Lindsey Halligan, President Donald Trump’s handpicked but inexperienced choice as the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, suffered a significant rebuke in the U.S. Department of Justice’s case charging former FBI Director James Comey with obstructing and lying to Congress. Her alleged misstatements and mishandling of grand jury proceedings are putting more than one charge against Comey at risk of being dismissed.
On November 17, 2025, Federal Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick granted Comey’s lawyers access to all grand jury materials related to the Comey case. The defense will now be able to file motions to suppress after reviewing the materials. While extremely unusual for grand jury transcripts to be shared with the defense before trial, Fitzpatrick noted eleven instances that suggest Halligan and the Justice Department engaged in government misconduct during the grand jury process. Issues with the Comey indictment range from possible false statements made by Halligan to the violation of the attorney-client privilege in an FBI agent’s testimony.
The ruling adds to the Justice Department’s difficulties in its attempts to prosecute Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. A federal judge is set to rule before Thanksgiving on the legality of Halligan’s September 2025 appointment to lead the charge against President Trump’s political opponents. The decision could determine whether the charges against the two can stay afloat.
Some Context
In his second term, President Trump has shown a predilection to appoint his personal lawyers to U.S. attorney positions, despite the lack of practical experience for the role. With these attorneys unlikely to be approved by Congress, the White House has attempted to circumvent the law to keep them in their positions. This has led to lawsuits by criminal defendants in the affected jurisdictions.
When career prosecutor and U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Erik Siebert balked at indicting Comey over a lack of sufficient evidence, President Trump fired him and had Attorney General Pam Bondi install Halligan in his place. This raised eyebrows for numerous reasons, not the least of which was that Halligan was an insurance attorney who had never prosecuted a criminal case before.
Sharing grand jury materials with the defense before a trial is a type of relief rarely granted, but Judge Fitzpatrick determined that Halligan’s conduct in federal court was too egregious to ignore. Writing that the integrity of the grand jury was at stake, Judge Fitzpatrick felt it was necessary to issue the extremely rare court order.
Judge Fitzpatrick had already attempted to release the files to Comey’s legal team on November 5 after a hearing. This was appealed, and the district court sent it back to the magistrate judge to “analyze whether there are particularized and factually based grounds for disclosure.” Halligan then asked Judge Fitzpatrick to privately review grand jury testimony. He did, and it turns out Judge Fitzpatrick felt he was right the first time. On November 17, he laid out a host of issues with he prosecution that he labeled “genuine issues of misconduct.”
What Did U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan Do?
Halligan managed to secure a two-count indictment seven minutes after the grand jury rejected her original three-count filing. Given the dubious likelihood that Halligan managed to follow proper legal procedure in such a short time period, Judge Fitzpatrick questioned the legality of the charging document, writing that it is possible that “the indictment returned in open court was not the same charging document presented to and deliberated upon by the grand jury.”
In addition, Halligan suggested to the grand jury that Comey would not be able to exercise his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during a trial, instead telling the grand jury that they could get answers from Comey if hers were unsatisfactory, potentially framing the case as though the burden was on Comey to prove innocence. Judge Fitzpatrick also wrote that she told the jurors that they didn’t have to rely on just what she’d presented to them as evidence because they could be assured that the government “had more evidence — perhaps better evidence — that would be presented at trial.”
There’s more. The FBI agent who testified during the grand jury session used information that violated attorney-client privilege and had been accessed outside the parameters of the original search warrant. These, along with seven other examples cited by Fitzgerald, led the judge to question whether the government’s behavior was willful or in reckless disregard of the law.
With Comey’s attorneys being given the grand jury documents, control of the case shifts back to U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff. If the case does ever get to trial, it is scheduled to begin on January 5, 2026.
Related Resources
- Prosecutor Misconduct in Murder Case Didn’t Render Trial Unfair (FindLaw’s Law and Daily Life)
- What Does a Government Lawyer Really Do? (FindLaw’s Guide To Hiring a Lawyer)
- Trump Claims DOJ Filing Is Election Interference: Legal Experts Disagree (FindLaw’s Federal Courts)
