it shall be the duty of the
defendant's previous attomey to provide all discovery to the new attorney as
soon as practicable. Defendants must exercise their right to counsel of their
choosing with reasonable diligence. Substitutionofcounsel shortly before trial
will not be adequate grounds for a continuance. See also US.CR. 43(3)
(“substitution shall not delay any proceeding”).
2. Live-Streaming: To facilitate public access and open judicial proceedings, the
Court may live-stream its proceedings and subsequently post recordings on its
county-provided YouTube channel. Parties are directed to raise any concerns
regarding this practice with the Court in advance of any hearing.

z - !
Page703
Sanding Case Management Order for
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott McAfee's Division
SO ORDERED, this 24" dayof August, 2023.

SCOTT7
FULTON COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT
ATLANTA JUDICIAL CIRCUIT

Page 8078
Standing Case Managemen Order for
Criminal Cases in Judge Scott MeAfee’s Division
Exhibit B.
AT&T
11760 US HWY 1, SUITE 300
NORTH PALM BEACH FL 33408

(800) 635-6840
(888) 938-4715 (Fax)

CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICITY OF DOMESTIC RECORDS PURSUANT TO FEDERAL

RULES OF EVIDENCE 902(11) AND 902(13)

GLDC FILE NUMBER: 3857918

I, Keivandra Lang, attest, under penalties of perjury by the laws of the United States of America
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, that the information contained in this certification is true and correct. I
am employed by AT&T, and my title is Legal Compliance Analyst. I am qualified to authenticate the
records attached hereto because I am familiar with how the records were created, managed, stored, and
retrieved. I state that the records attached hereto are true duplicates of the original records in the
custody of AT&T. I further state that:

a. All records attached to this certificate were made at or near the time of the occurrence of
the matter set forth by, or from information transmitted by, a person with knowledge of those matters,
they were kept in the ordinary course of the regularly conducted business activity of AT&T , and they
were made by AT&T as a regular practice; and

b. Such records were generated by AT&T’s electronic process or system that produces an
accurate result, to wit:

1. The records were copied from electronic device(s), storage medium(s), or file(s) in the
custody of AT&T in a manner to ensure that they are true duplicates of the original records; and

2. The process or system is regularly verified by AT&T, and at all times pertinent to the
records certified here the process and system functioned properly and normally.

I further state that this certification is intended to satisfy Rules 902(11) and 902(13) of the Federal Rules
of Evidence.

Keivandra Lang
02-15-2024
Date
Exhibit C.
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 1:40 PM
To:
Subject: RE: CASES PRESENTED

1
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Tuesday, August 3, 2021 10:01 AM
To:
Cc:

Subject: RE: 8.2.21 Correspondence

Sent: Monday, August 2, 2021 5:58 PM

To: Willis, Fani <[email protected]>

Subject: Re: 8.2.21 Correspondence

1
 Willis, Fani
From: Wills, Fani
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 545 PM
Tor
Subject: I
RE: December 17, 2021

Understood
from:I
Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 5:02 PM
To: Wills Fani <Fani.WillsDA@fultoncountyga.
gov
Subject: RE: December 17, 2021

From: Wills, Fani

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 12:36 PM.
To:
caf
Subject: December 17, 2021
Importance:High
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Monday, August 23, 2021 5:57 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject:

Importance: High

Greetings ALL:

1
April 12, 2021 wen wi
Monday nue 9101112131415

rT

iyi cen
1

127)
es
rower3 | osroles eng
N 0 Abuse Aarne nd Prevention |
ES

i,|a a
BE fm
Ee
3 Er
oi | —
i
 © sortz0z1 way 20m
April 20, 2021 So To Fs ava TaeTh 50
sserd3d 173 2a4seqd 7
Tuesday nese 9101112131415
BREBEERE 2PRBRHE
Li

> 1

eens
Conference oom
it, far

n
s
Ir
Matingwih] RE:Ode Toning: |RE:Odysey Tring
BegonerSesion BegionerSesion
N _- privat s mipnio
|] | hee]

2 0 0
RE:OdysseyTraining:Proficient serSesion
Ti Foc eyoom

N "

cr

Vil, Fort T Tm GO
 way2071 nent
May 10, 2021 So Tue Th ri SaoTue Th 5
Monday 2345673
Iadsddd e73dmin
SdfalnE
SPBERNE BRBENRR
3
foie |

—
HE

TL | spas
Sortie otce
it ra

|
2
3
| Mating ierSN
FCDA7C50
room MpEidanceSpaceProject(6215nse
roomTST Bvd)
—
5
SpaVicsZoom Mesing SpaMasseVesUpdte
oom TSAO ev
B— —_—

Fo T PE
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 1:41 PM
To:
Subject: FW:
Attachments:

From:
Sent: Wednesday, June 30, 2021 1:10 PM
To: Willis, Fani <[email protected]>
Cc:
Subject:

Good Afternoon District Attorney Willis,

1
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:44 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: leadership book final review - Can I see before you push send to printer

Fani T. Willis
Fani T. Willis
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Fulton County, Georgia

Please note: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately.

From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:34 PM
To: Willis, Fani <[email protected]>
Cc:

Subject: Re: leadership book final review - Can I see before you push send to printer

1
From: Willis, Fani
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 8:53 AM
To:
Subject:
When: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:30 PM-5:00 PM.
Where:

2
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:48 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: RE: leadership book final review - Can I see before you push send to printer

check all spellings.

Fani T. Willis
Fani T. Willis
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Fulton County, Georgia

Please note: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately.

From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:46 PM
To:

Cc:

Subject: RE: leadership book final review - Can I see before you push send to printer

From:
Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:34 PM
To: Willis, Fani <[email protected]>
Cc:

1
Subject: Re: leadership book final review - Can I see before you push send to printer

Madam,

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 8:53 AM
To:
Subject: leadership book final review - Can I see before you push send to printer
When: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 4:30 PM-5:00 PM.
Where:

Let’s order these books today.

2
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 5:51 PM
To:
Cc:
Subject: Assignments

Importance: High

Greetings Community Resource Specialist:

Fani T. Willis
Fani T. Willis
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Fulton County, Georgia

Please note: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately.

1
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 6:06 PM
To:
Subject: FCDA Community Recognition Event
Attachments: Community Hero Event.jpg

Yours in Service,

1
Willis, Fani

From: Willis, Fani

Sent: Wednesday, November 17, 2021 7:58 PM
To: ,

Subject: Program Book

Fani T. Willis
Fani T. Willis
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit
Fulton County, Georgia

Please note: This message is intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed and
may contain information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If
the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination,
distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please notify us immediately.

1
Willis, Fani

rom: wing
or Farad Octope 7, 021 12978
To —
Thankyou!
romI
Sore 7, 021 3080

=
Some
— RE Ne the tm 10 the mdr

rom
Torr | 531100
ps
rE Naess toa gre
Torr
room
Sor ID.7, 2021.10853
oo }
|; willis, Fani <Eani.
[email protected]>;]
 Willis, Fani
From: Wills, Fani
Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 7:18 PM.
To:
Subject: FW:

Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 5:30 PM

To: Willis, Fani <Fani WillsDA@fultoncountygagov>

LL]

From: Wills, Fani <Fani.WillsDA@fultoncountyga gov>

Sent: Thursday, October 7, 2021 3:02 PM

Importance: High

‘Externalemail;Usecautionwhenclickingonlinksandattachmentsfromoutsidesources.
 -
J
EE
i.
Ha—
=
I—
Exhibit D.
 LOG IN

LATEST IN US NEWS

Trump says he Death of Texas teacher, Lax Ca

‘strongly’ supports IVF, 73, at hands of student require
calls on Alabama... allegedly covered... migran

430
US NEWS

Nathan Wade’s phone pinged at Fani

Willis’ home 35 times before they claim
affair began: docs
By Jack Morphet and Priscilla DeGregory
Published Feb. 23, 2024, 3:18 p.m. ET

Nathan Wade’s phone has been tracked to District Attorney Fani Willis’ home late night in 2021, well
before the pair claim they were a couple, according to a bombshell new court filing by attorneys for
Donald Trump in his Georgia election fraud case.
Thank you for visiting. By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Notice.
On 35 occasions Wade was in the vicinity of the condo Willis was subleasing from a friend in
Hapeville, Georgia, “for an extended period of time” between April 1, 2021 and Nov. 30, 2021,
according to Charles Mittelstadt, an investigator hired by Trump’s team.

Many of those visits were before Wade was hired by Willis to be special prosecutor of the Trump case
in November 2021, and appear to contradict court testimony last week when he said he claimed he
been at the condo no more than 10 times before he was hired.

The duo have told the court they didn’t strike up a romantic relationship until the spring of 2022, and
broke up around a year later.

However, in the lead-up to Willis hiring Wade and also in the month after he signed his first contract
with her office, he appeared to visit the condo twice in the middle of the night according to Middelstadt,
who analyzed mountains of cell phone and geolocation data from Wade’s number.

On Sept. 11, 2021, Wade’s cell phone was placed around the Hapeville condo at 10:45 p.m. and
stayed there until the wee hours of the morning the next day, leaving at 3:28 a.m. and soon after
arriving at his own home, Mittelstadt claimed in an affidavit.

EXPLORE MORE
Exhibit E.
#1 attachments (28 x8)

This message came from outside Futon County Govemment. Use caution with links/attachments. pont Suspicove

i
Exhibit F.
... Citizen Free Press @
Wl cCitizenFreePres ED
Heat map of Fani Willis calls and texts
with Nathan Wade, in 2021. Both
testified under oath there was no
relationship.

2,073 voice calls.

9,792 text messages.

Heavy concentration after hours.

7 days per week.

BE e—
mE, —

14:48 - 23 Feb 24 - 281K Views

341 Reposts 31 Quotes 792 Likes

 IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

STATE OF GEORGIA |
| CASE NO.
v. |
| 23SC188947
DONALD JOHN TRUMP, |
RUDOLPH WILLIAM LOUIS GIULIANI, |
JOHN CHARLES EASTMAN, |
MARK RANDALL MEADOWS, |
KENNETH JOHN CHESEBRO, |
JEFFREY BOSSERT CLARK, |
JENNA LYNN ELLIS, |
RAY STALLINGS SMITH III, |
ROBERT DAVID CHEELEY, |
MICHAEL A. ROMAN, |
DAVID JAMES SHAFER, |
SHAWN MICAH TRESHER STILL, |
STEPHEN CLIFFGARD LEE, |
HARRISON WILLIAM PRESCOTT FLOYD, |
TREVIAN C. KUTTI, |
SIDNEY KATHERINE POWELL, |
CATHLEEN ALSTON LATHAM, |
SCOTT GRAHAM HALL, |
MISTY HAMPTON a/k/a EMILY MISTY HAYES |
Defendants. |

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have this day served a copy of this STATE’S OBJECTION TO AND

MOTION TO EXCLUDE DEFENDANT DONALD JOHN TRUMP’S PROPOSED

SUPPLEMENTAL EXHIBIT 38 SUBMITTED IN VIOLATION OF O.C.G.A. § 24-7-702 ET

SEQ., DAUBERT, AND THE COURT’S OWN STANDING CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER

FOR CRIMINAL CASES upon all counsel who have entered appearances as counsel of record in

this matter via the Fulton County e-filing system.

This 23rd day of February 2024,

FANI T. WILLIS
District Attorney
Atlanta Judicial Circuit

/s/ Adam Abbate

Adam Abbate
Georgia Bar No. 516126
Chief Deputy District Attorney
Fulton County District Attorney’s Office
136 Pryor Street SW, 3rd Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
[email protected]