Prosecutor Admits Grand Jury Never Saw Her Signed Indictment, Then Publishes Criticism of Judge

Lindsey Halligan has acknowledged that the grand jury that charged former FBI Director James Comey never saw the version of the indictment she signed. The copy presented to the judge — the version the judge said could potentially void the case — differed from what the grand jury reviewed, a discrepancy with significant legal consequences.

After making the admission public, Halligan published a critical opinion piece attacking the judge's handling of the matter. The move drew immediate attention from legal commentators and observers, who questioned both the procedural implications and the optics of a prosecutor publicly criticizing the court.

Legal contributors Lisa Rubin, Andrew Weissmann and Marc Elias discussed the development on a broadcast hosted by Alicia Menendez (filling in for Nicolle W). They highlighted several concerns: whether the indictment could be invalidated, the importance of strict grand jury procedures, and the potential fallout for the broader case strategy.

What’s at stake:

Judges rely on an accurate record of what a grand jury reviewed when evaluating the validity of an indictment. If the signed document materially differs from the version the grand jury saw, a court could determine the indictment is defective, possibly requiring dismissal or re-presentation to a properly informed grand jury.

Legal experts also noted the rarity and potential risks of a prosecutor publicly attacking a judge while the case remains active: it may complicate settlement or appeal strategy and could affect how future courts perceive prosecutorial conduct.

The situation remains fluid. Observers say the next steps — including possible motions from the defense or clarifying filings from the prosecution — will determine whether the discrepancy leads to dismissal, correction, or further litigation.