FULTON COUNTY, GEORGIA—On Wednesday, March 13, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee who is now presiding over the 2020 election interference case has dropped six of the charges involving election interference against former President Donald J. Trump.
The following facts are from the official documentation (in part) from the Superior Court of the Fulton County State of Georgia, Order on Defendants’ Demurrers. The full text may be found on the Fulton County Superior Court webpage.
“Count Two alleges that multiple Defendants solicited elected members of the Georgia Senate to violate their oaths of office on December 3, 2020, by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors.
Count Five alleges that Defendant Trump solicited the Speaker of the Georgia House of Representatives to violate his oath of office on December 7, 2020, by requesting or importuning him to call a special session to unlawfully appoint presidential electors.
Count Six alleges that Defendants Smith and Giuliani solicited members of the Georgia House of Representatives to violate their oaths of office on December 10, 2020, by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors.
Count 23 alleges that multiple Defendants solicited elected members of the Georgia Senate to violate their oaths of office on December 30, 2020, by requesting or importuning them to unlawfully appoint presidential electors.
Count 28 alleges that Defendants Trump and Meadows solicited the Georgia Secretary of State to violate his oath of office on January 2, 2021, by requesting or importuning him to unlawfully influence the certified election returns.
Count 38 alleges that Defendant Trump solicited the Georgia Secretary of State to violate his oath of office on September 17, 2021, by requesting or importuning him to unlawfully decertify the election.
The exact verbiage in the Order on Defendant’s Demurrers reveals that there were oaths of office allegedly broken that were not cited.
Judge Scott explains that the crime of Violation of Oath by Public Officer, O.C.G.A. § 16-10-1, prohibits any public officer from willfully and intentionally violating the terms of his or her oath as prescribed by law.
The term of the oath alleged to have been violated must be ‘expressly prescribed,’ meaning it is explicitly contained in the applicable statutory provisions.
The Court’s concern is less that the State has failed to allege sufficient conduct of the Defendants – in fact it has alleged an abundance. However, the lack of detail concerning an essential legal element is, in the undersigned’s opinion, fatal.
Under the standards articulated by our appellate courts, the special demurrer must be granted, and Counts 2, 5, 6, 23, 28, and 38 squashed.
Defendants have not provided any authority requiring that the particulars of an overt act be alleged or subjecting overt acts to the standards of general or special demurrers. The Defendants’ challenge of these overt acts is therefore denied. So ordered, this 13th day of March 2024.”
