The Justice Department has acknowledged a procedural error in the grand jury process that led to the indictment of former FBI Director James Comey — a revelation that could jeopardize the high-profile case. Comey’s defense team is urging the court to dismiss the charges with prejudice, arguing he is the target of a politically driven and unconstitutional prosecution.
The admission came during a tense federal court hearing Wednesday, where prosecutors confirmed that the final version of Comey’s indictment was not reviewed by the full grand jury. Instead, only the foreperson and one other juror saw the second, edited version before it was presented to a magistrate judge.
Indictment Process Under Scrutiny
U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff questioned prosecutor Tyler Lemons about inconsistencies noted by two other judges regarding missing information in grand jury transcripts. Lemons acknowledged that the original indictment had been “edited” by a grand jury coordinator and later signed by Acting U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan — a former personal attorney to President Donald Trump with no prior prosecutorial experience.
Halligan testified that she presented the revised indictment with only two grand jurors present, rather than the entire panel, raising serious questions about the indictment’s validity.
In a later filing, DOJ attorneys argued the mistake was harmless because the charges in both versions of the indictment were substantively the same.
Judge Presses Prosecutors on ‘Declination Memo’
Judge Nachmanoff also pressed Lemons about a reported internal memo advising against charging Comey due to insufficient evidence. Lemons initially dodged the question, citing privilege, but ultimately confirmed a memo existed and that he had reviewed it — though he declined to provide details.
Defense Claims Political Retaliation
Comey’s attorneys say the case is a “selective and vindictive” prosecution driven by Trump’s personal animosity. They argue that the former president pressured officials — including Attorney General Pam Bondi — to bring charges against Comey after publicly demanding his prosecution.
“Trump’s dislike of my client may justify firing him,” attorney Michael Dreeben told the court. “It is not a justification for weaponizing the Justice Department.”
They are asking for a dismissal with prejudice, preventing the government from refiling charges. Legal experts say that while such an outcome is rare, the combination of political interference and procedural errors makes this case uniquely vulnerable.
Prosecution Denies Political Influence
Prosecutor Tyler Lemons rejected claims that Acting U.S. Attorney Halligan was acting at Trump’s direction.
“It was her decision and her decision only,” he said. “Ms. Halligan was not a puppet.”
The DOJ maintains that Comey’s prosecution serves the public interest, alleging he lied to Congress and obstructed a congressional proceeding — actions they say demand accountability from a former FBI Director.
Broader Implications
Comey, indicted in September, pleaded not guilty to the charges. His team argues that Trump’s personal vendetta and Comey’s protected speech — including criticism of the former president — played a central role in the decision to prosecute.
A separate judge recently criticized the DOJ for appearing to “indict first, investigate later,” adding further fuel to claims of political motivation.
Judge Nachmanoff did not issue an immediate ruling, citing the complexity and significance of the issues raised.
