The newly released grand jury transcripts in the Justice Department’s case against former FBI Director James Comey have dropped a bombshell: the prosecution’s case is far weaker than anyone expected. Out of 23 jurors, only 14 agreed to indict — barely clearing the low bar needed to move forward, and a far cry from the unanimous vote required for conviction.
Legal experts are unanimous in their skepticism, warning that if a bare majority of jurors can’t buy the government’s one-sided case, there’s little chance a full trial will hold up. “This won’t even make it to a jury,” one professor bluntly declared, signaling a major setback for the Trump DOJ’s high-profile attempt to criminalize Comey.
There’s a legal joke that prosecutors could “indict a ham sandwich” because grand juries never hear the defense. The target can’t present counterarguments, cross-examine witnesses, or challenge evidence at this stage. So if a bare majority of jurors still won’t back the indictment after a one-sided presentation, experts say it’s a bad sign for the case.
MSNBC legal analyst Lisa Rubin was quick to point this out, noting that only about 60% of the jurors agreed to indict Comey. The implications aren’t lost on anyone familiar with how these proceedings work.
Journalist James Surowiecki summed it up on X: “In a grand jury proceeding, the prosecution gets to present its case with no opportunity for the prospective defendant to offer any counterargument. And the grand jury still rejected one of the three counts, and voted only 14-9 to indict on the other two. Sign of a v. weak case.”
Legal experts across the board are echoing the same concern: this case is on shaky ground.
Ed Whelan, senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center, laid it out bluntly.
“So only 14 of 23 jurors thought there was enough to indict after hearing a one-sided presentation? Not promising for unanimous verdict of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after vigorous defense at trial,” he wrote on X.
That’s the real kicker. If nearly 40% of jurors aren’t convinced with no defense presented, how can the prosecution expect to secure a unanimous guilty verdict at trial when Comey’s team gets to fight back?
University of Michigan Law professor Barbara McQuade was even more direct: “This case won’t even make it to a jury. Rule 29 permits judge to grant motion to acquit for lack of evidence.”
In other words, a judge may dismiss the charges before trial even begins.
Journalist and Georgia Recorder columnist Jay Bookman also weighed in, writing: “So a bare majority of the grand jury was willing to indict Comey, after hearing nothing from the defendant or from his defense counsel. A far cry from the unanimous vote that would be needed to convict. That validates the argument of career prosecutors that it’s a bad case.”
Even legal analyst Jeffrey Evan Gold suggested the transcripts could reveal jurors grilling the prosecution with tough questions before voting, highlighting their skepticism.
For the Trump Justice Department, already under fire for politicized prosecutions, this is a crushing setback. What was meant to be a decisive legal strike against Comey now looks more like an embarrassing stumble — one that threatens not just the case, but the department’s credibility.
If indicting Comey was supposed to be a slam dunk, these transcripts make it clear it’s anything but. And with such a weak showing at the grand jury stage, “this won’t even make it to trial” isn’t just speculation — it’s a near certainty.
