A US magistrate judge has harshly reprimanded President Donald Trump’s administration for its handling of the prosecution of former FBI Director James Comey.
On Monday, Judge William Fitzpatrick in Alexandria, Virginia, issued a rare decision ordering the release of all grand jury materials related to the indictment.
Recommended stories
list of 3 itemsend of list
Grand jury materials are typically kept secret to protect witnesses, defendants, and jurors in serious federal crimes.
But in Comey’s case, Fitzpatrick ruled that there were “reasonable grounds to question whether the government’s actions were intentional or showed reckless disregard for the law,” and therefore more transparency was needed.
He cited several irregularities in the case, ranging from how evidence was obtained to false statements by prosecutors that may have swayed the grand jury.
“The procedural and substantive misconduct that occurred in the grand jury, and the manner in which the evidence presented to it was collected and used, may rise to the level of governmental misconduct,” Fitzpatrick wrote in his 24-page decision.
Mr. Fitzpatrick made it clear that his decision would prevent the grand jury materials from being released. But they will be provided to Mr. Comey’s legal team as the former FBI director seeks to have the charges dismissed.
“The court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted,” Fitzpatrick wrote, highlighting the unusual nature of the case.
“However, the record shows a disturbing pattern of serious investigative errors.”
Scrutiny of U.S. Attorney Harrigan
The decision is the latest setback for Lindsey Harrigan, President Trump’s former personal attorney and interim U.S. attorney whom Trump appointed to lead the federal prosecution.
Harrigan, an insurance law specialist with no background as a prosecutor, was selected earlier this year to replace Eric Siebert, acting U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
President Trump indicated that he fired Sievert over disagreements over the Justice Department’s investigation.
According to media reports, Mr. Siebert had refrained from bringing charges against prominent Trump critics, including Mr. Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James, citing insufficient evidence.
However, this seems to have caused the president’s dissatisfaction. President Trump called on social media for the prosecution of Comey and James, and even of Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff.
“They are all supremely guilty, but nothing will be done,” Trump wrote in a post to Attorney General Pam Bondi. “We cannot delay it any longer. This will damage our reputation and credibility.”
Mr. Harrigan was appointed as acting U.S. attorney on September 22nd and filed the first major indictment against Mr. Comey by September 25th.
It accused Comey of obstructing a congressional investigation by making “false, fictitious, and fraudulent statements” to the U.S. Senate.
The second indictment against James was filed on October 9th. A third indictment was filed on October 16, targeting former National Security Adviser John Bolton, another prominent Trump critic.
All three deny wrongdoing and are asking for the lawsuits to be dismissed. Each also accuses President Trump of using the legal system for political retribution against perceived opponents.
But Monday’s court ruling is not the first time Harrigan’s indictment has come under scrutiny.
Just last week, U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Curry heard a petition from James and Comey questioning the legality of Harrigan’s appointment as U.S. attorney.
As she reviewed the petition last Thursday, she noticed that no court reporter appeared to be present in the grand jury transcript regarding Mr. Comey’s indictment, and wondered why there was a gap.
Inside the Fitzpatrick decision
Mr. Fitzpatrick raised the same issue in Monday’s ruling. He questioned whether the transcripts and audio recordings of grand jury deliberations were actually complete.
He noted that the grand jury in Comey’s case originally issued an indictment on three counts, which were dismissed. These deliberations began at around 4:28 p.m. local time.
However, by 6:40 p.m., the grand jury had reportedly considered the second indictment and determined there was probable cause for two of the three counts.
Fitzpatrick said the period between those two points was not “sufficient” to “draft a second indictment, sign the second indictment, present it to the grand jury, give legal instructions to the grand jury, and give it an opportunity to deliberate.”
Fitzpatrick said either the court record was incomplete or the grand jury considered an indictment that was not fully presented in court.
The judge also acknowledged questions about how the evidence in the Comey case was obtained.
The Trump administration faces a five-year statute of limitations in Comey’s case, which expires on September 30th. The indictment relates to comments Comey made before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 2020.
Fitzpatrick said it appears federal prosecutors used a warrant issued for another case to quickly find evidence for the prosecution.
But those warrants were limited to the investigation into Comey’s colleague Daniel Richman, who is being investigated on charges of theft of government property and illegal collection of national security information.
No charges were filed in the Richman case, and the investigation closed in 2021.
“Richman’s material remained with the FBI until the summer of 2025, when the FBI decided to look into it again,” Fitzpatrick said.
He said the federal government’s use of a warrant could violate the Fourth Amendment, which prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures of evidence. He described the Justice Department’s actions as “reckless” and argued that no precautions were taken to protect privileged information.
“Inexplicably, the government chose not to seek a new warrant for the 2025 investigation, even though it focused on a different person, explored a fundamentally different legal theory, and was premised on a completely different set of criminal offenses,” Fitzpatrick wrote.
He speculated that prosecutors may not have sought a new warrant because a delay would have allowed the statute of limitations in the Comey case to expire.
“The court recognizes that it would be highly unusual not to seek a new warrant in these circumstances,” he said.
Fitzpatrick also expressed concern that statements made by federal prosecutors to the grand jury may have been misleading.
Many of these statements were redacted in the Fitzpatrick decision. But he called them “fundamental misstatements of the law that could jeopardize the grand jury process.”
He said the remarks “may have placed a reasonable expectation in the minds of the grand jury that the burden would shift to Mr. Comey to explain the government’s evidence, rather than the government having the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt at trial.”
Another suggested that the grand jury “did not have to rely solely on the record before it to determine probable cause,” and appeared to suggest that more evidence would be presented later.
Fitzpatrick acknowledged that Monday’s request for the release of grand jury records is an “extraordinary remedy” for these issues.
But it ultimately decided it was necessary given “the prospect that government misconduct may have adversely affected grand jury proceedings.”
