As Kenneth Chesebro and Sidney Powell move toward trial next month in Georgia, their lawyers are looking backward — to the grand jury process. They want to interview grand jurors who returned the sprawling racketeering indictment, and the state judge overseeing the case just granted that unusual request.
So what would any such interviews lead to? Quite possibly nothing.
But the mere prospect is likely enough to make Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis and her prosecutors nervous, even if they don’t have any particular concern. On the flip side, defense lawyers are likely eager to look as deeply behind that grand jury curtain as possible, in the hopes of finding anything that could poke a hole in the prosecution. Of course, anything they uncover could have implications for all 19 defendants in the 2020 election interference case.
But what does the defense claim it’s looking for, exactly?
In Tuesday’s order, Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote: “Citing concerns for the length and complexity of the indictment, Defendants request interviews with any willing former jurors to determine whether the indictment was ‘properly returned,’ specifically whether the indictment was read entirely or merely summarized to the grand jury.” The state, meanwhile, vehemently opposed the defense move, with McAfee noting in his order that prosecutors called it “an attempt to improperly pierce the secrecy of deliberations and ‘perform an illegal investigation.’”
Not appearing inclined to give either side exactly what it wants, the judge wrote that the “proper course appears somewhere in the middle.”
Not appearing inclined to give either side exactly what it wants, the judge wrote that the “proper course appears somewhere in the middle.”
To that end, McAfee granted the defense motion only “to the extent that it requests voluntary interviews with the grand jurors.” And when it comes to any interviews, he is taking on a supervisory role, which could lessen the likelihood of any interviews turning into a fishing expedition. He’s also making defense lawyers file proposed questions ahead of time, within three business days of Tuesday’s order, and the state gets to respond within three business days after that, before he approves any questions.
Then, the court will “independently contact each juror to inquire whether he or she is willing to submit to an interview, either remotely or in-person.” Any interviews, McAfee wrote, “will be conducted on the record in the presence of the Court and counsel for all parties at a time agreeable to each juror.” If defense lawyers think they’ve found something illegal in their interviews, they can then file any motions making that argument.
Needless to say, if there was impropriety in the grand jury or anywhere else in the case, it should be rooted out and dealt with accordingly. And of course, it’s hard to know whether anything improper happened without checking somehow.
Still, even if prosecutors don’t have a specific concern about such interviews, the general idea is probably not one they’re happy about. In the meantime, the defense lawyers’ forthcoming proposed questions may show more specifically what they’re looking for — and how they intend to find it.