U.S. President Donald Trump reacts after signing an executive order to create a White House Olympics task force to handle security and other issues related to the LA 2028 summer Olympics in the South Court Auditorium on the White House campus in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 5, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

In the wake of a federal indictment targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James for alleged mortgage fraud, doubts over both prosecutorial conduct and evidentiary strength have mounted.

In an article for Bloomberg published Friday, law professor and former U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan Barbara McQuade argued that while the indictment of James for mortgage fraud contains serious procedural irregularities, the prosecution’s principal challenge will lie in proving criminal intent at trial.

McQuade observed that the indictment is irregular in several respects: it was brought by Lindsey Halligan, a Trump‑aligned interim U.S. attorney with no prosecutorial experience, and appears to bear only her signature; it followed the removal of a career prosecutor, Erik Siebert, who reportedly declined to bring charges; and it came after public pressure from President Donald Trump to pursue cases against James and other critics.

McQuade suggested these factors will fuel motions alleging selective prosecution and challenge Halligan’s appointment. She added that the DoJ might face "an uphill battle at trial."

McQuade noted the case faces significant evidentiary hurdles. The indictment charges James with falsely claiming that a Norfolk, Virginia home purchased in 2020 would be her secondary residence in order to secure favorable mortgage terms, while in fact renting it out.

But proving what someone intended at a particular moment is notoriously difficult, McQuade wrote.

To secure convictions on both bank fraud and false statements charges, the government must show that when James signed the documents she knowingly intended to mislead the lender to gain an advantage, according to the former U.S. attorney.

"Proving what is in someone’s mind can be among the most difficult challenges for a prosecutor. It is often the biggest obstacle in a white-collar case, where the alleged crime rests not so much on what the defendant did — such as signing documents — but on why they did it — to deceive or defraud," she wrote.

McQuade stated that even seasoned professionals — let alone ordinary homebuyers — are often overwhelmed by the complexity of closing documents, which may undermine an inference that James consciously intended to deceive.

She added that it is not enough to show that James later used the property as a rental; the government must prove that at the time of signing she already intended to treat it as rental property and sought better mortgage terms because of that misrepresentation.

McQuade suggested the absence of compelling evidence of that crafted intent may explain why the previous U.S. attorney declined to pursue charges. She warned that if Trump’s goal is indictment rather than conviction, then even without a guilty verdict, the case may inflict lasting damage to the rule of law.