Federal prosecutor can't indict ham sandwich thrower

[struggle4progress]

27 Aug 2025

A federal grand jury in the United States has declined to indict a man for throwing a sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent who was on patrol as part of President Donald Trump’s deployment of force in Washington, DC.

The grand jury had been weighing the case of Sean Charles Dunn, a former employee at the Department of Justice (DOJ) who was charged with felony assault ...

Indictments are usually a technicality in the prosecutorial process. There is a saying in the US legal system that a good prosecutor can convince a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” ...

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/8/27/grand-jury-declines-to-indict-man-for-throwing-sandwich-at-us-agents

[questionseverything]

1. I want to thank the citizens on that grand jury for taking their public duty seriously

[Turbineguy]

2. Is it because it's ham?

Maybe they need to use beef in breadly weapons.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. A DC grand jury declined to indict sandwich guy!

Piro literally failed to get an indictment on a sandwich

Link to tweet

[LetMyPeopleVote]

4. Grand jury declines to indict man who threw a sandwich at federal officer in D.C.

The former Justice Department employee, who threw a sub at federal officers in Washington and came to be known as "Sandwich Guy," wasn't indicted on a federal felony charge.

Grand jury declines to indict man who threw a sandwich at federal officer in D.C.

The former Justice Department attorney who threw a sub at federal officers in Washington, and came to be known as "Sandwich Guy," was not indicted on a federal felony charge.

www.nbcnews.com/politics/pol...

— Raymond Norman (@raymondnorman.bsky.social) 2025-08-27T16:08:26.164Z

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/grand-jury-declines-indict-sandwich-guy-threw-sub-dc-federal-officer-rcna227464

WASHINGTON — You could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, the saying goes, but, in Washington, a federal grand jury just declined to indict a man for throwing a salami sub.

The grand jury did not return an indictment against a former Justice Department employee who was seen on camera throwing a hoagie at the chest of one of the federal officers President Donald Trump has deployed in the nation’s capital, according to two people familiar with the matter.

The grand jury’s decision not to indict Sean Dunn is another sign of pushback from Washington, D.C., residents over Trump's deployment of the National Guard and other federal law enforcement agencies in the city, who have put a particular focus on immigration enforcement. The New York Times was first to report the news.......

It's not the first time federal prosecutors have had trouble getting a Washington-based grand jury to indict a resident who opposed the new law enforcement presence in D.C. Federal prosecutors failed to obtain an indictment of a woman who was arrested for allegedly assaulting an FBI special agent at an immigration-related protest, the Times reported.

It is highly unusual for grand juries not to indict, given that the standard is probable cause rather than beyond a reasonable doubt as it would be at trial, and because grand jurors typically hear only from prosecutors.

[madville]

9. They'll still charge him with a misdemeanor

Federal misdemeanor charges don’t require a grand jury indictment so he’ll still likely have to go to trial if a plea deal isn’t reached. They could still present the felony charge to another grand jury

[H2O Man]

5. Recommended.

I had to run to the store today. There was a group of people laughing about this in one aisle.

[UTUSN]

6. K&R

[John Farmer]

7. What's the usual penalty

for assault with a breadly weapon?

[jmowreader]

12. Having you watch your target eat your lunch

You also have to watch him drink your milkshake.

[Emile]

8. Fragile ass snowflakes are scared of a sandwich.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

10. Deadline: Legal Blog-Grand jury rejects yet another felony indictment in Trump's D.C. crackdown

In at least three cases so far, grand jurors have refused to approve felony charges against people the administration said assaulted law enforcement.

Strike four … Trump’s unqualified DOJ may please him, but they’re losing like nobody’s ever seen before in front of the Grand Jury.

Grand jury rejects yet another felony indictment in Trump's D.C. crackdown www.msnbc.com/deadline-whi...

— @jimrissmiller.bsky.social 2025-08-31T20:16:33.324Z

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/trump-dc-crackdown-grand-jury-reject-felony-indictment-rcna228104

Whatever is happening, it’s not normal. That’s true of much else these days, but this latest stark chapter goes to the heart of the justice system. While it’s well understood that trial juries wield significant power, grand juries can shape, curb or kill cases at their inception. Most cases easily move past the grand jury stage. But grand jurors in D.C. aren’t acting as a rubber stamp.

We already knew about the whopping triple failure to indict Sidney Reid, as well as the failure to do the same against sandwich thrower Sean Dunn. Both cases are proceeding as misdemeanors instead of felonies after grand juries rejected more serious charges of assaulting law enforcement.

Now, grand jurors have declined to approve another indictment in a case charged under that same assault statute. This one involves Alvin Summers, whose case prosecutors actually moved to dismiss (though “without prejudice,” meaning they could try again later, a distinction that dominated the saga surrounding New York City Mayor Eric Adams). Seeking a permanent dismissal on Thursday, Summers’ lawyers wrote that the officer’s testimony “was rejected by the grand jury, presumably after reviewing the body-worn camera video.”....

That previously led me to wonder, in examining the Reid and Dunn cases, whether grand jurors simply thought prosecutors couldn’t satisfy the relatively low evidentiary burden at this preliminary stage of a case, or whether grand jurors were making more profound statements of nullification, the latter referring to situations in which jurors believe prosecutors have proved their cases but nonetheless reject them because they find the prosecutions or what they represent offensive.

The implications of either scenario are striking. And remember, this is just what we know about what has happened so far. This incredible story is still being written, but it’s one that can’t be ignored amid everything else that’s abnormal in these times.

[Swede]

11. The most unkindest cuts of all.

[jmowreader]

13. What was on this sandwich?

Maybe the reason the prosecutor couldn't get an indictment was the sandwich contained no ham.

Or the case was stupid.

Or the prosecutor isn't any good.