Ruling suggests possible government misconduct in high-profile case tied to Trump administration
A United States magistrate judge has issued a rare and forceful reprimand of the Trump administration’s handling of the federal case against former FBI Director James Comey, suggesting that the indictment may have been tainted by procedural failures, questionable evidence collection and potential government misconduct.
On Monday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick in Alexandria, Virginia, took the extraordinary step of ordering the release of all grand jury materials to Comey’s defense team. Although grand jury records typically remain sealed to protect jurors and witnesses, the judge said transparency was essential because there was “a reasonable basis” to question whether federal prosecutors acted “willfully or in reckless disregard of the law.”
The sharply worded 24-page decision outlined severe procedural concerns, including incomplete transcripts, unusual gaps in the grand jury record, and potential misstatements of law that may have influenced the grand jurors’ decision to indict Comey.
Fitzpatrick emphasized that his ruling did not make the records public but did grant the defense rare access as Comey seeks to have the indictment thrown out entirely.
“The record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps,” Fitzpatrick wrote.
Judge Flags Multiple Irregularities in the Comey Case
Fitzpatrick’s ruling focused on numerous inconsistencies surrounding the presentation of evidence, the progression of the grand jury deliberations and the speed with which prosecutors submitted revised indictments.
According to the court, the grand jury initially rejected a three-count indictment on September 25. Yet just over two hours later, the same jury purportedly reviewed a revised indictment and swiftly approved two of the counts. Fitzpatrick questioned whether it would have been possible to draft, sign, present and deliberate such an indictment in such a short period.
This discrepancy, the judge wrote, suggests either an incomplete record or that grand jurors evaluated an indictment that had not been properly introduced in court.
Evidence Collection May Violate Fourth Amendment
The ruling also scrutinized the way prosecutors obtained evidence against Comey. With the five-year statute of limitations approaching on September 30, Fitzpatrick noted that prosecutors reused search warrants from a different investigation rather than seeking new ones.
The earlier warrants pertained to a 2020–2021 investigation into Daniel Richman, a Comey associate, who was suspected—but never charged—in a case involving alleged theft of government property. That investigation had long been closed.
The judge said prosecutors’ decision to “rummage through” old materials in 2025 without new warrants could violate the Fourth Amendment, which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures.
Fitzpatrick called the government’s approach “cavalier”, noting that privileged information may not have been properly protected and that prosecutors offered no explanation for not seeking new warrants—other than possibly to avoid missing the statute of limitations deadline.
Misleading Statements to Grand Jury Raised Red Flags
Fitzpatrick also expressed alarm about comments federal prosecutors may have made to the grand jury. Although the statements were heavily redacted in the ruling, the judge described them as “fundamental misstatements of the law” that undermined the integrity of the grand jury process.
One such statement allegedly suggested that Comey bore the burden of disproving the government’s claims — a reversal of the standard burden of proof. Another implied that grand jurors could rely on evidence not yet presented to determine probable cause.
These comments, Fitzpatrick wrote, risked misleading the jury and compromising the fairness of the proceeding.
Political Pressure Under Scrutiny: The Halligan Connection
The judge’s ruling marks another setback for Lindsey Halligan, the interim US attorney appointed by President Donald Trump. Halligan, a former insurance lawyer with no prosecutorial experience, replaced acting US Attorney Erik Siebert in September after Siebert reportedly declined to pursue indictments against several Trump critics, including Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, due to insufficient evidence.
Soon after assuming her post, Halligan filed a series of rapid-fire indictments against Comey, James and former National Security Adviser John Bolton — all outspoken critics of Trump. Each has denied wrongdoing and accused the administration of weaponizing the Justice Department to target political adversaries.
Fitzpatrick’s ruling follows recent hearings in which judges questioned whether Halligan was legally appointed and whether gaps in the Comey grand jury record indicated deeper procedural failures.
What Comes Next for the Comey Case?
Judge Fitzpatrick acknowledged that granting Comey’s defense access to grand jury materials was an “extraordinary remedy,” but insisted it was justified given the possibility that government misconduct influenced the indictment.
The decision heightens scrutiny of the Justice Department’s actions and may increase the likelihood that Comey’s legal team succeeds in its bid to dismiss the charges.
As multiple Trump critics face similar indictments handed down within weeks of Halligan’s appointment, the ruling may also have broader implications for other cases tied to alleged political retaliation.
Leave a Reply