In a court filing this week in Georgia, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis said she wants all 19 defendants in her sprawling election interference indictment to be tried together. It’s hard to think that will happen.
Rather, it’s more a question of how splintered the case gets — and whether it’s tried in state court or federal court, or both.
Indeed, the subject that prompted Willis’ filing shows one of the reasons why all 19 defendants aren’t likely to be tried together. That is, her filing came after defendant Kenneth Chesebro, who wants a speedy trial, was given an October trial date without the judge officially separating — or “severing” — his case from the others.
So Willis asked for clarification as to whether Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee was severing Chesebro’s case from the others — and in the process, she stated her opposition to severance for any of the defendants and maintained that they should all be tried together.
But the fact that Chesebro’s trial is set for October is reason enough for him to be tried separately. Put differently, the judge most likely won’t force all 19 defendants, including former President Donald Trump, into a speedy trial that most of them haven’t asked for. As for Chesebro’s motion to sever, the judge effectively severed his case already in setting his trial for October, so it would be odd not to take the formal step of granting severance at this point.
Things start to get a little trickier with Sidney Powell — like Chesebro, a lawyer charged in the racketeering case — who not only wants a speedy trial but also wants to sever her case from those of the other defendants. That raises the question of whether she’ll be tried alongside Chesebro.
But, however the judge resolves what could be the first of multiple trials, don’t expect a 19-defendant trial in October. In fact, don’t expect a 19-defendant trial at any point, whether due to severance, pleas or any number of issues that can easily complicate a case with nearly 20 defendants. The plot thickens even further with the pending litigation over where the case gets tried — at the federal level or in state court. The plot thickens even further with the pending litigation over where the case gets tried — at the federal level or in state court. Former Trump White House chief of staff Mark Meadows has a pending effort on that score, trying to “remove” his case to federal court. After additional briefing on the issue was filed Thursday, the judge could rule on the issue soon. And if a federal judge grants removal for Meadows or anyone else, another open question is what it would mean for the rest of the defendants — that is, whether the whole case gets tried federally or the defendants get further broken up across multiple trials in state and federal court. Either way, it’s important to remember that getting a state case removed to federal court doesn’t make it a federal case that a president could pardon — it’s just a state case that, under a fairly unusual procedural mechanism, would then proceed in federal court. But if you’re wondering how the trials could proceed in this complex prosecution overall, here’s one way to think of it: There’s not going to be one 19-defendant trial, and there aren’t going to be 19 single-defendant trials.
Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro," a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.
Latest Post
Recommended
