The Georgia Court of Appeals ordered a temporary pause in the Fulton County case against Former President Donald Trump on Wednesday afternoon pending the court's ruling determining whether District Attorney Fani Willis can remain on the case following concerns about improper conduct related to her romantic and professional relationship with the special prosecutor she hired to handle the Trump case, Nathan Wade.
"The proceedings below in the Superior Court of Fulton County are hereby stayed pending the outcome of these appeals," the order states, listing Trump and eight of his co-defendants who sought to have Willis disqualified: Mike Roman, David Shafer, Bob Cheeley, Mark Meadows, Cathy Latham, Rudy Giuliani, Jeffrey Clark, and Harrison Floyd.
The Georgia Court of Appeals has ordered a stay of all proceedings in Fulton County against President Trump and the other defendants seeking to disqualify Fani Willis, pending the outcome of our appeal. pic.twitter.com/980amnGF61
— David Shafer (@DavidShafer) June 5, 2024
A three-judge panel on the Court of Appeals is "tentatively" scheduled to hear arguments on October 4, CBS News reported earlier this week, though the deadline for the court to issue its ruling is not until March 14, 2025.
As Mia reported last month, the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear Trump's appeal of a Fulton County judge's ruling that Willis would not be disqualified as long as Wade stepped down.
At the time the appeals court agreed to take the case, the former president's lead defense counsel Steve Sadow said Trump "looks forward to presenting interlocutory arguments to the Georgia Court of Appeals as to why the case should be dismissed and Fulton County DA Willis should be disqualified for her misconduct in this unjustified, unwarranted political persecution."
Recommended
The delay in the Fulton County case against Trump and his allies comes after the start of Trump's federal classified documents trial in Florida was indefinitely delayed by Judge Aileen Cannon in early May because the "finalization of a trial date at this juncture—before resolution of the myriad and interconnected pre-trial and CIPA issues remaining and forthcoming—would be imprudent and inconsistent with the Court’s duty to fully and fairly consider the various pending pre-trial motions before the Court, critical CIPA issues, and additional pretrial and trial preparations necessary to present this case to a jury."
Join the conversation as a VIP Member