7 charges remain. Prosecutors have the right to refill the 6 with a more detailed indictment.

A judge in KY shall not dismiss an indictment over objection of the prosecutor in KY. The judge does not have the authority.

Also, in KY our indictments are only required bare bones pleading standard.

Which charges remain?

If they're still fooling around with indictments, it seems unlikely the case will be tried before the election. Sounds like a win for Trump.

Here is the order. The order does not identify the 7 charges that are not distributed by this order.

https://www.documentcloud.org/...on-special-demurrers

Here is the indictment with all charges.

Subtract the 6 from the order and we see what charges were not dismissed.

https://int.nyt.com/data/docum...7d37562a76f/full.pdf

Interesting note, I have not tried to verify this through GA rules/caselaw, but I heard to disqualify a GA state prosecutor one must show an actual conflict in fact and simply the appearance of a conflict.

Here it would not be a big deal to have a superseding indictment with these 6 charges re-charged. Of course, no matter how well and detailed written a re-indictment of these 6 chat are going to be re-challenged. Thst is just legal 101. If you got them thrown out once, file the same not arguing the same thing and see if the judge agrees a second time.

Again, in KY a trail judge cannot over the objection of the prosecution dismiss an indictment (unless there is malfeasance w the grand jury), or a felony under our penal code is not charged. The facts of the matter are not required beyond identification, charge, date, and location for jurisdiction.

GA allows their judges more leeway.

Assuming a defendant wanted to challenge that a charge’s statutory element la as defined by caselaw were not met, the Defendant must wait until the Commonwealth’s case in chief is closed. The Defendant then moves for directed verdict.

I don't see why the defendant should benefit simply because two prosecutors are having an affair. Sounds like a matter for state disciplinary proceedings though.

that still leaves, what, 35 additional? nothing burger - he's going to trial

quote:

he's going to trial

That ain't a nothing burger.

I think that's what you mean.

As I understand these were the charges related to trying to get officials to violate their Oath, and the Judge found them short on particulars.

Just appeal-proofing everything as they go. The remaining charges will go forward and these will likely be reindicted.

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:

quote:

he's going to trial

That ain't a nothing burger.

I think that's what you mean.

yes and no --
the results of 6 (or 7) charges being thrown out is a nothing burger - there's still 35 charges he's facing, and it's going to trial ...

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire...ions-panel-108094402

Kemp signs Georgia law reviving prosecutor sanctions panel. Democrats fear it's aimed at Fani Willis
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has signed a law allowing a state commission with powers to discipline and remove prosecutors to begin operating

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire...ions-panel-108094402

Kemp signs Georgia law reviving prosecutor sanctions panel. Democrats fear it's aimed at Fani Willis
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has signed a law allowing a state commission with powers to discipline and remove prosecutors to begin operating

That can't be ex post facto/retroactive can it?

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire...ions-panel-108094402

Kemp signs Georgia law reviving prosecutor sanctions panel. Democrats fear it's aimed at Fani Willis
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has signed a law allowing a state commission with powers to discipline and remove prosecutors to begin operating

That can't be ex post facto/retroactive can it?

if signed "today" and effective "today" it can be used for "perceived" on-going issues ... So, if the new state commission takes a look into "today" and says "yep, it's happened today" then they don't need to look into the past, or worry about EPF or SoL ...

just like the speed limit changing yesterday, and someone breaking that law today, even though they've been "legal" every other time at the same speed, COULD then be processed for breaking the law

Seems like a political game, and is therefore suspect --

quote:

Originally posted by ANTELOPEDUNDEE:

quote:

Originally posted by Magine Enigam:
https://abcnews.go.com/US/wire...ions-panel-108094402

Kemp signs Georgia law reviving prosecutor sanctions panel. Democrats fear it's aimed at Fani Willis
Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp has signed a law allowing a state commission with powers to discipline and remove prosecutors to begin operating

That can't be ex post facto/retroactive can it?

It would surprise you what state courts do not consider ex post facto/retroactive.

Beyond that, those are criminal concepts. This disciplinary board is not criminal.


In addition, I would expect their scope of inquiries to revolve strong conduct after the law was signed.

Finally, I am sure such a law will trigger a challenge based on the GA state constitution.

quote:

Finally, I am sure such a law will trigger a challenge based on the GA state constitution.

It did once before. I'm not sure if anything changed.

What I am pretty sure of is that the target is Willis and her favorite prosecutor.

Judges (constitutional officers) in Georgia can be disciplined and even removed by the Judicial Qualification Commission. Why not DA’s? I wouldn’t bet that judges who can get the boot would give DA’s a pass.
Fani’s embarrassing behavior may have been the straw that broke the camel’s back, but the disciplinary board/procedures aren’t.

I do not feel this is an action by Kemp to target her.

Gov Kemp has repeatedly resisted many internal, party attempts to intervene or shut down this criminal inquiry.

Here our version of DAs can be removed from the organization membership, but only our Supreme Court can remove elected from Office.

It saddens me to say our Court has allowed too much resting the matter w elections.

Example, two districts over the elected was having sex with, impregnated the defendant.

Our Supreme Court did not remove him.