Sean C. Dunn, the man who pitched a sandwich at the chest of a federal agent in a viral act of opposition to President Trump’s law enforcement policies in Washington, was acquitted on Thursday after a jury found him not guilty of misdemeanor assault.
The verdict, which arrived after the jury deliberated for roughly seven hours, capped a nearly three-month effort to penalize Mr. Dunn for the August outburst and the resulting chase to arrest him, after the government previously failed to persuade a grand jury to charge him with a felony.
It marked a significant setback for Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. attorney in Washington, who made Mr. Dunn’s case a centerpiece of Mr. Trump’s aggressive policing and prosecuting scheme in the city.
The jury determined that the launching of the 12-inch deli sandwich from what the government described as “point-blank range” was not an attempt to cause injury.
The verdict followed a three-day trial focused primarily on whether Mr. Dunn, a former paralegal in the Justice Department, had impeded federal agents while they patrolled a row of nightclubs in Washington as part of the citywide law enforcement surge ordered by Mr. Trump. Mr. Dunn joined scores of other city residents swept up in the effort, which produced an increase in stops and arrests by armed troops and federal agents, and an ensuing wave of federal prosecutions over low-level street crime.
But Mr. Dunn’s case stood out for several reasons.
Soon after his arrest, videos of him winding up his arm and sending a wilting Subway sandwich into the armored vest plate of Gregory Lairmore, a Customs and Border Protection agent, were shared and celebrated by the president’s detractors. The video inspired street art in Washington and memes and tributes online.
After Mr. Dunn was released from police custody in August, he was rearrested by U.S. marshals, who filmed agents in tactical gear raiding his apartment and put together an edited video of his arrest that was shared by the White House on social media.
His local folk hero stature grew after the U.S. attorney’s office run by Ms. Pirro, a former Fox News host and a close ally of the president’s, announced plans to charge Mr. Dunn with felony assault. Attorney General Pam Bondi also seized on the incident online, citing Mr. Dunn’s career in government as “an example of the Deep State we have been up against.”
Top officials under Ms. Pirro, including Jonathan Hornok, the head of the office’s criminal division, sat in court this week watching arguments unfold.
When federal prosecutors in August tried to persuade a grand jury to approve a felony assault charge against Mr. Dunn, a majority of grand jurors refused — a highly unusual rejection. Top officials in the Trump administration had already publicized and celebrated the prosecution for days. The government then refiled the charge as a misdemeanor.
A lawyer for the government, Michael DiLorenzo, told jurors during his closing statement on Wednesday that under the definition of assault provided by Judge Carl J. Nichols, they could consider Mr. Dunn guilty if they believed he had interfered with the law enforcement officers in a variety of ways.
“This case is not about someone with strong opinions, not about immigration. It’s not about freedom of speech,” he said. “It’s about an individual who crossed a line.”
He pointed to a video caught by a police officer’s body camera in which Mr. Dunn took credit for throwing the sandwich, adding that he had “succeeded” in drawing agents away from their position.
Sabrina Shroff, a lawyer for Mr. Dunn, countered by playing a video in which Mr. Dunn could be seen warning onlookers that the agents were stationed on that particular corner in Washington because a nearby gay bar was hosting a “Latin night.” He could also be seen shouting that the 10 assembled agents were gearing up for a raid. But no raid was planned, she said.
“You can’t interfere with something that was never going to happen,” she said.
Ms. Shroff described the case to jurors as profoundly unserious.
She showed a photo of the sandwich intact on the ground and in a wrapper after Mr. Dunn threw it, challenging the agent who had testified on Tuesday that the hoagie had “exploded” on his chest. She reminded jurors of “gag gifts” Mr. Lairmore received from colleagues, which included a “felony footlong” badge he kept on his lunchbox after the incident.
“If someone assaulted you, someone offended you, would you keep a memento of that assault?” she said. “Would you stick it on your daily lunchbox and carry it around with you?”
Even when prosecuted as a misdemeanor, assault on a federal officer can carry considerable penalties, particularly for someone working in government. A conviction for Mr. Dunn, who had worked as an international affairs specialist in the Justice Department’s criminal division, could have led to him being barred from future government work. It could also have precluded work for nongovernmental organizations that receive federal funding.
Zach Montague is a Times reporter covering the federal courts, including the legal disputes over the Trump administration’s agenda.
The post Jurors Find Sandwich Hurler Not Guilty of Assault appeared first on New York Times.
