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

Two high-profile critics of former President Trump achieved significant court wins on Monday when a US judge threw out the federal indictments filed against them.

Over recent weeks since their indictments, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are merely targeting them for revenge.

Federal Judge Cameron Currie tossed the charges in their cases due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper assignment as US attorney. But she also left open the possibility for the federal authorities to try again.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and NY attorney general James
• Federal judge states DOJ errors may have tainted Comey case
• What is former FBI head James Comey accused of?

Comey acknowledged that likelihood after the ruling, stating he believes Trump will probably target him once more.

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

But the DOJ confronts significant hurdles to successfully prosecute both after this defeat, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

It feels to me like uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, law professor at Emory University.

Might the DOJ appeal?

The DOJ can contest the judge's decision before a federal appeals court. In this instance, that would be the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi indicated she would take this route, vowing to use all available legal action, including an immediate appeal.

In other cases, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, taking cases from lower courts and sometimes accelerating its requests up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to keep fighting any further politically motivated charges through all legal avenues.

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

Is it possible there be fresh indictments?

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

Both entered not guilty pleas. In addition to arguing Halligan was unlawfully appointed, both also claimed to be victims of retaliatory legal action.

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

Based on my analysis, a new prosecutor could present James's case to a different 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 the Comey matter.

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a properly assigned attorney is assigned and is can obtain an indictment.

He described the complex web of lawyers, courts, and motions involved as a legal quagmire with no easy solutions.

It might be harder for the DOJ to try to file the identical accusations against James Comey.

A key issue is the legal time limit – the time frame that government lawyers had to charge Comey for these particular claims – which expired at the close of September. However, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a half-year extension for the justice department to bring the case again.

Even so in that situation, his legal team said it plans to contend the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the indictment is invalid, the statute of limitations has expired and there can be no further indictment, attorney Patrick Fitzgerald said Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In both decisions on the charges against Comey and James, the judge was blunt: Halligan was wrongly appointed.

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

As a result, Halligan lacked legal power to present the indictment, the judge wrote.

US attorneys are proposed by the US president and require US Senate confirmation. US laws regulate how people can be appointed on a interim basis, but the judge determined that Halligan's assignment had breached these regulations.

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

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

But Bondi said on Monday that she designated her a special federal prosecutor and praised her work as excellent.

The administration stood by its stance that Halligan was lawfully appointed, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.