Attorney Steven Sadow said revelations about Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis' remarks are the “death knell” for the Georgia election interference case against former President Donald Trump, Newsweek reported. In a filing Monday, Sadow asserted that Willis made statements that could prejudice jurors against Trump.
Trump has been accused of attempting to subvert the 2020 presidential election. He allegedly called Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger and ordered him to "find votes" that would give the state's electoral college votes to Trump.
However, the case could be in jeopardy with Willis at the helm. As Trump's attorneys have argued, there is evidence that Willis has made prejudicial remarks against Trump while pursuing legal action against him.
Sadow believes that an opinion from Georgia Supreme Court Justice Harold Nelson Hill suggests that Trump's defense has a point. Willis had made false claims of racism while speaking to a church in January that could jeopardize the jury.
Sadow believes that Hill provided the rationale for dismissing Trump's case in a 1981 opinion. "[B]efore a trial, the court should be sensitive to the potential for prejudice to the defendant," Hill said at the time.
"I believe that a trial court should disqualify the state's attorney if his continued presence in the case would cause a reasonable potential for prejudice to the defendant. A reasonable potential for prejudice standard would rigorously protect defendants," Hill added.
"It would not require a showing of actual, or likely, harm. Rather, the trial court would focus on the possibility of an unfair trial. Yet, this rule would place the burden on defendants of demonstrating some real, not imagined, chance of prejudice,'" Hill said.
Sadow thinks this is easily proven in Trump's case, though the judge in Trump's case incorrectly relied on a later decision in Williams v. State in 1988 to overlook Wills' conduct. "Here, even Hill's 'reasonable potential for prejudice' pretrial standard is easily met," Sadow wrote in the filing.
"With nationwide slanderous media coverage on every available network, appellants have shown that there is not only a 'real chance,' but a substantial probability, for unfair treatment during the trial process," he added. Willis has denied any prejudice, though she hasn't responded to the latest iteration of the charge from Sadow.
The speech Trump's defense referenced happened on Jan. 14 at the historically black Big Bethel AME Church in Atlanta, the New York Post reported. Willis addressed the congregation and attempted to explain away allegations about an improper relationship.
The co-defendants in Trump's case outed Willis' affair with Nathan Wade, a special prosecutor she hired for the case. In the course of that explanation, Willis implied that her critics were motivated by racism though she didn't mention Trump or his case by name.
"They only attacked one. First thing they say, ‘Oh, she’s gonna play the race card now,'" Willis told the congregation. "But no, God, isn’t it them that’s playing the race card when they only question one?"
Willis was already compromised because of her improper relationship with Wade. However, Trump's defense is correct that the case should be dismissed because she poisoned the well of potential jurors by making such remarks about racism.
