The full grand jury in the case against former FBI Director James Comey never reviewed the final indictment it initially handed up, interim US Attorney Lindsey Halligan admitted on Wednesday. This revelation emerged during court proceedings that raised questions about the indictment’s validity.
Prosecutors explained that after the grand jury declined to approve one of the counts, Halligan did not present a new indictment to all jurors. Instead, she brought an amended version directly to the magistrate’s courtroom for the grand jury foreperson’s signature.
Prosecutor Tyler Lemons stated, “The new indictment wasn’t a new indictment,” implying only the foreperson reviewed this altered document. Judge Michael Nachmanoff then asked Halligan to confirm that the entire grand jury had not seen the revised indictment.
Halligan interrupted, saying that one grand juror had been present in the magistrate’s courtroom, referencing her exchange with the judge. But Nachmanoff appeared skeptical, replying, “I’m familiar with the transcript,” and requested she sit down.
When questioned again, Lemons acknowledged he was not present but understood the new indictment never passed before the full grand jury for approval. Comey’s attorney Michael Dreeben leveraged this admission, arguing to the judge that technically, no indictment was returned.
“There is no indictment,” Dreeben emphasized, adding that the statute of limitations has expired on the charge accusing Comey of lying to Congress. This could undermine the prosecution’s case moving forward.
The situation highlights procedural irregularities in the indictment process. It raises concerns about whether due process was followed in presenting charges against such a high-profile figure. The grand jury’s role is to review and approve indictments collectively, not for one individual to sign off alone.
Key points from the developments:
1. The original indictment was partially rejected by the grand jury.
2. An amended indictment was created but shown only to the grand jury foreperson.
3. Prosecutors conceded the full grand jury never voted on the final indictment.
4. Defense argues that no valid indictment exists, referencing the expiration of the statute of limitations.
These facts focus on serious procedural questions and may influence future judicial decisions in the case against Comey.
