A courtroom drama unfolded Wednesday as U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff intensely questioned the validity of the indictment against former FBI Director James Comey. The hearing centered on allegations of vindictive prosecution, but quickly veered into a critical examination of the grand jury process itself.
The core of the judge’s concern: whether the full grand jury had actually voted on the two-count indictment presented to them. Initial reports suggested a significant procedural flaw – that the indictment hadn’t been properly reviewed by the entire panel. This revelation cast a long shadow over the case, threatening to unravel the government’s pursuit of Comey.
The situation appeared precarious, described as “hanging by a thread.” Judge Nachmanoff’s pointed questions to interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan signaled a deep skepticism about the prosecution’s handling of the indictment and the integrity of the process.
However, a swift response from the government attempted to clarify the record. A filing asserted that the official transcript of the proceedings definitively proved the grand jury *had* voted on, and approved, the two-count indictment. The government maintained the process was legitimate.
The filing detailed a key exchange with the grand jury foreperson, who confirmed they had voted on the two-count version after initially disagreeing with a three-count proposal. The foreperson explained the panel consolidated the remaining charges into a separate, agreed-upon indictment.
According to prosecutors, the revised indictment wasn’t a new document, but rather a streamlined version of the original, simply removing the charge the grand jury rejected. They argued no re-presentation was necessary as the core substance of the case remained unchanged.
Legal precedent supports this argument. The Department of Justice’s Criminal Resource Manual allows for excising “surplusage” – unnecessary allegations – without requiring a new grand jury vote, as long as the fundamental charge remains intact. This principle, rooted in Supreme Court rulings, aims to avoid unnecessary delays and technicalities.
The hearing wasn’t solely focused on procedural details. Judge Nachmanoff also questioned the motivations behind the prosecution, directly asking Comey’s lawyer if Halligan was acting as a proxy for former President Trump. The judge used stark language, inquiring if Halligan was a “puppet” or a “stalking horse.”
Comey’s attorney responded that he believed Halligan was operating under the direction of the former president, though he refrained from using the judge’s charged terminology. This exchange raised concerns about judicial impartiality and the potential for inappropriate conduct from the bench.
The American Bar Association’s Model Code of Judicial Conduct emphasizes the need for judges to avoid even the *appearance* of impropriety and to maintain dignified conduct. Judge Nachmanoff’s line of questioning potentially crossed that line, prompting speculation about a possible formal complaint.
