Time was running out on the statute of limitations concerning statements made by former FBI Director James Comey to Congress. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that these statements were false and obstructed a congressional proceeding. The responsibility of securing a timely indictment against Comey fell to Lindsey Halligan, the newly appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who accomplished this in late September.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to both charges and is pursuing several defenses in an effort to have the case against him dismissed.
On Monday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who is overseeing some preliminary procedural matters in the case, issued an order requiring the government to provide all grand jury materials to the defense:
A judge on Monday ordered the Department of Justice to hand over grand jury material to former FBI Director James Comey, an unusual move that the judge said was necessary because of the department’s “highly unusual” activity during the secret grand jury proceedings.
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick scolded the DOJ in the order for what he said was a glaring mishandling of evidence presented to grand jurors and possible misstatements by the case’s lead prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan.
“The Court is finding that the government’s actions in this case — whether purposeful, reckless, or negligent — raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation, and deserve to be fully explored by the defense,” Fitzpatrick wrote.
The judge also warned that the grand jury proceedings may have been tainted beyond repair and could cause the court to dismiss the indictment.
Here is the heart of the issue:
The grand jury issue stems from evidence Halligan presented to the grand jury that the judge said improperly stemmed from years-old warrants. …
When presenting the case to the grand jury, Halligan relied on evidence gathered from 2019 and 2020 warrants that were part of a past investigation while, according to the judge, brushing off rules surrounding how investigators and prosecutors are permitted to review and seize information obtained through the warrants.
More on that from Fitzpatrick’s memorandum and order:
Based on the foregoing, the Court makes the following findings:
First, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the Richman Warrants were executed in a manner consistent with the Fourth Amendment and the orders of the issuing court.
Second, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government exceeded the scope of the Richman Warrants in 2019 and 2020 by seizing and preserving information that was beyond the scope of the warrants, that is, information that did not constitute evidence of violations of either 18 U.S.C. § 641 or § 793.
Third, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government had the lawful authority to search the Richman materials anew in 2025.
Fourth, the facts establish a reasonable basis for the defense to challenge whether the government’s 2025 seizure of the Richman materials included information beyond the scope of the original warrants.
Fifth, the nature and circumstances surrounding the government’s potential violations of the Fourth Amendment and court orders establish a reasonable basis to question whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.
Fitzpatrick’s ruling highlights concerns about statements made by Halligan to the grand jury during the proceedings that led to the indictment, along with several other potentially problematic areas:
Collectively, the facts set forth herein and the particularized findings of the Court establish that “ground[s] may exist to dismiss the indictment because of a matter that occurred before the grand jury[.]” Rule 6(e)(3)(E)(ii). The Court need not now determine whether any facts herein have been proven, or whether there is merit to any motion yet to be filed. That task may lie ahead. Rather, the Court is finding that the government’s actions in this case–whether purposeful, reckless, or negligent–raise genuine issues of misconduct, are inextricably linked to the government’s grand jury presentation, and deserve to be fully explored by the defense.
So…is this case against Comey already sunk? In a word, no:
Generally not a ground to invalidate an indictment.
Misstatements of law by prosecutors in front of the the GJ is a subject that has a LOOOOONG history of litigation.
Not a new topic and defendants rarely win on it. https://t.co/s8YT0o7C82
— Shipwreckedcrew (@shipwreckedcrew) November 17, 2025
The government must provide the grand jury materials to the defense for the attorneys to review while preparing Comey’s defense. That’s where we’re currently at – no more, no less. But the DOJ has already filed an emergency motion to stay Fitzpatrick’s order to allow it time to file its objections with District Court Judge Michael Nachmanoff. The saga is far from over.Time was running out on the statute of limitations regarding statements made by former FBI Director James Comey to Congress. The Department of Justice (DOJ) alleges that these statements were false and obstructed a congressional proceeding. The responsibility of securing a timely indictment against Comey fell to Lindsey Halligan, the newly appointed interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who accomplished this in late September.
Comey has pleaded not guilty to both charges and is pursuing several defenses in an effort to have the case against him dismissed.
On Monday, Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick, who is overseeing some preliminary procedural matters in the case, issued an order requiring the government to provide all grand jury materials to the defense. This is an unusual move, as the judge stated it was necessary due to the DOJ’s “highly unusual” activity during the secret grand jury proceedings.
Here are the key points from Judge Fitzpatrick’s memorandum and order:
Based on the information presented, the Court makes the following findings:
Fitzpatrick’s ruling raises concerns about statements made by Halligan to the grand jury during the proceedings that led to the indictment, along with several other potentially problematic areas.
So, is the case against Comey already doomed? The answer is no.
The government must provide the grand jury materials to the defense so that Comey’s attorneys can review them while preparing his defense. That is the current status of the case—nothing more, nothing less. However, the DOJ has already filed an emergency motion to stay Fitzpatrick’s order, seeking time to file its objections with District Court Judge Michael Nachmanoff. The saga is far from over.
