Defense attorneys from across the United States say they have observed a shift in how the U.S. Department of Justice brings criminal charges and have launched a public database to track cases they view as irregular. The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (NACDL) rolled out a Case Tracker that highlights federal prosecutions with aggressive legal theories or signs of political targeting; the tool includes searchable statutes, key filings and a map of cases. Two high-profile entries — the federal prosecutions of Sean Charles Dunn and Jacob Samuel Winkler in Washington, D.C. — ended with juries acquitting the defendants. Attorney General Pam Bondi defended the department’s approach in testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 11, arguing prosecutors are focused on violent crime and rule-of-law priorities.
- The NACDL Case Tracker catalogs federal prosecutions that defense lawyers consider atypical, including cases indexed by statute and outcome.
- Two featured Washington, D.C., prosecutions — Sean Charles Dunn (sandwich thrown at an immigration officer) and Jacob Samuel Winkler (alleged laser aimed at Marine One) — resulted in acquittals by juries.
- Attorney General Pam Bondi testified on Feb. 11 defending DOJ priorities, saying the department has focused on violent crime and restoring mission clarity.
- The tracker highlights instances where videos and eyewitness accounts have undermined government resisting-law-enforcement charges stemming from protests.
- NACDL says the tool includes a national map, statute search and links to judges’ opinions and filings to make trends visible to the public and practitioners.
- Judges and grand juries in multiple districts have shown greater skepticism toward some prosecutorial decisions, with grand juries declining to return indictments in certain matters.
- Organizers say the tracker is designed to preserve public records of these prosecutions for oversight and research over the coming years.
Background
Concerns about prosecutorial decision-making have surfaced as defenders point to a pattern of novel or aggressive charging theories in federal court. Historically, the decision to present a case to a grand jury carried a low evidentiary bar; defense attorneys say recent practice has seen prosecutors push statutes and factual narratives in ways that invite judicial scrutiny. The NACDL, an established national advocacy group for defense counsel, assembled lawyers and researchers to record cases they judge to be out of the ordinary and to make court documents and rulings more accessible.
Those who compiled the tracker emphasize institutional context: changes in enforcement priorities, leadership directives, and a politically charged environment have coincided with prosecutorial choices critics label as overreach. Defense organizations and some judges have long debated the balance between vigorous enforcement and respect for civil liberties; recent acquittals and judicial questions have intensified that debate. NACDL’s effort responds to both local case outcomes and broader trends in federal litigation that practitioners believe merit scrutiny.
Main Event
The Case Tracker was unveiled by a coalition led by Washington-area attorney Steven Salky and sponsored by NACDL. The database indexes pending and concluded federal criminal matters identified by participating lawyers and researchers, linking to filings and judicial opinions where available. Its public map lets users follow the geographic distribution of flagged prosecutions and see which statutes are most frequently used in the entries.
Two illustrative files in the tracker are the prosecutions of Sean Charles Dunn and Jacob Samuel Winkler, both tried in Washington, D.C. Dunn was charged after throwing a sub sandwich at a federal immigration officer; Winkler faced accusations tied to directing a laser pointer toward the Marine One presidential helicopter. In both trials juries returned not guilty verdicts, and those outcomes are cited by tracker organizers as examples of cases where prosecutors pursued unorthodox theories or where the evidence did not lead to conviction.
Organizers also included instances from protest-related cases in which government allegations of resisting federal officers were later weakened by video footage or eyewitness statements. Those entries are intended to show how contemporaneous records can diverge from charging narratives. After the tracker’s launch, Attorney General Pam Bondi testified to the House Judiciary Committee on Feb. 11, defending the department’s prosecutorial choices and saying the DOJ had refocused on core missions after prior politicization concerns.
At the same time, several federal judges and grand juries have demonstrated increased willingness to question prosecutorial assertions. Judges have asked probing questions about compliance with court orders on immigration and other matters, and grand juries in different districts have declined to return indictments in cases where prosecutors sought charges. Tracker curators argue those developments signal a change in how courts and communities vet federal charging decisions.
Analysis & Implications
The emergence of a well-documented public tracker changes the transparency landscape for federal prosecutions: it provides researchers, defense counsel and oversight bodies a centralized way to review patterns, tactics and outcomes. Greater visibility may deter borderline charges if prosecutors and supervisors anticipate public and judicial scrutiny, but it may also harden positions, encouraging more aggressive pleading or plea negotiations to avoid contested jury trials.
Judicial skepticism — reflected in careful bench questioning, reversals, or grand juries declining to indict — can recalibrate prosecutorial risk calculations. If courts and juries increasingly withhold deference, prosecutors might focus resources on stronger, more conventional theories, or they could attempt to legislate new legal theories through novel charging approaches. Both paths carry consequences for plea bargaining, caseload prioritization, and the public’s perception of fairness in the justice system.
There are political and institutional ramifications as well. Allegations of politically motivated prosecutions, whether proven or alleged, tend to push Congress and watchdog bodies toward oversight hearings, reporting requirements, or calls for statutory clarification. Conversely, an entrenched turn toward aggressive charging risks eroding trust in prosecutors and the judiciary if the public perceives selective enforcement or inconsistent application of criminal law.
Comparison & Data
| Case | Allegation | Forum | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sean Charles Dunn | Threw a sandwich at a federal immigration officer | Federal court, Washington, D.C. | Acquitted by jury |
| Jacob Samuel Winkler | Accused of directing a laser at Marine One | Federal court, Washington, D.C. | Acquitted by jury |
The tracker contains many additional entries beyond the two above and includes metadata that lets users sort by statute, jurisdiction and case status. By making filings and judicial rulings easier to access, the project aims to let academics and oversight bodies quantify whether the examples represent isolated incidents or a systemic trend.
Reactions & Quotes
Project leaders framed the tracker as a defensive and documentation tool for practitioners worried about shifting norms in federal prosecutions. The lead organizer described the difficulty of mounting defenses when patterns and prosecutorial strategies are not visible to the public.
“We created the Case Tracker because you cannot defend against an enemy you cannot see.”
Steven Salky, project coordinator (attorney)
NACDL’s executive director characterized the new resource as essential for the current enforcement climate and tied its purpose to public oversight and research. The group stressed the tracker is not a verdict but a compilation of filings and outcomes for public study.
“This tracker is an essential tool for an era where federal overreach has become the standard operating procedure.”
Lisa Wayne, Executive Director, NACDL (advocacy organization)
In Congress, however, the Attorney General presented a different view, asserting the department’s actions reflect a return to core priorities and a reduction in politicization. Her remarks were given in formal testimony that emphasized violent-crime enforcement and fidelity to the rule of law.
“The Department of Justice’s core mission is to fight violent crime; protect the American people; and defend the rule of law above all else.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, testimony to House Judiciary Committee, Feb. 11
Unconfirmed
- That DOJ prosecutions are centrally coordinated to target specific political opponents — organizers report patterns but direct intent has not been independently verified.
- That the number of grand juries refusing to indict represents a nationwide surge — data on scope and frequency have not been fully compiled or confirmed outside individual reports.
Bottom Line
Defense lawyers and NACDL have created a public Case Tracker that compiles federal criminal matters they consider atypical or aggressive; the tool aims to make charging trends and case documents available for public scrutiny. Two Washington, D.C., prosecutions highlighted by the project ended in jury acquittals, and organizers point to such outcomes as evidence that some charging decisions do not hold up under adversarial testing.
The tracker arrives at a moment of heightened scrutiny: Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly defended the department’s priorities on Feb. 11, while judges and some grand juries have shown increased skepticism about particular prosecutions. Whether the database will prompt changes in prosecutorial behavior, spur legislative oversight, or simply provide researchers with clearer data remains to be seen; it does, however, give defense counsel and the public a durable record to examine alleged patterns in federal charging practices.
Sources
- NPR (news report)
- National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (advocacy organization; Case Tracker sponsor)