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.… Continue reading
After a federal judge dismissed the initial charges, a grand jury declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James in a mortgage fraud case for the second time. The Justice Department, however, may seek indictment a third time, indicating the intensity of their efforts. The charges stemmed from accusations of false statements and bank fraud, but were initially thrown out due to the unlawful appointment of the prosecutor. The defense argued the appointment of Trump’s handpicked prosecutor was invalid, and the case has been met with claims of selective and vindictive prosecution.
Read More
The Department of Justice, or DOJ, is once again asking judges to authorize the release of grand jury material related to the Jeffrey Epstein and Ghislaine Maxwell cases. This is a bit of a deja vu moment, as it seems like the same tactics are being employed again. The focus, as before, is on grand jury transcripts and exhibits. However, many people aren’t convinced this is the entire story or even the most relevant information.
The core of the issue, as many see it, isn’t about the grand jury material. It’s about the underlying evidence, witness testimonies, and other crucial documents that the DOJ holds.… Continue reading
Judge Michael Nachmanoff is expected to determine whether to release the full grand jury record in the case against James Comey, following a magistrate judge’s concerns about the prosecution’s conduct. The magistrate judge’s opinion highlighted potential issues with interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan’s actions, including concerns of presenting potentially mishandled evidence, misleading the grand jury on the law, and the possibility of unrecorded discussions. Comey’s defense team argues Halligan’s role was to secure an indictment at the behest of former President Donald Trump.
Read More
In a surprising turn of events, prosecutors in the James Comey case admitted the two-count indictment against the former FBI director was never presented to, nor voted on, by a grand jury. Judge Michael Nachmanoff pressed the prosecutors for details regarding the revised indictment after the grand jury rejected an initial count. The court found that the revised version was presented to a magistrate judge, instead of the grand jury. The discovery raises questions about the legitimacy of the indictment and has potentially significant consequences for the case, with the statute of limitations potentially preventing a refiling of charges if the current case is dismissed.
Read More
The Justice Department revealed Wednesday that the grand jury indicting former FBI Director James Comey was never shown the final charges, a lapse admitted during court proceedings. Comey’s attorneys argue this omission warrants dismissal, citing the statute of limitations. Concerns about the prosecution’s integrity were already present, stemming from potential government misconduct and the lead prosecutor’s lack of prior experience. Judge Michael Nachmanoff has yet to rule, acknowledging the complexity of the issues, as the Justice Department addresses the grand jury revelation.
Read More
The Justice Department admitted in court that the grand jury was not presented with the final indictment against former FBI Director James Comey, potentially weakening the prosecution. This admission follows concerns regarding the case’s presentation, including the absence of a record of the grand jury reviewing the indictment. Furthermore, only the foreperson and a second grand juror were present for the indictment’s return. Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of making a false statement and obstructing Congress, was fired by then-President Trump in 2017 amid an investigation.
Read More
Judge in Comey case blocks order mandating DOJ hand over grand jury evidence, and this is where it all begins. It seems like the legal world is buzzing with activity, and it’s all centered around the case of former FBI Director James Comey. The story gets interesting as a federal judge has stepped in, putting a temporary hold on a previous order that would have required the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over a mountain of grand jury evidence to Comey’s legal team.
The Justice Department immediately requested the stay, and it was granted by U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff.… Continue reading
US Judge orders DOJ to turn over Comey grand jury materials, citing ‘misconduct’.
So, it seems a US judge has ordered the Department of Justice to hand over all the materials from the grand jury related to the case against James Comey. The reason? The judge has cited “misconduct,” which, honestly, is a pretty serious allegation. This is just the beginning of what sounds like a messy legal situation, and it’s got a lot of people talking.
Now, from what I gather, there are serious concerns about the way the prosecution handled this whole thing. Apparently, there are allegations of missing grand jury testimony – specifically, about two hours worth.… Continue reading
The recent ruling by a judge ordering the Department of Justice (DOJ) to hand over grand jury materials to James Comey is a significant development, raising serious questions about the integrity of the prosecution’s case. The judge’s decision, underpinned by a “disturbing pattern” of conduct, underscores deep concerns about the way the DOJ handled the investigation and the presentation of evidence to the grand jury. It’s a situation that has many people, including those following this situation closely, questioning the motives and the competence of those involved.
The judge specifically cited two statements made by the prosecutor to the grand jurors as particularly troubling.… Continue reading
Matt Underwood 
John Q. Hosedrinker