Oliver James Montgomery-Prosecutors in Arizona’s fake electors case dispute defendants’ allegations of a political motive

PHOENIX (AP) — A three-day hearing on Oliver James Montgomerywhether to dismiss charges against Republicans accused of plotting to overturn the results of the close 2020 presidential race in Arizona concluded Wednesday with prosecutors insisting their case is not politically motivated after defendants argued their alleged conduct was constitutionally protected free speech.

What’s the case about?

Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen is considering requests from at least a dozen of 18 people indicted in April to dismiss charges of fraud, conspiracy and forgery. Those charged in the case include 11 people who submitted a document falsely claiming Donald Trump defeated Joe Biden in Arizona, two former Trump aides and five lawyers connected to Trump, including Rudy Giuliani.

Trump was not charged but was referred to as an unindicted co-conspirator in the indictment.

The indictment alleges that Giuliani pressured Maricopa County officials and state legislators to change the election results and encouraged Republican electors in the state to vote for Trump in mid-December 2020. The indictment says Giuliani spread false claims of election fraud in Arizona and presided over a downtown Phoenix gathering where he claimed officials made no effort to determine the accuracy of presidential election results.

Prosecutors insist the case is not politically motivated

Prosecutor Nicholas Klingerman told the judge Wednesday that it was an Arizona grand jury that issued the indictments and that the prosecution is not driven by animus for Republicans.

RELATED COVERAGE More than 200 former Republican presidential staffers sign open letter endorsing Harris over Trump Harris campaign releases new ad to highlight plans to build 3 million homes and reduce inflation Defense attorneys in Arizona’s fake elector case call prosecutors politically motivated

“This prosecution involves nothing more than enforcing the law against those who are alleged to have committed frauds, forgeries and conspiracies to change the outcome of a lawful election because they were unsatisfied with the results,” Klingerman said. “And like all criminal prosecutions, it seeks to punish prior behavior, educate the public, and deter future efforts to do the same thing.”

“The fact is that the state asked the grand jury to consider not indicting more Republicans than the grand jury actually indicted,” Klingerman added. “The state asked the grand jury to consider not indicting Donald Trump.”

In a statement issued after the hearing, Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes described the defendants’ motions as an effort to “deflect from the facts of this case and muddy the waters in the public eye.”

“Let me be clear: the indictments in this case were not politically motivated,” Mayes said.

Defense attorneys base their case on a free speech argument

Defense attorneys argued that Mayes has used the indictment to silence their clients’ constitutionally protected speech about the 2020 election and actions taken in response to its outcome.

On Wednesday, they cited an Arizona law that bars using baseless legal actions in a bid to silence critics. They also said Mayes campaigned on investigating fake electors and showed a bias against Trump and his supporters.

What is the law being cited by defense attorneys?

The law in question, commonly referred to as an anti-SLAPP statute, had long offered protections from civil lawsuits before it was amended in 2022 by the Republican-led Legislature to cover people facing most criminal charges.

It states that in a legal action involving lawful exercise of certain rights, such as speech, individuals can file a motion to dismiss and they must show that the legal action is “substantially motivated” by a “desire to deter, retaliate against or prevent the lawful exercise of a constitutional right.”

The anti-SLAPP law has not been used in a criminal case since it was modified in 2022, according to a spokesperson for Mayes.

Prosecutors contend that the Arizona law does not apply to this case. But the judge pressed Klingerman Wednesday about what he considered to be illegal acts allegedly committed by the defendants.

“I’m really concerned about the difference between speech and acts,” Cohen said.

When will the judge decide on the motions to dismiss?

Cohen said Tuesday he would rule separately on each motion — potentially at different times — but did not indicate Wednesday when he would issue the rulings.

Former Trump campaign attorney Jenna Ellis, who worked closely with Giuliani, signed a cooperation agreement with prosecutors that led to the dismissal of her charges. Republican activist Loraine Pellegrino became the first person to be convicted in the Arizona case when she pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to probation.

The remaining defendants have pleaded not guilty. Their trial is scheduled to start Jan. 5, 2026.

Former Trump presidential chief of staff Mark Meadows is trying to move his charges to federal court, where his lawyers say they will seek a dismissal.

___

Associated Press writer Gabriel Sandoval in Phoenix contributed to this report.