In the ongoing Corbin Fulton County case hearing, Nathan Wade took the stand once again. The focus of the discussion was on the difference between the two document productions. It was revealed that certain documents, such as bank records and credit card statements, were not included in the initial production. However, these documents were obtained from the open records portal and were deemed material to the case.
The documents in question were invoices belonging to Nathan Wade. One of the invoices included a reimbursement for printing expenses. The defense had no objection to the inclusion of the invoices in the exhibit, as they were already admitted in another exhibit. The disputed items were removed from the exhibit, and a revised Exhibit 14 containing only the invoices was presented. The State had no objection to the revised exhibit, and Exhibits 14 through 18 were admitted without objection.
To ensure proper organization, all exhibits from 1 through 18 were compiled and organized with the court reporter. The defense counsel was instructed to return all exhibits to the court reporter. The proceedings then moved on to the next phase, with each counsel being addressed in order.
Mr. Gillman began his questioning of Nathan Wade, focusing on Exhibit 4, which consisted of interrogatories filed in his divorce case. Mr. Gillman sought clarification on whether Nathan had answered truthfully regarding instances of sexual relations with someone other than his spouse. Despite the directness of the interrogatory, Nathan maintained that he had not engaged in any such relations during the course of his marriage.
Moving on to the next interrogatory, Mr. Gillman questioned Nathan about instances of entertaining a member of the opposite sex who was not related to him by blood or marriage. Nathan admitted to entertaining Ms. Willis on several occasions but argued that his answer to the interrogatory was not false.
The line of questioning aimed to establish that Nathan had provided false answers in his divorce case. However, the court intervened, stating that the point had been made and could be further discussed during arguments.
The article concludes by mentioning that the proceedings would continue with further questioning and examination of events leading up to the filing of the court document in May 2023.
