The newly appointed U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Jeanine Pirro, experienced another setback in her ongoing mission to seek harsh penalties for those accused of assaulting federal law enforcement officers in the capital. Her office was unable once again to secure a grand jury indictment in a felony assault case.

This particular incident turned into a source of amusement among legal analysts, given that the chief prosecutor couldn’t secure an indictment in a case centered around a sandwich.

The case statement detailed that Sean C. Dunn, aged 37, confronted a Customs and Border Patrol agent on the night of August 10th along 14th Street NW, exclaiming, “F— you! You f—ing fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!”

Moments later, as captured on video, Dunn, identified as the suspect, threw what was said to be a Subway sandwich at the officer.

The feds alleged Dunn was caught “winding his arm back and forcefully throwing” the sub, then running away.

Upon his arrest, he allegedly admitted to a D.C. Metro Transit Police officer, “I did it. I threw a sandwich.” Subsequently, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi verified that Dunn was employed by the DOJ and has since been terminated.

Beyond losing his job as a paralegal in the DOJ Criminal Division’s Office of International Affairs, Dunn was charged with assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers and employees of the United States.

Crucially, however, the New York Times has reported that on Tuesday a grand jury declined to indict Dunn. The court docket does not yet reflect this, and Dunn’s lawyer reportedly would not comment on the development.

But if, in fact and as reported, the grand jury did not indict, it may seem to many to be not just be a failure of Pirro’s office, but of Bondi, who backed the felony charge publicly as an apparent message to any other “Deep State” actors inside her DOJ who would lash out at law enforcement.

“If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you. I just learned that this defendant worked at the Department of Justice — NO LONGER. Not only is he FIRED, he has been charged with a felony,” Bondi posted on Aug. 14. “This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ. You will NOT work in this administration while disrespecting our government and law enforcement.”

Docket activity in at least one other case this week serves an example of what to expect next in Dunn’s case, however.

As recently as Monday, Pirro had to file documents notifying the U.S. District Court in D.C. that her office had failed for the third time to secure a grand jury indictment against 44-year-old Sydney Lori Reid, who on July 22 was accused of assaulting, resisting or impeding an FBI agent and “inflicted bodily injury,” in violation of 18 USC § 111(a)(1), while that agent and another officer attempted to “transfer […] two known gang members suspected to be part of the 18th Street Gang into FBI” and ICE custody outside of the D.C. Central Detention Facility.

The statute, used in many Jan. 6 cases, notes that if in the course someone commits this crime and “inflicts bodily injury” they “shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.”

The initial statement of facts in the case included of photo of the FBI agent’s hand following the alleged confrontation with Reid.

Court exhibit of injury Sydney Lori Reid allegedly inflicted upon an FBI agent.

Yet three grand juries returned “no true bill,” Pirro acknowledged, leading her office to pursue a misdemeanor violation of the statute instead.

The old joke is that any good prosecutor could get a jury to indict a ham sandwich. Do you know how badly you have to be overcharging something for a grand jury to reject charges three times in a row? What an embarrassment. https://t.co/Lby1MbxgTF

— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@ReichlinMelnick) August 25, 2025

It is not common for federal prosecutors to fail to secure grand jury indictments, let alone repeatedly, which legal experts widely pointed out by reference to the quip attributed to former New York Supreme Court Chief Justice Sol Wachtler — that prosecutors could “get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich” if they so desired.

Emphasizing the one-sided nature of grand jury proceedings and the need for federal prosecutors only to meet the probable cause standard, legal commentators marveled at “thoroughly embarrassing” news that Pirro’s office failed to indict Dunn for hurling a sandwich.

Most federal prosecutors can indict a ham sandwich.

Trump’s DOJ is so incompetent it can’t indict the guy who threw one. pic.twitter.com/uxvSMb5esu

— Ari Cohn (@AriCohn) August 27, 2025

Prosecutors couldn’t even convince a grand jury to indict a guy who threw a ham sandwich. A thoroughly embarrassing and well-deserved defeat given that the administration rolled out his arrest like they had just captured El Chapo. https://t.co/HRhagSskeR

— Justin Amash (@justinamash) August 27, 2025

They say prosecutors could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich…

but apparently not the guy who threw a ham sandwich.

At least Trump’s hack prosecutors can’t. pic.twitter.com/tltxbVmSz3

— Jed Shugerman (@jedshug) August 27, 2025

Must not have been a ham sandwich https://t.co/M2XAnUWDtN

— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) August 27, 2025

The old saying is that a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. But somehow this one didn’t indict the DOJ lawyer who threw sandwich at federal agent. https://t.co/CndlPYUGu4

— Ed Whelan (@EdWhelanEPPC) August 27, 2025

So apparently you can’t indict a ham sandwich? https://t.co/CQ1QXxPS2m

— Ilya Shapiro (@ishapiro) August 27, 2025

Sure, prosecutors can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich, but they cannot get one to indict the man who threw it—at least not under the leadership of Attorney Judge Pirro. pic.twitter.com/R6VBQmMpLG

— Patrick Jaicomo (@pjaicomo) August 27, 2025