Some states put limits on the number of times a case may be presented to a grand jury. Some require judicial approval before resubmission. But in the federal system, there are no legal limits, per se, to the number of times a prosecutor can present and represent a case to grand juries until he gets the ham sandwich indicted. The only prerequisite for resubmission is set forth in the Justice Department Manual.
Approval Required Prior to Resubmission of Same Matter to Grand Jury: Once a grand jury returns a no-bill or otherwise acts on the merits in declining to return an indictment, the same matter ( i.e., the same transacti…
Some states put limits on the number of times a case may be presented to a grand jury. Some require judicial approval before resubmission. But in the federal system, there are no legal limits, per se, to the number of times a prosecutor can present and represent a case to grand juries until he gets the ham sandwich indicted. The only prerequisite for resubmission is set forth in the Justice Department Manual.
Approval Required Prior to Resubmission of Same Matter to Grand Jury: Once a grand jury returns a no-bill or otherwise acts on the merits in declining to return an indictment, the same matter ( i.e., the same transaction or event and the same putative defendant) should not be presented to another grand jury or resubmitted to the same grand jury without first securing the approval of the responsible United States Attorney.
The language “responsible United States Attorney” is a curious choice of words. On the one hand, it can refer to the US Attorney who oversees a particular jurisdiction, as in the person responsible for the Eastern District of Virginia. On the other hand, it can be read to mean a mature, sober and rational United States Attorney, as in “I would not trust Lindsey to babysit my child because she’s not a responsible person.”
Ironically, neither of these definitions would be satisfied by the putative (meaning the person AG Pam Bondi claims to be) United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, former insurance lawyer, former Trump attorney and former Miss Colorado, Lindsey Halligan. Halligan is not a United States Attorney, acting, interim or otherwise, even though she and Bondi say so, having been unlawfully appointed, resulting in the dismissal of indictments against former FBI Director Jim Comey and New York Attorney General Tish James. Both share the virtue of being hated by Trump, who directed the United States Department of Justice to spend what few resources remain after seizing and deporting the wives of army veterans who used to have vowels at the end of their names, to imprison his enemies at all costs.
Ah, Tish James. While the future of the Comey prosecution remains in doubt due to the government’s unfortunate use of unlawfully seized attorney/client privileged documents, there is only one roadblock to the prosecution of Letitia James, who had the audacity to prove that Trump’s was no less a liar in his real estate dealings than he is as president or best friends with Jeffrey Epstein: The damn grand jury.
For the second time in a week, a federal grand jury has refused to approve an indictment against New York Attorney General Letitia James. Since grand juries almost always ratify charges proposed by prosecutors, a one-sided process in which defense attorneys play no role, those back-to-back rejections are a striking sign that the grudge-driven case against James is legally shaky.
“Legally shaky” is not merely quite the understatement, but quite the ironic contrast with the civil action brought against Trump for his own flavor of fraud, no surprise to anyone who ever did business with Trump.
James earned a prominent spot on President Donald Trump’s enemies list by successfully suing him for business fraud in New York. She alleged that Trump had systematically exaggerated the value of his assets while applying for loans and buying insurance. A judge agreed that Trump’s conduct qualified as fraud under New York law, and so did an appeals court, although it set aside the judge’s jaw-dropping “disgorgement order,” which would have required Trump and the other defendants to pay the state half a billion dollars.
Should the government represent the case to yet another grand jury and somehow obtain an indictment,* any prosecution at this point will be highly susceptible to a defense of vindictive or selective prosecution, but that doesn’t mean that Tish James wouldn’t be compelled to endure being prosecuted and being required to defend herself against the charge. Something about beating the rap, but not the ride, might be worthy of some consideration.
Even though the failure to get an indictment is something that almost never happens, and the grand jury returning no true bill twice, on the second and third tries, is unheard of, the fact that this is even happening is a testament to the gross impropriety of the current Justice Department’s allowing itself to be used as a weapon of Trump’s retribution against his enemies.
The longstanding tradition of the DoJ being independent of politics in order to maintain the appearance of propriety has not merely be forfeited by this action, but has been openly and notoriously violated. It’s now a tool for Trump and makes no pretense of hiding it. Tish James is hardly the only one, but she’s become the poster AG for Trump’s abuse of a federal department and the legal system, and the Justice Department’s willingness to shed any appearance of propriety to serve as a willing tool for a president’s personal vendettas.
The day will come, even if it’s unclear when it will be, that Trump will no longer be president and the sycophants happy to do his bidding are no longer in position to abuse their power. But will the Justice Department be able to shed the taint of this fundamental humiliation of failure and loss of integrity? Can judges trust the word of prosecutors who willingly lie to the courts at the direction of Main Justice?
The problem isn’t that the next Justice Department can’t do its best to restore its integrity, but that it’s now clear that it can just as easily deceive judges and abuse its authority while wearing the mantle of justice. It was dubious before Trump. It’s now clear. When it serves the government’s interest, integrity goes out the window and the DoJ should never again enjoy the faith of judges that it fulfills the duty of a prosecutor, to do Justice.
*As former Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals said in 1985, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” The key word is “good,” which explains much about the Trump Justice Department.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.