DA Fani Willis Asks Georgia Supreme Court to Put Her Back on the Trump Case



The GA Supreme Court does NOT have to take her appeal

She's asking the court to hear her appeal on a discretionary basis

Questions Presented:

Did the Court of Appeals err in disqualifying a district attorney, divesting her of her constitutional authority to investigate and prosecute crimes, based solely upon an appearance of impropriety and absent a finding of an actual conflict of interest or forensic misconduct?

She says the Court of Appeals got it wrong by making new precedent, as opposed to following established precedent

(Note: In fact, the Court of Appeals got it right)

Assuming arguendo that an actual conflict of interest or actual impropriety is not required to authorize disqualification, did the Court of Appeals err in substituting the trial court’s discretion with its own and becoming the first Georgia court to reverse a trial court’s order declining to disqualify a district attorney based solely upon an appearance of impropriety

"The State thus submits that the majority below erred in reversing the trial court’s order declining to disqualify the District Attorney, a constitutional officer, based solely upon appearances, as well as in rejecting the trial court’s remedy without identifying an abuse of discretion"

Note: they are getting a lot of this argument from the single-judge dissent in the Court of Appeals

No Georgia court has ever identified or applied a standard for disqualification unique to prosecutors. No Georgia court has ever disqualified a district attorney for the mere appearance of impropriety without the existence of an actual conflict of interest

Note: while this may be true, it does not mean the appeals court was wrong. There is a first time for everything

She's complaining that the Court of Appeals created legal precedent.

On the first day of law school, we learned that's why we have courts of appeal

That's always where case precedent comes from

She notes that case precedent says:

"disqualification as an extraordinary remedy that should be granted sparingly"

Well, actually the Court of Appeals agreed and said this IS the rare case where disqualification is necessary

Basically she's complaining that the trial court did not make a finding of an actual conflict of interest, rather it found an appearance of impropriety...

And let's not forget the "odor of mendacity"

The Court of Appeals said this:

While we recognize that an appearance of impropriety generally is not enough to support disqualification, this is the rare case in which disqualification is mandated and no other remedy will suffice to restore public confidence in the integrity of these proceedings

Willis argues - weakly - that the court of appeals was wrong because it did not provide much analysis to explain their central holding

In conclusion, she again wants the Supreme Court to adopt the dissent from the Court of Appeals

The majority opinion in this case, as correctly described by Judge Land’s vehement dissent, fails to respect either the binding authority of Georgia’s appellate courts or the unique discretion afforded to Georgia’s trial courts. It announces a new standard without explaining how it works or what authorizes its implementation

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)