The judge overseeing James Comey’s criminal case has granted a request from the DOJ to block an order mandating they hand over grand jury evidence to Comey’s attorneys.
The judge overseeing James Comey’s criminal case has granted a request from the DOJ to block an order mandating they hand over grand jury evidence to Comey’s attorneys.
The federal judge overseeing former FBI Director James Comey’s criminal case on Monday granted a request from federal prosecutors to block a magistrate judge’s order that mandated they hand over a trove of grand jury evidence to Comey’s attorneys.
The Justice Department requested the stay earlier Monday after U.S. District Judge William Fitzpatrick ordered the Trump administration to turn over a full transcript and recording of the September grand jury presentation by Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan, which he said included instances where she may have made “fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.”
Fitzpatrick expressed alarm at what he called “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” that may have irreversibly tainted the prosecution of James Comey and violated the former FBI director’s constitutional rights, in a scathing opinion granting Comey’s attorneys access to a vast trove of grand jury evidence.
Fitzpatrick, in his ruling, wrote that, “The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted. However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”
In his order issuing the stay on Monday evening, U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff said he would give the government until 5 p.m. ET Wednesday to file objections to Judge Fitzpatrick’s order, and set a 5 p.m. ET Friday deadline for Comey’s attorneys to file a response.
The dispute is likely to be a feature of oral arguments already set for Wednesday in Alexandria, Virginia, as Nachmanoff considers a request from Comey’s attorneys to have the former FBI director’s indictment tossed before trial on the basis he was vindictively prosecuted by the Trump administration.
Comey pleaded not guilty in October to one count of false statements and one count of obstruction of a congressional proceeding related to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020, amid what critics call Trump’s campaign of retribution against his perceived political foes.
Halligan, Trump’s handpicked U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, sought the indictment of Comey over the objections of career prosecutors after Trump forced out previous U.S. attorney Erik Siebert who sources said had resisted bringing cases against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Halligan, who had no experience as a prosecutor, sought the indictment after Trump, in a social media post, called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to act “NOW!!!” to prosecute Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James.
Fitzpatrick, in Monday’s ruling, wrote, “Having been requested by the government to review the grand jury materials, the Court has identified two statements by the prosecutor to the grand jurors that on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of the law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.”
Separately, the judge raised concerns that based on materials handed over by the government, it appears the indictment that Halligan ultimately returned in open court may not have been presented or deliberated on by the grand jury, which initially rejected one of the three charges she had sought.
“If this procedure did not take place, then the Court is in uncharted legal territory in that the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury,” Fitzpatrick said.
“Either way, this unusual series of events, still not fully explained by the prosecutor’s declaration, calls into question the presumption of regularity generally associated with grand jury proceedings, and provides another genuine issue the defense may raise to challenge the manner in which the government obtained the indictment,” the judge wrote.