Judge Blasts Prosecutors Over ‘Disturbing’ Missteps in Comey Case

A federal judge sharply rebuked ⚖️Prosecutors on Monday, ordering them to hand over secret grand jury materials in the case against former FBI Director James Comey after outlining what he called “a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps.”

According to the New York Post, in a 24-page ruling, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick accused the government of violating attorney-client privilege, mishandling evidence, and presenting faulty guidance to the grand jury that indicted Comey, a longtime adversary of President 👤Donald Trump.

Fitzpatrick criticized interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Lindsey Halligan for what he described as “fundamental misstatements of the law” during her presentation to the grand jury. He also raised concerns about discrepancies in the timeline surrounding the indictment.

The ruling noted that Halligan told the court she last communicated with the grand jurors at 4:28 p.m. as they deliberated. She later reported learning at 6:40 p.m. that one of the original counts was rejected—minutes before the second indictment was returned in open court.

“The short time span between the moment the prosecutor learned that the grand jury rejected one count in the original indictment and the time the prosecutor appeared in court to return the second indictment could not have been sufficient to draft the second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, provide legal instructions to the grand jury, and give them an opportunity to deliberate and render a decision on the new indictment,” Fitzpatrick wrote.

He added that if the timeline was accurate, “the transcript and audio recording provided to the Court are incomplete.” But if the procedure never occurred at all, he said the case enters “uncharted legal territory,” raising new challenges for the defense.

Fitzpatrick also faulted the FBI’s handling of search warrants executed in 2019 and 2020 during the bureau’s Arctic Haze leak investigation. He wrote that while investigators allowed attorney David Richman and his counsel to identify privileged materials, they “never engaged Mr. Comey in this process,” despite knowing Richman had represented him since 2017.

He further noted that agents were authorized to search all of Richman’s materials even though they were only permitted to seize evidence of theft of government property or retention of national security information—neither of which aligns with the charges Comey currently faces.

Comey, 64, was indicted Sept. 25 on charges of lying to Congress and obstruction of justice tied to his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2020.

While Fitzpatrick said there is no proof ⚖️Prosecutors directly shared privileged communications with the grand jury, he stressed that seized materials “were the cornerstone of the government’s grand jury presentation.” He called it “highly irregular” that only one FBI agent—who had reviewed some privileged content—testified before the panel.

“The government’s position that privileged materials were not directly shared with the grand jurors ignores the equally unacceptable prospect that privileged materials were used to shape the government’s presentation,” he wrote.

The judge also challenged comments from Halligan suggesting that Comey’s decision not to testify should be interpreted negatively. The remarks were redacted in his order, but Fitzpatrick warned that the prosecutor’s suggestion violated “the foundational rule of law” that jurors may not draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence.

A second redacted statement from Halligan “clearly suggested” that jurors could assume the government had stronger evidence waiting for trial, he added.

Fitzpatrick ordered ⚖️Prosecutors to turn over audio recordings and all sealed grand jury materials to Comey’s legal team by the end of the day Monday.

Comey’s attorneys are fighting the indictment on additional grounds, arguing that Halligan was unlawfully appointed and that the case is “vindictive” in nature.