Defendant in Georgia election case seeks dismissal due to prosecutor’s ’embarrassing’ error.
Apparent Paperwork Oversight Could Jeopardize Case Against Trump Co-Defendant
An apparent paperwork oversight in the Georgia election interference case against one of former President Donald Trump’s co-defendants may have serious implications. However, a former state prosecutor believes that the issue will likely be considered merely “embarrassing” by the presiding judge.
Qualified Prosecutor Issue
An attorney for Kenneth Chesebro argued that Fulton County special prosecutor Nathan Wade was never qualified under state law to present the case to the grand jury. This oversight, according to a motion to dismiss the charges, renders Wade’s work on the case, including the indictment against Chesebro, “void as a matter of law.”
Chesebro, who is also a lawyer, is accused of suggesting that the Trump campaign put forth a slate of “alternate electors” to prevent Joe Biden from winning the presidency in the 2020 election. However, it has been revealed that Wade, the lead counsel for the prosecution, failed to file the required oath of office paperwork before acting as a public officer before the grand jury.
Consequences of the Oversight
The motion argues that because Wade did not file the required oaths as mandated by law, any actions he took prior to filing the oath are considered void. This includes presenting the case to the grand jury and obtaining the indictment. Consequently, the motion asserts that the indictment itself must be dismissed.
Chesebro’s trial is scheduled to begin on October 23, unless this motion leads to its dismissal. However, former Georgia prosecutor Chris Timmons believes that the possibility of dismissal is remote.
Expert Opinion
Timmons stated, “If he was not sworn in, at worst it’s embarrassing for the Fulton County DA’s office but it would not affect the case.” He added that the Georgia Supreme Court has unanimously held that the presence of individuals who are not sworn assistant district attorneys at the grand jury does not invalidate a valid indictment.
The Fulton County DA’s office declined to comment on the matter. Chesebro’s attorneys have acknowledged that their client drafted “legal memos” outlining a strategy to create alternate electors but argue that he was acting as Trump’s lawyer at the time.
Chesebro and 18 others were indicted in August on various racketeering charges related to Trump’s alleged attempt to illegally retain power after losing the 2020 election to Biden. All defendants initially pleaded not guilty, although one has since accepted a plea deal.
Source: Georgia Election Case Defendant Seeks Dismissal Over Prosecutor’s ’Embarrassing’ Mistake
Originally published on The Western Journal.
What are the potential implications of Nathan Wade’s failure to file an oath of office with the clerk of court in the Chesebro case?
Of office with the clerk of court before presenting the case to the grand jury. This oversight raises questions about the validity of the entire legal process and puts the case against Chesebro in jeopardy.
Under Georgia law, before serving as a prosecutor, an individual is required to take an oath of office and file it with the clerk of court. This ensures that the prosecutor is qualified and has the legal authority to present cases before the grand jury. However, in this particular case, it appears that Nathan Wade failed to fulfill this requirement.
Chesebro’s attorney argues that this oversight renders Wade’s work on the case void. If the court agrees, it could lead to the dismissal of the charges against Chesebro and undermine the credibility of the entire prosecution. The defense team is basing their argument on a strict interpretation of the law and the importance of following proper procedure.
However, legal experts are divided on the potential outcome of this oversight. While Chesebro’s attorney believes that the case should be dismissed due to the procedural error, others argue that the judge is likely to consider it a mere technicality. They argue that the court may view the omission of filing the oath as an embarrassing oversight, but not one that impacts the validity of the case itself.
This disagreement highlights the complexity of legal proceedings and the subjectivity of judicial decisions. Ultimately, it will be up to the presiding judge to determine the significance of this paperwork oversight and its potential impact on the case against Chesebro.
The Chesebro case is closely linked to the broader investigation into alleged election interference in the 2020 presidential election. The accusation that Chesebro suggested the submission of alternate electors is part of the ongoing debate over the legitimacy of the election results.
The outcome of this case could have ramifications beyond Chesebro’s individual legal situation. It has the potential to influence public perception of the election and the credibility of the investigation into alleged interference. Therefore, it is crucial that the court carefully evaluates the apparent paperwork oversight and its implications for the case.
The Chesebro case serves as a reminder of the importance of attention to detail and adherence to legal procedures. Even a seemingly minor oversight can have significant consequences in a court of law. The outcome of this case will determine whether this paperwork error is considered a serious breach of procedure or simply an embarrassing mistake.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases
Now loading...