The D.C. courtroom cleared a man who tossed a wrapped sandwich at a Customs and Border Patrol officer during an August protest, sparking online debate and a short trial that ended in acquittal. Video of the throw went viral and became a cultural image during a heated debate over immigration enforcement. Witness testimony, a quirky string of gag gifts, and competing legal arguments left jurors unconvinced a misdemeanor had been committed. The case highlights how protests, social media and law enforcement sometimes collide in uncomfortable ways.
The incident unfolded in the nightlife district on U Street, where a protest targeting federal immigration tactics turned into a viral clip. The man, later identified in court as Sean Dunn, was charged with a single misdemeanor after a federal grand jury declined to pursue more serious counts. Public reaction ranged from laughter and murals to sharp disagreement over whether the act crossed a legal line.
The trial gave jurors a lot to chew on, literally and figuratively. The defendant’s team pointed to the sandwich still being in its wrapper as evidence it was not an actual weapon, while the officer described the hit as messy and disruptive. The defense framed the throw as a political gesture, and jurors ultimately sided with that view when they returned a not guilty verdict.
Jurors showed no appetite for the Justice Department’s case against “sandwich guy,” the D.C. resident who chucked a Subway sandwich at the chest of a federal officer, finding him not guilty Thursday after several hours of deliberations.
The jury — which feasted on sandwiches for lunch Thursday, according to a person familiar with jury lunches — deliberated the charges for several hours Wednesday and Thursday before delivering the verdict.
The resident, Sean Dunn, a former Justice Department paralegal, faced a single misdemeanor count after a federal grand jury rejected more serious charges over the encounter, which took place in the nightlife area of U Street in August.
Border Patrol Officer Greg Lairmore received two “gag gifts” related to the incident — a plush sandwich and a patch featuring a cartoon of Dunn throwing the sandwich with the words “Felony Footlong” — which the defense team argued showed this was not a serious event in his life.
Lairmore had testified that the sandwich “exploded all over” his chest and claimed he could smell mustard and onions. But a photo showed that the sandwich was still in its wrapper on the ground after it hit Lairmore in his bulletproof vest.
Images of Dunn became a symbol of resistance to the Trump administration in Washington, with murals popping up on walls depicting a man throwing a sandwich, and with people placing sandwiches in the hands of giant skeletons for Halloween.
Dunn spoke to reporters outside the courthouse once jurors handed down the verdict. “I am so happy that justice prevails in spite of everything happening,” he said. “And that night, I believe that I was protecting the rights of immigrants. 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.”
The defense argued during the trial that Dunn’s actions did not meet the legal standard for misdemeanor assault and that the wrapped sandwich caused no physical harm. Attorneys emphasized the lack of injury and the photo evidence showing the sandwich still in its wrapper after contact with the officer’s vest. They pitched the act as a harmless political gesture rather than a serious threat.
The prosecution told jurors the act did cross a line even without bodily injury, stressing that unwanted contact can be unlawful and disruptive. “Even with a sandwich, you don’t have the right to touch another person,” the prosecutor said, arguing the throw produced a seven-minute disturbance that pulled federal officers away from their duties. That argument, though forceful, did not convince the jury to convict.
Courtroom details undercut some of the government’s rhetorical flourishes and gave jurors room to doubt the severity of the episode. Evidence of gag gifts and cartoon patches was used by the defense to show the event became more of a spectacle than a serious assault. The jury’s quick decision suggests they weighed those theatrical elements alongside the law and found reasonable doubt.
Editor’s Note: The Schumer Shutdown is here. Rather than put the American people first, Chuck Schumer and the radical Democrats forced a government shutdown for healthcare for illegals. They own this.
