Former President Donald Trump and eight of his co-defendants in the RICO case brought against him and 18 former members of his 2020 campaign and legal teams have appealed Judge Scott McAfee’s ruling that required Nathan Wade’s departure from the RICO case but allowed DA Willis to stay. In the appeal, they argue that DA Willis must be disqualified and that the lower court erred in finding otherwise
As background, in the original ruling, Judge McAfee found that there was no actual conflict of interest, so while DA Willis showed a serious lack of judgment, she did not have to leave the case. He wrote, “Without sufficient evidence that the District Attorney acquired a personal stake in the prosecution, or that her financial arrangements had any impact on the case, the Defendants’ claims of an actual conflict must be denied.”
He continued, “This finding is by no means an indication that the Court condones this tremendous lapse in judgment or the unprofessional manner of the District Attorney’s testimony during the evidentiary hearing. Rather, it is the undersigned’s opinion that Georgia law does not permit the finding of an actual conflict for simply making bad choices — even repeatedly — and it is the trial court’s duty to confine itself to the relevant issues and applicable law properly brought before it.”
Nathan Wade left the case, but DA Willis did not and has maintained that she did not do anything wrong. So, DA Willis was rebuked for her behavior, namely her relationship with Nathan Wade and the appearance of impropriety stemming from it, but remains on the case and attacking Trump. Such is why Trump and some of his co-defendants are appealing after Judge McAfee gave them the green light.
In the appeal, the legal teams for Trump and his co-defendants argue, “Defendants were indicted by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis (“DA Willis”) in August 2022 for their alleged actions related to the 2020 Presidential Election. At issue here is whether DA Willis and her entire office should have been disqualified from prosecuting this case based upon (1) DA Willis’s inflamatory out-of-court statements regarding Defendants and their counsel and other misconduct (“forensic misconduct”) in response to this Motion, and/or (2) her actual or apparent conflict of interest in the case. While the trial court factually found DA Willis’s out-of-court statements were improper and Defendants proved an apparent conflict of interest, the trial court erred as a matter of law by not requiring dismissal and DA Willis’ disqualification. This legal error requires the Court’s immediate review.”
After giving other reasons why an appeal is prudent, the lawyers explained that the trial court arrived at the wrong conclusion from the available facts. They argued, “the trial court expressly found DA Willis’s challenged actions, including hiring her paramour, Special Assistant District Attorney (“SADA”) Nathan Wade, as lead prosecutor in this matter, and accepting gifts and trips from him that were funded through his compensation as lead prosecutor, created an appearance of impropriety in this case that cast a pall over these entire proceedings . . .The trial court was bound by existing case law to not only require Wade’s disqualification (which occurred) but also to require the disqualification of DA Willis and her entire office. The trial court’s failure to do so is plain legal error requiring reversal.”
Summarizing their arguments in favor of appeal, the lawyers provided, “To avoid structural error that would invalidate and require a repeat of the upcoming trials, to establish needed precedent in the area of disqualifying forensic misconduct, and to protect and maintain the public’s confidence in the integrity of the criminal justice system, this Court should grant the Application.”
Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead counsel in the matter, said, in his statement on the appeal, “President Trump and eight other defendants filed their joint application for interlocutory appeal today. Defendants argued in the trial court that the indictment should have been dismissed and, at a minimum, DA Willis and her office should have been disqualified from prosecuting the case. The Georgia Court of Appeals should grant the application and accept the interlocutory appeal for consideration on the merits.”
Watch Willis claim she did nothing wrong here:
Featured image credit: Fani for DA Campaign site
"*" indicates required fields