Judge Orders Partial Release of Fulton County Special Grand Jury Election Interference Report.
In January 2022 Fulton County Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis requested that the county courts convene a special purpose grand jury to investigate election interference in the 2020 election. The grand jury was convened that May. Regular grand juries can indict, but in Georgia can only convene for two months. A case requiring longer investigation requires a special grand jury. A special grand jury cannot indict, but can issue a report with recommendations that can be submitted to a regular grand jury.
While Trump’s extortionist call to Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger provided much of the initial push for the grand jury, it soon became apparent the investigation was much broader. From the witnesses summoned it clearly included investigations for intimidation/influencing of other election officials (such as Ruby Freeman), the slate of fraudulent electoral college certificates advanced by some state Republicans, and post election tampering with election machines.
In early January of this year the special grand jury completed its work and submitted its report to Fani Willis. The county courts reviewed the report, agreed that the grand jury’s work was complete, and ordered the special grand jury dissolved. Notably, the special grand jury recommended that its report be made public.
On January 24th Judge Robert McBurney of the Superior Court of Fulton County held a hearing on whether to release the report to the public. Various media outlets argued in favor of its release citing statutory law suggesting that such reports “shall” be released when the grand jury so recommends, as this one did. Fani Willis argued against release on grounds doing so prior to her bringing indictments could interfere with her investigation and deny “future defendants” of due process rights. Her repeated references to protecting the rights of “future defendants” effectively confirmed that indictments would be forthcoming. Willis also advised the court, twenty days ago today, that charging decisions were “imminent.”
Any such “imminent” charging decisions have not yet been made public and today the judge issued a decision possibly aimed at urging Fani Willis to get off her imminence. You can read judge McBurney’s decision HERE.
Judge McBurney to a large degree sided with Willis, holding that most of the report would remain under seal. The judge agreed that the grand jury’s report was part of an investigation of crimes, and not part of a judicial process. Thus, most of the report was for “the District Attorney’s eyes only, for now.” Notably, the judge found release of the grand jury’s recommendations on who to indict (and not indict) could compromise the due process rights of potential defendants who did not have an opportunity to testify before the grand jury. A whole lot of people testified to that grand jury, including Rudy Giuliani and Lindsey Graham. One who did not is Donald Trump. I’ll just leave it at that.
Along the way, the judge strongly endorsed the grand jury’s report and its work:
“the special purpose grand jury did not exceed the scope of its prescribed mission. Indeed, it provided the District Attorney with exactly what she requested: a roster of who should (or should not) be indicted, and for what . . . By all appearances, the special purpose grand jury did its work by the book.” -Judge McBurney
While much of the most interesting parts of the grand jury’s report will remain under wraps, to include that “roster,” the judge ordered a few parts of it to be released by February 16th (this Thursday) that do not include the specific indictment recommendations. Those parts include:
- The introduction of the report.
- The conclusion.
- A section discussing the grand jury’s concerns that some of the witnesses lied under oath.
So what will we find out? The introduction and conclusion, while not naming names, will likely inform of us of the general scope of the crimes the grand jury found probable cause to indict. For example, these sections may indicate the grand jury found there was a widespread effort to overturn the election results in Georgia and that some of those efforts broke the law. It may generally state that there were efforts to improperly influence or intimidate election officials. It may suggest whether the jury found the slates of fake electors, and the conspiracy around it, violated state law.
The judge made clear that he was releasing the section discussing concerns some witnesses lied to the grand jury only because that section did not name the alleged lying witnesses. However, that will not preclude Fani Willis from seeking indictments against such witnesses if she chooses. The judge’s statement today confirms the grand jury believed some witnesses lied, which is something new in itself.
The judge also suggested the decision was encouraging Prosecutor Willis to get imminent as Willis told the court she would. The judge noted the decision for partial release “may not be convenient for the pacing of the District Attorney’s investigation,” but nonetheless found that “the compelling public interest in these proceedings and the unquestionable value and importance of transparency require their release.” The judge also held over Willis’s head the prospect that further delays could result in the judge deciding to release more of the report:
“the Court directs the District Attorney’s Office to provide periodic updates on the progress of its investigation so that the Court can reassess if other parts of the special purpose grand jury’s final report can properly be disclosed.”
So what happens next? The fragment of the report comes out and we will see what we can glean from it. Speculation will abound. In the words of Kimberly Guilfoyle, “THE BEST IS YET TO COME.” Sorry, I couldn’t resist.
