Georgia Judge Scott McAfee decided lawyers Sidney Powell and Kenneth Chesebro will have their joint trial starting October 23:
However, after considering the parties’ filings and without the need for a hearing, the Court further finds that severing the remaining 17 co-defendants is simply a procedural and logistical inevitability, and thus the motions to sever from Defendants Chesebro and Powell are GRANTED IN PART. Finally, the motions to stay the proceedings of this Court pending appellate resolution of any federal removal actions are DENIED.
Powell and Chesebro face charges for allegedly trying to overturn Fulton County’s 2020 presidential election results.
President Donald Trump and the other defendants will face trial at a later date.
Fulton County DA Fani Willis wanted to try all 19 defendants at the same time in October.
Beginning with the logistical concerns, the Fulton County Courthouse simply contains no courtroom adequately large enough to hold all 19 defendants, their multiple attorneys and support staff, the sheriff’s deputies, court personnel, and the State’s prosecutorial team. Relocating to another larger venue raises security concerns that cannot be rapidly addressed. As for the length of the trial, the State argues it plans to call the same number of witnesses in its case in chief no matter how many defendants are tried together. Maybe so. But this is only one of many factors that drive the length of trial. Each additional defendant increases the length of opening and closing arguments, crossexamination, and the number of evidentiary objections. Each additional defendant increases the risk that the trial must be paused due to the unexpected absence of a party or attorney.
Powell and Chesebro petitioned for a speedy trial. Their lawyers wanted their clients to have a separate trial. Both face racketeering charges, but their lawyers said they allegedly carried out different schemes.
McAfee decided against severance:
Left with only arguments regarding judicial economy, and the perceived unfairness of being forced to sit through a presentation of evidence that the Defendants contend only tangentially relates to them, the Court finds that these ancillary interests are outweighed by efficiency concerns of its own. Specifically, due to the projected length of this trial, severing the case would require the enlistment of another member of the bench to comply with the statutory speedy trial deadline. The Defendants’ judicial economy concerns simply do not outweigh the resources expended through an additional trial, the shuttering of a second judge’s docket, and the resultant delay to a multitude of other criminal and civil cases, many of which involve inmates in lengthy pretrial confinement.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY