What's Next in the James Comey and James Trials?

Two well-known critics of President Trump secured major legal victories on the start of the week when a federal judge threw out the government's charges against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have argued fiercely that they are not guilty, claiming that the president and justice department are simply targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out charges against ex-FBI director Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks the former president will probably target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This will not be the final word on this matter.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute either after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the cases' unprecedented nature.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, said Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the justice department appeal?

The Department of Justice can challenge Judge Currie's ruling before a higher appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

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

In other cases, the former administration has aggressively appealed unfavourable rulings, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the US Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, an attorney representing James, pledged to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

In the event of an appeal, the DOJ likely would have its own lawyers argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeals process uncertain.

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged James Comey with making false statements to lawmakers and obstructing justice. Government lawyers charged Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

Both pleaded not guilty. Besides arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, they also claimed to be victims of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (although appeals might alter this), the DOJ might try to assemble new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a fresh indictment, stated Professor 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.

I can tell you it will be strongly disputed, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of lawyers, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the DOJ to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the deadline that prosecutors had to indict him for these specific allegations – which expired at the close of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it plans to argue the government is past the deadline.

The decision further indicates that because the indictment is void, the statute of limitations has run and there can be no further indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What happens to Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, Judge Currie was direct: Halligan's appointment was improper.

The judge stated in the James ruling that the AG's effort to install Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Virginia Eastern District was unlawful.

Therefore, Halligan had no lawful authority to present the indictment, she wrote.

Federal prosecutors are proposed by the president and need Senate approval. Federal statutes regulate how individuals can be assigned on a temporary basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had breached these laws.

This makes Halligan's role on future cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The ruling also could cast a shadow on any other cases Halligan has brought in the Eastern District of Virginia where she works.

But Attorney General Bondi said on Monday that she made Halligan a special federal prosecutor and commended her work as outstanding.

The White House maintained its position that Halligan's appointment was legal, press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.