[Lazamataz]

If it was dropped in the “furtherance of justice,” the indictments can’t be brought before a Grand Jury again. I’d also bet that the court dismissed the indictment “with prejudice,” which also forecloses future charges.

Both statements are too absolute and usually wrong in practice.

Dismissal “in the furtherance (or interest) of justice” is a discretionary decision by the court—basically: continuing the case would be unfair or not serve justice. By itself, that phrase does NOT determine whether charges can come back. The key question is with or without prejudice, not “furtherance of justice.”

Dismissed with prejudice = final, Prosecutors cannot refile the same charges.It’s treated as a final adjudication (similar effect to a not-guilty outcome for that charge).

BUT—two important caveats: Caveat A: It must actually be “with prejudice”. Courts do not default to this—it’s relatively rare. Prosecutors themselves usually seek without prejudice if they want flexibility.

Caveat B: Scope matters. “With prejudice” bars the same charges based on the same facts. It doesn’t always prevent: Different charges based on different facts, or charges from a different sovereign (e.g., state vs federal)

Nor is there any public indication that the charges were dismissed with prejudice. In fact, I'm unaware that the DOJ made any pitch to a Grand Jury or a court at all. An internally-sponsored investigation could be turned on or off at will.

I thought you had some legal background?

[piytar]

Laz drops the hammer. Well done sir.