Kenneth Chesebro, a key figure in the legal efforts to overturn the 2020 election results, recently faced a setback in his attempt to invalidate his guilty plea in the Georgia racketeering (RICO) case. Chesebro, who was one of the architects behind the “fake electors” plan, pleaded guilty in October 2023 to one count of conspiracy to file false documents, in exchange for a reduced sentence and agreement to testify against other co-defendants. However, he later sought to challenge his plea, arguing that the charge he pleaded guilty to was invalidated by a trial court ruling. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee rejected this motion, deeming it procedurally defective and untimely.
Chesebro’s defense team contended that the legal basis for the charge had been undermined by a ruling in September 2023, where the court dismissed certain counts under the doctrine of federal preemption. Specifically, the defense cited an 1890 U.S. Supreme Court case, In re Loney, which they argued rendered the charge of filing false documents invalid. They claimed that a defendant cannot plead guilty to a charge that no longer constitutes a crime. However, Judge McAfee dismissed this motion, ruling that the plea in bar, which is a method to challenge the validity of an indictment, was not applicable in this post-conviction context. The judge emphasized that a plea in bar is typically used before a conviction is entered, not after.
Judge McAfee also pointed out that Chesebro had already filed a motion challenging the indictment prior to his plea, but did not cite the Loney case, undermining the current argument. Furthermore, the judge noted that a plea in bar cannot be used after a conviction has been made, as the defendant’s legal options for post-conviction challenges are limited to specific procedures such as filing a motion to withdraw the guilty plea, a motion for a new trial, or a petition for habeas corpus. In this case, Chesebro’s motion was filed more than a year after his conviction, well beyond the deadline for filing such challenges.
McAfee further clarified that a motion in arrest of judgment, which could potentially have been used to contest the conviction, must be filed during the term in which the judgment was entered. Since Chesebro’s conviction occurred in October 2023, and the term expired in November 2023, his motion was filed too late to be considered. The judge concluded that there was no “judgment” of guilt to dismiss, as the plea agreement involved a form of deferred adjudication, where the charge remains pending while the defendant completes the conditions of their sentence, such as probation and community service.
The judge also rejected the idea that Chesebro could request a new trial, noting that no trial had taken place in the first place. As such, there was no trial record to challenge. Lastly, McAfee ruled that the court lacked jurisdiction to grant the relief Chesebro sought because the punishment he received under Georgia law was not illegal.
Despite this ruling, Chesebro’s attorney, Manny Arora, remained undeterred. He acknowledged that while the motion was denied on procedural grounds, it was not dismissed on the merits of the case. Arora indicated that they would continue pursuing their case through civil habeas corpus, a longer and more complex legal route. He emphasized that the denial was not a reflection of the underlying legal issues but rather a procedural hurdle that could be addressed through other legal avenues.
