Former President Donald Trump’s legal team has requested oral arguments in the Georgia Court of Appeals in their bid to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her office from prosecuting him in a case related to his attempts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in the state.
The Trump attorneys stated that it is uncertain if Fulton County will participate in oral arguments before the Georgia Court of Appeals, as they have not responded to their notifications. The Epoch Times reached out to Ms. Willis’s office for comment but did not receive a reply by the time this article was published.
Oral arguments in the case are tentatively set for October. In August, a Fulton County grand jury indicted former President Trump and 18 other individuals, accusing them of participating in an elaborate plan to unlawfully attempt to overturn the 2020 presidential election results in Georgia. Out of these defendants, four have pleaded guilty after reaching deals with prosecutors. However, the former president and the rest of the accused have pleaded not guilty.
When the Court of Appeals issued its decisions, a spokesperson for the District Attorney’s office declined to comment on the matter. The Trump team’s motion also mentioned a previous complaint filed by their attorneys that attempted to disqualify Ms. Willis based on comments she made at a church in January. They claim that her remarks introduced “race” into the case, which the District Attorney’s office has denied.
Earlier this year, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, who is overseeing the election-related case against former President Trump and his co-defendants, ruled that either Ms. Willis would have to step down or her special counsel, Nathan Wade, would have to resign. Mr. Wade resigned just hours after the order was issued.
The judge criticized Ms. Willis’s race-related comments at the church but did not opt to remove her from the case over the issue. In a June 10 filing, Trump attorney Mr. Sadow and his team urged for arguments before the Court of Appeals because “the time to get it right is important” and that “a failure to disqualify a prosecutor who should be disqualified is a structural error that can necessitate retrial without a showing of prejudice.
Furthermore, Mr. Sadow noted that this oversight could lead to multiple costly jury trials if not rectified beforehand. He emphasized the importance of maintaining public faith in the criminal justice system, especially in high-profile cases involving former presidents who are also leading presidential candidates.
Oral argument is therefore warranted,” Mr. Sadow said.