The judge in Trump’s Georgia election case limits the disclosure of evidence after videos’ release

14

In the ongoing case concerning election interference involving former President Donald Trump and others in Georgia, the presiding judge, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, issued a significant order on Thursday. This order restricts the public disclosure of specific evidence related to the case.

The decision comes in response to recent news reports and the release of video clips containing interviews conducted with four defendants who had reached plea deals with prosecutors. Judge McAfee’s rationale behind this order is to prevent unrestricted public dissemination of pretrial materials, which could potentially undermine the discovery process. During this phase, both sides exchange evidence, and allowing wide exposure to materials that might ultimately be deemed inadmissible at trial could prejudice potential jurors.

Judge McAfee emphasized the severity of harm in this case, given the extensive media coverage, which ensures broad distribution of any disclosed discovery materials.

Initially, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis sought an order to prohibit the disclosure of all evidence shared with the defense. However, during a remote hearing, prosecutors agreed to a more narrowly focused order proposed by one of the defendants. A coalition of news outlets, including The Big Big News, opposed any protective order during the hearing, arguing that it should only be imposed if a substantial threat of physical or economic harm to a witness could be demonstrated, which, they claimed, had not been met in this case.

Furthermore, Judge McAfee scheduled a hearing for the following Tuesday to consider Willis’ request to revoke the bond of defendant Harrison Floyd, who is required to attend. Willis alleged that Floyd had been attempting to intimidate and communicate with witnesses and other defendants, violating the conditions of his bond agreement. Floyd’s lawyer, Chris Kachouroff, countered that Willis’ motion lacked merit.

To provide context, in August, Trump and 18 others were charged with participating in a scheme aimed at illegally maintaining Trump’s presidency after his 2020 loss to Democrat Joe Biden. Four individuals have pleaded guilty through deals with prosecutors, while the remaining 15 have entered not guilty pleas. As of now, no trial date has been set.

Judge McAfee’s order instructs prosecutors to review their discovery materials and designate certain items as “sensitive materials” that should not be disclosed. Defendants will have a 14-day window to contest these designations after receiving the discovery. If the two sides cannot agree on whether disclosure is appropriate, the judge will make the final decision. Importantly, the protective order does not cover information or records that are publicly available, acquired by the defendants through other means, or presented as evidence in another court proceeding.

In a related development, defense attorney Jonathan Miller, representing former Coffee County elections director Misty Hampton, disclosed that he had released the interview videos to a single media outlet, although he did not specify which one. The Washington Post and ABC News subsequently reported on the content of these videos. These interviews, referred to as proffers, provided insight into the potential testimony of the four individuals who pleaded guilty: lawyers Sidney Powell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis, along with bail bondsman and Trump supporter Scott Hall. Miller argued that the interviews with Powell and Hall could be beneficial to his client and asserted the public’s right to access this information.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Election Interference Case

More about Election Interference Case

• Trump and 18 others charged in wide-ranging scheme
• Judge’s order aims to maintain trial fairness
• Media coverage of pretrial materials
• Prosecution’s initial request and subsequent agreement
• News outlets’ opposition to the protective order
• Background of the Trump Georgia election case
• Handling of sensitive materials under the order
• Scope of the protective order
• Insight from the interviews called proffers