Recent developments have raised questions about the actions taken by Lindsey Halligan’s office regarding the indictment of New York Attorney General Letitia James. Halligan’s team has attempted to indict James on three occasions through different grand juries. However, these efforts have faced significant legal hurdles.
Key Events in the Indictment Attempts
The first attempt occurred when Judge Cameron McGowan Currie dismissed the case. The judge ruled that Halligan did not have the legal standing to seek an indictment. The second grand jury convened in Norfolk also rejected the charges.
This week, a third grand jury, located in Alexandria, reached a similar conclusion. This situation brings attention to Section 9-11.120 A of the Justice Manual, which governs the protocols for grand jury submissions.
Understanding Section 9-11.120 A
- Policy Overview: This provision mandates that, if a grand jury declines to indict a defendant, the same matter cannot be re-presented without approval from the responsible United States Attorney.
- Historical Context: This rule is designed to prevent repeated attempts at indicting the same individual without significant cause.
In the context of Halligan’s actions, a key question arises: Did her office secure approval from a responsible United States Attorney before resubmitting the case to the third grand jury? Furthermore, Halligan has been deemed not the lawful U.S. attorney by Judge Currie, complicating the situation.
Questions Raised
- Approval for Resubmission: Did Halligan’s team obtain necessary approval for presenting the case anew?
- Authority Conflict: If Halligan approved the indictment, how does this align with Judge Currie’s ruling?
- Responsible Authority: If another U.S. attorney granted approval, who was it and what authority do they have?
The ambiguity and potential violations of protocol have prompted further inquiry. As of now, attempts to gather clarification from Halligan have gone unanswered. This ongoing situation highlights the complexities within the judicial process and raises significant questions about the legitimacy of further actions regarding Letitia James.
