The Georgia State Court of Appeals will hear arguments from a co-defendant in the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and over a dozen other parties. This might result in the charges filed by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis being dropped.
Referred to as “The Fulton 19,” the group is being investigated for possible election meddling and is challenging Willis’s authority. They claim that Willis has a conflict of interest and that this should disqualify her from the case, thereby clearing them of any wrongdoing, according to reports.
It’s a victory for Trump’s legal team, according to Axios, which effectively deployed delay tactics in the four criminal cases against him while he is running for reelection. The team challenged the verdict.
At the heart of the controversy is Harrison Floyd, a former Trump campaign staffer who is one of the 19 defendants, who has raised a jurisdictional objection. Floyd’s lawyer argues that Willis’s office is not the principal authority over election-related infractions; rather, it is the state election board. They contend that by pursuing the indictments, Willis went above her power and may have led to inconsistent or redundant prosecutions.
Judge Scott McAfee, who was in charge of the case, denied Floyd’s motion contesting Willis’s jurisdiction but approved it for the Georgia Court of Appeals to evaluate right away. Willis’s case might be dismissed if the appellate court sides with Floyd, which would expose her to civil rights litigation because the court lacked the necessary authority.
Floyd’s lawyer, Chris Kachouroff, believes that if the Georgia Court of Appeals or the Georgia Supreme Court rules in Floyd’s favour, it will mean that Fani Willis did not have the right jurisdiction to indict the defendants. Should this ruling be made, Willis’s case would not only fall apart “like a house of cards,” but her legal protection would also be taken away. This may lead to the defendants suing Willis and Fulton County for millions of dollars in civil rights violations, as explained by the Federalist.
An appeal filed by Trump and a number of co-defendants, claiming that Willis’s intimate relationship with now-former special prosecutor Wade represents a serious conflict of interest, is exerting further pressure on Willis. Although there was “an appearance of impropriety” due to the friendship, McAfee had previously decided that if Wade resigned, Willis could move forward with the lawsuit.
Willis was permitted to proceed after Wade resigned, but Trump’s legal team insists that in order to ensure objectivity, her entire office ought to have been removed from the case. The primary counsel for Trump in the case, Steve Sadow, questioned McAfee’s ruling, stating that it “confounds logic and is contrary to Georgia law.”
He further argued that Willis’s continuance in the case undermines fairness, noting further that her judgment is clouded by the appearance of impropriety, even following Wade’s resignation. The appeal seeks to remove Willis, citing the potential for public distrust and overturned verdicts.