The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.
Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.
With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that) the government might try to convene new grand juries and secure new indictments.
“As far as everything I’ve seen, a different attorney could bring James’ case to a new grand jury and get a new indictment,” said Ms Levine.
But John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complicated path – certainly in Comey’s case.
“I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey’s case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is able to secure an indictment.”
He described the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a “procedural morass” with no simple answers.
It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against Comey.
One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to charge Comey for these specific allegations – which ended at the end of September. However, the indictment’s dismissal would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.
Still in that case, his legal team said it plans to argue the government is out of time.
“The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment,” attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.
