Defendants ask judge to dismiss Arizona 'fake electoral' case; trial scheduled to begin in 2026

PHOENIX – After three days of hearings and a trial scheduled for January 5, 2026, the decision on whether to proceed in the Arizona “fake electorals” case is now in the hands of Judge Bruce Cohen.

The defendants argued over the course of Monday and Tuesday that charges against 11 people who signed documents claiming to be Arizona's Electoral College electors in 2020 – even though Joe Biden won the state and Arizona certified his victory – and other allies of Donald Trump should be dismissed on the grounds that they exercised their rights under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Mark Williams, the lawyer for former New York mayor and Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani, spoke before the judge on Tuesday, arguing that the charges were brought to “deprive my client of his rights to free speech, freedom of association and freedom to petition the government politically.”

“These things are not illegal,” Williams added.

On Wednesday, the state defended its lawsuit, arguing that the fraud, forgery and conspiracy charges the defendants are accused of had nothing to do with their political statements or affiliations.

“Conspiracy itself is not protected speech,” argued prosecutor Nicholas Klingerman. “Yes, Mr. Giuliani had every right to hold a mock hearing at the Hilton on November 30 and claim that thousands of people in Arizona voted fraudulently in the election. But he did not have the right to make those statements with the intent to commit voter fraud, and that is what he is accused of.”

In addition to the alleged “fake electors,” defendants in the case include Guiliani, former Trump White House Chief of Staff Mark Meadows, former Trump campaign attorney Christina Bobb, former Trump attorneys John Eastman, Boris Epshteyn and Jenna Ellis, and Trump's head of election day operations, Michael Roman.

After being indicted by a grand jury in Arizona in April, each of the 18 defendants was charged with nine felony counts. The indictment alleges that the “fake electors” used “false or fraudulent pretenses” to keep Trump in office. It also claims that all of the defendants participated in a “conspiracy” that “would have deprived Arizona voters of their right to vote and have their votes counted.”

Two defendants, including Ellis, have reached plea deals with the state and are cooperating with prosecutors. Still, many of the 16 remaining defendants filed for dismissal under the state's “anti-SLAPP” law, which allows for “strategic lawsuits against public participation.” While many states have similar laws designed to protect those exercising their right to speak from abusive lawsuits, Arizona lawmakers expanded their law in 2022 to apply to both criminal and civil cases.

This expansion has given hope to some defendants in Arizona. Earlier this week, Eastman exuded confidence outside the Maricopa County Courthouse.

“I hope that ultimately it gets dismissed relatively quickly from here,” Eastman said. “I think the application of Arizona's anti-SLAPP law to criminal prosecutions is a novel development in the law of this country, and I think Judge Cohen is well aware of the importance of that.”

Other defendants argued that Attorney General Kris Mayes, a Democrat who brought the case, pursued it solely for political reasons.

“On the streets of Arizona, all the time, everywhere … there are bumper stickers saying 'Vote Trump,' 'Vote Trump.' Everyone is saying that, and that scares Ms. Mayes,” said Williams, Giuliani's lawyer. “It's a conspiracy on her part to deprive Mr. Giuliani and the other co-defendants of their right to petition the government.”

After the trial concluded on Wednesday, Mayes rejected the claims made by Williams and other lawyers for various defendants.

“Let me be clear: The charges in this case were not politically motivated. They were the result of a thorough, lengthy and professional investigation conducted by experienced and dedicated law enforcement officials and prosecutors,” Mayes said in a video statement.

Mayes also addressed the defendant's anti-SLAPP arguments.

“This case is not about the defendant's First Amendment rights. The acts in question are not protected speech,” she said. “The law draws a clear line between speech and illegal conduct, and we believe the evidence shows the defendants crossed that line.”

Mayes' term ends in 2027. If the trial does not proceed as planned and she is not re-elected, it is possible that another attorney general could take over or even end the prosecution.

In his argument on Wednesday, Attorney General Klingerman, representing the state, also rejected the idea that the case of the “fraudulent electors” was politically motivated.

“How can you say this is illegal when an independent grand jury indicted?” Klingerman asked.

The hearing, originally scheduled to last just one day, dragged on for three days after at least a dozen defendants filed motions to dismiss the case. The lengthy process resulted in more defendants and attorneys attending the hearings virtually with each passing day, causing disruptions.

On Tuesday, Bobb's attorney Thomas Jacobs turned on his camera to reveal he was watching virtually from his boat. On Wednesday, one of the virtual participants accidentally turned on the sound while buying birdseed.

After Klingerman presented the prosecution's counterarguments and argued that the charges should not be dropped, Cohen gave the defendants until September 6 to respond to the prosecution's argument in a five-page document.