D.C. Jury Acquits 'Sandwich Guy' of Assaulting Federal Agent
A jury found Sean Dunn, who went viral in August for throwing a Subway sandwich at a Border Patrol officer, not guilty.
A jury today acquitted Sean Dunn, the Washington, D.C., man who went viral in August for hurling a footlong Subway sandwich at a Border Patrol officer.
The jury deliberated for several hours over Wednesday and this afternoon before finding Dunn, a former Justice Department paralegal, not guilty of misdemeanor assault on a federal law enforcement officer. The verdict is another high-profile embarrassment for federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia, who have repeatedly failed to win convictions or even indictments against residents accused of obstructing or assaulting federal officers deployed as part of the Trump administration's occupation of D.C.
"I would like to thank family and friends and strangers for all of their support, whether it was emotional or spiritual or artistic or financial," Dunn said outside the courthouse following the verdict, according to CNN.
"That night I believed that I was protecting the rights of immigrants," Dunn continued. "And let us not forget that the great seal of the United States says 'E pluribus unum.' That means 'from many, one.' Every life matters no matter where you came from. No matter how you got here, no matter how you identify, you have the right to live a life that is free."
In a statement to Reason, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro said, "As always, we accept a jury's verdict; that is the system within which we function. However, law enforcement should never be subjected to assault, no matter how 'minor'. Even children know when they are angry, they are not allowed to throw objects at one another."
On the night of August 10, a bystander filmed Dunn confronting several Border Patrol officers patrolling the streets of D.C. "Fuck you! You fucking fascists! Why are you here? I don't want you in my city!" Dunn yelled at officers. He then threw a salami sandwich at Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore, hitting Lairmore in the chest, before running away with several officers struggling in pursuit.
Dunn's act of defiance led not only to viral fame, memes, and street murals, but an arrest warrant on his apartment, executed by 20 officers in riot gear (and a White House film crew).
However, federal prosecutors originally failed to secure a felony grand jury indictment against Dunn, leading them to refile a lesser misdemeanor assault charge against him. Dunn pleaded not guilty and went to trial.
At the trial this week, Lairmore testified that the salami sandwich "exploded all over" his chest and claimed he could smell mustard and onions. However, a photo showed that the sandwich was still in its wrapper after it landed on the ground.
NBC News reported that Dunn's defense attorneys also noted Lairmore received two gag gifts from coworkers: "a plush sandwich and a patch featuring a cartoon of Dunn throwing the sandwich with the words 'Felony Footlong.'" Dunn's attorneys argued that the gag gifts showed that no one, not even the alleged victim, thought this was a serious matter.
"This case, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, is about a sandwich," Dunn's defense attorney, Sabrina Shroff, said, according to NBC News.
As Reason's Billy Binion wrote, the "disproportionate response to [Dunn's] offense epitomizes why Trump's plan appears to be, at least for now, more political theater than a real solutions-oriented approach" to crime in D.C.
And the outcome of the trial shows what the jury thought of that political theater. CNN reported that one juror "told reporters after the verdict that she didn't think the officer felt threatened by the sandwich and laughed when asked if she felt the sub 'exploded' as the officer claimed."
The verdict is one of several recent instances where prosecutors for the U.S. Attorney's Office for D.C. have failed to convince local juries to indict or convict defendants accused of assaulting federal law enforcement officers. For example, prosecutors failed to convince three different grand juries to indict a woman accused of assaulting an FBI agent, forcing prosecutors to refile the case as a misdemeanor.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
I just am expecting to see red state juries refuse to ever convict anybody who violently assaults a leftist. This cannot be a one way street.
They decision will be sandwiched between the law and verdicts such as this.
Idiotic prosecutions are their bread and butter.
They must have a rye sense of justice.
Thank God none of the participants ended up at the Mayo clinic.
“Stop with the sandwich puns,” sesame.
Lettuce alone.
You have the right to romaine silent.
"If'n ye LIKE yer shit sandwich, ye can KEEP yer shit sandwich!"
-Government Almighty... Of BOAF sides!
(Ye SWILL keep yer shit sandwich, regardless of WHICH liars ye vote for! Shit does SNOT matter, does your open-face shit sandwich fall face-up of face-down, because BOTH sides are ALL covered in shit!!!)
That’s a rye response.
Crusty old bastards.
The prosecutors are out to lunch.
The sandwich thrower is a brat—worst kind of example for public servants.
He’s guilty. The embarrassment is with the DC jury that failed to convict.
Democrats should not be allowed to participate on the legal system.
Would this be the same outcome if citizens blocked access to deathcult abortion clinics and tossed sandwiches (or salads) at expecting mothers about to kill their unborn babies? My guess is that they’d be toast.
If it is a cherry or rhubarb pie - they might get life.
Using leftover dried apricots and astronaut orange drink mix as a sweetener: Prune Tang Pie
Those guys got 5-7 years and reason ignored it. Qb said it was deserved because an employee twisted their ankle walking around them.
So is it o.k. to throw cream pies at congresscritters as long as the only harm is they may need some drycleaning?
The verdict is another high-profile embarrassment for federal prosecutors in the District of Columbia
Clown show.
C.J. Ciaramella: We convicted 'Buffalo Hat guy' but got 'sandwich guy' off. We're unstoppable!
ICE: We deported an average of 800 people a day for the last 6 mos. Hard work is good work. The fight for our country is always worth it. LOL.
Libertarians for the violation of NAP against the other team!
Something. Something. Proportionality.
In Demjeff bigoted bigly bigot bot’s defense, he’d very much appreciate people throwing food at him. Anyone that does, he’d nom nom nom nominate them for Person of the Year.
I never thought a libertarian magazine would celebrate political judiciary outcomes. But here we are.
Unequal execution of the law is libertarian?
Reason celebrates 6 months for Navarro and others. Demands zero time for leftist crimes.
To what libertarian magazine do you refer?
Mostly mises now. Although for some reason even they have Cato writers contributing now.
This is not surprising.
During the Jim Crow era, Democratic juries routinely acquitted their team members who assaulted and murdered black citizens.
What about when he assaulted the officers’ fists with his face?
Seriously though, he should have been sentenced to life because of his politics. Had he been a MAGA then the arrest would have been a travesty. But he was protesting MAGA. That makes him an enemy of the state.
These your words?
I back the blue when they’re right. In this case, as you very well know, the cop didn’t know she was unarmed and from his vantage point he couldn’t see the crowd. He just saw someone crawling through a smashed barricade while hearing chaos on the police radio. So based upon what he knew based upon what he could see and hear, he did what he thought was right.
Poor stupid sarcbot.
OT: A federal judge is ordering Trump to fully fund SNAP for November.
So, apparently, leftists DO want a king who can just spend monies not appropriated by Comgress.
Good to know our judges are no longer pretending to let the Constitution guide any decisions.
I wonder whether the jury was instructed on Nullification? or did they just do it on their own?
Its d.c. Activists try to get on all these cases. They are public about it.
There are children starving in Africa that only wish that a sandwich would explode on them.
Wow that's uncanny. That's exactly what my mother said when I wouldn't eat liver 60 years ago.
Guess we have a precedent. We can now shout Fuck you! I don't want you in my city!" and throw subway sandwiches at people without fear of reprisal.
Awesome! Time to show up at the Virginia and NJ Governors swearing in ceremonies with 500 sandwiches!
The next sandwiches will be smaller.
You’d like to take a footlong in your face, no?
So very glad we had the time and resources to spend money on this. Not like we could have been doing ANYTHING more important than trying a guy for misdemeanor sandwich throwing.
Better to predicate a false crime scotus had to overturn to get plea agreements from citizens facing 20 years for parading which is never charged. You know, like j6.
If it had been Taco Bell it would have actually been dangerous.
I probably wouldn't have pressed charges myself (no harm done and who needs that hassle?), but throwing anything at someone is in fact assault and/or battery (depending on jurisdiction).
Meanwhile,
SCOTUS reinstates Trump transgender passport policy
https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/scotus-reinstates-trump-transgender-passport-policy
“Displaying passport holders’ sex at birth no more offends equal protection principles than displaying their country of birth—in both cases, the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment,” the court wrote in its majority opinion.
the Government is merely attesting to a historical fact without subjecting anyone to differential treatment
Fuckin' evil, backwards conservatives, man.
Now if it had been a HAM sandwich - - - - - -