Fulton County DA Fudges Case Law in the Trump RICO prosecution

Inside baseball, but it matters

The RICO prosecution against Trump and others was always seen as the weakest case, even by Never Trump lawyers. When the indictment hit, I saw many of them wince. They knew the case was going to backfire. Today shows why.

Speedy Trials.

Numerous defendants have demanded what’s known as their right to a speedy trial. Judges in DC in the January 6th cases have suspended this right, except to use it to force Trump to a face trial sooner than he can prepare for. Hence why a lot of people are confused about this important constitutional right.

Every criminal defense lawyer will tell you that, “Delays inure to the benefit of a defendant.” By the time a prosecutor indicts someone, the case is ready for trial. Prosecutors have all of the evidence. They have every advantage.

Defendants are the ones who want to take as much time as humanly possible to review the files and think about each and every angle of the case. Holding all of the cards, prosecutors want to rush cases to trial.

Some of this may be “inside baseball,” and it’s important.

Under Georgia law, criminal defendants have a strict and strong right to get the case to trial in a timely manner. There’s no indication that judges will ignore this right, as they are doing in J6 cases in DC.

Trump defendants demand a speedy trial, DA Fani Willis makes up case law.

Since the case in Georgia is weak, and will likely not be upheld on appeal if a conviction occurs, multiple Trump defendants want to get this over with. Go to trial, get the appellate process rolling. They have invoked their speedy trial rights.

In response, Willis is issuing threats. She cites two cases in support of her threats and abuse of office.

In a filing from today, she states the following:

THE PROCEDURAL POSTURE OF THE CASE HAS BEEN DICTATED BY DEFENDANTS' SPEEDY TRIAL DEMANDS As will be delineated infra, under Georgia law, the Defendants' decision to file a speedy trial demand limits certain of their options in this case, namely:

The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State's discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial. Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88, 90 (2002); Ruff v. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 695 (2004);

I read those cases.

Willis cites Smith v. State, 257 Ga. App. 88 (2002) for the claim that, “The Defendants cannot now argue that they are entitled to the State's discovery responses ten (10) days in advance of trial.” That’s not what the case said or was even about!

In Smith, defendant invoked his right to a speedy trial. He regretted the decision. He wanted to get the case continued. The judge denied his request. Smith appealed. The appellate court said that the judge had the discretion to deny a continuance.

Willis also cited Ruff v. State, 266 Ga. App. 694, 695 (2004) in her filing. Guess what? That case doesn’t support her assertion.

Willis’ theory in the Trump case relies on the artifice that a lie to a public official when committed by an organization is RICO.

Willis has used her office to inaccurately describe case law.

Is it RICO mugshot time for her?

Of course we all know this case is a farce.

The regime knows it’s a farce.

The regime’s gambit it that raw power matters more than legitimacy - and they may be right.