Atlanta, Georgia – Fulton County prosecutors are leveraging a previous Trump case to bolster their First Amendment arguments in the extensive RICO case against former President Donald Trump and his associates. During a recent hearing, Georgia prosecutors invoked Judge Tanya Chutkan’s rulings, who is overseeing Trump’s other election interference case in federal court, to support their charges against the former president, drawing attention to her evaluation of similar arguments under Supreme Court precedent. The hearing addressed several pretrial motions, including Trump’s attorneys’ assertion that the charges against him criminalize his political speech. The prosecution, however, contends that the First Amendment does not protect criminal conduct.
This was the first hearing after Judge Scott McAfee ruled that either Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis or Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade needed to step aside for the case to proceed. Hours after the ruling, Wade resigned. Assistant District Attorney Donald Wakeford argued during the hearing that although federal courts have been inconsistent in their interpretation of the First Amendment in criminal cases, Judge Chutkan conducted an analysis based on the allegations in the indictment in Trump’s case in Washington, D.C.
A central point of contention revolves around another case that Trump’s legal team has heavily relied upon: United States v. Alvarez. In this landmark 2012 decision, the Supreme Court deemed the Stolen Valor Act unconstitutional, ruling that false claims, even lies, were protected speech. Trump attorney Steve Sadow compared Willis’ attempt to prosecute Trump for false statements to the Alvarez case. However, Willis’ team argued that the split decision of the Supreme Court left the legal standing of Alvarez unclear and did not prevent the government from prosecuting criminal conduct.
Wakeford further emphasized that Trump was not merely charged with lying but also with lying to the government, an act considered illegal due to its harm to the government. Each charge in the indictment, according to Wakeford, displays that the statements are part of a larger criminal scheme rather than isolated false statements. The political nature or core political speech, which Judge Chutkan thoroughly addressed, does not alter the fact that it can be considered criminal conduct.
The RICO case against Trump and his allies is a crucial legal battle unfolding in Fulton County, Georgia. As the prosecution relies on prior cases and expert legal analysis, the outcome of this case could not only impact the former president but also set important precedents regarding the intersection of free speech and criminality. The significance of Judge Chutkan’s rulings and their influence on this case cannot be understated as the charges against Trump and his associates are scrutinized in court.