PHOENIX – After three days of arguments and with a trial set for Jan. 5, 2026, the decision on whether to move forward in Arizona’s “fraudulent voter” case rests in the hands of Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen.
Defendants argued Monday and Tuesday that the indictment against 11 people who signed papers claiming to be Arizona Electoral College voters in 2020 — even if Joe Biden won the state and Arizona certified his victory — and other Donald Trump allies should be dismissed for that reason. . they were exercising their First Amendment rights.
Mark Williams, a lawyer for former Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, told Cohen on Tuesday that the indictment was brought to “deprive my client of his freedom of speech, freedom of association and freedom to petition the government for political redress.”
“These things are not illegal,” Williams said.
On Wednesday, the state defended its case, arguing that the charges of fraud, forgery and conspiracy were unrelated to the defendants’ political speech or associations.
“The conspiracy itself did not protect speech,” said prosecutor Nicholas Klingerman. “Yes, Mr. Giuliani had the right to hold a mock hearing at the Hilton on November 30th and say that thousands of people in Arizona voted fraudulently. But what he didn’t have the right to do was use them to testify with the intent to defraud, and that’s what he’s charged with.” .
In addition to the alleged “fake voters,” the defendants are Giuliani; Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows; former Trump campaign lawyer Christina Bobb; Trump’s former lawyers John Eastman, Boris Epstein and Jenna Ellis; and Michael Roman, Trump’s director of Election Day operations.
Each of the 18 defendants was charged with nine felonies after a grand jury returned an indictment in April. The indictment alleges that “fraudulent voters” used “false or fraudulent pretenses” to keep Trump in office. It also alleges that all defendants conspired in a “scheme” to “disenfranchise Arizona voters from voting and having their votes counted.”
The two defendants, Including Eillisthey make plea deals with the state and cooperate with the prosecutor’s office. Many of the remaining 16 defendants moved to dismiss the case based on the state law against “anti-SLAPP” cases, or “strategic claims against public participation.” While many states have similar laws designed to protect those exercising their free speech rights from abusive litigation, the Arizona Legislature expanded the law Applying to criminal as well as civil cases in 2022.
The expansion gave hope to some Arizona defendants. Eastman predicted confidence outside the courthouse this week.
“I hope it goes from here, eventually getting fired in a fairly short period of time,” he said. “I think the application of Arizona’s anti-SLAPP statute to criminal prosecutions is a new development in the law in this country, and I think Judge Cohen gets the significance right.”
Other defendants argued that Attorney General Chris Mayes, the Democrat who brought the case, did so only for political gain.
“On the streets of Arizona, all the time, everywhere … there are bumper stickers, ‘Vote for Trump,’ ‘Vote for Trump.’ Everyone is saying that, and it’s scary for Mrs. Mayes,” said Williams, Giuliani’s attorney. “It is a conspiracy on their part to deny Mr. Giuliani and the other defendants the right to appeal to the government.”
After the trial ended Wednesday, Mayes countered the allegations from attorneys for Williams and the other defendants.
“Let me be clear: the accusations in this case were not politically motivated. They are the result of a comprehensive, lengthy and professional investigation conducted by experienced and dedicated law enforcement officers and prosecutors,” he said in a video message.
Mayes also addressed the defendants’ anti-SLAPP arguments.
“This case is not about the defendants’ First Amendment rights. The actions in question are not protected by speech,” he said. “The law draws a clear line between free speech and illegal conduct, and we believe the evidence shows that the defendants crossed that line.”
Mayes expires in 2027. If the court doesn’t go as planned and if he is not re-elected, it is possible that another attorney general will oversee or even end the prosecution.
Prosecutor Klingerman also dismissed the idea that the case was politically motivated in his closing argument Wednesday.
“How can you say it’s illegal when an independent grand jury issues an indictment?” – he asked.
Originally scheduled to last just one day, the hearing was extended to three after at least a dozen defendants asked for the case to be dismissed. The prolongation of the proceedings actually caused more defendants and lawyers to attend hearings as the day went on, causing disruptions.
On Tuesday, Bobb’s attorney, Thomas Jacobs, turned on his camera and revealed that he had virtually arrived from the boat. On Wednesday, one of the virtual participants accidentally turned on the sound while buying birdseed.
After Klingerman offered the prosecution’s rebuttal, arguing the case should not be dismissed, Cohen gave the defendants until Sept. 6 to file a five-page brief to respond to the prosecution’s arguments.