"There was some confusion in the courtroom and from Judge Lindsey Vaala, who appeared puzzled by the multiple charging documents filed for one case. Vaala asked why there were two documents in the same case. Halligan told her, "I did not see," to which Vaala replied, "It has your signature on it." Vaala then had Halligan make handwritten changes to one of the documents and said both documents would be uploaded to the docket for the record."
"One of the two charging documents is the indictment that includes the charge that grand jurors rejected. But the only writing on either document that appears to have been added is where (marked with the red box) someone noted, "count 1 only" (which is, indeed, the charge that was dropped). But there's another irregularity with the document. The rest of it (and the indictment that was filed) looks like it was scanned - with a line down the center and a shadow,"
Lindsey Halligan presented two charging documents to Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, who questioned the presence of duplicate filings. Halligan said she did not see the second document, yet the document bore her signature. Vaala required handwritten corrections and ordered both documents uploaded to the docket. One charging document includes a count that grand jurors rejected, while a separate page appears to have different scanning characteristics. Several pages are inconsistently labeled "COUNT TWO," suggesting pages may have been rearranged between versions. Those irregularities could invite scrutiny of grand jury conduct and document authenticity.
Read at emptywheel
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]