What was happening in the criminal case of Nathalie Rose Jones, who was facing charges in Washington, D.C., federal court this summer, wasn’t typical.
A grand jury of Washington, D.C., citizens on Tuesday had denied the Justice Department’s request to indict Jones, who was accused of a federal crime for allegedly posting an Instagram threat against President Trump.
In the nearly empty, dimly lit courtroom, Judge Moxila Upadhyaya listened to arguments from attorneys for nearly 15 minutes and surveyed the case file before her. She paused, looked up at the federal prosecutor standing 10 feet away and asked what the Justice Department planned to do next in the case.
The prosecutor had no answer but said he’d have a response “as soon as possible,” maybe within a few days.
But this grand jury’s rejection of the Justice Department’s request for an indictment was one of at least four such instances in the past week, in which a grand jury denied an indictment in the District of Columbia.
“Not only have I never heard of this happening, I’ve never heard of a prosecutor who’s heard of this happening,” said former federal prosecutor Brendan Ballou, who served in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for Washington, D.C., until January 2025.
“The office’s failure — again and again — to secure indictments suggests that the administration has absolutely destroyed its credibility with jurors,” Ballou told CBS News.
Another former federal prosecutor, Victor Salgado, said, “It is exceptionally rare for federal grand juries to reject proposed charges, given the low evidentiary bar for indictment and the Justice Department’s policy of pursuing cases only when there is sufficient evidence to both secure and sustain a conviction.”
Jones is accused of posting on Instagram in early August, “I am willing to sacrificially kill this POTUS by disemboweling him and cutting out his trachea with Liz Cheney and all The Affirmation present.”
According to the Justice Department, on Aug. 15, the U.S. Secret Service conducted a voluntary interview with Jones, during which she stated the president was a “terrorist” and a “Nazi.”
In a statement to CBS News, D.C. U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said, “A Washington D.C. grand jury refused to indict someone who threatened to kill the President of the United States. Her intent was clear, traveling through five states to do so. She even confirmed the same to the US Secret Service. This is the essence of a politicized jury. The system here is broken on many levels. Instead of the outrage that should be engendered by a specific threat to kill the president, the grand jury in DC refuses to even let the judicial process begin.”
Jones was briefly held in pretrial detention in the case last month but was released ahead of Tuesday’s hearing. She appeared by Zoom at the hearing in Judge Upadhyaya’s courtroom Tuesday and listened as a prosecutor told the judge that the feds have not decided whether to return to the grand jury for a second time to seek an indictment.
Her attorney argued in a court filing this week that Jones possessed no firearms and “she repeatedly told them she had no intent to harm anyone, including the president, and was in D.C., to attend a peaceful protest.”
In a separate case, multiple people familiar with the decision said a grand jury refused a Justice Department request to indict Sean Dunn, who was accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent in August. Dunn is a former Justice Department employee who was fired after news circulated of his arrest in the sandwich case. The Justice Department has instead filed a new misdemeanor count against Dunn, which does not require a grand jury indictment.
Court records reviewed by CBS News said a Washington D.C., grand jury also rejected a Justice Department request to indict Sydney Reid, who was arrested in July for allegedly attempting to interfere with the transfer of an alleged gang member into immigration custody.
“As Reid tried to impede the transfer, one of the (officers) pushed her against the wall and told her to stop,” the Justice Department alleged in a complaint. “Reid continued to struggle and fight with the officer.”
The Justice Department acknowledged in a court filing on August 25, in Reid’s case that “[a]n Indictment has not been returned.”
Last week, a D.C. grand jury also declined to indict Alvin Summers, who was accused of swinging his arms at a U.S. Park Police officer after a foot chase on Aug. 15. Prosecutors alleged Summers “grabbed” the officer with force, and charged him with assaulting and resisting an officer.
Shortly after the grand jury rejected the case, a defense attorney for Summers filed a motion in court, which argued, “Mr. Summers should not be forced to live under the threat of later charges and rearrest. The charges against Mr. Summers were based on an allegation made by one officer who was wearing a body-worn camera. That officer’s testimony was rejected by the grand jury, presumably after reviewing the body-worn camera video.”
The Justice Department filed a motion to dismiss Summers’s case on August 29.
The trajectory of Jones’ case was less clear after Tuesday’s hearing. Upadhyaya scheduled a hearing for Monday, but declined Jones’ request to loosen the restrictions governing her release from pretrial detention.
The reasons these D.C. grand juries have not handed up indictments in these cases are not known, but Salgado suggested it might be possible that in each of these cases “that they disagreed with the Justice Department’s theory of prosecution.”
“It is not difficult to imagine 12 D.C. jurors concluding that throwing a sandwich at a federal officer — while clearly objectionable and potentially unlawful — does not amount to felony assault,” Salgado said. “At its core, the federal grand jury functions as a vital constitutional safeguard and a critical check on prosecutorial discretion, as guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.”
