Executive Summary
- Federal grand juries in multiple cities have rejected indictments against figures like James Comey and Letitia James.
- The trend marks a shift from historical statistics where grand jury rejections were exceedingly rare.
- Prosecutors have expressed frustration, attributing the rejections to juror bias or indifference.
- Legal experts view the trend as a reassertion of the grand jury’s role as a check on executive power.
Federal grand juries in multiple jurisdictions have begun declining to return indictments in high-profile cases sought by the Department of Justice, effectively stalling prosecutions targeted at political figures and activists. The rejections, occurring in Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, and Virginia, represent a significant departure from historical norms where grand juries rarely blocked federal charges.
According to reports, these grand juries have issued “no bills”—a refusal to indict—in dozens of recent cases. These decisions have impeded attempted prosecutions of former FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and individuals accused of threatening President Trump or clashing with federal officials. Thaddeus Hoffmeister, a law professor at the University of Dayton, noted that the grand jury system, often criticized as a “rubber stamp,” appears to have been “resurrected” as a functional check on government power.
The trend stands in sharp contrast to historical data. In 2016, Department of Justice statistics showed that federal grand juries rejected indictments in only six instances out of thousands of cases presented. However, the recent wave of rejections indicates that jurors are exercising increased skepticism regarding the evidence presented in politically sensitive matters. Kevin Washburn, a law professor at the University of California at Berkeley, observed that grand juries are currently demonstrating a level of independence unseen in decades.
Federal prosecutors have expressed frustration with these developments. Jeanine Pirro, serving as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, stated in an interview that some grand jurors may be disconnected from the reality of crime or indifferent to specific offenses. Similarly, tensions have reportedly risen within the Los Angeles U.S. Attorney’s office, where Bill Essayli has faced challenges securing indictments related to immigration enforcement operations.
The judicial response has also highlighted the unusual nature of these proceedings. U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan criticized what she termed “unprecedented” prosecutorial actions and rushed investigations. In Virginia, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Porter took the rare step of denying a request to seal a rejected indictment, arguing that transparency was necessary when an individual had already faced the stigma of public accusations.
Judicial Independence and Procedural Implications
This resurgence of grand jury autonomy acts as a significant operational hurdle for federal prosecutors, challenging the Department of Justice’s ability to swiftly advance cases that may be perceived as politically motivated. The pattern of “no bills” suggests that citizen jurors are applying a higher threshold of scrutiny to the evidence provided by the government, potentially forcing a strategic reassessment of venue selection and charging standards. Accusations of “forum shopping,” such as those raised by legal teams for former CIA Director John Brennan, indicate that the venue of grand jury proceedings is becoming a pivotal factor in litigation strategies. It is important to note that all individuals named in these investigations are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.
