The federal indictment against a Fort Lauderdale family of accused psychic swindlers is a full 50 pages long, but it’s a single paragraph within that document that now threatens to unravel prosecutors’ entire case.

It’s Paragraph 44, a section where prosecutors outlined the story of one victim, identified only by the initials “J.C.”

This man had been duped by the Marks family, the indictment said, by being told he would have to make payments to rid him and his family of evil spirits, bad luck and curses.

Three generations of the Marks clan — eight people in total — are accused of organizing a massive psychic con artist ring that netted at least $40 million over the past 20 years. Alleged victims include best-selling novelist Jude Deveraux, who appears ready and willing to testify.

But prosecutors had never spoken to J.C. prior to including him among the list of Marks family victims. Federal agents only contacted him after-the-fact, and J.C. now says, in a sworn written statement provided to defense attorneys, that he is fully satisfied with the psychic services he received, and does not consider himself a victim.

“That’s very disturbing,” Federal Magistrate Judge Ann Vitunac said last week when prosecutors admitted they hadn’t spoken to the man before classifying him as a victim. Vitunac then took the rare step of asking to review the sealed testimony that occurred before a grand jury leading up to the indictment. Prosecutors need grand jury approval before issuing an indictment, though that approval is almost automatic — hence the old lawyers’ joke that prosecutors could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich.”

And Vitunac indicated her scrutiny of the indictment may ultimately expand beyond what was said in front of the grand jury.

“Then I’ll have to decide whether or not I need to look at [federal] agents’ reports,” Vitunac said.

Though the evidence shown to a grand jury is critical to getting an indictment, it is rare for a judge to go back and review it, according to legal experts.

“Typically the feeling is ‘the grand jury has done it’s work, we’re here, and now we proceed,’” said Nova Southeastern University law professor Robert Jarvis. “It doesn’t sound like the government is off to a flying start.”

Assistant U.S. Attorney Laurence Bardfeld acknowledged to the judge that it was “ill-advised” to include an alleged victim in the indictment without having spoken with him, but he said investigators were afraid that J.C. would tip off the family about the pending investigation before arrests could be made. Furthermore, Bardfeld said the pattern of large sums of money flowing from J.C.’s bank account to the family fit right in with the general pattern of how victims were duped. Bardfeld likened the defense’s strategy to “throwing things against the wall and hoping that something sticks.”

Bardfeld declined further comment after the hearing concluded.

In addition to raising questions about whether the indictment was handled properly, defense attorneys have also sought to make an issue of the word “gypsy” being used in court proceedings. The Marks family is of Romanian Gypsy descent, but defense attorney Fred Schwartz has argued that the world “gypsy” is an ethnic slur, and that previous mentions of the word by prosecutors were improper. So far, that argument appears to be getting nowhere with the judge.

“Nobody shudders when you say ‘gypsy,’” Vitunac said.

But inconsistencies with the indictment have certainly caught the judge’s attention, and court filings indicate she intends to thoroughly review how the case got to this point. A written order filed by Vitunac on Friday faulted prosecutors for only handing over part of the grand jury transcripts for examination.

“Numerous missing pages and at least one instance where testimony references previous testimony not produced,” Vitunac wrote, ordering prosecutors to provide “a complete copy” by the end of the day.

Schwartz said he was willing to give prosecutors the benefit of the doubt on the missing pages, and he attributed it to “sloppiness or inadvertent oversight.”

Jarvis, the NSU law professor, wasn’t so sure.

“Having gaps in the grand jury testimony, that should not happen,” Jarvis said. “That sounds intentional.”