The Justice Department’s investigation into allegations of mortgage fraud involving New York Attorney General Letitia James faces significant challenges as a grand jury has declined to indict her for the second time. This decision poses a dilemma for Lindsey Halligan, the official appointed by former President Donald Trump to lead the prosecution, regarding whether to pursue a third attempt or halt further proceedings, risking potential backlash from the former president who is keen on seeing James indicted.
This rejection marks a notable setback for the Justice Department, as it previously sought to rejuvenate the case following a federal judge’s ruling that Halligan’s appointment was not lawful. The administration had prominently featured James’ situation in its broader agenda of retribution against political opponents.
The possibility of the prosecutors returning to a grand jury to seek an indictment yet again remains open, although doing so is generally considered unusual in federal cases. According to former federal prosecutor Aaron Zelinsky, the Trump administration has occasionally adopted this approach, particularly in immigration-related matters.
Zelinsky commented on the implications of the grand jury’s decisions, stating, “One no true bill is a point. Two points make a line. That line points to an acquittal at trial.” He further suggested that the government should reconsider its strategy after two failed attempts instead of continuing to press on against worsening odds.
The Justice Department has declined to provide any comments regarding the grand jury’s latest findings. In the initial indictment, prosecutors accused James of misrepresenting her intentions on mortgage documents concerning a home purchased in Norfolk, Virginia, stating it would serve as her second residence. Allegations also indicated that she did not occupy the property and chose to rent it out instead.
James has consistently maintained her innocence, entering a not guilty plea to charges of making false statements to a financial institution and bank fraud before the case was previously dismissed.
In a response to the recent grand jury decisions, James’ attorney, Abbe Lowell, remarked that the repeated rejections emphasize that the case should not have advanced to this stage at all.
Legal experts have raised concerns regarding the implications of repeatedly attempting to secure an indictment. Retired federal Judge Nancy Gertner noted that such actions may reflect poorly on the prosecutor’s confidence in their case. She asserted that a prosecutor should only present charges to a grand jury if they have a reasonable belief in the potential for success before a trial jury. Losing a case before a grand jury is often seen as an indicator that the evidence may not support the allegations.
Moreover, Gertner emphasized that persistent efforts to bring the case forward, despite prior setbacks, could bolster claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness against James. “The evidence of vindictiveness is to go back and back before the grand jury, notwithstanding their inability to secure an indictment,” she pointed out, suggesting that such behavior reflects more an intention to target her personally rather than based on a substantiated case.
