A grand jury in Washington, D.C. chose not to indict a Department of Justice (DOJ) lawyer accused of assaulting a federal officer by throwing a Subway sandwich. The incident, which captured public attention, involved Sean Charles Dunn, a 37-year-old trial attorney who was identified on video hurling the sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer. This event occurred after President Trump had called in the National Guard to oversee the streets.
Federal prosecutors sought a felony assault charge against Dunn following the August 10 altercation, but the grand jury did not find sufficient evidence to proceed with an indictment. According to reports from CNBC, this decision raises questions about whether prosecutors will make another attempt at charging Dunn or pursue an alternative approach.
In response to Dunn’s actions and the failure to secure an indictment, Attorney General Pam Bondi voiced strong sentiments against Dunn’s behavior. He had already lost his job at the DOJ due to his conduct. Bondi remarked, “If you touch any law enforcement officer, we will come after you. This is an example of the Deep State we have been up against for seven months as we work to refocus DOJ.” Her comments underscore the administration’s commitment to holding individuals accountable for disrespecting law enforcement.
Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon also clarified Dunn’s status, indicating that he was not just an attorney but a contractor for the DOJ and has since been terminated. “The man in the salmon-colored shirt with the effete gesture there of throwing a Subway sandwich is, was a DOJ contractor. He is no longer,” Dhillon stated during an appearance on a talk show, emphasizing the swift disciplinary actions taken against Dunn.
The incident has sparked discussion about the conduct permitted in political environments, especially towards law enforcement. Assistant Attorney General Dhillon’s comments highlight an issue many see as part of a broader trend of disrespect towards police and federal agents.
As the fallout from this event continues, the public will be looking closely to see if more actions will emerge from the DOJ regarding further charges or other disciplinary measures. The absence of an indictment could be seen as a reflection of the complexities involved in such cases, particularly when the defendant has ties to governmental institutions like the DOJ. This situation not only illustrates individual actions but also raises broader questions about accountability within government ranks.
"*" indicates required fields
