Folks have been asking me, since this story broke, "Why is Fani Willis waiting until at least July 11 to announce her charging decision?" That's a reasonable question--and I *think* there's a logical explanation. 1/
Recall that last week, Willis's office moved to disqualify a lawyer representing 10 of Georgia's fake electors. They had two grounds: First, that she did not, contrary to representations by her then-co-counsel, communicate immunity offers to certain of her clients. 2/
Second, they revealed that in meetings with prosecutors on 4/12 and 4/14, certain of that lawyer's clients accused another fake elector -- and fellow client -- of committing "acts that are violations of Georgia law." 3/
Because of the "impracticable and ethical mess" the lawyer created, the D.A.'s office has moved to disqualify her from representing ANY of the 10 electors, all of whom were notified last year they were targets of the investigation. 4/
That means 10 people -- some of whom remain targets, others of whom are cooperators or exploring cooperation -- likely need new lawyers. 5/
And here's where it gets really interesting: In Fulton County, GA, the terms of the court run for two months and begin each of the first Mondays in January, March, May, July, September, and November. 6/
And given that Willis does not know how soon a court will resolve the disqualification motion, she also might be hesitant to bring her case before a regular grand jury now. Once she starts, she has roughly eight weeks, and she can't afford to blow it. 7/
My guess, therefore, is that Willis remains confident in her case and eager to move forward, but for this new wrinkle that might not be solved within the week--but should be in the rear-view mirror by July 11. FIN
p.s. Are you a Georgia criminal defense practitioner or law professor? I'd love to hear from you. Please weigh in!
p.p.s. Help us, @AnnaBower. You're our only hope (of *truly* understanding what went down today in Fulton County).
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
NEW on CARROLL: Last week, Carroll's lawyers -- after reviewing the portions of her deposition transcript designated by Trump for use at trial -- asked the court to block their use. Why? Because they suspected he intended to use them to highlight her sexual history. 1/
And under a federal evidentiary rule, that's generally prohibited unless the party introducing that evidence affirmatively asks for permission AND shows the evidence would be more helpful to the jury than prejudicial to the witness/accuser. 2/
Tonight, the court granted Carroll's motion "for the obvious reason that defendant should not be permitted to violate the rule." But given Tacopina's lack of specificity about "the evidence he proposes to elicit and the arguments he proposes to make," that's not the end of it. 3/
NEW IN CARROLL: Remember when just yesterday Team Trump tried *a second time* to block another Trump accuser's testimony because he never got further than forcibly kissing her? So does the judge. 1/
In a new order, the court has denied the request. Not only is Trump asking for reconsideration of a prior ruling long past the deadline, but he hasn't shown the court overlooked facts or law. Nor has he provided other information justifying "relief from the prior decision." 2/
The bottom line? Natasha Stoynoff, who has accused Trump of a 2005 attempted sexual assault, can testify--and Tacopina strikes out again. 3/
NEW: Joe Tacopina has a new request in the E. Jean Carroll case, again trying to revisit an issue Judge Lew Kaplan has already decided. The subject? Whether Trump's forced kissing of another woman after pushing her against a wall is enough to warrant her testimony. 1/
Because, in a later interview by Plaintiff's counsel, that witness maintained that what happened did not go beyond the forced kissing/grabbing of her shoulders, Tacopina wants to examine her privately before she gets on the witness stand. 2/
And if Trump's conduct did not involve the groping or attempting groping of her genitalia -- his words, not mine -- they want her testimony excluded, as if forced kissing and holding a woman against a wall is not relevant. FIN
The stay granted tonight in the mifepristone case lasts up through and including any appeal to SCOTUS. And that means, while mifepristone remains on the market, the litigation will continue . . . potentially well into 2024. 1/
Let's play it out: The Fifth Circuit, which, per usual and tonight's stay, will hear the merits appeal, has already scheduled oral argument on 5/17. Even if the three-judge panel rules quickly, an opinion won't likely emerge before the end of the Supreme Court's term. 2/
The losing parties in the Fifth Circuit will surely petition for cert (aka the process of asking the Supreme Court to hear a case). But even if granted over the summer, argument can't happen any earlier than October, when the Supreme Court reconvenes for its 2023 term. 3/
p.s. While Trump was ordered to tell Judge Kaplan today whether he intends to attend part or all of the Carroll trial, he won’t give the judge a straight answer. (And if you’re not a lawyer, let me translate: That’s not going to go over well. At all.)
Judge Kaplan asked the question because he recognizes that while having Trump in the courthouse is both doable and safe, it would require some degree of pre-planning. And by ordering that Trump give him an answer by today, he was giving himself & the court time to plan. 2/
Notice he ordered the parties answer him 5 days in advance of trial; that’s within the same time frame that the Manhattan DA and N.Y. criminal courts had to plan for Trump’s indictment, which went off without incident. 3/
NEW: SDNY Judge Lew Kaplan tells Trump he won’t tell the jury Trump is “excused” from attending the E. Jean Carroll trial. Trump is neither obligated to attend in the first place nor are Trump, the Secret Service, & U.S. Marshals unable to plan for and handle his attendance. 1/
That Kaplan won’t give Trump’s desired instruction is not a surprise. But his one-page memo order is filled with zingers: Trump has known about the 4/25 trial date since early February; adequate arrangements for his safety can be made in the “very secure” federal courthouse. 2/
And while Kaplan would not take the bait Carroll’s legal team dangled abojt Trump having both the time and the ability to attend UFC championships & NRA conventions, he did note Trump’s planned 4/27 campaign event in NH. 3/