I would indict a ham sandwich, but I won’t indict that

The grand jury has frankly ceased to be a very meaningful check on state power. But in particularly egregious cases — such as Pam Bondi’s crusade against peaceful protestors — they can still materially protect freedom:

To bystanders at the federal courthouse in downtown Los Angeles, it sounded as though U.S. Atty. Bill Essayli would not take no for an answer.

A prosecutor had the irate Trump administration appointee on speakerphone outside the grand jury room, and his screaming was audible, according to three law enforcement officials aware of the encounter who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of reprisals.

The grand jury had just refused to indict someone accused of attacking federal law enforcement officers during protests against the recent immigration raids throughout Southern California, two of the federal officials said.

It was an exceedingly rare outcome after a type of hearing that routinely leads to federal charges being filed.

On the overheard call, according to the three officials, Essayli, 39, told a subordinate to disregard the federal government’s “Justice Manual,” which directs prosecutors to bring only cases they can win at trial. Essayli barked that prosecutors should press on and secure indictments as directed by U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi, according to the three officials.

Court records show the reason for Essayli’s frustration.

Although his office filed felony cases against at least 38 people for alleged misconduct that either took place during last month’s protests or near the sites of immigration raids, many have been dismissed or reduced to misdemeanor charges.

In total, he has secured only seven indictments, which usually need to be obtained no later than 21 days after the filing of a criminal complaint. Three other cases have been resolved via plea deal, records show.

The three officials who spoke to The Times on condition of anonymity said prosecutors have struggled to get several protest-related cases past grand juries, which need only to find probable cause that a crime has been committed in order to move forward. That is a much lower bar than the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard required for a criminal conviction.

As Quinta Jurecic observes, these cases have to be incredibly weak:

I cannot overemphasize how rare it is for both a) a grand jury to return no true bill and b) a reporter to get around grand jury secrecy rules to confirm it

[image or embed]— Quinta Jurecic (@qjurecic.bsky.social) Jul 23, 2025 at 4:13 PM

I suppose one cannot overlook the possibility of inept lawyering along with unfavorable facts.

McCoy: “Are you giving me attitude? My father was a cop for 31 years, and he would never leave a DA twisting with a half-made case and ask him to get an indictment.”

Logan: “Give me a break. You could get a ham sandwich indicted.”

McCoy: “That might be easier. There’s meat on a ham sandwich.”