The appeals court decision overturns a March ruling by trial judge Scott McAfee. The Fulton Superior Court judge ruled that while he did not condone Willis’ “enormous error of judgment,” the defense could not prove that the prosecutor had an actual conflict of interest. He instead said Willis could stay on in the election if Wade resigned, which Marietta’s attorney did a few hours later.

Just hours after the decision was released, the DA’s office announced its intention to appeal to the state Supreme Court. A spokesman declined further comment.

The appeals court’s decision is a blow to Willis, a Democrat and one of the country’s best-known prosecutors, who sought a second term last month against a relatively inexperienced Republican opponent. It could also be the death knell for the fourth and final case that led to criminal charges against Trump after he left office in January 2021.

The underlying case technically remains alive. The appeals court rejected a separate request from several other defendants to dismiss the charges entirely. Even if Willis’ office is removed, another prosecutor’s office could be brought in to take over, although many prosecutors’ allies fear the case would effectively stall if that happens.

Trump celebrated the verdict on Thursday, telling Fox News Digital that “everyone should receive an apology, including the wonderful patriots who have been implicated in this for years.” His lead Atlanta attorney, Steve Sadow, said in a statement that the Decision “puts an end to a politically motivated persecution of the next President of the United States.”

Different opinions

In his majority opinion, Brown wrote that McAfee’s appeal “did nothing to eliminate the appearance of impropriety that existed at a time when Attorney General Willis exercised her broad pretrial discretion over whom to prosecute and what charges to bring.”

While the majority recognizes that “an appearance of impropriety is generally not sufficient to justify disqualification, this is the rare case where disqualification is ordered and no other remedy is sufficient to restore public confidence in the integrity of this process.” .”

Land’s dissent criticized the majority for not turning to McAfee, who oversaw a hearing on the matter in February, assessed the credibility of witnesses and weighed all the evidence. Land noted that McAfee found that the defendants failed to prove that Willis actually had a conflict of interest, benefited financially from her relationship with Wade, or that their partnership actually had an impact on the case.

ExploreTimeline of allegations against Fulton DA Fani Willis

But the majority found “for the first time in our state’s history” that the appearance of impropriety was enough to reverse McAfee’s refusal to disqualify Willis and her office, he wrote.

“When a prosecutor, as here, has no actual conflict of interest and the trial court … rejects allegations of actual impropriety, we have no authority to reverse the trial court’s denial of a motion to disqualify,” Land wrote. “Nobody.”

Land said if McAfee had disqualified Willis at his own discretion, this would be a different case.

“But that is not the remedy that the trial court chose, and I believe our jurisprudence prohibits us from rejecting that remedy simply because we don’t like it or because we might have gone further if we had been the judge.” , wrote Land.

All three justices were appointed by Republican governors.

What happens next?

Trump’s re-election has already ended the two previous federal criminal cases against him, one involving confidential documents and the other involving his efforts to remain in power after the 2020 election.

It is a longstanding policy of the U.S. Department of Justice that sitting presidents do not face federal prosecution.

Because the Fulton case is a state rather than federal case, Trump could not stop the prosecution, although constitutional law experts doubt that state prosecutors would be able to prosecute Trump until after he leaves the White House.

Trump was also convicted earlier this year of 34 felonies related to hush money payments to a porn star in the run-up to the 2016 election. After the Nov. 5 election, a Manhattan judge paused in sentencing Trump.

If Willis’ disqualification stands, jurisdiction over the Trump case will shift to a nonpartisan state agency, the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia, known as the PAC, which will have to decide who to assign it to next.

Pete Skandalakis, the PAC’s executive director, said he was still reviewing Thursday’s statement, but it could be a while, if ever, before his organization takes action on the case. It could take weeks or months for the expected appeals to be implemented.

“When the case comes to us, we begin the search for a conflict prosecutor,” he said.

It’s unclear whether there are other prosecutors across the state who would raise their hand to take on the election case, given the resources and time required to bring such a complex case to trial. Not only that, but the notoriety and threats Willis has received in recent years – she travels around the clock and as recently as October testified at the sentencing of an Alabama man who threatened her and her family – will Doing this may be even more daunting for many.

Legacy Articles

The election interference case, which led to felony racketeering charges against Trump and 18 others in August 2023, is not only Willis’ highest profile but also an important part of her legacy. Taking the matter out of Willis’s hands not only greatly increases the likelihood that she will die before she goes to trial – it also represents a rebuke to her leadership at the helm of the state’s largest local prosecutor’s office.

The disqualification fight has effectively stalled the election case since January, preventing it from being heard before the presidential election, as prosecutors had originally hoped.

Instead, Willis battled salacious allegations about her personal life for months. It all culminated in a dramatic hearing in February, at which Willis and Wade gave sworn testimony and at times seemed like a telenovela.

The motion to disqualify was originally filed by Marietta attorney Ashleigh Merchant, who represents defendant Michael Roman, a former Trump campaign staffer.

While she praised the court’s decision Thursday, Merchant said Willis should have recused himself from the case when the damaging allegations first surfaced in January.

“The failure of the verdict is the exact reason Mr. Roman was forced to disqualify her in the first place. Therefore, we are grateful that the court agreed that she should not be allowed to pursue this case further,” Merchant said.

Roman is one of Trump’s 14 remaining co-defendants, which also includes former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Mark Meadows, Trump’s former chief of staff.

The appeals court’s decision will apply to everyone, said Don Samuel, who represents another defendant, attorney Ray Smith.

In total, nine of the defendants had pushed for Willis’ removal, while six had not.

“If a prosecutor is disqualified for impropriety, that applies to the entire case,” Samuel said.

Sensational decision

The ruling is undoubtedly the most high-profile ruling for Georgia’s typically under-the-radar appeals court, which is one of the busiest of its kind in the country.

According to legal observers who follow the court closely, it takes an average of about eight and a half months from the filing of the case file – or official acceptance – to the decision. It was therefore remarkable that the judges had decided within about six months.

The decision comes a few weeks after the court abruptly canceled oral arguments on Dec. 5 without any explanation, surprising many of the attorneys involved. It is now clear that the judges made their decision based solely on legal briefs – well before their deadline in mid-March.

Land, Markle and Brown were randomly selected to hear the case through the court’s computer system.

The appeals court is still considering a separate cross-appeal in the election interference case. The court has until July to decide whether to reinstate six criminal charges that McAfee had struck from the indictment, as prosecutors requested, because they lacked sufficient detail.