Key Witness Testifies In Court Regarding Motion Accuracy

• Mr. Bradley confirmed reviewing Mrs. Merchant's motion before January 8th, 2024.

• He acknowledged the motion's contents as acceptable.

• Mr. Bradley responded positively to the motion in a text message.

Terrence Bradley, Special prosecutor Nathan Wade’s former law partner and onetime divorce attorney, testifies in court Tuesday, Feb. 27, 2024, in Atlanta. Bradley testified as a judge considered an ef

AP

During a recent court proceeding, Mr. Bradley confirmed that he had reviewed a motion sent by Mrs. Merchant prior to January 8th, 2024. He acknowledged reviewing the motion and indicated that the contents seemed acceptable to him. However, he clarified that he did not explicitly respond to an email regarding the motion but had given a positive response in a text message chain.

Mr. Bradley mentioned that Mrs. Merchant had requested him not to disclose the motion to anyone until she filed it. He confirmed that he was aware of her intention to file the motion and that she had sought his review to ensure its accuracy.

When questioned about his role in ensuring the accuracy of the motion, Mr. Bradley stated that he was primarily focused on a specific aspect related to a contract he had with a sum of $74,000. He emphasized that he had requested to be included in the motion's footnote due to this contractual agreement.

3

He acknowledged the motion's contents as acceptable.

3

Mr. Bradley confirmed reviewing Mrs. Merchant's motion before January 8th, 2024.

3

Mr. Bradley responded positively to the motion in a text message.

Regarding the content of the motion concerning the relationship between District Attorney Willis and Mr. Wade, Mr. Bradley expressed uncertainty about whether Mrs. Merchant was relying on him for accuracy beyond the details related to the $74,000 contract.

When asked if he would have alerted Mrs. Merchant if he had identified any patently false or speculative information in the motion, Mr. Bradley stated that he was unsure of his response in such a scenario. He reiterated that he did not perceive any speculative content in the motion.

Mr. Bradley also mentioned that he had only received a call from an individual named Gabe Banks regarding the motion and had not been contacted by anyone else from the district attorney's office or other witnesses involved in the case.