What did the Fulton County special grand jury say about whether fraud could have changed the 2020 election outcome?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Fulton County special grand jury concluded after hearing extensive testimony that “no widespread fraud took place in the Georgia 2020 presidential election that could result in overturning that election,” a determination members voted unanimously to record in excerpts later released to the public [1] [2] [3]. The panel also documented that it had heard from roughly 75 witnesses, flagged that some testimony raised perjury concerns, and made prosecutorial recommendations that were kept under seal while a charging grand jury considered indictments [3] [4] [5].
1. What the special grand jury actually wrote: a unanimous finding on “no widespread fraud”
The special grand jury’s publicly released introduction and excerpts state unambiguously that, after hearing from experts, election workers, state officials and claimants of fraud, the panel found no evidence of widespread fraud sufficient to change the outcome of Georgia’s 2020 presidential contest — a position the jurors voted to record unanimously [1] [2] [3].
2. What the jury heard and why that matters: scope and witnesses
The report notes the SGJ received evidence from or involving roughly 75 witnesses, including election administrators and attorneys who pressed fraud claims, and the jurors weighed that testimony in reaching their conclusion about the absence of fraud large enough to alter the result [3] [6].
3. Perjury flags and sealed recommendations: not the full story in public view
While the publicly released excerpts included the unanimous conclusion about widespread fraud, the grand jury also said some witnesses may have lied under oath and it produced recommendations about potential indictments and relevant law; those substantive sections remained sealed by order of the presiding judge to protect due-process interests while prosecutions were pursued [1] [4].
4. Follow-on prosecutions and how the SGJ’s finding fit into them
The special grand jury served an advisory role to Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis; its report and sealed recommendations preceded a regular grand jury that later returned indictments including the August 2023 charging of former President Trump and 18 others on allegations of conspiring to overturn the 2020 result in Georgia — showing the SGJ’s “no widespread fraud” finding did not preclude criminal charges based on alleged interference and schemes to change the outcome [7] [8] [5].
5. State investigations and other probes: corroboration and contrary claims
Separate state reviews — such as the Georgia Secretary of State’s inquiry into the State Farm Arena “ballot suitcase” allegations — concluded there was no evidence of the types of fraud alleged in that episode, a finding echoed by other reviews that examined video and records [9]. At the same time, later administrative hearings and reporting have identified procedural lapses in Fulton County’s recount and tabulation records (for example, missing poll-worker signatures and duplicative ballot images), which state officials described as improper procedures but not proof of fraud that changed the outcome [10] [11].
6. Competing narratives and motivations: read the seals and the outlets
The SGJ’s explicit finding undercuts claims that massive, outcome-changing fraud occurred, but it sits alongside sealed prosecutorial recommendations and subsequent prosecutions focused on efforts to subvert the result through pressure campaigns and false elector schemes — a distinction the grand jury’s public pages drew sharply [3] [4] [12]. Coverage and commentary have been filtered through partisan outlets and advocacy groups that advance competing agendas — some emphasizing procedural missteps in Fulton County as evidence of a tainted result, others stressing multiple audits and state reviews that found no fraud — so readers should note which sources press policy aims or political defenses when weighing the SGJ’s plain text [10] [9] [13].
7. Bottom line: what the SGJ said about whether fraud could have changed the outcome
On the central question, the SGJ’s issued excerpts state plainly that the jurors unanimously concluded there was no widespread fraud in Georgia in 2020 that could have overturned Biden’s victory in the state, while also documenting contested witness credibility and leaving indictments and detailed findings under seal for prosecutorial use [1] [2] [3] [4].