"Anchor Jacqui Heinrich broached the topic by noting that on Thursday, federal prosecutors filed a notice correcting the record to say that all jurors reviewed their final, revised document, although it doesn't say that Lindsay Halligan herself presented it to the grand jury. But this was after Halligan told a judge that not everyone was privy to the final paperwork displaying his charges."
"It's pretty bad. I don't know that this particular problem is make-or-break, except it's kind of convincing the court that the prosecutors are in disarray, which is never good for your case. But I still think the bottom line problem with the case is that the charge itself is incoherent. And I think they may lose on the face of the indictment, replied McCarthy."
"Yeah, well, it depends on why it gets thrown out. There's a statute that basically says if you indict in time, and they did barely, that if the case gets thrown out, the government gets six more months to re-indict. But if the nature of the way that the case is thrown out is that the court finds that there was no indictment in the first place because they didn't dot their i's and cross their t's, then the statute of limitations may be blown."
Federal prosecutors filed a correction stating all jurors reviewed the final revised document, though it did not assert that Lindsay Halligan personally presented it to the grand jury. Halligan earlier told a judge that not everyone saw the final paperwork showing the charges. The discrepancy suggests prosecutorial disarray and undermines credibility, though the specific error may not be dispositive. The indictment's wording may be substantively incoherent and could fail to place Comey on adequate notice. If the court finds no valid indictment, the statute of limitations could bar re-indictment; otherwise the government may have six months to refile.
Read at www.mediaite.com
Unable to calculate read time
Collection
[
|
...
]