The decision by the district attorney of Georgia’s Fulton County, Fani Willis, to forgo direct examination by her own counsel on Friday suggests that she is of the position that further courtroom colloquy would only erode her position atop the sprawling racketeering case against President Trump and 18 others.

On Friday, an attorney for Mr. Trump, Steven Sadow, accused Ms. Willis’s special prosecutor and former boyfriend, Nathan Wade, of committing “fraud upon the court.” That means perjury, with respect to the denial by both Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis that their romantic relationship began before he was appointed. 

Thursday’s testimony was explosive and eclectic, with Ms. Willis declaring that the effort to disqualify her and her special prosecutor and former boyfriend “was about sex.” She also asserted her intention not to “emasculate a Black man” and divulged her preference for Grey Goose over wine. Her attorneys, though, played it safe and declined to call her to the stand for a second day. 

Ms. Willis was adamant that her appointment of Mr. Wade did not midwife a conflict of interest, maintaining that she reimbursed him for their shared excursions by dipping into pools of cash she kept at home, or “wherever I lay my head.” She explained with respect to Mr. Wade that “I don’t need him to foot my bills. The only man who foot my bills is my daddy.”

Also called on during Friday’s freewheeling hearing was Ms. Willis’s father, John Clifford Floyd III, a lawyer and former Black Panther. He concurred with his daughter that storing large amounts of cash at home is a “Black thing.” He does not appear to have been privy to the details of her dating, explaining on the stand that he “just found out when other folks found out” that she was dating Mr. Wade. 

Friday’s hearing featured a local political figure, the former governor of Georgia, Roy Barnes, who came in on the side of the district attorney. He defended her pick of Mr. Wade, calling him “a good organizer” who can “organize stuff.” Mr. Barnes testifies that he “wasn’t surprised” that Mr. Wade was chosen to be the special prosecutor.

Mr. Barnes’s most important testimony, though, was to disclose that he, not Mr. Wade, was Ms. Willis’s first choice to prosecute this blockbuster case. He related that he declined, explaining that he has “mouths to feed at a law office.” The disclosure could be critical, as it undercuts the argument that Mr. Wade was Ms. Willis’s first choice because his appointment offered them the opportunity to amass  riches.

The defendants hoping to disqualify Mr. Wade and Ms. Willis — they comprise  Michael Roman, Mr. Trump, David Shafer, and Harrison Floyd — have pinned their hopes on the testimony of a former legal associate of Mr. Wade, Terrence Bradley. Mr. Bradley also represented Mr. Wade in his divorce proceeding from his wife of 26 years, Joycelyn. 

Mr. Bradley, though, failed to deliver the knockout blow that the defendants desired, as the laws of attorney-client privilege — one of the most ancient privileges of the common law — were invoked to block any testimony that could have shed light on the affair. One of the most effective ways to pierce that privilege, the crime-fraud exception, was ruled inapplicable to the details of an amorous affair. 

The ingenious suggestion was raised that the possibility of adultery on the part of Mr. Wade could provide a basis for that exception, but Judge Scott McAfee swatted that away, noting that while it is still on the books in Georgia, it is unconstitutional under Supreme Court law. The case of Lawrence v. Texas ordained that the “personal and private life of the individual” is generally protected from criminalization.

Mr. Sadow wondered, though, whether the possibility of perjury on the part of Mr. Wade would enable breaching the protections of attorney-client privilege. Judge McAfee ventured that more “research” could be needed to arrive at an answer to that question.