A former employee of the Justice Department who threw a sandwich at a federal agent during President Donald Trump’s crime crackdown in Washington was acquitted of assault on Thursday. The incident, caught on video and widely shared, turned Sean Charles Dunn into a symbol of opposition to Trump’s use of federal agents to address crime in the capital. The misdemeanor acquittal dealt another blow to prosecutors who have faced criticism for their handling of criminal cases stemming from the law enforcement surge.
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Dunn violated the law by throwing his sandwich at a U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agent on the night of Aug. 10. However, Dunn’s defense team contended that the act was a harmless protest protected by the First Amendment and urged the jury to dismiss the misdemeanor assault charge.
Following the verdict, Dunn expressed relief and a desire to move forward with his life. The trial revealed that Dunn confronted a group of CBP agents during a weekend when Trump deployed National Guard troops and federal agents to assist with policing in Washington, D.C. Dunn admitted to throwing the sandwich to draw attention away from the agents, as seen on a law-enforcement officer’s body camera recording.
Despite a previous grand jury’s decision not to indict Dunn on a felony assault charge, prosecutors pursued a misdemeanor charge against him. The confrontation with the CBP agents, during which Dunn hurled insults and the sandwich, led to his arrest. The CBP agent testified that the sandwich hit him hard enough to feel through his vest, leaving behind the smell of onions and mustard.
Dunn’s lawyers argued that the prosecution was vindictive and selective, pointing to social media posts by Attorney General Pam Bondi and the White House as evidence of political targeting. Dunn faces charges of assaulting a federal officer, with his defense team drawing comparisons to the treatment of Trump supporters involved in the Capitol riot on Jan. 6, 2021. Trump pardoned or dismissed charges against those individuals, contrasting with Dunn’s legal predicament.