Norfolk Grand Jury Declines To Re-Indict NY Attorney General Letitia James

Federal Grand Jury Rejects Re-Indictment of Letitia James

A federal grand jury in Norfolk, Virginia, on Thursday declined to re-indict New York Attorney General Letitia James after prosecutors presented evidence, a U.S. official said. The decision is the latest procedural setback for the Justice Department following a federal judge's recent dismissal of the case.

Last week, U.S. District Judge Cameron Currie dismissed bank fraud and false-statement charges against James and former FBI Director James Comey. Currie concluded the indictments were invalid because Lindsey Halligan — who had been serving as interim U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia — was not properly appointed. In her order, Currie allowed the government the opportunity to seek new indictments.

Grand juries in the United States rarely refuse to return indictments. Justice Department statistics show that in fiscal 2016, federal prosecutors investigated more than 150,000 people and a grand jury declined to indict in only six reported cases.

"As I have said from the start, the charges against me are baseless. It is time for this unchecked weaponization of our justice system to stop," James said in a statement thanking the grand jury.

Her attorney, Abbe Lowell, criticized the prosecution as improper and warned that renewed attempts to pursue the case would be a profound assault on the rule of law and the justice system's integrity.

James was originally indicted in October on charges of bank fraud and making a false statement to a financial institution. Prosecutors allege she misrepresented a 2020 Norfolk, Virginia, property as a second home on mortgage paperwork when she had rented it and treated it as an investment property, enabling a more favorable interest rate. James denies wrongdoing and has characterized the investigation as politically motivated, pointing to her prior civil actions against former President Donald Trump over the valuation of his real estate.

In 2023, a state judge found that Mr. Trump, members of his family and his company had repeatedly violated state fraud laws and imposed a nine-figure judgment in a suit brought by James; an appeals court later struck down the financial penalties as excessive while leaving certain non-financial restrictions intact.

James's lawyers also argued the prosecution resulted from vindictive or politically driven conduct and cited what they described as unethical behavior by some Justice Department officials. The push to bring charges followed upheaval in the Eastern District of Virginia's U.S. Attorney's Office: Erik Siebert, the office's prior leader, resigned amid concerns he would be forced out for declining to bring charges. Halligan — a former White House staffer and an attorney who has represented Trump — was soon sworn in as interim U.S. attorney and moved to indict Comey and James.

Both defendants argued Halligan's appointment was invalid and moved to dismiss the indictments. Judge Currie dismissed those indictments without prejudice, leaving open the possibility that the government could seek fresh charges.

It remains uncertain whether prosecutors will attempt to refile charges against Comey for allegedly lying to Congress in 2020; the statute of limitations for those allegations expired in late September. Federal law can provide a six-month extension when an indictment is dismissed after the limitations period has lapsed, but Currie noted the extension may not apply if the original indictment was invalid.

The grand jury's refusal to re-indict James underscores the legal and procedural hurdles the Justice Department faces as it considers whether to pursue renewed charges. The decision strengthens James's claims that the prosecution is politically charged and raises broader questions about appointment procedures and case timing in the Eastern District of Virginia.