Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ office has requested the Georgia appeals court to refrain from considering the defendants’ appeal regarding her involvement in the case against former President Donald Trump. In a filing on Monday, Willis emphasized that Judge Scott McAfee had determined there was insufficient evidence to prove any actual conflict of interest, leading to the decision to uphold the indictment.
McAfee’s ruling in March permitted Willis to continue on the case as long as special prosecutor Nathan Wade, with whom she had a relationship and was accused of benefiting financially from his appointment, recused himself. Willis maintained that the appeal merely reflects the defendants’ dissatisfaction with the legal application to the case’s circumstances.
“Days of evidence and testimony failed to disclose anything like a calculated pre-trial plan designed to prejudice the defendants or secure their convictions,” the filing states. “The applicants have not identified any public statement injecting the District Attorney’s personal belief as to the defendants’ guilt or appealing to the public weighing of evidence.”
NEW: The Fulton County district attorney’s office asks the Georgia Court of Appeals to refuse to consider Trump’s appeal of Judge McAfee’s decision not to disqualify Fani Willis.
Read the filing: https://t.co/jycHNCshCN
— Anna Bower (@AnnaBower) April 8, 2024
McAfee did not discover any evidence that the defendants were able to demonstrate an “actual” conflict of interest, but he did point out that there was a notable appearance of impropriety in the record. He also raised doubts about the accuracy of Willis’ and Wade’s statements regarding the timing of their relationship.
In late March, McAfee issued the defendants a certificate of review, allowing them to challenge his decision. Willis contended that the appeal should be dismissed since McAfee did not make any factual determination of false testimony or a false affidavit.
“In requesting a contrary finding on this issue, the applicants would have this Court invade the province of the trial court and make additional factual findings,” the filing said. “This it cannot do.”
