Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis has firmly contested former President Donald Trump’s latest attempt to remove her from his racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case, urging an appeals court to reject the defense’s appeal.
In a 19-page response filed on Monday, April 8, Willis presented a compelling argument to the Georgia Court of Appeals, emphasizing that the defense’s application for review lacked substance.
She asserted that the trial court’s decision to retain her on the case was well-founded and based on established legal principles.
The defense’s efforts to disqualify Willis from the case began in January, citing concerns over her prior romantic relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade.
While the court partially granted the motion to disqualify, it allowed the prosecution to choose which prosecutor to remove, leading to Wade’s subsequent resignation.
The defendants, however, contested the trial court’s approach to separating legal issues, claiming it constituted a legal error warranting reversal.
They based their appeal on the factual record established by Judge Scott McAfee, alleging forensic misconduct related to Willis’s public speech at Big Bethel A.M.E. Church in Atlanta.
Willis refuted these claims, arguing that the trial court’s findings were well-founded and rejecting the defense’s attempt to challenge them.
She emphasized that the alleged forensic misconduct did not influence the case’s integrity and that there was no factual basis for the defense’s assertions of false statements or lies.
Despite McAfee’s critical assessment of Willis’s speech, which he characterized as potentially stoking racial animus, the trial court found no grounds for disqualification based on the speech alone.
Willis contended that the defense’s attempt to discredit her lacked merit and amounted to mere disagreement with the trial court’s rulings.
“There being no error by the trial court, the present application merely reflects the applicants’ dissatisfaction with the trial court’s proper application of well-established law to the facts,” the state’s filing reads. “Because the applicants have wholly failed to carry their burden of persuasion, this Court should decline interlocutory review.”
Willis underscored the absence of any legal error on the part of the trial court and urged the appellate court to reject the defense’s appeal.
She spoke about the thoroughness of the trial court’s proceedings and asserted that the defense’s claims lacked substantive support.
The outcome of the appeal remains uncertain, but Willis’s steadfast defense of her position signals her determination to continue prosecuting the case with integrity and diligence.
