Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Showing Original Post only (View all)Relax, folks. The RICO charges in GA were not dropped. [View all]
It helps to get the facts before panicking. And it sounds like the other charges might have been dismissed without prejudice, meaning that they could be re-filed.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/03/13/politics/georgia-trump-mcafee-election-interference-case/index.html
And here's the court's order: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24478977-mcafee-order-on-racketeering-charges
This does not mean the entire indictment is dismissed. See State v. Cerajewski, 347 Ga. App. 454, 457 (2018). The State may also seek a reindictment supplementing these six counts. C.f. O.C.G.A. § 17-7-53.1 (barring future prosecution after second quashal). Even if the statute of limitations has expired, the State receives a six-month extension from the date of this Order to resubmit the case to a grand jury. See O.C.G.A. § 17-3-3. Nor is it inevitable, presuming the State presents the appropriate motion, that the identity of future grand jurors will be publicly accessible. See, e.g., Order to Seal Page 22 of Indictment, 2023-EX-001124 (Sep. 1, 2023) (granting ex parte motion to redact grand juror names). This is an area of law where federal courts have achieved greater efficiency, and one might wish that future grand jurors could be spared this inconvenience for something so easily remedied. See Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(f) (allowing government filing of a bill of particulars to inform a defendant of the charges in sufficient detail to minimize surprise at trial). But Georgia law currently provides no such option. See Ward v. State, 188 Ga. App. 372, 373 (1988) (A bill of particulars is not a recognized pleading[.]). Alternatively, the State may request a certificate of immediate review pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 5-7-2 which the Court would likely grant due to the lack of precedential authority. See State v. Outen, 289 Ga. 579, 581 (2011) (finding dismissal of less than all counts of indictment not a final order for purposes of States automatic right to appeal).
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
21 replies, 2663 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (59)
ReplyReply to this post
21 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Are you unaware that this is a state court judge not a federal judge? And the Senate confirmed three judges yesterday
onenote
Mar 13
#18
I always try to wait for the details before flipping of the handle - or celebrating even...
ihaveaquestion
Mar 13
#9
Whether Fani Willis survives the judge's decision or not remains to be seen. Either way she's going to be pissed,
padah513
Mar 13
#11
Yeah well, it was still a questionable ruling by a federalist judge. Our Justice system gives
KPN
Mar 13
#12
Read the order; all he did was point out the flaws in the indictment on those counts
Ocelot II
Mar 13
#17