With neither side willing to blink, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis on Friday filed several motions in Fulton County Superior Court asking it to break the deadlock over who should represent the state in the Rayshard Brooks case.
The dispute began when Willis asked Georgia Attorney General Chris Carr to recuse the Fulton DA’s office from the Brooks case, citing conflicts of interest created by her predecessor, Paul Howard, in bringing charges against the two officers involved in Brooks’ death last June.
In a surprise move, Carr refused, saying a recusal wasn’t necessary since any conflicts pertain only to the former DA, who charged former Atlanta Police Department officer Garrett Rolfe with felony murder and Officer Devin Brosnan with aggravated assault after five days of investigation into Brooks’ shooting death.
“This case is in a manifestly unique posture,” Willis’ legal counsel, Kevin Armstrong, writes in Willis’ motion suggesting the Fulton court hold a status conference to settle the debate once and for all. “The District Attorney has announced her recusal, but the Attorney General has refused to appoint a new prosecutor. There is no known precedent for this situation.”
In a status conference, the judge and the lawyers in a pending legal matter meet to determine how the case is progressing. It’s unclear if or when a status conference will be scheduled in the Brooks case.
Similar motions were also filed in criminal cases against six APD officers charged after utilizing Tasers against two college students violating a citywide curfew last May.
Willis initially planned to not object to Rolfe’s motion asking for the disqualification of her office. But after seeking counsel with Jeff Davis, the former executive director of the State Bar of Georgia and director of the state judicial watchdog agency, Willis said she now believes representation must be decided beforehand.
In the motion, Davis said Willis does not have the authority “to either consent to or oppose the motion to disqualify” and cannot decide substantive issues, such as Rolfe’s motion, “until it ensures that each party is represented.”
Davis was also cited in the DA’s response to the rejection of her appeal of Carr’s recusal denial. He argued then that the AG overstepped his bounds.
“As someone who’s dealt with lawyer and judicial ethics much of my career, I think the rules of professional conduct make it clear that it is the duty of the individual lawyer to determine whether a conflict of interest exists,” said Davis, now with the Atlanta firm Wilson, Brock & Irby.
A Carr spokesperson pushed back, saying the DA’s requests “fail to meet what is required to invoke the conflict statute.”
The AG’s office declined a request for additional comment on the latest developments.
Meanwhile, the parties involved on both sides are left in the dark. The prosecutors that end up representing the state will likely conduct their own investigation, which could lead to charges being reduced or even withdrawn.
Rolfe’s attorney, Noah Pines, moved for a dismissal of the case, citing the jurisdictional tug of war.
Lawyers for Brooks’ family have asked Carr to appoint a special prosecutor.
“You think these police are getting prosecuted and it doesn’t start. They’re in jail and they’re out of jail,” said Justin Miller, co-counsel for the Brooks’ relatives and for Taniyah Pilgrim, one of the college students stunned by police officers’ Tasers in the other case facing uncertain representation.
“What the family needs, and wants, is a road to closure,” Miller said at a press conference last week.
About the Author
