Major Grand Jury Disclosure at James Comey Hearing Raises Questions About Indictment

The hearing over charges against former FBI Director James Comey took an unexpected turn when prosecutors acknowledged that only the grand jury foreperson and one other juror signed and saw the final two-count indictment after a third proposed count was rejected.

Judge Michael Nachmanoff paused the proceeding and asked the Justice Department to explain the grand jury process before issuing any rulings. He described the matter as "weighty" and took the dispute under advisement.

What prosecutors admitted

Prosecutors told the court that after the grand jury declined to return one of three proposed counts, interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan did not present a revised indictment to the full grand jury. Instead, she brought a version that omitted the rejected count into the magistrate's courtroom and had the grand jury foreperson sign it. Halligan confirmed in court that only the foreperson and one other juror saw the final document.

DOJ response and defense reaction

The Justice Department later filed a brief defending Halligan's handling of the matter, arguing the final two-count indictment reflected the grand jury's vote: the jury deliberated on the two counts that were returned, and the foreperson—acting as the grand jury's representative—signed the revised instrument in open court.

Comey's legal team, however, argued the admission amounted to a fatal defect. Defense counsel Michael Dreeben told the court that, based on the prosecutors' statements, "no indictment was returned." The defense also seeks access to grand jury transcripts and recordings to probe whether the presentation to jurors was proper.

Broader procedural and legal issues

Other disputes in the case persist, including a magistrate judge's earlier determination—which the government is appealing—that the grand jury record suggested potential investigative missteps, including possibly improper presentation of privileged material or inaccurate instructions. Prosecutors strongly contested that finding, arguing the magistrate misread the transcript and drew incorrect legal conclusions.

Judge Nachmanoff also heard defense claims that the prosecution was motivated by animus from former President Donald Trump. Defense counsel pointed to a social media post from Trump urging prosecutions of political opponents and said it demonstrates impermissible selective or vindictive prosecution. Prosecutors countered that there is no evidence Halligan took the post as a directive and said she acted independently.

Key courtroom exchanges

Nachmanoff questioned whether Halligan had adequate time to conduct an independent review in the days between her appointment and the indictment. He also pressed prosecutor Tyler Lemons about whether internal memoranda from prior prosecutors recommended against prosecution; Lemons declined to identify privileged internal communications but acknowledged reviewing draft memos and other documents.

Prosecutors noted in their brief that only numbering and paragraph references changed between the proposed and filed versions of the indictment (for example, proposed Count Two became Count One). They argued dismissal is unnecessary because the grand jury voted to return the two counts that were ultimately charged.

What could happen next

The judge asked the parties to review a late-1960s Washington, D.C., case that addressed related grand jury issues. Nachmanoff did not issue rulings from the bench and said he would take time to consider the arguments and legal authorities.

Separately, Department of Justice practice allows prosecutors an opportunity to "cure" certain defects in an indictment within six months if a court dismisses charges for procedural legal errors, even where the statute of limitations has expired. How that principle might apply here remains unclear and could be the subject of further briefing and appeals.

The dispute over the grand jury process—who saw the final indictment, what jurors were told, and whether any privileged material was disclosed—will remain a central battleground as Comey's motion to dismiss and related discovery disputes proceed.

Status: Judge Nachmanoff has taken the issues under advisement; no immediate ruling was issued.