A former Department of Justice employee who hurled a sandwich at a law enforcement officer is now walking free—not because he was innocent, but because jurors thought prosecutors were trying to make a political statement.
Charles Sean Dunn, a 37-year-old former DOJ official, was caught on video earlier this month throwing a sub sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officer during a period of increased law enforcement presence in Washington, D.C., under President Donald Trump’s crackdown on escalating lawlessness. After the assault, Dunn fled the scene but was later apprehended. The DOJ promptly fired him following the incident, with Attorney General Pam Bondi taking swift disciplinary action.
Rather than treating the case as the clear-cut assault, U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro brought felony charges against Dunn—felony assault on a federal officer. In a firm statement after the arrest, Pirro declared, “He thought it was funny. Well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today because we charged him with a felony assault on a police officer, and we’re going to back the police to the hilt.”
Unfortunately, a D.C. grand jury declined to indict Dunn on the felony charge. And why? According to former DOJ official Mary McCord, it wasn’t because Dunn was innocent, but because the prosecution’s “heavy-handed” approach alienated the jurors. Speaking on MSNBC’s Deadline: White House, McCord explained, “We have a video. We can see exactly what happened. I’m not sure what else a grand jury would need.” Yet she concluded that the grand jury was likely engaging in a form of nullification, rejecting the felony charge not because the crime didn’t happen, but because they saw the prosecution as overreaching.
“It’s a sandwich,” McCord admitted. “Should he have done it? No. Is it technically an assault on a police officer? Yes. If it’s going to be charged at all—and most of the time, something like this would not be—it would be a misdemeanor at most.”
