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

Two prominent opponents of President Trump achieved major legal victories on the start of the week when a US judge dismissed the federal indictments against them.

Over recent weeks following their charges, former FBI Director James Comey and NY AG Letitia James have insisted vehemently that they are innocent, asserting that the administration and DOJ are simply targeting them for retaliation.

US District Judge Cameron Currie tossed the indictments against them due to prosecutor Lindsey Halligan's improper appointment as federal prosecutor. However, she left open the possibility for the federal authorities to refile the case.

• Court throws out cases against former FBI chief Comey and New York AG James
• US judge says government 'missteps' may have compromised Comey case
• What are ex-FBI director James Comey charged with?

Comey admitted that likelihood after the ruling, stating he thinks Trump is likely to target him again.

And White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson seemed to confirm it: This isn't the last chapter on this matter.

But the government confronts significant hurdles to effectively try both after this setback, and experts hesitate to forecast what could happen next due to the unprecedented circumstances of the cases.

In my view, it's uncharted territory, stated Professor Kay Levine, Emory University School of Law professor.

Could the DOJ appeal?

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

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

Previously, the Trump administration has aggressively appealed adverse decisions, moving cases from trial courts and sometimes fast-tracking its petitions up to the Supreme Court.

Attorney Abbe Lowell, James's lawyer, vowed to continue to challenge any additional politically driven indictments through all legal avenues.

If there is an appeals process, the DOJ probably would have its own attorneys argue the case, making Halligan's role in the appeal uncertain.

Could there be new charges?

The federal prosecutors charged Comey with making false statements to Congress and obstruction of justice. Government lawyers indicted James with financial fraud and making false statements to a financial institution.

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

Since the initial charges were dismissed (although appeals might alter this), the government might try to convene new grand juries and obtain new indictments.

As far as everything I've seen, a new prosecutor could bring James' case to a different grand jury and secure a fresh indictment, stated Ms Levine.

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

It's clear that it will be hotly contested, whether Mr Comey's case can be re-indicted if a lawfully appointed prosecutor is appointed and is able to secure an charge.

He described the complex web of attorneys, judges, and motions involved as a procedural morass with no simple answers.

It could be harder for the government to try to bring the identical accusations against James Comey.

One problem is the statute of limitations – the time frame that prosecutors had to indict him for these particular claims – which expired at the end of September. Nonetheless, the dismissal of the charges would trigger a six-month grace period for the DOJ to bring the case again.

Still in that case, his lawyers said it intends to argue the prosecution is out of time.

The decision further indicates that since the charge is invalid, the time limit has run and there can be no new indictment, lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald said on Monday.

What is the fate of Lindsey Halligan?

In the pair of rulings on the indictments against James and Comey, Judge Currie was blunt: Halligan's appointment was improper.

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

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

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

This makes Halligan's position on subsequent cases against James and Comey, once more, unclear.

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

But Attorney General Bondi said on that day that she made her a special US attorney and praised her work as outstanding.

The White House stood by its stance that Halligan's appointment was legal, spokesperson Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Monday.