In an intriguing turn of events, a U.S. magistrate has raised concerns about potential compromises in a high-profile case involving former FBI Director James Comey. After a thorough examination of grand jury materials in private, U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick expressed apprehension that an FBI agent witness and a former defense attorney for President Donald Trump, who recently transitioned to a prosecutor role, may have jeopardized the case before the grand jury.

Judge Fitzpatrick had previously criticized the Department of Justice, led by U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, for adopting what he described as an “indict first, investigate later” approach. Just last week, he commanded the government to present grand jury transcripts, audio recordings, and evidence from the longstanding “Arctic Haze” leak investigation. This was to assess the validity of Comey’s claims, which advocated for breaching the customary grand jury secrecy.

Comey’s defense team argued that misconduct might have tainted the grand jury proceedings. They pointed fingers at Lindsey Halligan, the interim U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, suggesting her presentation could have been problematic. Furthermore, they alleged that an FBI agent witness may have inadvertently accessed information protected by attorney-client privilege.

Despite these contentions, the Department of Justice maintained that Comey failed to present sufficient evidence to break the “long-established public interest in grand jury secrecy.” They argued that he lacked the necessary, specific, and factual grounds to justify such a disclosure.

Nonetheless, Judge Fitzpatrick’s opinion on Monday highlighted a “disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps,” which undermined the DOJ’s stance and emphasized the seriousness of the alleged procedural flaws.

“[T]he Court finds that the institutional concerns for grand jury secrecy are greatly outweighed by Mr. Comey’s right to Due Process,” the magistrate wrote. “The Court recognizes that the relief sought by the defense is rarely granted. However, the record points to a disturbing pattern of profound investigative missteps, missteps that led an FBI agent and a prosecutor to potentially undermine the integrity of the grand jury proceeding.”

Noting that ordering the release of the grand jury materials to Comey’s defense would not make them public at this time, given the protective order in place, Fitzpatrick said the ex-FBI director deserves to have them because they are “essential” to a fair defense.

“[A]s the Court has found, these materials are essential if Mr. Comey is to fully and fairly defend himself in the face of the irregularities that have characterized this investigation from its inception,” the magistrate said.

Further down in the opinion, the judge took stock of Halligan’s presentation and the testimony of the FBI agent.

Regarding Halligan, the lone signer of the Comey indictment and the only prosecutor in the grand jury room, Fitzpatrick said he “identified two statements” that she made to grand jurors that “on their face appear to be fundamental misstatements of law that could compromise the integrity of the grand jury process.”

One of those statements seems to have emphasized that Comey’s silence could be used against him.

“Both statements by the prosecutor are in response to questions by grand jurors and are directly related to communications involving Mr. Comey,” Fitzpatrick explained, though the exact Halligan statements were redacted.

“The prosecutor’s statement that [redacted] is a fundamental and highly prejudicial misstatement of the law that suggests to the grand jury that Mr. Comey does not have a Fifth Amendment right not to testify at trial,” the magistrate continued. “The prosecutor’s statement ignores the foundational rule of law that if Mr. Comey exercised his right not testify the jury could draw no negative inference from that decision.”

The second Halligan statement, Fitzpatrick continued, “clearly suggested to the grand jury that they did not have to rely only on the record before them to determine probable cause but could be assured the government had more evidence–perhaps better evidence–that would be presented at trial.”

“[T]he prosecutor made statements to the grand jurors that could reasonably form the basis for the defense to challenge whether the grand jury proceedings were infected with constitutional error,” he said.

As for the FBI agent witness? The magistrate found it “troublesome” that the DOJ’s “sole witness before the grand jury was exposed to a ‘limited overview’ of privileged material shortly before he testified.”

Comey’s defense, therefore, should have the grand jury materials to explore “whether the government’s conduct was willful or in reckless disregard of the law,” Fitzpatrick said.

“This is particularly significant because Agent-3, after having been exposed to potentially privileged information, chose to testify before the grand jury rather than separate himself from the investigation to contain any further exposure to privileged information and limit any prejudice to Mr. Comey,” he added.

Taken together, Halligan and the agent “potentially undermine[d] the integrity of the grand jury proceeding,” making this the “rare” time ordering “all grand jury materials” over to the defense was the appropriate decision, Fitzpatrick concluded.

The magistrate ordered those materials to be shared by 3 p.m. and for the government to “no later than” 5 p.m., “produce to the defense the complete audio recording of the grand jury proceedings.”

Days before Halligan’s presentation before the grand jury, Trump publicly pleaded with Bondi to install the erstwhile insurance lawyer in place of ousted ex-EDVA interim U.S. Attorney Erik Siebert.

“Lindsey Halligan is a really good lawyer, and likes you, a lot,” Trump said.

Read the full opinion here.