A co-defendant in the election interference case against former President Donald Trump and more than a dozen others is set to present arguments in the Georgia State Court of Appeals, which could potentially lead to the dismissal of the charges brought by Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

Dubbed “The Fulton 19,” the group faces indictments for alleged election interference, but they are contesting Willis’s jurisdiction, citing a conflict of interest, which they argue should disqualify her from the case, potentially leading to their exoneration, reports said.

“It’s a win for Trump’s legal team, which appealed the ruling and has successfully used delay tactics in the four criminal cases against him while he campaigns for a second term,” Axios reported. “Trump and multiple co-defendants have argued that Willis’ relationship with then-special prosecutor Nathan Wade caused a conflict of interest. Willis has blasted the accusations as politically motivated.”

Harrison Floyd, a former Trump campaign employee and one of the 19 defendants, has posed a jurisdictional challenge at the center of the controversy. Floyd’s attorney contends that the state election board holds primary jurisdiction over election-related violations, not Willis’s office. They argue that Willis overstepped her authority by pursuing the indictments, potentially resulting in fragmented or duplicate prosecutions.

Advertisement

Presiding over the case, Judge Scott McAfee rejected Floyd’s motion challenging Willis’s jurisdiction but granted it for immediate review by the Georgia Court of Appeals. If the appellate court supports Floyd, Willis’s case may collapse, leaving her vulnerable to civil rights lawsuits due to the absence of proper jurisdiction.

According to Floyd’s attorney, Chris Kachouroff, a ruling in Floyd’s favor by either the Georgia Court of Appeals or the Georgia Supreme Court would signify that Fani Willis indicted the defendants without proper jurisdiction. Such a decision would not only result in Willis’s entire case collapsing “like a house of cards,” but it would also remove her legal immunity. This could potentially subject Willis and Fulton County to multimillion-dollar civil rights lawsuits from the defendants, as explained by The Federalist.

“President Trump looks forward to presenting interlocutory arguments to the Georgia Court of Appeals as to why the case should be dismissed and Fulton County DA Willis should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unjustified, unwarranted political persecution,” Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in the case, said in a statement, per Axios.

Adding to the pressure on Willis is an appeal lodged by Trump and several co-defendants, alleging that Willis’s romantic involvement with now-former special prosecutor Wade constitutes a significant conflict of interest. McAfee previously determined that while the relationship raised “an appearance of impropriety,” Willis could proceed with prosecuting the case if Wade resigned.

Upon Wade’s resignation, Willis was allowed to continue, but Trump’s legal team maintains that her entire office should have been disqualified from the prosecution to guarantee impartiality. Steve Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in the case, criticized McAfee’s decision, saying 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.

If the appellate court concludes that Willis lacks jurisdiction, the entire indictment could be invalidated, potentially freeing Trump and his co-defendants from further legal troubles and exposing Willis to lawsuits, the outlet noted further, The Federalist noted further.

In March, McAfee quashed six counts against Trump and his 18 co-defendants, ruling that there is not sufficient evidence of “solicitation of violation of oath by a public officer.”

“The Court’s concern is less that the state has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants — in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned opinion, fatal,” McAfee wrote, according to Fox News.

Advertisement