${

A

i " . , . . - - ,' 'r , l ' fr '?.

\t,}---11 q fhqQ srArE cot&r QF dryAru J a *r : -'i STAItsiOF GEORGI

STATE OF GEORGIA.

Plaintifi, C,A.SE NO : Rl54116

\ t

\-TJSUF SHABAZZ.

Defendelt.

MOTION FOR, R.E.CL'ISAL OF'CTL{THANI COI.JT{TY DISTRICT ATTORNEY.

ME,G IIEA_P ,{ND ALL OF TTER ASSISTANTS

1-LISUF SH.AB,47-2. through unrJersigned counsel. respeclfirlly rnoves this Court,

pursuant to the Fourth. Fifth, SiI1h, and Fourleentl Amerrdments to the United States

Consritution, Article I, $ I, t'I,'ti I. Il. ]V. V. VII. tX, X, XI, XiI. XIII, XIV" XVI. X-VII- XVm'

rc{fv qnd )O(\.III of the Constitution of the State of Georgia a.s well as and ali other applicable

constitutional standards and jurispnrdential authority to recuse fhe District Atiomey- Meg Fle'ap

ancl all olher assistnnts from the prosecution oFthe above-stvled case'

In suppor! counsel states:

yUSLIF SFIABAZZ is charged wrth i) leaving scone o[ an accident and failirg to

give aid/info ii) reckless drirring. and iii) drii,ing on wrong .sidc of roadway under

Accu^sation# Rl5471, a c&se currently pending rn Chatham Cquntl' State Courl

yusuf Shabazz, ths Defendant. is an eleated Chatham County Commissioner in

Savannah. Georgia. The District Attorney. I\4eg Heap, is also an elected official of

Chatham Countl-- In visiting the ChathanL Cc'un6' Commissioner's website' Meg Heap is

lisled on the same websitc as the det-endant. Defendant argues that the Chatha.rr Cor-rnt1'

,Ii,! ' . 1

))))))))))

Commissioners have some direct involvernent with voting on ar#or fina-ncing rssues

related ro chatham County Distrid Aftomey's crfiice. This hcludes but is not limited to

approvilg the budget for Chatham County Disfrct Attorney's Office" Defendant asserts

that there is an appearance of professional improprriety in this case as a result'

All atlorneys. puhlic and private, are bound by canon 9 fof the code of

professional Responsibilityl to "avoid even t},e app€arance r.-rf pmfessional impropl.iel'y-'"

Additionall!', the National Distriqt Attorney Association and the Nationa'l Prosecution

Starrdards provides thal a prosecutor should not hold an interest or enEaSIi in actiyities'

financial or otherwise. that conl'lict, have a significant potential to conflict' or are likely

to create a rea-sonable appearance of conflict with the d'uties and responsibilitie's of the

prosccrttcn's officc,

ln the present case. the Defendant as irn electecl Cbatharn Counq' Commissioner

in savannah. Georgla rr,,ho votes and/or bas a role in voting r:n the budget tbr chatbam

Couiltr, District Attorney's office gives a rea-qonable sppearimce of conflict with the

rJuties and rcsponsibilities of the lhe District Attomey Ofnce. Meg Harp' Defendant

ar$-les that because the chatham county c.ommissioners bave some direct invoiveme'trt

with voting orr and/or financing issues related to chatham countl' District Attorney^s

offlce. Chatham County District Attomey and her assistants have some conflistine

interest rn prosecuting this case and the prosecution thereof is likely to create a

reasonable appearsnce of conflict with the duties and responsibilities of the prosecutor's

office^

ThcrefOre. Defendant ass€rts that the prosecutor should excuse himself or hersclf

frOm any investigation, Prosecution, or other matter rvhere --' intercsts oFthe proSecutor

would. cause a fiair-minded, ob-iective observer to conclude that the prosecutor's

neutrE]ity. Judgrrcrrl or ability to administer the iaw in an objective manner ma1' be

compromised The question is nnt whether the prosecutor is impartiai in fact' It is simply

whether another" not knowing r,vhether or not the prosecutor is acfually impartial' might

rcasonably question her irnpartialitv on the basis of all the circumstances'

Where an acfual or potential conflict of intcrest exisls that "vould

prevent the

prosecutor's oflice fiom investigating o? prosecuting a criminal mafier, the ptosectrtor"s

office shoulcl appoint. or seek tlre appointment of a "special pmsecutor"' or refsr ti'c

matter to the epFnopriate governmental authoritl' as required hy law- Here. it is clear that

an actual or a potential conflict of interest exists

It should l-,€ understoocl tlrat the tlnjted Stgtes Constitution requires

d:squalifical.ion ,"vhere there is an1' hint of impropriety. The Supreme Court held ln Rg

Murqhisan. ]49 LI S l]3. 136. 75.5 S.Ct' 623,99 L.Ed' 942 (1955), that:

fal firir tnal in a fair tribulal is a basic requirement of due proce'ss.

F"i*"*o of cotusc req,,,rcs an absence of actual hias in the trial of

cases. But our system .f 1a*' has always endeavored to preyent

even the probablli$' of unfairngss ' ' '

Thrs Defendant and his counsel hereby places the State and this Honorahle Court

on notice that he has not. is not and will not waive. intentionally or unintentionally auy

recusal issue in this caqe.

The failure of this Cowt to recurse the Dishict Attomey's Ofiice will deprive

ylsLrF s[L\BAzz of the independent stete and fedsral constitulional guarantee's to: a

fair trial. arld riglrt to present a defcnse, due process of law' equal protection of the ialv'q'

and a reliable verdict and sentence. Ga. Const. art. I. $ I, Tlfl I' II, Iv:' V. VII' Ix' L XI'

X I I .X IT I -X IV .XVLX\T I 'XV I I I ,XTVandXXVI I I ;U 'S 'Cons t ' amend 'V 'V I ' and

XIV.

(b)

WHEREFORE, this Defendant respecfi ly rcguests.

(a) that Distict Attomey Meg Heap and all of her assistants be recused pursuant to

the U S. Constitution guanmtees of due process and lair trial and in accordance

with the Code of Professional Responsibitity a-s well in accordsltce with National

District Attorney's Association Standards of Conduct and othcr authorities cited

herein. and tlat thjs case be assigned to a special prosecrrtor; or, in the alternative;

that th-is matter be a'ssigned to another district Bttorne;r'5 office for a full' tait and

adequate hearing on the matter and that upon zuch hearing an order be entered

disqualifoing District Atlorney Meg Heap and a-ll of her assistants from

prosecuting this case; or. in the alternative:

that. District Aftorney Meg Heap and all of her assistants certify this issue tbr

irnmediate review to thc Georgia Supreme Courl in the event this motion is

denied r,vithout a hearing: and

all such other relief to which this Defendart may be cntifled.

\ L l

(d)

. . , J ! )

DATED this il" day of . 201 6.

ie O. Burgess. Esq.State Bar No. 435162Atlorney for the Defend.ilt

T

District

delivery

CERTTFICATE OF SERVTCE

herebt' certifl that a cop;' of the foregoing motion has been mailed to Thc

Altorney for Chatham Cowrty via fir.st-class l-lnitsd States Postsl Service

this 11th day of .Ianuary. 2016.

State Bar No. a35162Afiomev for Defendant. Yusuf Sbabazz

Office of the

anct via hand

v .

\-LTSIJF SI{ABAZZ.

IN THE STATE COURT OF CFIATHAM COU}I-IYSTATE OF GEORGIA

STATE OF GEORGIA,))')

) CASE NO. : R l54716

))))I

Plaintiff.

Defendant. ))

ORDER

IJpon consideration of Yusuf Shabazz' Motion to Recuse, the Court heing otherurse

sufhciently advised. and good gtounds appeariag therefore,

IT rS HEREBY ORDERED AND DECREED, thAt DigtTiCt AttOTNClI MEE HCAP ANd A1I

of her a-ssistants are hereby recused and a special prosecutor be appointed'

so ORDERED rhjs day of . 2016

Presiding .Iuclge. State Cor-rtState of Geotgla

Prepared b.v-:Stephanie O. Burgess, Etq.State Bar No. 435161Attomev lrrr Detendant