Grand jury refuses to re-indict Letitia James following dismissal of initial case

A grand jury declined to issue charges against New York Attorney General Letitia James on Thursday, arriving at the decision less than two weeks after a judge determined that an earlier federal mortgage fraud case against her was invalid.

The renewed presentation of the case by the justice department was widely viewed as an attempt to continue pursuing prosecution against James, a longstanding political adversary of Donald Trump following her successful civil fraud action against him in New York.

James was originally accused in October of bank fraud and providing false information to a financial institution. The allegations stemmed from a 2020 mortgage on a property in Norfolk, Virginia. Prosecutors asserted that she secured a more advantageous loan rate by classifying the residence as a second home, though she later rented it out. The difference reportedly reduced her loan costs by approximately $18,933 over its full term.

The property is occupied by Jamess niece, who earlier this year told a federal grand jury that she pays no rent.

James has maintained that she acted lawfully and argued that the prosecutor responsible for the case, Lindsey Halligan, was improperly appointed as the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. Halligan, known for ties to Trump and a past role in the White House, personally oversaw the initial presentation that resulted in the indictment.

Halligan assumed the post in late September after Erik Siebert departed, following his determination that there was insufficient evidence to pursue charges against former FBI director James Comey. Comey, who faced related charges, also claimed that Halligans installation violated legal requirements.

Federal judge Cameron McGowan Currie ruled last month that Halligan had no legal authority to occupy the position. While US attorneys need Senate confirmation, they may serve in an acting capacity for 120 days. Once that limit is exceeded, federal judges in the district must determine who continues in the role. Sieberts tenure had already surpassed the allotted time, and the judges agreed to extend him. Currie concluded that a subsequent unilateral appointment by Trump was not permissible.

Beyond the appointment controversy, legal analysts noted that the original case appeared weak. The amount James allegedly saved was considered too minor to justify criminal prosecution, and the second-home agreement she signed did not prohibit future rental use. Documentation with her mortgage broker also reflected that she did not intend to occupy the home as her primary residence.

Several career prosecutors involved in the matter who concluded that the evidence was insufficient have since been dismissed.

Author: Maya Henderson