A D.C. grand jury has declined to bring charges against a woman accused of threatening President Donald Trump on social media. This marks the fourth time in recent weeks that jurors in the District have passed on similar cases.
Other recent grand jury decisions in D.C.
Last week, Straight Arrow News reported federal prosecutors were unable to secure an indictment against Sean Dunn, the man accused of throwing a Subway sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer. Earlier, a D.C. grand jury declined to indict a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent during an ICE inmate transfer, as well as Alvin Summers, who faced charges for assaulting a federal officer.
Allegations against Nathalie Rose Jones
According to the complaint and arrest warrant, Nathalie Rose Jones knowingly and willfully threatened to kill, kidnap or harm the President, and sent those threats across state lines.
In a court filing on Monday, Jones’ lawyers say she asked the court to ease her release conditions after a D.C. grand jury declined to indict her. According to her attorneys, Jones told Secret Service agents on Friday, Aug. 15 that she planned to travel to Washington, D.C., to attend an event and a protest. During the interview, she allegedly called President Trump a “Nazi” and a “terrorist.”
Her attorneys say, the following day, while in D.C., Jones met with agents, reiterated she had no intent to harm anyone and confirmed she was attending a protest. She consented to a search of her car and the release of her mental health records. She had no weapons, and her lawyers say there is no evidence she ever tried to obtain any. Later that day, she was arrested based on prior statements and social media posts.
Her lawyers argue that with the grand jury declining to indict, the evidence against Jones is weak. They say the court should release her on her own recognizance, noting the government could attempt to seek an indictment again but the evidence has not changed and no new charges are likely.
Understanding the grand jury process
A grand jury is a panel of citizens that decides whether a case has enough evidence to move forward. They don’t determine guilt like a trial jury does, they only review the evidence the prosecutors present. The threshold is lower too: the jury looks for probable cause that a crime happened, rather than proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Think of it as a first checkpoint in the legal process, making sure there’s a case worth pursuing before it goes to trial.
Grand juries rarely reject cases. Andrew Leipold, a law professor at the University of Illinois, told Straight Arrow News that prosecutors almost always secure indictments because they know how to present cases to jurors.
