Donald J. Trump and other appellants in the alleged 2020 election interference case can breathe a sigh of relief today as the Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that District Attorney Fani Willis and her entire office must be disqualified from the case. Thursday’s ruling is another significant legal victory for Trump, who has been beleaguered by what he and many Americans believe to be frivolous lawsuits from a politicized Department of Justice (DoJ).

The Court of Appeals stopped short of dismissing the case altogether, arguably leaving the case in legal limbo. In its decision, the court cited State v. Lampl, which states that “[D]ismissal of an indictment… [is] and extreme sanction[], used only sparingly… for unlawful conduct.” Notably, the court repeatedly emphasized that disqualification due to a significant appearance of impropriety” is “rare” but appropriate in this case because of potential damage to public confidence if the ruling be allowed to stand.

“After carefully considering the trial court’s findings in its order, we conclude that it erred by failing to disqualify DA Willis and her office. The remedy crafted by the trial court to prevent an ongoing appearance of impropriety did nothing to address the appearance of impropriety that existed at times when DA Willis was exercising her broad pretrial discretion about who to prosecute and what charges to bring. While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings.”

The appellants in the case were charged by the state “in a [98]-page indictment with RICO violations and other crimes in connection with an alleged conspiracy to unlawfully change the outcome of the 2020 presidential election,” according to Thursday’s ruling.

Trump and others in the case argued that DA Fani Willis should be disqualified and the case dismissed.  Defendants in the case argued before the trial court that there was “an appearance of impropriety” due to her alleged romantic relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade. While trial court Judge Scott McAfee did not find sufficient evidence of an actual conflict of interest regarding Willis’ relationship with Wade, he acknowledged “a significant appearance of impropriety” given the nature of the relationship.

McAfee did state that the appearance of impropriety could potentially undermine public confidence in the fairness of the prosecution. McAfee added, “However, an odor of mendacity remains,” because of “untruth[ful]” testimony from Wade about the “timing of their relationship.”

The trial court also rejected claims of financial misconduct and other allegations of improper conduct, stating they were insufficient to warrant disqualification. Specifically, McAfee found “based largely on the District Attorney’s testimony, that the evidence demonstrated that the financial gain flowing from her relationship with Wade was not a motivating factor on the part of the District Attorney to indict and prosecute this case.” Judge McAfee gave Willis or Wade the option to withdraw from the case. Willis refused to leave but Wade resigned.

Margot Cleveland provides valuable background on the case, explaining that Judge McAfee “focused only on the conflict-of-interest issue” using Georgia law as a basis for his ruling.

Cleveland also reminds us that under Georgia law “disqualification is appropriate for a ‘prosecutor’s forensic misconduct,’ which, generally defined, is ‘any activity by the prosecutor which tends to divert the jury from making its determination of guilt or innocence by weighing the legally admitted evidence in the manner prescribed by law.’”

Defendants in the case sought to disqualify Willis, Cleveland continues, by “highlighting her many public statements that seek to try the defendants in the court of public opinion. The motions to disqualify point to Willis’ speech in a church soon after news broke of her affair with Wade, and her attempt to frame the attacks on her and Wade as racist.”

Defendants also highlighted the fact that Willis called them “fake electors in the press,” which arguably was a “term that is both legally inaccurate and prejudicial.” Finally, Cleveland points out that Willis “engaged in forensic misconduct by providing the authors of the book Find Me The Votes: A Hard-Charging Georgia Prosecutor, a Rogue President, and the Plot to Steal an American Election access to information related to the criminal case. That book, published last month, included details from the authors’ extensive interviews with Willis.”

These issues argued by the defendants seem to point to convincing evidence that Willis should have been disqualified by law for attempting to argue her case in the court of public opinion assisted by a willing and politicized press.

Image: Defense Visual Information Distribution Service