The Justice Department under President Trump has faced growing judicial criticism after a series of prosecutorial errors and public statements by senior officials. A magistrate judge found a pattern of mistakes that produced a 21% dismissal rate for D.C. criminal complaints over an eight-week span versus 0.5% across the prior decade. High-profile prosecutions, including the case against James Comey, were dismissed or heavily scrutinized, and the department has lost more than 2,900 attorneys this year — factors experts say have eroded prosecutors' credibility with federal courts.
DOJ Credibility Under Strain: Courts Cite Unprecedented Prosecutorial Errors in Trump Era
The Department of Justice (DOJ) building after two National Guard members were shot near the White House on Wednesday, in Washington, D.C., U.S., November 28, 2025. REUTERS/Nathan Howard
WASHINGTON, Dec. 17 — As the Trump administration advanced a tougher crime agenda this year, a series of legal missteps by Justice Department lawyers has drawn increasing judicial scrutiny and skepticism from former prosecutors and legal experts.
One illustrative case unfolded in August when federal agents and local police in Washington, D.C., stopped a man identified as Torez Riley after observing him tug at a backpack inside a Trader Joe's. Officers searched the bag and recovered two firearms, but prosecutors later were forced to dismiss the charges after surveillance video showed the stop and search lacked probable cause and therefore was unlawful.
Magistrate Finds Pattern Of Errors
In a subsequent opinion, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui found the Riley matter was not isolated. He concluded that the errors were part of a broader pattern of prosecutorial missteps that produced a 21% dismissal rate of criminal complaints filed by the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office over an eight-week period — compared with a 0.5% dismissal rate across the prior decade.
"It appears prosecutors charged and detained Riley before properly investigating the circumstances of his arrest," Judge Faruqui wrote.
The Justice Department declined to comment on pending matters, but a department spokesperson highlighted courtroom wins and high-profile indictments, saying the DOJ was "winning in court on behalf of the Trump Administration and the American People." Tim Lauer, a spokesman for the D.C. U.S. Attorney's Office, said the office brings cases "where the facts warrant action."
High-Profile Cases And Court Rebukes
Some of the most visible fallout involves high-profile prosecutions that were dismissed or heavily criticized. In November, charges against former FBI Director James Comey — accused of making false statements and obstructing Congress — were dismissed after a judge found the indictment was brought by an unlawfully appointed U.S. Attorney. A magistrate documented multiple errors in that prosecution, including possible presentation of privileged material to the grand jury without adequate redaction.
Judges have in other instances quashed subpoenas, threatened contempt proceedings, and issued opinions questioning prosecutors' conduct. Grand juries, which typically follow the evidence presented by prosecutors, have at times rejected indictments — an unusual development that underlines eroding judicial confidence in some office practices.
Institutional Strain And Staff Losses
Legal observers link some mistakes to a rapid loss of institutional knowledge. Public records show the department lost more than 2,900 attorneys from January through November — roughly three times the typical annual departures of recent years. Former prosecutors warn that such turnover makes it harder to supervise complex cases and maintain long-standing practices that preserve credibility with courts.
Public Comments, Social Media And Political Pressure
At times, missteps appear tied to public statements by senior officials or social media posts that diverged from sworn court filings. Examples include posts by FBI Director Kash Patel about sealed matters, extrajudicial comments by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche in an immigration case, and a memo by Attorney General Pam Bondi equating gender-affirming care for minors with genital mutilation — a memo several judges cited in finding bad faith when quashing subpoenas for medical records.
"As a government lawyer, you rely on your credibility and the Department of Justice relies on the presumption of regularity," said former federal prosecutor Alexis Loeb. "If those things are undermined, it also makes it much harder to do your job."
What This Means
Courts increasingly signaling a lack of trust in prosecutors could complicate enforcement priorities the administration cares about — from immigration and violent crime to political and voting-rights cases. Legal experts say restoring credibility will require more rigorous case preparation, clearer internal controls on public communications, and efforts to rebuild depleted institutional expertise.
(Reporting by Sarah N. Lynch; additional reporting by Brad Heath; editing by Scott Malone and Alistair Bell)
