A federal judge has criticized the Justice Department for “disturbing investigative missteps” in the case against former FBI Director James Comey, ordering prosecutors to provide all grand jury materials to defense lawyers. Judge William Fitzpatrick cited “fundamental misstatements of the law,” the use of potentially privileged communications, and unexplained irregularities in grand jury transcripts as reasons for concern. These issues raise questions about the integrity of the proceedings, prompting the judge’s unusually strong stance. The ruling comes amid other challenges to the indictment, including concerns over the appointment of the prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan.
Read More
AP News reports that a federal judge has ordered prosecutors to provide James Comey’s defense lawyers with a wealth of investigation materials, expressing concern that the Justice Department may have “indict[ed] first” and investigated later. The judge’s order includes grand jury materials and evidence seized through search warrants, following arguments that Comey’s lawyers lacked access to crucial information gathered during the investigation into FBI media leaks. Comey, who has pleaded not guilty to charges of lying to Congress, claims the prosecution is vindictive and politically motivated. Furthermore, the judge granted a request for a transcript of grand jury proceedings, signaling potential irregularities and legal errors in the case.
Read More
“Sandwich man” gets off: DC jury nullification in the age of Trump. So, let’s talk about this “Sandwich Man” situation. It’s been a whirlwind, hasn’t it? This whole story, it’s become a perfect encapsulation of the political climate. The main thing here, and it’s a crucial distinction, is whether this is truly a case of jury nullification. Jury nullification, as some folks are rightly pointing out, is when a jury essentially says, “We believe the defendant did it, but we’re not going to convict them because we disagree with the law or the way it’s being applied.” That’s a very specific thing.… Continue reading
Federal grand juries in Washington, D.C., are repeatedly refusing to indict cases brought by the Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney, Jeanine Pirro, under the Trump administration’s “federal crime crackdown.” This trend is exemplified by the case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was accused of threatening Trump online; the grand jury returned “no bill” despite the charges. This reflects the grand jury’s resistance to the cases, as they are unconvinced by the evidence. The grand jury’s refusals have been occurring in multiple other cases as well, creating a rare clash between federal authority and local jurors.
Read More
Nathalie Rose Jones, arrested in August for allegedly threatening President Trump online, had charges against her refused by a grand jury in Washington D.C., according to her attorney. Judge Jeb Boasberg released Jones from GPS monitoring after she was initially detained, disagreeing with prosecutors who argued she made violent threats. Jones allegedly posted threatening messages online, including a Facebook post and an email, leading to her arrest when she traveled to D.C. for a protest. The U.S. Attorney’s office criticized the grand jury’s decision, suggesting it was politically motivated, and noted difficulties in obtaining indictments in other cases.
Read More
Prosecutors Fail to Secure Indictment Against Man Who Threw Sandwich at Federal Agent.
The fact that prosecutors couldn’t get a grand jury to indict the man who threw a sandwich is, frankly, quite amusing. It completely upends the old saying about any good prosecutor being able to indict a ham sandwich. It’s a clear sign that something unusual happened, whether it was the jury’s strong disagreement with the charges or the prosecutors’ attempt to manufacture a case where one didn’t exist. The whole situation is just ripe with irony. It’s either a powerful statement from the jurors, a “screw you” to the prosecution, or a sign the prosecutors overreached, attempting to secure an indictment on a flimsy basis.… Continue reading
The US attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., faces challenges in securing grand jury indictments, as evidenced by a recent case where a grand jury voted “no” three times on a felony assault charge. The case involved an incident with an FBI agent and an immigration officer. The grand jury’s repeated rejection of the indictment comes amid increased scrutiny of the office’s crackdown on crime and aggressive charging practices, particularly regarding assaults on police. Ultimately, the accused will face misdemeanor charges instead of a felony.
Read More
Following three failed attempts to secure an indictment, the U.S. Attorney’s office will proceed with a misdemeanor charge against Sidney Reid. The grand juries’ repeated refusals to indict, known as “no true bill,” is rare and may indicate that evidence would not hold up at trial. Reid was arrested for allegedly assaulting an FBI agent during an incident outside the D.C. Jail. Reid’s attorneys believe that the charges stem from officers’ desire to avoid being filmed.
Read More
The judge’s decision to deny the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) request to unseal Jeffrey Epstein’s records from the criminal case has ignited a flurry of opinions and accusations. It seems like the court is sticking to the rules, as the nature of the records in question – grand jury testimony and exhibits – carries significant legal restrictions on their release. Many observers believe the DOJ’s request was more about public optics than a genuine pursuit of justice. It was designed to create a narrative of thwarted transparency and shift blame to the judiciary.
The legal framework surrounding grand jury information is remarkably strict, making its public disclosure exceptionally rare.… Continue reading
Attorneys representing Payton Gendron, the perpetrator of the Buffalo supermarket shooting, have moved to dismiss the federal charges against him, citing a lack of minority representation on the grand jury. They claim that the grand jury that indicted Gendron did not accurately reflect the demographic makeup of the community. Judge Vilardo, while noting the irony of the claim in a hate crimes case, did not immediately rule on the motion. The prosecution maintains that any disparities were within acceptable guidelines and not a systematic exclusion, while the defense argues the opposite.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood