Last updated 1 week ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
In autumn 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James B. Comey. The indictment, unsealed on September 25, 2025, charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, stemming from testimony given five years earlier about alleged leaks to the media. The administration framed the prosecution as necessary to address “deep state” corruption.
By November 2025, the case stands on the verge of collapse. On November 19, 2025, federal prosecutors admitted the grand jury never voted on the final indictment. This structural defect is so severe it likely renders the charging document legally void.
Compounded by the expiration of the five-year statute of limitations on September 30, 2025, and the stringent requirements of the “saving clause” under federal law, the government faces an almost insurmountable procedural barrier.
The Grand Jury Problem
The Fifth Amendment guarantees that “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury.” In United States v. Comey, this requirement appears to have been bypassed in an effort to beat the statute of limitations.
The Admission
On November 19, 2025, during a hearing before U.S. District Judge Michael Nachmanoff, federal prosecutors made what legal analysts called a “stunning” and “virtually unprecedented” concession. Under questioning, the government admitted that the grand jury never reviewed or voted on the final, two-count indictment filed with the court.
On the morning of September 25, 2025, prosecutors faced a time crunch:
The three-count indictment: Interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan initially presented a three-count indictment to the grand jury. The draft charged Comey with making false statements about authorizing anonymous leaks, obstructing a congressional proceeding, and a third charge related to Comey’s testimony concerning the “Clinton plan” intelligence documents from 2016.
The rejection: The grand jury voted to reject the third count related to the Clinton plan intelligence.
The unauthorized revision: Upon learning of the rejection, Halligan and her team faced a critical choice. Instead of redrafting the indictment and conducting a new vote, prosecutors altered the document or printed a new version containing only the two approved counts. This revised document, the “operative indictment”, was never presented back to the grand jury for a final review or vote.
The failure to resubmit: During the November 19 hearing, Assistant U.S. Attorney N. Tyler Lemons confirmed that the second indictment was given straight to the magistrate judge without being shown to the grand jury. Halligan confirmed that only the foreperson and another grand juror were present in the courtroom when the indictment was returned.
The Seven-Minute Gap
A missing transcript supports the claim that the grand jury never voted. U.S. District Judge Cameron McGowan Currie noted a gap in the transcript corresponding to the critical moments when the re-drafting would have occurred.
Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick analyzed the timeline and found a fatal discrepancy. The record showed only approximately seven minutes elapsed between the prosecutor learning of the rejection and the return of the new indictment in open court. Fitzpatrick concluded that seven minutes “could not have been sufficient” to draft, print, read, instruct, deliberate, and vote on a new indictment.
Legal Implications
The government calls this a clerical fix or a valid way to narrow charges. They rely on United States v. Miller (1985), which allows for the “narrowing” of an indictment by dropping allegations unnecessary to the offense.
The defense distinguishes Miller on critical grounds. Miller typically applies to narrowing at trial. In this case, the defect occurred at inception. The controlling principle traces back to Ex Parte Bain (1887), which established that an indictment is the exclusive property of the grand jury and cannot be amended by the prosecutor.
The Justice Manual reinforces this: “If the indictment could be changed by the court or by the prosecutor, then it would no longer be the indictment returned by the grand jury.” By unilaterally removing a count and filing a new document without a vote, took action that belongs to the grand jury. As defense attorney Michael Dreeben argued, “There is no indictment Mr. Comey is facing.”
The Statute of Limitations Problem
The procedural nullity of the indictment is linked to timing. The alleged false statements occurred on September 30, 2020. The five-year federal statute of limitations expired on September 30, 2025. The indictment was filed on September 25, 2025, days before the deadline.
If Judge Nachmanoff dismisses the current indictment due to the grand jury failure, the government cannot simply file a corrected indictment because the statute of limitations has expired. The government’s only hope lies in the “saving clause” of 18 U.S.C. § 3288.
The Saving Clause
This statute permits the government to file a new indictment within six months after a dismissal, even if the statute of limitations has expired, provided the original indictment was dismissed for “any reason” (other than failure to file within the limitation period).
The Nullity Problem
The defense argues that § 3288 assumes the existence of a valid (though defective) indictment to toll the statute. If the original document was a “nullity” or “void ab initio” because it was never voted on by a grand jury, arguably no indictment was ever instituted.
Cases like United States v. Gillespie (N.D. Ill. 1987) support this view. The court held: “[A] valid indictment insulates from statute-of-limitations problems any refiling of the same charges… But if the earlier indictment is void, there is no legitimate peg on which to hang such a judicial limitations-tolling result.”
If the court finds the September 25 filing invalid, the statute of limitations expired on September 30.
The Bad Faith Exception
Defense attorneys argue that the errors resulted from a “vindictive” rush to judgment. Under United States v. Serubo, courts have indicated that the saving clause is not available to “assist” the government when dismissal results from intentional prosecutorial misconduct. If the dismissal is granted with prejudice due to the “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps” identified by Judge Fitzpatrick, the saving clause becomes irrelevant.
Key Statutes
| Statute | Purpose | Application | Defense Argument |
|---|---|---|---|
| 18 U.S.C. § 1001 | Criminalizes false statements | Underlying charge for Sept 30, 2020 testimony | Testimony was “literally true” or ambiguous |
| 18 U.S.C. § 3282 | 5-Year Statute of Limitations | Expired Sept 30, 2025 | Case is time-barred if no tolling applies |
| 18 U.S.C. § 3288 | “Saving Clause” – allows re-indictment 6 months after dismissal | Government’s only path to re-charge Comey | Inapplicable if original indictment was “void ab initio” or dismissed for bad faith |
| Fed. R. Crim. P. 6 | Governs Grand Jury secrecy and voting | Requires 12 jurors to vote “concur” | Violated by failure to vote on final document |
The Evidence Problems
The prosecution is also compromised by the handling of evidence. The investigation relied heavily on materials seized years prior, raising Fourth Amendment and attorney-client privilege issues.
Stale Warrants
The evidence against Comey was largely derived from a prior, closed investigation known as “Arctic Haze”. In 2019 and 2020, the DOJ seized the devices of Daniel Richman, a Columbia Law School professor and Comey’s personal attorney.
Magistrate Judge Fitzpatrick ruled that this constituted a potential Fourth Amendment violation, noting the decision to review evidence seized years earlier without a new warrant was a “profound investigative misstep.”
Privilege Violations
An FBI agent, identified as “Agent-3,” was exposed to these privileged communications.
The Sole Witness Problem
The grand jury heard evidence filtered through a witness tainted by privileged information. Under United States v. Kastigar, the government bears a burden to prove its evidence is derived from a legitimate independent source. Given that Agent-3 was the only witness, the government may face suppression of the entire grand jury presentation.
The Halligan Factor
The specific conduct of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan is central to the defense’s motion to dismiss.
Background
Lindsey Halligan has an unusual background for this role. A 2013 graduate of the University of Miami Law School, Halligan spent most of her career as an insurance defense attorney. She had no prior prosecutorial experience before her appointment in 2025.
Halligan served as Donald Trump’s personal attorney from 2022 to 2025. She was appointed Interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia on September 22, 2025, three days before the indictment was filed.
The Appointment Challenge
Trump forced the resignation of the previous U.S. Attorney, Erik Siebert, and bypassed the statutory successor to install Halligan. If Halligan’s appointment was unlawful, she was an “unauthorized person” in the grand jury room. Judge Cameron McGowan Currie expressed skepticism, noting that “Ms. Halligan was the sole prosecutor in the grand jury room… that’s not going to be a harmless error”.
Instructional Errors
She suggested that Comey did not have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial.
She suggested the grand jury could indict because the government had “more evidence, perhaps better evidence, that would be presented at trial.”
The Substantive Defense
Even if the government could overcome the procedural hurdles, the underlying case is legally fragile.
The Ambiguity Question
The defense says Senator Ted Cruz’s questions on September 30, 2020, were unclear.
Comey contends that his leak to Daniel Richman involved personal memos regarding his conversations with President Trump, which he viewed as distinct from the FBI’s “Trump investigation” (Crossfire Hurricane).
Literal Truth Defense
This defense relies on Bronston v. United States, which holds that a perjury conviction cannot be sustained if the witness’s answer is literally true but unresponsive. The government must prove that Comey shared Cruz’s definition of “Trump investigation.”
The fact that the grand jury rejected the third count (related to the “Clinton plan”) indicates the jurors themselves found the government’s theory unpersuasive on key points.
Political Context
The forced resignation of U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert immediately following his refusal to charge Comey provides a causal link. The simultaneous prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James reinforces the pattern of targeting political opponents.
The Grand Jury Materials Order
Fitzpatrick ruled that the “procedural and substantive irregularities… may rise to the level of government misconduct”. This order allowed the defense to confirm the “missing transcript” and the “no vote” admission, converting suspicions of misconduct into documented fact.
Courts rarely grant this type of relief in criminal cases. It reflects the severity of the procedural failures and suggests the court views the government’s conduct as potentially rising to the level of prosecutorial misconduct that would warrant dismissal with prejudice.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.