The Fulton County District Attorney’s Office has moved to dismiss an appeal filed by former President Donald Trump in the suspended Georgia racketeering (RICO) and election subversion case.
The appeal challenges Chief Prosecutor Fani Willis’ alleged conflict of interest due to her relationship with Special Assistant District Attorney Nathan Wade, who leads the state’s prosecution team.
In a motion filed on Wednesday night in the Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia, Fulton Chief Senior Assistant District Attorney Donald Wakeford argued that the appeal should not proceed.
He asserted that the trial court’s factual findings did not support claims that Willis benefited financially from the case through her personal connection with Wade, whom she appointed.
Wakeford’s motion stressed further that the trial court’s careful evaluation of evidence and its dismissal of key arguments raised by Trump and other defendants.
He stated that appellate courts in Georgia are typically reluctant to overturn such factual determinations unless they are clearly erroneous.
The legal battle, which has seen multiple delays, reached a recent pause when the Georgia Court of Appeals stayed proceedings pending the outcome of these appeals.
This decision, following a previous ruling by Fulton Superior Judge Scott McAfee, marked a setback for Willis, who opposed the appellate court’s intervention.
As both sides prepare to submit additional motions and briefs, the case’s future remains uncertain.
If Willis continues on the case, the defense is likely to appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Conversely, her removal could lead to further legal complications or appeals, extending the already prolonged judicial process.
The motion challenging Willis’ role in the case was initiated by attorney Ashleigh Merchant on behalf of Michael Roman, a former senior staffer in Trump’s 2020 reelection campaign.
The allegations against Roman and others involved in the electors scheme have significantly impacted the case’s timeline and judicial proceedings.
The complex legal battle underscores the ongoing controversies surrounding prosecutorial independence and conflicts of interest in high-profile cases like this one.
