Apparently, not all ham sandwiches can face indictments. The former Justice Department authority who went viral on social media for hurling a sandwich at a federal officer earlier this month will not face charges.
A federal grand jury declined to indict Sean Dunn, who was facing felony assault charges for throwing the sandwich at an officer while screaming "F*** you! You f***ing fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!"
From The New York Times:
Federal prosecutors on Tuesday were unable to secure a felony assault indictment against a man who threw a sandwich at a federal agent on the streets of Washington this month, according to two people familiar with the matter.
The remarkable failure by the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington was the second time in recent days that it was unable to persuade grand jurors to bring an indictment in a felony assault case against a federal agent. And it amounted to a sharp rebuke by ordinary citizens against the team of prosecutors who are dealing with the fallout from President Trump’s move to send National Guard troops and federal agents into the city on patrol.
It remained unclear if prosecutors planned to try again to obtain an indictment against the man, Sean C. Dunn, a former Justice Department paralegal. Mr. Dunn was initially charged on Aug. 13 in a criminal complaint accusing him of throwing a submarine sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer who was on patrol with other federal agents near the corner of 14th and U Streets in the northwest section of the capital, a popular part of the city filled with bars and restaurants.
🚨#BREAKING: A DC man has been charged with felony assault charges after hitting a federal agent with Subway sandwich
— R A W S A L E R T S (@rawsalerts) August 13, 2025
📌#Washington | #DC
A Washington, D.C. man is now facing federal charges after allegedly throwing a sub-style sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection… pic.twitter.com/e2zcx20Y1E
It is extremely rare for a federal grand jury to decline to indict a defendant. In fact, grand juries issue indictments in about 99.99 percent of cases they handle. Out of more than 162,000 cases between 2009 and 2010, grand juries only declined to indict in 11 cases.
This is where we get the saying, “you can indict a ham sandwich.” Except in this case, the sandwich thrower got off the hook.
How rare is it for a grand jury not to indict?
— Aaron Blake (@AaronBlake) August 27, 2025
"Federal prosecutors pursued over 160,000 cases against defendants in 2009-2010 ... and grand juries only voted not to return an indictment in 11."
The sandwich guy is now the second time it's happened with Pirro in recent days. pic.twitter.com/WBhvhpCu6v
The reason non-indictments are so rare is that prosecutors have near-total control over the proceedings. They decide which evidence to provide to grand jurors. Moreover, grand juries need only to decide whether there is “probable cause” to assume the accused actually committed a crime, which is a far lower threshold than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required to convict someone.
In grand jury proceedings, there is no defense attorney who can cross-examine witnesses. The prosecutor can select which witnesses will provide evidence.
Also, prosecutors often weed out cases where they might not have evidence to convict. The abundance of plea deals also tends to result in a higher indictment rate.
It is not clear whether prosecutors will make another attempt to indict Dunn or pursue lower misdemeanor charges that don’t require a grand jury.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member