Grand jury information exposed by defense attorney in Arizona fake electors case

A day after prosecutors expressed concern in a Maricopa County courtroom that grand jury information in Arizona's fake electors case might be made public , they confirmed their fears when they told the judge overseeing the case that an attorney representing defendant Christina Bobb had publicly filed a court document that included transcripts of grand jury proceedings and grand juror names.

Before breaking for lunch on Tuesday, Nick Klingerman, the head of the criminal division of the Arizona Attorney General's Office, alerted Superior Court Judge Bruce Cohen of an "urgent housekeeping matter."

"As we discussed yesterday, a motion with attachments was filed, not under seal, with grand jurors' names, in violation of this court's protective order," Klingerman said. "I'd like to approach to talk about that so we could get that taken off the public docket."

When court resumed after lunch, Cohen confirmed the document, which used grand jury transcripts to support the argument that the prosecution of Bobb was politically motivated and had been posted publicly since Aug. 19, was now sealed.

On Monday, prosecutors asked for an order to be imposed that would require the defendants to meet with their lawyers in person to review grand jury materials rather than allow them to keep their own copies. Prosecutors cited the Georgia fake elector case as a justification, saying some grand jury members there received death threats after their names were made public.

Though Cohen did not then rule on the prosecution's request, he proposed a compromise of redacting grand jurors' names to protect their identities, making it less risky to give defendants copies of grand jury documents.

A representative for Thomas Jacobs, the Tucson attorney for Bobb who, according to statements made in court, filed the document, said Tuesday evening that Jacobs was out of the office and unavailable for an interview. Jacobs made his Tuesday court appearance virtually.

Tuesday was the second day of arguments on several motions, including defendants' requests to dismiss the criminal charges against them. Bobb, an attorney for Trump's 2020 campaign, was among several defendants who sought to dismiss the case on the theory that it was motivated by political retaliation.

In April 2024, a grand jury indicted 11 Arizona Republicans and seven top aides to Donald Trump on felony charges stemming from a plan to keep him in the White House by falsely certifying he won the state in 2020.

Two defendants have resolved their cases since the indictments were revealed.

Jenna Ellis agreed to testify against the other defendants in exchange for her charges being dropped. Ellis was an attorney for Trump who encouraged the Arizona Legislature to change the outcome of the election.

Loraine Pellegrino, one of the Arizonans who signed the false certificate of Trump's win, pleaded guilty to a less severe charge earlier this month and was sentenced to three years of unsupervised probation .

Defense attorneys argue attorney general's case was political retaliation

The bulk of Tuesday's hearing was dedicated to defense lawyers arguing the cases against their clients should be dismissed because of an Arizona law known as an anti-SLAPP statute .

SLAPP stands for "strategic lawsuit against public participation," and the law creates a framework for cases to be quickly dismissed if a defendant can prove the case was substantially motivated by retaliation because they exercised a constitutional right, like freedom of speech.

Defense attorneys argued that the indictments were political in nature on their face, and Attorney General Kris Mayes sought the prosecutions because it was an election year.

"Our attorney general campaigned to go after what she called 'fake electors,'" said Brad Miller, attorney for Kelli and Michael Ward, who falsely certified Trump won Arizona in 2020. "She said she was going to prosecute these individuals."

Miller said the Wards were open about their actions, saying they acted with legitimacy and good sense while setting up a second set of electors. He argued the defendants should be able to probe the prosecution's reasoning behind the case.

"Maybe our attorney general has a very good basis for bringing this particular prosecution," Miller said. "But at first glance — at prima facie — she does not, and therefore, we believe that we are entitled to question her, to seek out discovery, to determine what motivation she actually had."

Moving forward: Court sets trial date in AZ fake electors case; parties argue over grand jury material

Jacobs said his client, Bobb, presented "a really good example" of a defendant worthy of winning an anti-SLAAP motion to dismiss. He said Bobb had little involvement with the 2020 Trump elector process compared to the other defendants, claiming she was only mentioned a handful of times in grand jury transcripts.

"There is a showing of an improper motivation to try to keep her from saying bad things about the Arizona election, lobbying Congress, and participating in the Trump campaign," Jacobs said. "She wouldn't have been indicted if she didn't have this profile. There's no other explanation for it."

Mike Bailey, an attorney for Boris Epshteyn, a Trump campaign adviser, said his client truly believed there was fraud in the 2020 election.

"This was an intensely held view and a viewpoint on one side, that our constitutional order, our democracy, is in crisis because of the way this election was conducted," Bailey said.

Dennis Wilenchik, representing Jim Lamon, another 2020 Arizona Trump elector, argued there was no clearly established precedent for bringing such a case years after the alleged actions.

"Bringing this action in 2024 reeks with political vengeance and retribution — reeks with it," Wilenchik said. "Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not dance around it. Let's not try to gild it with legal maxims and principles. There's only one reason this case was brought."

Wilenchik said Lamon and his co-defendants were "good people who did the right thing." He said Lamon told others openly that the electors were merely part of a contingency plan.

"How much time and energy has been spent on this?" Wilenchik asked rhetorically of the prosecution. "God only knows. All I know is, it's breaking the back of innocent people for no good reason other than a political one."

Oral arguments expected to continue Wednesday

Defense attorneys went longer than expected, taking all of Tuesday to finish their arguments in favor of dismissal. Klingerman will have at least an hour to respond to the defense claims on Wednesday.

Outside the courtroom at the end of the day on Tuesday, Klingerman defended the state's prosecution.

"I fully intend, with the time allotted tomorrow, to address these accusations," Klingerman said. "I want to remind everyone that this case was indicted after a lengthy, multi-month grand jury presentation by members of the defendants' peers from across the state. That grand jury was independent and made its own decision to indict this case."

No charges: Why Arizona Attorney General Mayes didn't want to indict Trump in fake elector case

Republic reporters Miguel Torres and Stacey Barchenger contributed to this article.

Have a news tip? Reach the reporter at jjenkins@arizonarepublic.com or 812-243-5582. Follow him on X, formerly known as Twitter, @JimmyJenkins .

This article originally appeared on Arizona Republic: Grand jury information exposed by defense attorney in Arizona fake electors case