In a setback for Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis, a judge on Wednesday allowed lawyers in the Georgia criminal case against former President Donald J. Trump and his allies to appeal his ruling, leaving Ms. Willis could continue the case.

Defense attorneys needed permission from the judge, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, to appeal, and he granted that permission in a two-paragraph order. Whether this will delay the election interference case against Mr. Trump and his fourteen co-defendants remains unclear.

The Georgia Court of Appeals has yet to decide whether it will weigh in on whether Ms. Willis has an untenable conflict of interest arising from a romantic relationship she had with a lawyer she hired to handle the Trump case, and other related Affairs.

Judge McAfee wrote in his brief order that he “intends to continue addressing the many other unrelated pending pretrial motions” while the superior court decides what to do.

If the appeals court refuses to hear the question, the case will be resolved quickly. If the commission decides an appeal is warranted, it could take months before the case is resolved.

In a statement, Jeff DiSantis, a spokesman for Ms. Willis’ office, said prosecutors would continue to work on the case.

“Since the case will not be stayed during the appeal, this office will work to bring the case to trial as quickly as possible,” Mr. DiSantis said. “We will limit our comment on the case on appeal to what we submit to the Court of Appeal during the briefing process.”

Steven H. Sadow, Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, called the order “very important” in a statement Wednesday, adding that the defense was “optimistic that the appellate review will result in the case being dismissed and that the prosecutor is disqualified.”

No trial date has been set in the broader case; The district attorney’s office had tried to begin a trial in early August, about a year after Ms. Willis filed charges, but few expect that to happen now.

The case accuses Mr. Trump and several of his allies of conspiring to circumvent the will of Georgia voters in 2020. But the details of the case are being overshadowed this year by hearings delving into a romantic relationship Ms. Willis had with Nathan J. Wade, the lawyer she hired to handle the Trump case.

Last week, Judge McAfee ruled that Ms. Willis and her office could continue to lead the prosecution as long as Mr. Wade recused himself from it. Defense lawyers, who exposed the relationship in court filings, had sought to disqualify Ms. Willis, saying she had an untenable conflict of interest.

Judge McAfee disagreed, but reprimanded Ms Willis in his ruling for a “massive error of judgement.” He also found an “appearance of impropriety”, which he said required Mr Wade to withdraw so Ms Willis could retain the case.

Mr. Wade resigned from his position as special prosecutor just hours after Friday’s ruling.

Under Georgian law, lawyers now have ten days to file a request with the appeals court, arguing why an appeal is necessary. The Public Prosecution Service has ten days from the submission of the request to respond.

The court of appeal has 45 days from the filing of the defense to decide whether to hear the case or not.

Lawyers for Donald J. Trump and seven of his co-defendants in Georgia told a judge Monday they plan to appeal his ruling, allowing Fani T. Willis to continue pursuing the election interference case against them.

Because the defendants now want to appeal ahead of a possible trial, Georgia law requires them to obtain permission from the presiding judge, Scott McAfee of the Fulton Superior Court. Even if Judge McAfee were to grant an appeal, the Georgia Court of Appeals would have to agree to hear the case.

The judge’s ruling last Friday followed weeks of public hearings that delved into a romantic relationship between Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, and Nathan J. Wade, the lawyer she hired to lead the Trump case . The defendants had argued that the relationship created an intolerable conflict of interest for Ms. Willis.

Judge McAfee disagreed, but ruled there was “a significant appearance of impropriety” that could be addressed if Mr. Wade withdrew from the case.

In their filing on Monday, the defendants said Mr. Wade’s dismissal was “insufficient to remove the appearance of impropriety found by the court.” If an appeal is not allowed now, they wrote, any convictions could be retried if the judge’s decision is later overturned.

“The court’s order is ripe for pretrial review,” Steven H. Sadow, Mr. Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, said in a statement.

Ms. Willis’ office had no immediate comment. Neither she nor Mr. Wade have spoken publicly since the ruling, apart from releasing his resignation letter and her response to it. This weekend, the NBC show “Meet the Press” announced that Mr. Wade had agreed to an interview on the Sunday morning program. But hours later it said Mr. Wade had done so withdrawn.

The defendants’ motion on Monday also noted a speech Ms. Willis gave at an Atlanta church on Jan. 14 in which she suggested that criticism of her and Mr. Wade was motivated by racism. Mr Sadow had argued that the speech itself was grounds for disqualifying Ms Willis.

Judge McAfee said in his ruling last Friday that the speech was “legally improper,” but also that there was not enough legal precedent in Georgia to guide him on whether to disqualify Ms. Willis from it.

In seeking leave from the judge to appeal, the defendants argued that this lack of precedent was another reason for the appeals court to intervene.

Mr. Trump and 14 others are charged with racketeering and a number of other crimes related to allegations that they conspired to overturn the former president’s 2020 election loss in the state. Four other suspects have already pleaded guilty.

Shortly after the charges last summer, Ms Willis requested a trial to begin in August this year. But it is unlikely that this will happen so quickly.

A judge overseeing the criminal election interference case against former President Donald J. Trump in Georgia declined Friday to disqualify the district attorney leading the prosecution, Fani T. Willis, over a romantic relationship she had with the attorney she had hired to handle the case. Nathan J. Wade.

But even as the judge, Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court, rejected the claim by one of Mr. Trump’s co-defendants, Mike Roman, that the relationship created an actual conflict of interest by giving Ms. Willis a financial interest in the case, the judge also ruled that it created ‘a significant appearance of impropriety’.

The judge gave her two choices: either Mr. Wade leaves her prosecution team, or she and her office must put the case aside.

Here are highlights from the Judgment of 23 pages:

A combination of factors raises a legitimate question.

On their own, the two main issues raised by the defense – that Mr Wade is paid hourly and that two members of the prosecution team were in a relationship – would not be an issue. But together they raise a deeper issue, the judge wrote.

Financial gain was not proven and did not appear to be a motivating factor.

The judge wrote that Willis’ claim that she saw Mr. Wade in cash for the trips they took together was “unusual” and “understandably concerning” but “not so incredible as to be inherently incredible,” and the evidence did not show that she received any material benefit as a result of her decision to hire Mr. Wade and pursue a romantic relationship.

More importantly, the judge found, the evidence showed that financial gain was “not a motivating factor” for Willis in charging and prosecuting the case.

Although the judge concluded that the evidence did not establish an actual conflict of interest, the judge nonetheless suggested that the prosecutor’s conduct was problematic in a way that others — including an ethics committee and voters — might want to address.

The situation still raises an “appearance of impropriety.”

Even if no actual conflict exists, the judge wrote, “a perceived conflict in the reasonable eyes of the public threatens confidence in the legal system itself.” The combination of factors that made Ms. Willis’s question of whether a conflict legitimate, he wrote, means that such an appearance of impropriety remains in the case.

The judge also wrote that “reasonable members of the public could easily question whether the financial exchanges continued to result in some form of benefit to the prosecutor, or even whether the romantic relationship resumed,” adding : “As long as Wade continues to monitor the case, this unnecessary perception will continue.

The judge expressed skepticism about testimony about when Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade’s relationship blossomed into a romantic relationship and portrayed the continued mixing of professional and personal relationships as untenable.

The relationship between the two plaintiffs has not been shown to have violated the defendants’ rights or harmed them in any way, the judge wrote, and disqualifying Ms. Willis is unnecessary when a less drastic remedy is available: Mr. Wade can leave the prosecutor. team.

There may be a gag order.

The defense had also asked the judge to disqualify Ms. Willis because of public comments she made, including at an Atlanta church on Jan. 14, in which she vaguely complained about her opponents and accused them of playing “the race card.” Although the judge ruled that her comments did not amount to unlawful handling of the case in public, the judge nevertheless scolded her and suggested that he might soon issue a gag order to prevent further public comments.

The relationship is an unacceptable distraction.

In summary, the judge wrote that regardless of the outcome of the case, it is important that the way it unfolds builds public confidence in the fairness and legitimacy of the process. While there is no legal basis to support a finding that the prosecutor has an actual conflict of interest, he found that the appearance of impropriety should still be addressed – indicating that Mr. Wade should leave the prosecution team in some way. .

An Atlanta judge ruled Friday that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis could continue to lead the election interference prosecution of former President Donald J. Trump and his allies in Georgia, but only as her former romantic partner, Nathan J. Wade, retired from the case.

The long-awaited ruling from Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee struck a middle ground between removing Ms. Willis for a conflict of interest, which attorneys had sought, and her full vindication. The judge sharply criticized Ms. Willis for having a relationship with Mr. Wade, whom she hired as a special prosecutor for the case, calling it a “massive error in judgment.”

Hours after the ruling, Ms Willis said Mr Wade had tendered his resignation and she had accepted it.

Judge McAfee had rejected the defense’s claim that the relationship had created an actual conflict of interest by giving Ms. Willis a financial interest in the case. But he found it had raised “a significant appearance of impropriety” that needed to be addressed.

Disqualifying Ms. Willis and her office from the case was not necessary, the judge said, when “a less drastic and sufficient corrective option is available.” But he concluded that “the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the state chooses one of two options.” Either Ms. Willis and her office could have stepped aside, including Mr. Wade, or he had to leave.

Ms. Willis and her office did not comment directly on the ruling. But in announcing Mr. Wade’s resignation in a letter, Ms. Willis complimented his professionalism, “as you have endured threats against you and your family, as well as unwarranted attacks in the media and in court on your reputation as a lawyer.”

With delays piling up, the case is unlikely to go to trial before the 2024 presidential election and Trump’s rematch with President Biden.

At the same time, the decision was a setback for Mr. Trump and his 14 co-defendants, as the prosecutor who has followed the case for more than three years remained in place. But Ms. Willis has also left weeks of embarrassing hearings with a bruised reputation that could color the views of a future jury, making convictions more difficult.

Caren Myers Morrison, an associate professor of law at Georgia State University, called the ruling “an extremely fortunate break for the district attorney’s office” because it allowed the case to “get the case back on track next week.” ”

But, she added, the ruling was damaging to Ms. Willis because “it explicitly calls into question her judgment, her professionalism and her integrity.”

The courtroom drama surrounding the relationship between the plaintiffs had in recent weeks overshadowed the underlying facts of the election case itself, which was quickly heading to trial. And it turned the tables on prosecutors, who were forced to take the witness stand and defend themselves against hostile interrogations.

In his ruling, Judge McAfee said Ms. Willis, who had a fiery turn on the stand last month, behaved “unprofessionally” — a rebuke that was all the more remarkable considering that the 34-year-old rookie judge once worked under Ms. Willis at the district attorney’s office.

The statement stood out for its clarity and plain language. In explaining the essence of the problem that Ms. Willis had created by taking outings with a romantic partner who worked for her, Judge McAfee wrote that “an outsider might reasonably believe that the prosecutor did not fully exercise her independent professional judgment from any compromising influence.”

Dismissing Ms. Willis and her office from the case would have caused significant chaos and forced a government agency to find a new prosecutor, who would have had the power to amend or even dismiss the charges.

In his resignation letter, Mr. Wade said he was leaving the prosecutor’s office “in the interests of democracy, in commitment to the American public, and to move this case forward as quickly as possible.”

Mr. Trump and his co-defendants could appeal the ruling, as could Ms. Willis, further delaying the proceedings and leaving the case unresolved indefinitely.

Steven H. Sadow, Mr. Trump’s lead lawyer in the Georgia case, said the former president’s legal team would “exercise all available legal options” to continue fighting the case, strongly indicating that his lawyers would try to appeal the order.

Ashleigh Merchant, a lawyer for Michael Roman, one of Trump’s co-defendants, on Friday demanded “justification” for her efforts to have Ms. Willis thrown off the case. The allegations of a romance between the two accusers first emerged in a filing by Ms Merchant in January.

“The judge clearly agreed with the defense that Willis’ actions are the result of her poor judgment,” Ms. Merchant said in a statement, “and that there is a risk to the future of this case if she does not act quickly . to heal her conflict.”

The Republican-led Senate is also investigating the conflict of interest allegations, and lawmakers have given a new oversight committee the authority to investigate and possibly fire the prosecutors.

Judge McAfee’s decision came two days after he threw out six charges in the case against Mr. Trump and his 14 remaining co-defendants, including one related to a phone call Mr. Trump made in early January 2021 to pressure the Georgian Minister of Foreign Affairs. left intact the remainder of the racketeering indictment, which initially included 41 charges.

The charges allege a series of allegations, including a scheme to deploy fake Trump voters in Georgia and steps some defendants took to access voting machines and data in a rural county. Four of the original 19 defendants have already pleaded guilty as part of cooperation agreements, while the rest have pleaded not guilty.

The criminal case in Georgia is one of four cases currently facing Trump across the country. All have been charged with developments in recent weeks that have led to delays, disappointing the former president’s critics who want him to stand trial before November’s general election.

Defense lawyers had argued that the relationship between the two Georgia prosecutors created an untenable conflict of interest because Mr. Wade was paid through a lucrative government contract while also paying, at least in part, for vacations with his boss.

In her January filing, Ms Merchant said Mr Wade and Ms Willis had “personally benefited from this prosecution” at taxpayer expense. Ms Merchant also said Mr Wade was underqualified and argued the entire complaint should be dismissed.

A flurry of lawsuits followed, as well as a number of dramatic public televised hearings that had little to do with the indictment accusing Trump and some of his allies of conspiring to overturn his 2020 election loss in Georgia.

In February, Ms. Willis herself took the witness stand and fiercely accused Ms. Merchant of lying, describing the disqualification efforts as an attempt to distract the American public from her case against Mr. Trump.

“You think I’m on trial,” Mrs. Willis said to Mrs. Merchant. Looking at the defense table, she added: “These people are on trial because they tried to steal the 2020 election.”

She acknowledged the existence of a romantic relationship, but she said it began in 2022, after Mr. Wade began working for the district attorney’s office. She also said the physical element of the relationship ended before the racketeering charges were filed in August.

And she insisted she paid for about half of the vacations, but usually reimbursed Mr. Wade in cash.

During the hearings, Mr. Sadow attacked not only the romance and travel but also a speech that Ms. Willis, who is black, gave at an Atlanta church that suggested racism motivated those who questioned her relationship with Mr. Wade took a closer look. which is also black.

Mr. Sadow argued that the speech “created a high likelihood of substantial prejudice against the defendants in the eyes of the public in general, and prospective jurors in Fulton County in particular.”

Over the course of three hearings, lawyers heard from Ms. Willis, Mr. Wade and his former attorney and divorce lawyer Terrence Bradley. Mr Bradley was labeled by lawyers as someone who could establish that the romance began before Ms Willis hired Mr Wade in November 2021.

But the information he offered was muddled. A text message was entered into evidence in which Mr Bradley told Ms Merchant he “absolutely” believed the romance predated Mr Wade’s recruitment. But in the witness statement he said he had no information about the beginning of the relationship, and that he had been speculating when he texted Ms Merchant. The judge said neither party had provided definitive evidence of when the romance began.

Even as Ms. Willis continues to prosecute, the weeks of negative headlines about her relationship with Mr. Wade could influence the jurors who will decide whether Mr. Trump and his co-defendants are guilty of violating Georgia’s racketeering law. other cases. laws.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Law School at Loyola Marymount University, said it appeared that Judge McAfee was “deeply concerned about the integrity of the judicial process and was acutely aware of the need for not only jurors, but also the have public confidence in the integrity of the process.”

Anna Betts reporting contributed.

The long-awaited ruling on whether Fani T. Willis should be disqualified from prosecuting former President Donald J. Trump and 14 of his allies in Georgia came Friday, forcing her to make an unusual decision.

Ms. Willis, the district attorney in Fulton County, Georgia, can maintain control of the state election interference case that has been in the making for more than three years, but only if Nathan J. Wade, an ex-boyfriend, withdraws from the business , which she hired him to manage.

For much of this year, headlines and hearings delving into the romantic relationship between the two prosecutors have overshadowed the case itself, in which the defendants are accused of conspiring to thwart the will of Georgia voters after Trump won the 2020 presidential election had lost.

Defense lawyers exposed the relationship between the accusers, saying there was an untenable conflict of interest. But Fulton Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee rejected that argument Friday, sharply criticizing Ms. Willis for a “massive error in judgment.”

Here are some conclusions from the ruling:

The judge found an apparent problem, but no actual conflict.

Judge McAfee said there was not enough evidence to establish that Ms. Willis’ “personal relationship and recurring travel with her lead plaintiff” created a “real conflict of interest.”

He added that “Georgian law does not allow the finding of a conflict of fact simply because of making bad choices – even repeatedly – ​​and it is the court’s duty to limit itself to the relevant issues and applicable law that is properly presented to her.”

But the judge did rule that “the appearance of impropriety remains” and must be remedied. He concluded that “the prosecution of this case cannot proceed until the state chooses one of two options.” Either Ms. Willis can step aside, along with her entire office, or Mr. Wade can leave, allowing the case to continue without further distraction.

He emphasized that the appearance problem had to be solved.

“If left uncorrected, this danger will undermine the legitimacy and moral strength of our already weakest branch of government,” he wrote.

The ruling repeatedly criticized Fani Willis.

The judge once worked for Ms. Willis in the district attorney’s office and by all accounts had a positive experience with her as a boss. But in the ruling he was fiercely critical of her behavior, and not just because of the optics of continuing a relationship with a subordinate in such a high-profile case.

He also criticized public comments she made about the case and referred to “the unprofessional manner of the prosecutor’s testimony” when she testified at a combative hearing last month.

Noting that neither side offered definitive evidence of when the romance began, Judge McAfee wrote that “an odor of mendacity lingers” over the case, as well as “reasonable questions” about whether Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade were “untruthful have testified about the timing of the affair.” their relationship.” Both told the judge it only started after Ms. Willis hired Mr. Wade in November 2021.

No financial motive was found.

The judge rejected a key defense claim: that Ms. Willis had benefited financially from the case, as her romantic partner was paid to run the case and had paid, at least in part, for the vacations they took together.

Judge McAfee noted that Ms. Willis had filed charges against far fewer people than a special grand jury had recommended for indictment, undercutting suggestions that she was trying to inflate legal costs for the case.

“The prosecutor has not acted in any way consistent with the theory that she initiated a financial scheme to enrich herself,” the judge wrote.

The judge opened the door to a possible gag order.

The judge appeared to invite the defense to seek a gag order to prevent Ms. Willis from discussing the case publicly. He said Ms Willis, who is black, had publicly made “racial criticism” of the defense’s decision to expose her relationship with Mr Wade.

He referred to a speech Ms Willis gave at a local church in January in which she suggested the investigation into her decision to hire Mr Wade was racist. The motion alleging a conflict of interest was filed on Jan. 8 by Ashleigh Merchant, an attorney for Michael Roman, a defendant who is a former Trump campaign official.

The judge said Church’s speech was “too remote from jury selection to establish a permanent blemish on the jury pool,” but nevertheless expressed concern.

He also referred to what he called Ms. Willis’ “unorthodox decision to comment on the record” to the authors of a recent book, “Find Me the Votes,” by journalists Michael Isikoff and Daniel Klaidman, noting noted that she spoke to the authors “during the pendency of this matter.”

Judge McAfee wrote that “the time may have come for an order prohibiting the state from mentioning the case in a public forum to avoid adverse pretrial publicity.”

An appeal seems likely, and a trial seems far away.

Mr. Trump’s lead attorney in Georgia, Steven H. Sadow, said, “We believe that the court failed to properly attribute the prosecutorial misconduct against Willis and Wade,” adding that “we all will use available legal options as we continue to fight to end this case, which should never have been brought in the first place.”

The defense will almost certainly try to appeal, but the judge must give permission to do so prior to the trial.

It remains unclear when the case will go to trial. Last year, Ms. Willis requested a trial to begin in August, but the judge has not yet set a date. Even with the ruling against disqualification, most legal observers believe it is unlikely a trial will begin this year.

January 8, 2024

Ashleigh B. Merchant, an attorney for one of the defendants in the Georgia election interference case, charges in court that Fulton County District Attorney Fani T. Willis had a “clandestine” relationship with Nathan J. Wade, a lawyer she hired to help manage the prosecution.

January 14

During a church service in Atlanta, dedicated to Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Ms. Willis says racism is a factor in the investigation into her hiring of Mr. Wade. She describes Mr Wade’s credentials as “impeccable” and says they are only being questioned because he is black.

February 2

Ms. Willis acknowledged in a court filing that she has a “personal relationship” with Mr. Wade, but denounced the conflict of interest allegations as “fantastic theories and gross speculation” and said there was no reason to disqualify her or her office from prosecuting on the House. Trump case. She adds that neither of them received any financial benefit from the relationship. An affidavit from Mr. Wade claims the romantic relationship only began after he was hired.

15 February

The first day of testimony begins with a series of hearings examining the relationship.

A former friend of Ms Willis, Robin Bryant-Yeartie, says she has “no doubt” the two began a romantic relationship earlier than they said. But Mr Wade, who has been testifying for several hours, strongly denies Ms Bryant-Yeartie’s claim.

Ms Willis is also taking the stand and strongly refuting suggestions that she has benefited financially from the relationship.

February 16

On the second day of testimony, attorneys questioned Terrence Bradley, a former attorney for Mr. Wade who also served as his divorce attorney. He is questioned for more than two hours, but defense lawyers are unable to produce anything to show that Mr. Wade was in a relationship with Ms. Willis when she hired him.

February 23

In a lawsuit, lawyers for former President Donald J. Trump present an affidavit detailing phone records they say include about 12,000 calls and text messages between Ms. Willis and Mr. Wade in the first eleven months of 2021. The affidavit details An investigator hired by Mr. Trump’s lawyers says his cellphone location data showed that Mr. Wade was sometimes near Ms. Willis’ home from late at night until dawn.

In a separate filing, Ms. Willis’ office refuted the Trump team’s analysis of the data, saying the data “does not prove that Special Counsel Wade was ever at a particular location or address.”

February 29

Hundreds of text messages obtained by The New York Times show that Mr. Bradley helped Ms. Merchant, the lawyer, expose the relationship between the two accusers. The messages refute the impression he left on the witness stand that he knew virtually nothing about the romance.

March 1

In final arguments before the judge, attorneys argue that even the appearance of a conflict of interest should be enough to disqualify Ms. Willis from the case. A lawyer for Ms. Willis responds that only an actual conflict of interest could be a reason to disqualify her.

4th of March

In a court filing, lawyers for David J. Shafer, a defendant in the Trump case, say that according to Cindi Lee Yeager, a deputy district attorney in neighboring Cobb County, Georgia, Mr. Bradley told her that the relationship between the prosecutors started before Mr. Wade started working for Ms. Willis.

Mar. 15

The judge rules that Ms. Willis can stay on the case, but only if Mr. Wade withdraws. The ruling strikes a middle ground between removing Ms. Willis for a conflict of interest and her full vindication, with the judge sharply criticizing her behavior. With delays piling up, the case is unlikely to go to trial before the 2024 presidential election.

A judge is expected to rule Friday on the attempt by former President Donald J. Trump and his co-defendants in the Georgia election interference case to disqualify Fani T. Willis, the prosecutor overseeing the case.

The disqualification effort began more than two months ago, when a lawyer said in a lawsuit that Ms. Willis, the Fulton County district attorney, had had a romantic relationship with Nathan J. Wade, the lawyer she hired to try the case. to lead. .

Defense lawyers argued that the relationship between the accusers presented an untenable conflict of interest because Mr. Wade received more than $650,000 in public funds while at least partially paying for cruises and other vacations he took with Ms. Willis.

Ms. Willis acknowledged the relationship several weeks after the defense filing and later testified that the relationship ended last summer. She and her team have sharply refuted the idea that a conflict ever existed.

Speculation and hearings surrounding the relationship have since overshadowed the election case itself, in which the former president and 14 of his allies are accused of conspiring to overturn Trump’s defeat in Georgia in the 2020 election.

The judge overseeing the case, Scott McAfee of Fulton County Superior Court, said on March 1 that he would rule on the disqualification question within two weeks.

The stakes are significant. Removing Ms. Willis from the case would result in the loss of an experienced and determined prosecutor who has been pursuing the case for more than three years. Her entire office would also be removed, leaving the case in limbo during a potentially lengthy effort to find a new prosecutor to take on the large, complex case.

Judge McAfee did not tip during weeks of contentious hearings. But he has maintained a balance throughout, trying to expeditiously resolve legal disputes and find a middle ground.

Developments this week suggested the judge was continuing to move the broader case along. On Wednesday, he quashed six charges, including one related to a call Mr Trump made in early January 2021 to pressure Georgia’s foreign minister. But the judge left the remainder of the racketeering charge against Mr. Trump and his 14 co-indictments intact. suspects, which initially included 41 counts.

Whatever the outcome of the judge’s ruling, Ms. Willis will not emerge unscathed. She was forced to defend herself in extraordinary testimony on the witness stand, during hearings that reversed the normal roles of prosecutors and defense attorneys and accused each other of lying.

If the case goes to trial, a jury’s views could be colored by weeks of revelations about prosecutors’ romance. And Georgia’s Republican-led legislature is already taking steps to review what took place.

But the immediate future of the case will not become clear until the judge rules on the disqualification issue.

“There are several legal issues that I have to get to the bottom of, several factual findings that I have to make,” Judge McAfee said during a hearing on March 1, outlining his timeline for reaching a decision. “I cannot make that at this time, and so I will take the time to ensure that I give this matter the full attention it deserves.”