Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has filed a notice of cross appeal against a decision by Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to dismiss several charges against former President Donald Trump and other codefendants.
This appeal follows Judge McAfee’s ruling on March 13, which quashed six counts of the indictment against President Trump and others due to a lack of specificity in the charges.
The dismissed counts included allegations that President Trump and his codefendants solicited public officials to violate their oaths of office to unlawfully influence the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.
The State’s cross appeal, filed within the required 15-day window after the defendants’ initial notices of appeal, seeks to challenge Judge McAfee’s decision to quash the counts.
The notice of cross appeal was submitted by Ms. Willis along with Chief Senior Assistant District Attorney F. McDonald Wakeford and Deputy District Attorney John W. Wooten.
This notice is in response to the defendants’ appeal of an earlier decision in which Judge McAfee ruled not to disqualify Ms. Willis from the case over a romantic relationship with former special prosecutor Nathan Wade.
President Trump and the other defendants were granted a certificate of immediate review on March 20 by Judge McAfee to file an appeal and their application for an interlocutory appeal was approved by the Court of Appeals on May 8.
Defendants began filing their notices of appeal starting on May 10, which under state law then allowed the state to cross-appeal.
McAfee’s Dismissal of Some Charges
The judge struck six charges from the original indictment, which involved allegations of soliciting officials to violate oaths of office, including a call from President Trump to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.In his ruling at the time, Judge McAfee noted that while the indictment detailed the alleged conduct of the defendants, it failed to provide sufficient detail regarding the exact terms of the oaths that were allegedly violated.
The court emphasized that the lack of specificity regarding the underlying felonies solicited made it difficult for the defendants to prepare their defenses, as the alleged violations could encompass numerous constitutional provisions.
These counts alleged solicitation of Georgia Senate and House members, the Georgia House Speaker, and Mr. Raffensperger to certify alternate electors or influence election returns.
The remaining charges are the RICO charge for Mr. Meadows, 10 counts for President Trump, 11 for Mr. Giuliani, 10 for Mr. Smith, nine for Mr. Cheeley, and eight for Mr. Eastman.
The judge clarified at the time that “these pleading deficiencies do not apply to the corresponding acts” listed in the RICO charge. The RICO charge stands, and the indictment as a whole is not dismissed.
The judge noted the removal of these charges was necessary to protect due process rights.
The “oaths” in the charges were not “expressly prescribed,” as required by state law, making the charges too vague to stand separately. The officers’ different oaths made the omission of specific oaths “legally harmless,” but the indictment does not specify which parts of the oath were allegedly solicited to violate.
Charges referenced the U.S. and Georgia Constitutions, which the judge found too “generic” with “dramatically different” interpretations.
“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,” Judge McAfee wrote. “However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal.”
The judge did not dismiss all challenged charges, including the RICO count. Mr. Cheeley filed a special demurrer for count 23, but the judge found a link between the Georgia Senate and duties to appoint presidential electors.
In a footnote, the judge allowed prosecutors to seek indictment for the six counts again, with a six-month deadline to resubmit to a grand jury.
The state may seek review of Judge McAfee’s decision, “which the Court would likely grant due to the lack of precedential authority,” he noted.
