In a case that has sparked both laughter and legal debate, a Washington, D.C. man accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent will face only a misdemeanor assault charge after a grand jury declined to indict him on a more serious felony count.
The man, identified as Sean Charles Dunn, was captured on video during a protest earlier this month. In the footage, Dunn shouted “fascist” at a Customs and Border Protection officer before hurling a sandwich in his direction. While prosecutors initially pursued felony assault charges—which could have carried up to eight years in prison—the grand jury opted against it, reducing the case to a misdemeanor punishable by up to one year behind bars.
Legal experts note that grand juries rarely reject prosecutors’ requests for indictments, making this decision especially striking. The phrase “a grand jury would indict a ham sandwich” is often used to describe their usual deference, but in this case, it was an actual sandwich at the center of the controversy.
The Justice Department has said it will still move forward with the case under the misdemeanor charge, filing what is known as a criminal information to bypass the grand jury process. Dunn will now appear before a federal judge, who will determine probable cause and set the path toward trial.
The case has also taken on political overtones. The incident occurred amid heightened federal law enforcement presence in the capital, ordered by the Trump administration, and was cited by officials as an example of hostility toward agents. Critics, however, argue that pursuing a felony over a tossed sandwich illustrated prosecutorial overreach.
While Dunn still faces potential jail time, the grand jury’s decision sends a message about limits on federal prosecutions during protest events—and has left many observers reflecting on how something as simple as a sandwich ended up at the heart of a national conversation on justice and power.