A funny Giuliani, a ‘geeky’ Raffensperger and subpoenas galore: Inside the Trump grand jury in Georgia
They were led down a staircase into a garage beneath a downtown Atlanta courthouse, where officers with big guns were waiting. From there, they were ushered into vans with heavily tinted windows and driven to their cars under police escort.
For Emily Kohrs, these were the moments last May when she realized she wasn’t participating in just any grand jury.
“That was the first indication that this was a big freaking deal,” Kohrs told the Associated Press.
The 30-year-old Fulton County, Georgia, resident, who was between jobs, suddenly found herself at the center of one of the nation’s most significant legal proceedings. She would become foreperson of the special grand jury selected to investigate whether then-President Trump and his Republican associates illegally meddled in Georgia’s 2020 presidential election.
The case has emerged as one of Trump’s most glaring legal vulnerabilities as he mounts a third presidential campaign, in part because he was recorded asking state election officials to “find 11,780 votes” for him.
For the next eight months, Kohrs and her fellow jurors would hear testimony from 75 witnesses, ranging from some of Trump’s most prominent allies to local election workers. Portions of the panel’s final report released Thursday said jurors believed that “one or more witnesses” committed perjury and urged local prosecutors to bring charges. The report’s recommendations for charges on other issues, including potential attempts to influence the election, remain secret for now.
The panel has been investigating whether then-President Trump and his allies committed crimes while trying to overturn his election loss in Georgia.
The AP identified Kohrs after her name was included on subpoenas obtained through open records requests. Fulton County Superior Court Judge Robert McBurney advised Kohrs and other jurors on what they could and could not share publicly, including in interviews with the news media.
During a lengthy recent interview, Kohrs complied with the judge’s instructions not to discuss details related to the jury’s deliberations. She also declined to talk about unpublished portions of the panel’s final report.
But her general characterizations provided unusual insight into a process that is typically cloaked in secrecy.
Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, who was on the receiving end of Trump’s pressure campaign, was “a really geeky kind of funny,” she said. State House Speaker David Ralston, who died in November, was hilarious and had the room in stitches. And Gov. Brian Kemp, who succeeded in delaying his appearance until after his reelection in November, seemed unhappy to be there.
The South Carolina Republican testifies before a special grand jury that’s investigating whether former President Trump and others illegally meddled in Georgia’s 2020 election.
Kohrs was fascinated by an explanation of Georgia’s voting machines offered by a former Dominion Voting Systems executive. She also enjoyed learning about the inner workings of the White House from Cassidy Hutchinson, who Kohrs said was much more forthcoming than her old boss, former White House chief of staff Mark Meadows.
Kohrs sketched witnesses in her notebook as they spoke and was tickled when Bobby Christine, the former U.S. attorney for Georgia’s Southern District, complimented her “remarkable talent.” When the jurors’ notes were taken for shredding after their work was done, she managed to salvage two sketches — U.S. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Marc Short, who served as chief of staff to former Vice President Mike Pence — because there were no notes on those pages.
After Graham tried so hard to avoid testifying — taking his fight all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court — Kohrs was surprised when he politely answered questions and even joked with jurors.
Former New York mayor and Trump attorney Rudolph W. Giuliani was funny and invoked privilege to avoid answering many questions but “genuinely seemed to consider” whether it was merited before declining to answer, she said.
When witnesses refused to answer almost every question, the lawyers would engage in what Kohrs came to think of as “show and tell.” The lawyers would show video of the person appearing on television or testifying before the U.S. House committee that investigated the Jan. 6, 2021, riot at the U.S. Capitol, periodically asking the witness to confirm certain things. Then the scratching of pens on paper could be heard as jurors tallied how many times the person invoked the 5th Amendment.
At least one person who resisted answering questions became much more cooperative when prosecutors offered him immunity in front of the jurors, Kohrs said. Other witnesses came in with immunity deals already in place.
Trump’s attorneys have said he was never asked to testify. Kohrs said the grand jury wanted to hear from the former president but didn’t have any real expectation that he would offer meaningful testimony.
“Trump was not a battle we picked to fight,” she said.
Officials in Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona and Pennsylvania have been subpoenaed in special counsel Jack Smith’s investigation into the attempt to overturn the 2020 election.
Kohrs didn’t vote in 2020 and was only vaguely aware of controversy swirling in the wake of the election. She didn’t know the specifics of Trump’s allegations of widespread election fraud or his efforts to reverse his loss. When prosecutors played the then-president’s phone call with Raffensperger on the first day the jurors met to consider evidence, it was the first time Kohrs had heard it.
“I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have,” Trump said on the call.
Though Kohrs said she tends to agree more with Democrats, she said she doesn’t identify with any political party and prefers to listen to all opinions.
“If I chose a political party, it would be the not-crazy party,” she said.
While election officials in Georgia were verifying signatures on absentee ballot envelopes, President Trump pressured a lead investigator to “find the fraud.”
Kohrs called herself a “geek about the justice system” and noted the challenges some jurors faced balancing their responsibilities on the panel with outside duties. When she eagerly volunteered to be foreperson, she met no resistance from her fellow jurors, who were less enthusiastic about the time-consuming obligation stretching before them, she said.
One of her first duties as foreperson was to sign a big stack of subpoenas.
As the proceedings played out, one of her fellow jurors brought the newspaper every day and pointed out stories about the investigation. Prosecutors, Kohrs said, told jurors they could consume news coverage related to the case but urged them to keep an open mind.
Kohrs said she mostly avoided stories related to the proceedings to avoid forming an opinion.
Get breaking news, investigations, analysis and more signature journalism from the Los Angeles Times in your inbox.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
“I didn’t want to characterize anyone before they walked in the room,” she said. “I felt they all deserved an impartial listener.”
Of the 26 people on the panel — 23 jurors and three alternates — 16 had to be present for a quorum. There was a core group of between 12 and 16 who showed up almost every day the panel was in session, Kohrs said, and she could recall only one day when they couldn’t proceed because not enough seats were filled. The most they ever had in the room was 22 — on the day Giuliani testified.
As the months passed, the grand jurors grew more comfortable with one another and with the four lawyers on Fulton County Dist. Atty. Fani Willis’ team who led the proceedings. But they’re not all best friends now that it’s over.
“We are not meeting up now. We don’t have a group chat,” Kohrs said.
A court filing in the voting company’s defamation case says Rupert Murdoch’s network knowingly pushed false information about the 2020 election.
While the jurors asked to hear from certain witnesses, most witnesses were decided upon by the district attorney’s office. But Kohrs said she didn’t feel as though prosecutors were trying to influence the jurors’ final report.
“I fully stand by our report as our decision and our conclusion,” she said.
Start your day right
Sign up for Essential California for news, features and recommendations from the L.A. Times and beyond in your inbox six days a week.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.