Grand jury refuses to re-indict Letitia James after earlier fraud charges were thrown out
Federal grand jurors declined to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James. Thursday, a U.S. official said, marking another blow to the government’s cause after a judge thrown away the Justice Department’s bank fraud charges against Trump’s foe last week.
The grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, dismissed an indictment after it was presented by federal prosecutors, the official said.
Last week, a judge charges dismissed against James and former FBI Director James Comey on the grounds that Lindsey Halliganthe top federal prosecutor in the Eastern District of Virginia, was wrongly appointed to her position. The judge gave the government the opportunity to re-indict them.
It is extremely rare for grand juries to decline to indict people.
Federal prosecutors investigated more than 150,000 people in fiscal year 2016 and in just six cases said they did not bring charges because the grand jury threw out the indictment, according to Justice Department figures.
James was initially charged in October with bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. The Justice Department accused her of falsely representing on mortgage documents that a home she purchased in 2020 in Norfolk, Virginia, would serve as her second home, when she had actually rented it and used it as an investment property. The government claims she was able to get a better interest rate by calling it her second home.
James has denied any wrongdoing and maintained that the Trump administration was targeting her for political reasons. Between Mr. Trump’s terms in the White House, James sued him in civil court for allegedly lying about the value of his real estate assets.
In 2023, a judge rules on Mr. Trump, his family and his business “repeatedly” violated the fraud law and imposed a nine-figure judgment against them in the case brought by James. A court of appeal rejected financial sanctions earlier this year, calling them “excessive.” The appeals judges were divided on the merits of the case and did not overturn some non-financial sanctions, including restrictions on the Trump Organization.
James’ lawyers argued that the charges against her should be dismissed due to vindictive prosecutions and “scandalous government conduct.” They argued that the accusations stemmed from Mr. Trump’s enmity toward James — pointing to a Truth Social article in which the president urged Attorney General Pam Bondi to investigate her — and were the product of “unethical behavior” by several officials at the Justice Department and the Fair Housing Finance Authority.
Halligan’s office filed charges against Comey and James following upheavals within the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia.
His predecessor as the office’s top prosecutor, Erik Siebert, resigned in late September amid staff fears he would be forced out for refusing to charge James, CBS News previously reported. Days later, Halligan – a former White House staffer and Mr Trump’s personal lawyer – was sworn as Acting U.S. Attorney. Comey was indicted less than a week later, and James was indicted a few weeks later.
Comey and James argued that Halligan was not legally appointed to her position and asked that their charges be dismissed. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed their indictments without prejudice, meaning the government could try to charge them again.
It is unclear whether the Justice Department will also attempt to re-indict Comey for allegedly lying to Congress in 2020, since the statute of limitations on those charges expired at the end of September. A federal law grants the government a six-month extension when indictments are dismissed after the statute of limitations on a case has expired, but Currie wrote in his order that the law might not apply in Comey’s case because the indictment may not have been valid to begin with.
