The Georgia Court of Appeals on Wednesday directed the trial court judge handling the Fulton County election interference case to temporarily halt proceedings against another defendant while it considers the potential removal of District Attorney Fani Willis.
In a brief order, the appeals court instructed Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee to pause the case against Misty Hampton, the former elections supervisor for Coffee County, pending the appeal's outcome. Hampton's legal team had sought the appeals court's intervention after McAfee indicated he would continue with pretrial motions for the six defendants not involved in the disqualification effort against Willis.
Previously, the appeals court had stayed action against nine defendants who submitted appeals, including President Trump, former White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, and David Shafer, the former state GOP chair. This latest action by the appeals court suggests additional delays in a case already fraught with postponements.
McAfee had earlier emphasized the need for efficiency by proceeding with matters involving the defendants not participating in the appeal. Hampton's lawyer, John Monroe, argued that it would be more efficient to halt all prosecutions in the case until the issue of Willis' potential disqualification is resolved. Monroe welcomed the appeals court's decision, stating, “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. You could spend a lot of time and money for something that might need to be redone.”
Hampton faces charges of violating the state’s racketeering act, conspiracy to commit computer invasion of privacy, and five other felonies related to the January 2021 breach of sensitive election data in Coffee County.
State Senator Shawn Still, another defendant in the case, had previously requested the appeals court to clarify whether the stay applied only to the nine defendants pursuing the disqualification appeal or to all 15 remaining defendants. The appeals court did not address this request, leaving it unclear whether the five other defendants not part of the appeal will also seek a stay.
