What Lies Ahead in the James Comey and Letitia James Trials?

Two prominent opponents of former President Trump obtained major court wins on the start of the week when a US 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 vehemently that they are not guilty, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for retaliation.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie dismissed the indictments against them due to attorney Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. But she also left the door open for the government to refile the case.

• Judge dismisses cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have compromised the Comey trial
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that possibility after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to come after him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts steep obstacles to effectively try both after this setback, and legal analysts are reluctant to forecast what could occur next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

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

Could the DOJ challenge the ruling?

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

Attorney General Pam Bondi signaled she would take this route, vowing to use all legal means, including an immediate appeal.

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

Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any additional politically driven indictments through every lawful means available.

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

Could there be fresh indictments?

The government charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted Letitia James with financial fraud and making false statements to a bank.

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be targets of vindictive prosecution.

With the original indictments thrown out (though, of course, appeals could change that), the government might try to convene fresh grand juries and secure new charges.

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different grand jury and get a new indictment, said Professor Levine.

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

I can tell you it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be recharged if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an charge.

He characterized the tangle of attorneys, courts, and legal filings involved as a procedural morass with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the government to try to bring the exact same charges against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge him for these specific allegations – which ended at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would activate a half-year extension for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is past the deadline.

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

What is the fate of prosecutor Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was direct: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

Judge Currie wrote in the James ruling that the AG's effort to appoint Ms. Halligan as Acting US Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia was invalid.

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

Federal prosecutors are nominated by the president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws govern how people can be assigned on a interim basis, but Judge Currie found that Halligan's appointment had violated these laws.

That leaves Halligan's position on subsequent cases against both individuals, again, uncertain.

The decision might also raise doubts on other cases Halligan has brought in the Virginia Eastern District where she works.

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated Halligan a special US attorney and commended her work as outstanding.

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