Judge denies Meadows’s motion to halt state conviction during federal appeal.
A Federal Judge Denies Mark Meadows’s Motion, Racketeering Prosecution Remains in State Court
In a significant development, a federal judge has denied Mark Meadows’s motion to temporarily stay an order remanding a racketeering prosecution to state court. This decision comes as Meadows appeals the case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit.
This ruling is a tactical victory for Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney Fani Willis, a Democrat who initiated the racketeering prosecution. The decision was made public on the morning of September 13.
This case has garnered significant attention as it marks the first time substantive arguments have been presented in court in any of the four criminal cases brought against former President Donald Trump and his co-defendants this year.
Related Stories
Some have compared Meadows’s motion for removal to federal court to a mini-trial for President Trump and his co-defendants. The outcome of Meadows’s case in federal court is seen as a bellwether for the future of the various Trump-related prosecutions.
Meadows, along with former President Donald Trump and 17 co-defendants, was indicted by a state grand jury in Fulton County, Georgia, on August 14. The charges stem from the former chief executive’s challenge to the election in Georgia.
Concerned that state prosecutors might secure a conviction before his federal appeals are heard, attorneys for Meadows filed an emergency motion in federal court on September 11. They argued that the trial in state court, scheduled for October 23, should be delayed.
Legal experts have questioned the need for such haste in the state-level trial. They argue that assembling a complex racketeering case within a compressed timetable will pose challenges for both the prosecution and the defense.
The motion followed a previous ruling by federal Judge Steve C. Jones, who stated on September 8 that he lacked jurisdiction to remove the state case to federal court. Judge Jones, a Democrat, was appointed by President Barack Obama in 2011.
In his defense, Meadows argues that he is immune to state prosecution because his actions in aiding President Trump’s election challenge were carried out in his official capacity as a federal officer. He claims to have federal defenses available to him.
Judge Jones ruled that some of the acts Meadows was accused of fell within the scope of his duties as a federal officer, while others did not. The judge also expressed concern over Meadows’s inability to explain the limits of his authority.
In a new 10-page ruling dated September 12, Judge Jones declined to grant the requested stay. He stated that Meadows failed to meet the elements required for a stay, including showing a likelihood of success on appeal and irreparable damage without a stay.
Meadows’s arguments in the motion were not different from those previously rejected by Judge Jones. Furthermore, the judge noted that it is uncertain whether Meadows will even be tried in October, as he claimed.
As the legal battle continues, the outcome of Meadows’s appeal to the 11th Circuit will have significant implications for the future of the racketeering prosecution and other Trump-related cases.
" Conservative News Daily does not always share or support the views and opinions expressed here; they are just those of the writer."
