Three years after a former Georgia district attorney, Jackie Johnson, was charged with interfering with police investigating the 2020 killing of Ahmaud Arbery, the case has come to a standstill. Johnson, who was the top prosecutor for coastal Glynn County at the time of Arbery’s death, faced allegations of using her office to shield two of the men involved in the fatal shooting. The men, Greg McMichael and his son Travis McMichael, were later convicted of murder and hate crimes, along with a neighbor, William “Roddie” Bryan, who filmed the incident.
Despite the swift trials and convictions of the men responsible for Arbery’s death, Johnson’s own case has progressed slowly since her indictment in September 2021. Charged with violating her oath of office and hindering a police officer, Johnson has maintained her innocence, claiming she recused herself from the case due to her connection to Greg McMichael. Her case has been delayed, in part, because one of her attorneys has been occupied with another high-profile trial.
While Judge John R. Turner assures that Johnson’s case is not being swept under the rug, the legal proceedings have been moving at a sluggish pace. Prosecutors allege that Johnson improperly intervened in the investigation by advising against the arrest of Travis McMichael and showing favoritism towards Greg McMichael. Johnson’s attorneys argue that there is no evidence of wrongdoing on her part.
Legal experts note that there is no deadline for Johnson to stand trial, and her lack of incarceration has reduced the urgency to expedite her case. Additionally, the backlog of cases resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic and the limited resources of the attorney general’s office have contributed to the slow progression of Johnson’s case.
Critics question the strength of the case against Johnson, highlighting that district attorneys often have discretion in deciding which cases to pursue. The recommendation Johnson made in 2020 to appoint another prosecutor who ultimately deemed Arbery’s killing justified may not necessarily constitute a violation of the law, according to legal experts familiar with the case.
