What's Next in the James Comey and James Legal Cases?

A pair of prominent opponents of President Trump secured major court wins on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, ex-FBI chief James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have maintained fiercely that they are innocent, asserting that the president and justice department are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments in their cases due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as US attorney. However, she left open the possibility for the government to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes the former president is likely to come after him once more.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson appeared to agree: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the DOJ faces steep obstacles to effectively try either after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, said Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Might the justice department appeal?

The DOJ can contest Judge Currie's ruling before a federal appeals court. In this case, that would be the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court.

Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would pursue this option, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from lower courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeals process, the justice department likely would have its own lawyers present the arguments, making Halligan's involvement in the appeal uncertain.

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstruction of justice. Federal prosecutors charged James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both pleaded not guilty. In addition to claiming Halligan's appointment was invalid, both also asserted to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

Since the initial charges were dismissed (though, of course, appeals could change that), the DOJ might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new charges.

Based on my analysis, a different attorney could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

But legal expert John Day, president of the American College of Trial Lawyers, said it could be a complex process – certainly in the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the complex web of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be more difficult for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that government lawyers had to indict Comey for these particular claims – which ended at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that case, his lawyers said it intends to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The ruling also suggests that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no new indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the Attorney General's attempt to appoint Halligan as Interim US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was unlawful.

Therefore, she had no lawful authority to file the charges, she wrote.

US attorneys are nominated by the US president and require Senate approval. Federal statutes govern how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on subsequent cases against both individuals, once more, uncertain.

The decision might also cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has prosecuted in the Eastern District of Virginia where she serves.

But Bondi said on that day that she made Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as excellent.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan was lawfully appointed, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.