"...the Court finds that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proving that the District Attorney acquired an actual conflict of interest in this case through her personal relationship and recurring travels with her lead prosecutor..."
The bold emphasis is mine.
I recall the defense arguing that the standard for dismissal was only the "appearance" of a conflict of interest. They didn't have to prove an "actual" conflict of interest.
I can't believe the judge would make such an error on the law.
There is also the minor problem of perjury that the judge allowed them to skate on.
Let me know if anyone thinks I have this wrong.
The judge deems that removing Wade (and/or Willis) is sufficient to address this appearance of a conflict.