The Justice Department has suffered another extraordinary setback in its efforts to prosecute New York Attorney General Letitia James. A second federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, declined on December eleven to indict James, just days after a Norfolk grand jury rejected the same charges. According to defense attorney Abbe Lowell, who represents James, the repeated failures are virtually unheard of in federal criminal practice.
The refusal comes on the heels of a series of courtroom defeats for the Trump administration. Earlier indictments against James and former FBI Director James Comey were dismissed after a federal judge ruled that the prosecutor who brought the cases had been unlawfully appointed. Another judge has also blocked the Justice Department from using key evidence in its attempt to refile charges against Comey, at least temporarily.
- Advertisement -
These developments have intensified scrutiny of the administration’s attempts to prosecute James and Comey, two longtime critics of former President Donald Trump. Trump publicly urged action against both figures as well as Representative Adam Schiff in a post on his social media platform in late September.
“This is an embarrassment,” former federal prosecutor Neama Rahmani told USA Today. “The last thing any prosecutor wants is to be on the defensive, and that is exactly what has happened.”
A separate Justice Department investigation into Schiff has effectively stalled, according to NBC News. Multiple outlets have reported that federal officials are now examining whether political influence tainted the inquiry.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the setbacks.
Comey was initially charged in September with lying to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding based on his testimony before a Senate committee in twenty twenty. James faced allegations of bank fraud and providing false statements in connection with her purchase of a home in Virginia.
Both cases trace back to Trump’s longstanding disputes with the two officials. Trump fired Comey in two thousand seventeen as the FBI investigated possible ties between the Trump campaign and the Russian government. After leaving office, Comey became a vocal critic of Trump. James sued Trump and his business in twenty twenty two, accusing him of years of fraudulent real estate practices.
According to reports, career prosecutors and the interim United States attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia concluded earlier this year that the evidence in both cases was too weak to justify bringing charges.
Trump then announced on social media that he wanted the interim United States attorney removed and suggested that Attorney General Pam Bondi replace him with Lindsey Halligan, the president’s former personal lawyer who had never worked as a prosecutor. Bondi appointed Halligan within days, and Halligan quickly secured indictments against both Comey and James.
The legal battles soon encountered major obstacles. Both defendants filed motions accusing the government of political retaliation. James argued that the prosecution removed veteran prosecutors who objected to bringing charges and engaged in unconstitutional conduct. Comey argued that the grand jury process was tainted because prosecutors never presented the final indictment to the jurors.
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick wrote in a ruling related to Comey’s case that the record showed a “disturbing pattern” of investigative errors, including potential violations of the Fourth Amendment.
In late November, United States District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed all charges against Comey and James after determining that Halligan had been unlawfully appointed to lead the office.
Legal analysts say the Justice Department has little to show for its efforts.
“So far, the federal government has not had any real success except to harass them, which may have been the point,” said Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond.
Despite Bondi’s initial vow to appeal, the department shifted strategies and sought a new indictment against James using a fresh grand jury. Grand jury proceedings generally favor the prosecution, which does not have to meet the higher trial standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
But on December four, a Norfolk grand jury declined to indict James. A week later, the Alexandria grand jury reached the same conclusion.
Mitchell Epner, a former federal prosecutor, said that during his tenure he brought well over one hundred cases to grand juries and never failed to secure an indictment. He called the back to back refusals “a repudiation of the prosecution.”
Rahmani echoed that view, noting that he also never saw a grand jury decline to indict during his time in federal service.
“If prosecutors cannot persuade a grand jury, they would never persuade a trial jury,” he said.
Former United States attorney Barbara McQuade said this episode demonstrates the danger of appointing inexperienced prosecutors for political loyalty rather than merit. “When prosecutors are selected based on loyalty rather than experience and integrity, this is the kind of result you can expect,” she said.
The Justice Department has signaled that it may still attempt to refile charges against Comey. On December nine, prosecutors asked United States District Judge Colleen Kollar Kotelly to lift her temporary block on the evidence they used in the original indictment. The judge ruled three days earlier that the collection of that evidence during a two thousand seventeen investigation likely violated the Fourth Amendment.
Even if the evidence is eventually deemed admissible, prosecutors may still face a statute of limitations barrier. The original indictment against Comey was filed just five days before the five year deadline expired.
Rahmani said the series of missteps has left the administration in a legally compromised and publicly embarrassing position.
“The Justice Department and Halligan in particular have an egg on their face,” he said. “These are enormous failures by any measure.”
