A jury pool that decides guilt by zip code isn’t dispensing justice. It’s picking a side. That’s the problem Washington’s U.S. Attorney’s Office faces right now, and it’s bigger than one sandwich.Sean Dunn threw a sub sandwich at a Customs and Border Protection officer in August 2025. It’s on video. He confessed at the scene: “I did it. I threw the sandwich.” A federal grand jury still refused to indict him on the felony charge. Prosecutors dropped it to a misdemeanor, and a trial jury last November acquitted him anyway. Jurors dismissed from that same panel told CNN they doubted any D.C. jury would convict him, sandwich or no sandwich.I’ve spent a decade as a designated expert witness on fiduciary duty and investment management, testifying in federal and state courts, sitting through jury selection, watching panels weighing evidence they’d rather not weigh. In voir dire, you learn fast that a juror’s answers to the standard fairness questions and a juror’s actual disposition toward the parties in the room are two different things. Lawyers on both sides account for that with peremptory strikes and follow-up questions. Jurors bring their politics into the box whether we like it or not. That’s not new. What’s new is that in Washington, someone is now coaching them on how to hide it long enough to get seated.