Man Acquitted After Throwing Sandwich at Federal Agent in D.C.

UPDATE: In a surprising turn of events, a man accused of throwing a sandwich at a federal agent has been found not guilty following a jury trial in Washington, D.C.. The jury’s verdict for Sean Dunn comes as federal prosecutors struggled to secure a felony indictment in the wake of the incident, which has drawn significant public attention.

The incident, which occurred in August 2023, involved Dunn allegedly hurling a “submarine-style sandwich” at Customs and Border Patrol officer Gregory Lairmore at a busy intersection in Northwest Washington. It quickly became emblematic of resistance against the federal policing measures implemented during the Trump administration, which have faced widespread scrutiny since their deployment in the capital.

Witness videos played in court showed Dunn expressing his anger towards federal agents with expletive-laden shouts, declaring, “F*** you! You f***ing fascists! Why are you here? I don’t want you in my city,” before he threw the sandwich. The courtroom erupted in laughter when Lairmore testified about the incident, recalling how he “could feel it through his ballistic vest” and even detected the smell of onions and mustard lingering on his uniform post-incident.

Dunn’s defense team characterized the act as a “harmless gesture,” emphasizing their client’s strong feelings about federal law enforcement in D.C. Dunn’s attorney, Julia Gatto, argued that the prosecution failed to prove that a sandwich could constitute assault, stating, “The sandwich that was thrown in this case was not forcible.” In contrast, prosecutors maintained that Dunn’s actions crossed the line from free expression to violence, arguing that “even with a sandwich,” striking a federal officer constitutes an assault.

During closing arguments, prosecutor remarks highlighted the seriousness of the act, asserting that Dunn had the right to express anger but not to strike a federal agent. The defense countered with an analogy to a child’s tantrum, suggesting that a sandwich thrown at an officer protected by a bulletproof vest could not inflict bodily harm.

After his arrest, Dunn was terminated from his position as a paralegal within the Justice Department, marking a significant personal impact stemming from this high-profile case. The jury’s decision to acquit Dunn reflects a growing trend of public sentiment regarding federal enforcement measures and raises questions about the boundaries of protest.

As this case has garnered widespread media attention, it stands as a reminder of the complexities surrounding free speech, protest, and law enforcement in today’s politically charged environment. Moving forward, observers will be keen to see whether this verdict influences ongoing discussions about federal presence in the nation’s capital and its implications on civil liberties.

Stay tuned for further updates on this developing story as the implications of the verdict continue to unfold in Washington and beyond.