Attorneys for officer who shot, killed Rayshard Brooks file motion to remove DA from case

ATLANTA — Attorneys for the officer accused of shooting and killing Rayshard Brooks outside a southwest Atlanta Wendy’s has filed a motion in court to have Fulton County District Attorney Paul Howard removed from the case.

“Paul Howard has systematically sought to deprive Garrett Rolfe of a fair trial and impartial jury since the day he announced his decision to arrest Garrett Rolfe. Because Paul Howard’s statements to the public were ethically inappropriate, because Paul Howard will be a necessary witness in this case, and because Paul Howard is currently under criminal investigation by the GBI for his actions in this case, we move to recuse Paul Howard and the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office from prosecuting the case against Garrett Rolfe,” the motion filed Monday said.

Last month Howard charged Rolfe with 11 counts, including felony murder and aggravated assault, criminal damage to property and violations to his oath of office.

Howard said his office concluded from witness statements and videos that Brooks never presented himself as a threat the night police shot and killed him.

Brooks had passed out inside his car in the drive-thru line of the Wendy’s restaurant along University Avenue.


Rolfe and fellow officer Devin Bronsan attempted to arrest Brooks, when Brooks grabbed a Taser from the officers and fired it as he ran from them. Rolfe returned fire and killed Brooks.

Brosnan has been charged with aggravated assault and two violations of oath of office.

Howard has been under scrutiny since announcing the charges against the officers, with many saying he moved too fast and charged the officers without getting back the results from the probe by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation.

In a statement issued late Monday afternoon, Howard said:

“We have received the motion for recusal filed by Garrett Rolfe’s Counsel. When the motion is assigned to a Superior Court Judge with appropriate jurisdiction, the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office will respond at that time. Until that occurs, we will have no further comment on this motion.”