In 1985, Sol Wachtler, the chief justice of New York’s Supreme Court, famously said, “Any good prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.” Perhaps, but it appears that indicting someone for throwing a ham sandwich may be tougher than it would appear. A grand jury has reportedly refused to indict Sean Charles Dunn, 37, shown on video shouting obscenities at Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents standing near 14th and U streets on Aug. 10. and then striking an officer with a wrapped sandwich.
Daina Henry, a transit police detective, gave the details of the incident in a criminal complaint. Dunn at first walks away before returning and continuing a profane diatribe against the officers, who remain calm. It shows Dunn raving, “F**k you! You f**king fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city!” Dunn then throws his sandwich at officers and runs away with officers in close pursuit.
Dunn appeared to shrug off the incident, saying “I did it. I threw a sandwich.”
It is a little more than that.
I assume that the charge is brought under 18 U.S. Code § 111 – Assaulting, resisting, or impeding certain officers or employees:
(a)In General.—Whoever—
(1) forcibly assaults, resists, opposes, impedes, intimidates, or interferes with any person designated in section 1114 of this title while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties; or
(2) forcibly assaults or intimidates any person who formerly served as a person designated in section 1114 on account of the performance of official duties during such person’s term of service,
shall, where the acts in violation of this section constitute only simple assault, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, and where such acts involve physical contact with the victim of that assault or the intent to commit another felony, be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
(b)Enhanced Penalty.—
Whoever, in the commission of any acts described in subsection (a), uses a deadly or dangerous weapon (including a weapon intended to cause death or danger but that fails to do so by reason of a defective component) or inflicts bodily injury, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
The District of Columbia is known as one of the most Democratic and liberal jury pools in the country. However, this may be a case of overcharging in the eyes of the jury. As I previously noted, a sandwich is not a “deadly or dangerous weapon” (It is more of a deli weapon). Moreover, there was no infliction of bodily injury in the case to justify an enhanced penalty.
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro promised a maximum effort and punishment for Dunn. She posted “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. ‘So there, stick your Subway sandwich somewhere else!’”
The jury may view this as, at most, a simple assault.
There remains the question of who revealed the vote of the grand jury. There is reportedly an inquiry into the possible violation of the grand jury secrecy rule.
There is a basis for a criminal charge for assault. A refusal to indict even on a lower offense would, in my view, be a form of jury nullification. The question is whether Pirro will now seek the lower charge. She should do so. Law enforcement officers are not some dunk-tank targets for any citizen with rage issues. There needs to be consequences, even if only a misdemeanor charge.
As I previously noted,
“Dunn created this incident and wanted the notoriety. He succeeded. I expect that there will be a GoFundMe effort to cover his legal costs and he will enjoy a certain celebrity status. However, while this is not a significant assault, it is an assault on an officer. While he may have been a protester, neither he nor his sandwich qualifies as a hero.”
Dunn has already been fired from his position at the Justice Department. He should also have a criminal charge to go with his infamous assault on officers.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro professor of public interest law at George Washington University and the author of the best-selling “The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage.”
This column appeared in Fox.com
Awww—What a shame the little snowflakes of CBP can’t get someone prosecuted for throwing a sandwich at them. According to the Pew Research Center, 49% of Americans have an unfavorable view of ICE, while only 40% have a favorable view. Less than half of Americans have a favorable view of Trump’s DOJ. So, the issue isn’t with jury nullification, the District of Columbia or liberalism–it’s Trump. And, it is outrageously hypocritical for Pirro to expound about vindicating respect for police officers given Trump’s pardon of the insurrectionists who brutalized Capitol Police at his direction.
If Trump’s DOJ keeps insisting on overcharging for minor offenses and mild acts of violence they will continue to cry foul over their unmet desire to punish with the harshest, toughest punishment they want instead of what the law requires for the alleged criminal acts.
DC is 96% percent Democratic voters. It’s not about overcharging, It’s the corrupt politics of the town.
Poll: 54% of voters say Trump’s crackdown on DC crime is justified, necessary
“Just 28% of Democrats said that Trump’s actions are justified and necessary, compared to 85% of Republicans and 47% of Independents”
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/polling/poll-54-voters-say-trumps-crackdown-dc-crime-justified-necessary?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
DC Mayor Bowser ‘greatly appreciates’ fed assistance in crime crackdown
“For carjackings, the difference between this 20-day period of this federal surge and last year represents a 87% reduction in carjackings in Washington, D.C.,” Mayor Muriel Bowser said
https://justthenews.com/nation/crime/dc-mayor-bowser-greatly-appreciates-federal-officers-assisting-police-crime-crackdown?utm_source=referral&utm_medium=offthepress&utm_campaign=home
Deterrent
gigi: Perhaps, because there are more Democrats and Woke people in the population, the polls reflect as they do.
You wasted no time in disparaging Rasmussen and others. You seek confirmation only in the sources that you mention in your posts.
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2016/11/09/why-2016-election-polls-missed-their-mark/
I think that a large number of polls are not intended to reflect, but rather to influence, election results. Then we get into herd polling. But that does not mean that polls (that predicted Hillary would get “70-90%” of the vote in beating Trump) mean anything much.
Rasmussen is absolutely a poll that seems to “influence” rather than reflect.
For years, Rasmussen’s results have been more favorable for Republican candidates and issues. During the Trump administration, though, the site’s public presence became more overtly partisan, with tracking polls sponsored by conservative authors and causes and a social media presence that embraced false claims that spread widely on the right. At times, Rasmussen’s polls actively promoted those debunked claims, including ones centered on voter fraud.
For example, Rasmussen released data purporting to show that Republican Senate candidate Kari Lake (R) had won her gubernatorial election in November 2022. The route it took to get to that determination was circuitous and, to put it mildly, atypical. On behalf of the group College Republicans United, Rasmussen asked Arizona voters who they voted for in Lake’s race and, after weighting the results to exit polls — which is unusual — declared that, contrary to the certified tally, Kari Lake had won her race by eight points.
if that isn’t a pollster seeking to influence rather than reflect, I don’t know what is.
giggles, Same for pollsters Politico, MSNBC, Newsweek, Gallup, AP, Reuters, Quinnipiac, LA TImes, and NYT! Just to name a few.
if that isn’t a pollster seeking to influence rather than reflect, I don’t know what is
your idiotic trolling with a 1000+ suck puppet accounts? you were alot more fun when you were Peter Shill, now we just have neurotic, psychopath George/Gigi, desperate troll
you lie, but we are use to it
Murders and carjacking are down. Bowser appears to be impressed.
>Less than half of Americans have a favorable view of Trump’s DOJ
Probably because about 49% of Americans are democrat criminals
Here’s the other story involving not just one but three different federal grand juries refusing to indict a woman on felony charges.
“ Three different federal grand juries declined to indict Sydney Reid for assaulting, resisting, or impeding officers, prosecutors disclosed in a court filing late on Monday. Prosecutors then downgraded the offense to a misdemeanor.”
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/us-prosecutors-fail-three-times-secure-indictment-fbi-assault-case-2025-08-26/
This should be embarrassing for the Trump DOJ but I cannot completely lay blame on them. I also lay blame on President Trump demanding the harshest punishments for the slightest transgressions because he wants to look “tough” for the public.
This underscores my point about conservatives and Trump supporters using feelings instead of actual law when pressing charges or punishment. The law and order crowd wants law and order according to what they feel instead of what the law requires.
Sydney Reid was charged with assaulting an FBI agent because she was legally filming an arrest. Agents threatened to arrest her if she did not stop and then when she refused they proceeded to arrest her. During the attempted arrest she is alleged to have forced an FBI agent’s hand against a wall and allegedly ‘scratched’ or injured it. The DOJ added multiple charges on top to ensure a felony conviction but three separate grand juries refused to play that game and recognized the DOJ’s overreach and attempt to silence her with excessive charges. To Professor Turley this should have been another example of how the Trump administration uses law enforcement threats to silence dissent and constitutionally protected free speech activity.
She will still face misdemeanor charges and like the sandwich guy, she will more likely just get probation.
It’s going to be upsetting to Trump supporters and some conservatives because the punishment they feel she deserves is denied by what the law requires.
Yet another reason to get rid of home rule in DC and clean out the lower DC courts…all of them. The Constitution only mandated a Supreme Court. The rest exist at the pleasure of Congress.
Exactly. Time for Congress to effect retrocission, and drop-kick a significant part of the DC problem back to Maryland. Giving Maryland another House seat is a small price to pay for ending the DC clown show.
“Time for Congress to effect retrocission, and drop-kick a significant part of the DC problem back to Maryland”
Slash Fedgov back to only those functions clearly authorized by the Constitution, and relocate the very limited remaining functions elsewhere. After that is accomplished, DC can be allowed to slowly sink into the fetid swamp it was built on, and good riddance to bad rubbish. At that point Maryland can take it back, leave it to fester, or use it to reestablish a large colony of tsetse flies, I couldn’t care less.
DC…prison for praying and freebird for assault.
https://thefederalist.com/2025/08/28/dc-will-convict-praying-pro-lifers-but-not-activists-who-assault-immigration-officials
Shut it down.
The “hoagie” assaulter is getting charged. Just not with a felony like the feel is warranted. He will still be charged with a misdemeanor. For some reason people think he will not be charged at all. That’s not the case.
It’s Congress who is ultimately responsible for the condiditons in DC. It controls funding, and what rules the city can enact. If Congress wanted to clean up DC they would have done it a long time ago. The sad fact is Congress only funds the things they want when it comes to the DC metro area. Trump is blamming the mayor for something Congress has more responsiblity of doing. Republicans control Congress. It should be their job to ensure DC gets the funding and programs it needs to “clean up crime”.
Gangs and cartels control congress both foreign and domestic. It’s 3rd world conditions and likely to remain such if not completely erasing the United States, Europe and Israel.
Few generations who’s to know.
Ima God person and know there are many worlds. This is one and it goes up and it goes down. An average world is ground zero and this world is in the negative quadrant.
Most likely it won’t survive.
Debbie V. Downer
“It’s Congress who is ultimately responsible for the condiditons in DC. It controls funding, and what rules the city can enact.”
Try again.
https://cfo.dc.gov/sites/default/files/dc/sites/ora-cfo/publication/attachments/Washington%20DC%27s%20Tax%20System%2C%20A%20Visual%20Guide%202022_Final.pdf
“How much federal money goes toward Washington, DC local government?” – USAFacts
Congress only partly funds D.C. The vast majority of D.C.’s funding comes from taxing the hell out of their residents. Secondly, it’s spelt ‘conditions’, not ‘condiditons’. 🤦♂️
Lower courts should function as triage for SCOTUS but are simply lawless entities. Presumably payola is functioning .
Assault a law enforcement officer, and you’ll be prosecuted.
This guy thought it was funny—well, he doesn’t think it’s funny today, because we charged him with a felony.
—- Jeanine Pirro
https://x.com/JudgeJeanine/status/1955704405161808286
Apparently the grand jury thought it was funny !!!!!
Actually, I think the grand jury just realized it wasn’t a ham sandwich.
It was just baloney.
Apparently Jeanine has placed an extremely large order for boxed wine.
The DC liquor stores have airlifted extra supplies to fill the order.
What’s with that outfit she is wearing ??
Looks like she tried to put fresh toner in the copy machine after finishing off a box of wine.
The drunk you are talking about would be the former speaker of the house. Nancy P
Which tells you something about the jury pool in DC.
Yes indeed.
It tells us that there are still rational, normal adults in DC.
🤣🤣🤣Thanks for the laugh.
https://ifunny.co/picture/you-will-never-find-a-more-wretched-hive-of-scum-XHjzBJRsB?s=cl
Spot on and Spit on!
So I think a MAGA army flash mob should find these jurors and lawyers and pelt them with Turkey Riders. Fitting and it’s only a misdemeanor fine, right?
There is a lesson to be learned here.
If you attack a police officer then use bear spray, hit him with a flagpole, and use a stun gun on him.
That way you will be regarded as a patriotic hero and will face no charges.
However if you resort to the use of high velocity, armor penetrating missiles such as a Subway sandwich, you will face the full force of the law.
Grow-up child.
“ There is a lesson to be learned here.
If you attack a police officer then use bear spray, hit him with a flagpole, and use a stun gun on him.
That way you will be regarded as a patriotic hero and will face no charges.
However if you resort to the use of high velocity, armor penetrating missiles such as a Subway sandwich, you will face the full force of the law.”
Hilarious as it is, it’s still unsurprisingly accurate.
What if you are attacked by an under cover police officer that never identifies himself and is beating you to death? Justifiable defense of your person. Watch the tapes. Who starts all the violence? The police.
As I said not one J6 defendent got a fair trial in DC, because anyone even mildly conservative can’t get a fair trial in DC.
*. Hear, hear, PT.
He got fired. That’s a start.
Some bozo firm will hire him & trot him out as a hero. Maybe Vanity Fair is hiring….
Pirro needs to pursue whatever other charges might be brought. A failure to do so will simply invite others to commit assaults — even if misdemeanors — on other federal law enforcement officers.
What other charges are there? He threw a sandwich and yelled at law enforcement profanities.
He will still get charged with a misdemeanor. Nobody is saying he will get away scot free.
Celebrate, Mr. dunn. You have a brand new FBI file and the investigation has just begun. Hava nice life.
Chef Gordon Ramsay (net worth $220 million) should be held accountable for preparing and screwing up a grilled cheese sandwich.
“Grand jury nullification” doesn’t appear to be actual jury nullification in this case. Accusing grand juries of nullification
would appear to raise the risk of accusing grand juries of misconduct for sheep-like compliance with a prosecutor.
Perhaps. But all a prosecutor (or a defense lawyer) have to do to is show the voting habits of a district. If the district appears or seem to appear as being 50/50, one could draw that a potential jury pool will be impartial. Even if the voting habits of a district is 40/60, one could conclude that the jury pool will still be somewhat impartial. But if the voting habits of a district makes it 25/75 then one will find it to be very bias towards one political ideology over the other. Any more than that percentage, you can forget in having a fair and impartial trial.
I am not sure what to think of this one. Yes it is assault on an officer. He needs to be punished. He already lost his job and will have to explain how in job interviews. I doubt this plays well over the long haul.
Yet, at the same time, I do not see a felony conviction as being just either. I do not see how jail helps. I am not downplaying this because this cannot be allowed to happen to help prevent police from being harmed. But a felony? No one was hurt. Seems to me a misdemeanor will work. Probably probation and a pretty good fine.
Although I do feel for the cop. He will have to live with his chops being busted by his buddies for being assaulted with a sandwich. I can see it now, “What are you complaining about? It is only a few stitches, Bob had to fight off a flying sandwich….”
What if the NG had picked up the sandwich and eaten it or handed it back or thrown it in the dumpster?
“Bob had to fight off a flying sandwich….””
It just struck me (sorry) that there has been strange reticence in this comment thread to allude to The Onion…
There needs to be some kind of consequence for his actions. Otherwise, we will be just as lawless as the Democrat party. And if the grand jury even refuses a simple assault charge, then “The District of Columbia is known as one of the most Democratic and liberal jury pools in the country . . .” will only prove how lawless they truly are.
He will still be charged with a misdemeanor. That is guaranteed. What is even more certain is that there will be no jail time, and more likely, it will just be probation and a standard fine for the offense. This means he will be held accountable for the offense, accountable according to the law, not feelings.
Everyone is complaining about the lack of a harsh punishment. They feel Dunn deserved more than what the law requires seem oblivious to the fact that in DC on Jan 6 Trump supporters openly assaulted law enforcement with deadly weapons and recorded themselves committing and encouraging the assaults got the harsh punishments because the law says those actions merit felony charges. The president pardoned all of them. Now we have the same people who were complaining about the harsh treatment of J6 protesters and saying how unfair it was calling for felony charges because they felt it was unfair rather than what the law said. The grand jurors seem to be much smarter and aware of the ridiculousness of even considering a felony charge over a sandwich thrown at a fully armored law enforcement agent. What is truly sad is Professor Turley’s failure to recognize that the system worked as intended.
Professor Turley should have focused on Pirro’s poor decision which is clearly aimed at pleasing Trump instead of adhering to the law.
“He will still be charged with a misdemeanor. That is guaranteed.
Too bad you didn’t say that in your original anti-Trump, anti-law enforcement, pro-jury diatribe.
You are right.
He will be charged with a misdemeanor.
He will elect a jury trial.
The jury will deliberate for about 2 minutes, just to make it look good.
He will be acquitted.
There will be no jury trial for a misdemeanor charge. He can either plead guilty or not guilty to the charges. It’s obvious he is guilty and he will most likely get probation and pay a fine.
Actually, no.
In DC, misdemeanor assault on a police officer is a “jury demandable” exception.
““Assault” is defined as either an attempted battery or an intent-to-frighten. The penalty for a conviction for misdemeanor APO is imprisonment for not more than 6 months and a fine of $1,000. This offense is “jury-demandable” even as a misdemeanor. In other words, it means you are entitled to have your case tried in front of a jury”
https://koehlerlaw.net/criminal-defense-dc/assault-police-officer/
He will elect a jury trial and will be acquitted.
That’ll be OK. Don’t waste anymore time and money. Pick your battles. The abrego garcia has been too costly and deserves better investigation.
What was he doing driving from Texas to Maryland? Got lost , made a wrong turn on his way to market? He needs a gag order Ala DJT in where? Georgia? DC?
Before the expense of a jury trial I’d settle for a 25 dollar fine or drop it.
It’s not a diatribe if it’s true. It’s a lot truer than Russiagste and Hunters laptop is Russian disinformation.
“What is truly sad is Professor Turley’s failure . . .”
Whatever your username du jour, your two revolting character traits remain: intellectual dishonesty and a chronic desire to smear JT.
What you misrepresent as his “failure,” is in fact what he lauded:
“. . . a sandwich is not a ‘deadly or dangerous weapon’ (It is more of a deli weapon). Moreover, there was no infliction of bodily injury in the case to justify an enhanced penalty.” (JT)
This is what happens when idiots like Pirro try to impress Trump by being “tough” on crime. Throwing a sandwich and demanding a felony charge because why not doesn’t work in the real world. The grand jury was the smarter group of people on this debacle. They knew the law better than Pirro. Professor Turley’s continuing to cast aspersions by painting the Jury pool in DC as liberal and insinuating that they will always be biased because of where they are is a thinly veiled backhanded insult gratuitously thrown in for effect.
This is not the only time a grand jury has refused to indict. Almost at the same time a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent and charged with felony assault had a grand jury refuse to indict 3 times. It means 3 times the DOJ failed to convince a grand jury, the easiest jury to persuade according to the professor, to issue the harshest punishment possible because an FBI agent scratched his hand on a wall while trying to assist in arresting the woman. It points out a need within the conservatives in the administration an almost sociopathic need to met out the harshest punishment possible for the slightest transgression regardless of what the law actually says. They seem to want to punish based on what they feel should be the punishment instead of what the law prescribes.
Easy fix. Move the case out of DC. They enjoy attacking government agents. Wait till they are attacked by their own.
Bring the pop-corn
The case cannot be moved out of Washington, D.C. The crime took place in D.C., and it should be tried there, as per the law. This situation stems from hurt feelings and frustration over the perceived inadequacy of the punishment in relation to those feelings, rather than a focus on the law itself.
George: If this were simply a citizen protester throwing his sandwich at a citizen anti-protester, I would agree with you.
But it is not.
Please, try hard to pull out your reading comprehension and contextual skills here.
We know that criminals are inspired by their predecessors. (Even the new transgender killer of the school children in Minnesota spent lots of time on the Internet doing searches on other mass murderers—a common finding.) Any misconduct, whether defined as a crime or not, will escalate when the actor gains notoriety, and simple-minded persons are inspired to copy-cat.
And the big-tent periphery of “acceptable” conduct will continue to scoop in these little incidents as “acceptable” and/or harmless.
The possibility of this case being used as precedent is alarming.
Soon, we will have disrespectful dissidents throwing sandwiches at mayors and park rangers and senators and SCOTUS justices–knowing full well that this is likely “acceptable” and a harmless act done with impunity and without judicial consequence.
And then it will start to escalate…
You stated, “The grand jury was the smarter group of people on this debacle.”
Unfortunately, this statement tells us more about you than the grand jury.
(I do think that elevation to a felony, even because it was a government officer, is a little high…But to not attempt a lesser charge is suicidal. )
Lin,
“ If this were simply a citizen protester throwing his sandwich at a citizen anti-protester, I would agree with you.
But it is not.”
Where did I say it was not about a citizen protester, who happened to be a DOJ employee, did not assault a federal law enforcement officer? It’s you who seems to have some trouble with context and reading comprehension.
You’re going off on some weird tangent conflating the recent attack at a Catholic Church with this incident involving a sandwich and a grand jury which correctly found that there was no justifiable basis to charge Dunn with a felony.
He will still be charged with a misdemeanor because that is what the law requires according to his actions. You seem to want a harsher punishment to set an example to others based on your feelings instead of the law. Like everyone else critical of the grand jury’s decision it’s all based on what they feel should be the punishment instead of what the says. Professor Turley correctly pointed out that Dunn hurling insults and profanities at the officers was protected speech. Throwing a sandwich and injuring nobody, especially a fully armored law enforcement officer, does not rise to the level of a felony assault. Wanting it to be a felony and what the law says are two very different things. Pirro proclaimed she will charge Dunn with the harshest possible offense without knowing what the law said about such offenses. She was putting on a show for the president and show how “tough” she is because they will not tolerate dissent. The law says otherwise.
FYI, they are still going to charge him with a misdemeanor. That is guaranteed and just to clarify I too believe he should be charged as such. What is also certain is Pirro will have to endure some embarrasment from her failure to convince a grand jury to indict on the felony charge and settle for the misdemeanor. And he’s very likely going to get probation and whatever standard fine is for the offense.
Lin: “I do think that elevation to a felony, even because it was a government officer, is a little high”
My thought too. From history I remember the punishment of Titus Oates. He maybe deserved it but others did not. His punishment was both cruel and unusual [at a time when drawing and quartering was legal] but his misdeeds were both cruel and unusual. Neither his crimes nor his punishments should have been precedents. Although it seems the Obama/Biden people include a number of Titus Oates aspirants.
I don’t agree, he was an officer of the court was he not and a public official. Burn his azz!
Lin,
Great response to the slow and dumb one!!!
Starts with a sandwich, elevates to cans of soup. Then fireworks, cinder blocks, frozen water bottles, bricks. How many days of riots and arson in LA? They had to call out the US Marines to help combat the violent rioters.
Upstatefarmer,
Then those who throw cans of soup, fireworks, cinder blocks, frozen water bottles, etc will also be charged and punished according to what the law says those actions merit.
Crimes are charged on a case by case basis. Why do you think those other actions will not end up as felonies harsher charges?
YOu changed your story after receiving flak. NOTHING in your original post that got so much negative feedback even mentions that another charge would be appropriate. The gist of your post was to criticize Pirro and Turley. You’re not fooling anyone. Your self-refinement of your post fails.
Second, accusing comments here as basing it on emotion and not on the law is a joke. YOU and the grand jury appear to be the ones who are acting on emotion not law.
Third, prosecutors almost always overcharge in order to allow for wiggle space to get a fast plea and close it out.
You should know that.
Fourth, You ARE the infamous person who posted as “George” previously. So don;t try to play this “who is george?” game. You probably justify it because George is not your real name either, but readers are astute.
Lin: “The possibility of this case being used as precedent is alarming.
Soon, we will have disrespectful dissidents throwing sandwiches at mayors and park rangers and senators and SCOTUS justices–knowing full well that this is likely “acceptable” and a harmless act done with impunity and without judicial consequence.
And then it will start to escalate…”
Too true. If the law can’t discourage this behavior I think arrests will get rougher in some cases. If the gavel doesn’t deter the fist probably will.
Lin, the problem with your point above is that it fails to acknowledge that no (or at most minimal) “precedent” would be set if he was never charged with a felony in the first place.
This stunt will likely lead to copycats, whether he gets a lesser charge or not, because the “revolution [was] televised.”
This is exactly why prosecutors don’t pull stupid stunts like trying to indict a sandwich thrower on a felony charge.
Furthermore, even if they wanted to, the DOJ’s Section 9-27.300 of the Principles of Federal Prosecution, along with 18 USC 3553(a) dictate that “the goal in any prosecution is a sanction that is ‘sufficient, but not greater than necessary.” https://www.justice.gov/jm/jm-9-27000-principles-federal-prosecution#9-27.220
Wannabe prosecutor above, at 1:52:
USAM 9-27.300 expresses the principle that the defendant should be charged “with the most serious offense that is encompassed by his/her conduct.”
What you contemplate deals more with sentencing, where “it is appropriate that the attorney for the
government consider, inter alia, such factors as the [advisory] sentencing guideline range yielded by the
charge, whether the penalty yielded by such sentencing range …is proportional to the seriousness of the
defendant’s conduct, and whether the charge achieves such purposes of the criminal law as punishment,
protection of the public, specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.”
NOTICE “specific and general deterrence, and rehabilitation.”
AS A PROSECUTOR, I would advise that this was what was most likely behind the appropriate charge.
Don’t try to comment authoritatively on something you know little about.
*. How about throwing rotten tomatoes.
The thrower slowed down when running away. He wanted to be caught. What about a nuisance charge and wasting tax money on his antics. He had to be taken in to determine how unhinged he was. He might have returned with worse.
Large fine certainly.
While I agree that they may have overcharged I think back to the previous administration and fear that if he had been an anti abortion protester they would have thrown the book at him and the DC Grand Jury would have indicted him for 6 felony counts (the layers in the sandwich)
“. . . insinuating that they will always be biased . . .”
You appear to have problems with reading comprehension. JT insinuated no such thing. In reality, as opposed to in your fevered imagination, JT agreed with the grand jury’s decision.
Keep up your lies (and your baseless smears). Soon you’ll be searching for yet another username.
Damn right. The people of DC won’t help Trump turn the citing into a fascist police state.
Thank you for proving the point of how stupid and crazy woke leftists with TDS are. IF Trump brings down crime, cleans up the city, you are of course against it. If Trump said fresh air was good for you, you would stick a diesel truck tail pipe in your mouth and inhale.
You’re an idiot
Imagine that the tables were turned and that the CBP agent hit Dunn with a sandwich. The same grand jury would have found the agent guilty of attempted murder. Our current criminal justice system is now mob rule.
Your hypothetical is nonsense. Shows how low IQ you are.
Wonder if, during the 24 hour care of Canks Ratpelt, Marge and Bobo Skanks come by and give him lap dances???
Exactly right. It’s a simple assault and should not be ignored.
When will Canks Ratpelt receive the 24 hour dementia home Healthcare he so richly deserves? Or was that what that cabinet meeting was about???
None of you seem to be concerned with the leak of the Grand Jury proceedings. Unfortunately the leak has now likely tainted the jury pool. Even so, DA Pirro needs to revisit this and find charges that can result in an indictment or empanel a new jury. This cannot be allowed to stand. You made jokes about “pool noodles” but irregardless of the “weapon” we cannot allow our law enforcement officers to be assaulted without consequences.
The grand jury leak is the most sane aspect of this story.
There are some things that are black and white. The action is what is important.
Either it’s acceptable to throw a missile, be it be a sandwich, a loaf of bread with embedded razor blades or soaked thru with fentanyl, or even small bottles of what might be water or might be acid, at law enforcement officers doing their jobs, or it is not.
The content of what is leaked from a confidential grand jury is immaterial. Either we allow leaks of any kind from a grand jury, or even the United States Supreme Court for that matter, or we don’t. Again it’s the action, not the content of the leak that needs to addressed.
The starkest possible black line that cannot be crossed needs to be drawn so that everyone, even those with the IQ of cinder blocks, understand it.