The legal team representing former President Donald Trump says they feel they have finally found the “death knell” for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ case against the GOP presidential nominee. Which is good news for both Trump and his supporters as the election is rapidly drawing near and thee attempts being made by the left to weaponize the legal system are, for the most part, failing. And these failures are doing a whole lot more to expose liberals than damaging the former president. It’s got to be maddening for the progressives who have poured everything into taking down Trump watching all of their efforts exploding in their faces.
Andrew Stanton of Newsweek reported that one of Trump’s lawyers, Steven Sadow, made the case that the election interference case brought against his client by Willis, should be tossed out immediately due to the district attorney being prejudiced against Trump. This information was contained in a new court filing from Monday.
Willis, a Democrat, is leading the prosecution in the case, which alleges that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election results in Georgia, a swing state that narrowly backed President Joe Biden four years ago. Her probe focuses on his call to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in which Trump urged him to “find” enough votes to tilt the election in his favor, as well as an alleged plot to submit a false slate of pro-Trump electors to the Electoral College.
Willis’ handling of the case has come under scrutiny. She has faced criticism for a speech at an Atlanta church in January in which she suggested she was targeted because of her race. While Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the case, has described the speech as “improper,” he has ruled it was not sufficient to remove her from the case. Sadow wrote that he has found a “death knell” for Willis, citing an opinion from former Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Nelson Hill that he believes would support dropping the case.
“[B]efore a trial, the court should be sensitive to the potential for prejudice to the defendant. I believe that a trial court should disqualify the state’s attorney if his continued presence in the case would cause a reasonable potential for prejudice to the defendant,” Hill went on to write. “A reasonable potential for prejudice standard would rigorously protect defendants. It would not require a showing of actual, or likely, harm. Rather, the trial court would focus on the possibility of an unfair trial. Yet, this rule would place the burden on defendants of demonstrating some real, not imagined, chance of prejudice.'”
The opinion issued by Hill came from a case that was tried in 1981. Sadow claimed the state improperly relied on a dissent from the Georgia Supreme Court’s 1988 case Williams v. State.
“Here, even Hill’s ‘reasonable potential for prejudice’ pretrial standard is
easily met,” Sadow wrote. “With nationwide slanderous media coverage on every available network, appellants have shown that there is not only a ‘real chance,’ but a substantial probability, for unfair treatment during the trial process,” he explained.
As of this writing, Willis herself has not responded to the filing. She’s continually denied that previous comments she made have revealed a prejudice against the former president.
In a filing mad earlier in the case, Willis’ office said, “The District Attorney did not express any personal opinions regarding a defendant’s guilt or discuss the actual substance of the present case at all. She did not ‘mention any Defendant by name,’ did not ‘address the merits of the indicted offenses in an effort to move the trial itself to the court of public opinion.'”
"*" indicates required fields
