Key Witness Seeks to Block Evidence in Potential Revival of Comey Case

A central figure in the Trump administration’s now-dismissed criminal case against former FBI Director James Comey is asking a federal judge to stop prosecutors from using evidence seized years earlier. According to newly released court filings, Daniel Richman — a Columbia Law School professor and former attorney to Comey — argues that the Justice Department violated his Fourth Amendment rights by reusing materials taken from his electronic devices during an unrelated 2019–2020 investigation.

Richman’s legal challenge comes at a pivotal moment. Reuters reported that the Justice Department is considering whether to file a new indictment against Comey as early as this week after a federal judge threw out prior charges against Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Those charges were dismissed because the lead prosecutor, Lindsey Halligan, had been unlawfully appointed, raising serious procedural concerns.

In Richman’s lawsuit, he seeks a court order requiring prosecutors to delete or return the seized materials and to prohibit their use in any future proceedings. The evidence is considered crucial, as prosecutors previously relied on it to accuse Comey of making false statements and obstructing Congress. They alleged Comey misled lawmakers in 2020 when he said he did not authorize FBI officials to act as anonymous media sources during investigations, including those tied to Hillary Clinton ahead of the 2016 election.

U.S. Magistrate Judge William Fitzpatrick previously determined that prosecutors may have mishandled the seized material, finding they reexamined it this year without securing a new warrant. Although neither Comey nor Richman was charged in the earlier classified-leak probe, this reuse of evidence raised constitutional concerns. Prosecutors disputed Fitzpatrick’s finding before the broader case was dismissed.

As the Justice Department weighs its next steps, Richman’s challenge represents a significant obstacle. Any renewed prosecution effort may hinge on whether the contested evidence is ultimately deemed admissible.