Attorney Alina Habba said on Wednesday that a judge’s dismissal of six counts in former President Donald Trump’s Georgia election case shows the “sloppiness” of local prosecutors.
Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee dismissed six of the 41 counts in an indictment against President Trump and his codefendants on Wednesday.
Three of the quashed charges apply to President Trump, throwing out counts related to a phone call he made to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger in the aftermath of the 2020 election.
During an interview on Fox News’s “The Story,” Ms. Habba, who is not involved in the case, attributed the dismissal to what she described as the “sloppiness” of the Fulton County prosecutors involved.
“I wish that all the counts had been dropped because that’s probably what should have been,” Ms. Habba said, who has represented President Trump in two New York civil and criminal cases.
She characterized the ruling as a step in the right direction while expressing her belief that the charges “should not have been brought” at all.
“It goes to the sloppiness of, frankly, the prosecutors down there,” she added, reflecting on the ruling.
Her remarks came after Judge McAfee’s decision to dismiss the six counts. The original indictment charged 19 defendants, out of which four have taken plea bargains.
The co-defendants were accused of violating Georgia’s Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act, along with 40 additional counts.
However, the judge removed the charges related to soliciting officials to violate oaths of office.
The tossed counts claimed that the accused parties requested the Georgia Senate and House members, the Speaker of the Georgia House, and Mr. Raffensperger to break their oath of office by attempting to certify alternate electors or influence the certified election returns.
The judge found that the language used in the indictment was too generic. It did not specify the parts of the oaths, nor from which constitution (state or federal) they had been accused of requesting the officials to violate.
Judge McAfee ruled that the charges lacked specificity and were deemed insufficient for the defendants to adequately prepare their defense.
“As written, these six counts contain all the essential elements of the crimes but fail to allege sufficient detail regarding the nature of their commission, i.e., the underlying felony solicited. They do not give the Defendants enough information to prepare their defenses intelligently,” Judge McAfee wrote.
However, the judge didn’t dismiss the possibility of prosecutors refiling the counts.
The Epoch Times contacted Ms. Willis for comment.
The ruling comes ahead of an expected decision this week, also by Judge McAfee, on a motion to disqualify Ms. Willis from prosecuting the high-profile racketeering case against President Trump and his codefendants.
Judge McAfee is examining whether Ms. Willis’ relationship with a special prosecutor, Nathan Wade, whom she hired to lead the case, is grounds for dismissal.
The embattled district attorney has been the subject of several complaints and lawmaker investigations in recent weeks since a defendant’s attorney alleged an improper relationship and misuse of public funds in a Jan. 8 filing in the racketeering case.
One of the codefendants in the case, Michael Roman, alleged in a motion to disqualify and dismiss the indictment that the Fulton County district attorney had a conflict of interest due to appointing Mr. Wade, with whom she was having an affair.
Mr. Roman’s motion, filed by legal counsel Ashleigh Merchant, alleged that Ms. Willism financially benefited from the appointment of Mr. Wade, who billed upwards of $650,000, with the couple taking vacations together.
Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade later admitted to having a “personal relationship” while rejecting a conflict of interest and deeming the allegations were meant to “harass” and “embarrass” Ms. Willis.
Ms. Habba drew attention to the undisclosed relationship between Ms. Willis and prosecutor Mr. Wade as indicative of the case’s “sloppiness” and ethical concerns.
“At the end of the day, remember, we have got a prosecutor here who’s currently being questioned about her own ethical obligations, her ability to even stay on this case. I’m going to defer to this judge to make the right decision, but today was a good step in the right direction,” she said.
