Judge Questions Validity of Comey Indictment and Orders Review of Grand Jury Process

Washington — A federal judge on Wednesday pressed Justice Department prosecutors for clearer answers about how a grand jury indictment of former FBI Director James Comey was handled, raising doubts about the procedural integrity of the case.

What happened in court

U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff questioned prosecutors about grand jury proceedings held Sept. 25 that produced an indictment charging Comey with two counts tied to testimony he gave to Congress in September 2020. Comey has pleaded not guilty.

Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan said in a court declaration that after she presented the matter the grand jury deliberated for roughly two hours. She said her deputy later informed her that the grand jury had rejected one of three proposed counts but voted to indict on two others. Prosecutor Tyler Lemons said the initial three-count indictment was edited to remove the rejected charge and that the revised two-count document was provided to the court.

Key questions about the indictment

Nachmanoff pressed whether the revised two-count indictment had ever been shown to the full grand jury for consideration, or whether it was instead handed directly to the magistrate judge in open court. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, who presided when the indictment was returned, said she had been presented with two documents: a two-count indictment and a report stating the grand jury failed to concur on a three-count indictment, which raised further questions.

Lemons acknowledged he was not present during the September proceedings and said Halligan had presented the case alone. He confirmed that the two-count indictment was not shown to the entire grand jury. Halligan told the court that only the grand jury foreperson and one other juror were in the courtroom when the charging document was presented to the magistrate.

"There is no indictment that Mr. Comey is facing," said defense attorney Michael Dreeben, who argued the government had effectively conceded the case lacked a properly returned indictment and urged dismissal with prejudice. He also noted that the five-year statute of limitations for the alleged offenses has expired.

Transcript gaps and judicial concerns

Separate judges have also flagged problems. U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie identified what appeared to be a missing portion of the grand jury transcript and questioned whether a court reporter had been present for part of Halligan's presentation. Halligan has said the untranscribed interval corresponds to the grand jury's private deliberations, which are not recorded by a reporter.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick reviewed the transcript and the timeline Halligan provided and concluded the roughly seven-minute span between when she said she learned one count was rejected and when she appeared in open court to return the two-count indictment "could not have been sufficient" to draft, sign, present and obtain a vote on a new charging document. Fitzpatrick ordered prosecutors to turn over all grand jury materials to Comey's defense team and warned of a "prospect that government misconduct may have tainted the grand jury proceedings."

A Justice Department official responded that the grand jury transcript "speaks for itself" and that, when read in full, it shows no legal misstatements or improper instructions that would justify breaching grand-jury secrecy. The Department has defended its handling of the matter while the courts review competing accounts of the proceedings.

Why this matters

The dispute centers on whether a valid indictment was ever returned and whether the grand jury process complied with legal requirements. If judges conclude the indictment was not properly presented and returned, the charges could be dismissed — potentially with prejudice — which would prevent prosecutors from refiling. The court has ordered disclosure of grand jury materials and further review as the case moves forward.