In a decisive turn of events on Wednesday, a Georgia prosecutor effectively ended the long-standing racketeering (RICO) case against former President Donald Trump, a case that had been a significant focus for Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis.

District Attorney Pro Tempore Peter Skandalakis, taking the reins of the case, submitted a brief yet impactful motion signaling the state’s intention to abandon the prosecution. This was the second instance this month indicating Georgia’s move to disengage from the legal battle.

The motion, succinct in its content, stated: “After a thorough examination of the case file, consideration of applicable statutory and case law, and prior to submission to a jury, the State hereby moves for entry of a Nolle Prosequi for the following reason: to serve the interests of justice and promote judicial finality.” This declaration marked a significant step in the legal proceedings.

In response, Judge Scott McAfee of the Fulton County Superior Court swiftly approved the dismissal. His order, concise and to the point, read: “The State having moved for an entry of nolle prosequi for all remaining defendants, the Court grants the motion. This case is hereby dismissed in its entirety.”

This development brings an end to a high-profile legal saga, underscoring the complexities and challenges inherent in prosecuting high-stakes cases involving public figures.

The Wednesday one-two punch comes as the final humiliations for Willis in the matter — though the elected prosecutor was formally removed from overseeing the years-old case in late December 2024.

But, for all intents and purposes, the case stalled out long before that.

Forward progress for the state all but ended in January 2024, initially over allegations that Willis’ relationship with erstwhile lead prosecutor Nathan Wade created a conflict of interest due to pecuniary motives.

A resulting disqualification battle ground on for months, with McAfee partially granting the defense’s motion to disqualify while giving the prosecution the choice of which prosecutor was the one to go in March 2024. The state, of course, sent Wade packing and thought they might move on — but such efforts were not long for this earth.

After that, both sides appealed aspects of the partial disqualification order. Then, based on the dueling bids for redress, the Georgia Court of Appeals put the case on indefinite hiatus in June 2024.

When the appellate court finally ruled, 2-1, to remove Willis herself, the case was notionally kept alive — pending the district attorney’s immediate appeal to the Georgia Supreme Court. Eventually, the state’s highest court declined to revisit the appellate court’s ruling, which binned Willis while keeping the indictment itself on life support.

That’s where Skandalakis came in — somewhat begrudgingly.

Earlier this month, the Prosecuting Attorneys’ Council of Georgia executive director announced himself as the person in charge — citing his “inability to secure another conflict prosecutor to assume responsibility” and noting that several other prosecutors were contacted but “each declined the appointment.”

“Out of respect for their privacy and professional discretion, I will not identify those prosecutors or disclose their reasons for declining,” Skandalakis mused — adding that would not have been the “right course of action” to simply let a forthcoming deadline pass or to tell McAfee that no other prosecutor “could be secured.”

Yet that penultimate formality did not amount to much.

In a concomitant 23-page exhibit attached to the state’s motion, the prosecutor employed an extended version of the aforementioned medical metaphor to describe the beleaguered case.

“It is on life support and the decision what to do with it falls on me and me alone,” Skandalakis writes. “But unlike family members who must make the emotional decision to withdraw loved ones from life-sustaining treatment, I have no emotional connection to this case. As a former elected official who ran as both a Democrat and a Republican and now is the Executive Director of a non-partisan agency, this decision is not guided by a desire to advance an agenda but is based on my beliefs and understanding of the law.”

Skandalakis refers to his own philosophy and beliefs, quoting a lengthy passage from a 1940 speech by U.S. Attorney General Robert H. Jackson — a onetime U.S. Supreme Court justice who most famously served as the U.S. architect of, and later lead prosecutor during, the Nuremberg tribunal prosecutions of Nazi war criminals.

“While the prosecutor at his best is one of the most beneficent forces in our society, when he acts from malice or other base motives, he is one of the worst,” the end of the quoted passage reads.

Next, Skandalakis spends considerable time combing through the allegations at the basis of the 98-page, 41-count criminal indictment — taking particular note of the infamous post-2020 election phone call between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

The exhibit declares the upshot of all this restating, at length:

Never before, and hopefully never again, will our country face circumstances such as these. The case is now nearly five years removed from President Trump’s phone call with the Secretary of State, and two years have passed since the Grand Jury returned charges against President Trump and the eighteen other defendants. There is no realistic prospect that a sitting President will be compelled to appear in Georgia to stand trial on the allegations in this indictment. Donald J. Trump’s current term as President of the United States of America does not expire until January 20, 2029; by that point, eight years will have elapsed since the phone call at issue.

And even if, by some extraordinary circumstance, President Donald J. Trump were to appear in Georgia on January 21, 2029—the day after his term concludes—an immediate jury trial would be impossible. Litigating the immunity issues identified in Trump v. United States would require months, if not years, assuming the State could even prevail at the state level on these vigorously contested questions of presidential immunity…

Skandalakis goes on to consider — and consequently reject — the idea of trying the remaining co-defendants independently of Trump.

“Severing President Trump from the remaining defendants and conducting separate trials, while simultaneously waiting for the conclusion of his term and addressing all of the aforementioned legal issues, would be both illogical and unduly burdensome and costly for the State and for Fulton County,” the exhibit goes on.

And in the end, the decision comes down to resource allocation.

“Continuing this litigation under these circumstances would neither serve the citizens of Georgia nor fulfill our statutory obligations,” Skandalakis argues. “Our agency is simply not equipped to carry out this case while meeting the essential duties required under the current budget—or under any realistically conceivable budget the State could provide. In my professional judgment, the citizens of Georgia are not served by pursuing this case in full for another five to ten years.”