The image features Commissioner Beryl A. Howell speaking at a U.S. Sentencing Commission meeting in Washington, captured in a December 11, 2007, file photo, and FBI Director Kash Patel testifying before a Senate Committee in May 2025. Both images are credited to AP photographers.
Before Kashyap “Kash” Patel became the FBI Director, he faced scathing remarks from a federal judge regarding his attempts to dodge a grand jury testimony demanded by then-special counsel Jack Smith, as uncovered in court documents.
Patel eventually provided testimony to Smith’s grand jury, but the specifics of his statements remain confidential. This testimony was secured only after Patel invoked his rights under the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments, resulting in significant legal maneuvers.
The proceedings were overseen by U.S. District Judge Beryl A. Howell, appointed by Barack Obama, who dismissed Patel’s legal defenses and became increasingly critical of his delaying tactics.
In an October 11, 2022, minute order, Howell stated, “Mr. Patel relies on the First, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments,” adding, “The First Amendment offers no protection in this matter. The issue is simply a scheduling dispute before the Court.”
These records were divulged on Wednesday by Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg, also an Obama appointee, following a series of “relief in a criminal case” requests submitted by Politico in February.
Those requests followed a brief public show of inquiry by Senate Democrats over the grand jury testimony in January – when President Donald Trump formally nominated Patel to serve as FBI director.
In October 2022, Patel was represented by attorney Stanley Woodward, who also represented a number of Jan. 6 defendants – including Kelly Meggs, a co-defendant of far-right Oath Keepers group founder Stewart Rhodes.
Woodward’s representation of both Meggs and Patel, at more or less the same time, provided the latter with some ammunition to delay his testimony before the special counsel’s office. But not a lot.
Howell’s askance commentary came as she explained why she was dismissing a motion to quash Patel’s grand jury subpoena.
“Mr. Patel requests a delay of some unspecified time period in his testimony because his counsel, Stanley Woodward, will be engaged in the United States v. Rhodes trial, scheduled to last several weeks, with no promises as to when his counsel will have time available,” the minute order reads. “Mr. Patel retained Mr. Woodward on the attorney’s first day of jury selection in Rhodes when such circumstance made fully apparent that counsel would be unavailable during Mr. Patel’s scheduled grand jury testimony.”
The judge goes on to acridly note Patel filed his motion “after business hours” on a Friday “before a three-day holiday weekend.”
The minute order also chides Patel for trying to delay his testimony in light of Smith’s team having “demonstrated flexibility in meeting Mr. Patel’s scheduling needs, including granting him a two-week extension of the grand jury subpoena to find counsel” and offering to schedule the testimony, with Woodward by his side, “during breaks in the Rhodes trial.”
The remainder of the order offers Howell’s analysis on how Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights are not necessarily vindicated when a witness is called to provide grand jury testimony – if “at all.”
The court directed Patel to testify before the grand jury on Oct. 13, 2022. He did not quite do that. Instead, on that date, Patel’s counsel filed a motion to stay – which Howell quickly and angrily denied.
Again, the judge witheringly takes note of the timeline – upbraiding Patel for filing the stay motion “after business hours.”
But the judge doesn’t stop there.
In a second minute order issued Oct. 13, 2022, Howell harshly goes after the eventual leader of the nation’s principal federal law enforcement agency for the arguments made in service of delay, at length:
Patel attempts to cast the October 11, 2022 Order denying his motion to quash his grand jury subpoena as forcing him to provide grand jury testimony without his counsel of choice. This is a gross mischaracterization that ignores the flexibility shown by the government not only by postponing this witness’s scheduled appearance before the grand jury for two weeks to facilitate his retention of counsel, but also extending the courtesy to Patel of offering to schedule his testimony early in the mornings or on Friday afternoons or to interview him over the weekend, when his counsel’s ongoing trial is adjourned. All these offers to accommodate were rejected by Patel, who instead seeks to delay his testimony indefinitely.
“That is unacceptable and borders on the contemptuous,” the judge continues, “given that Patel has been ordered to appear before the grand jury today as previously scheduled weeks ago.”
The just-released docket goes on. The government, by way of Smith’s office, and Patel jockey for position – with the court granting a motion to compel and directing the witness to outline the bases on which he plans to invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Then, in early November, the docket, which goes on for roughly two more pages, falls prone to the censor’s pen – the rest of the events, and even the dates themselves, are redacted.
Patel ultimately testified on Nov. 3, under a grant of limited immunity.
