Deadline: Legal Blog-It matters why the grand jury in D.C. declined to indict sandwich thrower Sean Dunn

[LetMyPeopleVote]

There are different ways of reading the stunning action by a Washington grand jury amid Trump’s federal crackdown on the nation’s capital.

Link to tweet

https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/deadline-legal-blog/dc-sandwich-thrower-grand-jury-indictment-decline-matters-rcna227748

We know that a grand jury in Washington refused to indict sandwich thrower Sean Dunn. But we don’t necessarily know why.

It’s a stunning result with serious implications no matter what motivated the rejection. Yet, what those implications are, exactly, could depend on the rationale for refusing to approve a felony charge against the man who became a folk hero in D.C. amid the Trump administration’s federal crackdown in the nation’s capital......

But something bigger may have been at play: jury nullification. That’s when jurors believe that prosecutors have proved the technical elements of the case but, nonetheless, the jury renders a moral objection by way of a not guilty verdict (or in the case of a grand jury, a “no true bill”).

To put the question one way: Did grand jurors think the government did a bad job, or a bad thing?.....

Importantly, we have more than Dunn’s case to go on in analyzing this phenomenon. There’s the even more shocking recent failure of D.C. prosecutors to get an indictment against Sidney Reid a whopping three times. She was initially charged under the same federal assault statute as Dunn. After striking out in the grand jury, prosecutors reduced her case to a misdemeanor, which doesn’t require grand jury approval.

Let’s assume for a moment that grand jurors in both the Dunn and Reid cases just thought there wasn’t enough proof to charge them with felonies. The known facts of both cases certainly allow for that possibility. Through that lens, the message to prosecutors is that they need to more carefully evaluate the quality of cases they bring.

But if the message is that the people of D.C. are declining to approve charges despite the evidence presented to them, that’s something that should worry prosecutors even more.

I am personally voting that both cases are jury nullification and Piro needs to worry if she takes these cases to trial.

[MrWowWow]

1. Wrong Kind of Sandwich Yielded Jury Nullification?

Pastrami on Sourdough Rye with smoked Swiss cheese and mustard. That might have been indictable. Definitely delectable no matter what!

[Turbineguy]

2. You really need one of those

crunchy French baguette things to do some harm.

[LetMyPeopleVote]

3. 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.

[Ars Longa]

4. This is, basically, the Jurors know the charges are complete BULLSHIT, and vote NO on

said BS!!!!!

[Wounded Bear]

5. They can indict a ham sandwich, but the guy who threw it? Definitely not at fault.