By Matt Underwood Grand jury rejections, particularly when concerning high-profile figures, can say a lot about the legal process and public perception. The recent refusal by a federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James on alleged mortgage fraud charges is a prime example. This outcome, coming shortly after the dismissal of an earlier case based on a technicality, highlights some interesting dynamics. The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) attempts to refile the case, and the subsequent “no true bill” returned by the grand jury, sends a very clear message: the evidence, or the way it was presented, wasn’t strong enough to warrant charges.
It is worth noting the context of this case, involving an adversary of former President Donald Trump. He has repeatedly called for James’ prosecution. The initial indictment, secured by Trump’s former attorney, was thrown out due to an unlawful appointment of the U.S. attorney. This dismissal set the stage for the DOJ’s second attempt, which also ended in failure. The grand jury’s decision is particularly noteworthy, given the perception that grand juries often tend to side with prosecutors, particularly in the early stages of a case. As they say, you can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. But in this instance, the prosecution couldn’t even achieve that.
This “no true bill” decision from the grand jury can be seen as an exceptional rebuke of the DOJ’s efforts. The term “no true bill” signifies that the grand jury found insufficient evidence to proceed with formal charges. It is not an acquittal, but it does mean the case cannot go to trial at this time. Considering the low standard of proof required at the grand jury stage – probable cause, not guilt beyond a reasonable doubt – the rejection suggests significant weaknesses in the prosecution’s case.
The specifics of the allegations involved James allegedly misrepresenting a property to obtain more favorable mortgage terms, potentially saving a relatively modest amount of money. While any instance of potential fraud should be taken seriously, the nature of the alleged offense might not have resonated strongly enough with the jurors, particularly given the political backdrop.
It is also important to consider the potential motivations and biases of the grand jurors themselves. It is conceivable, even likely, that the jury makeup did not embrace the framing the DOJ wanted.
Following a “no true bill”, prosecutors can refile the case, especially if new evidence emerges. However, as it stands, a second rejection would definitely make the case more complicated for the DOJ, especially if no new evidence or arguments were to be offered. The defense could use this as a strong point of argument, as it could look like the prosecution is simply grasping at straws and that there is not sufficient evidence.
Furthermore, the legal landscape surrounding James’ case has already been complicated by the initial dismissal of the indictment due to the questionable appointment of the U.S. Attorney. This procedural error, alongside the grand jury’s refusal to indict, casts a shadow on the entire process, especially given the calls for James’ prosecution and the political motivations that may have been at play.
This entire situation underlines the importance of considering whether a case is viewed as politically motivated. It’s easy for the public to become skeptical of such cases. The current outcome highlights how important it is that the evidence stands on its own. The DOJ’s credibility could be affected by its attempts to pursue a case that a grand jury found to be lacking.
The failure to secure an indictment twice sends a signal, regardless of the ultimate merits of the allegations. It suggests weaknesses in the evidence or the manner in which it was presented. It’s a stark reminder that even with the power of the DOJ, the justice system relies on more than just the pursuit of charges. It relies on the soundness of the case and the judgment of ordinary citizens.