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

UPDATE: A jury in Washington, D.C. has found Sean Dunn not guilty of misdemeanor assault after he threw a sandwich at a federal agent. The verdict comes after a trial that raised questions about the limits of protest and expression against federal law enforcement.

The incident, which occurred in August at a bustling intersection in Northwest Washington, quickly garnered attention as a symbol of public dissent against the federal government’s policing efforts. Prosecutors argued that Dunn’s actions crossed the line from free speech to physical assault, but the jury ultimately disagreed.

Dunn faced charges for allegedly assaulting, resisting, and intimidating a Customs and Border Patrol officer, who testified he was struck by a footlong Subway sandwich. The officer, Gregory Lairmore, recounted how the sandwich exploded upon impact, staining his ballistic vest with mustard and onions. “I could smell the onions and mustard,” Lairmore said, drawing laughter from the packed courtroom.

In her defense, Dunn’s attorney, Julia Gatto, described the sandwich throw as a “harmless gesture” fueled by Dunn’s strong feelings about the Trump administration’s federal presence in D.C. The incident, captured on video, showed Dunn shouting, “F*** you! You f***ing fascists! Why are you here?” before throwing the sandwich at Lairmore, who had been monitoring the situation.

Despite the humorous nature of the incident, federal prosecutors maintained that Dunn’s actions were serious. They argued that while he was entitled to express his anger, he did not have the right to strike an officer, even with a sandwich. “This case is not about someone with strong opinions … it’s about an individual who crossed the line,” they stated.

Dunn, who did not testify, was fired from his job as a paralegal in the Justice Department following his arrest. His legal team attempted to dismiss the case, but U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols denied that motion.

As this case highlights the tension between protest and law enforcement, it raises broader questions about civil liberties in politically charged environments. The acquittal may have implications for how similar cases are handled in the future, particularly regarding what constitutes acceptable forms of protest.

The verdict marks a notable moment in the ongoing national conversation about federal authority and individual rights, especially in a city marked by recent political turmoil.

Next, observers will watch for potential responses from both sides of the debate, as the implications of this verdict resonate beyond the courtroom. Dunn’s case has captured public interest and sparked discussions about the nature of protest in America today.