Have you ever watched a courtroom drama where the prosecutor storms in, certain they’ve got an airtight case, only to watch the whole thing collapse in slow motion? That’s pretty much what just happened—twice—in a federal courthouse in Virginia.
Federal prosecutors have spent the last two weeks desperately trying to convince a grand jury to bring back criminal charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James. And twice, ordinary citizens sitting on that grand jury looked at the evidence, listened to the presentation after presentation, and essentially said: Yeah, we’re not buying it.
It’s the kind of moment that makes even seasoned legal watchers sit up and take notice, because grand juries almost never say no.
A Highly Unusual Double Rejection
Let’s be honest—most of us have heard the old saying: a prosecutor could get a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” if they really wanted to. It’s not entirely a joke. Historically, federal grand juries return indictments in well over 99% of cases presented to them.
So when one says no? That’s rare.
When the same grand jury—or a new one—is asked again, just days later, and says no a second time? That’s practically unheard of.
And yet that’s exactly what happened in the Eastern District of Virginia regarding the New York attorney general.
What Was the Original Case About?
The charges stemmed from allegations that James committed bank fraud and made false statements to a financial institution in connection with a mortgage application. Serious accusations, no question—if proven.
But a federal judge threw the original indictment out on a technicality: the interim U.S. attorney presenting the case had been improperly appointed. Same issue took down a separate case against a high-profile former law enforcement official on the same day.
Normally, when an indictment is dismissed on procedural grounds, prosecutors simply fix the paperwork and march right back in front of a new grand jury. It’s routine.
This time? Not so much.
“Once a grand jury returns a no-bill… the same matter should not be presented to another grand jury without first securing the approval of the responsible United States Attorney.”
— U.S. Department of Justice Manual
That guidance exists for a reason. It’s meant to prevent prosecutors from “shopping” for a friendly panel until they get the result they want.
The Political Backdrop Nobody Can Ignore
Let’s not pretend this case exists in a vacuum.
The current administration has made little secret of its desire to see certain figures—particularly those who pursued legal actions against the president during his business years—face consequences. James, of course, led the civil fraud case that resulted in a massive judgment against the Trump Organization.
In my view, timing matters. When an indictment appears shortly after a new administration takes office, and the prosecutor presenting the case happens to be a former personal attorney to the president, eyebrows are going to go up—no matter how strong anyone claims the evidence is.
Perception becomes reality in high-profile political cases. And right now, the perception is that this was payback wearing the clothes of justice.
Why Grand Juries Matter More Than People Realize
Most Americans only hear about grand juries when something dramatic happens—like when one refuses to indict a police officer, or, in very rare cases, when one refuses to indict anyone at all.
But they serve as a crucial check on prosecutorial power. They’re not supposed to be rubber stamps. They’re supposed to ask hard questions, demand real evidence, and protect citizens from baseless or politically motivated charges.
- Grand jurors hear evidence in secret
- Defense attorneys are not present
- The target of the investigation has no right to testify or present counter-evidence
- Prosecutors control virtually everything shown to the panel
When you consider how lopsided the process is in favor of the government, a refusal to indict becomes even more remarkable.
It suggests the evidence was either weak, contradictory, or simply didn’t add up to probable cause in the minds of ordinary citizens.
What Happens Next?
Technically, prosecutors could try a third time. But after getting formal approval from higher up the chain. But at this point, that would look desperate—and possibly vindictive.
More likely, the case quietly fades away, another footnote in what historians will probably call one of the most openly retaliatory periods in modern DOJ history.
And perhaps that’s the real story here.
Not whether James did or didn’t make misrepresentations on a mortgage application—reasonable people can debate the strength of that evidence forever—but whether our justice system can withstand the pressure when political winners decide it’s time to settle scores.
Because if grand juries start becoming the last line of defense against weaponized prosecutions, we’re in deeper trouble than most of us realize.
Two panels of citizens just drew a line in the sand. The question now is whether anyone in power is listening.
At the end of the day, justice isn’t supposed to be a revenge tour. And when everyday people sitting in secret for months decide—twice—that a case doesn’t pass the smell test, maybe, just maybe, we should trust their judgment.
