IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF FULTON COUNTY

STATE OF GEORGIA
__________________________________________
)
IN RE 2 MAY 2022 SPECIAL PURPOSE ) No. 2022-EX-000024
GRAND JURY )
__________________________________________)

BRIEF OF MEDIA INTERVENORS IN SUPPORT OF

THE PUBLIC FILING OF THE GRAND JURY REPORT

The Atlanta Journal-Constitution; American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.; The

Associated Press; Bloomberg News; Cable News Network, Inc.; CMG Media Corporation and

its television station WSB-TV; Dow Jones & Company and its newspaper The Wall Street

Journal; Gannett Co., Inc. and its newspapers USA Today, the Athens Banner-Herald, The

Augusta Chronicle, and the Savannah Morning News; Gray Media Group, Inc. and its television

station WANF; The New York Times Company; Tegna Inc. and its television station WXIA-TV;

and Yahoo Inc. and its news publication Yahoo News (collectively, “Media Intervenors”)

respectfully file this brief in support of the public release of the special purpose grand jury’s final

report (the “Report”).

INTRODUCTION

On the morning of Wednesday, November 4, 2020 – the day after Georgia citizens had

finished casting their votes in the 2020 Presidential Election – the focus of the nation turned to

Georgia. As poll workers continued to tabulate votes, it became clear that, by the narrowest

margins, the voting results in Georgia and a small group of other states would determine the

outcome of the Presidential election.

In the days and weeks that followed, enormous controversy and confusion descended on

the State. Without credible evidence, an array of public officials, paid advocates, and private

citizens spread allegations that voting fraud had been rampant in Georgia. The claims of fraud
were aimed with particular force at Fulton County where, for example, routine video of vote

counting at a tabulating center was mischaracterized as illegal ballot stuffing using a “suitcase”

of fake ballots. As pressure mounted in the weeks that followed, then-sitting President Donald J.

Trump made a recorded telephone call to Georgia’s Secretary of State asking for the assistance

of the Secretary’s Office to “find” more than 11,000 votes.

These and many other events from the post-election time-period have raised serious

questions about whether the State’s election system was subjected to a premeditated attempt to

distort the results of the Presidential election. This question has been one of enormous public

interest not just to Georgians, but also to citizens throughout the United States. The scale and

scope of news organizations filing this brief reflect the profound public interest in this issue.1

In January 2022, at the request of District County Attorney Fani Willis, the Judges of the

Fulton County Superior Court voted to convene an investigative mechanism that has existed in

Georgia for decades – a special purpose grand jury. Like numerous other states, Georgia law

authorizes “special” grand juries to conduct detailed and patient examinations of public

controversies by giving them authority to investigate “any alleged violation of the laws of this

state or any other matter subject to investigation by grand juries as provided by law.” O.C.G.A §

15-12-100(a).

In a January 24, 2022 Order approving District Attorney Willis’ request, then-Chief

Judge Christopher Brasher stated that the authorization given the special purpose grand jury

would encompass the making of “presentments and reports.” He wrote:

1
In Exhibit A to this Brief, Media Intervenors have submitted a listing of links to examples of
news reports published and/or broadcast by them on the newsworthy issues relating to the special
purpose grand jury’s investigation reflecting the extensive public interest in this matter.

2
 This authorization shall include the investigation of any overt acts or predicate
acts relating to the subject of the special purpose grand jury’s investigative
purpose. The special purpose grand jury, when making presentments and reports,
pursuant to O.C.G.A §§ 15-12-71 and 15-12-101, may make recommendations
concerning criminal prosecution as it shall see fit.

Armed with this authorization, the special purpose grand jury subpoenaed evidence and

witness testimony from a wide array of individuals, public officials, and government entities for

approximately seven months. Although the proceedings of the grand jury remained confidential,

efforts by certain subpoenaed witnesses to avoid providing testimony or evidence – including

legal efforts by some of the most senior officials in State and federal government – played out

publicly in courtrooms in this State and elsewhere around the nation.

By its Order issued on January 9, 2023 (the “Order”), the Court informed the public and

press that the special purpose grand jury had “issued its final report pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-

12-101(a).” Based upon the completion of the report and with the approval of a majority of the

Fulton County Superior Court bench, the Court dissolved the special purpose grand jury and

thanked the grand jurors for their service.

In the Order, the Court observed that the only remaining question concerned the

“publication” of the Report. The Court explained that the special purpose grand jury “certified

that it voted to recommend that [the Report] be published pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80.”2

The Court noted that this “publication” statute “appears to apply to the work of special purpose

grand juries” by virtue of the incorporation provision set forth at O.C.G.A. § 15-12-102, but also

2
O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80 provides as follows: “Grand juries are authorized to recommend to the
court the publication of the whole or any part of their general presentments and to prescribe the
manner of publication. When the recommendation is made, the judge shall order the publication
as recommended. Reasonable charges therefor shall be paid out of the county treasury, upon the
certificate of the judge, as other court expenses are paid.”

3
observed that it remained “unresolved” whether “the special purpose grand jury’s final report

constitutes a presentment.”

In its Order, the Court invited argument on this issue by the District Attorney’s Office

and any consolidated media intervenors. In advance of providing argument on January 24, 2023,

the Media Intervenors offer this brief in support of their position that the Report is a court record

subject to a presumption of openness under Uniform Superior Court Rule 21, the First

Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 1, Paragraph 5 of the

Georgia State Constitution. Media Intervenors respectfully submit the presumption of openness

that applies to the Report cannot be overcome in this matter. The public interest in the Report is

extraordinary, and there are no countervailing interests sufficient to overcome the presumption.

The Court should file the Report in the public docket and publish it pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-

12-80 as the special purpose grand jurors have requested.

ARGUMENT

I. GRAND JURY REPORTS, INCLUDING THE REPORT IN THIS MATTER, ARE

COURT RECORDS SUBJECT TO A PRESUMPTION OF OPENNESS.

A. Georgia Law Has Evolved to Strongly Favor Public Access to Court

Documents, Including the Indictments, Presentments and Reports Returned
by Grand Juries.

The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that public access to the

judicial system is not only deeply ingrained in the history of our system but also is an

“indispensable” attribute of our judicial system protected by the First Amendment to the United

States Constitution. Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555, 573 (1980). The

Court recognized in Richmond Newspapers that public scrutiny of the court system is essential to

its institutional well-being for numerous reasons, including because it is vital to obtaining the

4
public’s trust. “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but

it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.” 448 U.S. at 572.

In conjunction with the U.S. Supreme Court’s recognition of the protections afforded by

the First Amendment, the Georgia Supreme Court has held that the Georgia Constitution

independently requires our judicial system to operate in an open and public manner.

This court has sought to open the doors of Georgia’s courtrooms to the public and
to attract public interest in all courtroom proceedings because it is believed that
open courtrooms are a sine qua non of an effective and respected judicial system
which, in turn, is one of the principal cornerstones of a free society.

R.W. Page Corp. v. Lumpkin, 249 Ga. 576, 576(1), 292 S.E.2d 815, 817(1) (1982). Indeed, Page

makes clear that in the criminal context Georgia law is “more protective of the concept of open

courtrooms than federal law.” 249 Ga. at 578.

Side by side with preserving open court proceedings, the Georgia Supreme Court has

embraced the importance of keeping court records available and accessible to the public. The

United States Supreme Court recognized constitutional rights of access to court records in a

series of decisions in the late 1970’s and 1980s. See generally Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior

Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986) (“Press-Enterprise II”); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464

U.S. 501 (1984) (“Press-Enterprise I”); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589,

597-98 (1978) (“It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to inspect and

copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents” ); In re

Application of CBS, Inc., 828 F.2d 958, 959 (2d Cir. 1987) (characterizing existence of right of

public access to criminal court records as “beyond dispute”) (citation omitted).

Contemporaneously with the Unites States Supreme Court’s decisions, the Georgia

Supreme Court embraced the importance of keeping court records accessible to public inspection

by enacting Uniform Superior Court Rule 21, which creates a presumptive right to inspect all

5
court records, and by infusing the Rule with substance in a series of forceful decisions rejecting

efforts to seal court files. Most notably, in Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution v. Long, the

Georgia Supreme Court reversed a trial court order sealing a civil case file after the settlement of

a lawsuit claiming sexual abuse by the Catholic Diocese of Savannah. The Court found that “the

privacy interests of the appellees in the pre-judgment records of this civil suit do not clearly

outweigh the public interest in open access to those records.” 258 Ga. 410, 411, 369 S.E.2d 755,

760 (1988); see also In re The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. 436, 438, 519 S.E.2d 909,

912 (1999) (“[J]ustice faces its greatest threat when courts dispense it secretly.” (quoting Long,

258 Ga. at 411)).

Of course, with respect to grand jury proceedings, the Georgia Supreme Court has always

acknowledged the calculation about access to court records must be approached with special

care. The Court has frequently noted that secrecy plays a very important role in connection with

the investigations conducted by these judicial bodies. See, e.g., In re Gwinnett County Grand

Jury, 284 Ga. 510, 512, 668 S.E.2d 682, 684 (2008) (“There is no doubt that the preservation of

the secrecy of grand jury proceedings is . . ․ a well-recognized principle in Georgia.” (quoting In

re Hall County Grand Jury Proceedings, 175 Ga. App. 349, 333 S.E.2d 389 (1985))). However,

decisions from the Georgia appellate courts have consistently emphasized that the outcome of

grand jury proceedings must be shared with the public to protect against public distrust of “star

chamber court proceedings.”

In commenting on the importance of the indictment being returned in open court, the

Court of Appeals explained:

The judge is the court for the reception of indictments only when he is presiding
in open court. There must be a judge presiding, the clerk must be present, and the
place of the reception of the indictment must be one where the court is being held
open to the public. Cadle v. State, 101 Ga. App. 175, 180, 113 S.E.2d 180 (1960).

6
 “It is a fundamental part of our judicial system that the general public be
permitted to witness court proceedings sufficiently to guarantee that there may
never be practiced in this State secret or star-chamber court proceedings, the
deliberations of the juries alone excepted.” Zugar v. State, 194 Ga. 285, 289-290,
21 S.E.2d 647 (1942). “It is not enough to know that in this State there is hardly a
chance that bogus indictments for personal spite will be filed in our courts. The
preservation of the honor and purity of the courts, the confidence and respect of
the public in those courts, and the good name of the citizens must not be left to
chance. . . .” Zugar, supra at 291.

State v. Byrd, 197 Ga. App. 661, 399 S.E.2d 267, 268-69 (1990); see also Zugar v. State, 194 Ga.

285, 289-290, 21 S.E.2d 647 (1942) (requiring openness in return of indictment by grand jury:

“public officials are made conscious of the duty to faithfully perform official acts when they are

acting in the presence of the general public; and this fact causes the public to have confidence in

the officials, and hence confidence in the governmental departments where such officials serve”).

More recently, in Olsen v. State, 302 Ga. 288, 806 S.E.2d 556 (2017), the Georgia

Supreme Court noted that the secrecy afforded to Georgia grand juries has been curtailed at

times by the General Assembly and now is focused most specifically on “the deliberations” of

grand juries and less on its evidentiary phase. The Court remarked that “[n]otably, the oath of

secrecy no longer extends to the State’s attorney, and even the grand jurors’ oath encompasses

only deliberations and not all things occurring in the grand jury room.” Id. at 290-91. The Court

explained that they presumed this was the intent of the General Assembly and therefore

“decline[d] to extend the requirement of secrecy applicable to grand jury proceedings in Georgia

beyond that which is currently imposed by statute.” Id. at 291.

It is in this legal context that Georgia’s precedent on grand jury presentments and reports

must be considered. When examined in light of the evolution of Georgia law on public access to

court records, the precedent demonstrates the Report is subject to a presumption of public access

under Uniform Superior Court Rule 21.

7
 B. Georgia’s Precedent on Grand Jury Reports and Presentments Compels a
Finding that the Report is a Court Record and, therefore, Presumptively
Public under Rule 21.

Investigative grand juries have played an important role in Georgia’s judicial history. As

our Supreme Court has observed since their roots in colonial times, “[t]hrough presentments and

other customary reports, the American grand jury in effect [has] enjoyed a roving commission to

ferret out official malfeasance or self-dealing of any sort.” In re Gwinnett County Grand Jury,

284 Ga. at 512 (quoting Akhil Reed Amar, The Bill of Rights: Creation and Reconstruction 85

(1998)). “There is a consensus among courts and commentators that, historically, common law

grand juries performed a public reporting function by identifying official misconduct without

initiating prosecutions.” Barry J. Stern, Revealing Misconduct by Public Officials Through

Grand Jury Reports, 136 U. Pa. L. Rev. 73, 76 (1987)

(https://scholarship.law.upenn.edu/penn_law_review/vol136/iss1/3). As commentators have

observed, “the reporting function can be viewed as a device that forces government to police

itself. Public confidence in the accountability of government is then furthered by requiring

government to identify its own misconduct.” Id. at 92.

While acknowledging that the public reporting function of investigative grand juries

provides a powerful tool to expose wrongdoing, Georgia’s appellate courts have recognized that

investigative grand juries should be supervised to prevent grand juries from exceeding the scope

of their legal authorization. As the Court of Appeals explained in In re Floyd County Grand

Jury Presentments for May Term 1996, 225 Ga. App. 705, 484 S.E.2d 769 (1997), the

responsibility of a supervising judge is to make sure the grand jury stays within the scope of its

statutory authority.

8
 Since the grand jury proceedings are secret, OCGA § 15-12-73, it is possible that
a grand jury as a group of lay-persons can exceed the scope of their authority and,
because of their membership, become involved in politics and in local feuds. It is
for this reason that a superior court judge supervises the grand jury and has the
duty to scrutinize, receive, and order filed the presentment of the grand jury.

Id. at 707 (citations omitted).3

While empowering judges to supervise grand juries to avoid their involvement in

“politics and local feuds,” the Court of Appeals has also emphasized that the supervising judge

has no authority to expunge or redact a grand jury’s report so long as the grand jury is acting

within its mandate. In 2004, the Court of Appeals clarified the limited role of a supervising court

that was asked to expunge a grand jury presentment regarding Vernon Jones, the CEO of DeKalb

County. In In re July-August, 2003 DeKalb County Grand Jury, 265 Ga. App. 870, 595 S.E.2d

674 (2004), the Court of Appeals conducted a detailed review of the history of appellate

decisions addressing grand jury reports over more than 40 years and emphasized that the role of

the supervising courts was confined to expunging statements based on “ultra vires acts of the

grand jury.” Id. at 873. The Court of Appeals rejected Jones’ attempts to read Georgia

precedent more broadly.

There is nothing in [Georgia precedent on grand juries] that mandates the

expungement of an entire presentment after the trial judge appropriately redacts
all ultra vires criticism. Kelley v. Tanksley [] and In re Hensley [] allowed the
presentments to be filed and published after the ultra vires matters were
expunged.4
3
In the legal authority the Court of Appeals cited to support the above-referenced statement
about the filing of presentments, the Court first cited O.C.G.A.§ 15-12-80, the statute that
requires the supervising judge to file and “publish” a presentment when requested by a grand
jury. Id. Immediately, thereafter, the Court cited the statutes that authorize and empower special
purpose grand juries, specifically O.C.G.A.§§ 15-12-100 and 15-12-101. Id. The sequence of
these citations supports the interpretation that the publication requirement applies to special
purpose grand juries through the incorporation clause contained in O.C.G.A.§ 15-12-102.
4
Id. The Court cited decisions in Thompson v. Macon-Bibb County Hosp. Auth., 246 Ga. 777,
273 S.E.2d 19 (1980); In re Floyd County Grand Jury Presentments, 225 Ga. App. at 707; In re

9
 Based on its detailed review of Georgia precedent, and after the limited redaction of

certain ultra vires content, the Court of Appeals affirmed the supervising court’s decision to file

a grand jury’s report that addressed the conduct of Jones in his official capacity.

Georgia’s history of decisions requiring the public filing and publication of grand jury

reports was significantly reinforced by the Georgia Supreme Court’s 2008 decision in In re

Gwinnett County Grand Jury, 284 Ga. at 512. In Gwinnett County Grand Jury, the Georgia

Supreme Court had its first opportunity to address the issue of grand jury records and reports in

the aftermath of the United States’ Supreme Court’s series of decisions recognizing the public’s

constitutional right to court records under the First Amendment.5 The decision also followed the

Georgia Supreme Court’s own precedent emphasizing its perspective that public court records

“protect[] litigants both present and future” because “[o]ur system abhors star chamber

proceedings with good reason.”6

Not surprisingly, rather than looking to dated precedent, the Supreme Court’s decision in

Gwinnett County Grand Jury squarely addressed the issue of access to grand jury records and

reports under the modern constitutional standards that inform Uniform Superior Court Rule 21.

In determining whether Gwinnett County could obtain the records of a grand jury that examined

the dissolution of the County’s Office of Internal Audits, the Court explained,

Hensley, 184 Ga. App. 625, 362 S.E.2d 432 (1987); In re Gwinnett County Grand Jury
Proceedings, 180 Ga. App. 241, 348 S.E.2d 757 (1986); Harris v. Edmonds, 119 Ga. App. 305,
166 S.E.2d 909 (1969); Kelley v. Tanksley, 105 Ga. App. 65, 123 S.E.2d 462 (1961); and 1996
Op. Atty. Gen. No. U96-15.
5
See generally supra at p. 4-5 (citing Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
(“Press-Enterprise II”); Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court, 464 U.S. 501 (1984) (“Press-
Enterprise I”); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597-98 (1978)).

10
 [Uniform Superior Court Rule 21], adopted by this Court and the Council of
Superior Court Judges, states that “[a]ll court records are public and are to be
available for public inspection unless public access is limited by law or by the
procedure set forth below.” The rule embodies the right of access to court records
which the public and press in Georgia have traditionally enjoyed.

Id. at 511. The Court found that the presumption of openness applies to judicial records to which

the public and press have traditionally enjoyed access “when a judicial document is filed.” Id.

(quoting Long, 258 Ga. 410). The Court noted it had extended this rule even to “an official court

reporter’s tape of remarks made by a judge in open court.” Id. (citing Green v. Drinnon, Inc.,

262 Ga. 264, 417 S.E.2d 11 (1992)).7

Guided by this standard, the Court ultimately determined that “evidence and testimony

presented to a grand jury” as part of its investigation were not court records to which the public

had a “presumptive right of access” because “the press and public have not traditionally enjoyed

access to such material due to the preservation of the secrecy of grand jury proceedings.” Id. at

513 (citation omitted). In contrast, however, the Court held the presentment made by a grand

jury “is a court record under Uniform Superior Court Rule 21 that is available for public

inspection unless public access is otherwise limited by law or by [Rule 21].” Id. at 513-14.

The Gwinnett County Grand Jury decision demonstrates the Report should be

presumptively public. It has been filed with the Court by virtue of its delivery to the supervising

judge. It is a judicial record that memorializes the determinations of a properly convened special

6
See generally supra at p. 5-6 (citing Atlanta Journal & Atlanta Constitution v. Long, 258 Ga.
410, 411 (1988)).
7
The Court subsequently elaborated on the presumption of public access to all judicial
documents filed with the court in Undisclosed LLC v. State, 302 Ga. 418, 431, 807 S.E.2d 393,
403 (2017) (“Materials admitted into evidence, that call for court action, or play a central role in
the adjudicative process are part of the judicial record, so long such materials are on file with the
court.”).

11
purpose grand jury with a broad mandate. There is no basis to contend the special purpose grand

jury acted in an ultra vires manner. Under such circumstances, grand jury reports are not just the

type of judicial record that are “traditionally” available to the public; they are the type of judicial

record that is “published” at County expense pursuant to O.C.G.A.§ 15-12-80.8

Just as with the presentment in Gwinnett County Grand Jury, the Report should be made

public.9

8
An example of a Superior Court Order directing a county clerk to publish a Special Purpose
Grand Jury Final Report under O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80 can be found at Exhibit B. The exhibit is an
Order issued by DeKalb Superior Court Judge Gregory Adams requiring the publication of the
“Final Report” of a Special Purpose Grand Jury impaneled on January 20, 2012, in connection
with controversies relating to the DeKalb County Department of Watershed Management.
Pursuant to the Order, the final report was published in DeKalb County’s legal organ, The
Champion Newspaper and remains online: http://thechampionnewspaper.com/wp-
content/uploads/2013/08/000SpecialPurposeGrandJuryFinalReport.pdf. A true and correct copy
of the final report is attached as Exhibit C. CEO Burrell Ellis was subsequently prosecuted after
the publication of the final report, but no challenge to the publication of the final report was
raised in his appeal. See Ellis v. State, 300 Ga. 371, 794 S.E.2d 601 (2016).
9
The presumption in Georgia law that grand jury reports will be made public is consistent with
the law of other states. See generally Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Marko, 352 So.2d 518,
523 (Fla. 1977) (affirming release of grand jury report and noting “[t]he benefits to be derived
from this extraordinary exercise in citizen participation would be severely limited if the fruits of
that activity were not available to the public on whose behalf it is undertaken.”); In re Final
Report of the 29th Statewide Grand Jury, 343 So.3d 584 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022) (ordering
release of all but two paragraphs of grand jury report following Marjory Stoneman Douglas
school shooting), reh’ring denied, 343 So.3d 600 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2022), review denied sub
nom. D.K. v. Final Report of 20th Statewide Grand Jury, No. SC22-983, 2022 WL 3573084 (Fla.
Aug. 19, 2022, and review denied sub nom. Murray v. Final Report of 20th Statewide Grand
Jury, No. SC22-1108, 2022 9801736 (Fla. Oct. 17, 2022); Matter of Report of Washoe Cnty.
Grand Jury, 95 Nev. 121, 128, 590 P.2d 622 (1979) (“[T]he report was generally issued in the
legitimate community interest, and [the interested target], with one exception, has not
demonstrated that justice requires further expungement.”) People v. Super. Ct., 13 Cal.3d 430,
434, 531 P.2d 761 (1975) (holding that courts may only seal portions of grand jury reports that
“extend beyond the legal boundaries of the grand jury’s broad reportorial power”).

12
 C. Our Courts and the General Assembly Have Not Attempted to Distinguish
“Presentments” from Grand Jury “Reports,” so Construing O.C.G.A. § 15-
12-80 as Applicable to the Report is Appropriate and Required by the
Federal and State Constitution.

In its Order, the Court noted it was “unresolved” whether the “special purpose grand

jury’s final report constitutes a presentment” subject to the publication requirements of O.C.G.A.

§ 15-12-80. Order at 2. However, the term “presentment” and “report” have been used

interchangeably for decades by the Georgia judiciary, the General Assembly, and courts in other

jurisdictions. There is no basis to find that the Report is outside the scope of the mandatory

“publication” requirement of O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80.

In the historical development of grand juries, a presentment was a criminal charge

initiated by the grand jury based on its own knowledge, not at the request of prosecutors. 4 W.

BLACKSTONE, COMMENTARIES *298. Today, the use of a grand jury “presentment” to

initiate a criminal prosecution is obsolete in Georgia and in most other jurisdictions. Instead,

Georgia employs the term “special presentment” to identify a charging instrument initiated by

the grand jury that effectively functions as an indictment. See O.C.G.A § 15-12-74(b). “In this

state the difference between an indictment and a special presentment has been abolished, with

respect to the requirements of law in regard to trials under them, a mere technical distinction

remaining that in an indictment the accusation is presented by a prosecutor, and in a special

presentment it is preferred by the grand jury without a prosecutor.” Carmichael v. State, 228 Ga.

834, 837, 188 S.E.2d 495, 497 (1972) (citation omitted).

Based on this development, the modern legal practice is to refer interchangeably to the

written account of an investigation delivered by a grand jury as either a “report” or

“presentment” or “general presentment” when it is not for the purpose of initiating criminal

13
proceedings. Regardless of the legal vernacular used, each term refers to a document that is in

substance a report. This is true in Georgia. See, e.g., In re Presentments of Lowndes County

Grand Jury, 166 Ga. App. 258, 304 S.E.2d 423 (1983) (referring interchangeably to

“presentments” against members of a city police department as “reports”); Kelley, 105 Ga. App.

at 66 (“The report of the grand jury sought to be expunged from the records in the instant case

was not a special presentment or true bill of indictment charging any individual with the

violation of the penal laws of this State. It was in the nature of a general presentment or

recommendation in which the grand jury took note of an unsolved theft involving county funds

which occurred on county property”). The equivalence of the words “general presentment,”

“presentment” and “report” has also been noted in other jurisdictions. See, e.g., In re: Final

Report of the 20th Statewide Grand Jury, 343 So.3d at 588 (“We will refer to the statewide grand

jury’s report interchangeably as either a report or presentment in this opinion.”).10

Because there is no legally meaningful distinction between a “general presentment” and

a “report” when issued by the grand jury, there is no basis to contend that the publication

requirement contained in O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80 is not applicable to special purpose grand juries.

10
The Georgia General Assembly amended O.C.G.A. § 15-12-71 in 2016 to permit local grand
juries to examine controversies relating to law enforcement’s use of deadly force. In amending
the law, the General Assembly also referred to “presentments” and “reports” interchangeably as
documents that could be issued by the grand jury while bringing charges and stated that both
would be subject to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80. See Georgia Laws 2016, Act 350, § 1, (eff. July 1,
2016) (adding subsection (e)(1) to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-71: “If the grand jury conducts a review [in
connection with a peace officer’s use of deadly force], and the grand jury does not request that
the district attorney create a bill of indictment or special presentment, the grand jury shall
prepare a report or issue a general presentment based upon its inspection, and any such report or
presentment shall be subject to publication as provided for in Code Section 15-12-80”).

14
The Court correctly observed in its Order that O.C.G.A. § 15-12-10211 incorporates the

statutory procedures of regular grand juries into the operation of special purpose grand juries

unless the procedures of the special grand jury are “otherwise provided” for in the authorizing

statute. There is no conflicting provision that “otherwise” speaks to the publication or secrecy

of special purpose grand jury reports. Accordingly, O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80 applies to the

Report.12

This result is particularly clear in the aftermath of the Georgia Supreme Court’s decision

in Olsen v. State, 302 Ga. 288 (2017). In Olsen, the Georgia Supreme Court emphasized it

would not “extend the requirement of secrecy applicable to grand jury proceedings in Georgia”

unless there was a clear mandate “imposed by statute.” Id. The General Assembly could easily

have required by statute that the reports of a special purpose grand jury be maintained by the

supervising court in secret, but they imposed no such rule in the enabling legislation.

Various courts have recognized that the right of access to court records is grounded not

just in the common law, but also in constitutional principles protecting the public’s right of

access to information about government. See, e.g., In re Providence Journal Co., 293 F.3d 1,

10-13 (1st Cir. 2002) (“Apart from the prerogatives attendant to the common-law right of access

to judicial records, the public and the press enjoy a constitutional right of access to criminal

proceedings under the First and Fourteenth Amendments.”); Phoenix Newspapers v. U.S. Dist.

Court, 156 F.3d 940, 948 (9th Cir. 1998); United States v. Antar, 38 F.3d 1348, 1359-60 (3d Cir.

11
O.C.G.A. § 15-12-102 states that, “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by this part [governing
special purpose grand juries], Part 1 [governing regular grand juries] of this article shall apply to
the grand juries authorized by this part.”
12
See also Exhibit B (Order of DeKalb County Superior Court Chief Judge requiring publication
of a special purpose grand jury’s “Final Report” under O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80).

15
1994); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Pokaski, 868 F.2d 497, 505 (1st Cir. 1989); In re Search

Warrant, 855 F.2d 569, 573 (8th Cir. 1988). An interpretation of the mandatory publication

requirement set forth in O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80 that allowed supervising courts to set the

requirement aside without a constitutionally meaningful showing of harm would violate not just

the common law, but also the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, Section 1,

Paragraph 5 of the Georgia State Constitution (protecting the right of “every person” to “publish

sentiments on all subjects”).

The Report is subject to publication under O.C.G.A. § 15-12-80.

II. NEITHER THE STATE NOR ANY OTHER PARTY CAN MAKE A
COMPELLING CASE THAT EXPUNGEMENT OR SEALING IS WARRANTED
HERE.

The presumption of openness that applies to the Report cannot be overcome. Georgia

law provides two paths through which the State or an interested party may seek to restrict all or

portions of the Report in extraordinary circumstances: (1) though expungement of ultra vires

content contained in the Report; (2) through a motion to seal pursuant to Uniform Superior Court

Rule 21. Neither have merit here.

A. There is No Basis to Expunge Any Portion of the Report.

As set forth above, under Georgia law courts have historically expunged portions of a

report or presentment deemed “ultra vires,” i.e., containing “statements” that arise from

investigative activity outside the scope of the grand jury’s mandate. In this case, the special

purpose grand jury’s mandate was extraordinarily broad. The special purpose grand jury was

authorized to investigate “facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to possible

attempts to disrupt the lawful administration of the 2020 elections in the State of Georgia.”

January 20, 2022 Letter of District Attorney Fani Willis to Chief Judge Christopher Brasher; see

16
also January 24, 2022 Order Approving Request for Special Purpose Grand Jury Pursuant to

O.C.G.A. § 15-12-100, et seq. (“The special purpose grand jury shall be authorized to investigate

any and all facts and circumstances relating directly or indirectly to alleged violations of the laws

of the State of Georgia, as set forth in the request of the District Attorney referenced herein

above.”).

Pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-101(a), the special purpose grand jury has been

“supervise[d] and “assist[ed]” throughout its investigation. Various motions relating to the

proper scope of testimony and evidence have been heard. There is simply no indication that

anything in the Report exceeded the scope of the special purpose grand jury’s authority in a

manner that would be appropriate for expungement.

B. There is No Basis to Seal Any Portion of the Report Pursuant to Rule 21.

In addition, as noted above, the Report is a court record, so it is subject to sealing only

under the demanding standards of Uniform Superior Court Rule 21. See generally In re

Gwinnett County Grand Jury, 284 Ga. at 513-14.

The Georgia Supreme Court has articulated the standard for sealing as requiring a finding

that the movants’ privacy clearly outweighs the public interest in disclosure. Long, 258 Ga. at

413. The burden of demonstrating that court records should be sealed is on the party seeking the

sealing, and the Court must make factual findings on the record supporting the sealing order. Id.;

see also In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. at 438 (“[I]t is not sufficient for the trial

court to forego making findings of fact and simply state that the public’s interest in access to

court records is clearly outweighed by potential harm to the parties’ privacy”). The burden is

intended to require public access in all cases except those involving a “clear necessity.” Long,

258 Ga. at 413, 369 S.E.2d at 758; see also Merchant Law Firm, P.C. v. Emerson, 301 Ga. 609,

17
613, 800 S.E.2d 557 (2017); see also Long, 258 Ga. at 413 (“In designing USCR 21, this court

and the council of superior court judges . . . incorporated the presumption that the public will

have access to all court records.”).

This standard is and is intended to be a difficult one to satisfy. Indeed, in enforcing the

State’s commitment to open courtrooms and court records, Georgia courts have consistently

emphasized, for example, that embarrassment and reputational harm are not sufficient interests to

justify sealing. See, e.g., In re Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 271 Ga. at 438 (reversing trial court

order sealing probate case involving claim by illegitimate child seeking portion of the estate of

former owner of The Atlanta Falcons: “[C]ivil lawsuits quite often cause litigants to experience

an invasion of privacy and resulting embarrassment, yet that fact alone does not permit trial

courts to routinely seal court records”); Long, 258 Ga. at 413 (reversing trial court order sealing

case file and holding that the privacy interests of Catholic Diocese of Savannah “do not clearly

outweigh the public interest in open access to those records”).

There is no basis for sealing here. This investigation has been a matter of profound

public interest that goes to the heart of the nation’s democratic forms of government. Much of

the matters before the special purpose grand jury are already public knowledge through related

federal and state court proceedings and Congressional hearings. There is quite simply no “clear

and convincing proof” that sealing, either in whole or in part, is warranted.

CONCLUSION

The Georgia Supreme Court has explicitly stated that it would “decline to extend the

requirement of secrecy applicable to grand jury proceedings beyond that which is currently

imposed by statute.” Olsen, 302 Ga. at 291. There is no basis to do so here. The Media

18
Intervenors respectfully request that the Report be publicly filed and published as the special

purpose grand jurors have requested.

Dated this the 23rd day of January, 2023

Respectfully submitted,

FOR: KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP

Thomas M. Clyde
Georgia State Bar No.: 170955
[email protected]
Lesli N. Gaither
Georgia State Bar No.: 621501
[email protected]
Suite 2800, 1100 Peachtree Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
Phone: (404) 815-6500

Attorneys for Media Intervenors

19
EXHIBIT A
 APPENDIX

Date Headline Link

11/6/2021 Georgia Grand Jury Looms in Trump Inquiry https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/06/us/politics/trump-election-interference-investigation.html
1/20/2022 DA for Atlanta area requests special grand jury to probe Trump’s https://www.cnn.com/2022/01/20/politics/georgia-trump-grand-jury/index.html
election interference
1/24/2022 Grand Jury Approved to Examine Trump's Efforts to Overturn https://www.wsj.com/articles/judges-approve-grand-jury-for-trump-election-probe-in-georgia-
Georgia's 2020 Election Results 11643065455
1/24/2022 Fulton judges greenlight special grand jury for Trump probe https://www.ajc.com/news/atlanta-news/breaking-fulton-judges-greenlight-special-grand-jury-
for-trump-probe
4/29/2022 Special grand jury to convene Monday to determine if Trump broke https://www.wsbradio.com/county-shut-down-streets-around-fulton-county-courthouse-trump-
law with infamous phone call grand-jury-gets-underway
4/29/2022 Fulton County Sheriff says deputies are ready for Trump special grand https://www.wsbtv.com/video/local-video/fulton-county-sheriff-says-deputies-are-ready-trump-
jury special-grand-jury
4/29/2022 Fulton County to shut streets down around courthouse as Trump grand https://www.wsbtv.com/video/local-video/fulton-county-shut-streets-down-around-courthouse-
jury gets underway Monday trump-grand-jury-gets-underway-monday
5/2/2022 Trump grand jury hearings set to start in Fulton County on https://www.wsbtv.com/video/local-video/trump-grand-jury-hearings-set-start-fulton-county-
monday
5/2/2022 Georgia Jury to Consider Whether Trump Illegally Interfered in 2020 https://www.nytimes.com/2022/05/02/us/trump-election-georgia-grand-jury.html
Election
5/2/2022 Trump election probe special grand jury selection in Atlanta https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump-georgia-presidential-
5/2/2022 Trump probe: How would the Fulton County special grand jury work? https://www.ajc.com/politics/trump-probe-how-would-the-fulton-county-special-grand-jury-
work/YSS5HO2XGZHTXMC67J4VB4B54Q/
5/2/2022 Preps in place at Fulton County courthouse ahead of Trump https://www.wsbtv.com/preps-place-fulton-county-courthouse-ahead-grand-jury-investigation-
investigation grand jury former-pres-trump
5/6/2022 Georgia Elections Chief Rebuffs Trump-Backed Opponent on Fraud https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-06/georgia-elections-chief-rebuffs-trump-
Claims backed-foe-on-fraud-claims
6/1/2022 These people have been subpoenaed in Trump election interference https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/fulton-county-special-grand-jury-trump-election-
probe probe/
7/5/2022 Fulton grand jury subpeonas Giuliani, Graham, Trump campaign https://www.ajc.com/politics/fulton-grand-jury-subpoenas-giuliani-graham-trump-
lawyers confidantes/POUNSTTUXZDGDB3D5LKA7TIQQM/
7/6/2022 Sen. Graham to fight Georgia election subpoena, lawyers say https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-donald-trump-georgia-presidential-new-
york
7/15/2022 Fulton County DA says she’s considering asking Trump to testify to https://www.ajc.com/news/fulton-county-da-says-shes-considering-asking-trump-to-testify-to-
special grand jury special-grand-jury
7/15/2022 Exclusive: Fulton County DA sends 'target' letters to Trump allies in https://news.yahoo.com/exclusive-fulton-county-da-sends-target-letters-to-trump-allies-in-
Georgia investigation georgia-investigation-152517469.html
7/19/2022 Georgia prosecutors say all 16 fake Trump electors are targets in https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/19/politics/georgia-grand-jury-trump-electors/index.html
criminal probe
7/27/2022 Federal judge denies Athens-area U.S. Rep. Hice’s bid to quash https://www.onlineathens.com/federal-judge-denies-us-rep-jody-hices-bid-quash-subpoena-
subpoena in Trump probe trump-probe
8/11/2022 Prominent Atlanta defense law to represent former President Trump https://www.wsbtv.com/prominent-atlanta-defense-lawyer-represent-former-president-trump-
to special grand jury front-special-grand-jury

1
Date Headline Link
8/15/2022 Lindsey Graham ordered to testify in Fulton probe of bid to overturn https://www.onlineathens.com/story/news/2022/08/15/lindsey-graham-must-testify-georgia-
Georgia election grand-jury-probe-election
8/15/2022 Rudy Giuliani told by prosecutors he is a target in Georgia 2020 https://www.cnn.com/2022/08/15/politics/rudy-giuliani-georgia-presidential-election-
presidential election probe probe/index.html
8/16/2022 Trump legal adviser ordered to testify in Ga. election probe https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-colorado-donald-trump-georgia-atlanta
8/17/2022 Rudy Giuliani testifies before Fulton grand jury on alleged 2020 https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2022/08/17/rudy-giuliani-appearing-before-fulton-grand-jury-
election tampering alleged-2020-election-tampering/
8/19/2022 Graham Ordered to Appear Before Atlanta Grand Jury Investigating https://www.nytimes.com/2022/08/19/us/lindsey-graham-atlanta-grand-jury-trump.html
Trump
8/29/2022 Georgia’s Kemp Must Testify in Trump Election Probe, Judge Says https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-08-29/georgia-s-kemp-must-testify-in-trump-
election-probe-judge-says
9/29/2022 Trump attorney and adviser testified before Georgia grand jury https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/29/politics/boris-epshteyn-testimony-georgia-grand-jury-election-
investigating election interference interference-trump/index.html
10/4/2022 Georgia GOP bankrolls lawyers for 'fake' Trump electors in Fulton https://news.yahoo.com/georgia-da-gop-bankrolling-lawyers-for-fake-trump-electors-rife-with-
County DA probe serious-ethical-problems-191434263.html
10/27/2022 Mark Meadows ordered by court to testify in Georgia 2020 election https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/26/politics/mark-meadows-georgia-election-grand-
meddling probe jury/index.html
11/1/2022 Supreme Court rejects Lindsey Graham’s request to block Georgia https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/01/politics/lindsey-graham-supreme-court/index.html
grand jury subpoena
11/1/2022 US Supreme Court Allows Election Grand Jury Questioning of https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-01/us-supreme-court-allows-election-grand-
Lindsey Graham jury-questioning-of-lindsey-graham
11/9/2022 Judge orders Gingrich to testify in Georgia election probe https://apnews.com/article/donald-trump-georgia-atlanta
11/15/2022 Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp appears before grand jury on 2020 election https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/brian-kemp-georgia-grand-jury-2020-
interference election/index.html
11/15/2022 Michael Flynn ordered to testify in Atlanta grand jury probe into https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/15/politics/michael-flynn-grand-jury/index.html
Trump’s election subversion
11/15/2022 Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp appears before Atlanta jury in election https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/11/15/georgia-governor-brian-kemp-
probe testifies-grand-jury
11/16/2022 Former White House aid Cassidy Hutchinson testifies before Georgia https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/cassidy-hutchinson-testifies-georgia-grand-
grand jury jury/index.html
11/16/2022 Georgia DA floats immunity deals for fake electors as investigation https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/politics/fulton-county-da-georgia-fake-electors-investigation-
into Trump hits roadblock fake-electors-roadblock-immunity/index.html
11/22/2022 Lindsey Graham testifies before Georgia grand jury investigating https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/22/politics/lindsey-graham-fulton-county-grand-jury-2020-
2020 election aftermath election/index.html
11/29/2022 Mark Meadows Ordered to Testify on Trump by South Carolina’s Top https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-29/meadows-ordered-to-testify-on-trump-
Court by-south-carolina-top-court
12/6/2022 Florida appeals court: No delay for Michael Flynn in Fulton County https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/michael-flynn-fulton-county-trump-grand-jury/
Trump grand jury testimony
12/12/2022 Trump Special Counsel Subpoenas Official Asked to Find Votes (1) https://news.bloomberglaw.com/white-collar-and-criminal-law/trump-special-counsel-
subpoenas-official-asked-to-find-votes-1

2
Date Headline Link
12/17/2022 Georgia grand jury investigating Trump election interference is https://www.cnn.com/2022/12/17/politics/georgia-grand-jury-trump-2020-election/index.html
winding down and has begun writing final report
12/24/2022 Georgia special grand jury wraps up probe of Trump, allies https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2022/12/24/trump-special-grand-jury-georgia-
charges-investigation
12/27/2022 Georgia special grand jury wraps up probe of Trump, allies https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2022/12/27/georgia-special-grand-jury-wraps-up-probe-
trump-allies/
1/9/2023 Fulton special grand jury completes Trump investigation https://www.ajc.com/politics/breaking-fulton-special-grand-jury-completes-trump-investigation

1/9/2023 Georgia grand jury investigating Trump and 2020 election aftermath https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/fulton-county-grand-jury-trump-election/index.html
completes its work
1/9/2023 Fulton County grand jury submits final report on Trump’s alleged https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fulton-county-grand-jury-submits-final-report-donald/story
interference in 2020 election
1/9/2023 Special Grand Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Concludes Its https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/09/us/trump-georgia-election-grand-jury.html
Investigation
1/9/2023 Fulton County grand jury submits final report on Trump’s alleged https://news.yahoo.com/fulton-county-grand-jury-submits-153810676.html
interference in 2020 election
1/9/2023 Fulton County grand jury submits final report on Donald Trump’s https://www.wsjm.com/fulton-county-grand-jury-submits-final-report-on-donald-trumps-
alleged interference in 2020 election alleged-interference-in-2020-election/
1/9/2023 Fulton County special grand jury ends its Trump investigation. What https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/fulton-county-grand-jury-ends-trump-
happens next? investigation
1/9/2023 Georgia grand jury wraps up Trump 2020 election probe https://news.yahoo.com/georgia-grand-jury-wraps-trump
1/9/2023 Georgia grand jury completes report on Trump election interference https://news.yahoo.com/georgia-grand-jury-completes-report
probe
1/9/2023 Special Grand Jury in Georgia Trump Inquiry Concludes Its https://www.nytimes.com/2023/01/09/us/trump-georgia-election-grand-jury.html
Investigation
1/9/2023 Georgia grand jury ends probe of Trump, 2020 decision https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/01/09/special-grand-jury-probing-trump-allies-georgia-
finishes-work/
1/9/2023 Fulton County grand jury wraps up its investigation into Donald https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/01/09/fulton-county-grand-jury-wraps-up-its-work-
Trump donald-trump/
1/9/2023 Georgia Special Grand Jury Completes Trump Investigation https://www.wsj.com/articles/georgia-special-grand-jury-completes-donald-trump-investigation

1/9/2023 Georgia grand jury investigating Trump and 2020 election aftermath https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/09/politics/fulton-county-grand-jury-trump-election/index.html
completes its work
1/9/2023 Georgia Grand Jury Investigating Trump Submits Recommendations, https://www.bloomberg.com/georgia-grand-jury-investigating-trump-submits-recommendations-
Disbands and-disbands
1/9/2023 All eyes on Georgia after grand jury wraps work on Donald Trump https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/09/trump-georgia-grand-jury-whats-
investigation next
1/9/2023 Georgia grand jury completes work in Donald Trump probe tied to https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/09/georgia-grand-jury-donald-trump-
2020 election probe
1/9/2023 Charging decision on Trump now loom large in Georgia after grand https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2023/01/09/donald-trump-grand-jury-georgia-
jury completes its work decisions-loom

3
Date Headline Link
1/9/2023 Grand jury in Georgia delivers report on Trump, charges could come https://news.yahoo.com/grand-jury-in-georgia-delivers-report-on-trump-charges-could-come-in-
in next few months next-few-months-173112072.html
1/10/2023 Georgia grand jury completes Trump election investigation; what https://news.yahoo.com/georgia-grand-jury-completes-trump
happens now?
1/18/2023 Fulton County Trump probe: Prosecutors have final report as court https://www.11alive.com/article/news/politics/fulton-county-trump-probe-final-report-with-
hearing nears prosecutors-hearing-nears
1/20/2023 Fulton County prosecutors finalize report in Trump probe https://www.atlantanewsfirst.com/2023/01/20/fulton-county-prosecutors-finalize-report-trump-
probe/

4
EXHIBIT B
 /

/
I
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF DEKALB COUNTY
STATE OF GEORGIA

IN RE SPECIAL PURPOSE )
GRAND JURY )
) ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 13CV1024
)
)

A Special Purpose Grand Jury was impaneled on January 20, 2012 pursuant to

O.C.G.A. § 15-12-100 to investigate the facts and circumstances surrounding the bidding,

awarding and management of contracts, as well as the policies and procedures of, and any

payments made under and for any contracts by, the DeKalb County Department of

Watershed Management during the period of January 1,2002 through December 31,

2010.

On August 15,2013, Presiding Judge Mark Anthony Scott delivered a copy of the

Special Purpose Grand Jury’s Final Report to Chief Judge Gregory A. Adams. The Final

Report is dated January 18, 2013.

As required by O.C.G.A. § 15-12-101(b), Chief Judge Gregory A. Adams

convened a meeting of the Superior Court Judges on August 19, 2013 and reported to

them the Presiding Judge’s recommendation that the Grand Jury be dissolved. A

majority of the Superior Court Judges at the meeting voted to accept the Final Report, file

the Final Report and dissolve the Special Purpose Grand Jury.
»
Accordingly, the Special Grand Jur}’ is hereby dissolved instanter.

Page 1 of 2
 The Final Report, having been presented, it is hereby ordered that the same be

filed with the Clerk of this Court and spread among the minutes thereof.

It is also ordered that the Final Report be published pursuant to O.C.G.A. § 15-12-

80 as legal notice in the official legal organ of the county. The Champion Newspaper, at

least once with the costs to be paid from the general funds of DeKalb County.

SO ORDERED this 2.1 'of August,

Chief Judge Grigory A. Adams

Superior Co f DeKalb County
Stone Mountain Judicial Circuit

Cl ’ 'A
Va
s?.

Page 2 of2
EXHIBIT C
 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify that the undersigned has this day served a true and correct copy of the

above via Electronic and United States Mail upon:

Fani T. Willis
Will Wooten
District Attorney’s Office
136 Pryor Street SW, 3rd Floor
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
[email protected]
[email protected]

DATED this the 23rd day of January, 2023

________________________