In 1985 Sol Wachter, the Supreme Court of the New York Supreme Court, said famous: “Every good public prosecutor can get a big jury to accuse a sandwich with a ham.” Maybe – but giving up someone for throwing a sandwich with a ham can be harder than it seems.
A large jury reportedly refused to sue 37-year-old Sean Charles Dunn. A former employee of the Ministry of Justice, Dunn was shown on video that shouted obscenities at customs and border protection (CBP) agents who were near 14th and you stood in streets Washington, DCOn August 10 and then hit an officer with a packed sandwich.
DAINA Henry, a detective of the transit police, gave the details of the incident in a criminal complaint. Dunn initially ran away before he returned and continued a profane Diatribe against the officers, who remained calm. The video shows Dunn Raving: “F — You! You F — ING Fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn then threw his sandwich to the officers and ran away, with officers in close pursuit.
DC -Man accused of swinging from Sandwich to the federal officer escaped the indictment
Dunn seemed to abolish the incident and say, “I did it. I threw a sandwich.”
It was a little more than that.
Sean Charles Dunn is accused of throwing a metro -sandwich at a federal agent in Washington, DC (American Court for the District of Columbia)
I assume that the indictment was established under the 18 American code § 111 – mistreating, resisting or hindering or hindering certain officers or employees:
(a) in general. – Who
(1) Deviews, resist, resist, resist himself, hinders, intimidates or interferes with every person who is designated in Section 1114 of this title While they are concerned with or because of the performance of official tasks; or
(2) promotes or intimidates every person who previously served as a person who was designated in section 1114 because of the performance of official tasks during the service period of such a person,
where the actions are only in violation of this section, a fine will be imprisoned under this title or no more than a year, or both, and where such actions retain physical contact with the victim of that attack or the intention to commit another crime, get a fine under this title or no more than 8 years, or both.
(b) Improved punishment.
Those who, in committing all actions described in subsection (A), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger, but this cannot do this because of a defective component) or will be imposed on physical injury, or no more than 20 years, or both.
Click here for more the opinion of Fox News
The District of Columbia is known as one of the most democratic and liberal jury fellows in the country. However, this can be a case of overloading in the eyes of the jury.
Armed National Guard -members patrolled near the American Capitol while the security is attacked after President Trump’s deployment. (Getty Images/Tasos Katopodis)
As I have noticed before, a sandwich is not a “fatal or dangerous weapon” (more a deli weapon). Moreover, in case no physical injury was inflicted to justify an improved fine.
Law enforcers are not a Dunk tank goals for every citizen with anger problems. There must be consequences – even if it is just a crime.
The American lawyer Jeanine Pirro promised maximum effort and punishment for Dunn. She posted: “This guy thought it was funny – well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today, because we have sued him with a crime: attack on a police officer. So there, keep your metro sandwich somewhere else!”
The big jury can see this as, at most, a simple attack.
The question remains about who has unveiled the mood of the large jury. It is said that there is an investigation into the possible violation of the Grand Jury Secrecy Rule.
President Donald Trump and cabinet members listen while the American lawyer Jeanine Pirro on 11 August 2025 crime in Washington, DC discusses in the White House. (Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty images)
There is a basis for a criminal charge for abuse. A refusal to accuse even in a lower violation would in my opinion be a form of jury void.
The question is whether Pirro will now look for the lower load. She should do that. Law enforcers are not a Dunk tank goals for every citizen with anger problems. There must be consequences – even if it is just a crime.
Click here to get the Fox News app
As I stated earlier:
Dunn created this incident and wanted fame. He succeeded. I expect that there will be a GoFundMe effort to cover its legal costs, and he will enjoy a certain status of celebrities. Although this is not an important attack, it is an attack on an officer. Although he may have been a demonstrator, neither he nor his sandwich qualifies himself as a hero.
Dunn has already been fired from his position at the Ministry of Justice. He must also be confronted with a criminal indictment of dealing with his notorious attack on officers.
This column first appeared on the author’s blog, Res ipsa loquitur – The thing itself speaks.
Click here to Van Jonathan Turley
