The Trump Indictment: One Year Later

Initially, it seemed that the former President was headed up the river, and fast. Now, a year later, the case is basically on a slow boat to nowhere.

Shortly after the 2023 indictment, which charged the former President with rigging the 2020 election, four of the eighteen people charged along with Donald Trump in Georgia pleaded guilty to lesser charges after reaching plea deals with prosecutors.

Then, the wheels started falling off. First, in March 2023, Judge Scott McAfee dismissed six counts in the indictment, including three counts against Trump. Next, in January 2024, a lawyer for co-defendant Michael Roman claimed that Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis had improperly engaged in a romantic relationship with special prosecutor Nathan Wade.

Court documents alleged that Willis benefited financially from the case, since Wade used his earnings to take her on trips. Willis and Wade, who promptly resigned, acknowledged the relationship, but insisted they split travel and other costs.

During an extraordinary hearing, intimate details of Willis and Wade’s personal lives were aired in court and broadcast live on television. Judge McAfee chided Willis for a “tremendous lapse in judgment” but found no conflict of interest that merited her removal. Defense lawyers appealed that decision, and a ruling is expected by March 2025.

Pre-Filing Investigations

Cart-before-the-horse investigations are very common in Georgia criminal cases. For one reason or another, investigators unofficially target an individual and collect evidence that supports their agendas, instead of collecting evidence and allowing that evidence to dictate the course of the investigation.

This attitude isn’t limited to public figure lightning rods like Donald Trump. For example, if a man or woman is found dead, police officers often immediately suspect the husband or wife. Frequently, that hunch is correct. But that hunch also gives them tunnel vision as they collect evidence. As a result, they may rule out a reasonable alternative scenario

A reasonable alternative is usually the go-to defense for a Marietta criminal law attorney. Some people may remember the 2010 (or thereabouts) Casey Anthony case. When 2-year-old Caylee was found dead, authorities immediately suspected Casey, who wasn’t exactly mom of the year. Investigators relied on rather flimsy circumstantial evidence to indict her. At trial, her lawyer advanced the theory that Caylee fell into a swimming pool and drowned. Then, her panicked mother and/or grandparents hid the body.

Casey was convicted of some minor offenses such as hindering a police investigation, but she walked on the big one.

Indictments and Probable Cause

Almost any evidence is enough to indict almost anyone for anything. At the indictment phase, prosecutors must only establish probable cause, a much lower standard than beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, in most cases, a Marietta criminal defense lawyer cannot challenge the state’s evidence. Since the standard of evidence is low, and grand jurors must accept it at face value, the grad jury indictment rate is 99.9 percent.

If a grand jury indicts you, don’t panic. One-sided and weak circumstantial evidence may be enough to secure an indictment, but it often doesn’t hold up in court.

Shaky eyewitness accounts are a good example. The testimony of a nearsighted eyewitness secures an indictment, because prosecutors don’t mention the vision impairment issue. But in criminal court, things are different.

Inaccurate chemical tests are another example. When police officers seize drugs, they always testify that a “field test” proved the substance’s illegality. A field test is basically a sensory test (e.g. the substance looked and smelled like marijuana). A good Marietta criminal defense attorney always orders a scientific test to confirm the results. In the case of marijuana, this test is a THC content test which some smaller counties never perform. So, when this hypothetical case goes to trial, prosecutors cannot prove if the substance was illegal marijuana or legal hemp, as these two substances are physically identical.

Prosecutorial Misconduct

As in the above story, prosecutorial misconduct is rarely so bad that a judge will overturn a jury’s findings. There’s a strong presumption in criminal law that such action is a no-no. However prosecutorial misconduct casts the state in an unflattering light and often influences the jury’s decision.

Conflict of Interest

This conflict is occasionally political. Outspoken Republicans shouldn’t prosecute outspoken Democrats, or vice versa. Much more often, however, the conflict is personal or professional.

Racial animus is the most common personal conflict. In fact, if a Marietta criminal defense lawyer digs deep enough, the investigation almost always shows some animus, such as a liked Facebook post or forwarded Twitter message. At the very least, such investigations usually uncover indirect animus (e.g. Joe’s brother attended a white supremacist rally).

Disavowing the connection or leaving the organization doesn’t fix the problem, at least in the eyes of many jurors. If Fred resigns from the KKK, his opinion of nonwhite people most likely won’t change.

The personal conflict could be even more personal, although these conflicts often have a soap-opera quality. Amy shouldn’t supervise Mike’s domestic violence case if Mike is involved in divorce proceedings with Amy’s stepsister.

Professional conflict of interest is a little more common in white-collar crimes. Once again, several degrees of separation are usually involved (e.g. Raul’s neighbor is involved in a land deal with the defendant’s one-time business partner).

Failure to Timely Turn Over Evidence

Under state law, prosecutors must turn over certain evidence in their possession to Marietta criminal defense lawyers, normally at least ten days before trial.

Initially, the Brady rule (which is named after a Supreme Court case od the same name) only applied if the defendant made a pretrial request for specific information, and the prosecution denied that request. The Supremes later eliminated this requirement and stated that the prosecution has a constitutional duty to disclose all material, favorable information in their possession to defendants regardless of whether it is requested.

If a Brady rule violation is discovered during trial, the court can either declare a mistrial or prohibit the prosecution from using evidence. Violations of the Brady rule are typically only discovered after the defendant is convicted. As a result, the most common outcome of a Brady rule violation is overturning that conviction. The Brady rule might also apply to voluntary pleas, but the law is uncertain.

Pretrial errors usually create issues later. For a free consultation with an experienced Marietta criminal law attorney, contact The Phillips Law Firm, LLC. The sooner you reach out to us, the sooner we start working for you.