‘The lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal.’
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee on March 13 ruled on several demurrers, striking six counts from the 40-count indictment against former President Donald Trump and 14 codefendants.
The motions were brought by President Trump, attorneys Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman, and former White House chief-of-staff Mark Meadows.
Three of the quashed charges apply to President Trump, and throw out counts related to a phone call he made to the Georgia Secretary of State.
The indictment originally charged 19 defendants, four of whom have since taken plea bargains. All were charged with violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, as well various of 39 additional counts.
The ruling comes ahead of an expected decision this week on a motion to disqualify Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis from prosecuting the case.
Quashed Charges
The judge struck charges two, five, six, 23, 28, and 38 from the indictment. These counts are relating to soliciting officials to violate oaths of office, including via a phone call President Trump made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.
The counts alleged the defendants solicited members of the Georgia Senate, Georgia House, Georgia House Speaker, and Mr. Raffensperger to violate oaths of office in trying to certify alternate electors or “influence the certified election returns.”
This leaves only the RICO charge for Mr. Meadows, 10 counts for President Trump, 11 counts for Mr. Giuliani, and eight counts for Mr. Eastman.
The judge added that “these pleading deficiencies do not apply to the corresponding acts” listed in the RICO charge as part of an alleged conspiracy, but to stand as separate counts they needed to meet a higher statutory standard.
“A defendant can be found guilty of conspiracy even after acquittal of any overt acts alleged,” he wrote.
The RICO charge stands, and the indictment as a whole is not dismissed. The judge found that the defendants did not provide authority requiring the acts to be struck from the racketeering charge.
Read Full Article on TheEpochTimes.com
