A federal grand jury in Washington, D.C., has for the second time this week decided against indicting a defendant accused of threatening President Trump.

Public defender Elizabeth Mullin confirmed to The Hill on Tuesday that a grand jury returned a "no bill" against her client, Edward Dana, meaning the panel of District residents decided that the evidence against him was not sufficient to indict.

Dana was arrested after he was seen damaging a light fixture by pulling it off the exterior wall of a restaurant in northwest D.C., according to an FBI affidavit. When approached by Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) officers, he allegedly described himself as a person with "intellectual disabilities" and expressed he did not know why he was being arrested.

Once in an MPD vehicle, Dana said he was intoxicated and began making escalating threats, from additional property destruction to threats against the officer and the president, according to the affidavit.

"I'm not going to tolerate fascism ... And that means killing you, officer, killing the president, killing anyone who stands in the way of our Constitution," Dana allegedly said. "You want to stand in the way of our Constitution, I will f---ing kill you."

The MPD officer then told his station that Secret Service should be notified Dana had threatened to kill Trump, according to the affidavit.

Dana faces one count of threats against the president. WUSA9 first reported that federal prosecutors failed to secure an indictment.

The grand jury's decision not to indict Dana adds to a mounting record of refusals, as the Washington residents on the closed-door panels seem to amount to a rejection of the administration’s bid to get tough on local crime. 

U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. Jeanine Pirro instructed her office last month "charge the highest crime that is supported by the law and the evidence" as part of the president's crackdown, according to The New York Times.

The grand jury's refusal to indict Dana comes a day after a grand jury "found no probable cause" to indict Nathalie Rose Jones, another defendant accused of threatening the president. Jones was charged over a series of threats made against Trump online, including to "sacrificially kill" him.

"Given that finding, the weight of the evidence is weak,” Jones's public defender, Mary Manning Petras, wrote in court filings seeking to alter her conditions of release to that of personal recognizance. “The government may intend to try again to obtain an indictment, but the evidence has not changed and no indictment is likely.” 

There are at least five other instances where grand juries have refused to rubber stamp charges brought by federal prosecutors as part of Trump's crackdown.

Grand juries declined to indict former Justice Department employee Sean Dunn, who allegedly threw a sub sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection agent, making him a symbol of opposition in the city; Alvin Summers, who faced a count of assaulting, resisting or impeding federal law enforcement after fleeing a U.S. Park Police officer; and Sidney Lori Reid, whose federal assault charge tied to a tussle with an FBI agent was passed up for indictment by three grand juries.