The Georgia Court of Appeals on Wednesday ordered the trial court judge overseeing the Fulton County election interference case to temporarily halt proceedings against another defendant as it considers whether to remove District Attorney Fani Willis.
In a brief order, the appeals court directed Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to pause the case against Misty Hampton pending the outcome of the appeal.
Hampton, the former elections supervisor for Coffee County, had asked for the appeals court to step in after McAfee had vowed to plow ahead with pretrial motions from the six defendants who are not involved in the push to disqualify Willis. The appeals court had previously stayed action against the nine defendants who had submitted appeals, including former President Donald Trump, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows and David Shafer, who once chaired the state GOP.
Wednesday’s action seems to suggest more delays in a case that has already seen its share. McAfee had written in a previous order that, for the sake of efficiency, he wanted to keep moving ahead on matters involving the defendants who are not taking part in the appeal.
But John Monroe, Hampton’s lawyer, had argued that since Willis may end up being removed, as “a matter of judicial economy, it does not make sense to stay some of the prosecutions, but not all, in the same case.”
Monroe said Wednesday that the appeals court made the right call.
“It wouldn’t make sense to me to go forward in the trial court if you’ve got this looming specter of the DA’s office possibly being disqualified,” he said. “You could spend a lot of time and money for something that might need to be redone.”
Hampton was charged with violating the state’s racketeering act, conspiracy to commit computer invasion of privacy and five other felony counts stemming from the January 2021 breach of sensitive election data in the South Georgia county.
Lawyers for state Sen. Shawn Still, who is also a defendant in the case, had previously asked the appeals court to clarify its order and say whether the stay applied only to the nine defendants pursuing the disqualification appeal or to all remaining 15 defendants. The appeals court did not address that request, and it is unclear whether the other five other defendants who are not part of the appeal will also ask for a stay.
